diff --git "a/en/label_masked/wikipedia/test.csv" "b/en/label_masked/wikipedia/test.csv"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/en/label_masked/wikipedia/test.csv"
@@ -0,0 +1,3710 @@
+text,label
+"Beast poetry: No indication of importance. Drowssap SMM 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Poetry , and Europe . Drowssap SMM 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] in one form or another. It may be the case that Ziolkowski is in fact the first/primary/only scholar to use the term ""beast poetry"" specifically. However, he seems to be influential in the field. Talking Animals: Medieval Latin Beast Poetry, 750-1150 has 180+ citation in Google Scholar and numerous reviews ( [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] ). One option could be to re-frame the article to be about the book. The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics cites Ziolkowski in the entry on Beast epic , so if nothing else we could there. But I'm inclined to given that it seems to be an accepted scholarly genre. Jfire ( talk ) 02:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or draftify , convinced by Jfire. Hyperbolick ( talk ) 08:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment a search under “bestiary poetry” or “poetic bestiary” suggests the topic is notable, and one of these terms might serve as an alternative title. Mccapra ( talk ) 18:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The topic is fo-shizzle notable. It's a matter of reframing the article and creating possible alternate titles. I don't think draftify is warranted here. It can be fixed being on the main space. X ( talk ) 12:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Fantasy Amateur Press Association: Ktkvtsh ( talk ) 21:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions . Ktkvtsh ( talk ) 21:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy as no coherent policy-based deletion rationale articulated, see NEXIST. Many sources such as this readily available in Google Scholar which even in snippet/preview view substantiate the bare facts of the organization as stated in the article. This is transparently a real, venerable, and notable science fiction society that's been commented upon in the academic press: precisely the sort of thing Wikipedia should cover. Jclemens ( talk ) 22:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC) In addition to Jclemens' source, there are several pages about the organization in The Immortal Storm: A History of Science Fiction Fandom , published in 1954. I also found a 1944 newspaper article from the Ontario Expositor about the American and Canadian branches of the organization: "" Fiction Stranger Than Truth, State Fans of Fantasy "". Toughpigs ( talk ) 22:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC) The major problem with this page is that it lacks inline references, which someone has decided consitutes a reason for deletion. It just needs work. This page details an important part of the science fiction fannish world and, as such, needs to be retained. Perry Middlemiss ( talk ) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC) This is an institution of many decades' duration. AfD should never be used as a method of asking for improvement in citations. (Full disclosure: I was briefly a member of FAPA, and am still a member of another SF a.p.a.). -- Orange Mike | Talk 04:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Skinny Food Co: CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Looks notable to me. Reliable sources 1 , 2 , already listed in the article. Don't : fix. — S Marshall T / C 23:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ S Marshall neither is significant coverage and whether independent or not, they both read as promo pieces to me. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 23:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I collegially join issue with you. :) The Sunday Times is a British Newspaper of Record and Wikipedians evaluate it as reliable. The relevant discussions and consensuses are linked from WP:THETIMES . If you can read that link and say it's not SIGCOV then I don't really know how to react to that. — S Marshall T / C 00:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC) CORPDEPTH . The Lancashire Telegraph is borderline WP:CORPDEPTH as it does go beyond a routine announcement by providing background on the company. Are there any others as even if these both were found sufficient, not sure they would be enough for notability. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC) DAILYMIRROR ) and I would be suspicious of anything controversial that it said, but I would think it's reliable for the uncontroversial claims in this article , which is again already listed as a source. The article seems to be about the founders, but it's got quite a bit of depth about the business. — S Marshall T / C 22:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for reviewing and notifying of the deletion proposal. I tried to only use secondary sources that meet the standards for credibility. Although I do agree with you that some feel promotional, as far as I could tell none were advertorials, product placements etc, and were more just positive skewed coverage. I did try and balance the article and remove any overall bias in the article by proactively seeking out critical sources also. Westenders ( talk ) 12:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – top sources are used. I concur with S Marshall. Also, the article isn’t very WP:PROMO imo. TLA (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The sourcing is adequate for a corporate article and promotionalism is not so thorough as to necessitate a complete rewrite. It just needs some minor editing. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 02:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . No valid reason given for deletion. Windolson ( talk ) 23:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Breakthrough Collaborative: Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , Hong Kong , and United States of America . UtherSRG (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Oldman, Mark; Hamadeh, Samer (2003). ""Breakthrough Collaborative (formerly Summerbridge National)"" . The Best 109 Internships (9 ed.). New York: The Princeton Review . pp. 54 – 57 . ISBN 0-375-76319-8 . ISSN 1073-5801 . Retrieved 2023-08-27 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: ""The Breakthrough Collaborative is a two- to three-year ""Workshop in Education"" for ""talented students with limited educational opportunities"" in the fourth through eighth grades. Nationwide, approximately 2,000 students participate in the Breakthrough Collaborative's two- to three-year program of six-week summer sessions, school-year tutorials, and year-round counseling. Having older students teach courses that prepare middle-school students for high school is not the Breakthrough Collaborative's only innovation—the school is also tuition-free. From 1978 to 1990, the Breakthrough Collaborative program was run in conjunction with San Francisco University High School only. Its success in preparing often economically and academically disadvantaged middle school students for the rigors of college-prep high school programs was so widely acclaimed that thirty new programs were established in the early 1990s, at schools in Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, and San Jose, CA; Denver, CO; New Haven, CT; Miami, FL; Atlanta, GA; Louisville, KY; New Orleans, LA; Cambridge and Concord, MA; Raleigh, NC; Manchester, NH; the Bronx and Locust Valley, NY; Cincinnati, OH; Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, PA; Providence, RI; Fort Worth, Austin, and Houston, TX; Norfolk, VA; and Hong Kong. The thirty-six schools hire nearly 850 teachers every summer, employing an equal number of high school and college students."" Delgado Gaitan, Concha (2013). Creating a College Culture for Latino Students: Successful Programs, Practices, and Strategies . Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press . pp. 72 – 75 . ISBN 978-1-4522-5770-9 . Retrieved 2023-08-27 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: "" Since 1978, the Breakthrough Collaborative (BC) is a national non-profit group that has changed the lives of more than 20,000 students in 33 locations across the country. Sixty-eight percent of the students qualify for free or reduced school lunch. The Collaborative accepts high-potential, low-income students who are the first in their family to attend college. Ninety-two percent of the BC students are students of color. Thirty-four percent speak English as a second language. And thirty-nine percent live in single-parent households. BC communicates with middle and high schools where BC students attend since they track students' academic performance and needs. The Collaborative has two main program groups-middle school students and the high school or college-aged teachers who instruct and mentor them. ... They attend two 6-week, academically intense summer sessions, year-round tutoring, and continuous college preparation and assistance."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Breakthrough Collaborative to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria , which requires ""significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 08:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Cunard. There is a fair amount of coverage on the subject, including from Atlanta , Florida , and New Mexico . Here is a WaPo article on the subject: https://www.proquest.com/docview/410189668/9B03E7FD37AB4E20PQ/18 . Enough to qualify in my opinion. - Indefensible ( talk ) 16:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Heart of England School: Was de-ProD'd by Necrothesp stating ""secondary schools in the UK are usually kept"" however SCHOOLOUTCOMES does state that ""Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist"" . There is routine coverage online, of terms dates and school fêtes as you'd expect, only news-type coverage is that some of it's students have been victims of crime (while not actually in the school) [4] [5] which isn't anything unusual - There's also a little about the bus that was going to get cut and then wasn't, [6] [7] which I would only say counts towards notability if the article were about the bus, which it isn't. -- D'n'B - t -- 19:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Schools , and United Kingdom . -- D'n'B - t -- 19:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , per above and WP isn't a directory of schools. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 20:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Val, Brooks (1 January 2002). Assessment In Secondary Schools: The New Teacher's Guide to Monitoring, Assessment, Recording, Reporting, and Accountability . McGraw-Hill Education (UK). ISBN 978-0-335-20637-7 . This also cites a paper by the Head of Science. That book has 134 citations. It seems to be mentioned in a number of other books too with an educational research focus. Research conducted at the school does not make the school notable by itself, but it is not insignificant. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 20:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Balsall Common where the school's mentioned, if notability cannot be established. It was opened in 1957. As might be expected, there's local news coverage on matters such as a school uniform dispute, theatricals, drugs, sporting achievements, exam results, headteacher appointment/retirement etc but haven't come across anything that makes this school notable outside of the area it serves. Rupples ( talk ) 01:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . As with any other secondary school in the UK, there's plenty of detailed coverage in government reports and in the local media. Easily enough to meet WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, I fail to understand something, can you clarify what's the significance of the school that needs the Wikipedia entry? 1keyhole ( talk ) 18:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What I see on the internet is routine coverage, social media (not considered to be reliable sources) and databases. The Banner talk 17:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a well established school, created as a secondary modern in 1957, and with enrolment that was 1100 and has risen slightly with the establishment of a sixth form after conversion to a comprehensive in 1974. It has featured in national press coverage, including this article in the Independent [8] describing an innovative website developed by the school in 1996. There is significant newspaper coverage, including negative coverage about a drugs ""scandal"" [9] . Across the 66 years of the school's life, this news coverage is sustained. News reports themselves are usually primary sources, but in some cases they will be secondary sources regarding the school, such as the information about the school in the Independent article or the history found in [10] and [11] . In addition to the news sources, the school is cited and discussed in research such as [12] - a 7 page article that has a fair bit of secondary information about the school, some of which I have used alreasy to provide some citations on the article page. The abortive attempt to reintroduce selection, rejected by parents in 1988, [13] led to discussion in another paper [14] , whereas there are also mentions in some books. I mention Brooks (2002) above. That one has a case study from the school which cites a paper written by the then head of science. This book has 134 citations. Hunton (2018) also uses the school as a case study, and both books contain secondary information about the school itself, as does the paper above (Schofield, 1982). The school website itself is well produced and provides information (not independent) from which an article can be constructed. All in all, I believe there is sufficient here to pass WP:GNG and it is a whole lot more than we would have for a lot of articles (but I am aware that OTHERSTUFF is invalid as an argument, so I'll say no more on that). What we are lacking is a book with a history of the school, but that is not a necessary precondition for a school article page. Bibliography Brooks, Val (1 January 2002). Assessment In Secondary Schools: The New Teacher's Guide to Monitoring, Assessment, Recording, Reporting, and Accountability . McGraw-Hill Education (UK). ISBN 978-0-335-20637-7 . Hunton, Jake (13 August 2018). Exam Literacy: A guide to doing what works (and not what doesn't) to better prepare students for exams . Crown House Publishing Ltd. ISBN 978-1-78583-354-0 . -- Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 20:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC) NSCHOOL has a threshold that non-profit schools need to meet WP:GNG at minimum, and I consider this met. Resonant Dis tor tion 22:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment on sources. Having a problem seeing how the report/book sources contribute to the school's notability. Mary Schofield was Deputy Head of the school, when writing her research paper so not independent. The Val Brooks book references a paper written by the Head of Science of the school, so again not independent; the page summary of the case study may contribute to notability of the research paper but not the school itself. The Jake Hunton book mentions a teacher at the school who created a DNS strategy, but there's nothing about the school. There's little content from the above sources that could be added to the article. The Independent article does contribute to notability; it's coverage in a national newspaper. Rupples ( talk ) 01:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC) DOGBITESMAN . -- D'n'B - t -- 05:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC) 07, 2 May 2024 (UTC) 20, 2 May 2024 (UTC) 34, 3 May 2024 (UTC) now a substanially different article to the one I nominated. I mantain that ""because it's a UK secondary school"" would never have been a good reason to it, but as it is now, there's sufficient evidence of SIGCOV to call the school notable. -- D'n'B - t -- 09:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's generous of you. The nomination is understandable, made in good faith and has led to the article being improved. What's more, many of the sources dug out were I suspect not easy to find and the nominator is under no obligation to spend hours looking; the onus is on those seeking to the article. Rupples ( talk ) 15:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While the withdrawal by @ DandelionAndBurdock is indeed generous, I disagree with the statement by @ Rupples . Per WP:Before the onus is, instead, on the nominator to check for sources before nomination. A quick check on Wikipedia Library - e.g. ProQuest - identifies many sources for this subject. Resonant Dis tor tion 22:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The nominator did check for sources, there's four linked to in the nomination statement. None of the sources I can see in ProQuest from the Coventry Telegraph support notability, viz, a piece written by the school's principal (not independent, 12 Sep 2015), a reader's letter from a former pupil (not independent, 17 May 2007), a panto writer staging a play at the school (a mention, 01 Jan 2014), an ""advertisement feature"" by the school's principal (22 Sep 2016). Granted, there's The Times (5 Aug 1992) on cannabis, but all I can see is a headline. In any case, we don't know whether the nominator checked the Wikilibrary/ProQuest. To be fair, yes, perhaps the search could have been more rigorous, but a lot of the news coverage found may have resulted from having access to paid-for sources. Rupples ( talk ) 00:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC) BEFORE was carried out. And the article as it was at nomination was also entirely unsourced and had been for 18 years, which is a very poor situation. Some sources did require significant searching, well beyond the basic due diligence suggested in WP:BEFORE. The ""because it's a secondary school"" comment seems to be elicited by the DEPROD by Necrothesp. I would say I think AfD is best for secondary school nominations. As we are often told, AfD is not for cleanup, but this article is a case in point: the only way to get editor attention to some articles is to nominate them for deletion, and sometimes improvement is the happy result if it turns out sources do exist. PROD doesn't tend to achieve that. However ""because it's a secondary school"" is no longer a reason to an article, per SCHOOLOUTCOMES, so once at AfD it is all about the sourcing. Thanks to D'n'B-t both for bringing this here, and for agreeing to withdraw. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 06:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Alfonso Cobo: As the tag says, it is probably the result of paid editing with side portions of promotionalism and COI. Despite the attempts of the creator to convey notability, the sources do not bear the assertion. The sources provided are a mixture, primarily, of blog and oped pieces, press statements, advertorials and passing mentions. The subject fails WP:ANYBIO and BLPSOURCES: there several mentions of him across the web, mostly social media. There is almost nothing in reliable news outlets. Likewise, he has won no major recognition or award, nor has received coverage in national literature. ——Serial 15:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , Business , and Sexuality and gender . ——Serial 15:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Per norm. Non-notable businessman, I don't see how they meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG . The author has also failed to disclose if they are a UPE, despite several attempts he/she has ignored the tags. I would recommed WP:SALT , as the author seems adamant on getting the page up without adhering to our policies. Jamiebuba ( talk ) 16:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Cobo is actually notable, and his app/company Unfold is now an integral part of Squarespace , a notable company. WP:SALT is also too drastic. I don't see how this is COI. I really don't know that much about Cobo, which is why the article is that short. If I were truly paid to advertise him and his business on Wikipedia, it would have been far more detailed with all kinds of autobiographical trivia that you couldn't easily find online. I don't even know which city or town in Spain he was born in. Please also take a look at WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:DONTBITE too. I know that you deal with a lot of spam on Wikipedia, but please don't accuse everyone of being a bad guy. Just because some of us write about random businesspeople does not mean that we are all covertly paid to promote them. I only read about Cobo in the news and really don't know that much about him. I used Unfold before and was simply interested in finding more about where and how that app had originated. This why half of the article is actually about Unfold, which I'm actually more interested in. There's still a lot more information about him that I'd like to find out. I'm sure that their PR team would make this article far more promotional and advertorial than I would have made it. In any case, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Sendero99 ( talk ) 17:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin : Sendero99 ( talk • contribs ) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD . This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak The Fast Company link used is green per sourcetool. Rest arent, but I can't open it behind the paywall. I find this [21] and this [22] . Enough to give context, but minimal coverage. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looks like there are conflated issues here 1) is the subject notable? 2) is the editor an UPE? Let's separate the two. As far as the subject itself, there's more enough for me that he satisfies WP:GNG . As for the second - I don't know. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Is there anything we can do other than take his word for it? MaskedSinger ( talk ) 11:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Independent coverage by Forbes and CNBC more than establishes notability. The issue of COI/UPE should be handled by a topic ban imposed on the related parties, while others rewrite the page, not be deletion. Owen× ☎ 19:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Sha'ir: The article as currently written is really principally oriented toward a Dungeons & Dragons class. For the sources employed, it seems like what the article is meant to get at is the role of the poet in Jāhiliy Arab society. Arabic poetry#Pre-Islamic poetry already covers this in a more substantive way. It's not clear that the term sha'ir as such has a notability distinct from Jāhiliy poetry. Pathawi ( talk ) 21:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC) the article makes no pretense of being about a religious topic. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I probably made a mistake. Which location? I thought I put it under 'Fiction and the Arts'. Pathawi ( talk ) 07:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Never mind. I see that someone else cross-listed it. Pathawi ( talk ) 07:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - probably could be d with Arabic poetry per nom, but has additional notability from D&D which might be enough to let stand. Britannica also deems the subject notable enough to cover with a standalone article. - Indefensible ( talk ) 01:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Indefensible. The pre-Islamic sha'ir seems to have adequate coverage in tertiary sources, not least of which is course the above-mentioned Britannica. The fact that the word has broader meanings is no obstacle , since articles are not generally about word meanings. That said, I would have no particular objection to a . The D&D thing seems pretty peripheral to the topic. -- Visviva ( talk ) 01:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Neither is an article on the sha'ir—both mention shu'ara' in discussions of Arabic poetry. The Britannica entry does count, but its content is pretty meager. Together these don't seem to me to constitute significant coverage in secondary sources, which are among the criteria for notability. Pathawi ( talk ) 06:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . As pointed out, it's recognized by another encyclopedia, Encyclopaedia Britannica , as originally a poet having a supernatural connection. 5Q5 | ✉ 12:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Keepa Mewett: JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and New Zealand . JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak There's this and a fair few other bits on his rugby career, and then a fair bit also on his post-rugby career. Worth a weak in my opinion. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , though I was initially leaning toward a some research shows the BoP Times profile, and other articles about being selected to play internationally as part of the Māori All Blacks . Its thin but I think it is enough. David Palmer // cloventt ( talk ) 08:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . He captained the Bay of Plenty side and played for the Māori All Blacks. As well as the Bay of Plenty Times profile, there is this profile from the Manawatu Standard during his stint playing for Manawatū, and this podcast that profiles his life journey. Paora ( talk ) 03:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC) Per WP:HEY . I will insist the sources per se be incorporated into the article. All the best. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Lu Sheng-yen: There is simply not enough coverage of this person in reliable sources, most sources being used in the article are primary. The article makes some grandiose statements about him, but none of them are reliably sourced (some were inserted by SPAs) so it's difficult to know how influential this person actually is in China/Taiwan. SparklyNights ( t ) 16:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Buddhism , China , Hong Kong , and Taiwan . SparklyNights ( t ) 16:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Idk yet. Dude gets news coverage. I got lots of hits on google news (four of which on the first page are from this year and setn.com, the RSness of which I'm uncertain about). Also got hits on google scholar from Buddhism sources. I'm on lunch so I don't really have time to read Chinese and assess whether the sources contribute to notability, but they're there. Hope to circle back this weekend. Folly Mox ( talk ) 18:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FYI Sources 33 and 36 are the only green ones per the source tool, looks like a whole bunch of iffy sourcing, but this is just my quick scan; I'll perhaps look later. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or - this person has ""references"" largely because of the grandiose claims of primary sources. When the ones from the organization are removed, this article gets a lot thinner. I think this should either be d or d into the True Buddha School article as a subsection. Kazamzam ( talk ) 12:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources Tam, Wai Lun (2016). ""The Tantric Teachings and Rituals of the True Buddha School: The Chinese Transformation of Vajrayāna Buddhism"" . In Gray, David B. ; Overbey, Ryan Richard (eds.). Tantric Traditions in Transmission and Translation . Oxford: Oxford University Press . pp. 309–313. doi : 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199763689.003.0009 . ISBN 978-0-19-976368-9 . Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Google Books . The book notes: ""The True Buddha School has arisen out of the life and experience of Master Lu Sheng-Yen (盧勝彥, b. 1945). Born in Jiayi 嘉義 County, Taiwan, Master Lu is the author of more than 240 books, writing extensively on his own religious experience and cultivation. Lu received his tertiary education in a military college in Taiwan and was trained as a surveyor. He had a deep religious experience in 1969 that led him from his Presbyterian Christian upbringing to a period of seeking, studying, and learning Buddhism (Yao 1994; Tam 2001; Melton 2007). This period lasted for some twelve years during which time Master Lu began to openly accept disciples to teach them Buddhism. Near the end of this period, he also founded the True Buddha School (first known as the Lingxian 靈仙 School) and moved from his native Taiwan to the United States, a symbol of his intention to spread Buddhism internationally. ... Much in the same fashion, Master Lu was an onlooker in 1969 when he accompanied his mother to a temple where there was a medium serving the community. Master Lu was suddenly ""possessed"" and was given, without his prior consent, the ability to see and communicate with the spiritual world. After this miraculous encounter, Master Lu continued to receive the nocturnal visits of an invisible master who transmitted to him Daoist and Tantric teachings."" Irons, Edward A. (2008). Melton, J. Gordon Melton (ed.). Encyclopedia of Buddhism . New York: Checkmark Books. Infobase . pp. 316–317. ISBN 978-0-8160-7744-1 . Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: ""Master Lu Sheng-Yen, the founder of the True Buddha School, one of a small number of relatively new Taiwanese Buddhist groups that have ed as international movements, was born in 1945 in Jiayi (or Chiai) in south central Taiwan. He attended Chun-Jen Polytechnic College in the 1960s and after completing his work joined the army. Lu was raised as a Presbyterian (the oldest Christian movement in Taiwan); however, in 1969, while visiting a Taiwanese temple, the Palace of the Jade Emperor, he encountered a medium named Qiandai, who was a member of a new Taiwanese group called the Compassion Society, based on worship of Xi Wangmu, the Royal Mother of the West, under the name Jinmu. During her presentation, Qiandai told Lu that the gods of the temple wished him to acknowledge them. Thrown into a state of confusion, he found himself able to communicate with the spirit world. Communications continued daily for the next three years. He also met a Daoist master who ..."" Gray, David (2011). ""Tibetan Lamas In Ethnic Chinese Communities And The Rise Of New Tibetan-Inspired Chinese Religions"" . In Orzech, Charles D. ; Sørensen, Henrik H. ; Payne, Richard K. (eds.). Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia . Leiden: Brill Publishers . p. 570 – 571 . doi : 10.1163/ej.9789004184916.i-1200.238 . ISBN 978-90-04-18491-6 . ISSN 0169-9520 . Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Google Books . The book notes: ""One of the most successful self-proclaimed Chinese masters is Lu Sheng-yen 盧勝彥 (1945–present), who refers to himself as the “Living Buddha Lotus-Born” (Liansheng huo Fo 蓮生活佛), most likely in reference to the great founder of the Nying-ma ( rnying ma ) school of Tibetan Buddhism, Padmasambhava. He founded in Taiwan a new religious movement called the True Buddha School (Zhen Fo zong 真佛宗), which identifies itself as a Vajrayāna Buddhist tradition, although it also draws heavily from traditional Chinese popular religion, both Buddhist and Daoist. The school now has numerous temples throughout the world, with the majority founded in areas where there is a sizable Chinese community, such as Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Australia, and North America. Lu Sheng-yen currently lives in Redmond, Washington, where the main temple of this school is based. He is a prolific author, and has written, according to one source, one hundred and ten works in Chinese, several of which have been translated into English."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lu Sheng-yen ( traditional Chinese : 盧勝彥 ; simplified Chinese : 卢胜彦 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 09:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Cunard. S5A-0043 Talk 03:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC) GNG , sources given by Cunard appear reliable. JimRenge ( talk ) 20:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Hirofumi Torii: PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan . Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC) BEFORE search has been conducted, let alone one that includes native language sources . DCsansei ( talk ) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC) As stated in the nomination, these were all PRODs that were deprodded in rapid succession. My work on these nominations took place before the PROD, not last night when I sent them to AFD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC) BEFORE searches (see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , etc. within the past week) and fails to address WP:GNG in his nominations. Regardless, 50 AfDs in 30 minutes is wholly inappropriate. JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"ESTREAM: lettherebedarklight 晚安 10:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . lettherebedarklight 晚安 10:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. I've read the article and still have no idea what it's about. Techno news is fine, but this is too long, it doesn't explain what it is or why it's important. The sources are largely technical or legal documents, too complex for the lay person. No attempt to explain what this is or why we need an article about it, only presenting a wall of text and charts about the various specifications. I can't find sourcing about this ""thing"", so I can't begin to understand what to look for. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC) NOT? Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 07:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] there aren't any reliable, independent sources, so yes, there is a notability problem. lettherebedarklight 晚安 07:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I haven't really looked for sources yet but have you looked at Bernstein's notes in the EL section? Even if you don't consider that independent it seems to point towards some conferences. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 09:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, the sourcing is only laws and primary sources. So there is nothing that points towards notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 11:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology , Computing , and Europe . Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 14:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SWinxy ( talk ) 01:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. ESTREAM is one of the major crypto competitions, the article is not much different from other articles about crypto competitions, such as NIST hash function competition , Advanced Encryption Standard process , CAESAR Competition etc. Relying on primary sources is a problem, sources should definitely be improved. Clicking on ""books"" and ""scholar"" at the top of this discussion gives a lot of additional sources, but for ""news"" and ""google"" searches one has to add an additional keyword to filter out unrelated stuff (e.g. adding ""cipher"" keyword works). ESTREAM is also quite often mentioned in various crypto papers, such as today's NIST report on lightweight crypto. I already added one journal article as a source, it seems to be a good overview, but I have no free time at the moment to go deeper. TheInevitable ( talk ) 09:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I forgot about this one as well, I'm on this also. Cursory glance seems to indicate significance in the field, as mentioned above, and there's a whole book about it in Lecture Notes in Computer Science , New Stream Cipher Designs . While I agree that it should be written to be accessible to a less technical audience per NOTGUIDE, that is something to be resolved with editing . I don't really understand what reasoning could lead one to believe the encyclopedia better off without it entirely. This would be speedy per SK 1/3 were it not moot. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 14:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: FInal relist. Also, please check out the sources that have been added since the nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Sources seem to meet WP:NORG which is probably the most appropriate measure (we don't have a separate WP:NPROJECT ), given some of the sources provided. The state of the article is a bit wanting, but I don't think it violates any voice guidelines enough to merit deletion on that grounds. — siro χ o 08:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Dedication: The page summary for Dedication that exists does not address the overall concept, instead addressing the contents of one of the sub-pages. I have requested that the disambiguation page be moved to the mainspace page . This page needs to be dispositioned; if it is to move somewhere else it needs substantial help. Darker Dreams ( talk ) 01:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw AfD without prejudice , and move to Dedication (ritual) . (If someone wants to open a new AfD after that, go for it). — siro χ o 04:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not going to withdraw the AfD. It's a reasonable suggestion, and voting to (without prejudice to future AfD after a move) does the same thing while hopefully provoking additional relevant discussion. Darker Dreams ( talk ) 07:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Alright I've updated to a ! vote. My main motivation here is to facilitate your good idea of moving the disambiguation page to improve navigation. — siro χ o 07:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Judaism . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] under the new title once the move is complete. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 12:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] By all means move, but then under the new title. The article occupies a valuable middle-space between detailed articles on each specific ritual, and a mere unexplained list of rituals as would come from a traditional dab page. It is valuable to have an overview of the diversity of dedication rituals that exist. Elemimele ( talk ) 20:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] but move under the new proposed title. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 20:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC) 27, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"David Cantolla: Shellwood ( talk ) 11:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the BAFTA win gets him ANYBIO, but at the very least, to Espacio Solo with which he's done a lot of work and where he's mentioned. Star Mississippi 00:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I did an outside search, and there are a lot of sources containing his name, the BAFTA win also makes him pass ANYBIO, He has created notable films too, if this reason is not too plausible, probably will be better. Ferdinand Marcos's dead (and weird) soul ( talk ) 07:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC) It looks like UPE, but FWIW the subject is easily notable per SNGs/NBIO and may also pass GNG. There will be coverage from different timelines independent of each other as he is known for being the co-founder of Espacio Solo , creator of Pocoyo and the co-creator of Jelly Jamm . Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 08:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"The Havalinas: Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 21:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and California . Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 21:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not much found for the band, the song that Springsteen covered seems to have much coverage. I'd there. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Seems appropriate. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 02:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC) WikiProject Albums/Sources so we have the short bio there but it doesn't have the usual byline so thats a problem, then there is the Rolling Stone piece in the article and a link to the LA Times archive which suggests there is coverage there but without a direct link so its a weak and I haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC) 02, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 23:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Atlantic306 or to Tim Scott McConnell . Disagree with other targets. - Indefensible ( talk ) 00:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Atlantic306. The sources found indicate coverage and passing of GNG. Tails Wx 01:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The Havalinas were active in the early 1990s. There is substantial offline coverage. Proquest search returns 329 results in publications ranging from the Chicago Tribune to USA Today . [1] . (The Wikipedia Library is an amazing resource.) JSFarman ( talk ) 16:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Atlantic306 and JSFarman . There is plenty of coverage in RS to meet gng. Jacona ( talk ) 01:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Eastern Conference Champions: Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , United States of America , California , and Pennsylvania . UtherSRG (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC) MUSIC ; there are a substantial number of independent sources out there, e.g., [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] . Chubbles ( talk ) 04:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as has reliable sources coverage such as Paste Magazine, IGN, AllMusic bio as shown above. Also found an AllMusic album review here . Overall there is enough for WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Jessica Kingsley Publishers: The sources are VERY weak, and these are not within the standards expected to Wiki. As such, this should be d in accordance with Wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkinspyce ( talk • contribs ) 20:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkinspyce ( talk • contribs ) 20:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 28 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 21:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , England , and Pennsylvania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Gosh thank you for fixing this for me. I could NOT figure out what part of the code was keyed wrong. Pumpkinspyce ( talk ) 00:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the sources are all fine. This meets WP:GNG . At worse this could be d into John Murray Press , but I don't see the need. Headbomb { t · c · p · b } 07:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 29 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 07:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC) NCORP based on existing sources (van Goidsenhoven, Leni, The Bookseller , PW ). While a minor edit pass could help it's not even a bad case of WP:PROMO . — siro χ o 07:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , widely & internationally known publisher of books on topics related to autism with numerous notable authors. -- TempusTacet ( talk ) 11:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions . Randykitty ( talk ) 12:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Probably to Hachette UK, seems to be a sub-unit of that company now. [33] Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm surprised that the nominator has characterised the sources in this way. For example, what is wrong with the van Goidsenhoven source? Phil Bridger ( talk ) 14:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Ailem Carvajal Gómez: Article is sourced entirely to self published sources. The tone is also not encyclopedic. WP:PROMO applies. Possibly created by the subject or someone connected to them. 4meter4 ( talk ) 01:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Bands and musicians , Women , and Cuba . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC) The creating editor seems to have edited widely on Cuban music so I think the COI suggestion is probably not justified. I see there's a piece about her in EcuRed , but that is probably not a RS (have added it as an EL). Pam D 08:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This archived source may be useful though Google Translate can't handle it and nor can my limited Spanish. Pam D 08:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC) Has an entry in Latin American Classical Composers: A Biographical Dictionary published by Rowman & Littlefield . Pam D 08:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Great find PamD ! Nom withdrawn . 4meter4 ( talk ) 13:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.",keep
+"Teleflora: NN business. UtherSRG (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies . UtherSRG (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I think the coverage of the company's advertising is enough to establish notability. I added some relevant references. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 20:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - The company is quite obviously notable. Sources need to be beefed up, that's all. Beyond My Ken ( talk ) 22:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Lots of coverage of their ads (Teleflora ads are apparently a big deal in the ad world), so that establishes notability. There's some stuff that can be added to the article about how florists don't like them. Like UtherSRG , I'm surprised there's not other stuff, too. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Schiedam train accident: As pointed out by Rosguill, this event fails to meet WP:LASTING . Assertions that it fulfills this standard should be backed up by reliable independent sources. The effects currently described in the article are not of ""historical significance"", as required by that guideline. Other criteria don't apply; I don't see evidence of widespread impact covered in diverse sources, nor enduring historical significance. This is the kind of routine event described by WP:EVENTCRIT #4. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 14:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , History , Transportation , and Netherlands . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Schiedam train disaster , an actually notable incident from 120 years after this one. signed, Rosguill talk 15:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seconded. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 15:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC) LASTING , WP:SIGCOV , WP:NEXIST and WP:EVENTCRIT #2. In and out of the article and are plenty of SIGCOV, V, and IS sources that run up to the present. Unsure how the article neverthless could have been nominated. gidonb ( talk ) 19:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you identify which sources establish NLASTING in your view? The only accessible source postdating the accident by more than a week is this brief coverage . Are you confusing coverage of the 1976 disaster for coverage of the 1856 incident? signed, Rosguill talk 21:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No not confusing anything. I'll get to that soon! gidonb ( talk ) 21:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See more below. gidonb ( talk ) 20:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Gidonb. But rename to 1856 Schiedam train accident to avoid ambiguity with the 1976 disaster. Strange that the latter far more notable incident has a much shorter article! -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Plus one for the rename! I guess where someone took more time, there is more text. Both events are notable. gidonb ( talk ) 14:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The accident happened between Schiedam and Rotterdam; after Schiedam near Delfshaven . Delfshaven is a borough of Rotterdam. So a more precise title would be 1956 Delfshaven rail accident or 1956 Rotterdam rail accident . 109.37.150.153 ( talk ) 09:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would support the 1856 retitling in the event of a outcome, but the available two sources that postdate the 1850s both refer to it as an incident at Schiedam in their brief coverage, so this further suggestion seems ORish. signed, Rosguill talk 12:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC) Lasting is written: “Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation.” -> this is the case in this accident: the accident resulted in exerting pressure on the directors on the Railways. This resulted in multiple safety adjustements that still exists and now seen as “completely normal”. In addition (while there is even still coverage recently) it’s not a rule that there must still be coverage decades after an event “It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect.” There was still aftermath coverage of this accident for at least a month. A last point, the Dutch NOS listed it in 2012 as one the 15 main train accidents ever with victims in Dutch history. ( see here ) 109.37.150.153 ( talk ) 09:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you link to or otherwise identify this recent coverage you mention? Most of what you're saying seems to be original research . Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 09:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All what I say is sourced in the article. As I said, recent coverage is not needed per wp:Lasting, but see the link by the Rosguill above and the NOS-link. 109.37.150.153 ( talk ) 09:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] & Rename per Necrothesp 's reasoning. This is a well-sourced and reasonably well-written and encyclopaedic article. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] selectively to Amsterdam–Haarlem–Rotterdam railway unless someone provides sources to demonstrate secondary SIGCOV or provides a source that explicitly connects this accident with industry reforms. If neither of those exist, then this is just one of the millions of non-notable things that happened that year and got published in newspapers. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that most of the 1856 (secondary) newspapers articles “addresses the topic directly and in detail” (SIGCOV). Especially for that era where there were much less pages of newspapers as nowadays. 109.37.150.153 ( talk ) 07:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Has been provided several times over. gidonb ( talk ) 20:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Being curious I started searching for more sources. I see there was still coverage of the accident at least up to November (3 months after the accident). This sources gives more details of the (formerly unknown) victims. I added some extra information in the Victims section. 109.37.150.153 ( talk ) 08:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree. This was the first major railroad disaster in the Netherlands. That, the extensive coverage at the time, and the fact that the coverage continues to date, e.g. [43] and examples brought and talked down (yikes!) above, make the event notable. This very disaster brought change to the Dutch railroads: lights on the last car were introduced after the disaster (although dropped for a while, later), and the impact on the awareness of the hazards of standing trains are connected in the literature directly to THIS VERY disaster. The fact that there was an even bigger train diasaster in or near Schiedam does NOT justify deletion. There is no case for deletion. gidonb ( talk ) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Gumbi Ortiz: Essentially no coverage in reliable, independent sources online aside from an All About Jazz article. Meets no other notability criteria. Obviously created for undisclosed payments (see User_talk:WikiDMM ). Clear friend a 💬 21:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Florida , and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Found this source from the TB times [3] . Also, All About Jazz profiles are typically self-published, as this one appears to be, so that doesn't count towards notability. Mach61 23:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per this Orlando Sentinel article . Mach61 23:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments - this is truly a marginal case. There's at least some evidence of some coverage (per Mach61 ), but he has surprisingly few followers on social media such as Instagram. So I'm not ! voting. Bearian ( talk ) 17:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC) GNG in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Right now, this is either a Relist or No consensus so I'm choosing another relist to see what other editors' opinions on it are. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] RS with in-depth coverage added. - Altenmann >talk 22:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak notable musician with a significant career, having worked with renowned artists and contributed to various music projects. However, the article needs more reliable sources and detailed information-- Assirian cat ( talk ) 08:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Tall Hajar, Jarabulus: A village I doubt that few outside Syria have heard of before. There is nothing noticeable about it in the news and the secondary sources that we rely on in the first place. Dl.thinker ( talk ) 03:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . According to WP:GEOLAND , Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. There are thousands of pages for villages in Wikipedia; whether anyone from a different part of the world has heard of it is totally irrelevant. Aintabli ( talk ) 03:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Syria . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 05:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC) the article passes WP:GEOLAND because it is a populated place. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 06:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] no valid deletion rationale. Mccapra ( talk ) 06:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC) GEOLAND . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC) GEOLAND . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 21:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Horse Creek, Wyoming: And about that: if you search by town name, it does indeed give that zip code, but then says, ""This ZIP Code™ used for a specific PO BOX"". I couldn't find an explanation of this, but it suggests that the now-single-property picks up its mail somewhere else. I'm not seeing the GEO-notability. Mangoe ( talk ) 01:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note also that there are a lot of things named ""Horse Creek"" around, including multiple creeks. Mangoe ( talk ) 01:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC) see [61] , [62] , and [63] . This article seems to explain the post office situation; apparently the physical post office was closed in the early 2010s because of an ency operational issue. TheCatalyst31 Reaction • Creation 15:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . See WP:GEOLAND for example. Even if it's just a single property now, it wasn't in the past; it was a real community, and notability isn't temporary, or we might articles on no-longer-extant entities like Roman Empire and Soviet Union . Nyttend ( talk ) 21:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC) GEOLAND with the previous sources above. SportingFlyer T · C 21:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC) there are sources such as the ones cited above that indicate that the article passes WP:GEOLAND . InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 12:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC) GAZ . Can't find many more substantial sources on Newspapers.com, but it certainly existed as a small community in decades past. AviationFreak 💬 05:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"CSA Provincial T20 Challenge: Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 21:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions . Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 22:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Main domestic T20 competition in South Africa, plenty of coverage in simple searches under T20 Challenge, Betway T20 Challenge etc. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Main domestic T20 tournament of a full member of the ICC. Plenty of coverage. StickyWicket aka AA ( talk ) 20:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Major cricket tournament, lots of coverage. It’s gone on for years under different names. Park3r ( talk ) 21:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Enumeration and analysis of the reference material available would be much more helpful than just asserting that it exists. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the votes above clearly state that sources can be found by searching for each of the tournament’s previous names. Here’s some Google searches that return a large number of hits: “standard bank pro 20 iol”, “standard bank pro 20 timeslive” “t20 miwway iol” etc. I’m not sure why a nomination that seems to have been done without a thorough WP:BEFORE places a further burden on editors who vote . Park3r ( talk ) 21:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This seems a clear to me - there will be tonnes of offline newspaper coverage for starters. Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 11:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Antonella Roccuzzo: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify for now. I think that there is enough coverage about her online and her career to justify a potential article; however, better sources need to be found and the article needs to be improved, not d for me. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 03:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or Draftify (the latter if someone volunteers to improve the article). Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBASIC . MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No indication of being notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV . scope_creep Talk 13:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Plenty of sources available, see [28] [29] [30] . If d, I strongly believe it should be sent to draft or minimally a to Messi. Belichickoverbrady ( talk ) 17:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They seem to name mentions only in the context of her husband being there. This is WP:BLP and it needs real WP:SECONDARY sourcing. The interview doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV . scope_creep Talk 08:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strongest possible , the amount of coverage online is outstanding. Clearly passes GNG. Like People , Sportskeeda , AS , Marca , and over 37 millions followrs. Ridiculous nomination IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortizesp ( talk • contribs ) 22:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Assume bad faith ! , WP:INVALIDBIO applies. If we take away Messi we're left with nothing - she's done nothing that warrants an article except for being a notable persons wife. Had she not been married to Messi she wouldn't even have an article. . ... I still 110% maintain she is not a notable individual and I'm genuinely perplexed that such an article should be kept essentially on the basis of ""she's married to a notable person"". . ... I'm astounded. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think INVALIDBIO holds, Rocuzzo's fame goes beyond Messi now. She does modelling and has side businesses that gets here attention without Messi like this and this . Ortizesp ( talk ) 18:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC) GNG , with WP:SIGCOV e.g. in the People and Diario AS articles. WP:INVALIDBIO could be a concern, but we have sufficient coverage of Roccuzzo to justify a stand-alone article. Suriname0 ( talk ) 18:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 10:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 20:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm totally peplexed as well since its plainly obvious its allcoming from him. The test here what happens when they get divorved. I've seen this time and time again throughout the last twenty odd years. They get coverage for the divorce, appear for about a year or so as a human-interest story and then after a year of so, they dissapear. That happens all the time. All the fame here is coming from him. She was completly unknown studying to become a dentist before she met him and she would been a dentist if she hadn't met him. It is completly reflected glory and nothing else as far as I can see from the coverage. scope_creep Talk 21:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per sources in the article and here. Unfortunately, it's still common to view women as sidekicks of their husbands, especially if the husband is more famous than them. It shouldn't be that way. If a person is notable this should be respected. Still, it's not an automatic . The text needs to be extensive enough for its own entry. For Roccuzzo, both bars are met. gidonb ( talk ) 01:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC) 12, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Guyver: The Bioboosted Armor: Sourcing consists of a primary Funimation link (don't click on it), and another one, an ANN page about a subject that doesn't even mention the subject, and a dead link to a forum. Existence does not equate to notability. PROD removed by an IP editor, who said only ""linked sources provide adequate references"", which I think is obviously incorrect. Drmies ( talk ) 01:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC) Anime News Network , THEM Anime Reviews , DVD Talk , UK Anime Network , Otaku USA , Ain't It Cool News , The Fandom Post , AnimeNation , among others. Link20XX ( talk ) 01:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, but I looked at all of them, and they are all user-submitted reviews on websites that don't even claim to have editorial overview of these reviews. These fan sites don't qualify as WP:RS , and if ANN is accepted for data like publishing information etc., that doesn't mean the user-submitted reviews on that website add to notability per the GNG. Drmies ( talk ) 01:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC) ANIME/RS . To address some of the individual sources, Anime News Network ' s reviews are widely accepted across the website to be reliable and count towards notability (or else s significant amount of the articles about anime/manga would fail notability). Otaku USA is a magazine and far from a fan site. DVD Talk , Ain't It Cool News , AnimeNation , and THEM Anime Reviews are all in the same boat. The remaining don't have Wikipedia pages but have been nonetheless determined to be written by authoritive individuals in the subject. Link20XX ( talk ) 01:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC) Reliable sources/Perennial sources , but the question is whether something made notable only by mention on such fan sites (or whatever you want to call them) is notable in general: as we all know, sites like ANN write up everything that appears, meaning everything would be notable. That a ""significant amount of the articles about anime/manga would fail notability"" seems like a given to me, but that's not a concern here. Just to look at DVD Talk , apparently the best that could be said about them is ""worth a visit"" and ""a source of information for DVDs""--how could any of that mean anything for notability per GNG? Ain't It Cool News is best known for its founder being accused of sexual assault--where is that site proven to be reliable and noteworthy? Where, on their website , is a statement about their editorial policy? ANIME/RS can say what it wants, but if something can't even be proven to be reliable, it shouldn't be a factor in determining notability. Drmies ( talk ) 01:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC) RSP . But even despite the other sources not being listed at RSP, that pages notes that sources might not be on the list because they ""cover a niche topic"" and that ""For sources in a specific field, there may be more information about reliability of them provided by specific WikiProjects"", which is exactly the purpose of that page. You said ANN ""covers everything"" but this is innacurate and ANN has some topics it has not covered (for instance Manhole (manga) was on the main page without citing ANN once). WP:GNG / WP:NTV do not make any mention that sources do not count towards notability just because they usually cover niche topics. I'm not gonna discuss why people came to the consensus they did, but discussions in the past have come to the consensus that they are reliable and I've seen articles be kept at AfD with less than half this many sources (like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judas (manga) ] or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavane for a Dead Girl ). Link20XX ( talk ) 01:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC) I consider THEM Anime Reviews reliable-ish as they have editorial control. Users don't post reviews, they have staff [38] . I think they have an application for staff position place somewhere in their forums. I know b/c ages ago I wrote a review for them on the forums and they rejected it for not being good enough. So, errrr, they have some standards :P Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 13:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC) 23C5:8E81:9201:927:FF14:D991:99D ( talk ) 01:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC) 25, 25 September 2023 (UTC) //www.ign.com/articles/2008/12/16/guyver-the-complete-series ? I mean pretty much everyone I've spoken to knows what the Guyver anime is, so this is crazy. well good luck with it. 2A00:23C5:8E81:9201:927:FF14:D991:99D ( talk ) 01:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC) RS , which is not crazy. Drmies ( talk ) 01:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC) 23C5:8E81:9201:927:FF14:D991:99D ( talk ) 01:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Anime and manga , and Japan . Link20XX ( talk ) 02:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions . Link20XX ( talk ) 02:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC) GNG with plenty of reviews listed above including: IGN , Anime News Network , a Chris Beveridge byline at The Fandom Post (note this site is not affiliated with Fandom.com ), and a Ross Locksley (né Ross Liversidge) byline at UK Anime Network . None of these publications are considered generally unreliable, the named authors are widely cited both on Wikipedia and in other reliable sources. I see no reason to consider these specific pieces unreliable for purposes of this article/discussion. If we wish to consider any of these publications generally unreliable, I believe the discussion would need to take place at WP:RSN per WP:CONLEVEL . — siro χ o 05:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC) 02, 25 September 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV . -- Mika1h ( talk ) 16:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC) ANIME/RS and are non WP:SPS , they are written by the sites hired writers. Jumpytoo Talk 05:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Siroxo (I agree those are reviews in RS), and my comment above on why I think THEM is RS as well. That's enough to meet GNG IMHO. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC) ANN at least has editorial oversight [39] and does not accept fan-written reviews [40] , contrary to the OP's statements. Also, as @ Siroxo says, this is the wrong place to discuss the reliability of specific sources. CohenTheBohemian ( talk ) 03:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC) 49, 28 September 2023 (UTC) 12, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"2023 Mid Bedfordshire by-election: There is no 2023 Mid Bedfordshire by-election sheduled. Despite her statements, this MP has not yet resigned [48] , and it is unknown if she will actually do so in 2023 or at all before the next general election. Draftify this text until any such resignation occurs. LukeSurl t c 11:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed, and in its current form, the article isn't really about the not-scheduled by-election. It's about a lot of political shenanigans that might or might not cause a by-election. Once the dust has settled, it may be that some of this information is better included at Nadine Dorries (even if she doesn't formally resign), and if she does, we may need only a cut-down version here as ""background"" to the election. But until we know what's happening, we can't write anything. For the moment, draftify is sensible, with no prejudice against moving to main-space as soon as it happens. Elemimele ( talk ) 11:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify if that's an option. We've got enough decent sources covering her announcement, her pause, her subsequent statements, and candidate selection, so it's a decent article in many ways. Deletion would be too harsh a sentence. doktorb words deeds 12:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Drafity per above. Presently it's not official so it violates WP:CRYSTAL . — Czello ( music ) 13:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC) an article, under WP:GNG , is justified by reliable source coverage of the topic. We have extensive reliable source coverage of a probable by-election (so WP:CRYSTAL does not apply). Yes, Dorries has delayed her resignation: she says it's only a temporary delay, although some others are sceptical, and parties have selected candidates and are campaigning. We could rename to Possible Mid Bedforshire by-election if that helps. But there is good material here and this is a sensible place for it to be. Good material should be in article space; draftifying does not achieve that. If the AfD decides to get rid of the article, the background stuff can be d into Dorries' article, while the candidates/campaigning stuff can be d into Mid Bedfordshire (UK Parliament constituency) . Bondegezou ( talk ) 13:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Politics , and United Kingdom . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Bondegezou. Even if it doesn't end up happening, there is sufficient sourced encyclopaedic information that the article meets GNG and splitting that information over two or three other articles would not benefit readers in any fashion. Thryduulf ( talk ) 09:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - this election is likely to happen at some point. Moondragon21 ( talk ) 17:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I read Wikipedia and have no interest in editing, so I know very little about the policies, beyond knowing that the spirit of Ignore All Rules is that policies exist with the intention of delivering outcomes that make sense. So I'll make an exception and participate here. Of the four by-election pages, this is easily the second most notable story behind Uxbridge - the other two resignations were relatively straightforward matters for their respective stated reasons. Dorries herself states that she is going to resign once she gets the answers she is seeking (which technically, as an MP, she can demand - if she writes to the appropriate minister whilst an MP she is entitled to receive a response in a timely manner). She has also suggested she will time her resignation to be as awkward as possible for the Conservatives. [49] [50] The overwhelming evidence is that there will be a 2023 Mid-Bedfordshire by-election, and the absence of such an article would have the effect of giving undue levels of coverage relative to the overall topic on either the constituency page or Dorries' page, else a lack of appropriate coverage overall. I understand why this discussion was started, but to me the appropriate outcome seems obvious, and the better time to have this discussion is when there is a real reason to doubt the by-election taking place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:B10E:8001:A505:CDE2:F065:C96D ( talk ) 23:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC) CRYSTAL . There are instances where a candidate intends to resign, but changes their mind (Note to closer, if the MP does resign prior to the closing of the AFD, then the article should be kept). -- Enos733 ( talk ) 17:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy for now. Firstly, we have never required a by-election to be scheduled or for a resignation to officially occur in order to create a by-election article, we have only required a resignation announcement and significant media affirmation of an upcoming by-election. Secondly, even in the remote chance that this by-election was not to be held, the hypothetical by-election is still itself a highly notable event per WP:GNG , with significant coverage in reliable sources, including at least one opinion poll. This is already a fairly popular article at 23,000 views over the last 18 days. WP:CRYSTAL applies to events which are only speculated to occur, and this is not the case here as reliable sources are stating that this by-election will happen. Onetwothreeip ( talk ) 23:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Bondegezou and Onetwothreeip. I don’t think WP:CRYTSAL applies here and there is significant enough Coverage to the page. Speculating that Dorries won’t her word and trigger a by-election is the speculation. JamesVilla44 ( talk ) 17:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not aware of any case in recent years where an MP announced their intention to resign but changed their mind. As the article points out, candidates have been selected, polling has taken place. PatGallacher ( talk ) 17:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I don't have a problem with this material existing, but at the moment we have next to nothing about an election; we have a lot about a (non)resignation, which is definitely a notable story. We rightly titled our article on the Wallis Simpson affair Abdication of Edward VIII , not Coronation_of_George_VI_and_Elizabeth , a separate matter triggered by the former. I would be much happier if the ""Background"" section of this article were moved to something like Nadine Dorries resignation , and the routine stuff about results of previous election were delayed until there is an election to write about. Otherwise, if she doesn't resign, we're stuck for all eternity with an article about a major political event, hidden behind the name of a consequence that never happened. Elemimele ( talk ) 06:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I count 617 words on Dorries' resignation to 260 words on candidates/campaigning/polling, which is more on the resignation, but not next to nothing on the election. Nothing will be stuck for all eternity . The outcome of this AfD does not bind us for all time. Obviously, we can respond to any future developments, e.g. should Dorries explicitly say she's not resigning, or if reliable source reporting indicates that the by-election is probably not going to happen, or if time ticks on and a by-election in 2023 versus 2024 becomes unclear. Bondegezou ( talk ) 08:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Elemimele @ Bondegezou - I'd be happy to support an article move to Potential Mid Bedfordshire by-election while we wait. doktorb words deeds 08:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That seems like a good idea. LukeSurl t c 08:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd be fine with that, though I do think it's still a little like writing about a traffic accident under the title ""requirement for new motor vehicle"". Bondegezou , you are of course right that we're not stuck with the title for all eternity - I shouldn't exaggerate. If she doesn't resign, we can always move the article to a title reflecting how the event is remembered. The resulting article could also, reasonably, have a paragraph on the election that the crisis would have engendered. Elemimele ( talk ) 10:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A name tweak is a reasonable compromise if folk think all this content should remain in mainspace for now. It'll be an inherently temporary name, ultimately either ending up at 2023 Mid Bedfordshire by-election , 2024 Mid Bedfordshire by-election , or quietly being d into a subsection of the Nadine Dorries article after the announcement of the next general election. Perhaps I'm more cynical than most, but I feel there's a fair chance of this latter scenario. LukeSurl t c 14:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not firmly against this compromise but it feels pointless if it means another discussion like this to rename it back? It feels to me that the entry point to rename would be should there be serious doubt about this by-election taking place, given that the rationale for ing is that there aren't sources which cast serious doubt on a 2023 by-election? 2A00:23C8:B10E:8001:5FC7:E492:DABA:8588 ( talk ) 06:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, but retitle to either 'Potential' or 'Future' Mid Bedfordshire by-election as there is no guarantee it will take place this year. If the by-election doesn't happen, there is still precedent that an article exists on the expected one - see 2017 Manchester Gorton by-election as an example. OGBC1992 ( talk ) 14:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per comments by Bondegezou and others - this has certainly attracted enough media coverage, and even if the election never happens should stay thus. Frzzl talk · contribs 18:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , I do expect that eventually Dorries will be forced to resign because she said she was going to, and to abandon doing so shows she has no regard for her constituents, but how long that might take who knows. However I guess the saga of her resigning and then not actually resigning is worthy of an article in its own right. gbrading ( ταlκ ) 09:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] but possibly retitle, agree with OGBC1992. Article is solid and a lot of work's been put into it. Blythwood ( talk ) 02:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.",keep
+"Euryops (disambiguation): The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 15:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 15:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * with only two topics, can be handled directly with a hatnote. improvements show it is a useful page. Boleyn ( talk ) 15:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] has more than one topic, before being removed. WP:REDYES and WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES show that just because there are links that are red on enwiki does not mean they should not be written. -- awkwafaba ( 📥 ) 16:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC) REDDAB ? The entries of red link must be validated per MOS:DABRED , i.e. the inclusion of a linked article. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 17:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC) have linked the gastropod by a . The ""see also""s should be covered by adding ""Euryops"" to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names , if someone cares to do so. Pam D 09:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, have made that entry and cleaned up the dab page, including merging two Wikidata entries for the son of Heracles at ""Euryops"" and ""Euryopes"". Pam D 12:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"List of tallest buildings in Hyderabad: Not one of the list entries is notable and the article is largely unsourced except for the top 2 entries of the list. LibStar ( talk ) 03:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Lists , and Telangana . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Seems to meet NLIST, with coverage of the collection of tall buildings in this city existing, eg [49] [50] . Note that NLIST says The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. . The current article does, however, need some more sources. — siro χ o 09:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Lists of the tallest buildings in major cities are certainly notable per WP:NLIST . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - per Necrothesp . KatoKungLee ( talk ) 15:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Barokk Hotel Promenád Győr: Boleyn ( talk ) 17:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Travel and tourism , and Hungary . Shellwood ( talk ) 17:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC) GEOFEAT . The building appears to be heritage listed . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination Necrothesp is absolutely right. Thanks, Boleyn ( talk ) 16:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Certified Automotive Parts Association: While looking for references to satisfy the COI request, I was unable to find anything meeting WP:ORGCRIT with the exception of one book reference here . CNMall41 ( talk ) 03:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . CNMall41 ( talk ) 03:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think this is a . Here's some sources Probably meet WP:SIRS via General Accounting Office Subcommittee hearing Technical Book with moderate coverage NIST directory (possible SIRS) case filing (likely SIRS, hard to tell from snippet) Journal of American Insurance non- WP:SIRS things that may still improve WP:V passing mention of sub-authorization Quick but nontrivial mention in a magazine another similar mention from another issue of same magazine — siro χ o 05:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which one of these falls into the significant coverage definition? Also note I believe the congressional hearing is part of someone from the organization's testimony. None of these meet WP:CORPDEPTH in my opinion. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 16:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC) 39, 28 June 2023 (UTC) 57, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not aware of any specific definition of any directory listing as trivial, especially not under that guideline. I'm not sure if you were referring to the ""simple listings or compilations"" examples of trivial coverage, but this does not fit in that. This directory listing meets WP:CORPDEPTH as it ... provides an overview, description,... survey, ... or evaluation of the ... organization. . — siro χ o 19:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would think because it provides a list of standards for their industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky ( talk • contribs ) 13:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which is cited to the organization's website. I also do not see anything in WP:NCORP that says we create pages on organizations because they provide industry standards. Can you tell me how this page meets notability guidelines based on the available sourcing (a requirement of NCORP)? -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 16:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are discussions of the group in peer-reviewed journals [39] and others. The Gscholar linked in the template above brings them up. [40] and a legal one: [41] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am trying to get my head around this. If this was a person, having peer-reviewed journals could help with notability under WP:NSCHOLAR . However, how do discussions in the IEEE and a legal document meet WP:ORGCRIT ? -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 17:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first two talk about the thing for a paragraph, and we have about 20 of them in Gscholar, should be enough for GNG. If this was a person, we'd be off to the races; Mr. XYZ discussed in 20 peer-reviewed journals? Easy notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not saying we have enough for a 40 paragraph article here in wiki, but it's at least enough for a stub. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the explanation. I understand that and looked at the references. These are mainly saying that it exists and a brief overview of what it does. Nothing significant so still not seeing how this would get over the hurdle of WP:NCORP . If we allowed articles to be created that we cannot expand and consider them notable based on these types of mentions we could create a lot of company pages. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 00:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For me, there are adequate sources such as the two books available to Google Books references above (Motor Vehicle Safety and Reverse Engineering) that meet the criteria for establishing notability. I can understand why there might be questions of the level of ""in-depthness"" (is that a word?) in those articles but you'd have to start by asking what level you belive might exist to describe the company. Sometimes a company can be notable and do something very simple that doesn't exactly lend itself to the availability of pages of analysis or opinion and I believe this is one of those organizations. With that in mind, the sources meet the criteria in my opinion. HighKing ++ 12:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Characters in the Paper Mario series: The page was a to Characters of the Mario franchise that did not find support as a good target at the RfD. The pre- article content had been d following a proposal at Talk:Characters in the Paper Mario series#Well, I guess here we go. , and the RfD was against an outright deletion, but for discussion at AfD. Jay 💬 10:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Jay 💬 10:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Paper Mario characters have been discussed as a group - see here and here - and there are many not individually notable Paper Mario characters that got coverage in RS. Paper Mario is a large enough series that it could have its own character list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Zxcvbnm has found coverage proving notability by Wikipedia standards. Easier to have the characters in one list article, than in each individual game article. D r e a m Focus 03:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unlike many other recently d listcrufts, this reads much better than them and is notable unlike those others. Dympies ( talk ) 17:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the above, but primarily per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's comments. Aoba47 ( talk ) 21:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong to Characters of the Mario franchise . The sources that Zxcvbnm has brought would probably best be used in the series article. The current article has very few sources currently and all of them are used either generically or talk about characters on the main series list. Finally, what characters that are notable could easily be covered on the main series list. (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 01:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have you read the article? Almost all of the characters are different in these series. D r e a m Focus 16:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of these characters do not need to be listed on the main list, the ones that do can easily be d into the main list. (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 02:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If a were to happen which ones would be moved over? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - pinging those involved in the RFD. @ QuicoleJR : @ Panini! : @ Thryduulf : @ Crouch, Swale : @ Lenticel : @ ThomasO1989 : @ A smart kitten : @ Tavix : (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 18:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - This article was restored without addressing any of the core issues. It is primarily original research and contains only four references. Merging into Characters of the Mario franchise would not work well, as 99% of these characters don't meet that article's inclusion criteria (appearing in more than 3 or 4 games, etc). A good chunk of these characters are relatively minor and the ones that aren't are more or less covered on the respective articles. -- ThomasO1989 ( talk ) 18:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC) 00, 21 December 2023 (UTC) PERNOM . (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 02:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Woah, shoot, when was this article made? Panini! • 🥪 20:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 17 August 2007 . -- T avix ( talk ) 18:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC) 26, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak While the article could definitely use some work, the sources that Lenticel provided are definitely demonstrating notability. I'd change my vote to a strong if there were more sources going over the original characters found within Paper Mario , and The Thousand Year Door as I'm confident there's at least some references going over some of these guys. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk ) 07:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The series is big enough to justify having its own character page. While the page isnt in good shape, WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP . I could see an arguement for WP:TNT being made. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] need works but notable enough. BlackShadowG ( talk ) 08:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC) ITSNOTABLE . (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 02:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC) GNG . Videogameplayer99 ( talk ) 11:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Islamophobia during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war: Islam is a secondary issue. Palestinian Christians are also part of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict . The central topic is the State of Palestine. And all the listed instances of Islamophobia are directly referred to Palestinians except the last two, which are indirectly connected simply by virtue of having happened because the conflict escalated. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 09:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam , Israel , and Palestine . Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 09:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just noticed Violent incidents in reaction to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Attacks against Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims . Goes to show the huge overlap that there is between all these unnecessary articles. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 11:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe a would be in order? I would be open to discussing it after the deletion discussion ends -- if it ends with the decision to , that is. Professor Penguino ( talk ) 23:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well I'm open to that too. Though I think merging with the Anti-Palestianism article might be better. What do you think about that option? Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 01:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it would work. Professor Penguino ( talk ) 02:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Powerplay44 and AryKun , what would you think of the possibility of merging this and the Anti-Palestinianism article? Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 08:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’d be fine with that. Powerplay44 ( talk ) 22:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not only can this be covered in much less detail elsewhere, it is also not widespread enough to even be considered important. Bottom line: there are not many people (only 4 mentioned in the article) who are committing vile acts against Islamic people because of their support of Hamas. Powerplay44 ( talk ) 17:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] plenty of news articles mentioning Islamophobia from nearly every news outlet I know; the article's currently not in the greatest shape, but not TNT-worthy imo. There's clearly coverage, so personal opinions on how prevalent Islamophobia is seem irrelevant. AryKun ( talk ) 19:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That link does not work for me. In any case I doubt a case can be made that we can get an article sufficiently differentiated from the Anti-Palestianism one. We currently have two articles about hate against one of the two sides of a conflict. Even if we expand both we will have very similar articles. Only that the Anti-Palestianism can also cover Palestinian Christians who are a small minority while this one can cover non-Palestinian Muslims which will not be the central focus of the article. Now that I think of it maybe a solution could be to both into an article called Anti-Palestinianism and Islamophobia during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war . If not we're going to have two very interrelated articles with a lot of duplicate info. Three of the six paragraphs (excluding the lead) of this article are already included in the Anti-Palestianism one, and the one about ""human animals"" could perfectly be included as well. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 20:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. The article definitely needs cleanup, but I don't think it should be d. The topic is notable enough. Professor Penguino ( talk ) 20:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree, the information present definetely needs cleanup, and it may be notable in some capacity. However, as stated above, Islamophobia and Anti-Palestinianism are very closely related meaning the two articles, at the very least, can be d. Powerplay44 ( talk ) 22:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Absolutely , look Anti-Palestinianism during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and ""Islamophobia during the Israel-Hamas war"" are two different things. In the entire world, not only the Palestinians but the entire Muslim community is being targeted regarding Palestine. How can Palestinian Muslims represent the Muslims of the whole world? Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 12:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of the article is about Palestinians, most of the hatred is towards Palestinians and it started because of an escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is not a topic separate from Anti-Palestinianism. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 14:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don’t want to get into the specifics of the war, but there is most definitely a strong and supportive relationship between the Hamas terrorists and many Muslims, as shown by Muslims who acclaim the vicious and immoral atrocities committed by Hamas and openly criticize the Israelis for merely defending their established nation. This proves that Islamophobia and Anti-Palestinianism in this matter are indeed strongly related and can be d together. Powerplay44 ( talk ) 22:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If most of the article is about Palestinians then it should be d ... Homerethegreat ( talk ) 09:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] More news sources use the term Islamophobia than Anti-Palestinianism, so if you want a , it should be the other way. Additionally, I would say the two topics are distinct; see for example this source on how the Indian far-right is trying to use the Oct 7 attack to inflame domestic opinion against Indian Muslims. Racists aren't exactly known for their cultural awareness, they'll be racist to whoever they can. As an addendum, your personal blog post about how most Muslims are supportive of Hamas' war crimes is irrelevant here. They aren't criticizing Israel for ""merely defending [it's] established nation"", they're criticizing it for killing over 4000 children as if that's going to lead to a permanent peace after the war ends. AryKun ( talk ) 17:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It’s shameful that people who have a differing view from yours are labeled as racists. That aside, it was the Palestinians who incited the violence in Israel, making them consequently responsible for the deaths of Palestinians and Israelis during the war. The best comparison I have is that President Trump is personally held responsible for the January 6 Violent Protests, while those who actually committed crimes are often looked over. If Trump is credited with inciting violence and causing chaos then this should be no different because Palestine also incited violence. About the actual , I’d be absolutely fine with merging it the other way because they are the same issue and there is no need for two separate articles covering the same information and ideas. Powerplay44 ( talk ) 22:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I literally linked a source about Indian far-right media cells that ""propagate anti-Muslim hatred"" in the previous sentence; Islamophobes are racists, just as anti-Semites are racists, and the people the source discusses are both at the same time. We have many sources talking about how different groups are using the war to drum up domestic Islamophobia specifically, even if they don't have a large Palestinian population. Anti-Palestinianism and Islamophobia are distinct issues here, even if the groups perpetuating both overlap somewhat. As for your second point, I don't want to engage because it's irrelevant to the AfD and will just side-track this whole discussion. AryKun ( talk ) 07:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think I understand your reasoning now. My apologies for the statement regarding racism, I must have not seen it in the source. Powerplay44 ( talk ) 22:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC) Easily passes GNG: Biden administration bolsters effort to battle antisemitism and Islamophobia in schools , NBC Amid increase in antisemitism and Islamophobia, NC Governor calls for more public safety funding , ABC We must not repeat post-9/11 Islamophobia in our discourse on the Israel-Hamas war , Chicago Tribune Islamophobia and antisemitism on rise in US amid Israel-Hamas war , Guardian Islamophobia, anti-Semitism rises in EU amid Israel-Hamas war , Al Jazeera Antisemitism, Islamophobia rising in Canada amid Israel-Hamas conflict , Global News Canada Antisemitism, Islamophobia on U.S. college campuses spike amid Israel-Hamas war , Axios ‘Gaza this … Hamas that’: the rise of antisemitism and Islamophobia in Australia ‘Gaza this … Hamas that’: the rise of antisemitism and Islamophobia in Australia , Guardian CAIR reports surge in anti-Arab, Islamophobic bias since Israel-Hamas war , Axios Colleges face pressure to curb antisemitism and Islamophobia , NPR // Timothy :: talk 07:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with Anti-Palestinianism during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war . The subject is clearly notable, but I don't believe readers will benefit by having two separate articles about what news coverage--rightfully or not--often bundles together. We may need to rename the d article to something more inclusive, such as "" Islamophobia and anti-Palestinianism during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war "". Owen× ☎ 22:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC) 49, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Aside from the question of notability, more discussion is needed on whether this article forks content that could fit better elsewhere. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 01:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , with no need to . There is sufficient distinction of the topics and sufficient reliable sources for both. P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk ) 20:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Agree. There seems to be sufficient distinction. If anything, Islamophobia is the more prevalent phenomena globally - one that regularly picks up in relation to Middle East events. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 08:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Essex Arms: JMWt ( talk ) 18:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Found reviews from The Quietus , DIY , and AllMusic. That's plenty enough already. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 20:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the reviews found by QuietHere and since added to the article. The article could use some expansion but there are enough pro reviews to support a typical stub album article. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 01:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the reviews that QuietHere found; sources found and used should be enough for at least a stub/start-class article. Darling ☔ ( talk · contribs ) 03:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Santiago López (soccer, born 2005): EpicAdventurer ( talk ) 23:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV . These two sources have in-depth coverage [1] , [2] I also found this one: [3] . Svartner ( talk ) 00:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC) The subject easily meets WP:GNG with multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] —Easy . Easily meets WP:SIGCOV per Svartner's post above and those found in the article itself. Anwegmann ( talk ) 03:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC) Easily satisfies WP:SIGCOV . ADifferentMan ( talk ) 03:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - clearly passes GNG. I suggest this is a POINTy nomination, given the OP's behaviour at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matias Fernandez-Pardo shortly before this nomination. Giant Snowman 09:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC) The subject has multiple pieces of WP:SIGCOV already in the article to meet the WP:GNG . Let'srun ( talk ) 14:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - when an article is already well sourced like this, I would expect a source analysis with a clear explanation as to why each source doesn't satisfy SIGCOV requirements if wishing to pursue deletion. The ones highlighted by Svartner look good enough to me. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Carmina Slovenica: Sadads ( talk ) 00:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . Sadads ( talk ) 00:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Add the references that already appear in the Slovenian Wikipedia's article at https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmina_Slovenica ""With limited English-language interest"" is never a valid reason for deletion. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 00:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC) 41, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 00:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per Eastmain. Just needs writing and sourcing. Surprised to see this from somebody as resourceful as Sadads. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC) BAND -- the current article doesn't make the case for notability, Sadads ( talk ) 11:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The coverage is there though, this New York Times article talks about its 2015 production ""Toxic Psalms"". An extensive article on the Slovenian culture website here . Cambridge Companion of Choral Music mentions it on page 207 but I can't access it. Plenty more hits in google books and I'm sure there'll be numerous reviews in other newspapers. It just needed cleanup of the cruft, writing and sourcing. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC) 22, 12 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Due to the sources mentioned by Dr. Blofeld. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Well referenced now, and clearly notable. The potentisl should have shown up on the pre-nomination search. Aymatth2 ( talk ) 14:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not only ""limited English sources"" is not a valid argument, it's also false that slwiki has promotional sources. 5/6 sources are from mainstream Slovene media companies. A09 ( talk ) 14:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Lorin Ranier: Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But he’s a team owner with a storied history in the sport? I understand your take on the matter absolutely but he’s the key figure to 2 of the top development programs in stock car racing currently and is a team owner, what’s the difference in him and other team owners with wiki pages? He just happens to not currently own a team, and if most crew chiefs like Chris Gabehart can have Wikipedia pages I see no reason a team owner can’t have one also, thank you for your time. OlHossNo.13 ( talk ) 01:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC) GNG . He's been covered in the Courier Journal , The Roanoke Times , the Knight Ridder Tribune , Bristol Herald Courier , and there was a Ranier Racing Museum covered in the Associated Press. APK whisper in my ear 05:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions . Kpg jhp jm 07:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to review sources brought up in this discussion and whether they are sufficient to establish GNG for this article subject. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - clearly notable per refs found above. For the future, NASCAR team owners are probably always notable given the coverage of teams and drivers. I see stuff about them weekly. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 02:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Cumberland League: Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 ( talk ) 19:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England . Owen× ☎ 00:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Can't find any sources nor establish how it fits into the British rugby league system - Delete. Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I would suggest that the nominator strike through the ""Delete"" in their update to from giving the impression it is a fresh ! vote. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This league is now known as the ""Iggesund Cumberland ARL"". Article needs improving, but there appears to be quite a bit of coverage available on TotalRL and various Cumbrian news websites [5] [6] [7] . J Mo 101 ( talk ) 12:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC) and rename to ""Cumbria Rugby League"" per RFL website. Mn1548 ( talk ) 14:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Roberto Molinelli: Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO . 4meter4 ( talk ) 00:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC) MUSICBIO , WP:COMPOSER , WP:NCREATIVE should be satisfied, possibly WP:BASIC . It's likely most of the coverage will not be in English language here. There's quite a bit of SIGCOV of his music direction for in this German De Gruyter book Die Interaktion zwischen Dirigent:in und Musiker:innen in Orchesterproben : [21] WP:COMPOSER / WP:MUSICBIO for various pieces including ""Lady Walton's Garden"" [22] [23] Tango Seasons [24] [25] Not sure on how independent this is, but there's a bio credited to a Cecilia Farinelli in the Barilla historical archive (yes that Barilla) [26] , also seems to be in one or more books put out by that company [27] — siro χ o 08:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] sources above seem ok, I'd incorporate them into the article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Karan Adani: I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 1 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 13:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Gujarat . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – Agree that it's a pretty lame article but the refs easily demonstrate GNG. The COI, if it's real, is not translating into a promotional style. Nom's rationale is also vauge. small jars t c 15:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relevant page and information - should be kept. 115.111.140.7 ( talk ) 04:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PROMO, all the sources I can find are routine business mentions. Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC) BASIC, as articles can be combined to demonstrate notability. Pershkoviski ( talk ) 23:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Tthe person is from most controversial Indian family now. I found a lot of news articles about Karan Adani. ABDB1 ( talk ) 13:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 13:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It has become evident that there is a dearth of substantial references from reputable sources that establish the notability of Karan Adani . The available sources either do not provide in-depth coverage or fail to demonstrate the subject's significance within its respective field or context. Additionally, there exists a record of individuals affiliated with the Adani Group engaging in the manipulation of Wikipedia entries in previous instances. Therefore, it would not be surprising if the identical group of individuals were responsible for the creation of this page from the outset. RPSkokie ( talk ) 08:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article does have COI tag but the accusation is regarding a user whose sole contribution to the page was the infobox image, which seems like a non-issue to me. The section in the signpost article is not a rationale for COI but a suggestively written collection of facts about a few editors to the page, which seem less related to each other the closer you look at them. (they manage to make ""inexperienced editor"" sound damning, and apparently Doc James linking a policy page on your user talk without even a warning template, and probably only as a precaution in response to the previous situation with another user's drafts, amounts to being ""suspected of paid editing"") It's not impossible that there's serious paid editing but there are no valid signs of it either. The article is, at least superficially, not promotional: even the third sentence describes him the son of a ""controversial industrialist."" COI is not the only reason someone might want to write this article, though it might seem like it to us outside of India, since Adani is a common name in the Indian press, as can be seen from several reliable sources on the article contributing to GNG. small jars t c 08:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Not every wealthy scion gets his own article. I don't see this passes WP:SIGCOV . DGG might argue that wealth alone might create notability, but I would disagree. A willing to change my mind. Bearian ( talk ) 17:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Bearian. Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 17:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC) Based on a quick Google search, I came across significant media coverage and looks like the subject is a prominent figure in the business. Additionally, he has been listed in the Forbes India Magazine's ""Tycoon of Tomorrow"" list. Pass WP:BASIC and WP:GNG . Historical Heritages of Bihar ( talk ) 18:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC) GNG and also him been appointed to Economic Advisory Council see [ [7] ], also winner of Economic Times Awards see [ [8] ]. Epcc12345 ( talk ) 19:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The subject is leading the whole Business Group. He is notable on his own, not on his father's hereditary notability. All his news and coverages are in Reliable Sources and most of the articles are in-depth to pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC . Thanks Mr Goldberg 11:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Epcc12345 - the SCMP coverage and the fact that he has been CEO of one of the Adani Group's companies for several years is more than enough to demonstrate notability. The concerns about undue promotion can be handled through editing. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 22:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"2028 ICC Men's T20 World Cup: 8 years away that is not a mega event like the Olympics Grahaml35 ( talk ) 13:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. 2028 is just four years away despite what the nominator may think. Lean even I, from Poland, have heard of the Twenty20, so perhaps not at all too soon, as there is room for expansion as qualifications are probably starting next year, right? -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 15:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Haha yes, my bad 4 years away not 8. Not sure why my brain thought we are still in 2020. Grahaml35 ( talk ) 16:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC) 39, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My bad. 4 years away not 8. Grahaml35 ( talk ) 16:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Only 4 years away and certain to happen. StickyWicket aka AA ( talk ) 23:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's little point deleting this - it will only be re-created, probably within days. If there's a real desire for it to not exist for now, a ion is the better option (as has been done for the 2030 version of this) but then someone will need to pay whack-a-mole with it. I would never like to guarantee that anything in cricket will definitely happen, given the history of tournaments in the game, but this seems reasonable to around for now. is the worst that should happen. Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 11:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Four years is not too soon. If it was 2032, that would be. Batagur baska ( talk ) 02:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Ratonhnhaké:ton: I also disagree with the character's native American name being the title anyway as its not his common name at all. Trying to do research with WP:BEFORE shows nothing (at first glance). Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 23:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into/ to List of Assassin's Creed characters . -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 00:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC) NEXIST - as expected there is significant commentary about his indigenous background in books, such as Manifest Destiny 2.0 pp. 67-68, and Virtual History: How Videogames Portray the Past . That combined with the TIME article about him and this (which is not 100% interview) makes me think that he just barely scooches past notability and it is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE issue. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 07:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC) ton as his primary name, the devs went through pains to pick a unique Native American name for the character, and since he is also mainly notable due to his heritage, I'm not sure Connor is fitting. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 07:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Still ruminating about this, so no position yet. List of Assassin's characters is already a severely bloated article and a coatrack for cruft so I am not sure if it is an appropriate . Part of the reason why the nominator may have had issues finding sources as part of WP:BEFORE is that the character's likely common name would be Connor, and from my experience that's how the majority of reliable sources have mainly referred to him in their discussions. So we shouldn't the current title while the majority of sourcing insist on discussing him as ""Connor"" most of the time, hence Connor (Assassin's Creed). Haleth ( talk ) 22:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC) One could theoretically throw the entire reception section in the trash, and this character still meets GNG based on coverage of character creation alone. An entire piece in Time covering creation is half way to GNG already, plus the already used Billings Gazette piece gives enough coverage to character creation beyond just the portraying actor. That's already multiple sources, and the additional material uncovered by Zxcvbnm could only improve the article further if utilized. No stake in the article title, but resolving that can be handled outside of AfD via the WP:RM process. - 2pou ( talk ) 21:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC) ton's wiki article due to other main Assassin's Creed characters having their own article pages like Altair, Ezio, Haytham, Edward and ect. So it wouldn't be fair to Connor if he wasn't given his own wikipedia article since both his father and grandfather both have one. So I say the article page up and leave it alone. 108.14.232.17 ( talk ) 16:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Withdraw With Zx findings, the article seems to be barely notable now. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 11:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC) SUPERVOTE . See the ""withdrawal supervote"" section. I would not suggest withdrawing unless ALL editors are in favor of ing the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . I previously bold d the article when it was Connor (Assassin's Creed) , not because I felt that there's no reliable sourcing providing significant coverage, but because the article at that point (and as is now) was more or less a regurgitation of plot info and I didn't feel particularly inclined to improve the article myself at the time. That said, the other editors seem to agree that whatever coverage exists justifies the existence of a standalone article. I do believe however, that a name change discussion would be in order to change it back to Connor (Assassin's Creed) so that might cause less confusion with whether the character does in fact have WP:SIGCOV , but that is outside of the scope of this AfD. Haleth ( talk ) 01:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wasn't aware there was a previous page that got ed. It seems to have been rewritten under the current title, but it should be checked for any evidence of copy and paste moving due to attribution issues. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Guido Moerkotte: - UtherSRG (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Computing , and Germany . UtherSRG (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, it does not. It passes multiple WP:NPROF criteria (at least #1 and #5). He is holding his own chair at university of Mannheim, which equals a distinguished professor. This is also mentioned in the article. So please remove the nomination for deletion or be more precise. MaxEmanuel ( talk ) 13:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Pass of WP:Prof#C1 . Having said that, the BLP is very poorly written. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 02:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] . Passes NPROF#1 with an h-index of 44 and 19 papers with 100+ citations. -- hroest 21:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Faruk Kaymakcı: As always, neither diplomats nor civil servants are ""inherently"" notable just because they exist -- for both roles, notability hinges on showing a WP:GNG -worthy volume of reliable source coverage about their work in media and/or books , to demonstrate that their work has made them the subject of significant third-party attention to establish its significance. But the referencing here is entirely to content self-published by his own employers and other directly affiliated organizations, with not a shred of GNG-worthy media coverage shown at all. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Turkey . Bearcat ( talk ) 14:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC) Appears to be a non-notable diplomat who fails to meet WP:BIO or WP:NPOL . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - the subject was until recently Turkey's Deputy Foreign Minister and EU ambassador. There are hundreds of news articles referencing him to represent Turkey's official view on various geopolitical issues. Here is a biographical overview from the College of Europe . Should easily meet WP:NPOL in my opinion. - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC) //www.hurriyetdailynews.com/no-european-security-without-turkiye-deputy-eu-minister-179536 - as far as I know Hürriyet Daily News has not (yet?) been added to the list of unreliable sources. Chidgk1 ( talk ) 13:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I have cited more sources to the subject albeit some are written in Turkish. And would as well ask admins to consider which diplomatic portfolios should be considered on the WP:NPOL . A deputy foreign minister should easily pass. My 2cents and kind regards. Wikipractitioner ( talk ) 15:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's a complexity here because ""foreign minister"" is used differently across different countries. In parliamentary systems a ""Minister"" or ""Deputy Minister"" is a member of a national/state parliament (so automatically satisfying NPOL); in presidential systems the equivalent is an appointed position. In both cases, Ministers would normally be members of cabinet, membership of which would satisfy NPOL. However, there are some countries where not all ministries are cabinet level and certainly deputy ministers do not automatically hold cabinet-level positions. In the case of Turkey, the Foreign Minister is a Presidential appointment and there are at present four deputy foreign ministers. Three of the deputy foreign ministers are career foreign service professionals (ie civil servants) and one appears to be an AKP apparatchik. Given this, I would not consider a Turkish deputy foreign minister presumptively notable under NPOL. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 01:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - He is notable enough due to his role as ambassador of Turkey. Egeymi ( talk ) 18:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC) The Brussels Times , Balkan Insight , ""Significantly, the new Turkish ambassador to Brussels is Faruk Kaymakci, probably the ablest EU specialist in the foreign ministry"" Oxford Analytica Expert Briefings . Sources available that show a passing of the GNG/BASIC. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 23:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"List of the busiest airports in Iran: Sunnya343 ( talk ) 04:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation , Transportation , Lists , and Iran . Sunnya343 ( talk ) 04:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Lists of busiest airports have this structure. Maybe a broader discussion is needed to determine if all these articles should be d or kept? 82.174.61.58 ( talk ) 10:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC) NOTSTATS require context, which this article somewhat lacks but can be easily provided, and these are statistics which would have been provided in an almanac 30 years ago even if not necessarily for Iran. SportingFlyer T · C 02:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What sort of context would overcome the NOTSTATS violation? Sunnya343 ( talk ) 16:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Sportingflyer. Orientls ( talk ) 04:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd say that enplanements could be added to List of airports in Iran like List of airports in Washington (state) , but I see no reason for this list to be singled out among the many in the category. These are perfectly valid statistics to compile, and while the article could be improved with prose context, I don't see the issues of ""reduce readability"", ""may be confusing"", or ""so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article"" that are the basis of NOTSTATS. Here, we see ""the statistics can be split into a separate article"" in practice, and List of airports in Iran or even Transport_in_Iran#Airports_and_airlines could include recommended summarization. While some pages that are primarily statistics may focus on too narrow a topic for encyclopedic significance or at least a stand-alone article, this is generally considered relevant and sources like [40] [41] [42] [43] show some media interest. Reywas92 Talk 19:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC) PRIMARYNEWS sources that basically repeat the raw data from the Iranian Airports Company, so WP:SIGCOV is not met. The MEED source does provide some analysis, but it's only discussing the statistics from April 2016 to January 2017. Sunnya343 ( talk ) 16:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is not about Iranian Airports Company , so we don't have to have sources independent of the Iranian Airports Company. There's nothing wrong with using primary news sources, they just have to be used with appropriate care to avoid bias or original research. Reywas92 Talk 16:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that primary sources are fine for basic facts like the individual statistics, but per SIGCOV we need independent secondary sources to demonstrate that this topic is notable, i.e. that it deserves its own article. Sunnya343 ( talk ) 16:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Shu Shine F.C.: No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. A defunct local football club. North8000 ( talk ) 14:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . National, not local. The club was promoted to the Super League in 1992 and after that was among the founders of the Zimbabwe Premier Soccer League in 1993. We need topics like this from Zimbabwe. Sourcing will be limited to retrospects such as the ones already in the article, but they are bit thin, especially the Sunday Mail. Geschichte ( talk ) 17:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - per above. Top flight Zimbabwean team from pre internet era that has some online sources in the article and definotly has olffinr ones. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 22:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Pinging per your request. SportingFlyer T · C 09:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak – I understand the limitations that exist in finding good sources about African football, but the article itself doesn't add anything. A list of Zimbabwean football clubs, based on the source ""Zimbabwe's football cemetery"" for example, would be more appropriate. Svartner ( talk ) 22:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak A top-flight team (and thus not ""local"") with coverage from the pre-internet age. I'm not sure what the article does beyond confirming its one-time existence, but I think it should stay, although barely. Anwegmann ( talk ) 22:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of football clubs in Zimbabwe , in which this club is mentioned. Fails GNG due to lack of SIGCOV. Frank Anchor 19:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changed to weak per the sources presented by SportingFlyer, which establish notability. Frank Anchor 00:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of football clubs in Zimbabwe . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 00:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Poor article, notable football club. This is routine coverage from their 1993 season, showing there's also more out there - also tells us which stadium they played in. This article on an old player notes he was their coach. This article is an interview with a player who talked about how he got them promoted to the first division. I can't read this article due to a paywall but there's at least a mention there. Via Google books, in 1991, Horizon wrote an article about how Shu-Shine were promoted, about their first game, and about their sponsorship, but I can't get the link to work. There's enough here for a stub article, and it's at least implied that this team got pre-internet coverage in the early 1990s. SportingFlyer T · C 21:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC) this was closed as a by a non-administrator who reverted their close when I asked for this to be draftifyed, it appears as if it is still a . SportingFlyer T · C 21:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not implying an answer to this question about those sources, but as a side note the criteria isn't that there are facts that can be pieced together from numerous places to create the start of an article. It's that there is in depth coverage of the subject in a couple of articles. (maybe one would be enough) Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 22:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm aware. The interview with Tavaka Gumbo clearly talks about the club's glory years. I can only access a small part of the Horizon article, but it also clearly talks about the club from the time they were in the top flight, including a page header discussing their promotion. I think WP:GNG is likely satisfied on those alone. The routine coverage also demonstrates this was a league - the most important in the country! - which would have been covered in newspapers during the time Shu-Shine were in the top flight. Top flight teams are generally but not necessarily always notable. This one seems like it has been significantly covered even though it would have been all pre-internet. SportingFlyer T · C 22:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry about that. Liz got to it and it's back to normal now. -- asilvering ( talk ) 22:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Yes, the closure was reverted and the changes to the article as well. This was not a good discussion for an NAC closure as opinion is divided. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC) No significant coverage, no wp:rs . QueerEcofeminist🌈 03:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What's wrong with any of the recently posted links? SportingFlyer T · C 09:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just as a flag, I've completely rewritten the article. I obviously think it meets WP:GNG ... SportingFlyer T · C 09:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . It is basically guaranteed that in any country with substantial media like Zimbabwe (dozens of different newspapers), top-tier teams in the country's most prominent sport and league will receive significant coverage . We do not have access to sources of the time; but SportingFlyer has still managed to perform a decent expansion of the article with modern-day sources, which only further indicates more sources that exist from the past. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - per Beanie. KatoKungLee ( talk ) 17:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 20:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Geschichte ( talk ) 09:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per SportingFlyer detailed analysis. Lokotim ( talk ) 17:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC) It is notable that F.C. has left discernible footprints on Google, as evidenced by available information. Their players were acknowledged as Soccer Stars of the Year. It should be noted that not every country enjoyed international coverage during their era, unlike the extensive coverage available today. DI V I N E 05:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Scott Neslin: The two references are both career summaries that read like resumes. After searching, unable to find independent sources with coverage of this person. Article created on 22 April 2017. JoeNMLC ( talk ) 17:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Economics , and New Hampshire . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to draft to provide an opportunity for sources to be developed. BD2412 T 18:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy . The subject holds the ""Albert Wesley Frey Professor of Marketing"" at an Ivy League school. He's got 8,000 citations, 25 papers with 100+ citations on Scopus, and an h -index of 42. Clear pass of NPROF. JoelleJay ( talk ) 20:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I didn't find the book reviews that might pass WP:AUTHOR , but I think the case for WP:PROF#C1 and #C5 is clear. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 05:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Suphalak: Doesn't meet notability even with the mention as it's just someone's attempt at creating a cat breed, all the well sourced information is unrelated to the supposed breed. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 07:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Thailand . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC) Copying my note from the talk page: ""From what I could find, the position that Suphalak is distinct from Burmese indeed appears to come from people associated with TIMBA. But independent secondary sources have covered their breeding attempts and efforts to register the breed, at least as lately as 2022, so the original research concerns can be remedied by trimming the content down to what has been published. As the article mentions, most other people in Thailand just treat the name as a synonym for Burmese, but it takes the TIMBA's position as fact so that's also an NPOV issue."" -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 07:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC) 55, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't read Thai so I can't give much input on these sources. I looked at the Thai article and it appears to be just about the Burmese itself. I think the information would be better off put into Burmese (cat) as it doesn't even seem to be recognised as distinct aside from this TIMBA. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 19:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pinging SMcCandlish , who raised issues with the article back in 2019. -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 15:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC) 18, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and summarize (from the sourced material, not from the entire article most of which is unsourced), but that to List of experimental cat breeds , since there is no evidence cited in our article about what the foundation stock was, including whether it was Burmese at all. What's happened here is that legendarily, there were solid copper-colored cats in the region mentioned in a work of very uncertain date (1351–1767). Modern breeders have attempted to "" recreate "" this alleged landrace variety as a new standardized breed, from stock they are cagey about. But their claims that this is ""an ancient breed"" going back to the Ayutthaya Kingdom cannot be sustained; this is typical breeder marking nonsense. Next, our own material has gotten a bunch of junk mixed in, including contradictory passages (first a claim that people were ""confused"" into thinking that the Suphalak was solid-colored and then a ""correction"" that it was solid colored), a bunch of name-dropping of individual non-notable breeders (more marketing), plus non-neutral material like personal-opinion claims about what a ""proper Suphalak"" is, and a bunch of unsourced claims about their genetics, etc. The fact that there are a grand total of six cats in the breeding program is not actually encouraging that this passes WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE at all, though a summary paragraph at the experimental breeds list would arguably serve readers better than no information at all, since people are apt to run into mentions of this at cat-related clickbait sites and want more details. PS: This single-breed club trying to establish the breed is by definition not WP:INDY and is not a reliable source for anything but WP:ABOUTSELF claims (e.g. what they say their breed standard is, how many cats are in their breeding program, etc., but not claims of antiquity or other potentially controversial material). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment support SMcCandlish on and to experimental cat breeds list. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 22:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC) Treatise on Cats , the historical written source where the name comes from, might be another potential target, though ideally it should be expanded to actually mention the cats mentioned in the text first. -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 07:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Which target is best? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment if the breeders have stopped their efforts it's less appropriate for List of experimental cat breeds . There are no failed/forgone breeds listed in the article I believe. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 19:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC) Looking further into this, I would oppose ing to List of experimental cat breeds , as that would imply a rather oversimplified reductionist view that the name refers only to the newly created breed, when in reality it's an old name, the understanding of which has been quite actively evolving, both in Thailand and among Western breeders. The name is recognised by The International Cat Association , who discussed using Suphalak cats from Thailand (as the term was understood in 2010) for outcrossing to improve genetic diversity in the Burmese breed. [19] There's more info on this at Messybeast.com, [20] which can probably be considered a self-published expert source. All that said, ideally the article should be rewritten to provide a proper overview covering the history, the evolving terminology, and the relationship to the Burmese breed, in a neutral, descriptive tone. Taking another look at the article, I don't think it's so bad that the current page needs to be removed in the meantime, so I'd be okay with either ing or temporarily ing to Burmese cat , as I mentioned above. -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 12:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It is still not clear where to to. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe a disambiguation? They may be looking for mentions of the historical cat or they may be looking for the modern recreation attempt. There's no distinction between the historically mentioned cats and the contemporary experimental breed. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 00:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC) broad-concept article rather than a plain disambiguation page. In any case, I don't think the re-creation breed needs to be a separate article. -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 09:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC) 48, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. The progress towards consensus has stalled a bit as a prior ! vote has been updated to . The article has been edited since nomination, it would be helpful if commenters decide if reassessment is needed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - If I saw this before seeing the recent changes, i probably would have ! voted to draftify or , but the article looks to be in good shape now. DarmaniLink ( talk ) 22:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per recent changes which clarify its position vs Burmese cat. -- Lerdsuwa ( talk ) 12:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Antoine Graves (person): US-Verified ( talk ) 11:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Georgia (U.S. state) . Shellwood ( talk ) 11:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . Curbon7 ( talk ) 12:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] locally notable, nothing we should in wiki. I can't find mentions of him, 80 years after his death, likely showing non-notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the building named after him is briefly mentioned here [19] , still nothing for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . If this article winds up being kept, it should be moved to Antoine Graves in lieu of the disambiguation page which is there now. The only similarly titled article is about a building named after this person. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC) 12, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -- I cannot judge, but was he a significant figure in the struggle against segregation in the US? If so, it might make him notable. I cannot judge. Peterkingiron ( talk ) 16:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] after move (per Metropolitan90 ) to Oakland Cemetery (Atlanta) , possibly lightly to that article. The coverage of him appears to mostly be connected pretty tightly to having the sole mausoleum in the black section of this cemetery. I'm not seeing enough for a full article, but s are cheap, and it appears that many books on the cemetery mention him. The Black Calhouns by Gail Lumet Buckley might possibly have deeper coverage, but I'm unable to view the book to determine. Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 08:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or Draftify Graves appears to have been an important figure in Atlanta's Black community during the Jim Crow Era. There is some coverage in this book , Here is more . Here is his obituary . Here is discussed in a contemporary newspaper . -- User:Namiba 19:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of those are enough to establish notability. GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 00:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There seems to be a little coverage of his race-related activities ( 1 ), and more on his mausoleum ( 2 , 3 ). 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk ) 09:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . There seems to be enough in books and other sources about this person who lived his entire life pre-Internet. Bearian ( talk ) 17:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Per the standard applied to athletes and actors, subject pass GNG this , this . // Timothy :: talk 03:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of recently discovered sources. Otherwise consensus is . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 01:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC) per User:Namiba , 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 Jack4576 ( talk ) 01:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong per above. CastJared ( talk ) 08:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - If this ends in , will the closing administrator please change the title to meet WP standard form. Carrite ( talk ) 10:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Linda Douma: Falls into WP:BIO1E Let'srun ( talk ) 00:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Beauty pageants , and Canada . Let'srun ( talk ) 00:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I would encourage AFD nominators to use plain English rather than cryptic ""Lacks sustained WP:SIGCOV .. Falls into WP:BIO1E"", etc. I challenge both reasons. From a few-second search through Google books, I get two top hits [48] [49] , which are two recent books published by UBC Press . Both have a chapter on Linda Douma, claiming that her win of Miss Canada and her activities afterwards were significant contributions to the Canadian pageant title and the feminism movement. Materialscientist ( talk ) 00:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Shoutout to Materialscientist for finding these sources. This type of sustained coverage from reliable sources proves the long-term impact she had. If this is the kind of coverage she has received just in the past three years, I can only imagine how much there is overall, especially in contemporary sources. Of course, this was all already laid out in the first nomination not even one year ago. JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Hate to do the standard ""per x"" thing response, but in this case I have to ! vote like that. Thank you to Materialscientist for showing that she does indeed have good coverage. She clearly has had an impact on feminism in Canada as evidenced by the sustained coverage in multiple books. ULPS ( talk • contribs ) 17:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources provided above demonstrate notability based on long-term impact. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 20:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks to the sources found by Materialscientist. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"DarwinHealth: Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 06:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies , Biology , Medicine , and United States of America . Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 06:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC) GNG . This article in Science and this article in The Economist are independent and very in-depth. It is a major research organization that has developed algorithms — potentially capable of cracking cancer's code, as covered in WSJ . Being a research organization, most of its coverage is in academia. A search on Google Scholar brings an extensive coverage about DarwinHealth. Sklerk ( talk ) 14:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC) The Science article cited by Sklerk is secondary and in some depth, as is the WSJ piece. The Economist article doesn't mention DarwinHealth at all, though, so it needs to go, but WP:NCORP is just met by the sources given. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm unconvinced by the rationale presented so far. The first editor to is the author of the article, which, while it does not invalidate their submission, I do consider there to be a potential bias. I note they state GNG is met by listing a bunch of references. I disagree that they constitute extensive coverage. Most are passing references. This organization does good work, clearly. However the ""coverage"" tends to merely mention the research undertaken rather than in-depth information about the organization itself. I do not see the sustained, significant, in-depth coverage required by our subject-specific notability guideline for corporations and organizations. Just my view, though. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 11:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Rather than having in-depth details about the organisation, the ""coverage"" usually consists of mentioning the research that was done. I fail to see the consistent, noteworthy coverage to meet subject-specific notability guideline for businesses and organisations demands. Fails NCORP. 2409:40F3:A:3510:8000:0:0:0 ( talk ) 03:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Obviously, you've commented here at random without actually reading the article or the comments above, where in-depth sources have been shared. 154.21.186.89 ( talk ) 20:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per WeirdNAnnoyed. Some in-depth coverage already reviewed by WeirdNAnnoyed and additional coverage when I did a proper WP:BEFORE . Personalized Drug Screening for Functional Tumor Profiling by Victoria El-Khoury, Tatiana Michel, Hichul Kim, Yong-Jun Kwon (published in 2022) is independent of the subject and covers the organization directly and in-depth . 154.21.186.89 ( talk ) 21:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC) per sources found by WeirdNAnnoyed. I'm surprised Andrea Califano doesn't have an article. // Timothy :: talk 00:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Voorweg RandstadRail station: According to WP:V all unrefed claims can be d, which would mean deletion. Seems like there has been plenty of time to verify, now is time to WP:TNT until the page can be rewritten according to the policies of en.wiki JMWt ( talk ) 16:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Netherlands . JMWt ( talk ) 16:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC) V . Notability runs with the topic, not with the content on the page. I haven't been able to find anything which shows this is clearly notable yet, though, because of all the station spam you now get when you search - showing notability will likely involve the Dutch papers. SportingFlyer T · C 16:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC) V Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it. and All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. and Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. JMWt ( talk ) 17:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Having an unsourced article has never been a deletion rationale. You still have to make sure the topic is not notable. SportingFlyer T · C 17:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC) nevermind the V criteria, this isn't a notable place. Not an historic structure, no coverage that I can find (only five hits in all of Gnews, only mentioning the place). Not even meeting GNG at this point. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC) I added references that show notability of the station and provide sources for the information provided. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 01:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Ruud and the GNG. While this is currently a light rail station, it has mostly served as a railroad (i.e. heavy rail) station. In NL, these will be notable, unless only a stop. gidonb ( talk ) 05:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC) GNG , please? JMWt ( talk ) 12:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Trouw is a reliable, independent source. I added an article in Zoetermeer Nieuws, a local paper. The other references are information sources. A challenge is to filter the large number of hits. The Google search ""Voorweg"" AND ""Randstadrail"" gives almost 5k hits, most of which are not very useful to show notability. The reason why I put up a fight for this one is that the article RandstadRail is considered of mid-importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains and the almost 100 related articles, mostly about its stations, are part of it. one and you might as well 100. A lot of hard work has been put in these very informative articles. I´ll do my best to them. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 01:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In my opinion neither of those are in enough depth to meet the GNG. JMWt ( talk ) 09:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, your opinion is clear and respectable. However, the relevant notability guideline is this one . The question is if enough attributable information exists to write a full and comprehensive article about the station. i believe so. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 15:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC) GNG in particular WP:SIGCOV . The expectation generally is of WP:3REFS , which you clearly have not yet offered in this discussion. JMWt ( talk ) 16:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The topic clearly meets the standard for inclusion you mention. I added another reference, this one from Omroep West . The guideline about stations is very useful. As @ Gidonb pointed out, Voorweg is a historic railway station and thus presumably notable. Lightrail stations, as Voorweg is at present, may merit a standalone article if enough attributable information exists. Even interesting quirk or odd bit of trivia may help to establish notability, according to the guideline. Deletion of an article about a station is not an option. I rest my case. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 04:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The sourcing in the article is just there to get this across the line. SportingFlyer T · C 15:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Costa Mesa Police Department: GameOfAwesome ( talk ) 23:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Subject fails GNG and NCORP. All the source material I could find was ROUTINE (police activity in the news, complaints against the police), as this article relies on the subject's website. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is a major police department. It is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulinSaudi ( talk • contribs ) 14:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC) ORGCRIT : A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. In addition to those, we can also add this trivial mention . Putting aside for the moment all of the primary sources cited, we can also add to the above a few other references already present in the article, such as this (trivial) and this one that does go into some detail about statistics. Stony Brook babble 08:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. I added text to the article (under History section) about the racial profiling incident. @ StonyBrook - thank you for the sources for that. Let's the article up. - Hannahthom7 ( talk ) 17:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Reasonably large police department and no rationale given for deletion in any case. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Dime Store Magic: No non-independent sources, with the exception of a WP:SPS review. Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 20:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 20:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . For novels like this, it's simplest to check on ISFDB. This one has been reviewed in Vector #235 and Strange Horizons (11 Oct 2004) . It was also briefly reviewed on Tor.com and analyzed in The Canadian Fantastic in Focus: New Perspectives . pburka ( talk ) 14:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Sources The sources found in pburka ( talk · contribs )'s excellent research. Chin, Kristin L. (2004-05-21). ""Book reviews for May 20: SF/Fantasy: ""The Child Goddess,"" Louis Marley; ""Monument,"" Ian Graham; ""'Dime Store Magic,"" Kelley Armstrong; ""The Lion of Senet,"" ""Eye of the Labyrinth,"" Jennifer Fallon"" . Davis Enterprise . Archived from the original on 2023-05-28 . Retrieved 2023-05-28 . The review notes: ""Armstrong's novel suffers from an all-too-common problem: lack of focus. The author couldn't decide on a drama or a comedy. Some lines are genuinely laugh-out-loud funny, and they're intercut with moments of sickening horror. Both work in and of themselves, but they clash in the same single narrative: two distinctly different styles, as opposed to random sentences that happen to sound a bit different from the novel's main tone. ... Had all the characters been well conceived, or had the tone leaned more toward being exclusively comic or tragic, ""Dime Store Magic"" would have squeaked by with a good rating. As it is, the novel is marginally below average, and therefore mostly for fans of witchcraft tales."" Folsom, Robert (2004-05-16). ""High-flying terror in the unfriendly skies"" . The Kansas City Star . Archived from the original on 2023-05-28 . Retrieved 2023-05-28 . The review notes: ""A writer who is doing better is Kelley Armstrong. Dime Store Magic (414 pages; Bantam Spectra; $6.99 paperback) furthers Armstrong's Women of the Otherworld series. Following Bitten and Stolen, Dime Store Magic reintroduces Paige Winterbourne to readers. Paige is now eligible to succeed her mother as the leader of the American Coven of Witches, but not if her enemies can get her out of the way. Armstrong has improved at incorporating themes of magic with elements of supernatural sensuality."" Lypchuk, Donna (February 2004). ""Dime Store Magic"" . Quill & Quire . Vol. 70, no. 2. pp. 33–34. EBSCO host 69194850 . Archived from the original on 2023-05-28 . Retrieved 2023-05-28 . The review notes: ""Despite these well-worn themes and sometimes trite characters, Armstrong manages to forge an intimate relationship between the reader and Paige, who comes across as a likeable, contemporary gal. It might be most correct to describe Dime Store Magic as chick lit masquerading as a novel of supernatural fiction."" Dutton, Renee (2004-06-20). ""Fantasy has many forms and facets"" . Times Colonist . Archived from the original on 2023-05-28 . Retrieved 2023-05-28 – via Newspapers.com . The review notes: "" Dime Store Magic portrays witches with endearingly human traits. It's refreshing to come across a writer in this genre whose characters struggle with real life problems as well as magical ones, concerned with such mundanities as laundry and homework. Fans of Armstrong's previous novels, Bitten and Stolen , will likely enjoy Dime Store Magic . Although the third novel in the Women of the Otherworld series, Dime Store Magic can stand on its own. Those unfamiliar with the series would be well advised to Dime Store Magic in mind. It is a light, entertaining read."" Freeman, Dawna (2004-02-22). ""Witches, demons brew up some fun"" . Edmonton Journal . Archived from the original on 2023-05-28 . Retrieved 2023-05-28 – via Newspapers.com . The review notes: ""Armstrong's novel moves at neck-breaking speed to a spellbinding conclusion as witches, sorcerers and a spiteful half-demon take this custody case into their own hands. Readers who enjoy the genre will find this a light thriller with little character development, a decent smattering of supernatural lore and plenty of dime store magic."" Davidson, Don (2006-03-10). ""Mystery and adventure books with a supernatural twist"" . Whitehorse Daily Star . Archived from the original on 2023-05-28 . Retrieved 2023-05-28 – via Newspapers.com . The review notes: ""There are fights, car chases, romance and lots of tension of all kinds. The book was a bit of fun, for all that it did remind me a lot of an episode of Charmed ."" Sasvari, Joanne (2004-03-27). ""Art from the dark part of the heart"" . Calgary Herald . Archived from the original on 2023-05-28 . Retrieved 2023-05-28 – via Newspapers.com . The review notes: ""Kelley Armstrong must have decided one day to throw every genre she could imagine — mystery, horror, supernatural thriller, romance and chick-lit — into her writerly cauldron. What she conjured up is the hilariously hip Women of the Underworld series."" ""Dime Store Magic"" . Publishers Weekly . Vol. 255, no. 34. 2008-08-25. p. 68. EBSCO host 35371572 . Archived from the original on 2023-05-28 . Retrieved 2023-05-28 . The audiobook review notes: ""Luckily, Laural Merlington is well versed in Armstrong’s style of writing and breathes freshness into this story. Her reading is entertaining and uncomplicated, making this otherworldly tale believable."" ""Dime Store Magic"" . Publishers Weekly . Vol. 251, no. 13. 2004-03-29. p. 44. EBSCO host 12682604 . Archived from the original on 2023-05-28 . Retrieved 2023-05-28 . The review notes: ""As in Armstrong's debut novel Bitten , this story's special strength lies in its seamless incorporation of the supernatural into the real world. A convincing small-town setting, clever contemporary dialogue, compelling characterizations and a touch of cool humor make the tale's occasional vivid violence palatable and its fantasy elements both gripping and believable."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dime Store Magic to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 10:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . As per Cunard's sources found. Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 17:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Mayang Sari Beach Resort: Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep ( talk ) 08:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Indonesia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , no independent source provided. Neocorelight ( Talk ) 03:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC) HEY . I have no opinion now. Neocorelight ( Talk ) 22:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment For some reason, the nominator considers that all the hotels and resorts in Bintan Regency fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Aymatth2 ( talk ) 13:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] v t e Hotels and resorts in Bintan Nikoi Island Banyan Tree Bintan Club Med Ria Bintan Angsana Resort & Spa Loola Adventure Resort Mayang Sari Beach Resort Comfort Hotel & Resort Tanjung Pinang Hotel Sadaap Hotel Laguna Hotels portal . I pumped the article up a bit. There are plenty of sources, including various books, unfortunately mostly just in snippet view. Aymatth2 ( talk ) 14:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC) 05, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Yorkshire Men's League: Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 ( talk ) 19:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England . Owen× ☎ 00:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is one of the stronger, more notable regional leagues, and a couple of its clubs have recently made (ambitious) applications to join the professional ranks ( [6] , [7] ). TNT is meant as a last resort and I don't think it should apply here. J Mo 101 ( talk ) 22:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system plus found a few sources not yet added - . Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"CHCO-TV: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 14:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 14:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Article does need improvement, certainly, but it is a CRTC -licensed television station that fulfills WP:BCAST criteria, and improved sourcing does exist to repair it with. Bearcat ( talk ) 19:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per Bearcat . B3251 ( talk ) 01:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC) //www.proquest.com/docview/2428323466/C1410E9C3340ECPQ/12 , https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/chco-tv-feeling-the-impacts-of-meta-ban-on-canadian-news-content-1.6533894 , https://www.country94.ca/2023/04/19/telethon-raises-55k-for-iconic-grand-manan-lighthouse/ to support for inclusion. - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Jordan Graham (footballer, born 1997): There is another Jordan Graham (ex Wolves/Birmingham) just to confuse matters while searching. Dougal18 ( talk ) 14:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and England . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC) ROUTINE coverage. I feel he has played enough and done enough for an article. There is enough to build a picture for me. Govvy ( talk ) 15:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 21:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC) , Per Govvy. I found [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] , and [32] , among many more sources. Player with fully pro experience and ongoing career. Article needs improvement, not deletiom. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 21:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] First 4 are OK, last one is from his club so not SIGCOV. Giant Snowman 21:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source one is his manager being quoted about JG's cartilage injury and contains no independent coverage of Graham. Source 2 has 3 sentences of independent coverage and quotes taken from mansfieldtown.net. Source 3 has one sentence of independent coverage and source 4 has the same info on him as source 3. Stop making N:FOOTBALL arguments as well as ""on going career"" ones as people require to be notable now not at some time in the future. Dougal18 ( talk ) 12:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"A Choice of Magic: A quick search through Google and Google Scholar have not offered reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 02:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Meets WP:NBOOK . Though they aren't as long as I hoped, it has been reviewed in The Best in Children's Books: The University of Chicago Guide to Children's Literature, 1966-1972 , The Courier-Journal and The Spectator (by Isabel Quigly ). There's also a few more fairly short reviews on newspapers.com, and a few reviews hidden behind snippet views on Google Books. ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 14:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The three reviews presented by ARandomName123 are sufficient to demonstrate NBOOK/GNG. — siro χ o 03:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Liberales Institut: It hasn't had sources since at least 2012 if ever. JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism , Organizations , Politics , and Switzerland . JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC) ITSUNREFERENCED claim by the nom, since that's one of the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions . This is a difficult subject to research because this report indicates that there are two organizations with the same name and similar views, which makes finding sources more challenging than usual. Also, it's Swiss, so you really need to search under four different names (German, French, Italian, and English). This is time-consuming, so it's not surprising that people might do a cursory search, find nothing, and give up. I think it might make more sense to treat this subject like a scholarly publisher than like a business or a social club. I would particularly consider WP:NMEDIA 's ""frequently cited by other reliable sources"" as a possibility. As for sources, this Swiss-German article looks potentially useful, and I notice that the article at the French Wikipedia cites five sources (none of which are the org's website). WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 04:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC) 21, 10 June 2024 (UTC) 29, 12 June 2024 (UTC) 13, 12 June 2024 (UTC) I looked at the sources in the French article [28] is an interview with a minimal description of the institute, this is about a prize given out/details on the winner [29] . The German ones I'm unable to translate as they block access while at work, might have to review at home later... Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC) 14, 13 June 2024 (UTC) 19, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Probably enough for a basic article about this institute, in addition to the sources I explained above, [30] describes their work, but it's a few lines only. This book talks about them [31] Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC) 56, 15 June 2024 (UTC) 00, 15 June 2024 (UTC) 42, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 19, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 17, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 26, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 52, 20 June 2024 (UTC) JoelleJay , one more thing, in dismissing the one current German-language source with the ""disgruntled ex-member"" (I would dispute this characterization by the way) as not independent, in my my opinion we are committing a textbook version of the mistake of ""Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea. For example, a scholar might write about literacy in developing countries, and they may personally strongly favor teaching all children how to read, regardless of gender or socioeconomic status. Yet if the author gains no personal benefit from the education of these children, then the publication is an independent source on the topic.'"" from Wikipedia:Independent_sources. Liberales Institut is not a company and Kohler is not gaining in any way from publishing criticism, in and of itself, outside of, maybe a sense of being right. I recall reading the essay and it never seemed like Kohler wanted to hurt LI's financial interests or existence, it seems more like he became ideologically disenchanted and explained why, which is fair game and notable coverage if one of Switzerland's main magazines picks it up. "" Wickster12345 ( talk ) 06:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Kohler is not independent of the institute, therefore what he says about it does not contribute to notability. It doesn't matter what type of relationship he had with it or how neutral his coverage of it is; the attention he gives to LI does not demonstrate that it is a subject of significant interest to people with zero affiliation with the subject. JoelleJay ( talk ) 21:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Yes the type of relationship the author of a source has with the subject matters very much because the question is about Kohler's ""personal gain"" by discussing the subject, which you have not, with sufficient evidence explained how has any personal skin in the game. He has no personal vested interest just by virtue of being an ex-members. If he were Head of a rival institute then, I think you may have a point. Wickster12345 ( talk ) 02:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, ""personal gain"" is not the only reason we require sources to be completely independent of the topics they cover in order to count towards notability. ""Independent of the subject"" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic worth writing and publishing non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they are not a measure of the attention a subject has received. Kohler is clearly affiliated, his article is therefore clearly not evidence of attention that is uninfluenced by anyone with a connection to LI. Independence is also not determined by whether some editor thinks a source would profit from covering a topic, it is established by the actual relationship an author has with the subject. JoelleJay ( talk ) 03:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m happy to go into why I feel the policy you reproduced in fact strengthens the argument for inclusion, but I feel it is moot with the addition of the NZZ article, please see my statement below by this is in fact an independent source. Wickster12345 ( talk ) 04:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If that's one, what are the others (again independent and unrelated) that provide in-depth coverage? It's not just one, it's multiple required. JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 04:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are three independent in-depth secondary sources as of now (four arguably if one includes the article by Kohler). Wickster12345 ( talk ) 04:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've been thinking about this. you mentioned: ""Independent of the subject"" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. "" The fact is Kohler, as one of the unsigned posters I believe hinted at (although I may have misunderstood their overall point), was no longer affiliated with LI at the time of writing his article. There is no temporal definition of ""affiliation"" with a subject per WP so we should not assume to impose a supposed 'common-sense' temporal understanding (you're de facto saying Kohler is forever affiliated just because he once was a leading member of LI) of affiliation in this case. I believe in lieu of a WP definition of how much time needs to have been elapsed for Kohler not be considered affiliated with LI we should probably assume him unaffiliated making the source count because it was published otherwise independently. That's like saying Obama commenting on a little-known policy of Trump's in an independent policy journal cannot count towards that policy having received independent, significant coverage, because Obama had the same job as Trump and was in some of the same circles. Wickster12345 ( talk ) 05:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC) 23, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Checkuser blocked. Queen of Hearts talk 23:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC) CORPDEPTH for depth or WP:GNG for significance. To get there, editors appear to rely on publications by parties that are not unrelated. A glance at the current number of sources does not make the problem quite apparent. Cheers. JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 01:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 10, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 17, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 28, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 29, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 38, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 51, 25 June 2024 (UTC) 55, 26 June 2024 (UTC) ) . One cannot send attachments via email link I believe? Correct me if I'm wrong. The article is on the NZZ archives which you can alternately subscribe to. Wickster12345 ( talk ) 02:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC) 31, 22 June 2024 (UTC) )...Based on other discussions I've seen on here interviews with people affiliated with a subject doesn't disqualify the source for showing notability if the interviews are published in independent sources and are not promotional. Re the Kohler source: I dont see anywhere on Wikipedia anybody defining how long ago an affiliation has to be for a source to gain independt status so by default im gonna say lack of formal affiliation at time of publication is enough. Peace folkss 2601:640:8A02:3C40:D996:AFF9:6B1F:E0FA ( talk ) 04:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC) I do not agree that studying deletion discussions as precedent is the best way to learn, by the way, as the dynamic of every deletion discussion is different. Wickster12345 ( talk ) 05:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC) It was founded in Zurich in 1979 and has a strong ""liberal"" bent (btw, in Switzerland ""liberal"" is equivalent to ""right-wing"" or ""conservative"" in other countries). Searching for NZZ articles in PressReader , I've found an article covering a ""study"" they produced that criticizes Swiss agricultural import policy and this article titled ""Kein Wettbewerb beim Geld"" that I can't find elsewhere online about an event they held in 2010. There are also reviews of several books they have published, e.g. [33] [34] [35] [36] , the last of which briefly comments on the institute itself. The NZZ is a liberal newspaper, but is highly reputable, so I don't think that bias should be considered disqualifying here. There are also brief mentions in SRF that two notable people are members [37] [38] , and PressReader shows three hits in Le Temps which I cannot view without a subscription. Toadspike [Talk] 17:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC) 33, 26 June 2024 (UTC) 51, 27 June 2024 (UTC) passes WP:GNG with multiple sources and multiple interwikis. Rkieferbaum ( talk ) 13:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Rugg v Ryan: Case has not even gone to trial yet and if no new precedent is set in the outcome of this case, then the court case certainly will not be notable in the slightest. The existence of this court action is best covered on the individual Wikipedia pages of those involved (which it already is). Information on the page is also outdated. The interlocutory application has already been determined and if the article was updated to reflect the outcome of that application, the article would only be a few sentences long. This page should be d until the trial is completed and if the outcome of the trial has significance, (for eg. if it sets new precedents on what is reasonable hours of work, or has an impact on the allocation of political staffers) then it should be recreated. At the moment this article includes: Outdated information Accusations that have already been dealt with A biased summary of the case (contains no negative claims against Rugg, but the author of the article was happy to include the claim that Ryan defrauded the Commonwealth, despite that claim (from her political opponents) being disproven. ) Just because a court case has received a lot of media coverage, does not mean it warrants it's own article. Simba1409 ( talk ) 02:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC) A simple google search of 'Rugg v Ryan' show an overwhelming number of sources that establish the articles notability. Controversial information is in quotes and is attributed to the party that said it + has ben given WP:DUEWEIGHT in accordance to media attention of the matter. And to this point– Just because a court case has received a lot of media coverage, does not mean it warrants its own article. –in most cases it does. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 02:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment there is a difference between something that receives a lot of media coverage over a short period of time, and something with ongoing coverage in the media . It seems this case made a big impact in March 2023, then almost nothing in April. Although some of the bias arguments are a bit confusing, Simba1409 makes a good point about impact - it could end up settling, or being decided on un-groundbreaking terms. Speedy doesn't seem to apply at all. I'm almost at or even draftify but will see if other editors have input first. Oblivy ( talk ) 03:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC) For the reasons you provided I struck out speedy . Media coverage started in January and ended in March. From what I gather, the reason for the lack of coverage in April is because there hasn't been any new development as the case is sub judice . As it is now, I believe the article meets wiki guidelines, but it is almost guaranteed to receive further large coverage in future as it will go to trial in June/July (which will receive large media attention), is not currently undergoing mediation, and has a big potential to set a legal precedent (which will mean papers, citations, etc.) ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 03:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree this could escalate, but it seems to be too soon for an article. That's why I mentioned draftify, basically wait-and-see without dumping the article. Oblivy ( talk ) 04:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also agree that it could escalate. If the case is ruled in Rugg's favour, this will certainly set a new precedent in terms of work hours (and perhaps political staffer allocation) and warrant a quite extensive article. Until there is a judgement though, this article should not exist. I wouldn't oppose draftify but it should be noted, in its current form, the article is not up to date and it would certainly be very out of date at the end of the trial. Simba1409 ( talk ) 04:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And tonight Rugg has drastically changed her overall claim, directly naming the Prime Minister. In the interest of Wikipedia presenting factual information to the public, it is best that an article on this case wait until there is a judgement. Otherwise, it will have to be rewritten and changed 100s of times. At this point, with the Prime Minister being named a settlement also seems more than likely as the Govt was previously the only barrier to doing so and if that were to occur, this case would likely have zero notability. Simba1409 ( talk ) 09:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify per my comment above this is a moving target right now, unclear if it will prove to be notable. Per GMH Melbourne the trial is likely to start (if it doesn't settle) in a matter of months, which will likely generate the kind of sustained coverage which supports WP:GNG Oblivy ( talk ) 10:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This argument makes wikipedia less useful to readers. It suggests that the article stays as a draft all the case is in the news, when readers might want to look it up. Newystats ( talk ) 23:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC) The topic received further media coverage today ( [30] [31] ), displaying continued coverage . ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 08:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 08:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC) Yes, because Rugg has changed her claim again. This further supports the reasoning that this article should be d or put as a draft until AFTER the trial, for the reasons I already stated above last night. Simba1409 ( talk ) 09:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Plenty of coverage - and the case raises questions about reasonable workload in parliament, with potential for longevity of interest. Newystats ( talk ) 01:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This court case is definitely notable, so I have rewritten and expanded the article's content with a variety of sources. I am also willing to commit to updating the article during the court case. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 10:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Even with your additions, the article is still out of date. Outside of potential precedents that this case may or may not set and noting that media coverage doesn't on its own make it notable, why do you believe this article meets notability criteria JML1148 ? I'd like to understand your argument. Thanks. Simba1409 ( talk ) 11:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why are you excluding the possible precedents? Newystats ( talk ) 23:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not Newystats . My arguments above against this article are because it isn't notable as no precedents have been set. You can't argue notability in terms of precedents before they actually occur. The case can very easily settle (particularly now that the PM is named in Rugg's altered claim) or have a ruling that changes nothing. Simba1409 ( talk ) 23:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC) GNG . I would encourage you to answer the questions that Oblivy has asked you on your talk page . From your edit war at Monique Ryan , to your actions on your talk page, to your comments here, it would be in your best interest to answer the questions honestly. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While I'm here, I want to make it clear that I am also okay with a Draftify result, until the article is over. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC) JML1148 and basically agree with everything that's being said here - nobody can seriously disagree this has the requisite independent coverage, but for other reasons it could be a close call. I'd ask everyone to consider two things: what will this article look like if the case settles (or is otherwise discontinued before trial) on less-than precedent-setting terms? would it be acceptable to have this information maintained on Monique Ryan and then added back into the article later? Oblivy ( talk ) 07:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In my opinion, the article's contents could be condensed and d into Monique Ryan and Sally Rugg , with more emphasis on each of their perspectives in their respective articles in the case that the case is settled. I'm not exactly decided on the latter question, so I'll leave that to other editors. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was never engaged in an edit war JML1148 . I've also stated that I am happy for this article to exist should the case set precedents, which should clear up any conflict of interest concerns that GMH MELBOURNE 's projection may have caused. I missed the question on my talk page but I have now responded, thankyou. Media coverage doesn't in all cases = notability, so I'd appreciate JML1148 if you could explain in your view how this legal case is notable outside of media coverage and precedents that are yet to be and may not be set? My view as stated - if the case is settled or judgement is given that doesn't set a precedent or impact staffer allocations, then the case doesn't have any significance and therefore shouldn't exist. Simba1409 ( talk ) 12:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for your direct response on your talk page regarding conflict of interest. These",keep
+"King & Maxwell: Agusmagni ( talk | contributions ) 22:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , and United States of America . Agusmagni Agusmagni Agusmagni 22:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 28 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 01:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , this is the fourth time in a row the nominator has sent clearly notable TV series with plenty of significant coverage to AfD. Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 06:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , completely frivolous nomination. The fact that the nominator tried to prod it twice shows unfamiliarity with how things are done here, so grab the opportunity to learn more! Geschichte ( talk ) 18:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I have no opinion on this TV series and trust the regular commentators to evaluate it more knowledgeably than I would. But I wanted to note that, when I reverted the second prod on procedural grounds, my edit summary explicitly told the nominator that, if they were to take it to an AfD, they should provide ""a proper justification of what you tried to do to determine its notability"" rather than a WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE rationale. They have obviously not done what I suggested. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC) 15, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You're missing the point. You need to provide a rationale that explains why you think this article might not meet the specific Wikipedia notability guidelines that would be relevant for it. We're not here to count how many people are for and how many are against, which is the only information I get from your comment. We're here to build an understanding of how this topic does or does not fit into the Wikipedia notability guidelines. Comments that do not do that are likely to be discounted when the discussion is closed. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy as no valid deletion rationale has been advanced. We don't base the judgment call about whether to an article about a TV show on whether that show sounds forgettable, but instead, on whether reliable sources exist for it. Here, they do. XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to TNT (American TV network) because most of TNT's shows are not notable. Agusmagni ( talk ) 00:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You can't just assert that. Again, you need to provide a rationale for why it might be true, a rationale grounded in what the word notable means on Wikipedia . XOR'easter ( talk ) 01:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The show has non-notable people behind it and only has news released before the show. Agusmagni ( talk ) 19:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability is never inherited , so you are still not providing a valid rationale. Honestly, someone should just close all of the AfDs as speedy . Rusty4321 talk contribs 20:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC) 09, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] article for notable show. The nominator has posted "" Let's start an edit war "" on this page (and then replaced it with nonsense). They are clearly WP:NOTHERE . Toughpigs ( talk ) 23:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy per above. The user is basically just here to start edit wars and tag articles for deletion. kpgamingz ( rant me ) 23:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC) 31, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Nomination lacks proper justification and seems based on personal opinion. Waqar 💬 20:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Isobell Shyrie: Not seeing GNG met, nor NBIO. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Magic , and Scotland . Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment there appears to be some variation in spelling for her name. Found some sources for Isobel (single L) Shyrie - [4] [5] [6] . Also some for ""Issobell Syrie"" (gaelic?) [7] . Makes for a weak-ish case for WP:GNG. Maybe better to / to Great Scottish Witch Hunt of 1661–62 . - KH-1 ( talk ) 02:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC) have added refs which show her as one of Guthrie's alleged colleagues. Pam D 08:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC) VICTIM and given the amount of scholarly work going on at present about Scottish witchcraft, it would be premature to . MsJoat ( talk ) 19:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC) 54, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Pavlo Borysenko: Joeykai ( talk ) 14:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC) appears to have significant third-party coverage: Interview with Ukrainian sports outlet iSport Interview with Latvian news website Interview on the official website of the Ukrainian Hockey Super League Coverage on Ukrainian sports website XSport: interview , news story , there are many others Interview on Ukrainian hockey fansite Coverage on Ukrainian news website LBua As Borysenko is now a naturalised Romanian citizen, I suspect there will also be significant coverage on the Romanian internet, but I haven't checked, as I don't speak Romanian. At the very least, it would be unacceptable to this article without asking for the input of a Romanian speaker. All the best, Akakievich ( talk ) 10:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ; based on the sources listed above I feel comfortable affirming that GNG has been met. I cannot say with any certainty how reliable those sources are though and I welcome discussion on that. 18abruce ( talk ) 21:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Lutz Heinemann: There are one or two interviews, but these also do not count towards notability. The WP:GNG is not met, and I do not think any criteria from WP:NPROF apply here. Toadspike [Talk] 18:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC) PROF has been met. Uhooep ( talk ) 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Medicine , and Germany . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC) per Uhooep, although I could be convinced either way. Queen of Hearts ( talk ) 03:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . Looking at the most cited papers on GS, they are also highly coauthored. Middle author (in a field where that matters) on a highly coauthored paper does not convince me of so much. However, I am seeing enough highly cited papers as first or last author that I think this is a pass of NPROF. Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 10:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Week , for the same reasons as Russ. Like experimental physics, clinical medicine is extremely highly-cited and flooded with consortium findings and recommendations with hundreds of coauthors, which really should not count at all towards any author's citation record. Even so, within Heinemann's top 10 articles on Scopus I count 5 research pieces that have fewer than 15 coauthors (including two as first-author), totaling over 2200 citations. My ! vote is ""weak"" only because it is hard to tell whether that is typical among diabetes clinical researchers and I'm not particularly inclined to write a script analyzing the low-author-number scholarly output of his 1000+ coauthors. JoelleJay ( talk ) 16:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Leopold Z. Goldstein: UtherSRG (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New Jersey and Pennsylvania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Appears to be a notable academic from the pre-Internet era. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 17:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Has about 10 papers in Pubmed, using the sourcing given in the article. Would appear notable, but wow it needs a TNT or at least a rewrite. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak per Oaktree b and Eastmain. I think there might just be enough for WP:PROF here. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 07:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Midlands Rugby League Premier Division: Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 ( talk ) 19:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 20:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England . Owen× ☎ 00:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC) As it is known where this league falls into the wider structure via refs on the RLC page, I would lean towards ing the article if a few more references could be found. Will work on incorporating those refs onto this page. Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system plus found a few sources not yet added - and rename Midlands Rugby League . Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Supermium: Is this really notable enough for its own article? Seems like it could just have a short mention in the Chromium page. Bringing up the phrase ""Supermium"" on Google news just reports two articles related to the program, and two related to a Spotify subscription tier. There are several videos made on it however on YouTube (though, mostly by small creators). HolyNetworkAdapter ( talk ) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . HolyNetworkAdapter ( talk ) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, it also seems like the article was originally created by a sockpuppet, if that contributes anything. HolyNetworkAdapter ( talk ) 01:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Supporting old versions of Windows is a large enough niche, and the article already has 2 external refs because of it. (Plus there are plenty of other browser articles for even smaller, less-relevant niches.) - Pmffl ( talk ) 17:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC) //www.youtube.com/watch? v=wsSMmdwh89Y plus backporting is not easy esspcialy to windows xp and it has restored support for a lot of things -Aero Glass and Aero Glass-style titlebars instead of Windows 10-style ones (#force-xp-theme in chrome://flags for the latter) -Turnaround for major vulnerability patches generally less than one week from upstream disclosure -A functional sandbox for enhanced security -Google Sync -On Windows 7 and up, Widevine CDM support for viewing DRM content -GDI font rendering, using #force-gdi in chrome://flags -Persistent dark mode on the browser's UI elements, using #force-dark-mode in chrome://flags -Custom tab options including trapezoidal tabs, transparent tabs, and outlined tabs -Many flags from ungoogled-chromium -Support for SSE2-only processors in the 32 bit build 74.92.169.153 ( talk ) 17:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Being a fork or knock-off does not disqualify. -- 2601:444:7F:53A0:A1BD:97C3:2A74:18FC ( talk ) 00:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please provide policy-based opinions on what should happen to this article, this is not an article talk page to discuss the article or list features. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WE should this because this is probably the best browser for Xp/Vista and 7 that will ever come to exist. Archiving is importan t. 71.11.225.163 ( talk ) 13:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist and hoping for some thoughtful participation by editors new to the discussion with opinions based in policy. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Appears to have 1 actual non-self-published third-party source, which is [26] . Needs a second one for notability but it's dubious if a second exists. That said, not sure where it would go in the Chromium article. Probably best to unless at least one more reliable source can be found, and then even, maybe. Mrfoogles ( talk ) 07:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC) This subject lacks ANY reliable sourcing directly detailing the subject. Page was created by a blocked sockpuppet. ! votes by ip editors in this process are completely ignoring the lack of reliable sources, and are likely connected to the sockmaster. Based on a reasonable BEFORE, one can see this is a fringe product with a microscopic userbase. BusterD ( talk ) 12:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC) I have struck through my previous . I still don't think the sources are super, but I'll concede the source analysis below is more compelling than my less detailed assertions. BusterD ( talk ) 08:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC) I gaze into my orb and I ponder this article -- I see reliable third-party independent coverage in the Register article. This was indeed created by a blocked sock, but it wasn't a UPE; the sockmaster seems to have been blocked for acting childish, not for anything related to COI or spam et cetera. jp × g 🗯️ 07:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Proven, Liam (2024-03-06). ""Supermium drags Google Chrome back in time to Windows XP, Vista, and 7"" . The Register . Archived from the original on 2024-05-28 . Retrieved 2024-05-28 . The review notes: ""Supermium is a browser based on the Google Chrome 121 codebase that works fine on Windows 7 and even, for the truly desperate, for Vista and XP. The third-party adaptation of Chrome works on versions of Windows that the official product no longer supports. It installs and runs on Windows 7, which stopped getting updates for Edge and Chrome at the start of 2023. It's even able to log into a Google account, as well as synchronize settings and addons."" Václavík, Lukáš (2024-03-09). ""Supermium je moderní prohlížeč pro Windows XP a jiné vykopávky. Stačí mu i 20 let starý hardware"" [Supermium is a modern browser for Windows XP and other digs. Even 20-year-old hardware is enough for him]. Živě. cz [ pl ] (in Czech). Czech News Center . Archived from the original on 2024-05-28 . Retrieved 2024-05-28 . The article notes: ""Supermium, as the name suggests, comes from the open source Chromium project, which is based on Chrome, Edge, Opera, Vivaldi and other browsers. But all of them require Windows 10 and later. However, in his Chromia offshoot, Fournier rewrote the code so that Windows XP SP3 or Windows Server 2003 SP2 and later are sufficient to run. ... Because it's in the Chromium core, it supports modern extensions, and even current websites will work on old systems. In Windows 7 and later, the Widevine plugin is also functional, so Netflix and other video libraries that rely on this type of anti-piracy protection will run in the browser."" Zamfir, Roberto (2024-02-08). ""Supermium"" . Softpedia . Archived from the original on 2024-05-28 . Retrieved 2024-05-28 . The review notes: ""Given how powerful nostalgia can be for those who grow tired of the rather sterile and minimalist design of nowadays’ operating systems, a brief return to the past can be made easier with Supermium whenever internet browsing is part of the equation."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Supermium to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 08:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (1) is the only reliable source of those three. It isn't clear to me who Václavík is and the Zamfir article is self-published. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 22:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Roberto Zamfir is listed as a Softpedia editor. The article is not self-published. Lukáš Václavík is a reviewer for the Czech News Center magazine Živě. cz [ pl ] . I consider both articles to be independent reliable sources. Cunard ( talk ) 06:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Czech News Center is one of the largest media houses in the Czech Republic. Unless there's evidence to the contrary, I'd presume that they're reliable. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 21:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Two of the votes center around arguments that aren't related to sourcing. Since this AfD is about sourcing, they're irrelevant. The other two refer to an article from The Register, but notability requires multiple sources, not just one. Given this, I'm inclined to vote to . HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 22:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] notability requires multiple sources -- no it doesn't. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline even says so explicitly. jp × g 🗯️ 04:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per new sources found. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 21:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Robin (TV series): Tagged for notability since January 2023 Citations on other language pages do not appear to support notability either. Donald D23 talk to me 13:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Comics and animation , Sweden , Canada , and United States of America . Donald D23 talk to me 13:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Television series for national television. AlexandraAVX had already added a good secondary source. I've added a couple of other Swedish articles, and I think this lives up to our requirements. / Julle ( talk ) 02:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Julle's reasoning. The Dagens Nyheter source looks solid: a national newspaper with an article called "" Robin hopes to become hip in the whole world"". The Expressen article is called ""Prized friends got drunk. But now Magnus figures are child-friendly"" — this is referring to Carlsson's next series for children, comparing it to the adult-oriented Robin . This series got national attention. Toughpigs ( talk ) 02:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , there's now three sources in Swedish national newspapers that discuss the subject, it definitely seems to meet GNG to me at this point. AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 17:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - per improvements made since nom. BabbaQ ( talk ) 19:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Jack Meltzer: Boleyn ( talk ) 11:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Social science , Illinois , Michigan , Texas , and Washington, D.C. . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Does seem to have been a notable academic and planner. Full length obituary in the Chicago Tribune : [9] . The University of Texas at Dallas issues their own obituary: [10] . (It's not independent, but WP:NACADEMIC does not require independent sources.) Often mentioned or discussed in scholarship about urban planning in Chicago, e.g. [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] . His book Metropolis to Metroplex received several scholarly reviews: [15] , [16] , [17] . He and his firm are discussed extensively in this doctoral dissertation: [18] . Jfire ( talk ) 17:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. He appears to be a person of significance and finding references from 1950s-1960s is probably not easy given that those were pre-digital media times. BulgarianCat ( talk ) 07:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] -- Subject is clearly notable per sources already in the article in addition to Explicit 's argument. The real problem is that great swaths of the article are copyvio from the cited Hyde Park Journal obit. Central and Adams ( talk ) 17:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Jessica Kingsley Publishers: The sources are VERY weak, and these are not within the standards expected to Wiki. As such, this should be d in accordance with Wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkinspyce ( talk • contribs ) 20:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkinspyce ( talk • contribs ) 20:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 28 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 21:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , England , and Pennsylvania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Gosh thank you for fixing this for me. I could NOT figure out what part of the code was keyed wrong. Pumpkinspyce ( talk ) 00:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the sources are all fine. This meets WP:GNG . At worse this could be d into John Murray Press , but I don't see the need. Headbomb { t · c · p · b } 07:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 29 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 07:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC) NCORP based on existing sources (van Goidsenhoven, Leni, The Bookseller , PW ). While a minor edit pass could help it's not even a bad case of WP:PROMO . — siro χ o 07:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , widely & internationally known publisher of books on topics related to autism with numerous notable authors. -- TempusTacet ( talk ) 11:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions . Randykitty ( talk ) 12:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Probably to Hachette UK, seems to be a sub-unit of that company now. [10] Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm surprised that the nominator has characterised the sources in this way. For example, what is wrong with the van Goidsenhoven source? Phil Bridger ( talk ) 14:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Air Partner: As always, companies are not ""inherently"" entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH on the quality and volume of their sourcing -- but this is referenced almost entirely to the company's own self-published content about itself, on its own website and/or in press releases, and shows virtually no evidence of reliable source coverage at all: the only citation that goes to a real media outlet is tangential verification that a terminal at Gatwick originally opened in 1936, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the notability of this specific airline as it didn't exist until 1961. Note, for the record, that this article was raised as a WP:WAX argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Production Air Charter -- but, of course, the fact that this article is badly sourced doesn't mean that other article has to be kept, it means this article needs to be d . Nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt the company from having to have better sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk ) 12:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom . Bearcat ( talk ) 12:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC) I don't yet have a firm opinion on what to do with this article and I have not yet searched for refs but for now I have 2 observations: This company was listed on the London Stock Exchange . Experience shows that most companies end up with enough coverage to be found notable. Air Partner was acquired by Wheels Up ; it may make sense to this article into the Wheels Up article -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Air Partner could meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia, as it is a publicly-traded company however with poor significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. As was mentioned above, it was listed on the London Stock Exchange, which typically indicates a level of prominence. LusikSnusik ( talk ) 09:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There is some coverage about the company in the British newspapers found on Newspapers.com ( see here ) and probably more so in the British Newspaper Archive . There is also some coverage found online, such as this Forbes article from 2022. As of now, I would be leaning to weak . Alvaldi ( talk ) 10:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Alvaldi, there seems to be enough coverage in old newspaper articles to support notability. However, if not, then into Wheels Up per A. B. at the very least. - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak or into Wheels Up as per ATD. Usually if a company is quoted on one of the main stock exchanges, there will be analyst reports available but in this case I'm unable to locate any analyst reports that provide any significant or in-depth information about the company - which is unusual but not unlikely. There are some older archived newspaper articles but most either comment on earnings or contain insufficient in-depth information or fail ORGIND. There were a couple which were borderline (where the journalist provided some independent opinion) and for that reason plus the assumption that there may be analyst reports out there in print, I'm leaning towards a weak . HighKing ++ 20:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Colette Baron-Reid: This is based almost entirely on primary source content self-published by people or organizations directly affiliated with the claims (her own website about herself, her book sourced to its own publisher, events sourced to the self-published websites of their own organizers, etc.) with very little evidence of reliable source coverage about her in real WP:GNG -worthy media. As always, people are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia just because it's possible to verify that they exist -- the significance of their work has to be externally validated by GNG-worthy third-party coverage about them. And furthermore, the advertorialism here has been flagged since 2012 without being noticeably toned down in the entire decade since then. Nothing stated here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on her sourcing — but this, as written, is such a poorly sourced (self?)-promotional mess that even if legitimate GNG-worthy sourcing can be found to salvage it with, it would still need to be blown up and restarted from scratch regardless. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Radio , and Canada . Bearcat ( talk ) 14:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC) She's notable [7] , [8] , [9] . The Jam showbiz one already present in the article is also a RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC) TNT (blow it up and start over from scratch) treatment would be necessary even if better sourcing could be found. As I noted, the article has been tagged for neutrality and advertorialism issues since 2012 without ever being deadvertorialized at all, and we shouldn't be ing articles in that state for a decade — even for a notable topic, if the existing article is this bad we have to it and restart a new article from scratch, and cannot just leave the advertorialism to rot for another decade because nobody's fixing it. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Bearcat , this happens more often, sources tend to appear only when the article has been AfD'd, that's when they decide to take the tag(s) more serious and work on the article, and to be honest it sucks, however with the presented sources I am leaning towards per Bridget. dxneo ( talk ) 17:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC) 48, 31 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Television , and Spirituality . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] none of the articles found by Oaktree b are in-depth coverage of the subject, they are 2-3 paragraph articles about an appearance of the subject and no in-depth research or coverage. The Guardian article is the only article with any depth but its not an actual Guardian article but rather a book extract and thus does not count towards WP:SIGCOV . -- hroest 21:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] based on the article rewrite and the new sources that include at least two in-depth articles. -- hroest 20:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC) BIO with sources presented by Oaktree B. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP ( talk ) 01:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . I've found some articles from the early 2000s that could be used to rewrite the article (in addition to any already mentioned RSes): ""Singer sees into the future"" . Calgary Herald . 2001-05-12. p. 100. ; ""Hand of fate helped clairvoyant cross the gulf to pop-star newbie"" . Edmonton Journal . 2001-05-16. p. 29. ; ""Spinning chakras make meditation easy"" . The Toronto Star . 1999-02-07. p. 95. ; ""Bringing the future to the present"" . Red Deer Advocate . 2006-09-14. p. 36. Bridget (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Article has been rewritten with better sourcing. Also found these articles from Fortune and Elle but I'm not too sure how they can be used. Bridget (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing my vote based on recent changes to the article. Bridget (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Britt Richardson: Coverage exists, but is routine coverage on the subjects gold medal win at a Junior Worlds. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 02:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 02:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The subject is also a World Championship medalist for seniors, specifically at FIS Alpine World Ski Championships 2023 – Nations team event . The subject has also finished several times among the top 20 in the entire world, namely in World Cup events in 15th, 18th and 19th place. Geschichte ( talk ) 20:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC) 48, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The skier has received significant coverage as Geschichte has explained. -- Kasper2006 ( talk ) 22:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We do have to locate the coverage though. For a contemporary world championship medalist in a somewhat big sport in an English-speaking country, that should be possible. Geschichte ( talk ) 22:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Where is the significant coverage? There is no GNG for this subject. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 03:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I found [22] mentioning the team bronze in 2023, [23] about the recent GS victory, and [24] includes the 3 top-20 World Cup GS finishes this year. LizardJr8 ( talk ) 23:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I upgraded the article. I would also like to point out that the article is present in 5 other Wikipedias around the world. -- Kasper2006 ( talk ) 05:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Very clearly a world-level skier, [25] [26] [27] [28] etc. Geschichte ( talk ) 21:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Jahzir Bruno: Not meeting ACTOR. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Georgia (U.S. state) . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC) NACTOR #1: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films , television shows, stage performances, or other productions . He's had significant roles in The Witches (Hero Boy was the lead character and being the lead in a mainstream feature film is a notable role), The Christmas Chronicles 2 (main cast), The Loud House (main voice cast) and The Really Loud House (starring cast). Pamzeis ( talk ) 04:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC) NACTOR . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 12:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC) NACTOR #1. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Chameleon (character): Industrial Insect (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Comics and animation . Industrial Insect (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd say the top ten lists but the character since he's one of the first and longest recurring villains for Spider-Man and Marvel in general. Jdionio ( talk ) 10:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the article, the lists, agree on that. Sqnqban ( talk )< Sqnqban ( talk ) 16:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC) blocked sock Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 04:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC) . I agree with the fact that Chameleon is the first and longest recurring enemy of Spider-Man. -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 19:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Lazy Before gets lazy vote. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 20:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Being a long-running spider-man villain is not any indication of notability. Without reliable, secondary sources, there is nothing to create an article on. Number of appearances of a character means nothing. Industrial Insect (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We do not need ""extensive detail"", we just need sources indicating a topic's notability. And I do not see why we should dismiss either screenrant or CBR. Dimadick ( talk ) 18:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] based on improvement today to add additional sources to this article. BOZ ( talk ) 18:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC) NOTAVOTE . No significant coverage on Chameleon from reliable sources has been demonstrated yet that will make the article pass notability standards, so I would remind the closer to factor that into their decision. Screen Rant and CBR are indeed contentfarms, that talk about every comic book character ever made, and are no proof of significance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC) //www.cbr.com/search/? q=bananaman https://www.cbr.com/search/? q=roy+of+the+rovers https://www.cbr.com/search/? q=minnie+the+minx https://www.cbr.com/search/? q=mytek+the+mighty https://www.cbr.com/search/? q=beryl+the+peril https://www.cbr.com/search/? q=biffa+bacon https://www.cbr.com/search/? q=janus+stark https://www.cbr.com/search/? q=jane+bond https://www.cbr.com/search/? q=adam+eterno https://www.cbr.com/search/? q=major+eazy Not sure whether I'm more disappointed in CBR or your American-centric definition of ""every comic book character ever made"" =( Might be worth popping the old hyperbole on the backburner for the time being, though. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 07:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I may have been better off saying ""every Marvel/DC comic book character"", but my point still stands. Within that subset, it's not a reliable gauge of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah. I'd argue that focusing on two publishers implies some sort of editorial discretion, but if they just list every single Marvel character I can see why that would be relevant to this particular AfD. https://www.cbr.com/search/? q=Jumbo+Carnation https://www.cbr.com/search/? q=Illongo+savage https://www.cbr.com/search/? q=Jacko+Tanner https://www.cbr.com/search/? q=Misty+collins https://www.cbr.com/search/? q=Spacker+dave https://www.cbr.com/search/? q=Sergeant+Pigheadski https://www.cbr.com/search/? q=Ringtoss https://www.cbr.com/search/? q=Parnell+Jacobs https://www.cbr.com/search/? q=Sister+Perpetua https://www.cbr.com/search/? q=Valtorr https://www.cbr.com/search/? q=Warden+coffin You've raised my hopes and dashed them quite expertly, sir. Bravo! BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 13:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC) C . Unlike a lot of the current submissions, I can definitely see this guy being notable, but as much as I like Chameleon, no sources have been given from neither the nominator nor any of the people participating in this AfD. If a search is performed and actual sources that discuss the Chameleon are found out there (Which, being honest, there's a good chance either way) then ping me and I'll willingly change my vote. As it stands, a is probably for the best, because Chameleon's entry at the list only contains a link to his article right now. If that's gone, no info on Chameleon will be on Wikipedia, which is a huge loss of info. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 21:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] “We do not need extensive detail” Huh ? Industrial Insect (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not insisting we should have a whole page (Not all the info in this article is necessary) but we should at least carry over some information, even at a baseline level, for the character list. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 20:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is technically no loss of information as off-site Wikis already have a more detailed examination of the character. Marvel Database has every version of the character to ever exist . So, I am not worried about potentially losing the article, as plot information can always be used from there in the off chance Chameleon becomes notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NO. JosephWC ( talk ) 21:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] based on the recent edits made on the article. There are still other sources than can be used if this is really necessary. Higher Further Faster ( talk ) 09:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC) C - Being ""the first and and longest recurring enemy of Spider-Man"" is not a valid argument for Keeping if there is not significant coverage in reliable sources on the character. And the sources in the article are not that, being largely things that are not valid reliable sources for establishing notability such as voice actor databases or top ten churnalism lists from sources generally not considered to be WP:RS . I also did not find anything in my own searches that would help - a few very brief mentions of his role in Spider-Man's mythos, but no actual significant coverage. Good enough for a to the character list I'd say, not for ing as an independent article. Rorshacma ( talk ) 03:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Specific analysis of available sources would be very helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've analyzed the sources currently present in the article, and this is the current status on them. The first source, discussing the Top Ten ranked Marvel Shows on IMDb (Which is already a sketchy source at best) mentions Chameleon for one sentence alongside several other characters, such as Rhino and Black Cat . The second, a top thirty list, isn't necessarily a horrible source, but it's just a glorified plot summary, and doesn't actually contain any commentary on the character. The next, a ""Ten Most Iconic Spider-Man Villains"" listicle, barely touches on the character at all. IGN's source, admittedly, is pretty good, containing some good commentary on the Chameleon character. ""The fact that he’s been such a mainstay of Spidey’s rogues gallery ever since is a testament to his enduring appeal. This isn’t a villain who relies on strength or brute force, but rather subterfuge and deception.... He’s a fascinating villain, and often quite scary and unpredictable as he slips into a new role."" But the IGN source is the only source in the article that's half decent, and it's a listicle to boot. I'd say it's worth mentioning should this be d into the characters list, but there is nowhere near enough based off the current sourcing state to justify the article's existence, and from what I can gather, BEFOREs have not turned up much beyond that. I like Chameleon, but there's just not enough. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 23:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC) C#Chameleon , fails WP:GNG : no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Mika1h ( talk ) 17:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV in reliable sources. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC) 42, 28 October 2023 (UTC) 18, 28 October 2023 (UTC) The Evil Side of Comics and Hollywood , [29] 500 Comicbook Villains , [30] and The Encyclopedia of Super Villains . [31] -- RL0919 ( talk ) 10:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm afraid I am unable to access the relevant pages where Chameleon is discussed. What do these sections say on Chameleon? These could definitely be good sources, but I'm afraid I can't make a judgement call on them until I see what's inside of them. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 14:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [32] [33] [34] BOZ ( talk ) 21:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wouldn't presume too much about access – sometimes sites are restricted based on a vistor's location. But I can summarize: They all give broadly similar information about who created him, when he first appeared, and what story arcs he appeared in, with some other varying bits – for example, The Supervillain Book compares him to another Ditko character. They all give similar evaluations of the character: he's generally a minor villain that is notable mostly for being Spider-Man's first super-foe. But for AfD purposes the important thing is that they all thought he was interesting enough to write multiple dedicated paragraphs about him, not just a passing mention, thus providing support for notability. (As an aside for editors who are interested in working on the article, you may want to also check Understanding Superhero Comic Books: A History of Key Elements, Creators, Events and Controversies by Alex Grand, 100 Things Spider-Man Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die by Mark Ginocchio and Tom DeFalco, and Spider-Man Confidential: From Comic Icon to Hollywood Hero by Edward Gross. These all look like they might have useful information about the Chameleon character, but I don't have enough access to them to confirm whether they have enough to support notability.) -- RL0919 ( talk ) 22:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. For whatever reason, I couldn't access those pages via the previous links provided. In any case, glossing over them, 500 Comic Book Villains does have a nice blurb on him in the form of ""...the Chameleon doesn't otherwise number among Stan Lee and Steve Ditko's more memorable creations."" Not sure if I'm missing a bit in The Supervillain Book or not (Given that Chameleon's bit is at the edge of the page and I cannot access the page after it) but all I see there is just a summary of Chameleon's appearances. The Encyclopedia of Super-Villains is also just a glorified summary of the Chameleon character, offering no commentary other than ""The Chameleon is a minor super-villain in the Spider-Man pantheon."" I'm not sure how effective that is as commentary, but I suppose it exists. I'd say that, combined with the IGN article, it may barely meet the threshold for an article, but even then it is incredibly weak. Not too sure on the other book sources RL0919 listed, since I don't believe I have full access to those books either. I'm unopposed to Weak ing the article, should that become the consensus, but it should definitely have a notability tag at the top of the page given that his sourcing is rather weak. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 22:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC) B2412 . I don't care much about comic books or Marvel Universe characters but this is a well put together, referenced article on a character with an established history and there is absolutely no good reason to it with something else. and close. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 17:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is a well-made article, but the references are very lacking in terms of significant coverage. There is little to no information on Chameleon's development, and as stated above, there is very little in the way of actual discussion on the character. I don't know if RL0919's sources will change that, but in the article's present state, there is nothing but plot summary in the article. Plot summary does not justify a separate article. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 19:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] AFD is not the place for cleanup. Improve, rewrite, expand, whatever, but it. Do not it. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 20:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is still well within the realm of AfD to determine if the subject is notable. There's no need for cleanup if nothing justifies the article's existence. If there are no sources discussing Chameleon, then his article has nothing to stand on, rewrites of the current plot summary or not. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 21:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You have a large number of “” votes above. It ‘s frankly ridiculous to nominate a referenced article like this instead of improving upon it. Too darn many deletionists around who or just for the sake of legalism. and close. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 21:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC) 14, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So fix it, rewrite it, whatever. Deleting or merging it isn’t an appropriate remedy. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 23:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] """" ""' Don't be contrarian to be that guy. If you wanna fix up and re-focus, that's fine but dont a long running Marvel character. JosephWC ( talk ) 21:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Hassan Golestaneh: The 2017 ""win"" (although sourcing says runner up) doesn't appear to be the Arnold, which has a stronger pull for anybio. This is not about the state of the article, which can be cleaned up if he is indeed notable. Star Mississippi 20:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Health and fitness , and Iran . Star Mississippi 20:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – I edited this article for a Guild of Copy Editors. At the time, I looked closely at the sources used. I agree the case for notability seems thin but there truly are adequate sources to document notability. These sources are mostly Iranian publications and were, therefore, printed in Persian. There are several feature articles about him, including his competing and being an international judge. BTW, he did indeed place in two categories in the Arnold 2017: Men’s Physique Class F Over 182 cm (11th place) and 2017 Arnold Classic USA Men’s Model Search (6th place). Not significant wins IMO but it really doesn't matter because there are other sources that are feature articles to prove notability. Rublamb ( talk ) 21:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC) BASIC (excluding interviews etc), but I am not positive as I'm both unfamiliar with the sources and reading through Google translate. I am unsure about ANYBIO re nom. — siro χ o 22:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - did a spot check on some of the Iranian references as well, I think probably has enough to indicate notability. - Indefensible ( talk ) 20:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Botanical & Zoological Garden: For many years, the first example given at WP:PTM has been a zoo. Most the entries in the disambiguation page have Zoo(logical) before Botanical rather than after. The disambiguation page was recently created following Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_3#Botanical_&_Zoological_Garden . Plantdrew ( talk ) 02:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . North America 1000 06:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] List of botanical gardens and List of zoos probably cover this, can someone go through the list and check? We could create a convenience List of zoological gardens to cover any searches a bit better. -- Joy ( talk ) 14:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , clarifying that it also includes entities titled in the other order, ""Zoological and Botanical Garden(s)"". Not all of these entities are existing zoos, or botanical gardens - hence Leeds Zoological and Botanical Gardens , which closed in 1858, is not included in List of zoological gardens and aquariums in United Kingdom but is a valid entry in this disambiguation page. Pam D 07:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ PamD is there a reason not to add a former place to that list? There's nothing there that actually says 'currently in existence'. -- Joy ( talk ) 14:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC) I know I tried to add a couple of closed colleges school to a list of schools in a county and they were removed with comment ""This list for current, active and open institutions only"" although no mention of such in the list itself! Some have a separate list for ""former ..."", but not all. Pam D 15:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC) 10, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Convert to a set index. This is not properly a disambiguation page as none of the entries are known as simply 'Botanical & Zoological Garden' or variations thereof. While the listing comes close to being afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY , but as the Leeds example suggests, such a listing may be a helpful index. older ≠ wiser 10:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still no consensus here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and convert to a set index, per Bkonrad . Useful as a list of things so described, but not as a list of ambiguous uses of a specific phrase. BD2412 T 02:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Altar (Dutch band): Was kept at AfD back in 2006, when standards were a lot different. Natg 19 ( talk ) 01:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Netherlands . Natg 19 ( talk ) 01:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC) BAND . Can you show that it doesn't? (no answer, vote changed to Keep) 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Based on above excellent point - more than two recordings issued on a blue-linked Dutch indy label - ""Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)"" I note from the Displeased Records article that many of the artists on the label's roster are bluelinks. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 14:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy, procedural . Nominator does not address the overwhelming consensus to last time on its merrits. In addition, this nomination is in blatant disragard of the WP:NEXIST rule. Moderator intervention requested against this attempt to relitigate without pointing at specific grounds as there are already way too many AfDs also without nominations of this sort! gidonb ( talk ) 00:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Undecided, with Comment - A consensus from 2006 is pretty near irrelevant today because of how much the music notability rules have changed over that time. Just browse the history page at WP:NMUSIC . The nominator noted this. Meanwhile, none of the voters above have delivered any reliable sources, even the one who cited WP:NEXIST while accusing the nominator of not doing the same. I happened to find this without too much trouble, but I'm undecided on the band's notability because the only other things I can find are blog-like album reviews. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC) NBAND , as did @ Festucalex - that's your notability argument, right there. Made it, got the t-shirt, wearing it proudly. Them's the notability rules today , BTW.. . Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to clarify what you think you're arguing about, I said providing sources and not pointing at a policy. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 18:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC) There is enough evidence [44] [45] [46] (albeit from very low-quality sources) that Altar released more than 2 albums with Displeased Records , which would make Altar notable per WP:BAND as pointed out above. However, I do not believe it difficult to challenge the notability of Displeased Records itself. If Displeased is struck down, Altar will go down with it in a 3rd AfD. Until then, it's a from me. 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My is a procedural . I only noted that this is an improper nomination so no need to tell me what wasn't there. It shouldn't have been there. From my perspective, there is nothing wrong with any on this page. Only with the nomination. gidonb ( talk ) 22:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC) MUSICBIO for having 2 or more albums on major label. Naomijeans ( talk ) 17:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Game Boy Micro: Kpg jhp jm 06:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy . The nominator has not made an argument for deleting this article, and links to a different nomination. What they say there suggests that they're attempting to open a request (mistakenly doing so at AfD), saying in their nomination that they suggest merging with Game Boy Advance . Apart from that, the idea that ""few would care about"" a topic is very much not an admissible argument at AfD. jp × g 08:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC) 29, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This current rush to every single Nintendo handheld has become irrational. This is very clearly a notable separate system. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 10:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"The Sight (Clement-Davies novel): UtherSRG (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Sources Lester, Talia (March–April 2004). ""The Sight"" . Stone Soup . Vol. 32, no. 4. pp. 20+. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14 . Retrieved 2023-06-14 . The review notes: ""Another brilliant twist in The Sight is the ending. In most stories, the hero or heroine is completely victorious. The Sight includes a dramatic and stunning conclusion that s you on the edge of your seat until you read the last gripping words."" St. John, Anne (July–August 2002). ""David Clement-Davies: The Sight"" . The Horn Book Magazine . Vol. 78, no. 4. p. 455. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14 . Retrieved 2023-06-14 – via Gale . The review notes: ""The novel's many messages are delivered with a heavy hand. Too often, the author relies on eavesdropping as a way to convey information; the manufactured fantasy names are difficult to straight at times; and there are a few predictable plot turns (as well as one rather underhanded one). But the depiction of wolf culture is fascinating; the rich backdrop of physical and historical references adds texture; and the intense writing style sweeps the reader up into the story."" ""The Sight"" . Publishers Weekly . Vol. 249, no. 7. 2002-02-18. p. 98. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14 . Retrieved 2023-06-14 . The review notes: ""Despite sophisticated language and some complex concepts, such as the origins of evil, the author's clever plot twists (such as which wolf eventually claims to be Wolfbane) make the thick novel well worth the commitment. Strong female characters also provide a refreshing change to the often male-dominated science-fiction/fantasy field."" Lannon, Linnea (2002-09-29). ""Children's Books"" . The New York Times Book Review . Archived from the original on 2023-06-14 . Retrieved 2023-06-14 . The review notes: ""Like Fire Bringer, this novel is rife with religious, mythological and folk-tale references, a considerable cast and a final confrontation between good and evil. All of which is fine, up to a point. Younger readers will gloss over the Christlike suffering of Larka, the she-wolf heroine, and most certainly the allusions to ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia; The Sight is an epic escape that explores the power of stories and imagination. But for more sophisticated young readers -- and the adults the publisher must be hoping will cross over -- the relentless reworking of everything from Communism to Little Red Riding Hood is wearying, especially given that it's the second coming -- er, time around."" ""The Sight"" . Kirkus Reviews . Vol. 70, no. 4. 2002-02-15. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14 . Retrieved 2023-06-14 . The review notes: ""Above all, this is a story about stories: how they educate, enrich, and comfort, but also entrap within the dead weight of myth. As much as the reader will learn about wolves, close attention will reveal even more about what it means to be human. A flawed but heartbreaking work of imaginative vision."" Rodman, Blake Hume; Pricola, Jennifer (August–September 2002). ""The Sight"" . Education Week . Vol. 14, no. 1. EBSCO host 7311313 . Archived from the original on 2023-06-14 . Retrieved 2023-06-14 . The review notes: ""Indeed, the Sight is strong in Larka, a pure-white she-cub who alone possesses the power to destroy Morgra and end the evil quest. Some readers may find the mysterious prophecy confusing or stumble through the complicated themes, but most will be intrigued by Clement-Davies’ adventurous and rewarding epic."" Mitnick, Eva (2002). Jones, Trevelyn E. (ed.). ""The Sight"". School Library Journal . Vol. 48, no. 6. p. 134. EBSCO host 6744888 . The review notes: ""However, much of the tension is lost by a convoluted plot and a multitude of interminable scenes, mostly discussions between characters, that will make many readers either skip ahead or abandon the book entirely. However, this may be a good choice for readers who have outgrown Brian Jacques's ""Redwall"" series (Philomel) and are ready for a more complicated animal fantasy."" Decker, Charlotte (September–October 2002). ""The Sight"". Book Report . Vol. 21, no. 2. ISSN 0731-4388 . EBSCO host 7302899 . The review notes: ""The plot revolves around the Sight, which bestows the power to foresee the future and use it for revenge. The length of the book may deter all but the most devoted fantasy reader"" Gustafson, Diane (2006-11-26). ""On wing or afoot, animals abound in fantasies"" . Redding Record Searchlight . Archived from the original on 2023-06-14 . Retrieved 2023-06-14 – via Newspapers.com . The review notes: ""Finally, ""The Sight,"" by David Clement-Davies, was highly recommended by our library's Teen Book Discussion Group. The story is set in war-torn 15th-century Transylvania, during the reign of Vlad Dracula. This intriguing, gothic backdrop adds to the mysterious nature of the tale, and magic and the supernatural also play a huge part in the story. ... This is a classic good-versus- evil theme, with a twist, that older teens will have trouble putting down until it's done."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Sight to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 09:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd like to see some assessment of sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The reviews pass WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK #1. Per NBOOK, full-length reviews count towards notability. The magazines and newspapers (e.g., NYT, School Library Journal, and Publishers Weekly) are longstanding publications that has sufficient editorial policies to demonstrate a reputation for fact-checking & accuracy mandated per WP:RS and are independent. Some of reviews lean on the shorter side at a paragraph and is borderline meeting SIGCOV , but others are longer; the NYT source is four paragraphs and another review linked above by Cunard provides two paragraphs. Similarly, these sources also likewise meet GNG as well, and overall this should be kept. VickKiang (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Spin Again: These sources have been added to the article. Appears to fail WP:BKCRIT , as only the Pittsburgh Press article should be considered ""significant"" coverage, with the EW article not making the cut. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts , Literature , and Games . Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Sources Cunningham, John R. (1992-02-04). ""Books take pleasant glances at film theaters, board games"" . The Pittsburgh Press . Archived from the original on 2023-07-16 . Retrieved 2023-07-16 – via Newspapers.com . The review notes: ""Less grandiose, both in subject matter and presentation, but no less memory inducing for the baby boom generation is ""Spin Again. "" Though it does briefly investigate the historical conception of board games in the 1880s, the thrust of Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer's joint effort is an analysis and loving look at game playing in the wake of television's mass invasion of American culture. ... Noticeably absent from the book, however, are ""Candyland"" and ""Chutes and Ladders. "" ... Despite its limitations and these obvious omissions, ""Spin Again"" is still an enjoyable way to spend a contemporary rainy day."" Solomon, Charles (1991-12-15). ""Spin Again: Board Games From the Fifties..."" Los Angeles Times . Archived from the original on 2023-07-16 . Retrieved 2023-07-16 . The review notes: ""SPIN AGAIN: Board Games From the Fifties and Sixties by Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer (Chronicle: $16.95). The minimal text of this campy survey reveals that board games have a surprisingly long history in the United States: ... This brightly colored book would make an excellent hostess gift/ice breaker at baby-boomer holiday parties, provoking delighted cries of “Remember Lie Detector?” and “I used to play Mouse Trap!”"" Verdi, Christine (August–September 1992). ""Vintage Board Games Get Another Turn"" . Your Money . Vol. 13, no. 5. Consumers Digest . p. 39. ISSN 1057-123X . Retrieved 2023-07-16 – via Internet Archive . The review notes: ""These favorites, along with a host of others, are cataloged in Spin Again: Board Games from the Fifties and Sixties (Chronicle Books, 415/777-7240) by Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer. Spin Again takes a look at the history of board games, especially those spawned from popular TV icons. The book doesn't pin values on any of the games, but the authors provide helpful categories and illustrations of the original issues. Some of the top TV-inspired categories include: ..."" Hochberg, Burt (April 1993). ""Words on Play"" . Games . Vol. 17, no. 2. ISSN 0199-9788 . Retrieved 2023-07-16 – via Internet Archive . The review notes: "" Spin Again by Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer ... is an affectionate look at boardgames of the 1950s and '60s, including histories of the major game companies and glorious full-color illustrations, many showing the board and other components as well as the box. The lack of an index limits its usefulness to collectors, but it sure is handsome."" ""The Bookworm: Spin Again"" . The Inside Collector . Vol. 2, no. 7. May 1992. p. 86. ISSN 1052-861X . Retrieved 2023-07-16 – via Internet Archive . The review notes: ""Spin Again is an informative as well as a nostalgic look at the games we played. Well illustrated with each game's boards, boxes, cards, tokens, etc., it also includes a brief history of games since the 1800's, and historical background on major companies."" Seago, Kate (1991-11-24). ""Lunchbox Library - Just Roll the Dice, Will Ya?"" . Los Angeles Daily News . Archived from the original on 2023-07-16 . Retrieved 2023-07-16 . The article notes: ""Here are photos of the most popular games, accompanied by a short history of the development of the pastime. One mark of a popular TV show in the '50s and '60s was that it had its own board game, and here are some of the best, including You'll Never Get Rich, with Phil Silvers as Sgt. Bilko on the box (1955)."" Larson, Susan (1991-12-18). ""Board Chairmen - New Book Salutes the Games People Played"" . The Times-Picayune . Archived from the original on 2023-07-16 . Retrieved 2023-07-16 . The article notes: ""For starters, they're collected in a terrific new book, ""Spin Again: Board Games from the Fifties and Sixties"" (Chronicle, $16.95), by two New Orleans natives, Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaeffer. This loving tribute to board games is a winsome trip down memory lane, an anecdotal history of both the games themselves and their creators. ... Polizzi and Schaeffer were inspired to research the history of games by Polizzi's collection, which in addition to those games from childhood began to get serious three years ago after the purchase of a ""Beverly Hillbillies game"" on impulse."" Osborne, Julia (1992-08-06). ""Board Games Can Zap Post-vacation Boredom"" . The Columbus Dispatch . Archived from the original on 2023-07-16 . Retrieved 2023-07-16 . The review notes: ""Take a nostalgic trip this summer with Spin Again: Board Games From the Fifties and Sixties (Chronicle, $16.95). By Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer, the softbound book details the history of board games in general and the ones that baby boomers grew up with in particular. I quickly paged through the color photographs to find my long-gone Barbie: Queen of the Prom game. ... The book includes concise bios of Milton Bradley, George and Charles Parker, and the founders of Mattel. It is fun and well-done."" Less significant coverage: Reif, Rita (1991-12-25). ""Play the collecting game"" . Tampa Bay Times . Archived from the original on 2023-07-16 . Retrieved 2023-07-16 . The article notes: """"People collect games that look great but are often the least challenging to play,"" said Rick Polizzi, the co-author with Fred Schaefer of the new book Spin Again: Board Games of the 50's and 60's (Chronicle Books). ... Most of the 180 board games illustrated in Spin Again are from Polizzi's collection of 800."" Van Matre, Lynn (1991-11-24). ""The games people played in the 1950s and '60s prompt a tribute"" . Chicago Tribune . Archived from the original on 2023-07-16 . Retrieved 2023-07-16 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer note in ""Spin Again"" (Chronicle, 120 pages, $16.95 softbound), a colorful look at board games of the 1950s and '60s. ... ""Spin Again"" pictures all of these games and around 150 more in color, along with brief descriptions and an introductory history of board games. For almost anyone who grew up in the '50s and '60s, this tribute to the now-collectible games of the past is sure to bring back at least a few pleasant memories. "" Rosenkrantz, Linda (1992-03-08). ""Anyone for a quick game of 'Gidget'?"" . The Baltimore Sun . Archived from the original on 2023-07-16 . Retrieved 2023-07-16 . The article notes: """"Spin Again, Board Games From the Fifties and Sixties,"" by Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer (Chronicle Books), offers not only a vivid presentation of these icons of the recent past but traces their history -- board games, it seems, date back more than 4,000 years -- from the moralizing games of the Victorian era to the voluptuous Barbie. "" Feldman, Gayle; Simson, Maria (1991-08-08). ""Trade paperbacks"" . Publishers Weekly . Vol. 238, no. 35. pp. 280+. Archived from the original on 2023-07-16 . Retrieved 2023-07-16 – via Gale . The article notes: ""Chronicle Books Spin Again: Board Games of the Fifties and Sixties (Sept., $16.95) by Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer features photographs and text describing popular game boards and playing pieces of the '50s and '60s. 15,000 first printing. Advertising. "" ""Recapturing the Past in Childhood Closets"" . Americana . Vol. 19, no. 5. November–December 1991. p. 38. ISSN 0090-9114 . Retrieved 2023-07-16 – via Internet Archive . The article notes: ""The young Californian is also the coauthor of an engaging, richly illustrated new book on his favorite subject— Spin Again: Board Games of the Fifties and Sixties (Chronicle, $16.95). "" Rubin, Saul (1995-08-17). ""Games Keepers - Baby boomers get nostalgic for games of their childhood"" . Daily Breeze . Archived from the original on 2023-07-16 . Retrieved 2023-07-16 . The article notes: ""... Burt Hockberg, senior editor of the New York City-based Games magazine. Spin Again (Chronicle Books, 1992, $20) and Baby Boomer Games (Collector Books, 1995, $28) are beautifully illustrated coffee table books that catalog a variety of board games spanning the '40s through the '70s. Hockberg praised the books and gave them a favorable review in his magazine. ""Basically he's mining a field that no one else has bothered to do,"" Hockberg says. ""His books are special because they show pictures and you can see the games. It helps people to know what to look for."""" Schwarbaum, Lisa (1992-06-26). ""What is cool 1992: Books"" . Entertainment Weekly . Archived from the original on 2023-07-16 . Retrieved 2023-07-16 . The article notes: ""Now he has 1,000 — and he and cowriter Fred Schaefer have produced Spin Again, a classily designed, essence-of-stuff-in-the-attic book about board games from the ’50s and ’60s to remind you of what you, too, stupidly tossed. Your turn. "" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Spin Again to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 05:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the wonderfully detailed Cunard who I am starting to suspect is actually an advanced chatbot. But yeah, those sources are enough IMO. Hobit ( talk ) 17:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks to the sources listed by Cunard. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Index of underwater divers: Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 12:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Lists of people , and Lists . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 12:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy . WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not apply as the index is a list of actual Wikipedia articles about people who are notable for some aspect of their diving activities , not just any notable people who happen to be occasional divers. It is an index, which is an easy way to find an article by alphabetical listing, not a category tree, which is an appalling way to find an article alphabetically, due to subcategories, which break the alphabetical listing up, and Wikipedia categories are full of inappropriate categorisations, making them even more ineffective. Categories have their functions, but they are not the only accepted method. Indexes are an broadly accepted navigation tool on Wkipedia, and have been so for a long time. They are not to be deprecated at the whim of a small group without first going to the community with an appropriate RfC. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk) : 18:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC) WikiProject Indexes has not been notified. · · · Peter Southwood (talk) : 18:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Feel free to notify them, but there isn't an easy deletion sorting for them, which is the way I've notified all the other places. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 11:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That does not look like a very good reason to fail to notify them, There are tags on the talk page for interested and affected projects. · · · Peter Southwood (talk) : 11:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy . The nomination is invalid. Lists of articles are not directories, otherwise, we would not have categories, lists, outlines, indexes, navigation footers, navigation sidebars, etc. Nominator has also based deletion on the grounds that the page is a list. Lists (including indexes) are an acceptable article type. Redundancy between navigation pages is also acceptable, and is covered in WP:CLN , while the acceptability of distinct page types on the same subject is covered in WP:DIFFFORKS . Aside from the erroneous policy citation, nominator has based his deletion argument on his own opinion (""Don't need""), rather than on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The article in question was developed in full accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please speedy close this invalid deletion discussion. — The Transhumanist 00:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In what way does its existence benefit readers? It's an overly long index that duplicates better ways of storing this information. Not speedy eligible, as the nomination is valid even if you disagree with it. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 11:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please link to the explanation of how it is ""overly long"", then you might consider comparing its length with an index from a print encyclopedia, even quite a small one. There are no other ways that the information in it is stored that are reasonably accessible, as you would notice if you compare what all is available on Wikipedia with what is in this index. I know this because it was not easy, and a lot of work to compile. If you can show me these other ways and they actually provide the same information, without requiring a complicated database search, I would be delighted to know. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk) : 11:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC) Doesn't need its own index, is better supported as a series of categories. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY . Let'srun ( talk ) 15:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC) NOTDIRECTORY , Please be specific if you wish to be taken seriously by the closer. Also explain how WP:NOTDIRECTORY is applicable in this case. The rest of your opinions have been rebutted above. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk) : 11:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC) 45, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is not just a list of underwater divers, it is an actual index to underwater divers notable for being underwater divers and having a Wikipedia article. There are many articles on people who also happen to be underwater divers, but are not notable for that, and are listed in the category tree, that do not belong in this index. Cheers,· · · Peter Southwood (talk) : 11:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps I should mention that there are literally millions of underwater divers, a very small part of whom are ever likely to have a Wikipedia article, and an even smaller number who are likely to ever be notable for their diving activities or experiences. The current scope of the index is relatively tiny in comparison with the scope of this proposal, which would actually be relatively well represented by categories. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk) : 13:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Related to Geysirhead's comment, the list is more annotated than most indexes, although not uniquely so. Regardless, indexes are list articles, so discussion of how WP:NLIST applies would be relevant. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 05:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Does the presence or absence of annotation have any bearing on whether the article should be kept or not? General guidance for lists, which includes indexes, is that appropriate annotation is desirable. In this case it is automatic through the {{ Annotated link }} templates · · · Peter Southwood (talk) : 11:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] With regard to the notability of an index list of notable divers, the exact criteria for inclusion in our index is obviously subject to consensus in the usual way. (Make your proposals on the talk page, and we can take it from there). There are organisations such as International Scuba Diving Hall of Fame and Women Divers Hall of Fame dedicated to honouring notable divers within their scopes, which do not necessarily coincide with our criteria, which currently also include divers notable for other things, like involvement in notable accidents, setting world records, performing notable rescues, discovering or salvaging notable shipwrecks, starting notable diving related organisations etc, inventing notable equipment or procedures, and generally being sufficiently notable to have an article on Wikipedia, as well as being notable in connection with underwater diving. We can make our scope narrower and more precise if someone can produce an appropriate set of criteria which are both rational and within policy and guidance. It is likely that this will become necessary over time, but it does not seem to be urgent at present. The Transhumanist , you might wish to expand on this. · · · Peter Southwood (talk) : 14:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note also, that an index is constrained far beyond a regular list , which could contain a far wider variety of entries, which are not inherently required to meet WP notability constraints in the way that an index, which links to existing articles that have already been shown to be notable, does. · · · Peter Southwood (talk) : 14:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , seems a perfectly reasonable navigational list; not every reader understands or is aware of categories, and the level of annotation is also very reasonable. No problem with moving to ""List"" instead of ""Index"" if preferred. Elemimele ( talk ) 13:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , agree with comment just above. Bduke ( talk ) 05:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC) Underwater divers and its subcategories are for. I suggest that this is simply wrong , and that it is not possible to use the Category:Underwater divers and its subcategories to produce a ""comprehensive list of all notable underwater divers"" or even a non-comprehensive list of ""notable underwater divers"" which excludes underwater divers which are not notable as underwater divers , (ie. an equivalent to the index they proposed for deletion) without considerable post-processing by a knowledgeable editor. I challenge them to demonstrate their claim. If this cannot be done, the reason given for the nomination is invalid. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk) : 06:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Casey Fiesler: It best approaches point 7, which it seems to rely on, but even there it lacks the widespread coverage in independent sources usually necessary to establish notability. As an associate professor, Fiesler doesn't currently hold a high-level position in academia or has demonstrably had a large scholarly influence over her subject area ( human-centered computing ). Five out of seven of the article's sources are primary ( [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] ) and the remaining two are local news ( [42] [43] ), which are outlined in WP:NOTABILITY as not being sufficient enough to demonstrate a subject's notability. The Slate article is itself written by Fiesler and as such can't be used to demonstrate notabiltiy here. Looking into Fiesler online, news articles about her are either those she authored, are exclusively local, or contain passing quotations/comments on her work, all of which cannot demonstrate notability per the specific criteria notes. GuardianH ( talk ) 01:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote , but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts : {{subst: spa | username }} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed | username }} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry : {{subst: csm | username }} or {{subst: csp | username }} . That IP Watchdog source cannot go to notability since it's an interview. However, I'd treat Colorado Public Radio as qualifying for notability under WP:GNG. (By the way, WP:NOTABILITY doesn't foreclose local news; WP:ACADEMIC does for purposes of criterion 7.) Speaking of criterion 7, other independent, secondary, reliable, substantial sources exist to document her public role on issues related to her academic research and thus notability: CBS News , CBC , Washington Post . There are other examples not as substantial as those, but I believe these should suffice. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 02:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] thank you! ill update the article with these sources to improve it! User:Sawerchessread ( talk ) 03:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, they don't suffice. For starters, the CBS News source explicitly tagged itself as ""LOCAL NEWS"" right at the very top of the headline, and this is for a good reason – local news articles such as these cannot demonstrate subject notability. I don't have a WaPo subscription, but just taking a look at the article, she seems to be mentioned only in passing — minor, supplementary mentions also don't prove notability. [1] The CBC does focus on Fiesler, but this article is an exception to the rule — the majority of independent , reliable sources do not focus their entire articles on her. Just because one does, does not mean all do; a lot more than just this one is needed to prove the widespread coverage necessary to establish notability. GuardianH ( talk ) 03:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC) ACADEMIC : A small number of quotations [...] is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. [elided as this isn't a local article]. Criterion 7 under NACADEMIC does not require the subject to be the primary focus of the article. That's a GNG requirement. Quote: ""Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area."" There is nothing there about how extensive the quotations need to be. And the WaPo item is not a mere passing quote: Casey Fiesler, an information science professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, said she did not want to downplay any potential menace, but it was possible that students who had noticed increased fear of school violence among their peers were hoping to get attention. TikTok has moderators and guidelines that prohibit posts promoting or threatening violence, but Fiesler said such rules could be circumvented by savvy users. And she noted that TikTok’s accessibility — its algorithm means posts from people with relatively small followings on the platform have a “much higher” chance of being widely circulated — allows for “content that would otherwise maybe not spread as much [to] go viral.” . ... Fiesler, the Colorado professor, offered a hypothetical scenario of a student pulling a fire alarm to skip an exam. It could be “the same kind of thing, just at a much larger scale,” she said. Other examples of ""frequently quoted in conventional media"" include: New York Times , Slate x2 , Inside Higher Ed , Science , The Verge , SSIR , CNN , Fast Company , plus WaPo and CBC. All taken, these indicate that she is frequently cited by perennially reliable national and global media outlets as an expert in her academic field. (Meanwhile, CBC, Denver Post , and Colorado Public Radio go toward GNG notability (which, unlike NACADEMIC, counts local news coverage as long as it's significant coverage, reliable, secondary, and independent). But there are plenty of sources to this article under NACADEMIC Criterion 7.) Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 04:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC) cbc is canada broadcasting company. her works have been in colorado and georgia. neither of these are local to canada. User:Sawerchessread ( talk ) 05:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ah, wait, you said CBS. that makes more sense. whoops. User:Sawerchessread ( talk ) 05:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, I meant CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company). It satisfies all criteria for GNG, and since it's not local news it also qualifies as coverage under NACADEMIC criterion 7. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 11:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] in general the fact that multiple news sources showcase her work indicates notability, and as the main author, i consider the fact that i can writw three+ paragraphs with independent, reliable sources on nearly every sentence indicates notability. as a professor her research career is still early stage, so her research output is not notable yet. of note, about twelve hours before this, casey fiesler created a tiktok about this page indicating surprise that she had a page. this was before the deletion notice, so viewers do not know there is a deletion. however viewers may see this page. her tiktok was her surprise at having a wikipedia article, but also her own experiences with nominations for deletion of her articles. she does not mention that her own article is up for deletion as she created the tiktok for her followers before this afd. is there a process to correct the discussion and avoid any bias? ive seen it before on afd, when an article is proposed for deletion, in order to maintain balance. User:Sawerchessread ( talk ) 03:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the fact that multiple news sources showcase her work indicates notability, and as the main author, i consider the fact that i can [write] three+ paragraphs with independent, reliable sources on nearly every sentence indicates notability. — Okay, first of all, not all news sources are made the same. WP:ACADEMIC and WP:NOTABILITY specify independent , reliable sources to prove significant coverage. The bulk of the articles here are, as I've pointed out, not independent, and they also happen to be local, which itself can't prove notability. GuardianH ( talk ) 03:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As a scientist in the field of human-centered computing, I thought I would add some context from my field to this conversation, and I would be happy to contribute to the article as useful. I think there are several good reasons to select Dr. Fiesler. On criterion 1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline), I would like to observe that Dr Fiesler has received 12 awards in computer science for ""Best Paper"" or ""best Paper Honorable Mention,"" and that she was also awarded the NSF CAREER award , which is a significant monetary award selected by peers in the field to support promising early career scholars. On criterion (7), Dr. Fiesler is a leading science communicator on human-centered computing, as evidenced by the fact that the U.S. White House invited her to attend the signing of the Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence. Most importantly, under criterion 8 (editorship), Dr. Fiesler has served as the general chair of the CSCW conference — one of the two leading academic conferences in all of human-centered computing— a position that is equivalent (for computer science) of chief editor of a journal. Dr. Fiesler's CSCW co-chair that year, Dr. Loren Terveen , quite rightly, also has a Wikipedia page. Rubberpaw ( talk ) 03:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Few things to note. Notability on Wikipedia depends first and foremost on reliable sources. It would be better if you could provide a source for the 12 awards claim, a reliable source demonstrating the NSF Career award is significant enough to demonstrate it is a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level , [1] and when you cited the White House visit, you provided Instagram , which is not a reliable source. Even so, a visit to the White House does not fit any part of the notability criteria laid out in WP:ACADEMIC . As for her chairship, you also need a RS demonstrating that CSCW is one of the two leading academic conferences in all of human-centered computing . Digging reveals that she is a co-chair of one (Organizing Committee) of three committees – Organizing Committee, Program Committee, Steering Committee — rather than chair of the entire organization itself. GuardianH ( talk ) 04:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC) GuardianH ( talk ) 04:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for these questions. I hope the following responses are informative. The index for the 12 awards claim is Dr. Fiesler's CV on file with the University of Colorado, which I fact-checked by querying the conference proceedings for those cases. To cite three examples, here is the 2023 CSCW best paper honorable mention list that names the ""Chilling Takes"" article that Dr. Fiesler was lead author on. Here is the proceedings for the 2015 conference paper on understanding copyright in online creative communities that received a best paper award, as indicated by the award cup icon. Here is the best paper list from SIGCSE 2018 , which also cites awards received by Fiesler's research. NSF CAREER: According to this guide by the MIT Office of the Vice President for Research, ""The CAREER program is a NSF-wide activity that provides 5 year awards to tenure-track Assistant Professors, and is one of the most popular and prestigious opportunities offered by the Foundation."" ""Digging reveals that she is a co-chair of one (Organizing Committee) of three committees"" - not all academic journals and conferences have a single head. This conference, which operates at a very high volume, has multiple heads, as is common in computer science, where there is a particularly high volume of scholarship. These are necessary conditions of such a high productivity, comparatively large field, with outsized influence in science. ""A visit to the White House does not fit any part of the notability criteria laid out in WP:ACADEMIC."" In this case, I think it's notable because the White House was deliberately marking what they considered to be a first, historic step in the regulation of artificial intelligence in the US and internationally by inviting notable scientists, advocates, and policy experts. Rubberpaw ( talk ) 19:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I disagree about the NSF Career award above being something that confers notability under WP:NPROF . It is a competitive grant that one applies for and not everyone gets, and also signifies that the grantee is poised to make significant contributions in their field. But the kinds of awards that confer notability under WP:PROF are not grant awards, and they are not ""best paper"" awards. They are the kinds of awards that people get nominated for by independent, distinguished organizations, without themselves applying for them. And generally, they are not going to be received by an assistant/associate professor - which is what makes this case a little difficult. Qflib ( talk ) 19:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] NPROF also does not consider early-career awards prestigious enough to count at all towards notability. The NSF Career grant and the paper awards thus do not contribute at all to this discussion. JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC) NACADEMIC Comment : I've added additional sources to the article. I am not sure which ones are the best for indicating independence. However, apparently Casey Fiesler maintains a press page. https://caseyfiesler.com/press/ Of note, the first category, ""OpEds and Popular Press Articles"", probably cannot be used. these are self-written and are not independent. However, Research Coverage, Press Mentions & Quotes, and others seem interesting and worth including. I don't want to overload the page with citations, but I feel we can pick a few that are appropriate to give additional detail and verification as necessary. User:Sawerchessread ( talk ) 03:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've also gone and removed the self-sourced article, and replaced it with what I hope is an appropriate source. User:Sawerchessread ( talk ) 04:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Women , Law , Technology , Computing , Internet , Georgia (U.S. state) , and Tennessee . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A quick rummage through the sources in the article and above plus a Google News search suggest to me that a) there's enough material to form a functional short article about her, and b) some people are going to say, ""Who is this Casey Fiesler?"" and turn to us for a trusted answer. Additionally, and I hope this is just coincidence, I think it's a very bad look for Wikipedia when somebody records a popular video about quitting Wikipedia due to retaliatory deletions from a disgruntled editor and then suddenly their Wikipedia article is up for deletion. William Pietri ( talk ) 04:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC) For sake of transparency, and to avoid any issues, I've attached the canvassing template on here. The TikTok by Fiesler might have caused some folks to show up. I definitely agree that we should this article and I welcome folks' input, but Wikipedia rules are rules, just in case. User:Sawerchessread ( talk ) 04:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] sigh, is there a better template? User:Sawerchessread ( talk ) 04:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ah found one. User:Sawerchessread ( talk ) 04:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I disagree with the nomination claim that the subject is far from WP:PROF notability. Her citation counts on Google Scholar (both the many triple-digit-citation works and the strong upward trajectory on her annual citations) look good enough for #C1 to me. And I think there's significant independent coverage of her work with Barbie on CPR [44] and on her studies of social media in the Denver Post [45] , enough to make a plausible case for WP:GNG notability (as well as maybe PROF#C7) as well. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC) PROF#C1 and also WP:PROF#C7 , as argued just above. XOR'easter ( talk ) 15:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC) PROF#C1 (scholarly impact), WP:PROF#C2 (NSF CAREER award) and WP:PROF#C7 (infuential as a public scholar). -- Zim Zala Bim talk 19:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . Generally, associate professors have not achieved the level of career notability that one looks for in deciding whether it's time for a Wikipedia page about them. That's the ""weak"" part of my thinking. Like David and XOReaster, I do see that the citation record is meeting WP:PROF#C1 . In addition, like David I think WP:GNG and/or WP:PROF#C1 are met by the news coverage. Qflib ( talk ) 19:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please don’t “bite the newbie” but if an article for deletion and the story of her making a tiktok being surprised about having a Wikipedia page manages to make the main stream media or highly viewed on tiktok could that in it of itself be controversial enough to warrant a Wikipedia page? My great grandpa was a 1 star army general and his a Wikipedia but he didn’t do much and they don’t him, in fact all he only appears on Google as his Wikipedia page and list of ww1 veterans - anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.11.80 ( talk ) 22:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Has it made the mainstream media? In general we usually want more than one different mainstream media story about a person (each with in-depth coverage of the person) to generate notability that way; see WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS . But that's all hypothetical; in this case I think there are much better rationales for notability than any recent controversy. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 23:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . If I look at the original when the AfD nomination was made, that was certainly questionable. However, there have been enough additions and improvements that I think the current version qualifies as proof of notability. (There may even be a bit more that people in her field might add.) Ldm1954 ( talk ) 02:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC) meets WP:PROF#C7 (a) per the sources provided by Dclemens1971. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 04:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC) GNG and lesser because of WP:PROF#C1 . I know it can sometimes chafe when someone gets media coverage partially because they're mad at Wikipedia, but coverage is coverage and Wikipedia should, in my opinion only, try harder to make articles better (as happened in this case) when people think they might be borderline AfD-worthy and not just jump in to looking to remove them. I feel that Wikipedia can often use the AfD process as a punishment of sorts when we have thousands of one-sentence stubs which seem to be okay. Wikipedia has such a huge gender disparity in terms of who is represented in biographies and who is writing those biographies. We can do better. Jessamyn ( my talk page ) 17:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I don't often weigh in, but CSCW, a conference organized by the ACM (Association of Computing Machinery), is one of the premier conferences for human-computer interaction. I know that every conference feels that it is the premier conference in its field, but this actually is. And the work she did with ""Computer Engineer Barbie"" was actually discussed in my ""Gender & Computing"" course last week, as we looked at the bias the doll incorporates. -- WiseWoman ( talk ) 19:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC) BIO and WP:PROF#C7 . I'd also like to echo Jessamyn's comments; I came to the article after seeing Fiesler's TikTok about her experience with Wikipedia, and was a little dismayed to see it had already been sent to AfD. TheCatalyst31 Reaction • Creation 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC) PROF criteria passes are sound (C7 is especially strong). And thanks to @Ldm1954 for pointing out the differences in the article from when AfD began and where it is today. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 11:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"2023 Chelmsford City Council election: Was returned to mainspace without a single in-depth source. Waited several weeks to see if there was going to be any effort to improve the article, and then after the election was weeks in the past, ed to the council page, which was immediately reverted without improvement. Another week has gone by, and still not a single in-depth source. Currently fails WP:GNG . Onel 5969 TT me 12:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England . Shellwood ( talk ) 12:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC) https://www.chelmsford.gov.uk/voting-and-elections/results-of-elections/local-election-results/ I have tried and failed to work out where or how to add that URL to the page. ChelmsfordEditor ( talk ) 17:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources are now added. The source is the council's own website. Unfortunately the format of that website does not allow in to do it by individual ward, instead displaying dynamically Deletion would not be approriate, considering this page leads to here and has many other council elections without sources - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections Horizon22 ( talk ) 18:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC) OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for ing. LibStar ( talk ) 00:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Only primary sourcing provided so fails GNG. The summary can be included in Chelmsford City Council . LibStar ( talk ) 00:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Took a few seconds to find sources. [24] [25] [26] Also relevant are the outcomes of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Luton Borough Council election , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Hyndburn Borough Council election , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Cheshire West and Chester Council election , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Fenland District Council election and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Cambridge City Council election , all from the last couple of months. Number 5 7 11:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Number57. Alexcs114 ( talk ) 16:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have now added media coverage demonstrating notability and reliable secondary sources in addition to the primary source of the council's formal declaration of results. Have also added narrative summary for context. Stortford ( talk ) 21:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Number57; there is enough RS that covered this election (which should be added to the article) to make it notable. Aszx5000 ( talk ) 15:49, 3 June 2023‎ (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"WVMA-CD: Let'srun ( talk ) 21:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Massachusetts , and New Hampshire . Let'srun ( talk ) 21:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] At least for this case it had a past history of competitiveness as a satellite station, and has not been turned into a non-competitive subfarm yet. Nate • ( chatter ) 02:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 02:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - well sourced by the standards of radio tv stations and notable. Llajwa ( talk ) 16:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Zita Cabello-Barrueto: Mostly POV. Fails GNG , SIGCOV , etc. Nirva20 ( talk ) 05:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to either Center for Justice and Accountability or Caravan of Death for reasons cited in colloquy below with @Goldsztajn . The subject (Cabello-Barrueto)'s notability derives almost entirely as a plaintiff in lawsuit (Cabello Barrueto v. Fernández Larios, 291 F. Supp. 2d 1360 (S.D. Fla. 2003)) -- not as an academic or author. Apologies for any inconvenience. Nirva20 ( talk ) 17:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Actors and filmmakers , Women , Politics , Chile , and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC) agreed; non-notable, unsourced — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oort1 ( talk • contribs ) 07:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] AfD is not cleanup. Multi-year indepth coverage of Zita Cabello-Barrueto, especially noted as the leading plaintiff in Cabello Barrueto v. Fernandez Larios . Some examples: Quest for justice spans decades pt 1 , Sister's quest for justice spans decades pt 2 , Chilean's survivors sue Dade businessman , Chile verdict cheers sister in Bay Area / Jury orders payment in 1973 coup slaying , The Pinochet Effect: Transnational Justice in the Age of Human Rights pp165-166 , Hermana de asesinado por Caravana de la Muerte, lanza un libro contando los hechos . Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 11:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC) ""She strongly opposes George W. Bush's stance against John McCain's anti-torture bill; Bush objects to the bill because it does not exempt the CIA. Her disdain for torture comes from her personal experience under Chile's CIA-initiated coup d'état"" . I don't know if the lawsuit itself is sufficient to establish notability. If so, then maybe the article should be the lawsuit not Cabello-Barrueto, whose extensive bibliography is here . Nirva20 ( talk ) 12:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC) An article's lack of neutrality is not per se grounds for deletion. I don't see what the link has do with Cabello-Barrueto's bibliography; it's a publisher's blurb for a book she wrote. I've just linked five reliable sources, from multiple years, which contain significant coverage of the subject. This satisfies the WP:GNG / WP:BIO ; if you wish to maintain an argument for deletion, you need to address why these sources do not establish Cabello-Barrueto's notability. FWIW, apologies if you are already aware of this, but if not, please have a read of WP:BEFORE . Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 17:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We all make mistakes. I did a Google search but found nothing impressive. maybe because all the links are in Spanish. That's on me. But Cabello-Barrueto is not notable as an academic or as an author only as a plaintiff, by your own words. The article should be ed to the lawsuit you cited. Nirva20 ( talk ) 17:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC) GNG . I did not say she's only notable as a plaintiff (""especially noted"" were my words), but even if I did, that is irrelevant. We assess the content of sources, we question the reliability of sources, we examine the relevance of sources, but we do not get to choose *why* a subject is notable, the sources determine notability for us. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 18:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC) 12, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Goldsztajn. Meets WP:NPROF . 2A01:799:2E3:C500:556:815E:86C2:7DB1 ( talk ) 15:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify Very poorly sourced BLP, otherwise. She is notable as an author, though. Either needs additional citations or a quick trip to draft space to clean up for mainspace, but the topic is notable. SportingFlyer T · C 19:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've cleaned it up. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 07:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Goldsztajn. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 20:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Matroska: No independent coverage whatsoever. Tagged since 2021 - Altenmann >talk 04:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry, I don't entirely understand why deletion is a more reasonable reaction that maintaining the request for additional secondary sources. mkv files have become an overwhelmingly popular portable video container, I worry that if the article is d it will just come back in a sorrier state later as its vague continual cultural relevancy encourages contributors who notice its MIA status and restore it. JohnnyJ7766 ( talk ) 20:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As I wrote in the nomination, the article was tagged since 2021. 3 years is plenty of time, isn't it? If you vouch to work on the article, it can me moved to the draft space ( WP:DRAFTIFY ), where you can continue to work on it until it becomes acceptable. - Altenmann >talk 20:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC) GNG based on books listed here: https://www.google.com/search? tbm=bks&q=Matroska . There is sufficient significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet the guideline. The article relies too heavily on sources affiliated with the subject, but that can be fixed later and does not affect the subject's notability. Streamline8988 ( talk ) 06:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree, while the article can and should be improved, and independent sources added, there is no reason to just it. There are relevant sources spanning different domains ( https://www.lavanguardia.com/andro4all/tecnologia/como-reproducir-archivos-mkv-en-android-todas-las-formas ). CasuarioAlmeriense ( talk ) 21:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Significant independent coverage in multiple books , scholary sources , and mainstream publications . DigitalIceAge ( talk ) 20:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (and even expand, maybe?). When I was learning about downloading Torrents (ie movies) using BitTorrent, nearly all the movie files are saved in the . MKV format. I absolutely found Wikipedia useful in figuring it all out (I'm no multimedia expert!). Without somewhere to look up info about . MKV files I'd have been lost...(!) G6cid ( talk ) 23:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"List of ESPN personalities: Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 12:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Television , Sports , and Lists . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 12:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC) This subject is discussed as a group in secondary sources such as [ [26] ], [ [27] ], [ [28] ] and [ [29] ] just for starters. I'd say this meets the WP:NLIST . Let'srun ( talk ) 01:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 15:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Let'srun. ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 18:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per references provided by LetsRun which show passage of NLIST. Frank Anchor 18:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Space Marines (film): There is a review by The Washington Post here but nothing beyond that that I could find. Erik ( talk | contrib ) ( ping me ) 19:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pinging already-involved editors Govvy , Atlantic306 , and Mushy Yank . I had proposed deletion but Mushy Yank contested it on account of the review by The Washington Post . Started this AfD to see this through fully. Erik ( talk | contrib ) ( ping me ) 19:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC) I just deproDed the page. Meets requirement for notability with significant coverage in reliable sources including a full review in The Washington Post. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You said you removed it because it had a review in The Washington Post ? That does not equate plurality of reliable sources. Erik ( talk | contrib ) ( ping me ) 19:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A review in the WP is enough to DEPROD a page, yes. But please read the comment I left on TP in the OldProd template. And also read the sources on the page. I've added various references. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC) The Washington Post review was syndicated nationally; here's the review in The Newport News Daily Press . There are a lot more examples on newspapers.com. Toughpigs ( talk ) 19:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, that's a good source. Any others you can share? I can go ahead and update the article with them. Erik ( talk | contrib ) ( ping me ) 19:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, I misunderstood. Doesn't the same coverage being repeated elsewhere still count as only one source? Are there more sources that are different from the WaPo review? Erik ( talk | contrib ) ( ping me ) 19:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC) N says, ""Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."" So we still only have Washington Post as the only reliable source covering this film. Erik ( talk | contrib ) ( ping me ) 19:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] we still only have Washington Post as the only reliable source covering this film. No. Just read the page. Thank you. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, you think these sources in the Wikipedia article are significant coverage. Here is a breakdown: Regarding Off the Page , the film is only mentioned in passing, so it's not significant coverage. For the other items, these are capsule reviews and not sufficient coverage. WP:NF says, ""Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, 'capsule reviews', plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides..."" Such guides have many films with only one sentence about them. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib ) ( ping me ) 20:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I added some coverage with critical commentary, then. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak , borderline notable... I think it is fair to presume that if the WaPo wrote a full review of this 1996 film that additional coverage which would meet GNG exists. Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 19:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed. Added some. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment One of the sources added is for Space Cowboys and not this film, two others are what? Databases with no degree of help to the article, so that leaves one review which I couldn't read because of the paywall. And that really is only one source left in the article. It's hardly signov, my gut still tells me it's a unless there was something more. Govvy ( talk ) 22:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not on Space Cowboys. The Snippet is misleading. Read what I've quoted, it's about this film! (If you can't access the full page: Was Space Cowboys written by Moreland, and is it with Wirth?) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC) Well, the Washington Post is all I can find for reviews. Rotten Tomatoes has a ""critic"" review from rec.arts.movies, which is being rather generous [34] calling that a ""critical review"". I don't know if this is related [35] , but most things that come up are about the Warhammer series. I don't see enough for film notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, that film is unrelated. Added some coverage though. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Besides the Washington Post and Psychotronic Video reviews, there are also reviews in the Malay Mail , the Hawaii Tribune-Herald and the Hickory Daily Record . Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 07:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC) AGF as I don't have access to Proquest for the three above mentioned reviews but including them with the Washington Post and smaller coverage there seems to be enough for WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC) :A relist ? :D))))... - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC) Fair enough, apologies, apparently there are other users who think it's not undue.... [ reply ] Comment I am happy to see a better article on wikipedia for this film since I raised the issue's on the project. I however am not seeing the best sources still. Besides the Washington Post, I really don't see enough from the other sources provided. So I really am still on the fence. Of the sources posted by Somebodyidkfkdt ; the first Malay Mail, that seems to be talking about something else? Hint of Clinton scandal in 'Wag The Dog ? I am unable to verify the next Hawaii Tribune-Herald one, nor the Hickory Daily Record due to paywall. Govvy ( talk ) 10:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Shales, Tom (1996-07-28). "" 'Space Marines' is frivolous but unexpectedly entertaining"" . Daily Press . The Washington Post . Archived from the original on 2024-06-06 . Retrieved 2024-06-06 – via Newspapers.com . The review notes: ""The movie might be just the thing, though, for people who've overdosed on NBC's effusive Olympics coverage or who just want a pleasant little brain purge to take their minds off serious matters. ""Space Marines"" involves death, terror, treachery and the threat of apocalypse, yet it's all kept on a sort of funsy level. An on-again off-again facetious approach is usually deadly in films, and ""Space Marines"" puts tongue in cheek mainly to disguise implausibilities in the plot. Even so, it's for the most part kookily entertaining. For a low-budget film, the explosions are pretty and the rocket ships moderately impressive. Wheee!"" Pasta, Elmer (1996-12-13). ""Sylvester Stallone resurrects his hero role in disastrous 'Daylight' "" . Hawaii Tribune-Herald . Archived from the original on 2024-06-06 . Retrieved 2024-06-06 – via Newspapers.com . The review notes: """"Space Marines"" (Republic, rated R for excessive violence, sex and swearing) has impressive special effects for a relatively low-budget, direct-to-video sci-fi epic. But, this poor man's ""Star Trek"" has little more to offer than a basic, good-vs. -bad-guys plot with lots of ham overacting. ... The film-titled Space Marines begin a rescue-and-arrest mission that quickly turns into a volatile political situation. Ordered to return to base, but aware of the mounting threat to the galaxy's survival, the elite Marine Corps stages its own vigilante plan. It's easy to guess the predictable outcome, which includes a daring mutiny and eventual pirate confrontation. There's much futuristic space hardware in the meandering movie, including a spacecraft resembling a giant electric shaver. Even with that, over all, ""Space Marines"" hasn't got much buzz. "" ""Space Marines"" . Psychotronic Video . No. 24. p. 13 . Retrieved 2024-06-06 – via Internet Archive . The review notes: ""In the future, Sgt. Zach (Billy Wirth), a politician (James Shigeta) and his assistant (Candy Huffman) are taken hostage by Col. Frasier (John Pyper-Ferguson, who adds a welcome sense of humor), a Marine turned space pirate. This sadistic, talkative long haired villain with a sidekick named Gunther and a gang that resembles bikers, cuts off a captives ear and blows up others with surgical implants. A grinning Edward Albert leads a rescue mission and argues a lot with a commander (Meg Foster). Although there are space ships and space battles, most of the slo mo deaths, explosions and gun battles take place in a James Bond type cavern/factory. Also with subplots, silicone packed hologram bar dancers and an especially weak ending. Surprisingly, it was made in Dallas - by the director of Private Wars (PV #17). "" Chua, Eddie (1998-08-27). ""Hint of Clinton scandal in 'Wag The Dog' "". Malay Mail . ProQuest 326166555 . The review notes: ""He sends highly-trained Space Marines, led by Captain Gray (Edward Albert), to stop the pirates' evil plans. And if you love fighting stuff and laser guns, then Space Marines is for you. The special effects, however, are not too exciting. There is nothing extravagant about it. The spaceships look like gigantic electric razors and the aircraft seems to have came out of a cereal box. Although veteran Meg Foster is the biggest name in this film, his performances did not stand out. Billy Wirth, who plays a not so bright Marine, is worth watching. Pyper-Ferguson plays an over-the-top performance as the pirate leader. "" Sumner, Jane (1995-06-16). "" 'Space Marines' lands in Farmers Branch warehouse"" . The Dallas Morning News . Archived from the original on 2024-06-06 . Retrieved 2024-06-06 . The article notes: ""If he ever got into a position of consequence in this business, Matthew Trotter vowed, he'd shoot a film in Texas. With Space Marines, a sci-fi action flick, he's been doing just that in a Farmers Branch warehouse since May 9. ... In from Los Angeles for the shoot were Billy Wirth (The Lost Boys), Meg Foster (They Live), James Shigeta (Die Hard), Jay P. Ferguson (Unforgiven) and Edward Albert (Getting Even). Local actors in the cast include Sean McGraw, Sean Hennigan and Angie Bolling. For the interiors, construction coordinator Byron Autrey and his crew reworked some of the sets from the failed TV pilot Island City. "" Socias, Sebastien (June 1998). ""Space Marines"". L'Écran fantastique (in French). p. 84. EBSCO host 170094243 . EBSCO Information Services provides an abstract-only record, not a full text of the review. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Space Marines to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 09:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Little Miss Millions: I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes . I did a WP:BEFORE and only found passing mentions here and here via Newspapers.com. The Film Creator ( talk ) 03:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . The Film Creator ( talk ) 03:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC) NFIC #2. It likely meets WP:GNG –it's covered in a few biographies: [21] [22] [23] , given the year of release, and the fact that it was played at holiday seasons, it should also have further paper sources not necessarily available online. — siro χ o 08:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , agree...first leading role for JLH. Also, found this at newspapers.com [24] Donald D23 talk to me 12:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Agreeing with Donaldd23 and Siroxo, who provided convincing sources. Thank you. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC) BEFORE so many times already. Absolutely know that every possible source has been exhausted before considering either PROD or AfD. Nate • ( chatter ) 19:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I withdraw per consensus. The Film Creator ( talk ) 10:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Karen L. Parker: Primary source and one showing they named a scholarship after her, which implies notability, but no sourcing... Even what's used now in the article is trivial. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Journalism , California , Michigan , and North Carolina . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC) UNC-Chapel Hill seeking final submissions to rename campus buildings with racist ties (News & Observer, 2021, ""Karen L. Parker was the first Black woman undergraduate at UNC and chronicled her years as a student during the civil rights movement."") At the UNC Library archive Karen L. Parker Diary, Letter, and Clippings , there is biographical information included with an overview and details about her writing, See also [42] . Beccaynr ( talk ) 01:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC) I added many sources and expanded the content. Sources now prove notability. Rublamb ( talk ) 10:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC) HEY and the sustained coverage that helps support WP:BASIC / WP:GNG notability. Beccaynr ( talk ) 12:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Rublamb and Beccaynr have clearly demonstrated that Parker meets GNG. Excellent work, both of you. :) -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 16:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is evidence of notability, and it has been over time. I think it should be added to the Civil Rights Movement Category as that group may add more over time. But this is much better than many stub articles we have on wiki. Jsgoodrich ( talk ) 03:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC) SNOW . – S. Rich ( talk ) 01:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Expanded and sourced since nomination, WP:BASIC is met. Sam Sailor 08:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"List of Russian superheroes: Lists are nearly always uninformative crap unless you are talking about statistics, or chronologies of office holders or award winners. Dronebogus ( talk ) 08:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists . Dronebogus ( talk ) 08:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Russia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC) I don’t think this is a notable intersection of topics : Is that based on a WP:BEFORE search, or just an opinion? Thanks! Daranios ( talk ) 15:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It’s just a guess, but I think a pretty reasonable one since the list is mostly non-notable examples. If the topic is notable, we should make an article and then a list. Dronebogus ( talk ) 17:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Would you consider doing such a WP:BEFORE search after all to substantiate your claim? It's an expected part of what the nominator should do in the deletion process , when notability is the issue. Daranios ( talk ) 20:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’ll try when I can but right now I’m mildly ill. Dronebogus ( talk ) 20:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks. I wish you a speedy recovery! Daranios ( talk ) 20:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It was just a bad stomachache from overeating, I’m fine. I did a quick look and, no, there do not appear to be any non-listacle sources about Russian superheroes as a group. Dronebogus ( talk ) 12:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Listicle"" has been used as to be non-serious in discussions on Wikipedia, but I believe that this has to be decided on a case-by-case basis - especially as we are dealing with a list here, too. So I would be interested what listicle sources there were. Thanks. Daranios ( talk ) 13:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Look in “news” on google. Usual “TOP 10 MOST THINGIEST RUSSIAN SUPERS” from lower-quality websites known for churnalism. Dronebogus ( talk ) 18:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Same as all the others. There are enough entries with their own Wikipedia articles to make this a valid navigational list, far more useful than the category for this at Category:Russian superheroes since it allows more information to be displayed. Any entry that isn't notable can be removed. D r e a m Focus 15:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural . ""Lists are nearly always uninformative crap"" is an obviously invalid deletion rationale and suggests that the nominator doesn't take this process or this project seriously. pburka ( talk ) 19:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Did you even read the above comment string with Daranios? I did WP:BEFORE and got nothing much other than low-quality listicles, confirming my actual rationale that this is not a notable intersection of topics. WP:AGF applies here. Dronebogus ( talk ) 00:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and limit to notable entries. There are enough notable entries to maintain a list. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 22:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Palestinianism: It's a good essay! But it's a terrible encyclopedia page. It's in no way objective and seeks to build a specific narrative. It uses quotes selectively to buttress this idea, and outside of the quotations uses subjective language for the same end. It's also somewhat incomprehensible, but that's no reason to a page rather than to fix it. Rather, the page exists solely to push a narrative, and doesn't do much besides for that. It's also just not a commonly-used term at all, as a quick Google search shows, so I'm doubtful it hits notability requirements. In sum: it's a subjective essay about a dubiously notable subject. But an interesting read, if it was on a blog somewhere, where it might belong. Bruhpedia ( talk ) 10:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - there isnt a cogent deletion rationale besides ""it's an essay"", but the sources cited deal with the topic of the article, making it not an essay of an editor's own views but rather a summary of the views of scholars. That somebody cant comprehend a page makes it so that it is the page that is at fault is both a curiosity left for others to unravel as well as not being a deletion rationale. nableezy - 10:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not notable. And it's entirely subjective—it's written as opinion. It's a blog post. The fact that it is sourced is irrelevant—anyone who has attended middle school knows to add sources to argumentative essays. The fact that all of the sources are specifically chosen to bolster the author's claims, and, yes, as you say, to give it a veneer of plausible deniability, is less so. In addition, though the prosaic writing is incidental, ""a curiosity left for others to unravel"" is an atrocious way to run an encyclopedia. Have you read the article? Bruhpedia ( talk ) 12:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Cool story. On Wikipedia when sources deal with a subject as a subject then it is notable. And what we do is summarize their views. The curiosity is that you think that if you can’t understand an article the article is the problem and not your ability to understand it. Your inability comprehend to read the article is your problem. Not Wikipedia’s. Also, the words veneer, plausible, and deniability do not appear in my comment. So either you have that same inability to read my comment as the article or you are making things up when you attribute things to me I never said. nableezy - 14:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A paraphrase ( / ˈ p ær ə ˌ f r eɪ z / ) is a restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words. The term itself is derived via Latin paraphrasis , from Ancient Greek παράφρασις ( paráphrasis ) 'additional manner of expression'. The act of paraphrasing is also called paraphrasis . Although paraphrases likely abounded in oral traditions, paraphrasing as a specific educational exercise dates back to at least Roman times, when the author Quintilian recommended it for students to develop dexterity in language. In the Middle Ages, this tradition continued, with authors such as Geoffrey of Vinsauf developing schoolroom exercises that included both rhetorical manipulations and paraphrasing as a way of generating poems and speeches. There is interest in the study of paraphrases relating to concerns around plagiarism and original authorship. [1] For the purposes of education, Fred Inglis identifies five levels of paraphrase: [2] [3] replacing words with synonyms varying sentence structure reordering information turning long sentences into multiple shorter ones (or vice versa) expressing abstract concepts more concretely. Paraphrasing with synonyms is considered by some to be an acceptable stage in teaching paraphrase, but it is necessary that it is ultimately combined with techniques for altering sentence structure to avoid the appearance of plagiarism. [4] Studies of English language students have found that ESL learners tend to rely on using synonyms rather than changing sentence structure when paraphrasing. Participants in a study of some Vietnamese ESL learners expressed that they preferred using synonyms out of a fear that using the wrong sentence structure would lead to the sentence having a different meaning. Na and Mai suggest that ESL teachers should provide varied activities including tasks requiring changes in syntax, and that ESL students should be given source texts to paraphrase whose meaning they are already readily able to understand. [5] A paraphrase typically explains or clarifies the text that is being paraphrased. For example, ""The signal was red"" might be paraphrased as ""The train was not allowed to pass because the signal was red"". A paraphrase is usually introduced with verbum dicendi —a declaratory expression to signal the transition to the paraphrase. For example, in ""The signal was red, that is , the train was not allowed to proceed,"" the that is signals the paraphrase that follows. A paraphrase does not need to accompany a direct quotation . The paraphrase typically serves to put the source's statement into perspective or to clarify the context in which it appeared. A paraphrase is typically more detailed than a summary . One should add the source at the end of the sentence: When the light was red, trains could not go (Wikipedia). A paraphrase may attempt to preserve the essential meaning of the material being paraphrased. Thus, the (intentional or otherwise) reinterpretation of a source to infer a meaning that is not explicitly evident in the source itself qualifies as ""original research ,"" and not a paraphrase. Unlike a metaphrase , which represents a ""formal equivalent"" of the source, a paraphrase represents a ""dynamic equivalent"" thereof. While a metaphrase attempts to translate a text literally, a paraphrase conveys the essential thought expressed in a source text—if necessary, at the expense of literality . For details, see dynamic and formal equivalence . Bruhpedia ( talk ) 22:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC) Bruhpedia ( talk ) 22:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Except that was also not anywhere close to the meaning of my words. But I’m glad you have access to a dictionary? nableezy - 23:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Palestine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that the article is essay-like but it documents the use of a specific term over time in the works of many notable writers so I’m not sure the case for deletion is well made. Mccapra ( talk ) 17:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that's a fair point. I'm still not sure about notability, but I think the article's bias issues can be addressed while ing the factual content. One issue is that, as the article admits in the first sentence, there's already an article concerning the national political movement of the Palestinian people: Palestinian nationalism . Its use in popular discourse appears to be largely confined to this use, which could suggest a to be the best course of action. However, as you point out, this seems to be a specific literary term in certain contexts, and, if we excise the other stuff, this could probably stand on its own. Bruhpedia ( talk ) 22:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is written as an essay, sourcing is either red or orange, so nothing for reliability. I can't find mention of the term otherwise. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Uh they yellow cus they books linked to on google books, but books published by university presses are reliable. If you’re basing this on a color wheel you should try reading it instead. nableezy - 23:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The wild alienation your attitude fosters aside, journals and books aren't ipso facto optimal sources here. They're perfect for, say, scientific topics, but in contentious soft fields like this one, they generally contain arguments. As such, they need to be counterbalanced. Maybe the article could be expanded by more about Israeli views on the topic. Bruhpedia ( talk ) 01:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] journals and books aren't ipso facto optimal sources here ... need to be counterbalanced ... by more about Israeli views ?! starship . paint ( RUN ) 01:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two different points. To the latter, I was trying to say that, on a highly contentious issue, especially one with no objective right answer, you're going to get multiple camps of highly camps of convincing, highly-reputable sources that disagree completely and, in many cases, hate each other. By spotlighting only one of those camps, you can argue convincingly that you have reputable sources, but it doesn't ultimately matter. To the former, but related, point, journals and books are good, but few of the ones cited strive for objectivity. Good journalism at least tries to be objective, which might be better than cherry-picking sources from only a certain side of the divide. Bruhpedia ( talk ) 02:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Bruhpedia Respectfully and sincerely, I don't understand why you repeating that the current state of the article is biased. Let's just assume for a second that you are 100% correct. Does that mean we it? No, it does not. And you appear to have abandoned your other argument, which is a ground for deletion, notability. So I don't understand why you don't head to the library and find some sources to balance out the bias you perceive. And if you get pushback, you can engage the relevant editing community in the Talk page. But I get the impression that you are unnecessarily spending a lot of energy defending your assertion that there is a severe bias and perhaps losing sight of the fact that that is not the issue in a deletion debate. -- Orgullomoore ( talk ) 04:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC) SCHOLARSHIP , experts writing in the field of their expertise in books published by respected academic publishers are the top quality sources here and everywhere else besides breaking news. nableezy - 02:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC) Just curious, what do you mean when you say the sourcing is either red or orange ? -- Orgullomoore ( talk ) 07:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I use a bot here that idienfies sources used in wikipedia articles as reliable sources or not. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It identifies google books links as yellow because you can link to a self published work by some random schmuck, and that would be unreliable, or a book by the worlds leading authority, and that would be reliable. But it is yellow because the link is google books, not because it is not reliable. nableezy - 14:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Interesting! Thanks, I found the script and installed it. And yes, I'm noticing that all links to Google Books are highlighted in yellow now. -- Orgullomoore ( talk ) 14:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Certainly the article could be improved, but that's no reason to it. I don't find the notability argument persuasive. -- Orgullomoore ( talk ) 01:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Split into Palestinian nationalism and Palestinanism (word) There's already a page for the Palestinian cause, and portions of this are arguably a POV fork of it. There's also some interesting stuff on the literary term ""Palestinianism"" as used by writers. I think the two could perhaps be divided. Bruhpedia ( talk ) 01:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not a discussion pertinent here; AfD is for determining notability. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 06:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Topic is clearly notable. Article could certainly use some improvement, though. Apcynan ( talk ) 01:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC) GNG . If editors have a problem with its structure, they can try to rewrite it. starship . paint ( RUN ) 01:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . For the nth time, an essay is an expression of an author's personal views. A wiki article is a careful paraphrase of what relevant RS state or claim about a given topic. The views here are those given in reputable sources, not mine. Nishidani ( talk ) 14:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm coming around on ing it, but it seems disingenuous to suggest that you can't write a synthetic essay with an implicit thesis. By the contentious nature of the topic, even reputable scholars are highly divided, and by (explicitly) categorizing much of the work of one of the two camps as polemical while quoting the other at length, you're making a pretty strong statement. Nice job writing it though. Bruhpedia ( talk ) 03:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] clearly a notable term. AryKun ( talk ) 17:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC) Obviously. Per all of the above. A nomination devoid of rationale. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 11:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ D'Angelo, Frank J. (October 1979). ""The Art of Paraphrase"". College Composition and Communication . 30 (3): 255–259. doi : 10.2307/356389 . JSTOR 356389 . ^ Skills for Academic and Career Success . Pearson Higher Education AU. 16 September 2013. p. 104. ISBN 9781486014712 . ^ Inglis, Fred (2008). Key Concepts in Education . SAGE Publications. ISBN 9780857022998 . ^ Ruiter, Rik (2005). Highway to E.S.L. iUniverse. ISBN 9780595342211 . ^ Chi Do Na; Nguyen Xuan Nhat Chi Mai (2017). ""Paraphrasing in Academic Writing: a Case Study of Vietnamese Learners of English"" (PDF) . Language Education in Asia . there's clear scholarly sourcing to satisfy the GNG. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 06:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Anne-Marie Kilday: NACADEMIC states that notability is conferred if the person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. However, the post of Vice Chancellor that Kilday occupies is not the highest post at the University of Northampton ; that would be the post of Chancellor, which belongs to Richard Coles . Thus, Kilday is required to be notable under WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG , and is not eligible under NACADEMIC. I believe that she does not meet the criteria for ANYBIO/GNG, and this article should therefore be d. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 20:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Education , and England . Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 20:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Curbon7 ( talk ) 20:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy , faulty nomination. This is a common misunderstanding of British academia. In that system (and in some systems derived from it such as in India), vice chancellor is indeed the highest-level administrative post. Chancellor is, instead, a ceremonial post typically held by a non-academic. Incidentally, she also passes WP:AUTHOR through reviews of her books Women and Violent Crime in Enlightenment Scotland , A History of Infanticide in Britain , and (coauthored) Cultures of Shame: Exploring Crime and Morality in Britain . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 21:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy . Fallacious nomination as above. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 21:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] . ""Vice-chancellor"" in the United Kingdom is equivalent to a university's president in the United States or Canada. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 21:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Or provost, or chancellor, depending on the North American university. We're confusing in our own way. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 22:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy . To Eastmain 's point, see Chancellor (education)#England, Wales and Northern Ireland : ""Almost all chief executives of institutions with university status in England, Wales and Northern Ireland use vice-chancellor as their title."" -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 23:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since vice-chancellor is equivelant to president. Knowledgegatherer23 ( Say Hello ) 01:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Clearly notable under WP:PROF and AUTHOR. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 03:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC) Did the nominator not consider it strange that what they believed to be the top post at a respectable UK university was held by a "" writer, radio presenter and clergyman ""? Clearly, notable as VC. Pam D 08:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fundamental misunderstanding of the post of vice-chancellor. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC) 55, 31 October 2023 (UTC) TROUT for the nominator who failed to read WP:NPROF #6 under which they performed the nomination nor did they bother click on the very first link in the article, Vice-Chancellor that explains this in great detail. -- hroest 17:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Asantewaa (TikToker): With the exception of the first source, all of the remaining sources cited in the article are not independent of her and cannot be used to establish notability. The subject doesn't have a career to speak of. Being a tiktoker and winning a non-notable award are not enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Versace 1608 Wanna Talk ? 16:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , and Ghana . Versace 1608 Wanna Talk ? 16:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] When you say the subject has no career to speak about I disagree with you. By extension of being a tiktoker she has become an established brands influencer. And all the article I added are independent of her. Owula kpakpo ( talk ) 16:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you disagree with me, can you tell me what career she has? With the exception of the first source, all of the remaining sources are interviews she's conducted. How exactly are interviews independent? Versace 1608 Wanna Talk ? 17:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello @ Owula kpakpo , I agree with you. Fellow @ Versace1608 , your feedback about sources is fine and can be improved but your comment 'The subject doesn't have a career to speak of. Being a tiktoker and winning a non-notable award are not enough to warrant a stand-alone article.' is very harsh and unjustified. You can make your comment without attacks. If your view on 'not being a career' is anything to go by, then the following TikTokers should be removed from Wikipedia. For example, Khabane Lame , Charli D'Amelio , Bella Poarch , Addison Rae , MrBeast , Zach King , etc. Kindly state which Wikipedia's notability clauses have been violated, This is a learning process. In a nutshell, I vote that this article should be kept and its secondary sources improved. Thank you. Uprising Man ( talk ) 23:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Yes"" Asantewaa is a TikToker and a notable influencer for brands. Afimaame ( talk ) 21:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Saying that ""The subject doesn't have a career to speak of"" is unnecessarily disrespectful. The nominator appears to suggest that social media influencer isn't a ""real"" career. We're here to discuss whether or not her biography merits inclusion in this encyclopedia; our opinions about the meaningfulness of her source of income are irrelevant. pburka ( talk ) 00:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC) How is it ""unnecessarily disrespectful""? I am simply pointing out the obvious. She does not have a career in the Tiktok field and is only known as a tiktoker, that's all. She has not been discussed in reliable sources. Can you show me where I suggested that social media influencer isn't a real career? Please do not make false allegations against me. I have already said the subject fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:ANYBIO. Versace 1608 Wanna Talk ? 00:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you claiming that she's not actually a social media influencer? Challenging the truth of the biography is quite different than challenging the subject's notability. pburka ( talk ) 01:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WTH man? Did I tell you that she is not a social media influencer? Stop what you're doing. You do not need to comment on this AFD if you don't have anything meaningful to add. Versace 1608 Wanna Talk ? 01:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So we agree that she has a career as a social media influencer. I request that you withdraw your statement that ""The subject doesn't have a career to speak of."" It's disrespectful to the subject. pburka ( talk ) 01:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not engaging with you in this discussion again. This is going to be my last reply to you. Versace 1608 Wanna Talk ? 01:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Pburka you're right. Nominating an article for deletion with such comments as such defeats the purpose of nomination for deletion. This sounds more of a personality attack rather than a logical reason to clean up Wikipedia. @ Versace1608 don't shy from accepting your mistake in making an unfriendly comment on this space. I agree with you about improving the article with more secondary sources but your comment about her career isn't worth it. To err is human. Let's the article and make Wikipedia a hub of information for the world. Thank you. Uprising Man ( talk ) 23:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Non-notable ""influencer"" as we have no neutral sources that talk about her extensively, in what we consider reliable sources. nothing we can use for an article. ""People that make funny videos"" isn't noteworthy. I can't find any articles about her. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, there's this [7] I wouldn't call it extensive coverage and the website looks iffy, filled with spambait ads and popups. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These sites are/can be considered as reliable, here and here . Robertjamal12 ~🔔 15:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are secondary sources about the subject and there's a need to get more sources and the community [including you - @ Oaktree b ] can do that. @ Robertjamal12 has provided some sources you can look into. @ Versace1608 and @ Oaktree b editing Wikipedia is an inclusive responsibility so if there's a gap especially on secondary sources, you can leave a comment on the creator of the article's talk page. Let's the article. Thank you Uprising Man ( talk ) 23:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or we can discuss it here at AfD, that's what we're here for. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC) BASIC , which allows us to stitch together the non-interview portions of the many articles about her in reliable secondary sources (*excluding* all the gossip columns), such as this Adom Online article which states that most of its viewers/readers in Ghana have heard of her (regardless of whether or not they use TikTok), and the Pulse Ghana articles , including the one when she won the 2021 award for TikTok Influencer of the Year, which also notes her large following at the time. Wikipedia articles about social media influencers are often hard to assess, but this one seems to have enough meaningful coverage; it's fine for the article to be short and sweet; and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a sufficient reason to . Cielquiparle ( talk ) 14:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC) 38, 30 April 2023 (UTC) 43, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have stated my reasons in other comments on this page. Simply get more secondary sources and nothing stops the nominator from improving the article. It can be short and sweet as @ Cielquiparle puts it. Also, I've stated my stance on the comment about she being a tiktoker not a career. Such a comment is 'unfriendly' and sounds more of a personality attack rather than a logical reason to clean up Wikipedia. Uprising Man ( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm leaning weak . There is at least one really substantial article about her ( YEN ), and a number of shorter ones. I do not know anything about Ghana so I cannot judge how her coverage compares to other celebrities. I default to """" based on that. Lamona ( talk ) 01:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC) the ""Pulse influencer award"" seems to be only 3 years old , so it needs some time before it gains a reputation as a ""signficant award. "" . Ample coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG. The ""doesn't have a career to speak of"" comment by the nominator is demonstrably false and not actually a requirement for notability. Sources have been added to the article since the nomination, but the original claim that only one of the sources was independent of her was misleading. While some of the articles included quotes from the subject or were accompanied by interviews, they predominantly consist of prose written about the subject. gobonobo + c 22:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Carolyn Davidson (diplomat): Fails WP:GNG . Uhooep ( talk ) 04:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Bilateral relations , Japan , United Kingdom , and Guatemala . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment this article could be expanded using content from the Japanese article, but could be ed to Consulate General of the United Kingdom, Osaka . Moondragon21 ( talk ) 12:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could also be ed to List of ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Guatemala . LibStar ( talk ) 04:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes it could. Moondragon21 ( talk ) 17:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC) BIO . LibStar ( talk ) 10:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] change to based on sources found below. LibStar ( talk ) 22:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC) from Embassy magazine : ""For the first time in the history of the Foreign Office, a husband and wife team will be joint heads of a British diplomatic mission"". Coverage also in the Financial Times, An innovative model of leadership ; The Times, Secret of a double life ; The Guardian, Mr and Mrs Ambassador Piecesofuk ( talk ) 09:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to assess newly found sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration . Lightburst ( talk ) 19:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC) //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7654649.stm gives significant coverage as well. Those who didn't say , please look over the coverage found and state if you changed your mind or not. D r e a m Focus 21:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Career British diplomat, sourced and to the point. — Maile ( talk ) 01:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Brat (Nnamdï album): Only one major review. ⠀ tomás tomás tomás ⠀ talk ⠀ 03:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC) I have fixed this somewhat malformed nomination. No opinion at this time. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks! Don't know what happened with the autogen. ⠀ tomás tomás tomás ⠀ talk ⠀ 03:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why was this nominated for deletion? Besides the three good sources already cited, a web search shows plenty more, including this in-depth article on its production from the Chicago Reader , reviews in Document Journal and PopMatters , and more coverage within this Vice profile . Hameltion ( talk | contribs ) 04:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reviews from Pitchfork , PopMatters , and Loud and Quiet , all three of which appear on RSMUSIC . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 06:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also appears on multiple year-end/mid-year album rankings as seen here. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 06:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC) The 3 cited sources at the time of nomination show criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM . In addition to the sources found by Hameltion and QuietHere I'd add this profile from KEXP. GanzKnusper ( talk ) 08:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy per (a) the above (b) WP:SNOW (c) even more reviews that look usable such as mxdwn.com (not mentioned at MUSICRS but used in several articles), The Alternative , [19] Musikexpress . Geschichte ( talk ) 13:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] based on the sources from Hameltion and QuietHere. hinnk ( talk ) 22:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Three Little Fish and the Big Bad Shark: Without references, the article cannot satisfy book notability (or any other notability guideline). Draftify as nominator. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 05:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 05:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I added some references, which perhaps the nominator might have found when doing WP:BEFORE . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 06:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Eastmain's decision. CastJared ( talk ) 21:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC) 'Three Little Fish and the Big Bad Shark' is a children's picture book written by Ken Geist and Will Grace, illustrated by Julian Gorton, [...] But the PW review says it's by Geist and Gorton; no mention of Grace. Neither Geist nor Gorton seems to be mentioned in en:WP outside this article; I have no opinion on whether either of them should have an article; if some editor believes that he should and quickly creates it, then the article discussed may be ed into that new article. Otherwise, ; because aside from the PW review (which is pretty humdrum), Eastmain's ""some references"" provide no evidence for notability: the three are a page from some retailer (not a disinterested source) that contains a mere blurb, and a couple of catalogue entries. -- Hoary ( talk ) 00:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Sources Damron, Jayne (June 2007). ""Geist, Ken. The Three Little Fish and the Big Bad Shark"" . School Library Journal . Vol. 53, no. 6. p. 97. Archived from the original on 2023-05-27 . Retrieved 2023-05-27 – via Gale . The review notes: ""Gorton's whimsical, computer-drawn scenery and electric color palette set just the right tone for Geist's tongue-in-cheek retelling. The bold font is humorously integrated with the art, appearing inside the shark's mouth for emphasis, or swirling along the current with an escaping fish. This spunky tale is a welcome addition to storytime and picture-book collections."" ""The Three Little Fish and the Big Bad Shark"" . Publishers Weekly . Archived from the original on 2023-05-27 . Retrieved 2023-05-27 . The review notes: ""But the timid will find relief in the satisfying ending in which the once-scary shark gets his just desserts (in the form of a necessarily vegetarian diet). This brief, enjoyable read proves a fun adaptation that a new generation will likely savor."" ""The Three Little Fish and the Big Bad Shark"" . Kirkus Reviews . Vol. 75, no. 7. 2007-04-01. p. 332. Archived from the original on 2023-05-27 . Retrieved 2023-05-27 . The review notes: ""Gorton’s digital illustrations are bright blocks of color and shape, and the facial expressions lend much to the tale. Great for educators teaching comparisons, and for ocean lovers."" Hanson, Anne (October 2007). ""The Three Little Fish and the Big Bad Shark"". Library Media Connection . Vol. 26, no. 2. p. 80. EBSCO host 26926730 . The review notes: ""This story is a variant of the “Three Little Pigs,” and it works wonderfully. A big, bad shark threatens to eat each house constructed by each of the three little fish, and each fish defies him with, “Not by the skin of my finny, fin, fin.” What makes this an effective version of the familiar tale is the bright colors, large depictions of the characters, and dynamic text that changes and moves with the story and its emphasis. The reader is put into the story as it happens. It’s very much an action- packed story in which the sister fish chooses wisely and the bad guy can’t get the best of her. The story ends with the toothless shark eating greens from a bowl."" Braun, Jackie (2007-07-15). ""Latest Kids' Books Cover Many Topics - Flint Journal Review"" . The Flint Journal . Archived from the original on 2023-05-27 . Retrieved 2023-05-27 . The review notes: ""Ken Geist puts a new twist on a classic children's story with ""The Three Little Fish and the Big Bad Shark"" (Scholastic, $6.99). Instead of threatening to huff and puff and blow the house down like the wolf did to the three little pigs, the villain in this book threatens to munch and crunch and smash their house in. To which the fish reply, ""Not by the skin of my finny fin fin!"" Julia Gorton's illustrations are as fresh and fun as this amusing, updated tale."" von Seggern, Merry (2010-07-10). ""From the library: Water, water everywhere at the Edith Abbott Memorial Library"" . The Grand Island Independent . Archived from the original on 2023-05-27 . Retrieved 2023-05-27 . The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: ""Be sure to include the fractured fairy tale, ""Three Little Fish and the Big Bad Shark,"" by Ken Geist, for a few giggles and smiles."" ""Lima Public Library Book Reviews"" . The Lima News . 2008-05-14. Archived from the original on 2023-05-27 . Retrieved 2023-05-27 . The article notes: ""Three Little Fish and the Big Bad Shark by Will Grace and Ken Geist The classic story of the Three Little Pigs gets an underwater twist in this colorfully illustrated book. With houses of seaweed, sand and a sunken ship and phrases like ""Little fish, little fish, let me come in"" and ""not by the skin of my finny, fin, fin"" this book is sure to be a favorite read-aloud for fans of sea creatures."" Lynn, Michelle (2016-07-23). ""The Three Little Fish and the Big Bad Shark"" . YA Books Central . Archived from the original on 2023-05-27 . Retrieved 2023-05-27 . The review notes: ""This book is no different than that. It's a lot of fun with colorful images and lines that make kids giggle as they say them. Kids will love this. It couldn't quite hold the attention of the two-year-old I read it with, but she was almost there. The small, compact style of the book makes it super easy for little hands to hold and flip through because at that age they want to start doing everything themselves. "" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Three Little Fish and the Big Bad Shark to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 09:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC) //archive.org/details/isbn_9780439719636/ or at https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780439719636/page/n8/ . Cunard ( talk ) 09:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"List of current CFL team rosters: Let'srun ( talk ) 19:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and American football . Let'srun ( talk ) 19:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC) Lists of current team rosters . The WP:TG argument I don't buy either as these can easily be un-templated and transcluded from the main team's page if needed. SportingFlyer T · C 20:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , for several reasons. (1) The vast majority of CFL players are notable, and WP:NLIST states that Notability of lists is based on the group ; (2) all the transactions, news, etc. that make up these teams are very widely covered; (3) there are independent websites that track all CFL teams' rosters, e.g. TSN and footballdb ; (4) your citation of WP:TG notes that Templates should not be used to create lists of links to other articles when a category, list page, or ""See also"" section list can perform the same function – there is nothing else that can perform this function; and (5) if all else fails, then I think we should WP:IAR this as it is immensely useful to both readers and editors. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 20:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Useful navigational aid. ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 20:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Lord Derby Cup 2023–2024: Mn1548 ( talk ) 11:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 19 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 12:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and France . Shellwood ( talk ) 12:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – can be reformatted to match similar articles, highest level cup competition in France so should be notable enough and sources are available – I will have a go at improving it. EdwardUK ( talk ) 12:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thankyou, that looks miles better. My only issue now is that this is the only season of the Lord Derby Cup with an article. Mn1548 ( talk ) 12:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It should be possible to create articles for some other seasons. Treize Mondial covers as far as the 2017–18 season, so that would provide enough sources for three more excluding the cancelled years. For earlier seasons it would be more difficult, but the FFRXIII website has news going back to the final in 2012. This can be used to provide some information and is helpful for knowing what to look for in other independent sources – the French Wikipedia articles are of no help for providing sources, but could also be used to suggest what to search for. EdwardUK ( talk ) 15:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] New opinion Thanks to EdwardUK I think there are sufficient sources to the article. In addition to his work reformatting the article. Mn1548 ( talk ) 13:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"World-Wide Spectrum Efficiency: Though tone is less of an issue, and non-notability and no sources are the big one thetechie@wikimedia : ~/talk/ $ 00:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak but burn to the ground and rewrite. This group does seem to have been discussed widely back around 2004-05: [33] , [34] , [35] (note that the CNet article was long before Red Ventures turned the site into an AI-generated garbage heap). The coverage may not quite be ""significant"" in all cases, but is there. Regardless, the article is absolutely awful and is inexcusable in its current form. Also, note that more recently the abbreviation WWiSE has been used for an unrelated software package: [36] . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Technology . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is no consensus and low participation. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I have reworked it and added sources identified by WeirdNAnnoyed. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 15:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The lead still isn't enough though. It just cuts straight to ""Two industry ""Pre-N"" groups, TGnSync and the World-Wide Spectrum Efficiency (WWiSE), were formed"". No identifying sentence. thetechie@enwiki : ~/talk/ $ 15:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TheTechie , Do you have a suggested improvement? Also, WP:NOTCLEANUP . ~ Kvng ( talk ) 15:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why not it to the timeline in IEEE 802.11n-2009 @ TheTechie ? That seemed like a reasonable suggestion to me. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 07:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak But absolutely crummy stub. Needs a total rewrite. X ( talk ) 19:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Clifford Chase: My BEFORE is not giving much. This was likely WP:TOOSOON in 2006 when the entry was created, and it hasn't changed since, which is not a good sign. WP:ATD to consider might be ing this to the article about his possibly notable book ( Winkie (novel) - the article looks meh but the reviews likely suffice for that entry to meet NBOOK). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 14:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 14:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Book review in Slate [23] , not enough to meet AUTHOR. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, found one more [24] , should be ok for notability now. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those are reviews of his books, not works about him. Notability is not inherited ( WP:INHERIT ). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 23:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Author , reviews can be used to establish notability for an author. So ""notability is not inherited"" is not correct here b/c reviews can be used to establish than an author has ""won significant critical attention."" Finally, ""notability is not inherited"" doesn't apply to citations, it refers to someone claiming to be notable because they are related to someone who is notable. SouthernNights ( talk ) 13:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ SouthernNights Are any of the sources found about him ? The page you cite states: ""A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."". The additional criteria for authors are just supplmentary: ""People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included"". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 00:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC) (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. "" So per the language under (c), the reviews don't have to be about him but his work. And that's exactly what we have here. The reason it states this is because authors and similar creative professionals are usually represented by their works, with many authors even avoiding publicity around themselves. SouthernNights ( talk ) 13:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut and Ohio . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Added several sources. A stub, perhaps, but between the sourced books, and the info generated by Authority Control, I believe this author is notable. — Maile ( talk ) 03:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] AFAIK date from Authority Control is at least partially based on Wikipedia/Wikida. Circular reference warning... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above sources of notability. In addition, I found three reviews of the author's work on Kirkus, including a starred review ( link ), two reviews on Publishers Weekly ( link ), a story in the NY Times about his novel Winkie being turned into a play , a review in the NYTimes , and a ton of articles and reviews that can be accessed through the Wikipedia Library (including in Newsweek, Lambda Book Report, Bookseller, and other places). -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 13:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"2023 Luton Borough Council election: Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON , but should have been left in draft until enough WP:SIGCOV could be added to show it passes notability requirements. Onel 5969 TT me 12:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - the information appears to come from the published candidate lists by the UK election authorities, which is about as good as it could be. I can accept that the individual candidates are not notable, but given that the information about the election has literally been published , I can't really see how as a whole it can be non-notable. JMWt ( talk ) 16:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - for the same reasons I said to the equivalent page for Wigan also proposed for deletion by @ Onel5969 ; there is value in letting these pages go live slightly ahead of the elections themselves. Moreover, letting these pages be d loses the work that people have put in in good faith, knowing that every UK local election in recent years has been given a page. Yes, the policies on general notability and verifiable sources still apply, but a hatnote highlighting the need for more sources or improvements would feel far more proportionate than a deletion or applying s (as Onel5969 has done to numerous other equivalent pages for the 2023 UK local elections) given how close we are to the election day now. Stortford ( talk ) 18:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - for similar reasons you said. A lot of effort goes into making these and if we are going to start deleting them for the reasons stated in the proposal we are going to have to start deleting thousands of election related articles and possibly even the entire UK Local Elections page. A request for better sources would be far more reasonable. Bentley4 ( talk ) 14:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - neither of the ! votes is actually based in policy. Onel 5969 TT me 19:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that official announcements of candidates in an election are RS that meet the GNG. What's not policy about that? JMWt ( talk ) 20:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What's in-depth or independent about that sourcing? Onel 5969 TT me 22:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Its the official list of candidates by the UK elections authorities. How is that not in depth or independent? Bentley4 ( talk ) 04:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's all the information that it is possible to have about that election - except the results, because it hasn't taken place yet. Hard, in my opinion, to get more in depth than all the information from the only official source of it. JMWt ( talk ) 06:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's why it's not notable. Glad you agree there's not enough in-depth coverage at this point in time. If all the information is not significant coverage, that means it doesn't meet WP:GNG . And to answer the first question, it's not in-depth because it is not in-depth; and it's not independent, because it's published by a related entity. Onel 5969 TT me 09:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The election authorities are independent of the candidates and parties. That's how elections tend to work. If you are saying that we can't take official information from independent election officials as RS then I've a bridge to sell you. And there are a lot of pages on en.wiki that need removing. JMWt ( talk ) 11:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The election authorities run the election. This article is about the election. Onel 5969 TT me 13:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You seem to be setting a very high threshold for notability and sourcing here, which I would argue goes beyond the accepted consensus position on what satisfies those policies for UK local elections, with many such pages having been created, reviewed and allowed to stand, with contributions from large numbers of editors. If you are saying that any such election page only sourced by the official sources is neither notable nor reliable, then that is a much larger debate than we should be having here on one specific council's election page for one specific year. I believe this page does conform to the policy on notability and sourcing, so should be allowed to stand as it is. Even if it did not yet reach those thresholds I would still argue that deletion is an over-the-top reaction given the imminence of the election day - you can be certain that within a couple of days of the results being declared they'll be added and sourced here too. If the page has been d in the meantime that's just wasted time for whoever then has to reassemble the base material already here. Stortford ( talk ) 15:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is always the case with local elections in the UK, and most other pages have been allowed to stand in this manner until the election takes place on 4th May. Thanks, Wikieditor019 ( talk ). 16:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON as the election is only days away. Took only a few seconds to find some in-depth coverage. [9] [10] [11] [12] Number 5 7 11:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Sourcing found above is sufficient to satisfy GNG requirements. Rupples ( talk ) 22:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON reasoning no longer applies, now that the election has occurred and there are additional sources covering it. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Parade, Leamington Spa: I propose deletion of the article and maybe this all being moved to the Leamington Spa article? DragonofBatley ( talk ) 17:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - it has some interesting features and has been the subject of some fairly famous paintings, photographs and images. However I think to be considered notable it would need to be the main feature in a substantial RS. Which I'm not seeing. JMWt ( talk ) 17:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak I have additional book references for it. G-13114 ( talk ) 07:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that a large chunk of the article, present since its 2nd edit six years ago in 2017, was removed as ""Remove unsoured material"" 2 minutes before this AfD nomination. Yes it was unsourced, but it had never been tagged as such and appeared to be plausible information and of interest to readers. It is so much more constructive to add a {{ cn }} tag and prompt other editors into sourcing the material, rather than just chucking it out. Pam D 14:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wouldn't exactly call that a ""large chunk of the article"", but rather a ""misconceptions"" section which looks entirely original research. I lived in this town at one point in my life, and I never heard of anyone having such a misconception and it would certainly need citing. Cheers — Amakuru ( talk ) 19:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But I suggest it would have been better practice to tag it as needing citation, rather than just remove it on one editor's ""I don't like this"" decision. This particular editor tends to remove other editors' contributions like this quite often. Once removed, the content is lost. If tagged, it can prompt the editor who wrote it, or others interested in the article, to find sources and improve the encyclopedia. Pam D 20:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that this should be improved rather than d. G-13114 ( talk ) 23:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Stalk me and my page and my edits and they go on about me removing things. I'm their favourite chew toy for when their bored like they made clear on my talk page with the captions ""For some reason I wondered what you are doing these days and this was the first edit I looked at. I hope you're editing carefully - I won't look further as I've got other things to do today."" - so yeah, I'm their favourite chew toy to give a hard time to. If that isn't stalking I don't know what is. DragonofBatley ( talk ) 00:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/ to Leamington Spa . There's already some content about this there, and it can be covered there fine. Reywas92 Talk 02:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong . I just did a quick Google search for ""parade leamington spa listed building"", and immediately found eight individual Grade II listed buildings on the street - there may be more, that was just from the first page of Google results. I don't happen to own a copy of the Pevsner guide for Warwickshire, but I would be amazed if it did not contain substantial coverage of a street with so many listed buildings on it, both in terms of description and history, which could be used to expand the article. This article wants expanding, not deleting. Girth Summit (blether) 12:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per Girth Summit. Streets can be notable, and plenty of evidence that this one is. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 13:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC) 37, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Plenty of sourcing is available to meet WP:GNG . WP:BEFORE . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Christmas Eve Procession: It is a mess of unknowable claims mixed with folk legend and I'm not sure even where to start trying to verify the article. Tooncool64 ( talk ) 01:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No sources at all, and a lot of broken wikilinks and other problems. Endersslay ( talk ) 16:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The lack of sources can be addressed without deletion , which I've just done. A simple web search for ""christmas eve procession malta"" turns up dozens of sources, so I highly doubt that the claim that this doesn't pass the WP:GNG , which the nominator doesn't actually evidence. – Joe ( talk ) 09:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as this article has changed greatly, from an unreferenced mess to a sourced stub article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I've added a couple of sources and added text to the article. I think we would do better to add to the article, rather than it. This is an annual sacred event to the island of Malta. Re the nominator's statement of, ""...unknowable claims mixed with folk legend"", the annual Malta event is about the birth of Jesus. — Maile ( talk ) 14:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC) 20, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The article is now a sourced stub which nullifies the arguments. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk ) 04:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Open-source firmware: WP:GNG fail. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 08:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC) Article Sources : Only one of the four current cites looks remotely reliable (and I have not verified that one). Hackaday sources: PhotographyEdits thanked me for removing them from another article: ""Thanks for fixing the Hackaday issue!"" In context, fixing == deleting the cites. PC Gamer looks questionable, and the cited article is brief, not significant coverage. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 20:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software . Yae4 ( talk ) 08:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC) LISTN and some extensive sources have been written on the subject of open-source firmware, such as the book ""System Firmware - An Essential Guide to Open Source and Embedded Solutions"" (ISBN 9781484279380). PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 08:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That may be one. I can't verify. Are there more? Hackaday and PC Gamer don't do it. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 10:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC) https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm? id=3349301 PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 10:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC) 10, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nobody has mentioned Libreboot here, so I am not sure what you're referring to. jp × g 18:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC) if an entire technical book has been written on the topic, it seems pretty obviously notable. Moreover, the fact that we've got articles on individual pieces of open-source firmware would seem to logically imply that the concept itself was notable. Finally, the nominator has not commented on the four sources that currently exist on the article -- are those no good? jp × g 18:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC) 31, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, but are they good? You say that they ""don't do it"", but I don't know what this means. Previous WP:RSN discussions about PC Gamer mention that it is "" as reliable as anything can be in that space. I'd have no issues with using them for references. "" and one of "" multiple sources we consider reliable "", and consensus about Hackaday there is unclear but it definitely is not on the shitlist. If there is an actual, concrete issue with these sources, then I would be interested in hearing it, since they are used as references in a good number of articles. jp × g 05:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC) See WP:WHATABOUT or similar. Anyway, you already weighed in at AfD for Libreboot. Please use your preferred word search method at Talk:Libreboot for ""hackaday"". There you will find multiple editors saying it is not a good source, and find PhotographyEdits thanking me for removing them from that article. And see the Diff added to Article sources in the nomination. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 10:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC) WHATABOUT that it is forbidden to cite any consensus anywhere for a decision on anything? jp × g 00:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Sources exist to meet WP:GNG -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 21:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] likely with the sources that existed in the article and searching Open Library finds a significant coverage of various open-source firmwares, many of them which a brief description of what that means ( [91] , [92] , [93] , [94] , [95] , [96] , [97] ). I also added a link and source to Rockbox since it seems to meet the requirements. I haven't looked elsewhere for sources at this time. Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . As pointed out the topic is notable. In the case of technology lists, we also face the question, ""but should we have it?"" (in other words, what about WP:NOT ?) The fact is, this is also a useful, focused list and it meets WP:NLIST . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Ingrid Halstensen: The article is in 3 languages. I encourage you to use the find sources tool on this article, you'll plenty of references that show the subject is notable. Dylan | ✉ | ✓ 15:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment on Speedy Keep, about the sources being reliable, VG ( Verdens Gang ), one of the references used is the most-read online newspaper in Norway. [1] Aftenposten , another reference used, is Norway's largest printed newspaper. [2] Nettavisen is a news source with no reliability issues. It is one of Norway's most popular news websites. TV 2 (Norwegian TV channel) is the news source that she works for. Dylan | ✉ | ✓ 16:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Journalism , Sports , and Norway . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - the fact that most of the sources are not in English does not justify deleting the article. WP:GLOBAL . DCsansei ( talk ) 16:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC) //medienorge.uib.no/statistikk/medium/avis/253 ^ https://www.statista.com/statistics/633186/ranking-of-printed-newspapers-in-norway-by-circulation/ The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Ulysse Pastre: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC) Elected member of the French Chamber of Deputies is a clear WP:NPOL pass. Did the nominator even read the article? Curbon7 ( talk ) 20:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Curbon7. Passes NPOL. Mccapra ( talk ) 20:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Curbon7. 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC) per Curbon7. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 21:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Zut alors, the French wiki article uses two biographical encyclopedias of French parliamentarians, couldn't ask for better sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Sure, the article could use some expansion, but he held an inherently notable role that passes WP:NPOL and the French article features more content and sourcing that can be used to improve it with. Bearcat ( talk ) 00:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can we snow close this please? No need to take any more time over it. Mccapra ( talk ) 04:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC) As Curbon7 mentioned, meets WP:NPOL as a member of the national legislative body of France (Chamber of Deputies). Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Scott Alexander Hess: I am not persuaded he passes WP:NACTOR nor WP:NAUTHOR 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Authors , Theatre , Sexuality and gender , Missouri , and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - sources 1 and 2 might be enough to meet generic notability . Bearian ( talk ) 20:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC) I've added reviews of Hess's works (including a recently published work) from Kirkus Reviews and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I feel he's notable per WP:NAUTHOR , more specifically because of the critical attention his work has received. Bridget (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the improvements made. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 01:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Adventure Thru Inner Space: WP:GNG is very weak. Sourcing is 90% Youtube, with one footnote to a passing mention in a news story and another mention in ""The Disneyland Encyclopedia"". Per WP:ATD-R , I suggest ing this to Tomorrowland (Disney Parks) . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy , Toys , and United States of America . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions . Toughpigs ( talk ) 16:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - There is actually a lot of information on this ride out there - the problem is that most of the ones that go the most in-depth are either primary (being published by/posted on actual official Disney owned platforms) or would not be considered a reliable source (Disney/Disney Park fan sites). I did find this article from the Los Angeles Times about a virtual reality re-creation of the ride to preserve it that was showcased a decade ago, which also discusses the original ride as well a bit more in-depth than the current LA Times article being used as a source in the article. There are also a number of books out there that have a paragraph or two describing/discussing it. While most of them fall along the lines of the many ""unofficial Disney park guides"" style book, there was also this one that seems a bit more promising. Though, I'm also not sure if any of them actually have enough on the ride to be considered significant coverage. I'm currently leaning towards a to Tomorrowland (Disney Parks) (or any other more appropriate target if someone has a better recommendation), but as this one is a bit on the edge for me on whether or not it pass the WP:GNG , I'll hold off on a formal recommendation for now, to see if anyone else has any luck finding anything more substantial than what I found in my own searches. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC) There are five pages on ""Adventure Thru Inner Space"" in the book The Disneyland Story: The Unofficial Guide to the Evolution of Walt Disney's Dream (2014), an independent published source. There are two pages on the attraction in the book The Disneyland Encyclopedia (2017), also an unofficial and independent published source. There was also contemporary newspaper coverage when the attraction opened; I added references to two articles, including the syndicated "" Monsanto Opens Attraction on the Atom at Disneyland "". This is enough to demonstrate notability. Toughpigs ( talk ) 17:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering ( talk ) 20:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC) per sources provided by Toughpigs. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment to closer . If this is kept but not improve, please replace notability template with {{ sources exist }} . TIA. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 00:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC) I improved it — I added information and references from all of those sources that I mentioned. Did you look at the current state of the article? Toughpigs ( talk ) 01:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the sources included in the current version of the article are sufficient to support notability. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 00:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Travel in Taiwan: It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn ( talk ) 20:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 21:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I've expanded and added sources to the article: ""英文觀光月刊定期創刊"" [English tourism monthly magazine launched regularly]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). 1986-07-11. p. 4. ""1999 article in the Soochow Journal of Foreign Languages and Cultures"" . 東吳外語學報 [ Soochow Journal of Foreign Languages and Cultures ]: 210. 1999. ISSN 0259-3777 . OCLC 1322300612 . Retrieved 2024-01-25 – via Google Books . ""第二節 觀光業務"" [Section 2: Tourism Business]. Zhonghua Minguo nian jian 中華民國年鑑 (in Chinese). 1987. p. 1094. ISSN 0529-5777 . OCLC 1554585 . Retrieved 2024-01-25 – via Google Books . Kim, Vivien (2001) [1983]. Taiwan (4 ed.). London: Insight Guides . p. 294. ISBN 1-58573-029-7 . Retrieved 2024-01-25 – via Internet Archive . Keeling, Stephen; Minnigh, Brice (2011). The Rough Guide to Taiwan (2 ed.). London: Rough Guides . p. 51. ISBN 978-1-84836-657-2 . Retrieved 2024-01-25 – via Internet Archive . Crook, Steve (2021-12-31). ""Highways & Byways: New Year's sightseeing resolutions"" . Taipei Times . Archived from the original on 2024-01-25 . Retrieved 2024-01-25 . Bélanger, Gilles (1998). Comment préparer votre voyage avec Internet [ How to prepare for your trip with the Internet ] (in French). Montreal: Éditions Logiques. p. 230. ISBN 2-89381-574-X . Retrieved 2024-01-25 – via Internet Archive . Lorie, Jonathan; Sohanpaul, Amy, eds. (2001). The Traveller's Internet guide . London: Wexas. p. 102. ISBN 0-905-802-13-6 . Retrieved 2024-01-25 – via Internet Archive . Kosecka, Justyna (2017) [1983]. Clark, Sarah (ed.). Taiwan (6 ed.). London: Insight Guides . pp. 303 , 313 . ISBN 978-178-671-641-5 . Retrieved 2024-01-25 – via Internet Archive . Gebicki, Michael (1997-09-20). ""Site seeing Taiwan"" . The Sydney Morning Herald . Archived from the original on 2024-01-25 . Retrieved 2024-01-25 – via Newspapers.com . There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Travel in Taiwan ( traditional Chinese : 中華民國觀光月刊 ; simplified Chinese : 中华民国观光月刊 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 12:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted to discuss the sources provided above. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Schminnte [ talk to me ] 12:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Cunard's sources. Toughpigs ( talk ) 20:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per excellent sources found by Cunard. Thanks 1.46.159.106 ( talk ) 05:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Her Painted Hero: I see various mentions showing that the film exists but I can't find the kinds of RS needed to show notability for inclusion. JMWt ( talk ) 07:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . JMWt ( talk ) 07:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep! First, although IMDb Is considered not reliable, the template No Sources should not have been added as one reference exists on the page (""You should only add this template to articles that contain no citations or references of any kind.""). But most of all sources exist (and are not that hard to find), as this article (in itself a blog) mentions. See also this reliable database . (and dvd release ). And significant coverage can be found in various books: this , this this , etc. Willing to add those sources and more when it is kept. Nota Bene: the film has a very notable cast and screenwriter, which contributes to its notability (please don't mention that notability is not inherited, as this is not what this sentence means). NB2- International distribution (in French as Vermicel artiste peintre ). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok thanks for these sources. The blog, the database and the dvd release are not suitable for assessing notability as they're not independent reliable sources. The first book is a paragraph mention. The second is a sentence. The third is, perhaps, long enough to be considered as a source for notability. In my opinion that is just one source that we can use to assess notability against the GNG. JMWt ( talk ) 12:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. The blog is a blog but it is quoting (and reproducing) an article of The Moving Picture World , Jan. 16. The NYT calls the film an ""example of a curious movie phenomena "". A book about Sennett mentions, in a whole rather interesting paragraph dedicated to the film, something that, imho, seals the deal: ""Also of interest in Her Painted Hero is a previously undocumented appearance by Harold Lloyd "", which should be added to the article, something that, again, I am willing to do when I have more time. Best, - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Lots of coverage in period newspapers. [69] for example, in the Photoplay column, the review is the third in the list. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This one is also more extensive, fourth column from the left, third item down, near the middle. [70] . This one talks about Hale Hamilton, a local boy! [71] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Oaktree. Sources exist and the article can be expanded. An early film is of general and historic notability. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 15:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The film was written by Mack Sennett for his Keystone Studios. I added a source and some info. This film is part of a 50-movie pack : Comedy Classics DVD collection issued by Universal Studios in 2007. — Maile ( talk ) 19:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC) GNG in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC) @ JMWt : Looks like a SnowBall. Would you consider withdrawing this nomination so that we can speedy- the page? Thank you. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No. None of the provided refs pass the bar of ""substantial"" in my opinion. Others may well decide that I'm wrong, but I don't withdraw. JMWt ( talk ) 14:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - well-sourced. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Newry City F.C.: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portsfc1887 ( talk • contribs ) 08:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Notwithstanding that this AfD nomination appears to be malformed and incomplete, deletion is not cleanup. If there are two subjects with overlap, that is normally addressed with a . See WP:MERGEREASON (for when to consider a ) and WP:MERGEINIT (for how to propose a ). There is no reason to this title and the nom doesn't assert a policy-based rationale to do so. Keep. Guliolopez ( talk ) 13:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Northern Ireland . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural - it can be a bit of a grey area when a football club goes bust and is ""re-formed"" as to whether the two clubs should be considered the same or separate. if they are separate, then having two articles is valid. If they are the same, then they should be d. Either way, deleting this article is not the appropriate course of action -- ChrisTheDude ( talk ) 15:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Dinobot (Beast Wars): Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 14:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural due to questionable motives of nominator and flood of similar nominations leaving no time for anyone to do non-Google research. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 19:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] obviously satisfies GNG. InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 00:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC) 49, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate the discussion must still run its course but it is worth noting that the nominator has been blocked for persistent bad faith actions. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 19:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC) A good amount of character discussion occurs in this comic review . I know it's CBR , but this is an actual review as opposed to a listicle (where he definitely shows up in a few as well). Dinobot comes up in several of CBR ' s pieces on this run, but most recap the story (another shortcoming at times). This one spends more time on Dinobot himself. He seems to be one of the more notable aspects of Beast Wars highlighted by Collider in this piece , and while Flickering Myth covered an entire three-season run, discussion dedicated to Dinobot exceeded WP:100WORDS here . Polygon also dedicates quite a bit of discussion of him in a couple different pieces: One where Dinobot comes up in discussion of the recent film Transformers: Rise of the Beasts where he doesn't appear to even be a character, and another in coverage of Transformers: War for Cybertron Trilogy . Plenty of sources WP:NEXIST . This one doesn't need as much trimming as some of the others, but a little could stand to be removed. - 2pou ( talk ) 23:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Jill Astbury: No significant coverage. 2 of the 4 sources refer to publications by her and don't establish notability. Being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women doesn't necessarily add to notability. LibStar ( talk ) 23:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Health and fitness , and Australia . LibStar ( talk ) 23:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Psychology . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Prof#C1 on GS citations, albeit in a high cited field. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 00:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC) . Prof#C1, and Astbury was quite prolific in the 1980's and 1990's so online sources may be hard to come by. Perhaps seeking offline sources to better establish notability might be an option? While I agree being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women doesn't ""add to"" notability, there is a reason why she is there, and that is for the significant contribution that she has made in her chosen field. I'd also like to add that it is disheartening to see articles of notable women being nominated for deletion, particularly when Wikipedia continues to battle the issue of gender bias when it comes to biographical articles about women 2001:8003:6C00:F400:48D1:EF54:F265:DE2B ( talk ) 07:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC) — 2001:8003:6C00:F400:48D1:EF54:F265:DE2B ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] I think that being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women does add to notability but, by itself, does not establish it. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 09:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"WikiArt: sourced to itself, poor quality sources, and trivial mentions. lettherebedarklight 晚安 07:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Websites . lettherebedarklight 晚安 07:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've been editing WP for over 10 years. I took a quick look at WikiArt and can find no criteria for deletion present. The subject of the article is notable, since it was the topic of a serious article in the Smithsonian Magazine, one of its references. The article is written well, although a bit short, and contains references for its major points. There is no problem with WP:POV or WP:OR . On the other hand, the complaint that triggered this request for deletion is a brief, uncapitalized sentence that gives no examples to justify any of its four complaints. Because the complaint isn't reasonable as it currently stands, and because the topic relates to Ukraine, a country at war, my guess is that this deletion attempt is politically motivated. Again, that is just a guess, but it would explain its apparent attempt to vandalize WP. David Spector ( talk ) 10:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ah, yes, my nomination is of course politically motivated. seriously, though, let's take a look at the sources: Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? ref 1 this is a blog. ? moot ✘ No ref 2 this is oprah's personal blog. ? moot ✘ No ref 3 ? moot presumably just proof of the website's age (although the ref is borked). ✘ No ref 4 borked, but is clearly the website's own blog ? moot ? moot ✘ No ref 5 subject website ? moot ? moot ✘ No ref 6 here's the article which you (presumably) claim to count towards wikiart's notability. yet the only mention of it is this: To train their algorithm​, researchers used the more than 80, 000 images from WikiArt.org, one of the largest online collections of digital art. the rest is explaining the technology using wikiart's database. it's just mentioned as a database! ✘ No ref 7 or is it this one? still the same problem, the only mention of it is this: The other network is the “discriminator” network, which is trained on 81,500 images from the WikiArt database, spanning centuries of painting. that's it. ✘ No ref 8 ? still the same problem! the only mention of it is this: For the training, they used 81,449 paintings by 1,119 artists in the publicly available WikiArt data set. nothing so far is significant coverage. ✘ No ref 9 ? it's the same thing again and again. mere referrals to wikiart as a database, nothing more. ✘ No ref 10 ? i think you know what i'm going to say already. ✘ No ref 11 only mention? trivial! The team collected a set of 15,000 portraits from online art encyclopedia WikiArt, spanning the 14th to the 19th century, and fed them into the GAN algorithm. ✘ No ref 12 big surprise, it's the same darn thing! To start, Cetinic and her colleagues analyzed more than 100,000 images from WikiArt. that's it. ✘ No ref 13 ? go on, guess. ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . nothing here works. lettherebedarklight 晚安 11:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, letthere, for those details. I will reply here to each point when I have time to do so. David Spector ( talk ) 10:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom and the source table, that's not a significant coverage. Artem. G ( talk ) 08:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What does ""per nom"" mean? I can't find a good definition of this phrase. Does it mean ""because of its name""? If so, what is wrong with the name 'WikiArt'? David Spector ( talk ) 10:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC) 22, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, I still don't understand ""per nominator"". Nominator is defined as ""someone who officially suggests that a person should be considered to do a particular job, take part in an election, receive an honour, etc."" Who suggested that someone be considered for doing something? Can I ask that you please use standard English here. Your deletion request is partially based on ""per nom"", and this makes no sense in English. David Spector ( talk ) 13:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] this prominent art topic per major article mentions in Smithsonian Magazine , Time , and the others. Editors, please read the 'Reference' section of the page, the results of the source table seem to be opinions. Opinions differ, and this notable topic has been used by researchers and artists for years for its defined purpose. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 11:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] really? the mentions are all trivial... lettherebedarklight 晚安 13:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I'm reading them as central to the articles that they appear in (i.e. Time , Smitstonian Magazine articles on digital art). Randy Kryn ( talk ) 13:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] there's one sentence about wikiart and then they immediately drop the subject. lettherebedarklight 晚安 15:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lettherebedarklight nominated the article for deletion. Basically this is a shorthand to say Artem agrees with Let. . .'s nomination. Star Mississippi 13:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The nomination says that the sources are of poor quality, which can be refuted just by looking at the 'References' section of the page. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 13:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] how is that refuted? Non of the sources in the table (=in the article) is about the subject, it just mentions it sometimes in different contexts (like using wikiart's database to train the model, etc). That's not significant coverage. Artem. G ( talk ) 14:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC) 14, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Based on its content and multiple publications about it, this is a notable resource. For example, [22] or [23] , in addition to references provided by others above. My very best wishes ( talk ) 03:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the sources found by Sean Brunnock and maybe the second source from My very best wishes, which are currently the only sources here that give any indication that the subject has significant coverage. I suggest that some of the ! voters familiarize themselves with the difference between ""significant coverage"" and ""being mentioned"" before trying to participate in deletion discussions. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 19:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Montolieu Oliphant-Murray, 1st Viscount Elibank: I'm not seeing the RS that show why this person would be considered notable against the inclusion criteria. He apparently has an painting in the National Gallery and entries in the directories of the peerage. But WP:NOTGENEOLOGY JMWt ( talk ) 09:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom . JMWt ( talk ) 09:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . As a member of the House of Lords, he is automatically notable. I have added the Hansard page for his appointment. He was an officer in the Royal Navy, but perhaps there were other reasons for his appointment as a Viscount. Also, his death was reported in the New York Times. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 10:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For others, it seems that the position in the House of Lords was hereditary and as far as I can discern from Hansard, this person never spoke in a debate. JMWt ( talk ) 11:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Irrelevant. Ingratis ( talk ) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 10:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Royalty and nobility , and Scotland . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Pre-reform peers were automatically members of the House of Lords, which was and is one of the Houses of Parliament, and so pass NPOL. Ingratis ( talk ) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Viscount Elibank . This article is a genealogy permastub, in direct contradiction with WP:NOTGENEALOGY . While this individual does de jure pass NPOL , the lack of participation in any debate means that, de facto , he was not a member of the House of Lords. Saying he is ""automatically notable"" is the same type of argument that people would cling to when defending footballers who had 0 games played, but still passed WP:NFOOTBALL , which eventually doomed that SNG to death by RfC. I don't have access to the NYT obit, but I'm 80% sure it does not satisfy the significant coverage required by WP:BIO , and besides we'd need more than one source. Since the NPOL is an SNG , which explicitly allows for deletion ( articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be d or d into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found ), I think the GNG is a better metric for notability. I can at least find some debates where the 2nd Viscount was involved, but none for the first. I wouldn't vote or on an active pre-reform Lord, but here we're very clearly lacking coverage. Pilaz ( talk ) 13:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC) NOPAGE . Curbon7 ( talk ) 15:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC) The subject passes WP:NPOL as a member of the House of Lords, and thus is notable, but must still surpass the minimum requirements to maintain an article established at WP:NOPAGE . A cursory search on newspapers.com using this query returned a number of decent supplementary sources, including [35] . His obit here also helps fill in further biographical details. This obit contains some family info. British newspapers are generally poorly digitized on newspapers.com, so I wouldn't be surprised if there were more in other archives. There seems to be just enough to be sufficient. Curbon7 ( talk ) 17:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC) NOTGENEALOGY problems of this article. Secondly, obituaries are primary sources , so ing this article with only primary sources available goes directly against WP:PRIMARY #5 (which happens to be a policy). Notable people usually get significant coverage well after their death, so that's what I'd like to see to strike my ! vote. Pilaz ( talk ) 21:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC) NPOL , so he is notable full stop. What we need is sourcing to expand on the article so it is not, as you say, a genealogy. These sources do that by providing key biographical details, such as the positions he held. These sources are not meant to provide WP:SIGCOV because the subject is already notable, they are meant to be supplementary sources to expand the article beyond the current genealogy perma-stub. Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC) someone who inherited a HoL seat and didn't participate in debates shouldn't be considered a politician. In the same way I don't think that every person appointed to national legislature inherits notability for the purposes of en.wiki. For example there are 3000 members of the National People's Congress and we do not assume every member meets the notability criteria there. JMWt ( talk ) 06:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Notability (people) . I certainly understand what you're saying and recognize consensus can change , but am generally adverse to new interpretations being established in one-off AfDs. Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . Curbon7 ( talk ) 18:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability established. Added a reference. Coldupnorth ( talk ) 08:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . One point that's been missed in the discussion above is that his inherited Scottish peerage did not entitle him to a seat in the House of Lords; the Viscountcy created in 1911 did. Maybe that has more to do with the political connections of the Master of Elibank than his father, but a Conservative being added to the House of Lords under the last majority Liberal administration suggests to me that something more than routine was going on here. Choess ( talk ) 13:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC) NPOL doesn't apply. .? In which case the above claims of 'automatic notability' doesn't apply either. Edit: maybe I've misunderstood your point. Are you saying he was or wasn't in the HoL? Edit 2: I'm wrong, your point is that it wasn't an inherited HoL seat. JMWt ( talk ) 18:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC) 24, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Shimon (DJ): Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 15:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , this is about the closest I can find [20] , it's about an un-related robot. There is nothing for this person, who appears to not have done any music in at least a decade. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Bona fide top 40 hit in the UK passes WP:MUSIC . Chubbles ( talk ) 05:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 05:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I was not able to find any coverage of the subject in newspapers or books. I tried to search for him in Allmusic, which I remembered is an accepted source in some context , but his profile only has a list of songs, with no biography nor review to support the claims on the article. Searching in other sites from the aforementioned source lists did not get any useful results eithter. While ""reaching top 40 in U.K."" mentioned above was certainly impressive, I'm not so sure about citing a group as evidence for an individual's notability. Even then, the problem with the sourcing still exist, and it'll seem that the only reasonable way to the article was to reduce it into one sentence: ""Shimon Alcoby is a member of the group 'Shimon & Andy C'."" Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 03:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, it's not a group per se, it's a collaboration between Shimon and Andy C , two notable musicians. The Officialcharts listing solves the RS issue as it is an officially-published nationwide chart and satisfies the WP:V requirement for purposes of WP:MUSIC . Chubbles ( talk ) 04:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"List of conflicts in Iraq: Individual conflicts can easily be covered separately. Fails WP:NLIST . Jalen Folf (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I created List of conflicts in Iraq because List of conflicts in Asia and List of conflicts in the Near East were already getting to be too long. List of wars involving Iraq would seem to be primarily about modern wars that Iraq was part of, such as those over Israel. SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits ( talk ) 05:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also worked extensively on List of conflicts in Egypt and List of conflicts in Mexico in a similar manner. SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits ( talk ) 05:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC) See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS . Not a valid argument. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Very well. Do as you will. SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits ( talk ) 06:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC) Given the author's acceptance, along with the nominator's valid reasoning, a speedy seems appropriate. Conyo14 ( talk ) 06:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Lists , and Iraq . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC) BEFORE . C.2 definitely applies. Note that every conflict on the list is wikilinked, so sourcing should be no problem. Creator's rationale for splitting out from a larger list is entirely reasonable. If a discussion needs to be had about whether or not it should be split, AFD is not the place for that. I'd request a withdrawal and speedy of the AFD for that reason. — siro χ o 10:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC) Lists of wars by country shows this is rather common. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not just a collection of popular culture. This is a valid information list. D r e a m Focus 22:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of wars involving Iraq . We have lists of wars by countries involved , not by location. This is an obvious outlier that seems like it would confuse people. Dronebogus ( talk ) 14:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC) List of wars involving Egypt and List of conflicts in Egypt . SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits ( talk ) 15:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The “wars by place” category seems poorly populated and could easily be deprecated and d. Dronebogus ( talk ) 17:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC) ""List of conflicts in ..."" is a common type of article that is almost always likely to be notable. WP:NLIST says There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as ""Lists of X of Y"") , so I don't agree with the nominator that it fails NLIST. This page appears capable of being a valuable information source. –– Formal Dude (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Because there is no reason to not have a list of wars in this country. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 20:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Would be better if all those ""list of conflict..."" articles are nominated. Lorstaking ( talk ) 06:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC) BEFORE failure. The list is notable. Nate • ( chatter ) 23:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , seems fine from an NLIST standpoint, simply as a notable list topic. Any history of Iraq is going to have extensive discussion of the various wars there, even if it doesn't cover all of them. The list doesn't raise any obvious WP:NOT or maintainability issues, and nobody has suggested any. TBH I'm a little hazy on why this was nominated. -- Visviva ( talk ) 03:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of wars involving Iraq . The content on the page isn't coherently presented and can be d to resemble what appears in List of wars involving Iran , to give it a more appealing presentation. ElderZamzam ( talk ) 11:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Mart Visser: It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn ( talk ) 20:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Netherlands . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 21:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC) GNG and WP:CREATIVE . This is a famous fashion designer in the Netherlands. See here for the fifty highest-ranking newspaper articles about him. Many are still unavailable as from the 1990s and 2000s. The little that is already available is sufficient. No lack of interest also since. gidonb ( talk ) 21:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC) Passes WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG . Article needs work, but very much a notable designer and sculptor. Beyond the many newspaper articles mentioned by gidonb: His work has been part of multiple significant exhibitions, including but not limited to Mart Visser Haute Couture in 2003-2004 in the Kunstmuseum Den Haag (which also had an associated book of the same name published by Dutch fashion journalist Fiona Hering), and the 2022 exhibition of his sculptures and paintings in Beelden aan Zee Some of his fashion pieces are part of the permanent collections at the Kunstmuseum Den Haag (can't grab a direct link right now because the museum's site is experiencing some issues; however, once it's back up again, going to kunstmuseum.nl and searching the collection should work) and Centraal Museum Utrecht . Possibly elsewhere too, those just popped up in google without having to go and individually check the collections of every major Dutch museum. Subject of a documentary film on his life and work, and covered in Milou van Rossum's book on Dutch fashion, De Nederlandse mode in 100 kledingstukken . AddWitty NameHere 00:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC) AddWittyNameHere . This nomination is another giant BEFORE failure. Folks nominating articles mostly because these carry X years of this or that warning. Seemingly in defiance of Wikipedia:There is no deadline and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP . gidonb ( talk ) 02:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Spring 2008 New York Fashion Week: The New York Fashion Week topic as a whole is notable, but don't see anything that makes the 2008 edition independently notable. Natg 19 ( talk ) 21:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and United States of America . Natg 19 ( talk ) 21:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC) List of Fall 2008 New York Fashion Week fashion shows ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New York . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC) GNG . LibStar ( talk ) 23:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC) it cites seven sources, so passes GNG. With sporting events, we have articles on both the competitions as a whole and the individual events (e.g., Men's FIH Hockey World Cup and 1971 Men's Hockey World Cup ). Why should we not do the same for fashion events? Furius ( talk ) 06:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC) OTHERSTUFFEXISTS . The sources are mainly fashion industry so not independent. LibStar ( talk ) 09:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is to take a very broad definition of ""independent"". Sources for sporting events are mainly sports journalism, so not independent either. Furius ( talk ) 14:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, this isn't so. The sources include the Daily Telegraph and The Washington Post. These are not fashion industry publications. Furius ( talk ) 14:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some of the links are dead so I cannot view them, but they are dated to 2007, so I do not know how they contribute to notability for the 2008 event. Natg 19 ( talk ) 15:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As stated in the first sentence of the lead, the event took place in 2007. Furius ( talk ) 16:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article is an excellent snapshot of a moment in time and could easily be expanded. Extensive coverage in The Guardian , Vogue , Slant Magazine , The Cut . To clarify for @ Natg 19 , Spring/Summer fashion weeks happen in the fall prior. So 2008 spring fashion week would take place in fall 2007. It would be nice if editors would work to expand fashion articles they see as unfinished rather than dismissing them and nominating them for deletion. Computer-ergonomics ( talk ) 19:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Additionally @ Natg 19 WikiProject_Fashion uses Fall 2008 fashion weeks and, by extension, List of fall 2008 New York Fashion Week fashion shows (as it is linked in the article) as a way to anchor the project and add designers and brands to Wikipedia. It would be detrimental to the project to these articles; they are some of the only articles archiving fashion that we have. Computer-ergonomics ( talk ) 19:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Analysis of the proposed additional sources would be very helpful in determining what to do. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Slant and the Cut are actual articles about the event, the Guardian and the rest are photos of the outfits, with no critical analysis. Seems ok, I don't think the event was ground-breaking, but it's covered. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per prior comments. Fashion weeks (and this one is no exception) attract significant news coverage. There also are reviews of individual collections shown during fashion week (typically each collection is reviewed by multiple sources) so if we count those toward notability, which I think we should since generally individual collections do not have articles, you will be well over the minimum coverage required for an article. Calliopejen1 ( talk ) 18:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Ctrl the Tour: The page was then recreated under the slightly different name ""Ctrl The Tour"" in 2023, which I have just history d into the original page. However, it still doesn't look from the article' s sourcing or elsewhere, as if there's sufficient coverage for this to be independent, so I'd suggest it be ed once more. — Amakuru ( talk ) 12:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Australia , New Zealand , Canada , and United States of America . Skynxnex ( talk ) 18:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC) Some talk of the tour a few years later, [40] , with what's in the article, should be notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC) The article has a fair amount of coverage, but could use a more reliable source rather than Setlist.fm, (It is in the sense like Wikipedia where any user can edit the article) I could probably see what I can do with the article. But I believe the article should be kept. AskeeaeWiki ( talk ) 22:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Violence and autism: However, as pointed out on the talk page there don't appear to be sources that cover these phenomena as a group, meaning that the article's linkage of these things is essentially original research. While it would be possible to split the article, unfortunately it was a straight translation from French Wikipedia which does not require WP:MEDRS sourcing. No one has checked the references and a lot of them do not appear to meet MEDRS standards; the content cannot be kept without valid sourcing. There is no obvious target. ( t · c ) buidhe 01:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. I've described why this article is problematic at length at Talk:Violence and autism . To quote myself, ""the article in its current state creates/suggests connections that are not backed by any literature. This is already evident from the fact that the article never defines the term ""violence"" and uses it in various different meanings throughout the text without distinguishing them."" Neither the translator nor the organization who paid the translator have shown any interest in potentially resolving the issues. -- TempusTacet ( talk ) 01:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Striking my ! vote thanks to updates. When I get a chance to read in-depth I may return with a new ! vote. I think an article could feasibly be written on this topic. However it would require WP:TNT and there does not seem to be the impulse to do that. There have been clear issues with this article from the start on en (no fault of the translator) but they have largely gone unresolved even with the attention given. Even WP:ATD specifically notes that If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely d by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. , and I think we're at that point here. — siro χ o 02:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Highly problematic article with various unresolvable issues, eg. not defining the term ""violence"" in the title; what should have been a minor section in autism spectrum is unnecessarily elongated into such an unprofessional article, NanaOn-Sha ( talk ) 07:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC) sock puppet NinjaRobotPirate ( talk ) 00:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] without prejudice against the translator, or the concept that a good article of this title could be written. One big problem is the sheer quantity of (often contradictory) stuff that's been published. It's all too easy to write your own personal essay synthesised from the sources you find most appropriate, rather than a balanced overview of the current mess. The other big problem is that beliefs about autism, attitudes to autism - even the definition of what autism is - are wildly different between different countries. As a result, we've got an article that reflects French issues with autism transplanted into an English-speaking Wikipedia, which already struggles with the (huge!) difference between the US and the UK on autistic matters - and the article just comes across as very weirdly lopsided. Since the subject is already so messy, I would strongly suggest that anyone attempting to write should stick to a single topic (e.g. self-harm in autism; violence and prejudice against autistic people; correlation or otherwise between autism and criminal behaviour), and try to provide an unbiased overview of public perceptions and medical/educational sources on that subject across multiple countries. It won't be easy. Elemimele ( talk ) 08:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC) you've made a truly vast improvement; in fact the article is unrecognisable compared to how it was this morning, for which reason I've struck my . I'm still worried that the entire section on violence expressed by people with autism is referenced from French authors, and therefore may not fully reflect views in other countries, but Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be perfect - they can be improved. I do not think this article is still eligible for TNT, and by splitting up the forms of violence into very clear, separate sections, the problem of mixed subject is greatly reduced. I'd be prepared to accept a in its current improved state as I now think it's encyclopaedic, relatively balanced, useful, sourced, and deals with something notable. Elemimele ( talk ) 22:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC) This was a remarkably poor article (ala WP:TNT and WP:ATD ), but after some cleanup, it should be re-evaluated; I believe that there is, or can be, an article here, and there is now a structure and theme. There are definitely sources. Sandy Georgia ( Talk ) 21:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC) for a new look (I applied the TNT). Sandy Georgia ( Talk ) 21:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I still don't see any sources that cover all these phenomenon as a group? If the content is to be kept, I think a split is in order. ( t · c ) buidhe 22:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All what phenomenon? Sandy Georgia ( Talk ) 22:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As stated above, and looking at the references, it seems that there are a different set of sources covering violence *by* autistic people and violence *against* autistic people. It's not obvious why (or if) these phenomena are related. ( t · c ) buidhe 01:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Buidhe All of the items you mentioned in the nomination are no longer in the article (eg, self-harm is a symptom, and I excised it, along with others). The article now has two things only: violence against people with autism, and violence by people with autism, along with public perception of same. In medical writing, both ""violence by"" and ""violence against"" are topics that could be included under Prognosis or Outcomes. For example: In 2003, children diagnosed with Asperger's were more likely to be victims of violence than tormentors. [6] is in the article, and cited to a source that discusses both. Also, a very recent review which I haven't yet incorporated (because it is so meaty and contains so much info that should be used, PMID 35637365 ) includes both, as a sample (others did as well, but I failed to note which at the time I read them): see the section on A History of Victimisation . I also don't understand the argument that all aspects of a medical article have to covered in one set of sources; if that were the case, I'd not be able to include, for example, a lot of the content of Tourette syndrome#History or Tourette syndrome#Society and culture or Dementia with Lewy bodies#Caregiving or Dementia with Lewy bodies#History or Dementia with Lewy bodies#History . All of these have completely different sets of sources than diagnosis, treatment, symptoms, etc. You seem to be implying there is still SYNTH in the article, but I'm not seeing that. Sandy Georgia ( Talk ) 14:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PMID 33107234 also looks at being both a victim and perpetrator. Sandy Georgia ( Talk ) 16:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think it's always a requirement that all aspects of a topic are covered in the same sources, but when there seem to be multiple topics that are bundled together it is a way to show that the connection exists outside of Wikipedia. ( t · c ) buidhe 17:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Buidhe here's an entire scholarly tome from a reputable publisher by recognized ASD experts like Fred Volkmar that deals with both ""violence by"" and ""violence against"" (that is, both victims and perpetrators ). Handbook of Autism Spectrum Disorder and the Law . (2021). Springer International Publishing. Violence by and violence against autistic people are the only topics covered here, along with social perception of same. If you see anything that doesn't belong (I don't), that can be solved via normal editing. Sandy Georgia ( Talk ) 23:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – seems to have a clearer scope and cohesion due to recent improvements by Sandy. McGuire and Schmidt alone seem substantial enough to imply notability, but there are many other sources used as well. Aza24 (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . (old !vote previously stricken above). I had to distance a bit from the old problematic article before re-reading. But SandyGeorgia's rework of this article is a solid WP:HEY . The article maintains NPOV both in phrasing and in weight. The article avoids synthesis, both in the immediate conclusions, as well as the subject matter presented (it's not a COATRACK anymore). Honestly, the main remaining criticism of the article is that it's not done, which of course is never a reason for deletion. — siro χ o 00:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"The Snake and the Stallion: SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 12:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Motorsport . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 12:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Arron, Simon (2005-03-12). ""The Gearbox: Simon Arron settles down to some widescreen racing"" . The Daily Telegraph . ProQuest 321215378 . Archived from the original on 2024-05-13 . Retrieved 2024-05-13 . The review notes: ""If this were a film script, it would be rejected on the grounds of Stallone-grade realism shortfall. But it isn't. This is the true story of down-on-his-luck American Carroll Shelby's dramatically successful exploits as a racing team owner in the early 1960s. There isn't a great deal in the way of contemporary footage (although the surviving material is pleasingly evocative), so the bulk of the story is told by those who took part. Their narrative is an undiluted treat. Director Richard Symons ended up with far too much footage, so a second, outtake-rich disc is included. DVD extras can be superfluous frivolities - worthless junkets that tempt the unwitting to part with their cash. These, however, are every bit as compelling as the main documentary."" ""Watch Cobra Ferrari Wars on 2 DVDs"". The Province . 2005-02-04. p. C2. ProQuest 266864624 . The article notes: ""The Cobra Ferrari Wars movie is a classic tale of Texas-chicken- farmer-turned-American-sporting-hero versus Italian automotive aristocracy. Ten years in the making, the documentary tells the remarkable story of Carroll Shelby's mission to ""nail Ferrari's ass,"" resulting in the fearsome Cobra -- possibly the most revered sports car of all time. It made its way on to some TV screens shortly after its release in 2002 but then gathered dust until recently, when producer/ director Richard Symons got to work adding previously unseen footage and interviews. Now a twin-set DVD version has been released for about $50. In addition to the original film, it includes three picture galleries, d scenes and six hours' worth of uncut transcripts of interviews with Shelby, giving a unique insight into the man as well as spilling the beans on back-door shenanigans/politics. Its fast-pace, 1960s-era soundtrack and split-screen scenes make it compelling viewing."" ""Pick the bones out of that one Enzo"" . News Letter . 2002-05-18. p. 3. ProQuest 324764775 . Retrieved 2024-05-13 – via British Newspaper Archive . The article notes: ""And so began the Cobra Ferrari wars. British director Richard Symons has spent over four years researching, filming and compiling unique, never-before-seen footage of this dramatic era in motor racing history. The Cobra Ferrari Wars documentary is produced to recapture the spirit of the 60's in its racing action, soundtrack and graphics and is a compelling tale of courage and dogged determination to be shown on BBC television this summer. The unique footage tells the story of how self-belief and circumstances combined to propel a bunch of Southern Californian hot rodders and their charismatic leader against incredible odds to wage war in Europe and give Enzo Ferrari the hiding of his life. ... For petrolheads and those intrigued by this titanic David and Goliath struggle The Cobra Ferrari Wars makes compelling viewing. The programme will be shown on BBC4 Digital on Monday, June 17, at 9.00pm (following the Le Mans racing weekend), and will migrate to BBC TV later. "" Less significant coverage: ""Cobra strikes"". The Advertiser . 2005-02-05. p. M03. ProQuest 355427490 . The article notes: ""Automotive history buffs will be interested in The Cobra Ferrari Wars, right, a documentary 10 years in the making, telling the story of Carroll Shelby's mission to beat Ferrari at Le Mans, resulting in the Cobra. Available for the first time on DVD, the pack includes the full broadcast film, three picture galleries and a lot of previously unseen footage. The set is available at selected specialist motoring shops."" Connolly, John (2006-09-02). ""Make my day with a wild armchair ride"" . The Australian . ProQuest 356186309 . Archived from the original on 2024-05-13 . Retrieved 2024-05-13 . The article notes: ""The Cobra Ferrari Wars: Without doubt the best racing documentary ever. Director Richard Symons spent four years researching and producing the story of how chicken farmer Carroll Shelby came to take on Enzo Ferrari and win. $59.95"" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cobra Ferrari Wars (also known as The Snake and the Stallion ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 00:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC) Sources presented by Cunard show the subject is notable. Thanks! - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC) GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I will offer to call close to this nomination ASAP given Cunard's impressive work to improve the article which I was unable to find which led to this nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpacedFarmer ( talk • contribs ) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"BharatPe: Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and India . Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 01:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC) I concur. This fails WP:SIGCOV , so fails WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Why is this different from the second nomination which was closed as following HighKing 's ! vote - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BharatPe (2nd nomination) — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c ) 10:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per previous AfD where sources (research reports by independent analysts) that meet the criteria for establishing notability were located. Oaktree b , what is wrong with those sources? HighKing ++ 13:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I had only seen the new article when reviewing the financial category, was not aware of the prior nominations. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC) ATD states If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely d by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. But given that High King already found sources, I decided to improve the article with respect to it's current state instead. I removed unverifiable information from the article, added some verifiable information from the sources currently present, and generally cleaned up some NPOV issues. I think we can based on High King's sources. It would be good to add those into the article to improve it more, because at the moment, we have a really basic ""company did money thing"" stub right now with one borderline promotional quote that had previously been unattributed close paraphrasing. — siro χ o 03:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"James Cade: A series of film and theatre reviews in which Cade is mentioned as a cast member do not constitute significant coverage . Searches for sources produce more of the same. — HTGS ( talk ) 02:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . — HTGS ( talk ) 02:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Theatre , and Canada . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC) I think this one is an obvious . The subject person has taken part in numerous films, series, and theatre plays. For films, he had notable roles in Antiviral and Stardust , both of which were mentioned in multiple sources (see Toronto Sun [46] and IndieWire [47] for Antiviral ; GQ [48] and The Hollywood Reporter [49] for Stardust ). For TV, he was credited in a main role in Gangland Undercover (see Comingsoon.net [50] ) and The Big Cigar (see The Economic Times [51] and The Hollywood Reporter [52] ), as well as a recurring role in Blue Mountain State (see Screen Rant [53] and TheWrap [54] ). For plays, the article already mentioned that he co-led the Dora Award -winning A Quiet Place , and I also found that he had a lead role in Free as Injuns , supported by reviews from The Globe and Mail [55] and National Post [56] which praised the subject person's performance. Obviously fulfills WP:NACTOR #1. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 07:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree that any of these roles are significant, and while “significant” might be subjective, the coverage you’ve linked goes as far as literally mentioning his name, or maybe saying “…and James Cade [is] also on board.” The best I can see there is “There's definitely sizzle between Cade and Prudat as Even and Be” . None of this suggests notability to me. Even the roles he is credited as starring are not backed up by sources which say anything more than merely confirming his name. — HTGS ( talk ) 06:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC) You misunderstood my point. The reason I cited those sources was not because they have SIGCOV about the subject person, but rather to demonstrate that he had lead roles in those projects. The fact that he was credited in main role for Gangland Undercover , recurring role for Blue Mountain State and The Big Cigar , and was described as the male lead in Free as Injuns in multiple reviews, likely outweighs your subjective assessment of whether these roles are significant. This undoubtedly shows the subject person has fulfilled the NACTOR #1 of having significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, and stage performances , while GNG is not considered by me, nor the other Wikipedians commented in this discussion. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 07:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You using words like undoubtedly, but nowhere does policy say that a leading role is enough to confer notability. My read is that significant roles get at least moderate coverage. These roles aren’t getting even mild coverage. I am prepared to be outvoted though, that’s fine—as I say, “significant” is subjective—but it seems far from “obvious” or “beyond doubt” that any of these roles confer notability. — HTGS ( talk ) 03:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC) AFD discussion is not a vote . But yea, multiple Wikipedians have found those roles to be significant, and I used words like undoubtedly because I did not expect there would be disagreement on this. Some of the roles are literally credited as main roles. I do not believe it is a subjective assessment, nor should significant roles be determined on subjective assessment. I beg to differ with your interpretation, no guideline defines significant roles as requiring a certain amount of coverage. As long as the lead roles are backed by reliable sources, they are lead roles. A lead role in a film will not be reduced to a supporting role simply because there are insufficient sources covering the film. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 05:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC) NACTOR then say “lead roles” instead of “significant roles”? Because I assumed there was some distinction between the two, and that there was a reason the guideline says significant. If we are merely looking for leading or “main” roles, then we may as well say so. I’m also curious whether you actually agree with NACTOR here, and you’re not just following rules as written? This reading gives notability to persons who do not gain any significant coverage whatsoever. — HTGS ( talk ) 05:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC) I think the word ""significant"" is used in a broader sense to include roles beyond just main roles, such as supporting/recurring roles, as well as guest roles that receive extensive coverage or attention. The reason I specifically mentioned ""main role"" is because main roles are usually officially credited, and this subject person has received such credits in multiple projects, addressing your doubts about whether the roles I listed were subjective assessments. And yes, as I stated, I believe the subject person has fulfilled NACTOR#1, and I agree that he has sufficient significant/notable roles that warrant an independent article, so it should be a . Arguments on whether there are sources providing SIGCOV on the subject person are more likely referring to WP:GNG , which I did not consider in this case. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 05:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand that you think NACTOR has been met; I’m asking if you think it should be regarded as a useful rule here. The guideline itself says “People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards … meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.” The roles at hand are still subjective assessments, because not every main role is significant. Unless you think we should regard all main roles as significant roles. — HTGS ( talk ) 03:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC) I do not understand the point you are making in your first sentence. As you have already mentioned, I have quoted NACTOR multiple times, so if I do not think it is a ""useful rule"", then why I would cite it??? And no, please take a more careful look at the guidelines. It writes significant roles in multiple notable [projects] , not ""roles in multiple notable projects that are significant"". A main role is of course a significant part of a project. A film could not be made without a lead cast! So main roles are of course significant roles. Even if your interpretation was applied, the films and series we have listed all have their own independent articles, which means they are notable. So main roles in these notable projects should be considered significant, simple! With all due respect, I really do not see a point of ambiguity or reasonable basis for disagreement in this case, because you seem to have either misinterpreted or tried to override WP:SNG with GNG, and be the only one to identify the roles with subjective assessments here. At least two main roles and one recurring role on TV, two lead roles in stage plays, two supporting roles in films. Obvious , that is all I have to say. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 04:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC) meets WP:NACTOR with at least two roles easily identifiable as significant (in Stardust and Blue MS) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC) Passes NACTOR through roles in Let's Get Physical , Gangland Undercover , Cascade and Blue Mountain State . Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 14:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"List of Asian superheroes: Asia is a HUGE place (the biggest continent on Earth, obviously) with countless unrelated cultures, and that’s not even getting into diaspora. There is no reason to lump every super from, or with ancestry from, Asia into a giant list. Dronebogus ( talk ) 09:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Lists , and Asia . Dronebogus ( talk ) 09:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Largely unsourced but that problem might be solvable if the whole concept wasn't overbroad and borderline-incoherent in the first place. Best case scenario, this would generate intractable debates about who counts as Asian. Worst case scenario, which the article is close to, is that it lies unmaintained and filled with unverifiable cruft and original research. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 12:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notable topic, needs heavy cleanup. Deletion is not cleanup, see WP:SURMOUNTABLE . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See below - Representation is a thing. When a form of media, genre, or say, a type of character is almost always one way for a long time, exceptions often get press coverage -- not just because they're unusual but because the people represented are often enthusiastic and want to share examples. Nominating a bunch of ""[group historically underrepresented] in [an area in which they were underrepresented]"" articles as WP:INDISCRIMINATE is, well, indiscriminate . Obviously there will be sources to satisfy WP:NLIST for this topic (I can link some, but I suspect that's not even in question, really), and inclusion criteria seems pretty easy to set up. The rest is just cleanup . — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Really though? This article’s idea of “Asian” includes Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Indonesia, but not Russia. Where’s the sourcing for that being a notable grouping? Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 06:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Russia’s physically in two continents but culturally “Russia” is mainly the European/Slavic part. Many ethnic minorities live in semi-autonomous subnational territories like the Republics of Russia . Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is why I described the scope of the article as borderline-incoherent. Is it based on geography or culture or ethnicity or what? Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 12:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m not defending it. I nominated the thing. There’s a List of Russian superheroes but it’s total crap as well. Dronebogus ( talk ) 13:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC) Definitely a notable topic with cleanup needed. However, I'd say that the article can be split into the different factions of Asia (like East Asia, Middle Eastern, Indian, etc.), though if they already exist, then yay. Conyo14 ( talk ) 18:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I can find no indication that this passes WP:NLIST . Contrary to the assertion above, representation is only a ""thing"" if it were Western-produced comics that included Asian characters (oh sorry, just superheroes, not villains, or everyday working schlubs). Given Japan's vast production of comics, it's pretty run of the mill that most of them would be set in Japan and feature Japanese characters. And still, this smacks of WP:RGW . But for that matter, who decides what counts as Asian? as a superhero? The whole thing is an inextricable mess of WP:OR . 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 19:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NLIST is via the many articles which treat ""Asian superheroes"" as a group, even if it's a tricky grouping. The current list definitely needs to be pruned, since unlike some other similar lists it's unclear what kind of ""superhero"" it's talking about (why would a Mortal Kombat video game character be included, for example?). This one is indeed harder than some of the others nominated both because ""Asian"" is indeed broad but also because the others don't include one of the two giant comic-producing industries. While some of the other lists deal with a population that is indeed underrepresented in the world of comic book superheroes, Japan certainly is not, and that makes this list kind of impossible to set clear inclusion criteria for that doesn't simply include a big chunk of the manga industry in addition to other Asian superheroes. I'll admit when I first looked at this one I was thinking about the comic book world that's centered on Marvel/DC/others in North America and representation therein, which I think is also what a lot of the sources are talking about for better or worse, but that's obviously not what this is, so I'm striking my ! vote accordingly. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 11:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC) LISTN but needs a lot of improvement. Most importantly, the scope needs to be made clear, which should be possible using which groupings secondary sources are actually referring to. Then WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP applies. Daranios ( talk ) 15:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And where are these secondary sources…? Dronebogus ( talk ) 17:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Comics, Graphic Novels, and Manga: The Ultimate Teen Guide , Panthers, Hulks and Ironhearts: Marvel, Diversity and the 21st Century Superhero , Asian Stereotypes and American-Sino Relations in Marvel's Collective Man , 15 Amazing Asian Superheroes , The 'Asian Superhero' Is Not An Oxymoron , 10 Asian Superheroes You Didn't Know About , Not All Supermen (supposedly p. 145-147), and more sources with short comments. Daranios ( talk ) 20:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The rules state a list must have either coverage of the top in a reliable source, or be a valid navigational list, this meets both requirements. Pruning can be done to remove any that don't have their own articles or mention in an article for their source media, or have reliable sources mentioning them. D r e a m Focus 14:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , as a reasonable arrangements of information about an aspects of human cultural history. BD2412 T 01:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC) LISTN per sources cited above. Has problems but does not appear unsalvageable. Might be worth considering rescoping/splitting to something like ""List of Asian superheroes in non-Asian / North American media"" or some such, per Rhododendrites' considerations above, although I lack the topical expertise to have a strong opinion on that. -- Visviva ( talk ) 17:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] needs cleanup. Topic is solid, see WP:LISTN Gerblinpete ( talk ) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Joshua P. Kolar: Originally sent this back to a draft after it was originally created but someone else decided to move it back to mainspace so here we are again. Let'srun ( talk ) 15:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Law , United States of America , and Indiana . Let'srun ( talk ) 15:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I vote . I am someone who has an interest in the legal system and has an interest in politics. These judicial nominees receive a lot of press and news coverage and I the first place I turn to read up or refresh my memory about the nominees is Wikipedia. As a user, it is incredibly frustrating to not have these pages available. I don't understand why any contestant on a reality tv show can get a wikipedia page but a person nominated to our highest courts (Fed III) has to jump through a ton of hoops. What exactly is the harm of ing the page. If for some reason, he doesn't get confirmed, it then. Cazer78 ( talk ) 23:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree, as Kolar has been a magistrate judge for the Northern District of Indiana since 2019. He also serves as a lieutenant commander in the U.S. navy reserve. I generally agree judicial nominees don't meet notability, as merely being a nominee is insufficient, but there are cases where judicial nominees are already judges on lower courts (or magistrate judges) including this one. They can also have similar notability due to military leadership or prior legal work that has received independent coverage. JohnAdams1800 ( talk ) 15:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Might you point me to the notability guideline that says a magistrate judge or lieutenant commander in the U.S. navy reserve is notable? Kolar has never been a judge on a statewide court, so WP:JUDGE does not apply. Let'srun ( talk ) 16:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC) USJUDGE : ""Magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges are appointed by the court of the district in which they sit. Such judges are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is evidence of notability that can be established by other strong indicia of notability."" I believe Kolar's military service along with being an incumbent magistrate judge indicates his notability. US Navy Records Indicating Kolar was a lieutenant commander: [51] https://www.navy.mil/Resources/ALNAVs/Message/Article/2235726/fy-19-navy-reserve-lieutenant-commander-line-selections/ JohnAdams1800 ( talk ) 17:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC) USCJN is an essay, not a notability guideline. Let'srun ( talk ) 17:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC) USJUDGE . Kolar holds a ""sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office"". Jaireeodell ( talk ) 23:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm just trying to figure out the logic here. This article gets created as a draft in September and bounced around between draft and main. And then this month, gets nominated as an AfC and ultimately approved and reviewed/patrolled by a different editor. And then within three hours of being moved to main (again) today gets nominated for AfD? I need someone to explain to me the standard practice to follow if and when a draft gets moved and patrolled, but still apparently doesn't meet WP:GNG per the current AfD discussion. Snickers2686 ( talk ) 17:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . He meets WP:JUDGE . It would be incorrect to interpret federal judicial service in a state that subdivides its federal courts (like in Indiana) any differently from those states that don't (such as New Jersey, for example.) I don't know why a couple of people tying themselves in knots over this. Valadius ( talk ) 22:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The states don't divide (or not divide) their federal courts. Congress does that. Irrespective of whether there is such a division, judicial service as a magistrate judge (basically a glorified assistant to an Article III federal judge) does not constitute ""state/province–wide office"" any more than does service as a bailiff or law clerk to an Article III judge. BD2412 T 22:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you misunderstand the role of a magistrate judge. Magistrates frequently rule on substantive issues. Their rulings are precedent is. That a district judge can overrule them is besides the point — the comparison to a clerk is inappropriate. 165.82.238.249 ( talk ) 22:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC) Kolar will be appointed to the 7th Circuit (any day now) or, if not, he will become the subject of a lot of consternation in the news ... right? In either case, he will be notable. I think it would be a mistake to this and then hope that editors will recreate it. -- Jaireeodell ( talk ) 23:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC) CRYSTAL . That is why draft space exists, but some editors have to rush things. Let'srun ( talk ) 01:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC) JUDGE . ~~ αvírαm | (tαlk) 03:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is absolutely no reason to take down a wikipedia page for a judicial nominee. We should be focusing on expanding Wikipedia, not contracting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.154.91 ( talk ) 07:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Policy-based input would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , I would be willing to argue that this article might not be notable for being a magistrate judge. But he's about to become a circuit judge and that clearly passes WP:JUDGE . Also he has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG at this point so it's all moot anyway. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify until confirmation He does not meet notability requirements for a judge until confirmed, but deleting while his confirmation is pending is probably counterproductive. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 20:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC) JUDGE specifies that it applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them so even he is not assuming the position yet, I think he has been ""elected"" as they have voted him in as well. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not how it works. Kolar has never been elected as a judge, he was appointed to fill a judicial vacancy by President Biden but has yet to be confirmed (and as such is WP:CRYSTAL to assume he will be confirmed). Let'srun ( talk ) 05:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Belal Jadallah: WP:BIO1E says: When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed. That person should be covered in an article regarding the event English Google turn 8 results, all of which were related to his death. Arabic google on translate turned 50 results (5 pages). Exactly all <2023 articles were on the level of A traffic accident in Jerusalem kills a 7-year-old girl or Video: Bayern Munich players speak Arabic: Franck Ribery and Manuel Neuer , presumably articles by him. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 03:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Israel , and Palestine . बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 03:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning . Subject seems to have engaged in at least noteworthy activities even prior to his certainly noteworthy death. At worst, move to draft to provide additional time for research and expansion, with the understanding that there are likely to be non-English sources that require more time to assemble. BD2412 T 04:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I just added his Google results ( WP:BEFORE ) in my nomination. Do you still consider him ""noteworthy"" in light of the nil coverage of him both in English and Arabic? (barring his WP:1E accident) बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 04:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not notable enough. killer bee 08:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ! - -Masssly ( talk ) 10:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC) 'Godfather' of Palestinian journalism Belal Jadallah killed in Israeli shelling . I would argue the individual is notable, even the Canadian mission made a post following his death, and his death could be argued is also notable. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 11:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC) BIO1E : When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed. That person should be covered in an article regarding the event All of those sources you gave are precisely about his death last week. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 06:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Jadallah has been described in RS as ""the godfather of Palestinian journalism"" and a ""giant"" in Palestinian journalism; he is notable for his journalism, not just his death. (Note: I created this article). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk ) 18:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . His career and influence in the field provide enough substance for a standalone article on Wikipedia. Eladkarmel ( talk ) 19:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per above, given that his outsize impact/influence in his field is noted in sources. Jackie.salzinger ( talk ) 12:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (very selectively) into Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war , where this journalist belongs yet isn't mentioned. All this as BIO1E. This destination is preferred over the List of journalists killed in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war that comes with the article, because the list should be d into Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war as well. Yet the list is also a valid destination, as right now it exists alongside. Maybe by current setup the article is too refined. It's possible. Both would be legitimate destinations. My recommendation holds unless RS/I/V previous coverage ON this journalist is found. Always hard to find ON journalists as blurred by materials BY a journalist. So just tag me if you have it. I apply exactly the same standards for all sides and sorts (i.e. including for Hamas ""militants"", which this journalist is not). gidonb ( talk ) 03:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Yevgeny Slyusarenko: There is no noticeable importance. -- Анатолий Росдашин ( talk ) 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC) . N by adding references to multiple reliable sources . The nomination does not address the point. Obviously . -- Ymblanter ( talk ) 07:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Journalism , and Russia . Shellwood ( talk ) 17:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC) There is need for amendment with WP:NJOURNALIST as it doesn't help with AFDs. The article has been appointed by notable newspapers including referenced by Gazeta. Ru is enough to meet WP:SNG for journalist. The problem is who is really a journalist? Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 01:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Charles Sabourin: Seawolf35 ( talk - email ) 02:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Psychology . Seawolf35 ( talk - email ) 02:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC) There has been some article hijacking going on here — the article is",keep
+"List of Kentucky Wildcats basketball players: It's a bunch of hand-picked former players with no clear, consistent criteria for inclusion. The list borders on being trivial , too. Each of the players are notable unto themselves, but there are no third-party sources that describe all of these players as a group with overlapping notability beyond having simply played for Kentucky. SportsGuy789 ( talk ) 00:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Lists of people , Basketball , and Kentucky . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC) NOTDUP , this is a standard navigational list complementary to the category. The very obvious criteria for inclusion are 1) Kentucky Wildcats basketball players; 2) who have articles. NLIST is neither a helpful nor necessary approach here. postdlf ( talk ) 01:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note . This is a navigational list. There should be no need to find sources discussing all players in one place. Cbl62 ( talk ) 01:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - However, this list contains only the men's basketball players. My only suggestion would be that this be renamed to List of Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball players, to distinguish it from the articles about Kentucky Wildcats women's basketball . — Maile ( talk ) 15:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per all Keeps above. This looks like a garden variety list article. We alumni lists and lists of people who are from a particular area, and this falls into that rubric. That it's incomplete just means it needs to be made complete. Stefen Tower s among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 18:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. There is a category for that and any list should have more specific criteria (those who played in the NBA, won awards, etc.). The parameters are too broad. Rikster2 ( talk ) 21:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those kinds of lists would be useful for sure, but this particular list isn't flat like a category is. It contains columns for differentiating details. Could it be richer in presentation? Perhaps - but I don't think that's a strong enough reason to . Stefen Tower s among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 21:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why is it necessary to have a list that needs to be maintained when there is a category collecting the exact same information? Yes, it can be presented differently but I don’t think that’s a good reason to , to use your same language. Right now it is not comprehensive because it can’t up with new player articles being created Rikster2 ( talk ) 21:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is clearly encyclopedically useful to readers to be able to not only see all notable UK men's basketball players, but also to be able to sort by when they played - a category does not provide that sort. Also, again, that it's incomplete today or has trouble catching up so far are really not relevant to this discussion. This is clearly not a mere duplication of a category. Stefen Tower s among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 21:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It’s relevant because as the nomination noted, there is zero criteria for the inclusion of those currently on the list. Historically we have avoided this type of article for college basketball because it adds minimal value and nobody steps up to maintain it. This isn’t a sports almanac, it’s an encyclopedia. Rikster2 ( talk ) 21:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC) CLT , a category doesn't preclude also having a list article. And there are reliable sources that provide information on the Kentucky men's basketball players as a group such as here . Rlendog ( talk ) 19:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That link is just a sort option on basketball-reference. You can literally sort by any school, it doesn’t demonstrate notability for this list. The site is a stat site for NBA players so if it shows anything it is that “Kentucky Wildcats who played in the NBA” might be a notable list option Rikster2 ( talk ) 13:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Rikster2's reasoning. Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 17:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per reasoning above provided by Postdlf, StefenTower and Rlendog. Cbl62 ( talk ) 17:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Browsing over this on Google, most sources I found are about Kentucky players in the NBA. There are however a few sources that discuss the greatest Kentucky basketball players of all time without referencing their NBA careers such as [124] [125] but this list isn't limited to them. If kept, then it should probably be moved to List of Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball players as it only covers the men's program. Alvaldi ( talk ) 10:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Hunter Fejes: As I noted there, non-notable ice hockey player who fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG . Several years in the minor leagues and lower-level European leagues with no individual awards are not enough for the new notability standards. Kaiser matias ( talk ) 04:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Ice hockey , Slovakia , Alaska , Arizona , Colorado , and Minnesota . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC) NSPORT page you link to clearly states: ""Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be d"". Indeed, the rule that applies, as per WP:BASIC , is as follows: ""People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."" Here is a list of a bunch of such sources, all easily Googlable: https://sportnet.sme.sk/spravy/hokej-hunter-fejes-hc-kosice-rozhovor-tipos-extraliga-2022-2023/ https://sportweb.pravda.sk/hokej/extraliga/clanok/664890-hokej-hunter-fejes-jakub-ferenc-reakcie-hc-kosice-majster-tipos-extraliga-2022-2023/ https://gazette.com/sports/losing-mother-at-young-age-prepares-colorado-colleges-hunter-fejes-for-any-challenge/article_7c2c549d-68d3-567a-96d6-4994f9852e2b.html https://www.dobrenoviny.sk/c/209938/mama-mu-odisla-v-momente-ked-sa-prebral-z-komy-novy-utocnik-kosic-z-aljasky-ma-korene-na-slovensku I understand and appreciate the need to Wikipedia clear of pages about random people that are of interest only to a few readers. However, stretching the Wikipedia rules to an absurd extent to justify deleting a page covering one of the biggest current stars of the Slovak highest professional ice hockey league that has been covered by full page articles in national press seems like borderline vandalism to me. Why not contribute something of value instead? Newklear007 ( talk ) 14:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Seems to be enough significant coverage. The Kip 02:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. A source analysis would be helpful here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the sources in the article. -- NYC Guru ( talk ) 05:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC) 13, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Also found these two on him 1 and 2 . Seems notable in addition with the other links. KatoKungLee ( talk ) 05:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC) GNG MaskedSinger ( talk ) 06:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Yūko Daike: She was a fairy 21:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Japan . Owen× ☎ 22:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Significant roles in multiple notable films (and doramas ). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . She seems notable to me and the references seem buoyant. Mevoelo ( talk ) 21:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Very colorful, Mevoelo . But which of the references do you think establish GNG? ""Seems notable"" isn't very descriptive of what factors verify this point-of-view. L iz Read! Talk! 01:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I performed a search on the subject and discovered significant coverage across various channels and media outlets. Regardless, I am of the opinion that the page can be worked on to further establish notability by providing more references. Mevoelo ( talk ) 05:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In addition to my first reply, my research shows me that she has featured in several recent movies as a part of the top cast; which unfortunately wasn’t reflected in the page. I also think the nominator’s comment on her ‘roles’ been minor does not apply, because she has featured in several movies as a major cast as well. Some of the most notable movie stars may have at one point acted a minor role. I will do well to update the page with more recent information as regards her filmography and perhaps, add more reputable references. Cheers! Mevoelo ( talk ) 05:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added a few citations and updated the filmography section. She was a major character in Ju On. Zitaochi, Kill Devil, Kikijuro, Fireworks among others. Mevoelo ( talk ) 06:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To be fair, I don't think the nominator described her roles as minor, only the sourcing. But maybe you refer to the 2nd part of the rationale ('the roles in movies aren't meeting notability""). Anyway, allow me to insist that I absolutely agree with you, and do indeed think she fairly meets WP:NACTOR . Thank you and thanks for improving the page. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Assessment of improvements to the article since its nomination would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , fairly significant and covered in Japanese media. Fulmard ( talk ) 16:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, notable Italian actress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastern Anatolia ( talk • contribs ) 12:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"1999 Aïn Témouchent earthquake: Article was previously PRODed for this reason, which was challenged with two reasons. First reason was “ not all surprising there are so few sources given it was in Algeria ” and second reason was “ 22+ deaths does mean notable ”. At the time of this AfD, there is 3 trivial government sources (2 lack much info and are basic information providers, similar to that of primary sources, and 1 is dead) and 2 academic sources. I consider this article to only have 2 reliable, secondary sources , i.e. the 2 academic sources, which technically aren’t actually used as references for the article, as they are used in a Further reading section, and not actual references. Per the general notability guidelines , I do not see any significant coverage of the topic, which seems to actually be confirmed in the PROD challenge. The number of deaths also does not establish/guarantee notability , especially given the lack of reliable secondary sources used, or well not used. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 01:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weather Event Writer , you need to tag the article with an AFD tag and also, if you haven't done it, inform the article creator of this discussion. L iz Read! Talk! 02:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC) Done and notification for creator was already done, with the article creator acknowledging it. Thanks for the reminder! Have a wonderful day. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 02:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Meets WP:EVENT and WP:GNG . Seems like a good faith misunderstanding of notability guidelines. Per WP:NEXIST , Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article . I've reviewed the two papers listed in further reading and they both provide in depth SIGCOV of the subject, the papers are entirely about this earthquake. The papers were published in 2004 and 2009, this 1999 event demonstrates WP:PERSISTENCE — siro χ o 05:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC) Quick question. So with WP:NEXIST , I see what you mean. That said, the articles creator was opposed to using secondary media- references to determine notability. So looking at WP:NEXIST , I see the clause, Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Based on the article creator’s comment, and ignoring the basically primary sources (government ones), the article only has those two academic papers to show notability. If this was something from 80+ years ago, I would say that would be fine, since science wasn’t nearly close to modern times back then. But this is an earthquake from 1999, where new 2023 college graduates were alive at the time. Do you think those two academic papers (and solely those 2 papers, given the creator’s own comments) can truly show the SIGCOV nature of a modern-day earthquake? I’m perfectly fine if your answer is yes, I just wanted to sort of ask/double check, given I think you were unaware of the creator’s comment about really only using those 2 academic papers as sources for the article. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 06:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think I understand your question. So first off, philosophically, to quote WP:N , Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. I.e. if we can find the sources, it's not an indiscriminate inclusion. If it's not indiscriminate, I feel very comfortable also considering WP:NOTPAPER . Now, to be more specific. 1999 Earthquake that took lives and caused damage to structures. Scientific papers 5 years and 10 years later. I feel comfortable saying this has passed a retroactive WP:10YEARTEST (which of course is just an essay). Now, expanding beyond the scope of your question and moving further away from philosophical to be really pragmatic, a quick proquest search shows brief non-trivial coverage in a 2023 paper [52] . This subject is not the focus of the paper, but it's certainly not forgotten by any means. And, lastly, to round off more philosophically. The creator's work is much appreciated but they don't WP:OWN the article. Certainly articles about earthquakes need a scientific foundation, but we can use secondary media reporting for non-scientific claims. (Though, generally we do need to be cautious about primary media reporting coming through news sources, (eg reactions), and WP:PRIMARY in mind -- claims that come from news media should be synthesized by the source, not just repetition of primary source claims) I hope this clarifies my thoughts. — siro χ o 07:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article's creator is correct in this case. Breaking news coverage is a primary source and using it in articles is bad practice. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Siroxo. Mccapra ( talk ) 09:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Algeria . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC) OWNs the article and won’t add the sources. And 22 deaths will almost always guarentee an article. 216.250.210.89 ( talk ) 12:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I honestly don't see a reason to get rid of it. If anything, this is a stub article that can be improved, so it should be treated as such. Chess Eric 20:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Secondary sources have been found to exist. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Lakewood Church shooting: elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy . The location the shooting occurred at has already lead to significant secondary source coverage of the event, and it's not clear how many victims there are as the event only occurred an hour ago. — Locke Cole • t • c 23:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Lakewood Church . This is too recent to show long-term notability, and can be adequately covered as a section of Lakewood Church . Keeping coverage in one place helps to avoid confusion and duplication of effort. I don't really have any reason that's not already covered, but looking at this again, I do think the article should be kept. Please consider this ! vote to be retracted. Luke10.27 ( talk ) 03:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 11 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 23:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or . The Guardian, NYT, ABC, and CNN are the ones that come close. So, otherwise, we can either Keep, or . If we get all reliable/secondary sources publishing about the event, we can it, or if we can't, we can and put info into a section per my reasoning. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( talk ) 00:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This article just got created, so let’s give it a little more time then later make up the decision to later. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( talk ) 21:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy . The article was both created too soon and brought to AfD too soon. There is clearly coverage but we are in a poor position to judge notability, which is partly accorded with time, when this occurred hours ago. Bring it to AfD in a week's time if you still think it should be d. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 23:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I noticed that the nominating editor previously nominated a shooting for deletion within 24 hours of the event; that article was kept after the article was expanded significantly in the days following the attack. Of course WP:CRYSTALBALL applies and every article should be evaluated for its individual merits, but if the consensus here turns out to be , I hope the nominator will remember both these discussions before bringing such news items to AfD so soon in the future. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 23:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , Christianity , and Texas . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] / to Lakewood Church for two reasons. First, articles shouldn't be created using exclusively primary sources, which are all that exist at this time. Don't create articles about events until after historical significance is demonstrated. Second, should secondary sources turn up, it's still better suited to be covered at the target article per WP:PAGEDECIDE . There's no reason for a random news story that happened at this church to be split off to its own article instead of being covered in the article about the church itself. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 01:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] exclusively primary sources Thank you for clarifying that you don't know what a primary source is. You did this same thing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Farmington, New Mexico shooting and were called out for it there. It's disappointing to see you still using this logic almost a year later. I invite you to re-read WP:PRIMARY again and hopefully this time will stick with you. Second ... WP:PAGEDECIDE Trumped by WP:DUE , the shooting coverage was already taking up a proportionally significant amount of the text at the main Lakewood Church article, and as more details are released it would just get worse. WP:PAGEDECIDE is great for edge-cases where due weight is manageable, but not with this subject. random The event was not random, unless you have insider knowledge that the shooter flipped a coin or rolled dice before their shooting spree. — Locke Cole • t • c 04:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC) WP:PRIMARY – For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources. WP:RSBREAKING – All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution ""Called out for it"" is a strange way to say that you and only you disagreed with me when I applied these P&G. Regarding ""random crime"", that's a common term to distinguish from domestic crime. Regarding WP:DUE, the answer to outsized importance within the article isn't to give it even more outsized importance in a separate article as if it were an event of historical interest. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 06:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not all of the sources were of the ""breaking news"" variety, so again, not primary sources... You applied those WP:PAG in a discussion where the final decision was to , you can take from that what you will, but my interpretation was that they were not convincing then, and they shouldn't be now. As to WP:DUE , your argument is wrong and is precisely why Flat Earth exists separate from Earth (where the flat Earth concept only merits a sentence). This is also the example given at WP:DUE . — Locke Cole • t • c 17:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I say for now. References are good. Coverage indicates notability at this point. BabbaQ ( talk ) 02:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect . The article dedicated to this event was created too soon. If there's a lot of information that comes out about this incident in the next few days, I would Keep. But since it was created too soon and it seems like only 2 people were injured and the only death is the perpetrator, I recommend the article to to Lakewood Church . Dc55555 ( talk ) 05:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - at least for now. Maybe in a couple weeks if nothing really comes of it we could nominate it again but for now it seems it could be rather notable as it was a female shooter which is super rare in these cases. Elizzaflanagan221 ( talk ) 06:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC) SNOW territory. Despite quite high participation for a new AfD, no real argument for deletion has been advanced except the nominating editor's. A / can be discussed on the relevant talk page in the coming days as the event's notability and the likely maximum possible length of the article become clearer with the passage of time. If deletion is still seen as preferable to a /, the article can always come back to AfD in a week or two's time. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 14:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC) The number of victims don't determine notability of a shooting and it is being widely reported. - UtoD 17:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC) any attack on a large and globally recognized religious institution is worthy of a page, however, it might have prematurely created, but future edits will remedy that concern. 2601:646:9E02:6D60:A80E:6199:5902:DE42 ( talk ) 20:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] for now , probably later. As others have said, this article was created too soon . But this article was also brought to AfD too soon. Don't rush to articles about breaking news events . It's too early to properly assess notability here, and I struggle to see a good reason to as opposed to merging. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . As other editors have said, this just happened, and this was brought up for deletion way too soon. Give it a few days, for more secondary sources to present themselves, as some are already making headlines, but who knows, more may come out. If we can't find more coverage of the event in the next few days, I would move to /, but for now, I vote to . Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( Online ) 20:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC) The shooting was high-profile, despite low casualties, and has received a lot of press. Tons of high-profile shootings have Wikipedia articles, and I as such don't see reason why this one should not. AmericanBaath ( talk ) 23:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The signifcant news coverage of the shooting makes it notable, not the number of casualties. – Muboshgu ( talk ) 00:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC) As noted above, the attack has garnered significant coverage regardless of the low causality count. Clear Looking Glass ( talk ) 00:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Latham Park: Nothing to suggest that the stadium has much notability outside of Newtown_A.F.C. but possibly could be d as an AtD JMWt ( talk ) 16:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Wales . JMWt ( talk ) 16:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC) GEOLAND , WP:NBUILDING . (update) There are independent RS cites on the page. Including BBC and County Times. I feel this nomination is floored. Govvy ( talk ) 10:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please explain more. It is not a habited place or a natural feature and isn’t a historical building of national important so I don’t see how that guideline applies JMWt ( talk ) 10:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Geoland and NBuilding encompass the aspect of being a geographical location and the physical building of the stadium. Yes you need sources to establish this and there are sources, the place has links to a historic figure of George Latham (footballer) , which adds the historical aspect. You have a multi-use venue, so a straight to the football club is a no. Upon a google search, there are loads of small news articles about the place. That all adds up, the two BBC sources in the article [15] , [16] and with the other sources is more than enough for basic GNG. Your nomination is floored. Thank you. Govvy ( talk ) 10:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the record, I dispute this reading of the notability criteria. Passing and insignificant newspaper articles are not enough for the GNG or NBuilding. JMWt ( talk ) 12:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Newtown A.F.C. - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per Govvy. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 20:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , per Govvy. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 22:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Lusongyuan Hotel: Hardly anything in Google News for both English and Chinese name 北京侣松园宾馆 LibStar ( talk ) 05:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and China . LibStar ( talk ) 05:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Found one passing mention here and nothing else. Does not appear to have notability. Note that the hotel might've been renamed per [49] , does not appear to give any additional sources though. Just i yaya 05:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Welp, I stand corrected. @ Cunard : you should make an AFD guide on whatever databases you use because somehow you are just so much better at finding these sources. Just i yaya 09:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Justiyaya ( talk · contribs ). Thank you for the kind words. When I participate AfDs, I find a lot of the sources through databases available through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library as well as other databases I have access to. When searching for sources for AfD, the resources I find most useful are EBSCO , Gale ( Wikipedia:Gale ), ProQuest , and Wikipedia:Newspapers.com , and to a much lesser extent Wikipedia:Newspaperarchive.com . I also have access to NewsBank which The Wikipedia Library is missing. NewsBank frequently has sources that the other databases don't have (and vice versa). I also do searches on Internet Archive , Google , Google Books , Google News , and Google Scholar . Cunard ( talk ) 10:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC) GNG and other notability requirement. Though search result presented some links, those are not significant to sustain this article. Piscili ( talk ) 06:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC) no indication of notability, even under the potential rename flagged by Justiyaya above. Chiselinccc ( talk ) 09:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Edwards, Natasha (2002-06-01). ""The Traveller: Short Breaks: 24-Hour Room Service Lu Song Yuan Hotel, Beijing"" . The Independent . Archived from the original on 2024-05-28 . Retrieved 2024-05-28 . The review notes: ""One exception, offering lashings of atmosphere and a taste of authentic China, is the Lu Song Yuan Hotel. The 19th-century courtyard dwelling was built for the fearless General Zeng Ge Ling Qin. After serving as a rather run-down hostel for 30 years, the Lu Song Yuan was bought in 1997 by the Hong Kong-based Silk Road Hotel Management Company, and reopened as a Culture Hotel in 1998 after extensive renovation. The hotel spreads over five courtyards; the main one, where you can sit for a drink, opens off the restaurant."" Wang, Dandan (2001-08-17). ""Lu Song Yuan a ""Siheyuan"" hotel"" . Beijing Today . Retrieved 2024-05-28 – via Internet Archive . The review notes: ""The hotel was the former residence of the relatives of Qing royal family and is surrounded by historic buildings. Zenggelinqin, the first owner of the house, is described as a national hero in the film “Burning Yuanmingyuan”. ... The Lu Song Yuan hotel is built around four charming traditional courtyards. It includes an outdoor lounge, bamboo gardens and a grape garden. Many of the rooms open onto one of the courtyards. The hotel has 59 guest rooms, which are tastefully furnished with replicas of Ming dynasty furniture. There is a business center, which provides an English speaking secretarial service, copying, fax, internet access, as well as ticketing and foreign currency exchange. "" Biggs, Cassie (2004-07-11). ""Boutique hotels in Beijing"" . South China Morning Post . Archived from the original on 2024-05-28 . Retrieved 2024-05-28 . The article provides 149 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: ""In the 19th century the two-storey Lu Song Yuan Hotel was the private residence of General Zeng Ge Ling Qin, one-time defence minister and regarded as the ""Great Wall"" of the Qing Court. Reasonably priced and centrally located in a hutong just north of Bei Hai Park, the hotel has been on the backpacker trail for some time and can be busy. But with four courtyards, a bamboo grove and a grape garden, there's more than enough space for a spot of solitude. The best suites open onto a tiny courtyard at the back where you can sit and sip tea, listen to the birds and contemplate the hotel's 170 years of history. Or you can hop in a rickshaw and go for a spin around the hutongs, many of which haven't changed since their Kublai Khan days. Rooms range from US$10 dormatories to $100 suites with private courtyards"" Chen, Stephen (2008-07-13). ""Games worse for hotel trade than the 1989 crackdown"" . South China Morning Post . Archived from the original on 2024-05-28 . Retrieved 2024-05-28 . The article notes: ""The Lusongyuan Hotel in Beijing's Banchang hutong has thrived since the last time the Dalai Lama checked in and roamed its courtyards in his pyjamas, according to some of the elderly people who live in the alley. For half a century, the former imperial residence in central Beijing has been a stopover for senior government officials, diplomats and, lately, overseas tourists. ... The occupancy rate at the hotel hit a low this month - even lower than the July after the bloodshed in Tiananmen Square in 1989. ... The hotel, now owned by Hong Kong businessman Peter Wong Man-kong as part of Culture Resources Development, has modernised its bathrooms, added broadband internet access and Wi-fi, established a 24-hour multilingual service hotline, and reprinted their service guide to cover the Olympic Games and sports venues."" Less significant coverage: Izon, Lucy (1992-01-19). ""Melbourne Hostel: It's Not in the Books"" . Los Angeles Times . Archived from the original on 2024-05-28 . Retrieved 2024-05-28 . The article notes: ""After several delays, China’s first internationally affiliated youth hostel is due to open this month. Although it’s expected to be a little more expensive than some of the budget hotels favored by backpackers in Beijing, it will be a good place to meet fellow travelers and share information on getting around within this vast country. The 60-bed hostel is located in a traditional four-courtyard-style building, which was originally the Lu Song Yuan Hotel"" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lusongyuan Hotel, also known as Lu Song Yuan Hotel ( simplified Chinese : 北京侣松园宾馆 ; traditional Chinese : 北國情侶松園賓館 ), to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 10:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC) LibStar ( talk · contribs ), Justiyaya ( talk · contribs ), Piscili ( talk · contribs ), and Chiselinccc ( talk · contribs ), I found some sources about this hotel. Most of the sources call the hotel ""Lu Song Yuan Hotel"" rather than ""Lusongyuan Hotel"", which may be why sources were hard to find. The hotel may have been the residence of the Qing general Sengge Rinchen (if the South China Morning Post quote ""General Zeng Ge Ling Qin, one-time defence minister"" refers to him). Would you review the sources? Thank you, Cunard ( talk ) 10:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Cunard ( talk · contribs ), thanks for this research and the ping! As this is one of the first AfDs I've participated in, and I'm doing so in part so I can observe discussions and learn more about evaluating RSes, I am probably not a good person to judge these, so I will eagerly await input from our other peers you've tagged. That being said, these *look* like decently significant coverage to my ""newbie"" eyes, and particularly your find about the Qing general! Looking forward to see what others think, if they concur with your assessment I'd love to help you in patching these sources in to build article content from them. (Also, apologies, I'm trying to indent this as a response in sourcecode but I'm not sure I did so properly) Cheers! Chiselinccc ( talk ) 11:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for reviewing the sources, Chiselinccc ( talk · contribs ), and for your interest in patching the sources in to build article content from them! I participate in many AfDs so don't always have time to add the sources to the article since searching for sources is time-consuming. (I've adjusted the indentation of your comment so that it's nested under my comment.) Cunard ( talk ) 06:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC) ( PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 05:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Tirukkural translations into Fijian: Already covered in Tirukkural translations . No proof of WP:Notability of the the 2 transalations on its own accord. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Philosophy , and India . Redtigerxyz Talk 17:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC) More citations added to establish notability. Kural translation is a highly notable topic and the addition of citations asserts the notability of individual translations, as noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani . Article now passes WP:GNG . Rasnaboy ( talk ) 09:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Rasnaboy. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 16:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC) per citations in articles. Works into WP:SUMMARYSTYLE format as child articles of Tirukkural translations . // Timothy :: talk 14:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"GE boxcab: Their reasoning is as follows. This is procedural and I am neutral in this nomination. ""Three sources have failed verification the More Footnotes Needed notice was up since January 2017 and nothing has changed. Even one external link has failed verification. Therefore, all these issues combined make this article fail GNG."" The notice ""This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations."" on that article has been there since January 2017. And nothing has changed for it to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. This article is being taken to AFD due to failure to meeting requrements of a wikipedia article and coupled with that it was originally proposed for deletion, but someone had removed the PROD thinking that they could get away with it. Therefore, AFD is a solution. "" Star Mississippi 00:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . Star Mississippi 00:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC) I think the original nominator says all the sources fail verification because the links are dead, but they can be accessed via the Wayback Machine. References 1, 4, and the external link seem to check out. Reference 2 makes no note of trains and reference 3 doesn’t appear to mention a 120 ton engine (does mention a 118 ton engine for CN with a generator and motor from other models, though). References 3 and 4 are a geocities-style site so I’m not sure if they would be an acceptable WP:RS . StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC) A consortium consisting of ALCO, GE and Ingersoll Rand started series production of the ALCO Boxcabs in 1925. ALCO dropped out of the arrangement in 1928, after acquiring their own diesel engine manufacturer in McIntosh & Seymour and went on to start its own line of diesel switchers. GE and Ingersoll Rand went on with the production of the former ALCO boxcabs, but without ALCO. The locomotives were built in the GE plant in Erie, Pennsylvania, except the unit for Canadian National Railway (CN), which was built by the railroad itself in their workshop. Seventeen examples were built in all. a 60-Ton locomotive with a six-cylinder four-stroke in-line engine of 300 hp a 100-Ton locomotive with two of the same engines as the 60-Ton model) a 120-Ton locomotive with a single six-cylinder 800 hp unit (1 prototype built for Erie Railroad) Don't have any references connected to them. I would suggest that this article: A. gets d . or B. instead gets draftified for improvements. 194.223.33.176 ( talk ) 06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC) 11, 20 April 2024 (UTC) I looked through the wayback machine , specifically http://sbiii.com/boxc1101.html and its self-published meaning the creator of this article has also sourced this article to some dude's self-published website. Look at the bottom of the article and you will see I'm spitting out the truth. 194.223.33.176 ( talk ) 06:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC) GE boxcab . What I said at the time is that poor sourcing and notability are separate issues . Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup is only an essay, but a well-regarded one for all that. I'm not a fan of draftifying articles in these cases because it tends to mean fewer eyes on the article. The article needs to be improved, but it's not doing active harm where it is, and no one's alleging that it's grossly inaccurate. IP, just so we're clear, no one, least of all me, disagrees that the sourcing is bad. I just disagree on the remedy. Mackensen (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC) 30, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . After adding archives and checking some of the passages with failed verification tags, I don't see the issue as one of notability. For example, the line "" The only surviving GE boxcab is the 100-ton unit built in December 1929 and delivered to the contractor Foley Brothers in January 1930. "" is very close to the article which says it's the "" only surviving 100-ton (nominal - actually 108-ton) oil-electric boxcab "". The other hard facts are all present, so changing that sentence to "" The only surviving 100-ton GE boxcab is the unit built in December 1929 and delivered to the contractor Foley Brothers in January 1930. "" would nudge it in line with the cited source. That's a pretty minor change, and indicates a need for cleanup rather than deletion. Rjj iii ( talk ) 23:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC) Has coverage in reliable sources and the article has been improved. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC) Unsubstantiated deletion request by an IP. The community would be better served by improving articles and searching for sources, rather than submitting deletion requests. -- Pechristener ( talk ) 02:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That only holds true if the subject is notable. In this case, it clearly is. But saying that deletion requests are always bad is patently incorrect. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 17:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Tim Ocel: Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC) MILL . The article asserts that he has worked steadily in the theatre, first as a stage manager and now as a director, but not all stage directors are notable. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 02:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems to have some renown in various theater pieces [27] , [28] and [29] , in the USA and Ireland. These aren't extensive coverage, but seem to be well-known. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] managed to find several sources through a simple Google search, [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] . Several sources on Google Books, including multiple mentions in With Our Good Will 30 Years of Shakespeare in Idaho , Agamemnon in Performance 458 BC to AD 2004 , and A Directory of Shakespeare in Performance Since 1991 Volume 3, USA and Canada , and several sources on Google Scholar. GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 01:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For more input on the sources presented above... Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC) per GoldenBootWizard276 and Oaktree b . Please perform more thorough WP:Before prior to nominations Jack4576 ( talk ) 06:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC) Several scholarly sources mention Ocel and analyze his work. His productions have also been reviewed in several publications. This article needs better sourcing, but the subject definitely meets WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 23:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Club Med Ria Bintan: Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep ( talk ) 08:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Indonesia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Appropriately sourced, meets requirements. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Hotels [ reply ] . Well sourced and clearly notable. Aymatth2 ( talk ) 13:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment For some reason, the nominator considers that all the hotels and resorts in Bintan Regency fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Aymatth2 ( talk ) 13:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] v t e Hotels and resorts in Bintan Nikoi Island Banyan Tree Bintan Club Med Ria Bintan Angsana Resort & Spa Loola Adventure Resort Mayang Sari Beach Resort Comfort Hotel & Resort Tanjung Pinang Hotel Sadaap Hotel Laguna Hotels portal The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Mathematics education in New York: Insufficiently distinct from Mathematics education in the United States . Possibly could be ed to New York Regents Examinations . Walsh90210 ( talk ) 02:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and New York . Walsh90210 ( talk ) 02:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . It is true that the present article is very poorly sourced (I am not sure about the datedness but willing to take the nominator's word for it). However, the content looks to me like it's all true and sourceable in principle. Indeed, it's clear that this is a notable topic: there were major changes to the structure of New York State's mathematics courses and exams in the last 25 years, and they received widespread coverage at the time. For example, here's one article about the 2007 change to Algebra-Geometry-Algebra 2 [65] , here 's an article about aligning math requirements to Common Core, and here 's an article about one particular administration of an exam that spends several paragraphs discussing various changes to state policies over time, as in the article we're discussing. These various changes described in our article were mostly specific to New York State, making Mathematics education in the United States an unacceptable / target, and I see no advantage to merging them into an article about Regents exams in general (better would be links out from that article to separate articles on the various subject areas it covers, when there is sufficient sourcing to permit that). -- JBL ( talk ) 20:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC) 20, 4 June 2024 (UTC) 34, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The text needs citation and probably cleaning, but it's not beyond repair , and the topic is an encyclopedic one. Redirecting to the Regent Examinations would be a bad move, because math education is more general than just the Regent Exams in algebra and geometry ( for example ), and likewise, they have Regent Exams on topics other than mathematics. XOR'easter ( talk ) 02:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Definitely a notable and encyclopedic topic, even if the article is extremely out of date and in poor shape. I'd rather see somebody improve it than have it d as cleanup. Malinaccier ( talk ) 01:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Bob Woodward (actor): Fails the general and actor-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , United States of America , California , and Oklahoma . UtherSRG (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , possibly tagged because nobody knew how to find the sources. From the AFI (American Film Institute) catalogue, I was able to link the list of his films. Over a period of 32 years, he made a lot of films. FYI, The American Film Institute was founded by a 1965 presidential mandate to establish a national arts organization to preserve the legacy of American film heritage. The problem with searching for sources on the actor Bob Woodward, is that the same-named The Washington Post reporter of the Watergate era s coming up. The actor Bob Woodward was indeed in all five seasons of the Gene Autry Show, which I found a source for. Although ImDB is not technically used as a source, a glance at his page will show you that he worked for decades in the medium of television. Hopefully, another Wikipedia editor will find more sourcing. — Maile ( talk ) 20:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree that he fails GNG and NACTOR. He was in half of the episodes of both The Gene Autry Show and Buffalo Bill, Jr. , and had named roles in large number of films. He was a staple in Gene Autry's productions, and a stunt double for Autry, Buck Jones, and few others. He's also in the Hollywood Stuntmen's Hall of Fame. Butler Blog ( talk ) 13:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC) NACTOR Criteria, have significant roles in many films or drama Worldiswide ( talk ) 04:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Viktor Bolkhovsky: Way more than sufficient to show WP:NBIO . Broc ( talk ) 12:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Russia . Owen× ☎ 13:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong . The sources on this are good. For a Russian crime topic, probably above average. As far as I can see, everything is cited. What? PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 03:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC) The subject meets WP:GNG with multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV . JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Clearly satisfies WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Russian interference in European politics: The page contains way too many quotations, close paraphrasing and improper use of a non-free source, and overall fails WP:GNG . Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib. ) 13:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics , Czech Republic , and Russia . Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib. ) 13:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC) There's been talk of Russian influence at the European Parliament. I've found a few sources in French [1] , [2] , [3] . Perhaps we need to re-work the article, but this is notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC) What, the growing menace of the tyrannical onslaught of Russian destruction potentially threatening all of Europe is not notable? 70.26.38.47 ( talk ) 02:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC) quite clearly there are multiple independent reports of this topic, as well as from primary sources such as the European Parliament [4] . Although sourcing should be improved, needing cleanup is not grounds for deletion. C 679 13:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Oaktree b and Cloudz679. There's enough WP:RS -based coverage to pass WP:GNG . Sal2100 ( talk ) 15:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Yekaterina Duntsova: WP:POLITICIAN states that just being an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability. The article on the same topic was d in Russian Wikipedia due to the same reasons FlorianH76 ( talk ) 21:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC) Her candidacy is the direct subject of several articles, so she meets the notability criteria for Wikipedia. JohnR1Roberts ( talk ) 21:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Should satisfy WP:SIGCOV given multiple news about her 2024 presidential campaign in the context of Russia, where she probably is the lone opposition to Putin, other candidates are loyal to him. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 22:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC) ""Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. "" Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 22:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC) //www.youtube.com/watch? v=Oi3ljQXB0qQ&t=471 ). We should also be careful about state actors trying to act here. Scisne ( talk ) 23:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The subject of the article clearly has significance. Many reliable sources wrote about Yekaterina Duntsova ( Reuters , The Moscow Times , BNN Breaking , AP News and many others), describing her as Putin's main opponent in the upcoming elections. She passed the first stage of registration, collected the necessary 500 signatures, and held a meeting in Moscow. This was covered by the Russian federal media ( Kommersant , news.ru ). The article about Duntsova in the Russian Wikipedia was d with obvious bias and is an example of political censorship. -- Yarkovesh ( talk ) 23:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC) 03, 20 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women , Journalism , Law , and Russia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC) ROUTINE and we regularly articles about unelected candidates if they don't have any WP:SIGCOV beyond that related to their candidacy, which seems to be the case here. Even if we cast that general precedent aside, this would still be an issue of WP:BLP1E . As it is, Duntsova is only a declared - not a qualified - candidate (she needs a further 300,000 petition signatures to be ballot listed). Nonetheless, it's possible Duntsova may become ballot qualified and, subsequently, may e as the leading challenger in the upcoming election and, if all that transpired, it would most probably be enough to surmount my concerns about ROUTINE and BLP1E since a principal challenger is almost certain to attract coverage of such biographical depth and complexity as to crest those standards. However, it's too early in the petitioning process to ascertain that so this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON . Therefore, I ! vote in favor of draftifying the article with no prejudice against its future recreation if the situation evolves or changes. Chetsford ( talk ) 00:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, it seems to be a good decision. FlorianH76 ( talk ) 01:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article needs to stay. Yekaterina Duntsova is the most important person of our time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:3037:611:6570:F6C5:FFB6:CA37:E51C ( talk ) 12:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We need this article to maintain freedom. Alxklg ( talk ) 07:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC) 49, 20 December 2023 (UTC) you can mention that the official start of Ekaterina's election campaign took place yesterday. Over 700 supporters gathered in Moscow to express their support for her candidacy. The initiative group of 522 people also voted in favor of Ekaterina's nomination. The meeting was successful, despite some questionable incidents that did not affect the course of the event. Currently, Ekaterina has the support of over 110,000 people. The Telegram channel has about 150 thousand people. Has an article in the Belarusian Wikipedia and the Ukrainian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.59.206.179 ( talk ) 04:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC) 00, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Clearly satisfies general notability guidelines of significant coverage in reliable sources . -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 15:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC) 26, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] it please. People want to find the information about her. I was disappointed not to find an article about her in Russian and was happy to find some information in English at least. 85.166.86.183 ( talk ) 22:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC) I agree that running for office does not automatically meet notability but in this case there are plenty of sources. This is a national campaign of a major country, and she is publically standing up against a controversial government. She clearly meets notability. Rublamb ( talk ) 22:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . No one knows her. This is clearly just an attempt to draw attention and create a facade for non-existent career and political weight. 178.252.127.236 ( talk ) 10:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ekaterina Duntsova's presence in the social media realm is far from negligible, boasting a following of 320,000 people — a number that continues to climb swiftly. To say that 'no one knows her' seems a stark underestimation of her growing popularity. Galstenreg ( talk ) 17:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Yekaterina Duntsova 2024 presidential campaign . Devil's advocate, but I think we're putting anti-Putinist emotions (which I do sympathize with) over well-established policy. The well-established policy is WP:BLP1E , and this person clearly fails it. That being said, I do think notability has been established for her presidential campaign, and thusly this page should be kept but moved. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 05:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC) 43, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It does not fall under this rule because all three points must be considered. About the third point. Ekaterina Duntsova has a clear path in life - she worked as a journalist (editor-in-chief of RIT) and was a deputy in the City Duma. Now she is reaching a new level of fame, a lot is being written and talked about in Russian-speaking (especially independent) and English-speaking media. To say that there is only one event associated with her or that she is insignificant is strange. 185.70.52.115 ( talk ) 20:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Authoritative media pay a lot of attention to her. К. Артём.1 ( talk ) 09:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. There is more than enough news coverage. Mellk ( talk ) 12:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC) I also agree that running for office does not automatically meet notability but as above there are plenty of sources including news / media outlets and social media it now does, especially standing up to Putin. Yekaterina, a very brave woman, and now very much notable, with her stance on Anti-War and bringing Russia back from the brink. Just to point out the one that has mentioned has an IP inside Russia, a little obvious I think from Putins propaganda machine of silencing critics and opposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.87.161 ( talk ) 00:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] quite ironic to be critical to the anon from the UK to claim that out. not every russian liberals' critics are from the propaganda machine , as one user was merely questioned Yekaterina's notability. — 95.24.32.118 ( talk ) 16:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . She's been written up in The Independent, The Moscow Times, Reuters, AP News, ABC News, and Stars and Stripes. How much more notable can someone be??? HandsomeMrToad ( talk ) 02:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia has a neutral POV and articles should not be d because someone is not happy with the facts. Lotje ( talk ) 12:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] She got blocked from the election process but got covered by the BBC , still pretty notable. -- Catlemur ( talk ) 15:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC) GNG . That the page is d from the Russian Wikipedia is not a valid reason for deletion here. 109.37.156.249 ( talk ) 22:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - as she has gained coverage from the Associated Press about her denial from the candidacy. Ivan Milenin ( talk ) 00:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] far than enough coverage, especially now that Putin is up to his old tricks and repressing the subject's presidential candidacy. There has been a fair bit of news on the subject as of today alone. Inter&anthro ( talk ) 02:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per most of the above. Clearly notable as there are more than enough sources talking about her. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈ ) 10:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC) 21, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Eifo HaYeled: Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG . UtherSRG (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel . UtherSRG (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Was a notable band in Israeli music history. Article has been spruced up, info added, cats added, sources added. -- Geewhiz ( talk ) 14:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC) it could always be improved further but I'd say the article qualifies as being decent enough now. Not sure if the redlinks over individual band members are necessary though. -- Dynamo128 ( talk ) 15:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Famous Israeli band that does not fail WP:NBAND or WP:GNG by any stretch of the imagination. Somehow it was tagged for notability and I have removed that as currently debated and also baseless. This nomination is an obvious before failure. It was created 3 minutes after the previous, unrelated nomination. gidonb ( talk ) 11:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . One of the most conspicuous bands in Israeli music history, covered by countless comprehensive articles in major media Israeli outlets. Tzahy ( talk ) 19:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Magik: The majority of reception is from content farm-related sites such as ScreenRant that don't really distinguish between major and incredibly minor comic book characters. At least in the Video Game WikiProject, we consider Looper/CBR unreliable and ScreenRant inadmissible, leaving almost no reception that passes GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 10:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Comics and animation . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 10:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Reception section may be weakly referenced, but that doesn't disqualify the whole article. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC) The article is mostly plot summary when you put aside the reception. So I would say the entire article is pretty much disqualified if the reception fails notability, unless there is something I missed? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . I think Looper + SyFy are enough (in-depth, go beyond plot summaries). Looper is not a great source, but this depends on the particular article; that one seems relatively well written and signed by non-anon writer. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 13:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Piotrus Looper is considered an unreliable source, and a content farm at best. I wouldn't consider it a viable source for this discussion, even if it's well written. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 20:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC) Were Google Books and Google Scholar included in the WP:BEFORE search? I don't yet have time look into this myself more closely, but these searches look promising, as do the individual hits of Marvel's Mutants - The X-Men Comics of Chris Claremont and Superheroines and the Epic Journey , p. 244-249. Daranios ( talk ) 16:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those appear to be talking about Magik (1983 comic book) , I think, which shares the same name as the character. Would not be surprised if the comic were notable, but character wasn't. I did find an entry for her in the DK Marvel Encyclopedia, but it has no actual critical reception, raising WP:INDISCRIMINATE concerns, and a couple of SIGCOV are not yet sufficient. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zxcvbnm Did you look into this query ? It seems promising, but I am tired today and don't have time to access paywalled sources. Ex. [68] ""But his discussion of Illyana Rasputin’s ‘Magik’ saga devolves into a patchwork of radical"" (and others). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 20:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC) As you were looking for another extended source, what do you think of The New Mutants - Superheroes and the Radical Imagination of American Comics , the chapter mostlyl dedicated to the character and her implications p. 248-266? Not all of it is accessible (to me), and there is quite a bit of plot summary, but it is quite a number of pages and p. 248 already has important analyis. Daranios ( talk ) 14:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for actually being rational and not assuming I am some grudge-filled troll. From what I can see, it does count as significant coverage, though it is coverage for Ilyana and her alter-egoes, not just Magik. This seems to imply the page should be renamed to her actual name. I might attempt to do that, but either way it does seem like notability has been shown with Syfy, the DK encyclopedia and this source, so I will voluntarily withdraw the nom, though I can't close it unless @ Pokelego999 : also agrees so as not to be a supervote. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zxcvbnm I'm satisfied with the sourcing found and am willing to change my vote to so as to avoid a supervote and allow you to withdraw it for further work on the article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 18:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. I did a brief search myself and found little, though ping me if anyone finds anything that could be considered significant. Any of the sources brought up have very little backing beyond a potential one or two. There's some coverage, but she appears to fall short of the coverage threshold. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 20:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , nom once again seems triggered by prejudice against a certain medium and the idea of cleanup work. Only done a very quick Google (like the nominator *rimshot*) but there seems to be a bit more for Illyana Rasputin rather than the code-name. My X-Men is faded but IIRC she spent a good chunk of time not as a Majik, and was referred to by name an unusually high amount for the period. Possibles: - [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] Presumably those don't count for some nebulous reason, though. And then there's the pile of reliable publications focusing on Bronze and Copper Age comics that shock fucking horror aren't indexed on Google - Amazing Heroes, Back Issue and Wizard are right in the wheelhouse of an X-Men character. But I'm not putting more effort into a vote than someone has into the nom. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 21:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC) ADHOMINEM and outright false. It's unbelievable how you would accuse someone of hardly looking for the subject while then putting a list of sources featuring brief mentions and failing to expound. Unfortunately I can't access most of these due to copyright, but from the ones I could see, it still seems trivial. Which ones have SIGCOV here, exactly? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Clutch those pearls. Not putting more work into a vote than you've put into a nomination. Not re-gearing my work because you like video games more than comics. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 07:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC) , @ Piotrus : , and @ BoomboxTestarossa : . If the article is saved, a brief mentioning of Amanda Sefton operating as Magik can be listed in a section called ""Other characters named Magik"" in light of this recent renaming. -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 22:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC) The book The Ages of the X-Men: Essays on the Children of the Atom in Changing Times mentions Magik on pages 169, 227, and 229. It looks like they may have a mention or two in the book The Claremont Run: Subverting Gender in the X-Men . Definitely mentions in the book The Psychology of Superheroes . Also mentions in How Superheroes Model Community: Philosophically, Communicatively, Relationally and Antiheroes: Heroes, Villains, and the Fine Line Between . You can find these results here . (I find this kind of search better than just Google Books.) Erik ( talk | contrib ) ( ping me ) 12:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So in summary we have coverage of the character as such, as well as coverage focussing on her What If? chapter (e.g. Polygon ) and her own series, which also have something to say on the character even if that's not the man topic. So in total I see the notability requirement as fullfilled. Daranios ( talk ) 15:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This AfD lays bare inherent problems with the way the system is used by some nominators. Before it was nominated there appear to have been no cleanup tags warning of the content issues on the page. The nominator has likewise not engaged by making queries or suggestions on the talk page, and in short has made absolutely no attempt to put any effort into improving the article, or make any other editors aware of their reservations. Of course, you don't have to do any of that, but it's hard to assume good faith when an experienced editor ignores those steps in favour of escalating to AfD, which means everyone interested in the page suddenly has to jump through hoops for a week on the whim of one editor. Tagging an article for deletion or nominating for AfD takes seconds; properly researching a page - especially if we're not talking just mashing three words into a search engine, and using paper resources - can take hours or even days, and whoever's doing the research may already be researching something else. It basically forces an issue no-one was aware even was an issue 72 hours ago. As we're talking about a fictional character from a major publisher with clearly *some* degree of notability that would leave the term some use as a or a to a list article/page, but again that has been ignored in favour of nominating for deletion. Unless, of course, the nominator is gaming the system and thinks it should be a or , and is using the AfD process to force the issue. Again, assuming good faith can be challenging in such circumstances. AfDs (at least in Comics & Animation) are mainly contested by the same 6-8 people, most of whom just pick an entrenched position; AfDs are a niche area for many editors, and the process gives a disproportionate say to the dogmatic. Most of whom who then do absolutely none of the work their nominations have created for others. AfD has its' uses but honestly over the past year or two flaws in the mechanism are becoming obvious, and processes put in place to swiftly remove obvious spam/advert/troll pages are being misused. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 09:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is making the mistaken assumption that a certain amount of work can save a non-notable page from removal, if I thought it was feasible to save the article I wouldn't have nominated it in the first place. I fully admit it may end up as a result due to various obscure sources found during the process, but at the time of nomination there was nothing immediately evident online or in the article that it passed GNG. If it does it would be entirely due to sources discovered afterwards by significant research that the article creator did not do. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 11:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, it's an assumption that many potentially notable pages need people actually making calm, patient, friendly evaluation of their notability rather than some passing random just yelling ""DELETE!!1!1!"". Obviously there are pages out there with questionable notability, but you've made no attempt to actually objectively see if this is one of them in any sort of constructive manner. You've just tried to put everyone in a ticking clock situation, sat back and demanded people jump through your hoops. There are the ""obscure sources"" that I turned up in five minutes on Google on my phone. At work. And it's still not entirely clear why they didn't show up in your Before search. It is highly, highly possible that the various article editors were unaware of the various nebulous, shifting definitions of what sources are and aren't admissible (CBR used to be a pretty decent site, for instance). There's no reason to assume anyone editing the article recently was totally unaware of any issues with the sourcing or notability because no-one had actively raised any concerns until you slapped a deletion notice on it one day. I mean, for someone who seems to take great umbrage about my assumptions you don't seem shy of making them about other people. Wikipedia's standards have shifted dramatically over the past few years, and there are tools to help work with the wide number articles that could do with being raised to them. Tag it as better sources needed or whatever, give it a month, let someone who knows something, anything about the area have a look. There might not be an official process but there's an array of sensible, good faith steps that can be taken - otherwise it looks like you just randomly want an article about a particular X-Men character GONE RIGHT NOW, which naturally makes it look like it's just on your shitlist for some reason (to be fair, the whole Darkchild thing was repetitive as fuck). That you only searched online shows a lack of basic knowledge of the medium - many heavyweight comics sources like CBJ (and thus Amazing Heroes, which is defunct but owned by Fantagraphics) and Back Issue! do not maintain full online archives for profitability reasons, and the same goes for a lot of books due to low print runs. This again reflects poorly on your Before, and therefore your ability to judge the feasibility of saving articles. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 12:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Instead of this non policy based, totally irrelevant yelling about how bad Wikipedia is, just please tell me the single best source you have found that is not Syfy. I will gladly withdraw the article if there is a clear and obvious SIGCOV I missed, demonstrating my good faith. I think just one more will put it over the edge into notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Again - not jumping through your arbitrary hoops. And you withdrawing this is meaningless - you've already wasted enough of everyone's time with your shoddy nomination and subsequent evasion of questions, and your judgement in this particular area is clearly suspect. Going through the sources people have already posted would be a way of demonstrating your good faith. I mean, it should be easy - they would have all shown up in any halfway competent BEFORE undertaken for abrupt outright deletion of a long-standing article with many contributors, so it should be really, really easy for you to dismiss them. Wikipedia is not bad. It's great, but a lot of it is built on people being cooperative and constructive; like most nice things, it's just vulnerable to people who want to tear stuff down. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 14:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Kelly Wanser: I looked for others on google and only found podcasts and promotional interviews, some with self-admitted friends of her. Bolt and Thunder ( talk ) 03:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Businesspeople , Women , and United States of America . Bolt and Thunder ( talk ) 03:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - with all respect to the nominator, there are a number of serious books that dedicate coverage to Wanser, both positive and negative. All one has to do is to click the ""Books"" link in the Find Sources section on this very page. I agree that much of that information needs to be added to the subject's article, but a lack of effort on editors' part (so far) to improve this article is not a very good reason for deletion. Fred Zepelin ( talk ) 21:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In 2022, IEEE Spectrum, an engineering magazine that's been around 60 years, conducted an in-depth interview with her, which wasn't used as a source. I added it. Fred Zepelin ( talk ) 21:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC) Has good RS online. Subject is notable enough. Adhi2004 ( talk ) 10:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As is mentioned there is coverage in a number of books- this coverage also spans a number of years, which also suggests they are notable enough. Editing84 ( talk ) 09:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"23rd Street viaduct: Has been in CAT:NN for over 3 years. Boleyn ( talk ) 17:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Missouri . Shellwood ( talk ) 17:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to West Bottoms , as a feature of that neighborhood. BD2412 T 18:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawing ! vote due to improvements. No longer a clear case for merging. BD2412 T 15:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even knowing that it was constructed by Kansas City Structural Steel Inc. I could not turn up even a basic source for, say, the construction date or structural type. I cannot find any in-depth documentation of this bridge. The Topeka one by the same name, some. Uncle G ( talk ) 18:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Uncle G The bridge seems like it was built before one of the approaches was ready. It's a little hard to trace. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 19:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just dumped 17 references into this from Kansas City newspapers, and someone a bit more familiar with this area will probably do a better job than I did. Note: ""West Kansas Avenue Bridge"" is another structure (also in need of article help). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 19:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] excellent work by Sammie Brie in expanding the article. Garuda3 ( talk ) 21:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Good work, Sammi. @ Boleyn and BD2412 : opinions on Sammi's sources? Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 06:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC) ROUTINE for reporting on the lifespan of a bridge, but the fact that there was at least one reported dispute about its intended use shifts me out of thinking that this is a clear case for merging. BD2412 T 15:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC) HEY . Seems to meet WP:GNG now. Great work by Sammi in improving the article. S5A-0043 Talk 16:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC) The sources added show this easily meets the GNG. Great work by all improving this one. Let'srun ( talk ) 14:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"2023 Guyana Defence Force helicopter crash: Accidental helicopter crash during a political crisis and no armed conflict. NoonIcarus ( talk ) 11:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Aviation , South America , and Venezuela . NoonIcarus ( talk ) 11:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC) Templates for discussion/Log/2023 December 10#Template:Campaignbox 2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis , who discussed the crash: @ Moondragon21 , RandomInfinity17 , User6619018899273 , Super Dromaeosaurus , WMrapids , SamPro910 , WikiCleanerMan , and FelipeFritschF : -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 11:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC) the helicopter was flying near the border because of the crises. The goverment increased border patrolea. Due to the crises this helicopter was flying and thus crashed. LuxembourgLover ( talk ) 17:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . It seems almost certain that the crash was an accident and unrelated to the actual crisis. It doesn't affect the crisis itself. I have also mentioned in the talk page for it that WP:NOTNEWS , and while it's true that the reason it was there was because of the border patrols, that is only incidental to the crash, itself a fatality. Similarly, a Brazilian army truck full of munitions crashed and exploded near the border as part of reinforcing the region, but that deserves no Wikipedia article, and neither does this. FelipeFritschF ( talk ) 21:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per longstanding consensus, routine military aviation accidents are not considered notable. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 23:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is already mentioned in 2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis in a ""missing"" section, which I will update have updated. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 23:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC) While it can possibly be included in the larger article, it was also one of the deadliest incidents that the Guyanese military experienced since its independence, it resulted with the death of a high-level officer and the notability of the crash itself has received international attention. -- WMrapids ( talk ) 19:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC) LASTING impact or not. Capitals00 ( talk ) 19:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON to determine lasting impact, and we should come back to this once the time passes. -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 08:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the page since the Guyanese Defence Forces PROBABLY were preparing for an invasion from Venezuela, and one of the helicopters prepared had just crashed. The page may be a WP:NOTNEWS but so is many of the recent aviation accidents in 2023. 71.223.172.140 ( talk ) 00:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC) — 71.223.172.140 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] - I see no rationale that Wikipedia would be made worse for ing this article, and it has the potential to marginally improve Wikipedia. I also just read the NOT NEWS bullet points, and could not identify which of them would be used to justify the deletion of this article. Thanks to all for their contributions. KConWiki ( talk ) 02:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] key details to Guyana Defence Force - we have very little on the air wing there. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning , as this appears to be a well-sourced incident. BD2412 T 02:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC) 31, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"2019 Paris explosion: However, four years on it's clear that WP:LASTING is not met. This event, as sad as it may be, fails WP:NEVENT . The sources in the article, albeit from global outlets, pretty much mimic each other: WP:DEPTH . Google searches for this event bring up very little beyond January 2019 outside of passing mentions (and sensationalist recounts ), and the manslaughter charge (which I cannot find an outcome for, so it appears to not have been notable enough to report on the result). I propose this be ed to List of explosions . If not for the previous two AfDs, I'd have already done that . Anarchyte ( talk ) 11:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and France . Anarchyte ( talk ) 11:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC) NOTNEWS . All significant coverage appears to be from primary sources, which do not count toward notability. A full count of the ! votes in both previous discussions shows that all but one of the ! votes were ""X people died"" ( WP:BIGNUMBER ), ""other explosions have articles"" ( WP:OTHERSTUFF ), ""it will be notable once information comes out"" ( WP:CRYSTAL ), or ""it was already at AfD"" ( WP:LASTTIME ). The sole exception is one that provided primary sources. I will change my ! vote if someone can find in depth retrospective coverage from multiple sources after there were no more developments in the story. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 14:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Some lasting effects as discussed in the Fr wiki article, one victim lost the use of their legs and asked the mayor of Paris for help when they ran for President, not sure how relevant it is. [2] . Gas explosions are routine, this wasn't Notre Dame that caught fire... Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC) NEVENT hurdles handily. Coverage on at least a national scale has continued even in 2023: BFM TV , Cnews . Here's a (regional) article from just a couple of weeks ago on the latest turns in the procedural saga. All quite in-depth -- although to be sure, at this point the story is more about the long battle over compensation and fault than about the explosion per se. Coverage over four years on a national scale appears ample to meet the WP:NEVENT provision for significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. . -- Visviva ( talk ) 01:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A case of Significant coverage. Okoslavia ( talk ) 09:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC) N , but very weak on WP:LASTING . Enough good info that it wouldn't fit well in List of Explosions . No urgent reason to . Last1in ( talk ) 19:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The continued coverage over victim compensation is enough to make it appear relevant to me. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 08:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC) NEVENT with ease. D u s t i *Let's talk! * 22:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Cheon Seong-hoon: No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The only two references are database type entries on web sites. The is reflected in article content which is ""stats only"" plus one sentence which says he plays and who for. North8000 ( talk ) 20:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and South Korea . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Best source I can find is this - there should be something in Korean... Giant Snowman 22:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources below which show (AGFing) notability. Giant Snowman 11:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify . Agree that the article is quite new and crude, but not hopeless. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 14:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC) , @ Suitskvarts : , I found [2] , [3] , [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , among many more Korean sources. Young player witj pngping career with fully pro appearances and played for Bundesliga club. Article needs improvement, not deletiom. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 21:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC) GNG criteria. Svartner ( talk ) 21:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - thanks to the sources found by Das osmnezz which show a clear GNG pass. JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Agent 47: Reception is limited to listicles and starts unimpressively with ""In 2012, GamesRadar+ ranked Agent 47 as the 47th..."". My BEFORE failed to find anything useful other than plot summaries; academic reception is limited to passing mentions in an undergraduate paper and one book (note: I could only access snippets which don't suggest SIGCOV is met). Per WP:ATD-R , a to Hitman (franchise) will suffice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Me personally, I feel 47 as a character is too notable to be delisted, as he seems to be generally well recognized within gaming as a whole. This doesn't mean his article can't be edited with better citations to other articles discussing him and the critical reception around him, as well as a complete removal of any academic studies of his character (he's no Isaac Clarke or Adam Jensen when it comes to this). This is just my suggestion, and you don't have to do it. Chiefmister ( talk ) 05:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Currently, the Hitman (franchise) article has no descriptions of the games' characters, including 47. While I agree that the sources here don't establish notability, largely because they're listicles, and I haven't uncovered any further sources, several of the sources are from generally reliable publications and can be used to draft a description of 47 to be included in the article on the franchise. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 03:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Although I appreciate the sources identified in this discussion, I still think that this should be d. As @ Kung Fu Man has noted, the PC Gamer , Polygon , and PCGamesN articles are all basically game reviews with brief descriptions of 47. I don't think any of the listicles establish notability, including The Telegraph article cited by @ OwenX . There is nothing in the notability guidelines that says that once something hits mainstream news, it's notable. The book that @ Zxcvbnm cited uses 47 as an example for how the player navigates the game, rather than a description of the character himself. In all, I think the sources identified amount to a significant amount of trivial coverage, rather than a sufficient amount of significant coverage. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 19:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge...for now While my gut is telling me there should be more for 47 online, even looking at a 2018 version of it with a larger reception section shows it was all lists. I feel too WP:TNT should also come into play here: what's here, much like early Pokemon articles, is mostly uncited and useless, and if sources do manifest whatever editor works on it will likely be starting over from near scratch anyway. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 09:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC) 18, 10 December 2023 (UTC) GNG on the character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 10:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC) a lot of his commentary is hard to separate from commentary about how the game plays.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 10:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He also got an article in The Ringer about his character too. Vox is considered a WP:RS , even though they also own Polygon, it's different enough to be a distinct site and source. The articles may be about Agent 47's gameplay, but they still make it obvious they are referring to him rather than just the game in general. I am convinced he is notable given these sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 10:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can see your point. What do you think about the TNT argument though? I'm really convinced what's here isn't usable, and after this many years of being in this state (and until recently a much WORSE state), I don't see it viably being an article without being started over from zero with what's there. And yes, WP:NODEADLINE is a thing but at some point you have to question if it's better to let someone potentially wanting to work on the thing undo the on their own. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 10:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] TNT doesn't make sense to me here, as no part of the article is technically ""bad"" besides the reception. The reception needs to be rewritten and current reception sources mostly or entirely discarded, but otherwise it can be kept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per KFM, I'd like to see someone do something with those sources, which seem to be rather freely written (blog / social media style rather than academic) before I'd consider withdrawing this nom. Nice job finding those sources, though. Maybe this can be rescued. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have also found yet another SIGCOV here , in a book about villains in media. It talks about how players rationalize playing as a villain, giving Agent 47 as an example of a character who was created to be the perfect assassin, thus making it easier for players to ""justify"" what they are doing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It looks like a consensus to but recent comments offer some new sources that should be evaluated. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , evaluating sources found by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. The Vader, Voldemort and Other Villains source is excellent secondary SIGCOV. That book, with PCGamesN and The Ringer are a solid three (Noting, The Ringer is an SBNation site with a proper masthead and the author is a professional journalist who has written for many RS). PC Gamer and Polygon are helpful as well—though Polygon seems to rely a bit on quotes from a creative director. This meets WP:GNG . — siro χ o 04:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC) significant coverage by reliable mainstream news such as the Telegraph swayed me away from my initial tendency to such articles. There is more than enough verifiable information here, and independent notability is well established. Once it hits mainstream news, it can no longer be dismissed as ""cruft"". Owen× ☎ 15:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC) 42, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above, seems to have plenty of analysis discussing this character in specific. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 00:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] there's some academic coverage of Agent 47. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC) DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP , and the TNT arguement should be avoided Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources that ZX brought up appear to be sufficient material to warrant Agent 47 ing a separate article. Negative MP1 19:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Gabriel Alemparte: Never elected to any office as a politician. He is the vice-president of a party that's never had anybody elected to any post. Definitely non notable Bedivere ( talk ) 04:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Chile . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. I see this is also up for deletion on Spanish Wikipedia. Mccapra ( talk ) 06:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC) NPOL . Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 18:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Has not held any role that would confer automatic passage of WP:NPOL in and of itself, but the article features neither the substance nor the sourcing needed to get him over WP:GNG instead. Bearcat ( talk ) 17:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Gabriel Alemparte is the vice president of a political party officially established in Chile, in addition to being a public figure of the Chilean center right-wing, he is a columnist in several relevant media outlets in the press, such as La Tercera . This article should not to be d due to the political bias of some editors, because the relevance is proven and can possibly be improved by adding other reliable sources than those it already has. -- Igallards7 ( talk ) 19:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC) the political bias of some editors ? I really think you can vote without the personal attack.-- Bbb23 ( talk ) 19:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Bbb23 This is not about attacking or making gratuitous accusations, I am saying that relevance can be demonstrated with reliable and verifiable sources. In honor of neutrality, it would be good to see what happens with the relevance of biographies of other vice presidents of other national political parties officially established in a country. Igallards7 ( talk ) 20:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Making controversial and polemic remarks on a low-rank TV program is not making Alemparte notable. Bedivere ( talk ) 02:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] By the way @ Bbb23 , isn't this canvassing [68] from Carigval.97 ( talk · contribs )? Bedivere ( talk ) 02:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, it's blatant canvassing. I've warned the user. Please let me know if it happens again. -- Bbb23 ( talk ) 17:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC) There's no failure of WP:NPOL , because Alemparte has received an important coverage from media (both pro-government and Boric-opponent media, for example El Desconcierto or Ex-Ante). Similarly, Alemparte has held state–offices like the surrogate mayor's office of Maipú or even the position of Chief of staff of ministeries during the governments of Michelle Bachelet. -- Carigval.97 ( talk ) 18:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Evidently fails NPOL. Never elected to an office, fails NPOL, and has never held any state-office' , that is blatantly untrue. In Chile, the equivalent of state/province-wide office is gobernador regional, delegado presidencial regional, delegado presidencial provincial, and in general members of Consejos Regionales and members of the Parliament, in addition to Cabinet members. Mayors, for instance, are not inherently notable, unless it is Santiago or regional capitals. Bedivere ( talk ) 02:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC) NPOL ): 'Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage' (in Alemparte's cases: Radio Bío-Bío, La Tercera, El Desconcierto, Diario Financiero, etc). In the US, there's the case of Tony Podesta , a lobbist and activist (as you say about Alemparte) who has not held any position (neither in a political party nor in the state) and who has had press coverage given his controversies. -- Carigval.97 ( talk ) 14:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC) Meets WP:NPOL criteria. He has media coverage and held a state office as mayor of a commune in Santiago, Chile .-- 6UNK3R ( talk ) 21:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC) — 6UNK3R ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Bbb23 ( talk ) 22:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC) 18, 27 December 2023 (UTC) NPOL is not a pass/fail criteria like the other bullets in NPOL. The SNG is written in a way to provide automatic passes to national and statewide elected officials. Because many elected officials serve in local offices, with powers and responsibilities that vary greatly, the SNG provides a way for local officials to meet our communities notability standard by meeting GNG. So, if the individual does not hold an elected or appointed federal/ statewide position , we must apply GNG and evaluate the sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enos733 ( talk • contribs ) 18:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC) Per WP:NPOL . Also he is a public figure. -- Carlos yo ( talk ) 15:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Carlos yo As expressed above he evidently fails NPOL. How does Alemparte pass GNG? Bedivere ( talk ) 16:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Bedivere , the NPOL applies —as Carlos Yo, 6UNKR, and Enos have also expressed (this last one in the edition history)—... Partially, but it applies (for the significant press coverage). Similarly, Alemparte passes GNG because at least fourteen reliable, independent, secondary, and published sources provide significant coverage specifically about him (Alemparte). [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Carigval.97 ( talk ) 16:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please read carefully NPOL. If this person fails NPOL, as they do, it could still pass GNG. My opinion is that he doesn't. While he has made controversial remarks as a result of his participation on a TV show, that does not make him notable. Furthermore the article reads like a CV. That's why I ask @ SportingFlyer to reconsider. This seems to me like a promotional effort in favor of Alemparte. Bedivere ( talk ) 01:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've re-reviewed the article and done a source search and even when you discard Sin Filtros and interviews, I think there's still enough there to pass GNG. There's just quite a bit of coverage from all corners in the past couple years or so. I've also seen articles that read far closer to CVs than this one. SportingFlyer T · C 03:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak NPOL aside, it seems to me as if he passes GNG in Spanish-language sources. Not a normal because my selective review wasn't convincing (not sure if sources are reliable, one was an interview), but it was good enough on the whole. SportingFlyer T · C 18:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Es una frivolidad política decir que esta es la Constitución de Kast"" . Ex-Ante. 2 November 2023 . Retrieved 25 December 2023 . ^ "" ""Nos pillaron, ¡somos amantes!"": Ximena Rincón lanza irónica aclaración de su relación con Gabriel Alemparte"" . 24 Horas . 12 December 2023 . Retrieved 19 December 2023 . ^ ""Gabriel Alemparte y crisis sanitaria: Hay una lamentable falta de gestión, que por una sobre ideologización termina costando vidas"" . Ex-Ante. 13 June 2023 . Retrieved 24 December 2023 . ^ ""Gabriel Alemparte, el hombre que cree saber más de lo que sabe"" . La Voz de los que Sobran. 7 September 2023 . Retrieved 24 December 2023 . ^ ""Gabriel Alemparte: ""La díada rechazo y apruebo constituirá un nuevo parteaguas en la ex Concertación"" "" . Diario Financiero. 30 April 2022 . Retrieved 24 December 2023 . ^ ""Alemparte cuestiona a Baltasar Garzón: En Twitter le recuerdan cuando le profesó admiración"" (in Spanish). El Desconcierto. 18 July 2023 . Retrieved 19 December 2023 . ^ ""Respuesta de CIPER a la declaración de Gabriel Alemparte en el programa Sin Filtros"" . CIPER. 4 July 2023 . Retrieved 24 December 2023 . ^ ""Gabriel Alemparte y amenaza de expulsiones en la DC por apoyos al Rechazo: La libertad de expresión no se pierde por pertenecer a un partido"" . Ex-Ante. 14 July 2022 . Retrieved 25 December 2023 . ^ ""«Su insistencia da cuenta de su ignorancia»: el cruce de Gabriel Alemparte con Bárbara Sepúlveda tras acusación del abogado contra el PC"" . The Clinic . 4 November 2022 . Retrieved 27 December 2023 . ^ ""Gabriel Alemparte y momento de furia en Sin Filtros tras ser acusado de lobbista: abandonó el estudio"" (in Spanish). Radio Bío Bío . 30 May 2023 . Retrieved 24 December 2023 . ^ ""Gabriel Alemparte lanzó dura acusación sobre el pasado de Jaime Bassa tras tenso cruce entre ambos"" . The Clinic . 27 September 2022 . Retrieved 27 December 2023 . ^ ""La sorprendente defensa de Alemparte a Boric tras criticada frase de Mellado"" . El Desconcierto. 18 November 2023 . Retrieved 24 December 2023 . ^ "" ""Sí, nos pillaron..."": Ximena Rincón respondió a las especulaciones amorosas por foto viral con Gabriel Alemparte"" . ADN Radio Chile . 12 December 2023 . Retrieved 28 December 2023 . ^ "" ""Si yo a usted le dijera guatona..."": Gabriel Alemparte reaccionó ante dicho de Paulina Vodanovic"" . Publimetro Chile . 13 November 2023 . Retrieved 28 December 2023 . The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Frateschi: Running the name of the company through Google News results in a handful of references to an unrelated company. Wolfson5 ( talk ) 20:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . Wolfson5 ( talk ) 20:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC) BEFORE , and the only stuff I could find in Portuguese/Brazil are passing mentions that the model trains made by the company were used in some local model train shows [28] [29] . Other than that, couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV . Fails WP:NCORP . Streetlampguy301 ( talk ) 19:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion as a contested prod. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 20:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The only model railway manufacturer in Latin America, has been going for 65 years and the article on Portuguese Wikipedia is more substantial. Plenty of Google hits if you search under the Portuguese name. I think this passes the notability threshold. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Necrothesp. I found additional coverage in the US specialty magazine Model Railroad News . gidonb ( talk ) 01:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Necrothesp and gidonb . Svartner ( talk ) 22:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"List of fictional Scots: “Scottish people in fiction and legend” is likely a notable topic but lists are never good ways to discuss abstract things educationally. Dronebogus ( talk ) 09:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as far too broad to be useful. You could include the characters from every novel, TV series, movie, etc. set in Scotland, just to begin with. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 11:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Lists , and Scotland . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Needs more categorization by media, as there are fantasy and sci-fi characters mixed in with ones from standard fiction. However, the basis behind the list is sound, and lists and categories do not necessarily rule each other out. WP:SURMOUNTABLE applies - deletion is not cleanup, which is what this article needs. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - I have some sympathy for the idea behind the article, I am not sure this can ever be a useful list given the sheer numbers of fictional Scots in centuries of literature and other forms of fiction. Dunarc ( talk ) 22:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Only notable entries are listed of course. Far more information available in a navigational list than the category for this. Category:Fictional Scottish people D r e a m Focus 14:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Ironically, these lists are great for deletionists. As our Categories guideline notes: An embedded list, one incorporated into an article on a topic, can include entries which are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles, and yet may yet be sufficiently notable to incorporate into the list. Furthermore, since the notability threshold for a mention is less than that for a whole article, you can easily add a mention to a list within an article, without having to make the judgment call on notability which you would need to make if you were to add a whole article—if someone else feels that it is notable enough, they can always linkify the mention and create an article anyway. For now, this list is reasonable in length. If it gets too long in the future, it can be broken up into multiple lists (List of fictional Scots in books, List of fictional Scots in film, etc.) -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - The nominator didn't really cite any rules here to justify the deletion. KatoKungLee ( talk ) 17:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. But the deletion rationale boils down to WP:WEDONTNEEDIT which is not a strong argument for deleting an article. More connection to policy would help both sides be more convincing. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC) MILL per Clarityfiend (there’s lots and lots of works set in Scotland for starters) WP:NOTDIR , and WP:TNT . Dronebogus ( talk ) 00:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC) SALAT as ""too broad in scope"". (That's why there are no other ""List of fictional [random nationality] characters"".) Clarityfiend ( talk ) 05:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . We have many arrangements of information about aspects of cultural history, and this seems like a perfectly fine addition to that catalog. BD2412 T 01:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I don't think there's any question that this meets LISTN, in that fictional treatments of Scottish people are a widely discussed topic (here's a whole book ). The lack of similar lists is largely the consequence of the excesses of deletionists of the past, e.g. the list of fictional New Zealanders was d despite what can only be described as a total lack of consensus . As to other authorities cited above, the grotesque elitism of the MILL essay has thankfully never become Wikipedia policy, the TNT essay would require an actual showing that the list has problems that are unfixable, and WP:NOTDIR contains no applicable provisions that I can identify. -- Visviva ( talk ) 17:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"2023 Kansas City mayoral election: Wiki is WP:NOTNEWS and this article is portraying that as it has very little news coverage as is. The article has not established individual any notability or verifiability and has no reason to be on the mainspace. Grahaml35 ( talk ) 00:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Election has significant coverage from the Kansas City Star and other publications. It's a verified upcoming event. The current status of the article is not what deletion debates hinge on. – Muboshgu ( talk ) 00:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Where is the coverage? It's not on the article. An article needs to be in draft status if it is not complete or not notable at this time. Grahaml35 ( talk ) 02:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC) NEXIST . Curbon7 ( talk ) 07:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Coverage is out there. You didn't WP:BEFORE , did you? – Muboshgu ( talk ) 16:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] no valid rationale for deletion provided. The suggestion by the nom that it is not verifiable that there will be a mayoral election in Kansas City in November 2023 is ludicrous. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 16:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC) CHRYSTAL , with WP:RS to pass the WP:GNG . As above, WP:NEXIST . Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 04:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"What Will Fat Cat Sit On? : Talk! 22:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC) ) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America . Skynxnex ( talk ) 21:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Two reviews by reliable publications and one by a public library (all three are already in the article) add up to notability. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 21:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Clearly passes WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG from the sources already present in the article. pburka ( talk ) 21:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Aside from the reviews already in the article, there is also this one from Kirkus Reviews . All together, this is a pass of WP:NBOOK . Rorshacma ( talk ) 22:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC) NB — Maile ( talk ) 00:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC) GNG Linda ( talk ... stalk! ) 00:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyo bons mots 21:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC) three national-level sources giving WP:SIGCOV in article: Publishers Weekly might be dubious as it links to pages selling the book (and so presumably earns commission), but see also this review in School Library Journal . UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 16:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] CU note Nominator has been checkuser blocked. -- Ponyo bons mots 21:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC) NBOOK and clearly has enough sources. Archrogue ( talk ) 17:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Steven James Bartlett: Psychastes ( talk ) 22:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , France , Germany , Mexico , California , Connecticut , Florida , Missouri , and Oregon . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Passes WP:Author . Xxanthippe ( talk ) 02:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] how so? Psychastes ( talk ) 05:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] However BLP is bloated and needs pruning to 20% of current. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 22:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] Weak unless someone provides more RSes - the existence of Steven Bartlett (businessman) makes searching for sources quite annoying, but I managed to find a few. Here is an extended discussion of his book The Pathology of Man: A Study of Human Evil but I'm not sure about the journal or if the reviewer is an independent source. Other sources I found are briefer mentions, e.g. [4] [5] , or I don't have access (also unsure about the journal here) [6] . Shapeyness ( talk ) 11:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) AUTHOR and right at the edge for WP:PROF, based on citations, appointments, and reviews. I actually disagree with Xxanthippe though on the pruning part. If the subject is notable then the information there is the type of thing someone looking up information about the subject (biography, etc.) would like to know. But that's for post AfD discussion. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Passes WP:Author and passes WP:Prof, meets criteria 1,2. Like [7] respectfully disagree with Xxanthippe re the pruning part since biographers find this category of information important. Additional references that refer to Bartlett’s published work, accessed today: Martin, B. (2020). ""Tactics against scheming diseases."" Journal of Sociotechnical Critique , 1 (1), 1–20. https://social-epistemology.com/2019/01/31/technology-and-evil-brian-martin/ Martin, Brian. ""Evil institutions: Steven Bartlett’s analysis of human evil and its relevance for anarchist alternatives,"" Anarchist Studies , vol. 29, no. 1, 2021, pp. 88-110. [8] Meissner, W. W. ""The Pathology of Man: A Study of Human Evil. By Steven James Bartlett."" Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic , Vol. 71, No. 3 (Summer 2007), 267-268. [9] . Review begins with ""The subject matter of this treatise is far-reaching and profound"" and ends with the conclusion: ""Psychologists and psychotherapists will find this a challenging and thought provoking approach that makes a significant contribution."" Suarez, Alejandra Review of two books by Bartlett: ""The worst devils of our nature."" PsychCritiques , June 13, 2012, Vol. 57, Release 23, Article 2. [10] . ""Because the books present such an unusual stance that can provoke thoughtful consideration of the accepted truths in psychology, I highly recommend them."" Martin, Brian. ""Technology and Evil."" Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective , 8, no. 2 (2019): 1-14. [11] Martin, Brian. ""What if most people love violence?"" Waging Nonviolence , 3 May 2019. [12] Martin, Brian. ""Whistleblowers versus evil."" The Whistle , No. 96, October 2018, pp. 4-5. [13] West, Marcus. Book review: ""Bartlett, Steven James, The Pathology of Man."" The Journal of Analytical Psychology , Volume 51, No. 3, June, 2006, pp. 486-7. [14] . Review ends with the conclusion ""This is certainly a classic work of reference in the field."" Martin, Brian. ""When to Read a Heavy Tome."" Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 11 (8), 2022: pp. 84-89. [15] Critique of Impure Reason by Steven James Bartlett cited in Ruffing, Margit. ""Kant-Bibliographie 2020,"" Kant-Studien , vol. 113, no. 4, 2022, pp. 725-760. [16] García, Luis Felipe. ""Introducción a Crítica De La Razón Impura: Horizontes De Posibilidad Y Sentido . Revista De Investigación Filosófica Y Teoría Social, Dialectika , 2021, 3 (7): pp. 63-70. Translation into Spanish of Bartlett’s book Critique of Impure Reason . [17] . O’Kane, Aisling Ann; Park, Sun Young; Mentis, Helena; Blandford, Ann and Chen, Yunan. ""Turning to Peers: Integrating Understanding of the Self, the Condition, and Others’ Experiences in Making Sense of Complex Chronic Conditions. "" Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) , 25, 2016, pp. 477–501. DOI 10.1007/s10606-016-9260-y. Discusses and cites Bartlett’s book, Normality Does Not Equal Mental Health . [18] Martin, Brian. ""Research Grants and Agenda Shaping Research Grants and Agenda Shaping. "" In Allen, David M. and Howell, James W. (eds.), Groupthink in Science: Greed, Pathological Altruism, Ideology, Competition, and Culture (Springer, 2020), pp. 77-83. [19] Toh59 ( talk ) 23:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"2008 M6 motorway crash: Only covered by WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources with no WP:SIGCOV . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 03:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Transportation , and England . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 03:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Mattdaviesfsic ( talk ) 07:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , misleading nomination. There are four examples of SIGCOV already cited. There is also WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Garuda3 ( talk ) 08:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Britain's worst road crashes in 2011. On the same road 90 minutes earlier Dave Myers, a rugby league player died. Maybe the M6 accident pages need to be combined? Davidstewartharvey ( talk ) 09:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV "" because all four references are only about the crash. Furthermore, it doesn't fail WP:EVENTCRIT as the event was not routine, it was one of only three crashes in the country that decade which killed more than 5 people (see the link above from Davidstewartharvey). greyzxq talk 10:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please reread the pages that you've linked. The general notability guidelines require substantial coverage from secondary sources, not news coverage. The event criteria require a lasting effect of historical significance, not X number of deaths. Neither news coverage nor a death count contribute to notability in any way. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 19:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have read what I've linked twice now, and still don't understand what you mean by ""secondary sources"" because news is a secondary source. If news coverage didn't contribute to notability in any way (as you said), there would be very few articles on events here because news coverage is the main source of information for most Wikipedia articles. greyzxq talk 20:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC) PRIMARYNEWS in the nomination statement. Some news articles can be secondary sources, but breaking news and reports on new developments are primary sources, and they do not contribute toward notability. That wouldn't really make sense, because then anything that's ever been reported in a newspaper could have its own article. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 23:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC) PRIMARYNEWS is an essay not a policy and AFD should always be judged against policy (A good example of this was the issue surrounding footballer and cricket stubs which did not meet GNG). The policy as per User:Greyzqy newspapers are secondary, as a police or highway report would be the primary source. However looking at this article and the M6 article, merging this article into the main one would seem to be the most logical step, as there is not any mention of accidents ir safety discussed on ghe M6 page. Davidstewartharvey ( talk ) 05:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Covered by The Guardian , Daily Record (Scotland) and Express & Star - Meets GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Kidnapping of Shani Louk: The individual is not notable, and their kidnapping is better covered at Re'im music festival massacre . VQuakr ( talk ) 21:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagree, Shani might not be notable as you put it. But she deserves to be remembered separately, for many Shani is who they think of when they think of all that’s happened. She nor any of the victims should ever just be erased just because they aren’t notable to you. I don’t see any reality person as notable but many have their own page, so why can’t Shani her page? Does it really hurt you or anyone else to it? 2A02:C7C:8ACE:1000:EDE3:F440:ED9C:E027 ( talk ) 22:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed. Her kidnapping and murder is sufficiently notable. 2804:14D:5C32:4673:6DEB:61FD:FC4A:40E7 ( talk ) 22:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC) The article seems to be well cited, as seen from the amount of citations. It would likely pass GNG . Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk ) 22:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Completely disagree that ""this is a biography by another name"". The article covers the kidnapping much more than her life (which just gets a small section). The only thing that could suggest this idea was the lead, which was easily adjusted . Also disagree that the topic is better covered at Re'im music festival massacre . Shani Louk's kidnapping in specific received a large amount of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, making it independently notable with enough content to be split from the Re'im article. Skyshifter talk 22:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC) 18, 31 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Military , Israel , Palestine , and Germany . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This is not a biography. The subject of the article is a notable event. According to The Guardian : A young Israeli-German woman whose fate became indelibly associated around the globe with the Hamas massacre and mass kidnapping rampage of 7 October ... Meets WP:LASTING , WP:GEOSCOPE , WP:INDEPTH , and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE . — Alalch E. 22:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per skyshifter. Greenshed ( talk ) 22:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Skyshifter. -- Uhooep ( talk ) 23:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to the music festival article, her situation was not much different than any of the other victims, one of a few ""sub-events"" as part of the main ""event"", being the music festival attack as the main event. The individual alone was not notable, and there isn't really a reason her kidnapping is more important than the other victims. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC) Most of the sourcing used is about the music festival, not about the individual, other than articles that seem to concentrate on her looks. Most sourcing I've seen talks about her looks, which doesn't help build notability here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which of the references concentrate on her looks? — Alalch E. 01:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The news articles I've seen published in my corner of the world. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, but you said ""most of the sourcing used"", and it appeared as if you talked about the references in the article. — Alalch E. 01:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of the sourcing used in the article... then most of the sourcing I see when looking. I hope that clarifies it. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not a valid rationale at all if you are simply ignoring all the sources in the article. RodRabelo7 ( talk ) 02:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I still think it's a candidate, as explained. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment please your thoughts on this side or that side of the war to yourselves and only discuss the sources used. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong . This again? Per Skyshifter, that’s not a biography. Much more than Shani Louk herself, the article mainly covers the events that, we now know, lead to her death. It should also be added the article has already been translated to five different Wikipedias (including the Germany, whose Wikidata item is a different one). The article has also been accessed by almost 200,000 people . Furthermore, per Alalch E., it meets WP:LASTING , WP:GEOSCOPE , WP:INDEPTH , and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE . RodRabelo7 ( talk ) 02:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . It already has separate notability from the Re'im music festival massacre article. WP:LASTING, etc. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 03:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . As per WP:Notability. Extensively covered in the media, and multiple sources can be found to cite areas of concern. Can be adjusted accordingly as further details and developments are released. Also agree with Oaktree b's observation regarding the unveiled personal feelings of a few contributors to this discussion. Nothing flouts NPOV. -- Kieronoldham ( talk ) 04:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC) She is notable enough and multiple media sources exclusively deal with her and the incident. - UtoD 06:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC) obviously. Since 7 October her story was well covered and notable. Shadow4dark ( talk ) 09:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Kieronoldham. Salvabl ( talk ) 17:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] super notable event. Mason ( talk ) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This is not a violation of WP:BLP1E , as this is an event , not a biography . After all, for people covered in the context of one event , our guidelines are explicit that [t]he general rule is to cover the event . This article does just that. As for WP:NEVENT , this has been covered in-depth by diverse international reliable sources over an extended period of time—from the date of the kidnapping through and in the immediate aftermath of Louk's reported death. There have even been follow-ups, with major newspapers like The Times reaching out to the family, interviewing them, and making a feature story about it. This shows a good bit of persistence in the coverage of the story through this point. I obviously I can't predict the future regarding how future coverage will go, but rote speculation on how future coverage will go seems dubious as an affirmative reason for deletion. Looking through this light, this event probably meets WP:EVENTCRIT #2, and it therefore should be kept at this time. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions . — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 07:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - good sourcing. Top news. Article looks good. Per WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk ) 10:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong independent and in-depth reliable and verifiable sourcing from around the globe demonstrates that hrr kidnapping / murder is independently notable. Alansohn ( talk ) 14:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV criterion. VR talk 17:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC) RAPID ,clearly well cited passes WP:GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 11:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , article is well sourced and this case is a very notable disappearance. Davidgoodheart ( talk ) 20:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC) GNG Donner60 ( talk ) 23:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC) At this point, someone should close this AfD, per WP:Snowball clause . RodRabelo7 ( talk ) 00:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Kosovo Raid (1448): It's all about Hunyadi and the Albanian–Venetian War I can't find any sources the even refer to a Kosovo Raid by this name Gugrak ( talk ) 16:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Albania , and Kosovo . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] there are several sources on this event [1] [2] [3] . The fact that Skanderbeg was en route for Kosovo before he was sabotaged by Brankovic (according to these sources) makes it a case of WP:SKYISBLUE for the raid/ravaging to have happened in Kosovo. however, if editors can not agree I suggest the name should be changed to Skanderbeg's raid in the Despotate of Brankovic or Serbia instead. Durraz0 ( talk ) 17:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC) SKYISBLUE it's WP:SYNTH . Your sources make brief reference to Skanderberg raiding as part of a wider conflict. They don't call it a Kosovo raid, or go into specifics at all. This should be in the aftermath section of the main conflict article Gugrak ( talk ) 17:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC) SYNTH . skanderbeg being 20 miles from where the battle took place and then to allow his armies to ravage the domain does not really place him anywhere except Kosovo. Circiacono goes into details about what happened. but you are right, it does actually not refer to the raid as happening in kosovo. skanderbegs raid into serbia or despotate of brankovic may actually be better. Durraz0 ( talk ) 17:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 09, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] that and the stuff about skanderbegs motives ""to punish the unfaithful krajl"" along with ""Indignant at not having been able to rush to Hunyadi's aid, in a war that could perhaps change the fate of Albania and the entire Balkan peninsula"" is detail. this seems to be a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT . Durraz0 ( talk ) 18:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not detail that supports the creation of an entire article, and indeed your second quote is not even about the raid. This is not specific and noteworthy detail about a raid , and it certainly is not enough to justify an article. Gugrak ( talk ) 18:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is, there is detailed information about this raid. you saying it is not enough is just a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT . Durraz0 ( talk ) 18:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's one sentence that has no detail. it's after thought that should be covered in the main article Gugrak ( talk ) 18:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with @ Gugrak . Way too little information is known about the actual event, not to mention the lack of information of its background and aftermath as well, to actually have an entire article about it. The vulnerability of the article has left room for editors to add a bunch of assumptions to the page. Even the title sounds inaccurate and misleading, this page should rather be a part of a wider article. Aleksandarstankov ( talk ) 20:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , there are multiple sources that talk about the event as user DurrazO has shown. Does the article need more sources? What article doesn’t? There is no good reason to this article. Alltan ( talk ) 19:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those sources don't specifically talk about the event though. Gugrak ( talk ) 19:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , I don't see any reason why to the article, since multiple sources approve that the raid happened as shown by user DurrazO. GermanManFromFrankfurt ( talk ) 00:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There appears to have been a raid, but there's next to no information about it, indeed the article itself says so. . The bulk of this article is a summary of a war which already has its own article Gugrak ( talk ) 05:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - This event happening is not a good enough reason for it to have an entire article about it. This article carry an overwhelming uncertainty through the following: 1. We can't even determine something as fundamental as the type of event this was - military conflict, massacre, ""simple raid without any killings"", etc.. We can't exclude any of them with the available sources. 2. We can't determine something as fundamental as the impact this event had - likewise making it impossible to reflect on consequences or aftermath of the event. 3. We can't determine for sure what led up to this event. One of the sources explains following: ""Venetian attack on northern Albania delayed Skanderbeg in coming to Hunyadi's aid"" . [4] . Other sources will also explain a different role Brankovic had prior to this event. [5] [6] Contradicting as to what's being explained as the ""background of the event"" on this article. The huge gap of information available about the event, and it's background and aftermath, creates huge room for speculation. There is just too much we cannot exclude did and did not happen. Therefore, I agree this event should be mentioned and discussed, but rather as a part of a wider article. Aleksandarstankov ( talk ) 11:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Frashëri, Kristo (2002). Gjergj Kastrioti Skënderbeu: jeta dhe vepra (1405-1468) (in Albanian). Botimet Toena. pp. 160–161. ISBN 978-99927-1-627-4 . ^ Ciriacono, Salvatore (October 15, 2014). ""Scanderbeg tra storia e storiografia"" (PDF) . Archived (PDF) from the original on 17 October 2020. «Indignato per non aver potuto correre in aiuto di Hunyadi, in una guerra che forse poteva mutare il destino dell'Albania e dell'intera penisola balcanica, Scanderbeg corse per la Serbia saccheggiandola e mettendola a ferro e fuoco, per punire il krajl infedele. Se ne tornò poi a Croia, amareggiato, verso la fine di novembre» ^ Setton, Kenneth Meyer (1976). The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571: The fifteenth century . American Philosophical Society. p. 100. ISBN 978-0-87169-127-9 . Scanderbeg intended to go ""peronalmente"" with an army to assist Hunyadi, but was prevented from doing so by Branković, whose lands he ravaged as punishment for the Serbian desertion of the Christian cause. ^ Sedlar 1994 , p. 393. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSedlar1994 ( help ) ^ Babinger 1992 , p. 40. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBabinger1992 ( help ) ^ Vaughan, Dorothy Margaret (1 June 1954). Europe and the Turk: a pattern of alliances, 1350–1700 . AMS Press. p. 62. ISBN 978-0-404-56332-5 . Archived from the original on 9 April 2023 . Retrieved 12 September 2012 . per WP:N in the sense that there are reliable sources which do offer significant coverage of the events and their historical context. The article just needs cleanup and expansion. -- Maleschreiber ( talk ) 11:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Daniel Suhr: Hundreds of firefighters have died in 9/11, not all of them merit a separate article. The conditions of his death don't seem to be all that special. At best I think we could this to Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks#Deaths by jumping or falling , given that this page is getting 6k views a month and its creator already wrote about Suhr there. SparklyNights ( t ) 01:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Terrorism , and United States of America . SparklyNights ( t ) 01:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] perhaps being the first fireman to die in the tragedy could be notable, but I can't find much coverage. [60] is about all I find... I've seen articles for other victims that had their 911 calls used in subsequent trails, which shows some lasting notability; this individual is simply remembered for having died. Again, while tragic, not every victim will be notable almost 25 years later. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - he's notable and his death was referenced in court cases. It seems to meet WP:GNG . -- Rockstone Send me a message! 11:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – He is probably as notable as Gary Geidel and Gerard A. Barbara . Furthermore Suhr was the first FDNY firefighter to perish on 911. Pelle S.H. ( talk ) 09:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – As mentioned above about Gary Geidel and Gerard A. Barbara. Also see Category:Ency workers killed in the September 11 attacks . If they were ency workers on September 11, and died as a result, they are a Keep. — Maile ( talk ) 13:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Meilong railway station: and Notability (geographic features) is insufficient, and the description of the Meilong Railway Station in the article is outdated, as the station has been canceled and rebuilt into a new station called Shanghai South Railway Station. This is a violation of Wikipedia's article on Notability (geographic features), and I suggest that it be d to avoid misleading others. CHENG SHIYI ( talk ) 04:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Stations . CHENG SHIYI ( talk ) 04:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't . The article does now contain a citation, but regardless deletion is not the right answer here. Either it's notable enough for it's own article or it should be d to an appropriate article (likely the line, system or its successor). It is almost certain that most sources about this station will be in Chinese, so someone who reads that language needs to be consulted to determine what the sourcing situation actually is. Thryduulf ( talk ) 20:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [55] Jumpytoo Talk 22:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Using the WP:THREE test, Oriental Morning Post , Youth Daily and Zhejiang Online News have reported on the station (or at least its closure). Should push it above WP:GNG . Also, the article is outdated, as the station has been canceled and rebuilt into a new station called Shanghai South Railway Station is an example of a WP:OUTDATED argument, which is generally not a very valid argument for deletion. S5A-0043 Talk 13:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Satisfies WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Cordaid: Sources comprise a press release and routine business reporting, and a search finds nothing better. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT . -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 05:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Netherlands . DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 05:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . One of the major Dutch charities. After a quick look for sources (aided by LexisNexis ), I found the following: Gedreven helpers : a book about the organization and its predecessors written by a Tilburg University professor and published by nl:Verloren Uitgeverij . A r with another charity received coverage from major national publications: Trouw , NOS , Nederlands Dagblad , Reformatorisch Dagblad . Using LexisNexis to see behind the paywalls shows coverage about Cordaid's activities and history. More than passing coverage in the articles Een opgeschud bed and ""Condoom splijt de katholieke missie"", Omroep Brabant , 5 October 2000 (not online) Article about jubilee by Reformatorisch Dagblad , also containing background about the charity (also covered by NOS ) Tristan Surtel ( talk ) 21:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Tristan Surtel . Cordaid works with Nationale Postcode Loterij since 1996. In 2021 Cordaid d with ICCO. See also this article [56] . Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 00:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Due to the sources mentioned by Tristan Surtel. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"French ship Bordelais: BinaryBrainBug ( talk ) 18:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Transportation , and France . BinaryBrainBug ( talk ) 18:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC) SHIPMOS . Even if included in Bordelais a SI page would still be needed Lyndaship ( talk ) 18:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As a set index page. WP:SHIPMOS : If there has been more than one ship with the same name, create a ship index page for the generic ship name. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A with Bordelais doesn't hurt. In fact, for readers who search for Bordelais , it would save them a click. Geschichte ( talk ) 09:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More discussion on policies and guidelines as they pertain to ing this an independent SIA or merging it to a broader page would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Lyndaship and Hawkeye. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk ) 15:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC) SHIPMOS . Mjroots ( talk ) 17:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Ses'Top La: Donald D23 talk to me 20:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC) Won a SAFTA in 2013 , and two more in 2015 , received 5 nominations in 2018 , and received nominations in 2023 . Made the news here , and here , passing mentions here and here following the death of Busisiwe Lurayi, it also starred Warren Masemola . Looking at WP:NTV , it aired on SABC 1 with its omnibus on SABC 3 and it is now on Prime Video . dxneo ( talk ) 21:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per dxneo. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 23:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , satisfactory article and sources - and unsubstantiated nomination. Geschichte ( talk ) 13:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I was just going to this article as a CSD G5. But now I see editors are advocating Keep, I'm unsure about this deletion. L iz Read! Talk! 05:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC) I would say the current version is written by Significa liberdade and not by the banned editor, i.e. not a G5 candidate any longer. Geschichte ( talk ) 17:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC) TV sitcom received multiple nominations with adequate sourcing. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 14:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC) per dxneo, notable subject despite being a product of CSD G5 . Qaqaamba ( talk ) 22:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Orders of magnitude (torque): LittlePuppers ( talk ) 20:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Lists . LittlePuppers ( talk ) 20:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC) Nothing but trivia. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 23:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC) Acknowledging WP:Otherstuffexists , and also the paucity of information here compared with much of that other stuff, I am undecided so far about how to opine. I am 51:49 in favour of retention. It is properly sourced, and the topic itself is notable. Unless I reverse my opinion, please count this as a ! vote when closing. Compared to the similar articles this is but a stub. I am not sure that is invalid 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as we should have orders of magnitude articles for commonly measured quantities. Probably the article could be d to torque at this point of its measly dimensions. I think it will take less than 1 mNm of torque to press a button on the keyboard. Graeme Bartlett ( talk ) 08:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC) I don't believe I can objectively cast a vote (being the original creator), but I'll say that (at its start) Orders of magnitude (force) was similar in scale. Orders of magnitude (numbers) was yet smaller/worse formatted by quite a margin. If any of this is in breach of Wiki etiquette, please let me know. Qaziquza ( talk ) 22:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Qaziquza I believe we should interpret that as a ! vote to . Being the creating editor does not preclude you from offering your formal ! vote. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC) first of all, my understanding is that yes, you are allowed to vote (and you're doing so in a much more civil way than some article creators I've known :P, don't take this discussion as trying to push you away from contributing or anything); second, I would like to point out that in addition to WP:OSE mentioned above, standards have changed a bit since, oh... 2003. LittlePuppers ( talk ) 22:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - quite acceptable as a stub with potential for expansion - with trout to heavy-handed AfCing. Ingratis ( talk ) 06:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into Torque . This would be an ok section/paragraph in prose form to provide a sense of what a handful of torque magnitudes correspond to in the everyday experiences of people. It provides some context to an otherwise abstract measure. I don't think should remain as a standalone stub as currently composed. It could be recomposed to something like ""List of example torque measurements"", but the ""magnitudes"" isn't as relevant as the examples of measurement to real-world examples. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 14:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Initally I rejected the draft version as not being suitable for an article. I then later accepted after several discussions. Many others found it a wrongful rejection and therefore a page which should be listed as an article. Count this a ! vote to . Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Invidious: signed, Rosguill talk 21:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . signed, Rosguill talk 21:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote , but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts : {{subst: spa | username }} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed | username }} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry : {{subst: csm | username }} or {{subst: csp | username }} . per nomination. Dawnbails ( talk ) 21:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Invidious is backend of quite a few projects such as YouTube clients, Privacy s. Greatder —( talk ) 04:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC) ' Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_326#Should_MakeUseOf.com_be_considered_a_reliable_source? signed, Rosguill talk 06:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC) @ Rosguill : Because of the name, it is difficult to sort through unrelated search hits. Because of the purpose (downloads from YouTube, owned by Google), search results could be...suspect. These are not as big and ""reliable"" as NYTimes - List_of_controversies_involving_The_New_York_Times , but they are independent and arguably reputable, if not magazines or academic journals: Described at Free Software Foundation directory, written by Craig Topham, ""an administrator and bureaucrat of the Free Software Directory"", [3] Instructions and app written up at archlinux.org, known for reliable documentation (in some circles), [4] [5] Windows apps described in Softpedia (has editor? team) [6] [7] -- Yae4 ( talk ) 04:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC) 29, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know where the precise line is between user-generated unreliable like Wikipedia, versus a tightly controlled or curated more reliable wiki you can give some trust, like The Free Software Foundation and Arch Linux wikis, but I do know I've found info' at the latter two to solve problems. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 14:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC) At RSN in January 2021 , I called it unreliable before Newslinger called it marginally reliable. If Newslinger called it marginally reliable, it's probably reliable enough. Compared with Youtube-dl (aka yt-dlp or others), Invidious is only one take-down notice away from fame and clearer wiki-notability. IMO, Wikipedia is a little worse without the article. WP:IGNORE . -- Yae4 ( talk ) 14:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC) 06, 5 June 2023 (UTC) 21, 6 June 2023 (UTC) 55, 6 June 2023 (UTC) 15, 7 June 2023 (UTC) 56, 9 June 2023 (UTC) — XANA404 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] There is nothing to gain by deletion. ( AltheaCase ( talk ) 16:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC) ) [ reply ] What? SWinxy ( talk ) 17:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: policy based input would be helpful Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak on IAR. Also, while I don't think a cease-and-desist notice would make Invidious notable under our criteria (NOTNEWS and all that) I have to admit the timing is pretty funny Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 07:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for mentioning the news. Google is a Major Benefactor ($50,000+) to Wikipedia , just saying. Follow the money . Adding: It will be interesting to see whether Invidious can raise a Streisand effect like Youtube-dl did, without being a [self-redacted] of Microsoft GitHub -- Yae4 ( talk ) 13:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC) 21, 10 June 2023 (UTC) 37, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] TIL AlternativeTo has a news section. How reliable would that be? SWinxy ( talk ) 17:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At a glance they say AlternativeTo is ""user generated"" but looks like they have a couple editors/screeners reviewing submissions. They knew enough to refer to GitHub issue [13] not self-hosted invidious mirror: ""Our code is already mirrored on our gitea"". -- Yae4 ( talk ) 18:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't find a single source which clearly passes GNG. I don't think any of the blogs listed above in this AfD count towards GNG - they're not sufficiently secondary enough. I'm also hoping the closer discounts some of the poor ! votes above when closing, as we're discussing whether there's enough reliable secondary sourcing for this to have a stand-alone article, not about ignoring rules or general agreement. SportingFlyer T · C 10:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe I should have cited RAPID instead then, given that (if I had at all) I probably would have ! voted weak but for recent events. I'm not sure it will achieve GNG or NSOFT level of coverage, even so, but I'm inclined to at least wait until we see how this plays out. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 11:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's fair, but we can always recreate it if notability becomes obvious. SportingFlyer T · C 11:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just a note to the closer - most of these ! votes aren't well grounded in policy, and the sources that have been presented are still only blogs and not necessarily RS. SportingFlyer T · C 15:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , mentions are not _significant_ coverage. Artem. G ( talk ) 08:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC) 58, 11 June 2023 (UTC) The recent Louis Rossmann YouTube video cited by Mattmill30 would seem to be significant independent coverage by a notable expert, if given exception from WP:RSPYT . -- Yae4 ( talk ) 15:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC) 48, June 13, 2023 (UTC). Comment: And now there is more significant independent coverage at Vice.com Motherboard. [14] -- Yae4 ( talk ) 22:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Surrounded by significant (and well-covered) controversy. ― BlaueBlüte ( talk ) 16:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per SportingFlyer, I don't believe there is a compelling case why IAR should be used to override GNG in this case. While Yae4 gets the closest, in my opinion I do not find any of the "" arguments persuasive here in the face of the argument presented that GNG is not met. (There are a large number of low-quality !votes which cite no policy at all...) Daniel ( talk ) 03:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Going through the links provided there does not seem to be coverage in reliable secondary sources. Almost every source is just a plain explanation of the product's features. The Vice article is interesting, but on its own isn't enough to establish significant independent coverage. CarringtonMist ( talk ) 11:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC) the last few days have seen a number of sources covering this software (see the most recent three references in the article). It may be wise for ! voters to revisit their rationales at this point, since more sources exist now (and most, I claim, clear the bar). jp × g 17:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Evaluation and discussion of the newly cited sources would be quite helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC) GNG . I can see the logic behind IAR-ing user-generated and/or primary documentation for subjects like this which exist in a media ecosystem where people primarily communicate through these crowdsourced platforms, but I'm not sure I'm quite convinced by it without an explanation of why the usual UGC problems don't apply here. signed, Rosguill talk 05:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Haven't translated yet, but here is Der_Spiegel with what looks like fairly significant coverage. [15] -- Yae4 ( talk ) 17:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC) 41, 20 June 2023 (UTC) 01, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Tutanota is a competitor in email services (is not impartial), and this has ""blog"" in the URL, but it looks like significant coverage from an independent (AFAIK) source, at least a little better than an average blog. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 06:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I heard of Invidious today for the first time, which might prove non-notability as of now, but was happy to find the article on Wikipedia. Yes, the article should be improved. Yes, Invidious will have to gain notability. However, if we it now it will be hard to resurrect it when it becomes notable. Please let's it and improve it. ale ( talk ) 09:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ghacks is how I found out about Invidious, then I saw it written about on other places, some of which others have already mentioned on here (AlternativeTo, Louis Rossmann's YouTube channel). The fact that they recently received a take-down notice from YouTube makes it instantly more notable than it was before. I think the page needs improving but we should it. Themidget17 ( talk ) 05:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] for now. Lightburst ( talk ) 14:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: So far we only have one editor making a strong case that GNG is met. Everything else is on an IAR basis. It is possible to build an encyclopedia article on numerous sources that don't count towards GNG by themselves, but ""it's important"" and ""it's useful"" aren't valid reasons to if WP:V is violated by the use of unreliable sources. Re-listing because it appears that more sources have been and are being made available. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 00:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC) GNG not met. arguments here seem lacking in substance. -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 07:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , the (post-listing) addition of dedicated coverage from Der Spiegel and Vice seems to push this comfortably over the line. -- Visviva ( talk ) 01:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC) @ 78.26 : I made no reference to IAR in my above comment. I draw attention to this article in Der Spiegel , a very reputable international newspaper listed as such at RSP , and here in Vice , which has no conensus about reliability and bias, but whose coverage is pretty robustly held as conferring notability. I think it is often quite trashy, but there is not any consensus that Vice is unreliable, or that coverage in it does not confer notability. Both of these articles are in-depth coverage of the subject (i.e. about it exclusively) written by independent sources in non-specialty publications. Moreover, there are other news sites here; TechRadar is mentioned in RSN archives as being ""generally reliable"". I do not see that anybody has made an objection to these sources -- I don't like all of them either , but that isn't a deletion rationale. Granted, many of the ! votes here were cast some weeks ago, before these sources existed; I would urge closers to consider this. jp × g 08:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think Yae4 and I were the only people who explicitly referenced IAR. Myself, I don't believe that V was ever really an issue with this article (the claims in the article seem well within the bounds of what we'd allow use of ABOUTSELF or reasonably competent SPS for), rather encyclopedicity and NPOV, and that'd be why my ! vote leaned more heavily on IAR than the consequences of the takedown notice. If focusing on the latter two, I don't personally believe the coverage since then transformative (though it doesn't hurt) but in my opinion the issues weren't insurmountable in the first place. I probably should have expanded on this in more detail in my original statement though. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 09:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC) 27, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Site has become notable since the listing thanks to the coverage from Vice, Der Spiegelm and TorrentFreak. — python coder ( talk | contribs ) 20:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Indigo Moss: -- wooden superman 13:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . -- wooden superman 13:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC) Coventry Telegraph The Guardian The duo the band became, Trevor Moss and Hannah-Lou (sometimes referenced in the opposite order), actually seems more notable. It would make sense to make the article primarily about them with Indigo Moss background: KLOF Mag The Guardian South Wales Argus Americana UK I have not looked any further. Thryduulf ( talk ) 13:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV . -- wooden superman 16:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC) 08, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not convinced, that Guardian review is pretty minor coverage really. -- wooden superman 11:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 19:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC) AGF ) as they are deadlinked in the article, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per demonstrated significant coverage in national newspapers. -- Michig ( talk ) 22:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 14, 1 March 2024 (UTC) BAND. Wikishovel ( talk ) 09:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"University of Botswana Non-Academic Staff Union: LibStar ( talk ) 00:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Botswana-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - non-notable union. The academic staff union might be slightly more notable and that does not have an article. -- Bduke ( talk ) 03:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Existence or non-existence of other articles has no bearing on notability of this subject. UBNASU was formed in 1989 and has been involved in mutliple strike actions and appeared in the news as a result of those actions for a period of more than two decades. Gadzani Mhotsha, former General Secretary of UBNASU, was also GS of the BFTU. Referenced in the ICTUR trade unions of the world encyclopedia (key reference text of trade unions globally) and the FES surveys of Botswana labour movement. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 11:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Systemic bias . That said, Goldsztajn has shown other existing sources even exist online. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 11:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC) UB staff, management hit deadlock as strike rages on , UB Chancellor under fire from academic, support staff over pay hike , UBASSU ponders post strike move , BOFEPUSU With UB Workers Against Norris , UBASSU, UBSU to down tools again . Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 13:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] but rename It is a relevant union, it's just simply been renamed since. With significant reporting, which Goldsztain notes. I think the most appropriate action would be to just add a section noting its historical name and the name change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoomCreek ( talk • contribs ) 21:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Microteaching: Boleyn ( talk ) 18:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Just a quick Google search turns up some sources. [33] [34] [35] [36] The Wikipedia article is really light on sources and citations, but this appears to be an issue with article and not the topic. Rjj iii ( talk ) 07:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC) TNT . It is rare in 2024 to find an article that is potentially notable, and written in standard English, yet is so terrible and lacking sources, and possibly in violation of WP:COPYVIO , that it must be started from scratch. I would not oppose a userfy process, if someone else is willing to adopt this article. Yet another case of a disaster of an article that is beyond normal editing processes discovered by Boleyn . Bearian ( talk ) 16:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] -- Ridiculous nomination. There are hundreds of reliable sources. You find the article in poor shape? Edit it. That's what we do. Also, what does being ""a clear and notable term"" even mean? Central and Adams ( talk ) 02:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , despite my own cv-revdel tag, as the term obviously meets GNG. Mach61 ( talk ) 03:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong - Quotesearching ""microteaching"" on google gives ""about 844,000 results."" The term is notable, just the article needs work. DarmaniLink ( talk ) 22:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Ideal Bread Company Factory: Cited sources seem to be user generated (see read the plaque). Wikipedia:Before does not revealing anything. Wikipedians please comment. Okoslavia ( talk ) 04:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Canada . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The designation under the Ontario Heritage Act is equivalent to designation as a National Register of Historic Places in the United States. The text on the plaque was provided by the city, not the building's developer, and appears to be independent. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Eastmain Can you please point out any editorial board there. The Submit option there making me doubt on its reliability. Anybody can submit content there. Okoslavia ( talk ) 04:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Okoslavia As far as I can tell, Read-The-Plaque and Toronto Plaques do not have editorial boards. Both sites show plaques that either they have photographed or that someone else has photographed. The editorial decision-making for the text on a plaque like this is made by heritage professionals at the City of Toronto, the same ones who wrote the statement of reasons for designation attached to the city by-law that designated the building as a heritage property, BY-LAW No. 464-2003 . So the plaque is a summary of the statement of reasons for designation, and Read-The-Plaque is simply showing what the City of Toronto staff wrote. I added some references about the building after it was converted to lofts. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 08:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So the provided sources are not contributing anything for Notability. Okoslavia ( talk ) 08:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The by-law is the notability. There are nothing else that can be said. Oaktree b ( talk ) 11:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I only linked to the photo of the plaque on that site. It's not the site we're using for notability, the contents of the plaque. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Definitely designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. [41] -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 09:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Buildings in the Ontario Heritage Act register are notable, as are those in the NRHP. The plaque is used to ad context to the story of the building. There is a three page history of the building in the relevant by-law, I figured the plaque was a nice summary of it, it's only a few sentences so can be quoted under fair-use laws. This is a notable as any of the other hundreds of buildings under the Heritage Act with articles. Oaktree b ( talk ) 11:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's also mentioned here for the fusspots [42] , and a brief history by the City of Toronto about the building [43] , some mention in a book here [44] . I think we're fine for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 11:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Covered in a period source/magazine [45] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 11:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Passing mentions do not count for notability. This book is a clear example of Passing mention. Okoslavia ( talk ) 12:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again the magazine is passing mention. Okoslavia ( talk ) 12:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This source is again a passing mention or not about factory itself. Okoslavia ( talk ) 12:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC) GEOFEAT . Certainly more than just statistics. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You've got the Toronto Life article, the two Globe and Mail articles, the by-law with the heritage study and various historical records on file. What more are you looking for? Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You can use passing mentions to build up the article, that's the whole point of wiki. Get some strong sources as your base, then hang facts and other interesting tidbits on the base you've built. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:GEOFEAT . There is absolutely no case for deletion. Please nominate carefully and stop the WP:BLUDGEONING . It wastes even more WP resources!!! gidonb ( talk ) 14:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Gidonb stop making nonsense comments as no-one is enjoying it and prove how GNG is meeting here. You might want to read AGF . Okoslavia ( talk ) 14:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also as far as your lecture of carefulness. You need to be more careful per this , before nominating articles for deletion, As situations come when you have to withdrawn the nom. Okoslavia ( talk ) 14:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b Torontolife article is also passing mention. Frankly I can't see any source which is beyond the passing mention. Please come back with better sources. Okoslavia ( talk ) 14:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've said all there is to say. Please stop pinging me. The heritage act register makes it notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Literally that was my first ever ping to you. Okoslavia ( talk ) 15:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then please stop replying to everything I say and review Bludgeon as above. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the historic record, as stories easily get born and start living their own life, I'm mighty proud of the referenced AfD and my own withdrawal. Both were totally called for by the situation in the article. It also tells the story of what we should focus on: service and sound analysis, not on winning an argument. The improvement of WP is all the winning we should pursue! gidonb ( talk ) 11:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree, you should be proud, gidonb . Your nomination and subsequent behaviour were a model for AfDs done well. - A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 12:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There is also an entire article on the factory here [46] from 1920. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - notable. Great find, Oaktree b . - A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above comments, notable with the sources provided. Skynxnex ( talk ) 21:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . It's snowing! gidonb ( talk ) 00:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I can't agree that ""designation under the Ontario Heritage Act is equivalent to designation as a National Register of Historic Places "", but it's worth something. There are seven sources and the information is solid. No reason to at this time. Last1in ( talk ) 20:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Jake Bongiovi: Known for being Millie Bobby Brown’s boyfriend and Jon Bon Jovi‘s son, not independently notable. He may be in the future with 2 movies coming out but even then, wont meet NACTOR for a bit. into Jon Bon Jovi until he becomes independently notable LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New Jersey . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC) Perhaps to my surprise, this is already a well-sourced article and meets WP:GNG. -- Milowent • has spoken 13:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC) -Millie Bobby Brown and Jake Bongiovi's relationship timeline >>> MBB's boyfriend -Coronavirus in NJ: Bon Jovi son had symptoms, family self-quarantined in Middletown >>> Bon Jovi's son -Who is Jacob Hurley Bongiovi? Millie Bobby Brown announces engagement to boyfriend >>> MBB's boyfriend -Bon Jovi’s son will run away from N.J. He’s chosen an out-of-state college >>> Bon Jovi's son -Jon Bon Jovi's son Jake says he'll attend Syracuse University >>> Bon Jovi's son -Millie Bobby Brown engaged to Syracuse University alum Jake Bongiovi >>> MBB's boyfriend -Millie Bobby Brown's beau Jake Bongiovi watches her film beach scene for The Electric State in GA >>> MBB's boyfriend -Millie Bobbie Brown Sparks Rumours She's Engaged To Boyfriend Jake Bongiovi >>> MBB's boyfriend -Millie Bobby Brown and Jake Bongiovi's Relationship Timeline >>> MBB's boyfriend -Millie Bobby Brown announces her engagement to Jake Bongiovi >>> MBB's boyfriend -Millie Bobby Brown and Jake Bongiovi hint they're engaged >>> MBB's boyfriend -Millie Bobby Brown Engagement Joke Goes Viral After Age Controversy >>> MBB's boyfriend -Why has Jake Bongiovi proposed to Millie Bobby Brown so young? >>> MBB's boyfriend -Stranger Things' teenage star Millie Bobby Brown wants to marry Jake Bongiovi – so what? >>> MBB's boyfriend If he wasn't with Millie Bobbie Brown or Bon Jovi's son would he even have these articles write about him? There are 3 articles about him joining the cast of an upcoming movie. That doesn't meet WP:GNG , if and when he becomes more established then yes to his own article but now? Should be d with his dad's. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I fully accept that you disagree, but under this theory of notability, we would be deleting massive numbers of BLPs. Just the reduction of Kardashian related articles alone would probably measurably reduce the world's CO2 production for maintaining them. Alas to all the worthy scientists that have articles, that they must slum with the significant others of celebs who get 10x more coverage and become celebs themselves, not to mention minor British royals who literally have done nothing except get photographed. -- Milowent • has spoken 19:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources already in the article and those identified above demonstrate that the Wikipedia notability standard has been met. Alansohn ( talk ) 20:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC) NACTOR ; at best this is a case of WP:TOOSOON . Without the early life and personal life material, all that this article says about Bongiovi is that he may appear in two as yet unreleased films. The point of WP:GNG is to ensure that sufficient encyclopedic material can be written about the subject of an article; an article which consists largely of personal information is not encycopedic. WJ94 ( talk ) 15:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC) ACTOR or other notability himself. Star Mississippi 16:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC) 34, 22 April 2023 (UTC) 37, 25 April 2023 (UTC) 59, 27 April 2023 (UTC) GNG . CastJared ( talk ) 18:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Huang Shi An: WANGYIFAN2024 ( talk ) 04:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources ""黄石庵的""传多一点"" "" [Huang Shi'an's ""Passage a little more""]. Lianhe Zaobao (in Chinese). 2016-05-02. The article notes: ""黄石庵原名子贞，生于1903年，原籍广东客家。他曾任《马华日报》总编辑，是南洋先驱书法家代表性人物，与朱自存先生等一起发起马来西亚书艺协会，一生积极推广书法艺术，甚为人敬重。黄老书法先由魏碑入手，继而钻研石门、何绍基，最后专心致力于康有为体，字体沉郁古朴，豪迈雄风。徐悲鸿称其书有南海气，认为黄氏之书风与其同出一家。石庵书法，曾在新加坡、中国北京中国画研究院等地办过个展。"" From Google Translate: ""Huang Shi'an, whose original name was Zizhen, was born in 1903 and was originally from Hakka in Guangdong. He was the former editor-in-chief of ""Mahua Daily"" and was a representative figure of pioneer calligraphers in Nanyang. He founded the Malaysian Calligraphy Association together with Mr. Zhu Zicun and others. He actively promoted the art of calligraphy throughout his life and was highly respected by people. Huang Lao first started with Wei Bei's calligraphy, then studied Shimen and He Shaoji, and finally concentrated on Kang Youwei's calligraphy, with his calligraphy being melancholy, simple and heroic. Xu Beihong said that his calligraphy has the style of the South China Sea, and he believed that Huang's calligraphy style came from the same family as him. Shi An's calligraphy has been held in solo exhibitions in Singapore, the Chinese Painting Research Institute in Beijing, China, and other places."" The article notes: ""写这幅对联时黄老86岁，两年后，1990年，黄老病逝于吉隆坡。"" From Google Translate: ""Huang Lao was 86 years old when he wrote this couplet. Two years later, in 1990, Huang Lao died of illness in Kuala Lumpur."" ""Chinese Calligraphy article"" . 中国书法 [ Chinese Calligraphy ] (in Chinese). 2006. p. 83 . Retrieved 2024-04-09 – via Google Books . The article notes: ""其他著名的书家还有李家耀、黄石庵。... 黄石庵曾是两任《马华日报》总编,历任马来西亚书法赛评审,积极推广书法艺术在马来西亚的发展,门生有刘创 周 ī 每父に記依嶼津吴 雙清心☆彬米雲之祐道兄属陈景昭南马柔佛州的书法,以麻坡陈人浩的影响为最深。"" From Google Translate: ""Other famous calligraphers include Li Jiayao and Huang Shi'an. ... Huang Shi'an was the editor-in-chief of the ""Mahua Daily"" for two terms, and served as a judge for the Malaysian Calligraphy Competition. He actively promoted the development of calligraphy art in Malaysia. His students include Liu Chuangzhou ī Every father に记 Yiyujin Wu Shuangqingxin☆ Binmi Yunzhi Brother Yau Tao is a calligrapher from Johor State in southern Malaysia, Chen Jingzhao, with the greatest influence being from Muar’s Chen Renhao."" 美术辞林: 书法艺术卷 [ Art Dictionary: The Art of Calligraphy Vol. ] (in Chinese). 陕西人民美术出版社. Shaanxi People's Fine Arts Publishing House. 1992. p. 324 . Retrieved 2024-04-09 – via Google Books . The book notes: ""【黄石庵】 1902 年生于广东惠应县,中国血统马来西亚书法家。黄石庵早年即浸淫于诗词、书法,十四岁时在全县诗词书法比赛中名列-榜首。至今临池不辍,达七十余载。其书法由帖到碑,再汉入魏,又潜心于康有为、于右任书风的探求,并极力追求时代气息,形成了沉^古朴、表迈雄强的书风,"" From Google Translate: ""[Huang Shi An] Born in Huiying County, Guangdong in 1902, he is a Malaysian calligrapher of Chinese origin. Huang Shi An was immersed in poetry and calligraphy in his early years. At the age of fourteen, he ranked first in the county's poetry and calligraphy competition. So far, I have been visiting the pond for more than seventy years. His calligraphy evolved from calligraphy to tablets, and then from the Han Dynasty to the Wei Dynasty. He also devoted himself to the exploration of the calligraphy style of Kang Youwei and Yu Youren, and vigorously pursued the flavor of the times, forming a calligraphy style that is simple, simple, and majestic."" ""大马书法界耆宿 黄石庵书法展览下月初在我国举行"" [The calligraphy exhibition of Huang Shi'an, a veteran in the Malaysian calligraphy circle, will be held in Malaysia early next month.]. Lianhe Zaobao (in Chinese). 1986-03-24. p. 4 . Retrieved 2024-04-09 – via NewspaperSG. Ministry of Communications and Information . The article notes: ""应新加坡中华书学协 会之邀,马来西亚书界耆 宿黄石庵将于4月3日至 6日,在中华总商会展览 厅举行个人书法展览会。 配合展览会的举行, 中华书协将在社会发展部 及李氏基金的赞助下,出 版《黄石庵八四书集览 》1000册,以广流传"" From Google Translate: ""At the invitation of the Singapore Chinese Calligraphy Association, Wong Shek An, a veteran in the Malaysian calligraphy community, will hold a personal calligraphy exhibition at the Chinese General Chamber of Commerce Exhibition Hall from April 3 to 6. In conjunction with the exhibition, the Chinese Calligraphers Association, with the sponsorship of the Ministry of Social Development and the Lee Foundation, will publish 1,000 volumes of ""Collection of Huang Shi'an's Eighty-Four Books"" to spread widely."" ""黄石庵老先生千古 (黄公于1990年12月14日上午7时归道,享年88岁)"" [Mr. Huang Shi'an through the ages (Huang Gong returned home at 7:00 am on 14 December 1990, at the age of 88)]. Lianhe Zaobao (in Chinese). 1990-12-15. p. 63 . Retrieved 2024-04-09 – via NewspaperSG. Ministry of Communications and Information . The article verifies Huang Shi'an died on 14 December 1990. ""黄石庵书法义展即起创价文化中心举行"" [Huang Shi'an calligraphy benefit exhibition to be held at Soka Cultural Center]. Nanyang Siang Pau (in Chinese). 2005-05-27. p. B10. The article notes: ""马来西亚书艺协会顾问姚拓曾指出，黄石庵从小学习楷书，后来又专门研究魏碑、石门，也曾学习刘墉���何绍基及康有为的书体。他的作品造诣深厚，一笔一划看似漫不经意，其实是一气呵成，流露天真与自然。书画展每日开放"" From Google Translate: ""Yao Tuo, consultant of the Malaysian Calligraphy Association, once pointed out that Huang Shi'an studied regular script since childhood, and later specialized in Wei Stele and Shimen. He also studied the calligraphy styles of Liu Yong, He Shaoji and Kang Youwei. His works are profound, and each stroke may seem careless, but in fact they are completed in one go, revealing truth and nature. Calligraphy and painting exhibition open daily."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Huang Shi An ( simplified Chinese : 黄石庵 ; traditional Chinese : 黃石庵 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 11:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any editor want to take on assessing some of these sources? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the sources found by Cunard. Mccapra ( talk ) 07:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Yuan Yuan (actor): Has no corresponding article in any other wiki (rare for a foreign actor). Has one generic external link reference. The majority of the roles played by the actor were minor and were part of mostly non-notable works. I was unable to find any significant in-depth coverage from reliable publications (in English) that warrants GNG or WP:NACTOR . If anyone's able to find sources in foreign languages, please list them. X ( talk ) 03:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , and Japan . X ( talk ) 03:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources Chen, Bin 陈滨 (2016-07-13). "" ""配角""袁苑《解密》里再火一把 演技在身才是硬道理"" [""Supporting actor"" Yuan Yuan became popular again in ""Decoded"". Acting skills are the last word]. Beijing Evening News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-03-21 . Retrieved 2024-03-21 – via China News Service . The article notes: ""近40年的演艺生涯，大大小小一百多个角色，虽然一直以反派大配角著称，但其实袁苑的戏路非常宽，正反两路驾轻就熟，无论是大“配”还是小“配”，抑或和当今最吃香的“小鲜肉”同镜，袁苑都会各自出彩，散发出角色的魅力。《解密》中，袁苑这个传达室的“王主任”，和众腕飙演技互斗，成为推动剧情不可或缺的重要力量。袁苑目光炯炯，63岁依旧保持一副硬朗的身板，除了一头白发显示出年龄，那张有名的“大扁脸”配上粗黑的眉毛，棱角分明里还藏着一种年轻人勃发的气息。"" From Google Translate: ""In his acting career of nearly 40 years, he has played more than a hundred roles, large and small. Although he has always been known as a villain and a supporting role, Yuan Yuan actually has a very wide range of roles, and he is very familiar with both positive and negative roles, whether it is a major ""partner"" or a small ""partner"" ”, or in the same scene as the most popular “little fresh meat” today, Yuan Yuan will shine in his own way and exude the charm of the character. In Decoded , Yuan Yuan, the ""Director Wang"" of the communication room, competes with the acting skills of the actors and becomes an indispensable and important force in promoting the plot. Yuan Yuan has sharp eyes, and he still maintains a strong body at the age of 63. In addition to his white hair that shows his age, his famous ""big flat face"" with thick black eyebrows, there is a kind of youthful exuberance hidden in the sharp edges. breath."" Yi, Fu 伊夫 (2001-04-13). ""袁苑、吴颖--走向成熟的明星夫妇(附图)"" [Yuan Yuan and Wu Ying - a celebrity couple reaching maturity (with photos)] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation . Archived from the original on 2024-03-21 . Retrieved 2024-03-21 . The article notes: ""外貌粗犷、棱角分明的袁苑，早在80年代就已经成为影视圈的明星。鉴于他的表演生动、形象鲜明，因此他所塑造的一系列角色都给观众留下深刻的印象和好感。当电影尚未在大陆失宠的日子里，袁苑便在电影界及早地占据了自己应有的位置。"" From Google Translate: ""Yuan Yuan, who has a rough appearance and sharp edges, has become a star in the film and television industry as early as the 1980s. In view of his vivid and vivid performances, a series of characters he created left a deep impression and favor on the audience. Before movies fell out of favor in mainland China, Yuan Yuan occupied his rightful place in the film industry early."" The article notes: ""如果仅凭外表判断，袁苑看似一个粗人。然而，袁苑不仅擅长在台前公开表演，同时也能在幕后做导演和干制片。曾经袁苑与夫人吴颖就联手独立制片、编剧并导演了一部20集电视连续剧《喇叭声烈》，这部作品凝结了他们夫妇的心血，也展示了他们的才智。此外，袁苑又以独立制片人的身份，陆续与上海电影制片厂等多家电影制片厂合作，拍摄了《夺命惊魂上海滩》等一系列影片。"" From Google Translate: ""If you judge only by appearance, Yuan Yuan looks like a rough man. However, Yuan Yuan is not only good at public performances in front of the stage, but can also be a director and producer behind the scenes. Yuan Yuan and his wife Wu Ying once teamed up to independently produce, write and direct a 20-episode TV series ""The Sound of the Trumpet"". This work condensed the hard work of the couple and also demonstrated their talents. In addition, as an independent producer, Yuan Yuan has successively cooperated with many film studios such as Shanghai Film Studio to shoot a series of films such as ""The Beach""."" ""人才天地 article"" . 人才天地 (in Chinese). 1984. p. 33 . Retrieved 2024-03-21 – via Google Books . The article notes: """"渐渐地,他和那个时代所有的孩子一样,他的梦模糊了,幻灭了,袁苑在十六岁那年穿上了军装。三年后便复员到北京汽车修配公司当了工人。当他拖着疲惫的双腿走在回家的路上,儿时的彩色的梦又浮现出来,并且渐渐清晰了。当海员,阴错阳差,误了报考时机;那么,去演电影,对,当一个电影演员多神气! .他精心浏览了当时唯一的几部片子,看到影片中人物的矫揉造作,他的信心更坚定了。他愤愤地说: “那都叫什么?假模假式的。我能比他们演得好! ”当人们知道他想当电影演员时,就有好心人拐着弯劝他死了这条心: “袁苑,你很聪明,也很能干,有表演天才,可是 ..."" ,"" From Google Translate: """"Gradually, like all children of that era, his dreams became blurred and disillusioned. Yuan Yuan put on a military uniform at the age of sixteen. Three years later, he was demobilized and worked as a worker in a Beijing automobile repair company. When He dragged his tired legs on the way home, and the colorful dreams from his childhood resurfaced and gradually became clearer. To be a sailor, by some mistake, he missed the opportunity to apply for the exam; then, to act in a movie, yes, to be a movie The actor is so impressive! He carefully browsed the only few films at that time, and his confidence was strengthened when he saw the artificiality of the characters in the film. He said angrily: ""What are they called? Fake. "" I can act better than them!"" When people knew that he wanted to be a movie actor, some well-meaning people persuaded him to give up his ambition: ""Yuan Yuan, you are very smart, very capable, and have acting talent. But..."""" An, Li 安力 (2008-03-05). ""著名演员袁苑慰问大会堂外围执勤女警(图)"" [Famous actor Yuan Yuan pays condolences to the female police officers on duty outside the Great Hall (photo)] (in Chinese). Qianlong. Archived from the original on 2024-03-21 . Retrieved 2024-03-21 – via Sina Corporation . The article notes: ""今天是全国人大会议召开的第一天，下午，首都艺术家协会副会长，著名电影演员袁苑带领协会的演职人员来到了西长安街派出所"" From Google Translate: ""Today is the first day of the National People's Congress. In the afternoon, Yuan Yuan, the vice president of the Capital Artists Association and a famous film actor, led the actors and actresses of the association to the West Chang'an Street Police Station. "" ""自己制片自己演 袁苑人到中年再搏一把"" [Producing and acting by oneself, Yuan Yuanren will try again in middle age] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation . 2000-03-30. Archived from the original on 2024-03-21 . Retrieved 2024-03-21 . The article notes: ""做演员已经十几年的袁苑，因为长像不讨好，一直以演反派人物为主，这几年，脸谱化的反面形象不时兴了，袁苑也 就没戏可演了。 "" From Google Translate: ""Yuan Yuan, who has been an actor for more than ten years, has always played villains because of his unflattering appearance. In recent years, facial expressions of negative images have become out of fashion, and Yuan Yuan has no role to play. "" ""资料：演员袁苑个人档案(附图)"" [Information: Personal file of actor Yuan Yuan (with photos)] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation . 2008-04-23. Archived from the original on 2024-03-21 . Retrieved 2024-03-21 . The page notes that Yuan Yuan was born in Beijing in December 1953. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yuan Yuan ( Chinese : 袁苑 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 10:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: for the chance for folks to assess the sourcing Cunard identified Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC) Sources above are fine, I think we have notability. I can't find anything extra to add, but given the person's age, they are likely to be found in paper sources. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the sources found by Cunard. Mccapra ( talk ) 21:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"This is the Public Domain: Fails WP:GNG UtherSRG (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts , Law , United States of America , and California . UtherSRG (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Incorrectly tagged at this point. Sources in the article already demonstrate that subject meets GNG, but here's more [16] [17] [18] [19] — siro χ o 22:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC) 02, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Sources aren't very strong (hard to evaluate book mentions without you know like reading the book, but are theses evidence of notability?) but you could probably just about scrape together a claim. Still, even if you disagree, a to the artist's page is better than deletion. -- Colapeninsula ( talk ) 11:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . Establishes GNG through sources recently provided, although work is still needed to improve it. Let'srun ( talk ) 21:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Amy Balkin . Apart from the claim that this is an art project, the article uses a lot of words to say very little. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 20:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per siroxo, although I think a as a new L3 heading under Amy Balkin#Projects could also be fine. Without any real effort on my part to screen for the ""best"" sources, just grabbing three at semi-random, we've got e.g. about 150 words in this magazine article, more than 100 Spanish words in this book (preview cut off), at least 170 words in this one, and all seem fairly information-dense. This seems comfortably within the WP:GNG and in particular all sources seem to meet the WP:SIGCOV requirement to address[] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. . To the extent we're just haggling over whether to , I'd say that the unique properties of a person vs. a place, which affect things like coordinates, categories, etc., would militate in favor of ing the articles separate. -- Visviva ( talk ) 01:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"ConClave (convention): Page is an advertisement. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk ) 02:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] An early science fiction convention that ran for 40 years and featured numerous highly notable authors. The article is not an orphan. I believe third party sources can be located. In my opinion notability is low but not absent. Ike9898 ( talk ) 15:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . This was an annual literary convention focused on science fiction that started in 1976, lasted for 40 years and featured the genre's most significant contributors, including Robert A. Heinlein , Poul Anderson , Roger Zelazny , Gordon R. Dickson , Larry Niven , Theodore Sturgeon , Ben Bova , etc. A quick seaarch turned up the following SIGCOV: this , this , and this . As the event ceased operations eight years ago, I do not agree with the assertion that the article is an ""advertisement"" for the event. Cbl62 ( talk ) 07:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 03:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. As far as conventions go 600 people is small fry (I tried to find visitor counts online but came up empty, I think this would help the case a lot) but forty years is something. Stumbled upon photos here . With the names that visited the convention I think it's inching closer and closer towards surviving. -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 12:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Abu Dhabi Knight Riders: Fails WP:NSPORT . Consider a deletion or it to International League T20 , or with Kolkata Knight Riders . Charlie ( talk ) 02:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and United Arab Emirates . Charlie ( talk ) 02:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy . The nominator appears not to understand that sources do not need to be present in the article for notability to be established. Either that, or WP:BEFORE was not followed. In any case, the subject easily passes WP:GNG . [35] [36] [37] St Anselm ( talk ) 03:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ StAnselm with all due respect and assuming good faith; Source 1 is just an a acquisition news. Whereas, the sources 2 and 3 are all about the notability of an athlete (or a coach) that does not imply the notability of a team or club. Ref: WP:NTEAM . As I have said at the Gulf Giants ' AfD nomination - I am not rejecting your reasoning or logic, but I think there's a strong requirement for credible sources that meet the standards of significant coverage and depth set by the following Wikipedia guidelines - WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGDEPTH , respectively. As it stands, the topic seems premature for Wikipedia inclusion i.e., WP:TOOSOON , though I am receptive to further information meeting WP:HEY . Charlie ( talk ) 05:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Cricket . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV with a more detailed search. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 10:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC) 55, 20 November 2023 (UTC) How is this even a thing? MaskedSinger ( talk ) 11:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC) 16, 20 November 2023 (UTC) 30, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Chitraloka.com: Extremely poor and superficial coverage, . Tls9-me ( talk ) 08:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong . This article [39] is entirely about the website. It may seem to mention the name Chitraloka a few times but ctrl-f Veeresh and the source tells the whole back story behind the website. This website was the only website reporting the full details of the Kidnapping of Rajkumar in 2000 [40] . Also, ""the first website to be solely focused on Kannada cinema"" gives unique notability. DareshMohan ( talk ) 08:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC) Strong per DareshMohan. This says it was one of only two websites giving frequent news about Kannada cinema in the early 2000s. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Websites , India , and Karnataka . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 14:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * article based on passing mentions and lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra ( talk ) 20:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC) I added [41] , [42] [43] , which were fully about the website and removed the passing mentions. DareshMohan ( talk ) 02:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the ping. I’m a bit doubtful about how independent those pieces are but they are much more substantial coverage so I’ll strike my ! vote. Mccapra ( talk ) 09:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC) GNG is passed imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 00:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Ștefan Buchiu: Perhaps they exist (I couldn’t find any), but they aren’t here. Out of the 18 references, 12 are from the official news agency (Basilica), newspaper (Lumina) or head office of the Romanian Orthodox Church. Two are the subject’s CVs hosted on his university’s site, while a third is on the site of the Musical Society with which he collaborated. Two are passing mentions from other theological seminaries. Finally, we have his CV reproduced in an obscure newspaper (Cuvântul Olteniei), probably sent by a press officer. Biruitorul Talk 07:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Romania . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for initiating this discussion regarding the notability of Prof. Ștefan Buchiu and for your concerns about the types of references cited. It is indeed true that a portion of the references come from sources related to the Romanian Orthodox Church, such as the Basilica News Agency and Lumina newspaper. This is largely because Fr. Prof. Buchiu's contributions and activities are within the ecclesiastical and theological community. As a prominent figure in this domain, I believe coverage by these specialized sources is both expected and appropriate, reflecting his standing and influence in the field. In response to the need for additional independent sources, I have updated the article to include references to three significant books that discuss Prof. Buchiu’s biography and contributions to Orthodox theology. These books are reputable academic publications, providing a critical and scholarly view of his work and impact. Notably, one of these books is a festschrift in his honor, published on his 70th birthday, which includes contributions from fellow academics, underscoring his notability in the theological community. Such festschrifts are recognized in academia as significant honors that reflect a scholar's impact in their field. Moreover, the event of his 70th birthday itself, which was marked by significant academic and ecclesiastical gatherings, further supports his notability under the criteria outlined in WP:PROF . This event and the publication of the festschrift are indicative of his standing within the theological community enhancing the article's credibility and alignment with Wikipedia's notability standards for academics. Given these points, and considering the detailed criteria under WP:PROF , Prof. Buchiu’s scholarly output and his role in advancing Orthodox theology both domestically and internationally are documented and significant. His career enriches academic and theological discourse, making the retention of this article valuable for Wikipedia's coverage of notable academic figures in theology. KoreSoteria ( talk ) 14:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for those additional sources. The entry in Păcurariu, for example, is a good indication of notability. Let’s see if anyone else wishes to add something to the discussion. — Biruitorul Talk 16:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I am not familiar with the expected academic output in this field, but 21 citations since 2008 and an h-index of 3 on GS seem very low to me. There could be other metrics involved, such as the quality of the journals or the publishing houses where those publications appeared, but I cannot evaluate those. Turgidson ( talk ) 15:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have included additional authoritative references to Prof. Ștefan Buchiu 's Wikipedia page to further substantiate his notability. The article now contains references from the Library of Congress Authorities and the Bibliothèque nationale de France, which are highly reputable sources that affirm Prof. Buchiu's academic standing. These sources provide a strong independent confirmation of his scholarly work and are indicative of his recognition in academic libraries globally. I believe these additions significantly strengthen the case for notability per WP:PROF . KoreSoteria ( talk ) 20:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Appears to satisfy both WP:PROF and WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC) NPROF see specific criteria notes 1c, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Gulf Giants: Fails WP:NSPORT . Consider a deletion or it to International League T20 . Charlie ( talk ) 02:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Cricket , and United Arab Emirates . Charlie ( talk ) 02:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I'm not sure what ""fails WP:NSPORT "" means in this context, because WP:NTEAM does not have any specific guidelines. But there is plenty of significant coverage in multiple independent sources (e.g. [31] [32] [33] [34] ), so this is an easy WP:GNG pass. St Anselm ( talk ) 03:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ StAnselm with all due respect and assuming good faith; it seems like sources 1 , 2 , and 3 are just basic announcements and they don't provide a lot of detailed information. Also, source 2 and 3 are from Hindustan Times which has a history of mirroring Wikipedia in the past. In contrast, source number 4 originates from NDTV , a media network and team both affiliated with the Adani Group through ownership. In general, I am not rejecting your reasoning or logic, but I think there's a strong requirement for credible sources that meet the standards of significant coverage and depth set by the following Wikipedia guidelines - WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGDEPTH , respectively. As it stands, the topic seems premature for Wikipedia inclusion i.e., WP:TOOSOON , though I am receptive to further information meeting WP:HEY . Charlie ( talk ) 05:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV with a more detailed search. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 10:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've gone through and done some cleanup and tagged some sections. There's clearly enough sourcing, although the article as it stands isn't as well sourced as it could be. So, yes, it's a Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 06:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC) Following the improvements it's much better and as they play more, well get even better. MaskedSinger ( talk ) 11:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. DJ InstaMalik ( talk ) 08:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Fred Bronson: . there are dead links. . one of which is archived but it leads to some archive of a personal page that has nothing of substance. This person is not mentioned anywhere. The template for needing more sourced was added 16 years ago. . I think there has been plenty of time to fix the article. There is no fixing it. Nominating for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireandflames2 ( talk • contribs ) 01:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems to be a rather prolific journalist/writer, you get many, many hits on columns in Billboard, Variety and a few books he's written, which are quoted by other stories, such as this [59] in American Songwriter. More than likely as notable for being a senior writer at Billboard. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He's also said to be a notable chart journalist in an NPR article. [60] and his ""Billboard Book of Number One Charts"" seems to have gone through five editions since the 1980s [61] , implying it's widely used as a reference work. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Journalism , Music , and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC) JOURNALIST .1 — siro χ o 02:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC) JOURNALIST points 1 (widely cited as noted above), 2 (noted for his apparently unique system for ranking songs by chart performance) and 3 (his book attracted mountains of reviews in its day and still occasionally nets a new one; and although not at all a scholarly book it somehow has 267 citations on Google Scholar). I'm seeing 493 hits for ""fred bronson"" + billboard on newspapers.com alone, which vary between in-depth reviews of his book, quotes from or discussions of his Billboard column, and stories about his short-lived radio show. Overall this fellow does not seem to have suffered from a shortage of influentiality. -- Visviva ( talk ) 03:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC) //www.amazon.com/s? k=fred+bronson+the+billboard+book+of+number+one+hits&i=digital-text&crid=3KN96IYYWS6PF&sprefix=Fred+Bronson%2Cdigital-text%2C119&ref=nb_sb_ss_fb_3_12 Amazon search (], Star Trek actor ( [62] ) etc. etc. — Maile ( talk ) 00:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"2023 Cambridge City Council election: Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON , but should have been left in draft until enough WP:SIGCOV could be added to show it passes notability requirements. Onel 5969 TT me 13:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - How many of these are you trying to get d? This is an election for the city council of whose jurisdiction includes one of the most prestigious universities in the world. That alone passes notability requirements in my book. Last year the results got significant coverage and I don't see any reason why they won't this year. By all means request better sourcing but deletion is not the appropriate thing here. Plus here is some in depth coverage from the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-65411680 Bentley4 ( talk ) 13:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is getting tedious. How many other 2023 election pages are you trying to get d? The consensus on the closed Wigan discussion was to , and on the still open Luton discussion you are the only one advocating deletion. By all means mark the article as needing improvement, but deletion goes too far. Stortford ( talk ) 06:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . If this election were a year in the future, then maybe I could see the TOOSOON argument, but right now, it's merely weeks away. Why it when it will almost certainly be recreated in no time? -- Gen. Quon [Talk] 21:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - All Cambridge City Council elections from at least 2003 have articles on Wikipedia, and it is standard for all English Local Elections to have their own council-level Wikipedia article - I do not see why this is any different. SoThisIsPeter ( talk ) per SoThisIsPeter This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang ( talk ) 18:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Jazz (Transformers): It's Blaze Fielding all over again. Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 04:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Comics and animation , and Toys . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC) setting aside outright fan sites there is some spammy stuff on notable sites at least: - https://www.cbr.com/transformers-rise-of-the-beasts-mirage-stole-look-from-jazz/ - https://bleedingcool.com/games/transformers-jazz-autobot-statue/ - https://screenrant.com/why-jazz-died-in-transformers-movie/ BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 17:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote updated to Keep. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 16:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] weak is no better than to list of transformers characters with jazz in it. Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 17:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Bleedingcool is just a fan piece about some fan sculptue. The other sources are borderline. I'd like to see someone use the to at least try to stub a reception section. Perhaos this fictional character is notable - perhaps, note, I don't say they are - but the current article is terrible. AFDNOTCLEANUP, yes, but WP:TNT is an option too. My vote is for weak to the list of transformers, because the current article is a terrible piece of WP:FANCRUFT that has next to zero encyclopedic content. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We all know who the culprit is. Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 14:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Culprit? Creating an article in good faith (wich many seem to agree passes GNG) does not make on fit for a call out. ★Trekker ( talk ) 06:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the above. GNG is met, AfD is not for cleanup, which can be accomplished without ion, merging, or deletion. Jclemens ( talk ) 19:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . AfD is not cleanup. Please note that most of these older transformers articles cover multiple related toys and characters in a multi-decade multimedia franchise with various pieces of art focusing on each individual character. Most or all of them will meet GNG on their own. But due to their nature, cleaning up the transformers articles will take some time and effort from some dedicated editors willing to research, verify, cite, copyedit, and indeed seek consensus on where information should exist. WP:TNT is not going to help the situation until such an effort is underway. — siro χ o 04:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 ( talk ) 02:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, while true, ""AfD is not for cleanup"" is not an argument for this subject's notablity (beyond pop culture). But not a strong deletion statement is given either so I'm relisting this discusion. If you could highlight, out of all of this overly long article, sources that do establish GNG, that would make this closure more straight-forward. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment in response to relisting comment. I'm honestly not surprised these articles aren't better referenced. It's not fun wading through everything given the number of iterations and the amount of advertising for each of them. I have zero doubt this and other similar original transformers characters all meet GNG individually, they just occupy a very different place in the cultural zeitgeist that is neither pure cruft nor academic. Here's a bit of a refdump to get started with. The Bellemo guide has sigcov of most of the original toys, including this one [18] . Here's a different bleedingcool piece on a different incarnation of the toy. [19] , Here's a comicbook.com article on yet another iteration of toys [20] . Here's some more brief coverage from comicbook.com [21] that gives an interesting reception of the original character Jazz was one of the coolest characters in the G1 Transformers cartoon in the '80s - an early harbinger of the hip-hop culture to come, who had his own distinct swagger and then contrasts with the later movie character. Here's some coverage of the character as a car from a car website [22] . For this character in particular, there even seems to be some coverage in Jazz Times [23] though Google books snippet view is failing me and the microfiche on archive.org is not working for me. — siro χ o 10:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yep, as it's been archived with the Cliffjumper discussion (another frustrating aspect of this sort of bulk nomination is how fractured the discussion gets) but as a general note Transformers looks like a highly tricky subject to write a good article on. I've been down the rabbit hole a bit with the Transformers Wiki (which is a bit fanboy and a bit sneery) and while they're obviously beholden to a different set of standards in terms of sourcing it's actually maintained and researched pretty well. But I digress. As far as I can tell, Jazz is: - A character in the cartoon and the old film A similar but different character in Marvel comics A similar but different character in the new films A similar but different character in a newer cartoon on Cartoon Network A similar but different character in newer comics by IDW At various points a similar but different character in lots of less prominent media And a frequent source of merchandise, some of which is directly related to the various fictional characters and sometimes not ...and all of this seems to feed on each other as and when, so you get a toy of the movie character that looks like the cartoon character, or a new toy is referenced in a comic, or a piece of media adds additional character traits, et cetera. Basically it's really easy to see how a page on any character can get messy very quickly without some sort of semi-official template being set out. And it's easy to see why ing to a single bulk list is a dumb ""wash our hands of this"" step like so much of what happens in AfDs. What would Jazz's entry on that list entail? About the only thing universal is he's an Autobot who turns into a sportscar (as far as I can tell). I'd be up for or the second someone who was actually going to do the work puts forward a solution as to how to implement it. In the meantime I reiterate Keep, as I feel sources are out there, they're just not immediately evident on Google, and those there suggest the character is worth a minimum. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 13:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No evidence this character passes GNG, with content farms being shown as the only major mentions. There has been no improvement since the article was kept 13 years ago and it's likely it will continue to be a fancrufty mess forever. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One of the best known Transformer characters, SIGCOV exists such as the Screenrant source mentioned above. Pawnkingthree ( talk ) 20:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And he makes the 100 Greatest Cartoon Characters In Television History . Pawnkingthree ( talk ) 21:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmmm. That book seems like fancruft. But it is technically reliable. Sigh. Seriously, you can publish a book about ""100 fictional characters I like"" in a reliable publishing house...? Apparently, yes, you can. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fancruft, and no, a Screenrant article does not suffice to guarantee notability per GNG. God gave us Wikia for a reason. Drmies ( talk ) 20:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Drmies Right. But take a look at my comment above. I don't know what to make of that source, seriously... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Piotrus , you mean that book? That's pretty awful--I leafed through it, and it's no more than a coffee table book. Screenrant as a publication is also fishy: the About Us and other pages just scream fancruft and commercialism. Drmies ( talk ) 16:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd call the book mention arguably SIGCOV. I don't think just one book mention is enough to save the character though. If there were numerous sources similar to it, maybe. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , as yes he is one of the best known Transformer characters, which I say warrants a . Davidgoodheart ( talk ) 21:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Being a popular or a well known character doesn't mean the character is automatically notable. Valnet sources lile ScreenRant doesn't help its notability. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 04:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak per above rationales. ★Trekker ( talk ) 07:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per all the arguments above. BOZ ( talk ) 15:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] obviously satisfies GNG. InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 00:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Come on. It's ""pop culture"", sure, but sheesh, meets GNG, one of the most famous Transformers. AFD is not cleanup, and even if the article was ""cleaned up"", an article about a kid's TV show character is just naturally going to attract weak accusations of fancruft, but which are really WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. SnowFire ( talk ) 18:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as notable, but completely support cutting down the in-universe content. Articles are supposed to be based on secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, primary sources. Articles should not be summary-only descriptions of works; summaries of these works need to be concise in comparison to being treated in an encyclopedic manner. Erik ( talk | contrib ) ( ping me ) 19:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Beat Radio: Clearly nobody is interested in maintaining this page. I would have PROD but the AfD means I can't PROD. QueensanditsCrazy ( talk ) 21:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Minnesota . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There are a number of potential sources linked from their webpage here [1] which doesn't address the interest but could indicate notability. I have not gone through them yet. LizardJr8 ( talk ) 02:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [2] , suggest a . Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 23:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am sure the station operator is, in 2023, cringing at having used the phrase ""the Rosa Parks of radio"" to describe his station back in 1997. Flip Format ( talk ) 17:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC) GNG with sources presented above and in the article. They're reliable enough, with some in-depth IMV. SBKSPP ( talk ) 03:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC) It looks like a short-lived pirate radio station which subsequently supplied a very temporary sustaining service to a bankrupt broadcaster pending the transfer of its licenses and then became a monthly show on a community radio station. Normally, I'd say , but it looks like it generated mainstream news coverage at the time, the article has been well researched, and so is good enough to pass WP:GNG in my view. Flip Format ( talk ) 17:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC) GNG Lightburst ( talk ) 19:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Ian MacDonald (architect): Only sources in the entire article are awards he has received for his projects, and none of the info in the lead is verified in the body (if there even is a body). 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 12:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Canada . 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 12:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , per previous AfD. I'm not sure the nominator has done WP:BEFORE. Articles such as [6] and [7] should be sufficient (as well as the long list of articles going back to 1997 on MacDonald's company website). However, the awards were won by his company, Ian MacDonald Architect Inc., so I don't think they can be ascribed to him personally. Sionk ( talk ) 13:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] but only after reviewing Sionk's sources. The previous AfD bases his notability off of the Canadian encyclopedia, but I cannot track down their editorial policy as to whether it's a reliable source. The article itself is a mess and the sources there don't demonstrate notability per the GNG. I haven't performed an additional BEFORE to see what else can be added to the article since Sionk's sources are good in my book, but it really needs to be cleaned up - I would not have accepted it if it were at AfC. SportingFlyer T · C 00:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting for further sources evaluation. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 17:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – The two sources presented by Sionk are enough to satisfy me. While there is interview content, there is also secondary content in the sourcing. TLA tlak 23:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Etymology of Curitiba: Furthermore, the article as it stands largely appears to consist of the main author's own WP:SYNTH . For example, they reference the presence of Guarani words in a 1639 Guarani- Spanish dictionary, and then use that information to speculate about the etymology of the city's name, without ever citing a reliable secondary source that arrives at the same sort of conclusions. This is just one example; there are many others. All in all, there is very little of value in the article that meets Wikipedia's standards, and since the subject of the article already has its own section at Curitiba#Etymology , there is no reason for a stand alone page on the matter, especially one of such poor quality. Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 22:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions . Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 22:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions . Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 23:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong, speedy . First and foremost, let’s break it down… The nominator’s arguments do not hold up in any way and merely reveal that they did not even check the sources, the minimum expected of a Wikipedia editor. I did not engage in WP:SYNTH anywhere in the article; I simply referenced primary sources that had already been published by reliable sources, which is permitted, as stated here : “Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia”. You may wonder which reliable source published this. Simply reading the article and checking the sources would answer that question. It was written by Aryon Dall’Igna Rodrigues , arguably the most prolific linguist of Brazilian indigenous languages in the last century! So, let’s proceed… N Duplicate of Curitiba#Etymology – False. N Furthermore, the article as it stands largely appears to consist of the main author’s own WP:SYNTH – Exactly! “Appears” is the word! Because it only appears to be the case, but it is not, revealing your carelessness in consulting the sources and an unwarranted eagerness to an article on a subject in which you have no interest and have never shown interest, as evidenced by your editing pattern. N and then use that information to speculate about the etymology of the city’s name – I didn’t. Aryon Dall’Igna Rodrigues did. And he was even recognized by the Enciclopédia dos Municípios Brasileiros for this; it’s in the article, read that source! N without ever citing a reliable secondary source that arrives at the same sort of conclusions – Simply false. Again… N This is just one example; there are many others – It’s simply false, as previously stated. So try to cite a real example. Finally, I would like to make it clear that the nominator does not speak Portuguese, as evidenced on their user page, and all the sources are in Portuguese. Although this is not a barrier to nominating articles for deletion, it is interesting to note all the carelessness behind the opening of this RfD. I had never seen this user before… Inviting Bageense , who is interested in Tupi–Guarani languages and does speak Portuguese, and DAR7 , who was the creator of the original article the Portuguese-language Wikipedia and for whom I created this article and even licensed it under CC0 (and who also speaks Portuguese). RodRabelo7 ( talk ) 05:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First, I'd like to note that the main reason why this article should not exist is because it is a duplicate of Curitiba#Etymology . The quality of the article, as mentioned in my original post, was merely a secondary reason. With regards to this main point, you simply deny that the article is a duplicate of Curitiba#Etymology without any reasoning, just a one-word declaration that it is ""False."" But it should surprise no one that you expend no effort refuting my point: my claim was not refutable, it is patently and obviously true. Even a child could tell you the topic of Curitiba#Etymology and Etymology of Curitiba is one and the same. What's more, you even confirmed that you believe this by editing Curitiba#Etymology to refer readers to Etymology of Curitiba via a {{main}} template! To be clear, I am not claiming the contents of the article are identical to the contents of Curitiba#Etymology . This is obviously false; anyone could tell you they do not consist of identical words in an identical order. I am claiming that the subjects of the article Etymology of Curitiba and the Curitiba#Etymology are the same: they are both (intended to be) about the etymology of the name of the city of Curitiba. Thus, if you wish to make contributions to Wikipedia regarding the topic of the etymology of this city's name, there is already a perfectly good place to do so: Curitiba#Etymology . Any content the community feels is salvageable can go there. Second, while I do not feel this is actually particularly germane to the discussion at hand, I have studied Portuguese in the past and while my abilities are definitely rusty as I do not get much practice with it any more, I can still read Portuguese with well over 95% passive comprehension (~100% with occasional dictionary use), and since I use Spanish daily and study French regularly, it has not been hard to maintain such passive skills, even though I do not feel comfortable speaking or writing in Portuguese. I don't list every language I have experience with on my page, only ones that I am currently, actively studying or consider myself extremely proficient to fluent in. I spent an appropriate amount of time looking at your sources before coming to my conclusions, and I stand by them. Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 08:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC) The etymology of the city's name is object of controversy, and can't be easily summarized in a brief section in the article about the city. If we were to move all this content to Curitiba#Etymology , that'd result in undue weight, since the article is quite long (and could be even longer). So, no, the article is not a duplication of what is in Curitiba#Etymology: just compare the size of both texts. -- Bageense (disc.) 13:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Akiko Kitamura: PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , and Japan . Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC) BEFORE search has been conducted, let alone one that includes native language sources . DCsansei ( talk ) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC) As stated in the nomination, these were all PRODs that were deprodded in rapid succession. My work on these nominations took place before the PROD, not last night when I sent them to AFD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC) BEFORE searches (see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , etc. within the past week) and fails to address WP:GNG in his nominations. Regardless, 50 AfDs in 30 minutes is wholly inappropriate. JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"AREA (fashion label): Also the others seem to be puff pieces and nothing substantial Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Fashion . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The subject has received widespread coverage since 2019. Meets GNG and WP:NCORP- look at the Women’s Wear Daily coverage. Thriley ( talk ) 12:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration . Thriley ( talk ) 12:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC) The NY Times article is about more than just what Taylor Swift wore. We likely have GNG with the NYT and the Women's Wear article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . Thriley ( talk ) 15:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , I don't know about the full uppercased title, but deletion seems improbable given the sources mentioned above (and per Taylor Swift, who might not agree that it should be lowercased). Randy Kryn ( talk ) 15:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Leaning toward at the moment. I removed a couple egregiously inappropriate statements of the ""so-and-so wore something to this event"" variety. Even discounting those, though, mainly what I'm seeing is stuff in trade publications , which are kind of suspect in terms of demonstrating notability. 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 17:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I restored those sources. You should be discussing article improvements on the talk page not in the middle of an AfD which is topic-based ie. is this topic notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. -- Green C 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Its an article in the New York Times about the company. Really unsure why you would remove that. Did you even look at the cited article? Thriley ( talk ) 18:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ample coverage. Vogue wrote all about them. https://www.vogue.com/article/area-new-york-fashion-week-profile How the Upstart Label Area Wrote a New Kind of American Fashion Success Story By Steff Yotka September 6, 2019 . That and other coverage found, proves this article meets the general notability guidelines. D r e a m Focus 16:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The problems are with the article not the subject. In addition to sources in the article, a quick google search on their use of crystals turns up plenty. [50] [51] [52] As a note for other editors, check the article's history; someone is reverting the addition of sourced content to the article as off-topic. Rjj iii ( talk ) 18:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Mikey Bustos: As this is just a procedural AfD, I'm neutral as nominator. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 23:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Philippines , and Canada . Lenticel ( talk ) 23:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 11 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 23:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Television , Advertising , and Internet . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC) I found a sizeable article on Bustos in Guam's Pacific Daily News : page 1 , page 2 . This would be the kind of coverage that we're looking for, to demonstrate notability. I'm not sure if we consider Pacific Daily News a reliable source or not. Toughpigs ( talk ) 00:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC) RS . -- Sky Harbor ( talk ) 22:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC) MUSICBIO , by having radio airplay and TV appearances, criterion #11 and #12. Maxcreator ( talk ) 20:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC) MUSICBIO ThreeBootsInABucket ( talk ) 00:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think given the sources here, passes MUSICBIO as mentioned above. microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 18:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"American Pregnancy Association: I had boldly ed to list of anti-abortion organizations , but it was reverted on the basis of the encyclopedia listing. I'd encourage folks to actually look that entry up -- it's a few paragraphs of promotion that sounds like it's directly from the organization. e.g. it starts with As an organization committed to promoting healthy pregnancies and to reproductive issues, the American Pregnancy Association pursues its goals through education, research, advocacy, and serving the public interest. APA is headquartered at 1424 Greenway Drive, Suite 440, Irving, Texas. and goes on along the lines of Each day, approximately 5,479 couples experience fertility issues, and APA is concerned with providing information and support for them. . Should be re-ed. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Medicine . — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom, if the red link noted above was actually List of anti-abortion organizations in the United States#Texas , per the page's history. microbiology Marcus ( petri dish • growths ) 17:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as in-depth coverage exists. We need at least two in-depth articles to prove the notability, and there are more than that if someone conducts a proper WP:BEFORE . We shouldn't be biased just because it advocates for ""anti-abortion practices"". It's a significant non-profit organization, having attracted coverage from The New York Times , Dallas Morning News , and Associated Press when known as America's Pregnancy Helpline (read the quoted excerpt below). Most of the in-depth media coverage pertains to its time as a pregnancy helpline. Now, it's involved in many more activities. Sage Publishing 's book has covered it in detail, including a two-page coverage accessible on Google Books . Sage Publishing is a reputable academic publisher, and its reliability can't be doubted by cherry-picking some lines. The two-page coverage includes excerpts like the ones below, demonstrating it is well-written: APA was founded in 1995 in response to the me-dia attention that followed the decision of an in¬fertile couple, Mike and Annie Shaeffer, to use two billboards in the city of Dallas to announce their desire to adopt. After the Dallas Morning News and the Associated Press covered the story, the national media became interested in the couple. As a result of the national coverage, the Shaeffers received more than 1,000 calls from individuals and couples who needed advice and information on pregnancy and reproduction. This led to the decision to establish America's Pregnancy Helpline, which generated 212 referrals in its first year, and to begin broadcasting public service announcements. Over the next nine years, the helpline provided information and referrals to 147,000 women and families from 75 coun¬tries and the United States. In 2003 the helpline was expanded into the APA. Additional in-depth articles just about the APA is given below: Butler, Kiera (22 April 2022). ""The Disinformation Campaign Behind a Top Pregnancy Website"" . Mother Jones . Corinna, Heather (8 August 2008). ""Exposed: American Pregnancy Association Hides Links to CPCs"" . There is a lot more ""According to..."" because it is regularly featured in media, so this makes it difficult to find in-depth coverage hidden between these hundreds of articles. 64.135.238.133 ( talk ) 19:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC) ORG is usually a higher bar than WP:GNG . We shouldn't be biased just because it advocates for ""anti-abortion practices"" - Nobody is doing this. Sage Publishing is a reputable academic publisher, and its reliability can't be doubted by cherry-picking some lines - Sage is generally reputable, but the article it's self-evidently promotional fluff, and anyone basing a ! vote on it should look at it in full. Most of the in-depth coverage is critical, so an article about the subject would need to be primarily about that. In general, if it's a borderline notability case and nearly all of the coverage that does exist is negative, personally I prefer to omit it from the encyclopedia rather than have a short, negative article. YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC) THREE is an essay, not a guideline and since this is a non-profit, so WP:NONPROFIT is applicable, not WP:NORG. If you still think otherwise, seek a consensus to change the guideline. However, please avoid using a conservative non-profit as a test case. APA meets WP:NONPROFIT because its activities are national in scale (#1) and has received coverage (both negative and positive coverage, not just negative) in independent reliable sources (#2), so we can write a balanced article that will be helpful to readers searching for information about this organization and its activities. WP:NONPROFIT/WP:NGO quoted below, thanks. 1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. 2. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. 64.135.238.133 ( talk ) 22:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC) THREE is an essay Nobody mentioned this. WP:NONPROFIT is applicable, not WP:NORG - When I , you said CORPDEPTH doesn't apply. Now you're saying NORG doesn't apply. WP:NONPROFIT is subsection of WP:NORG and CORPDEPTH is the same section as ORGDEPTH . avoid using a conservative non-profit as a test case ?? ? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC) 36, 19 November 2023 (UTC) ""Here’s another thing it doesn’t mention: The American Pregnancy Association isn’t the dispassionate medical authority it might appear to be. Rather, it’s the brainchild of a Texas-based pro-life activist named Brad Imler, and it’s rife with medically inaccurate information—on both abortion and other reproductive health topics. The site hawks unproven blood tests, infertility treatments, and products purported to support the pregnant person and developing fetus. The American Pregnancy Association presents all of its information and products as evidence-based and medically accurate—but nowhere can one find its activist foundations or learn that it doesn’t have a single medical professional listed on its staff of a handful of people."" Purdy, Elizabeth R. (2008). ""American Pregnancy Association"" . In Zhang, Yawei (ed.). Encyclopedia of Global Health . Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications . pp. 110–111. ISBN 978-1-4129-4186-0 . Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Google Books . The book notes: ""APA was founded in 1995 in response to the media attention that followed the decision of an infertile couple, Mike and Annie Shaeffer, to use two billboards in the city of Dallas to announce their desire to adopt. After the Dallas Morning News and the Associated Press covered the story, the national media became interested in the couple. As a result of the national coverage, the Shaeffers received more than 1,000 calls from individuals and couples who needed advice and information on pregnancy and reproduction. This led to the decision to establish America's Pregnancy Helpline, which generated 212 referrals in its first year, and to begin broadcasting public service announcements. Over the next nine years, the helpline provided information and referrals to 147,000 women and families from 75 countries and the United States. In 2003 the helpline was expanded into the APA."" Goode, Keisha L. ; Rothman, Barbara Katz (2021). Pregnancy and Birth: A Reference Handbook . Santa Barbara, California: ABC-Clio . ISBN 978-1-4408-6921-1 . Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Google Books . The book notes: "" 1995 The American Pregnancy Association, formerly known as America's Crisis Pregnancy Helpline, is established by Mike and Anne Sheaffer, who initially set up a hotline to support pregnant people seeking an adoptive couple for their babies. After receiving over 1,000 calls from people facing unplanned pregnancies with nowhere else to turn, the couple recognized this unfulfilled need in society and wanted to set up a confidential crisis line to allow people to receive the help they needed. In 2003, the helpline became the American Pregnancy Association, which became a foundation of health services for anyone in need, including education, research, advocacy, public policy and community awareness as well as a leading organization for reproductive and pregnancy health information."" Atterberry, Tara E., ed. (2012). Encyclopedia of Associations: An Associations Unlimited Reference . Vol. 1 (52 ed.). Farmington Hills, Michigan: Gale . p. 1915. ISBN 978-1-4144-6872-3 . ISSN 0071-0202 . Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: ""Founded: 1995. National. Description: Promotes reproductive and pregnancy wellness through education, research, advocacy and community awareness. Aims to support women and families by lobbying the legislature, businesses and insurance providers to promote pregnancy and family health issues. Increases public awareness of the reproductive and pregnancy needs, concerns and resources necessary to address these needs. Publications: Week-by-Week, weekly. Newsletter. Price: free. Advertising: not accepted. Alternate Formats: online."" ""Pregnancy association launches Web site - Prenancy; Confidential service aids those experiencing reproductive problems and concerns"" . The Salina Journal . 2004-12-05. Archived from the original on 2023-11-21 . Retrieved 2023-11-21 . The article notes: ""A product of consumer need, the APA is a national health organization that began as America's Pregnancy Helpline in 1995. The agency provides reproductive and women's wellness resources for thousands of women and families through education, research, advocacy and community awareness. Nineteen of the nation's top obstetricians and gynecologists make up the APA Medical Advisory Board, which directs educational content for the association."" Fox, Thomas C. (1997). Catholicism on the Web . New York: Henry Holt and Company . pp. 311–312. ISBN 1-55828-516-4 . Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: ""The America's Crisis Pregnancy Helpline Web site is a Dallas-based nonprofit organization designed to provide facts about the many services and resources available across the United States for women experiencing unplanned pregnancies. It is the stated goal of the Crisis Pregnancy Helpline to provide each woman with a sense of empowerment and hope and to connect her with services in her geographic area. It wants women to know there are positive options as well as people and organizations willing to assist her as she makes informed decisions about her future."" Blow, Steve (1996-07-17). ""Couple seeking children adopt mothers' cause"" . The Dallas Morning News . Archived from the original on 2023-11-21 . Retrieved 2023-11-21 . The article notes: ""I remember the billboard. It said: ""Mike and Anne Want to Adopt. We Are State Approved. "" And it gave a phone number. Maybe you remember a feature story we wrote about the unusual adoption strategy. There was a photo of Mike and Anne Sheaffer standing beneath the billboard. The story ran on New Year's Day last year. ... Mike enlisted some trusted employees in his company to help take the calls. He vowed that every caller would find a sympathetic listener and, where possible, help in meeting their immediate needs. ... Today, Mike oversees a full-fledged nonprofit agency - America's Crisis Pregnancy Helpline (1-800-67-BABY-6). It's a free, confidential referral service for women facing an unplanned pregnancy. And there are 10,000 such pregnancies each day in this country, Mike said."" Articles that provide background material about America's Pregnancy Helpline founders Mike and Annie Shaeffer but that do not mention the association so does not contribute to notability. I am listing them here so that they can be used to provide more background material about the founders. The sources: Aron, Jaime (1995-01-02). ""Getting the word out: North Texas couple gets hopeful response after billboard plea for baby"" . Waco Tribune-Herald . Associated Press . Archived from the original on 2023-11-21 . Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""As their chances of adopting a child seemed to fade, Mike and Anne Sheaffer decided to take their search to the road. A week ago, two billboards went up announcing: ""Mike and Anne want to adopt. We are state approved. (214) 675-BABY. "" ... Since the ads went up in Dallas - one on a highway, the other on a main road - hundreds of people have called from across the country to offer the names of adoption agencies, stories and encouragement."" Macias, Anna (1995-01-01). ""Signs of Faith and Hope - Couple Employ Billboards in Effort to Adopt"" . The Dallas Morning News . Archived from the original on 2023-11-21 . Retrieved 2023-11-21 . The article notes: ""Anne and Mike Sheaffer are passionate about their desire to have a baby. The evidence is there for anyone driving past two billboards they have rented on busy thoroughfares. The signs, on the Dallas North Tollway and Lower Greenville Avenue, read: ""Mike and Anne want to adopt. We're state approved. Call 675-BABY. "" The couple have spent more than six years of marriage praying for a baby. But nature has not cooperated, and they are determined to adopt."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the American Pregnancy Association to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria , which requires ""significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 08:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Word Up! (magazine): QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 01:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Music . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 01:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the nomination not seem to full fill the General Notability . — Preceding unsigned comment added by O chawal ( talk • contribs ) 21:22, November 11, 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC) 12, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ CAJaganaddamRJY could you link these books, preferably from Google Books or elsewhere, so we can see if they're any good as sources? QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 15:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak It does have some articles that link to it. It could use some expanding. Somewhat meets notability standards. Ktkvtsh ( talk ) 09:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nobody noticed in 2007 that we had two articles on the same subject. This one even pre-dates the prior AFD discussion. DGG was right 16 years ago . That all we have in 16 years is an article sourced to YouTube and some song lyrics, actually confirms what Ashley 2008 , p. 94 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAshley2008 ( help ) implies: these magazines haven't really been recorded by history. I can certainly find sources, including that one and Forman 2002 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFForman2002 ( help ) , for an article on Hip-hop magazines ( AFD discussion ), but nothing in-depth about this specific subject. . Uncle G ( talk ) 16:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ashley, Jennifer (2008). ""Fanzines"". In Stanley, Tarshia L. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Hip Hop Literature . Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 9780313343902 . Forman, Murray (2002). ""Hip-Hop Media"". The 'Hood Comes First: Race, Space, and Place in Rap and Hip-Hop . Wesleyan University Press. ISBN 9780819563972 . Can anyone see what these books have to say on the subject? Magazines for Libraries by Bill Katz and Linda Sternberg Katz, 1997. Supposedly says something on page 97, based on the Google Books snippet. Encyclopedia of Rap and Hip-Hop Culture by Yvonne Bynoe, 2005. Supposedly says something on page 409, based on the index preview in Amazon. I did find this article about photographer Ernie Paniccioli's work on the magazine. I'd be curious if Cornell could point us toward more information on the magazine itself, since they hold the Ernie Paniccioli Photo Archive . Does a Sotheby's catalog note count toward anything? At least it's evidence of some enduring cultural significance. Zagal e jo ( talk ) 21:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If anyone in the 2020s still believes that Google Books is uniform, this is yet another counterexample. I'll take the Bynoe encyclopaedia, which I had to put a full title in to locate, as 1 source. It's good for some of the basics, although it's pretty short and gets on to the next entry (""WORLD CLASS WRECKIN' CRU"") after only a few sentences. We couldn't really make a whole article from it on its own. This might be a 1 good source and lots of little one-fact detail sources situation, although I'd personally prefer something a little less superficial than the Bynoe entry, which doesn't even say who the editor was and stuff like that. Uncle G ( talk ) 00:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC) Suprised no one has come across these sources: ""Teenagers have new magazine, 'Word Up'"" . New York Amsterdam News . (August 8, 1987). Bessman, Jim. (January 5, 1991). ""The word on new vid magazine 'Word Up' . Billboard . Meara, Paul (August 10, 2023). ""Notorious B.I.G. Estate To Relaunch Storied ‘Word Up!’ Magazine"" . Black Entertainment Television . This is a hell of a lot better than what most periodicals get. It is also used as a source in many scholarly books and, of course, in Wikipedia, which demonstrates notability outside of direct coverage per WP:NPERIODICAL . Why? I Ask ( talk ) 00:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You shouldn't be. They have titles ""Preview unavailable"" and ""Document Preview Unavailable"" in my part of the planet. ☺ Uncle G ( talk ) 00:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I've just added some citations and cleaned the article up a little bit. I'm surprised they hadn't been linked yet -- there was just a bunch of coverage of the magazine a few months ago because the BIG estate and Budweiser put out two special editions. I think it gets over the WP:GNG hump. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, this'll do for sure. Thank you all for finding this coverage; would've been shocked if nothing existed for this. Easily withdrawn as is. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 22:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Billionaire space race: First, the title is misleading, as Elon Musk does not have an interest to go to space himself. Second, this article assumes that there is a rivalry between Blue Origin, SpaceX, and Virgin Galactic, but SpaceX primarily work on orbital spaceflight while Blue Origina and Virgin Galactic primarily work on suborbital spaceflight. These are two very different domains of spaceflight and there is strong consensus among spaceflight industry observers that SpaceX has already ""won"" the race or such the race does not even exist. In my opinion, if this article is not d, content in this article should at the very least be rewritten to remove POV bias. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk ) 11:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong , this is a separate stand-alone notable topic which is well sourced to this exact name, is known throughout the space community, and certainly benefits the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article. The nomination implies that the name means billionaires were racing to go to space themselves. No, it means that some billionaires took ""race"" to heart and want to enhance space travel for the sake of humanity. As for the assertion that someone has won the race, that itself goes to prove the notability of the page and why, per historical importance, it should be kept and enlarged and not ""rewritten"". Randy Kryn ( talk ) 11:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First, well-sourced article does not imply that this topic should have its own article on Wikipedia. Yes, this ""billionaire space race"" is known throughout the space community as a ridicule point for those that unaware of spaceflight. The closest thing that can be called as a race here is the launch of New Shepard carrying Jeff Bezos (20 July 2021) and Virgin Galactic Unity 22 (11 July 2021), which happened within the span of 2 weeks. This is just purely coincidental, but it sparked a media frenzy ranting about why space billionaires are bad . Second, you are assuming that these billionaires ""raced"" to go to space themselves and by extension foster develop space travel, when in reality this is not the case. Elon Musk could have went to space one year earlier than these suborbital attempts, which is before Crew Dragon Demo-2 launched (30 May 2020). But more importantly, if there ever such a race, the race has been 'won' by SpaceX years ago. In Wikipedia terms, there is no persistent coverage after the event , nor there is depth in coverage beyond the ranting , nor that the source provided anything different than just regurgitating each other . Perhaps this is best summarized by a retrospective op-ed by SpaceNews : ""But while the experience on social media might have been awful—a not-uncommon experience in general these days—it’s not clear if the backlash has had any real effect on the industry."" Third, about the article itself. The article is currently an amalgam of SpaceX , Blue Origin , Virgin Galactic and Stratolaunch operations. According to my knowledge, only Blue Origin–Virgin Galactic and Virgin Galactic–Stratolaunch have any sort of rivalries, but they are short-lived and coincidental. A logical conclusion of that is that this article is built on mountains of original search, tenuously backed by passing-by mentions by reliable sources to build a POV-laiden image of private spaceflight . In other words, this article is an elaborate hoax. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk ) 12:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Many reliable sources have called this the 'Billionaire space race' (or uppercased Billionaire Space Race), so to call this a hoax ignores sourcing and notability. Because you wrongly believe the topic is a hoax, even though extremely well-sourced, please rethink the nomination, thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 12:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . There's a ton of sources regarding this specific term, and there has been consistent coverage of it for a few years now. Whatever quality issues the article has doesn't matter - AfD isn't cleanup, and the article is nowhere near TNT territory. Cortador ( talk ) 20:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC) The ""billionaire space race"" is a term for the roughly 20-year rivalry between multiple billionaires. The topic has considerable media coverage, and multiple books, such as The Space Barons (2018) and Rocket Billionaires (2019), have chronicled portions of these rivalries. There is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet the inclusion criteria for coverage . Depth of coverage: The Guardian ( October 2023 ) and 60 Minutes ( March 2024 ) Duration of coverage: Bloomberg ( January 2024 ) and Fortune ( December 2023 ) Diversity of sources: Books, newspapers, news magazines, academic articles , and more are available as sources. There's more than a single source or instance that establishes the notability of the article. Redraiderengineer ( talk ) 22:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC) 54, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Diane Carr: The main notability claim here is that she and her work exist, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of sufficient third-party coverage about her and her work to clear WP:GNG -- but three of the four footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and the fourth is a single deadlinked newspaper article of purely local interest in the local newspaper of the city where she was living at the time, which is not enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only reliable source in the mix. Additionally, this has recently undergone several days of vandalism by an anonymous IP who persistently blanked large portions of it, generally with claims that the stuff they were removing was ""incorrect"", but the quality of the referencing is so poor that I can't even sort out what's correct or not in the first place — none of the sourcing confirms any of the disputed facts, but none of it contradicts them either — and the IP may possibly have a conflict of interest to boot. Nothing stated here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on her sourceability. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and United States of America . Bearcat ( talk ) 14:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Michigan . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York , Pennsylvania , and Washington, D.C. . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (see below) and add morecites tag. The New York City transit artwork is sourced at the image page, so that source also exists (and sources for the artwork have been added after this nomination). Randy Kryn ( talk ) 13:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC) I don't see anything about an artist with this name. Coverage used in the article appears minimal. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC) ARTIST . Work is in the Detroit Institute of Arts and she was selected for an installation in the NYC subway. Research was a little confusing. There are two artists named Diane Carr. This one was born in Pittsburgh in 1946 (don't know HOW 1976 got in the article as birth year). This [ Carr ] is a Michigander. A sculptor and collector, but isn't notable (by our standards). I removed the incorrect categories on the article and condensed the text, especially where it looked like the two artists' biographies were conflated. Welcime a second pair of eyes to check that I haven't still got info on both. Thanks. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) 39, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment My forensic research shows that this article was originally about the Detroit artist born in 1946. She is listed in VIAF and has work in the DIA. It looks like the page was hijacked on March 4, 2024 by an IP . The article was edited to be about the glass artist . It looks like the editor also hijacked the wikidata entry . I think the 1946 meets notability criteria. I think info about the glass artist should be d into the article about Broadway station (BMT Astoria Line) as it is WP:TOOSOON for a stand alone article about her. I will be changing the article back to one about the 1946 artist. I will not invest too much time in this until I see some more pings here. Notifying nominator Bearcat , and other participants Randy Kryn and Oaktree b for consensus that this is what has happened with this article. Also any suggestions for DAB. Thanks! -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 19:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC) 19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) 32, 21 March 2024 (UTC) 24.228.119.117 for warning about disruptive editing. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 20:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC) HEY . I added an unusual hatnote in the hopes of preventing future hijacking. I left a third warning on the IP editor's page. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 00:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - as per discussion above, the article was hijacked and content replaced with that of a non-Wiki-notable artist born in 1976. The artist born in 1946 (the original subject of the article) is notable. Netherzone ( talk ) 08:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Viktor Rájek: The closest ones to WP:SIGCOV are SME and Plus jeden deň , but those were from 12+ years ago. Corresponding article in Slovak is an unsourced stub, which might help copy over English article otherwise. CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 16:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics , and Slovakia . CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 16:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The SME piece looks decent; age has no relevance to significance – and additionally I found a SIGCOV article when he played American football here / here – Olympedia is also decent, and coverage of someone there in modern times, especially from a non-English country, is rare. Seems there's likely to be more coverage as well since it was 18 years ago when he competed at the Olympics. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions . Let'srun ( talk ) 20:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Both the non-database source in the article and the sources provided in this discussion are plenty enough WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG . Let'srun ( talk ) 20:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Martín Gaitán: No news coverage can be found. Does not meet WP:NSPORT . Shinadamina ( talk ) 20:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople , Sports , Rugby union , and Argentina . Shinadamina ( talk ) 20:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC) BEFORE has been done on this one. A simple search is bringing up WP:GNG passing sourcing, and foreign Wikipedias also have sourcing. Given his career with a number of caps and World Cup appearances as well as playing in Europe this isn't particularly surprising. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please share 2 or 3 reliable sources that have in-depth coverage on the person. We cannot assume reliable sources from the past can be found. We need to find them. Appearances in World Cup are not sufficient, unless there is such a WP policy which I am not aware of. If so, please link to the said policy. Shinadamina ( talk ) 04:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC) I find a bit of coverage for a blind football player [54] , but there is no coverage for this rugby person. for a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC) French wiki article lists what seem to be newspaper stories about this person, but there are no online links to them, so I can't evaluate how good they are. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Lean , per the offline sources at the French Wikipedia and per Rugbyfan22. The titles seem to translate to ""Gaïtan: 'hope'"", ""The pleasure of Gaïtan"", ""Martin Gaitan, the miraculous"", and ""The eye of Martin Gaitan"", all of which, based on the titles, appear to be highly likely significant coverage. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC) HEY . This is the difference between the article at nomination and in its current much improved condition. I'm going to accept the presented sources from the French Wikipedia in good faith, and trust the article there will be improved. BusterD ( talk ) 08:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Coaches and sports managers are likely to be notable. On that basis, per WP:HEY leaning on considering the article which has been developed. Maybe ther was a bit WP:BEFORE bypass by the nominator. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Jim Hall (musician) compositions: There is not enough sourced information on Jim Hall’s compositions, especially as compared to Thelonious Monk and Bill Evans , the only other Modern Jazz composers with a comparable article, to warrant an article Mach61 ( talk ) 02:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions . AllyD ( talk ) 05:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can see what you're saying about lack of sourced information. But if this article is simply d, there will be nothing left to add the sourced information to. Maybe it into the Jim Hall article if it is d, though I can see objections to that. What is here is information that does not exist elsewhere on Wikipedia, so it adds value. it, tag it in some way to invite more citations, or whatever. But I do not agree that this article should be d outright. -- Alan W ( talk ) 06:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as a valid split from the main article which is notable. . The AllMusic link in the external links verifies a number of the entries in the discogrography section, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability is not inherited , so an individual artist being notable does not necessarily mean their compositions deserve their own list. Note that the aforementioned Monk and Evans had collected books about their compositions, implying nobility on their own, and that no such work exists for Hall. Mach61 ( talk ) 01:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC) NLIST . It's technically not even unsourced, it just doesn't have inline citations, and its sources are buried in the External links section. — siro χ o 11:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I helped with organization and cleanup of this article a while back when it was created. But I am getting less hopeful about any justification for ing it in any form. I too thought, well, someone can dig into those External Links and come up with the inline citations. I just looked at those External Sources. Alas, not even this one, ""Jim Hall (musician) compositions"", really points to any compositions that I can see. If you click on the link, it ends up on an IMDb page with general information about Jim Hall. The other links are even more hopeless. This is very sad. Why do I say that? Because I just found out that the originator and main author of the article is deceased , as of about five and a half years ago. Now that I see the situation, I wouldn't even know where to begin rescuing this article. Maybe someone else has a better idea. -- Alan W ( talk ) 12:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is sad. I'll start pointing inline references at AllMusic by album. It may not be comprehensive but we can get a start at least. — siro χ o 10:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Allmusic listings do not establish notability , which was my concern in nominating the article, not that the compositions couldn't be verified. Considering the previously mentioned lack of writing on Hall's compositions in relative to comparable Jazz artists, it's difficult to argue that they've been ""as a group or set by independent reliable sources,"" the relevant criterion for NLIST. Mach61 ( talk ) 17:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Siroxo. It's probably worth quoting the full relevant sentence in NLIST: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines. So an expressly non-exclusive criterion. The widespread practice of creating such lists suggests that, if they indeed do not qualify under the ""discussed as a group"" criterion, there is at least a working editorial consensus that such lists represent another accepted reason . But I don't think we need to go that far in this case. The Jim Hall (musician) article cites sources that discuss Hall's composing style, which is necessarily a discussion of his compositions as a group or set , meeting NLIST. (Might be nice to import some of that material to this currently leadless list.) If an individual X is verifiably notable for creating works of type Y, then it would IMO be fairly exceptional if a ""List of Ys by X"" did not meet the discussed-as-a-group criterion of NLIST, and I don't see any reason to consider this to be such an exception. -- Visviva ( talk ) 16:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC) ""In 1997, Hall received the New York Jazz Critics Award for Best Jazz Composer/Arranger."" To me his notability as a composer, which is now clearer to me (I always loved Hall as a guitarist but, frankly, had no idea he was so respected as a composer), justifies ing the material in this article. Maybe it into the Jim Hall article, maybe, if enough can be fleshed out with more sources, it as is. But let's not throw this material away. Hall was a notable jazz composer. -- Alan W ( talk ) 22:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"The Black Country Local Enterprise Partnership: Does not meet WP:NORG , lacking 'significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"" AusLondonder ( talk ) 13:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England . AusLondonder ( talk ) 13:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I've listed 5 sources on the article's Talk page out of 424 available Proquest sources. Under WP:NEXIST , Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any. — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 20:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] given the availability of sources now demonstrated. Cordless Larry ( talk ) 18:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting for the further evaluation of sources provided. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 18:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 18:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC) The Black Country Local Enterprise Partnership . I hesitated to quote those texts in the article citations quote parameters, being unsure of copyright limitations, but editors fact-checking the article can see the quoted texts on the talk page. — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 19:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. An assessment of sources is also needed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Solomon Islands–Spain relations: Most of the interaction is through multilateral forums like the Pacific Islands Forum . The fact that Álvaro de Mendaña de Neira explored the islands in the 1500s is adequately covered in his article. Fails GNG. LibStar ( talk ) 02:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Spain , and Oceania . LibStar ( talk ) 02:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"2015 Tel Aviv bus stabbing attack: No fatalities or WP:LASTING effects to meet WP:EVENT . LibStar ( talk ) 02:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Terrorism , Israel , and Palestine . LibStar ( talk ) 02:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) EVENTCRITERIA , we have BBC, NYT, Times and Haaretz coverage, that is enough for this, particularly as there is later coverage of the sentence. FortunateSons ( talk ) 12:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Where is the lasting coverage? LibStar ( talk ) 22:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - it is in the category of prominent crimes in Israel. It is well-referenced. -- FeralOink ( talk ) 16:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC) EVENT . Not really a prominent crime is no one died. LibStar ( talk ) 03:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Well-sourced event that passes Wikipedia:EVENTCRITERIA . For good and bad, Israelis have a long memory and write about such events time and again in books and articles. It's still early for that. gidonb ( talk ) 21:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC) LASTING coverage? 10 of the 11 sources are from the time of the event. LibStar ( talk ) 03:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You mean references. Your nomination sure is focused on what is in the article! It shouldn't be. Here is a second source from another moment. gidonb ( talk ) 04:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] from March 2015, barely 2 months after the incident. LibStar ( talk ) 08:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC) EVENT . Please read WP:LASTING as well. LibStar ( talk ) 08:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC) 20, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I responded to your comment and went to sleep to find three more comments under my comment. So next there will be nine? And this happened not only under my opinion. You now argue with literally every person who does not agree with you, and that is everyone, in total defiance of WP:BLUDGEON and WP:REPEAT . What is going on LibStar ? This is why the arguments are bad: [1.] Your AfD is focused on references (which you called sources). This is in defiance of WP:NEXIST . You say that there 10 references from the time of the event in the article and one that is from a later time and therefore the article should be d. Well, that doesn't matter yet following your logic I brought an extra source that is later than the event and that should have sufficed. By your logic. [2.] Next, your argument becomes a moving target. Suddenly later sources are no good anymore, you complained it was 10-1, and now it is 10-2, yet suddenly the sources need to be from even later. You ask where are these even later sources. Under everyone's opinion. I'll address that as well. News is quick. The source that I brought was a 2-months later history of the event, not just news. Other histories take time to be written. Let's consider a security event from way back so we will have enough historical perspective. I will pick the Ein Ofarim killings because I participated in the debate and remember the debate well. In Ein Ofarim, three Israeli security guards, securing a drilling site, were murdered. All of them happened to be Druze. The event occurred in September 1956. When the article was nominated for deletion in 2022, there was one reference from 2022 in the article. A history. The Israeli archives suck (well, still they're better than nothing), yet I was able to find more sources and after the fact stick these in the article as well. Now in the article, you will find news reports from September 1956 and histories from 1963, 1964, 1992, 1988, and 2002. This means that while on average, a relevant history is written every decade, there can be also gaps of nearly 30 years. The important part is the principle, which I already laid out: For good and bad, Israelis have a long memory and write about such events time and again in books and articles. It's still early for that. gidonb ( talk ) 23:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC) OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for ing. So we should wait for 30 years before considering this article for deletion? The fact there are 10 sources indicate this is perhaps WP:NOTNEWS . LibStar ( talk ) 23:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument at all. An OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument would be if I would assign importance to the fact that another article was kept. I DO NOT! I'm explaining to you with an example of an event that happened a long time ago that it takes time for history to be written. And even then, the source that I added is a HISTORICAL SOURCE that looks back at the event! gidonb ( talk ) 00:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] so should we ban AfDs for 30 years on all Israeli event articles? LibStar ( talk ) 00:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No. Some AfDs make sense. This nomination is not one of them. And here is a source that discusses the event in 2016. Almost 2 years after it happened. It totally debunks your argument once again! In other words, the subject of this AfD should be kept by WP:EVENTCRITERIA , WP:LASTING , WP:EFFECT , and WP:NOTNEWS ! gidonb ( talk ) 00:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Significant coverage by reliable sources. The number of fatalities is irrelevant to the question of notability. Marokwitz ( talk ) 11:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC) EFFECT as evidenced by persistent coverage well after the event? LibStar ( talk ) 11:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . As a significant event with numerous reliable sources. Hogo-2020 ( talk ) 07:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Selin Köseoğlu: Kadı Message 12:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Turkey . Kadı Message 12:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC) @ Kadı Quoting WP:CREATIVE The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) . I believe the person satisfies this with two separate works: Price of Passion and İkinci Bahar . Koseoglu's role is important in both works, and both works have received very significant press coverage. Gorkem80 ( talk ) 15:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural , the nomination does not address the state of the article in any way. Geschichte ( talk ) 08:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Geschichte , I didn't understand what you mean? Kadı Message 08:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I mean that you threw in a boilerplate reason for deletion without tying it to the article in any way. Geschichte ( talk ) 11:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Zhuan Zhu: I could find pre-Wikipedia sources like this and this but they only mention him as the assassin of King Liao. This seemingly can't be draftified and s are costly . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and China . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 20:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There seems to be a number of sources at the Japanese and Chinese Wikipedias - have any of those been checked? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 00:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is frankly an odd nomination. It includes a search on Google Books on the string Zhuan Zhu ""專諸"" which normally excludes English-only and Chinese-only sources, but despite that the search still return results as stated on the nom. Those are entries on a compilation of characters in Beijing Opera, showing that the story of this assassination is still being performed after 2,500 years (thus BIO1E does not apply). Another thing is the arbitrary cut-off criteria for ""pre-Wikipedia sources"", as if books published after Wikipedia's establishment are not reliable. Even supposing that this page could not stand on its own, ing to Liao of Wu is a perfectly valid option and the ""costly"" argument is just nonsensical here. Searching on Google Books with the English (specifying ""assassin"" to filter out unrelated mentions) and Chinese separately gives pages upon pages of results, and for that I say . _dk ( talk ) 01:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC) They searched for ""pre-Wikipedia"" sources and found little of merit; they also searched for Wikipedia-era sources, the lack of both, per the nominator, leading to this AfD submission. Nowhere is it claimed or implied that ""books published after Wikipedia's establishment are not reliable."" - The Gnome ( talk ) 15:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC) 21, 1 March 2024 (UTC) striking comment by confirmed and blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC) 33, 2 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 03:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC) While prima facie the below looks like a clear , I cannot in good conscience close as "" a debate on an article which has absolutely no references included. Relisting to ensure that if we this article, it is in a suitable condition to do so. While AfD is not cleanup, it's also not a suicide pact. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Would you be willing to add some of the sources to the article? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] onto Liao of Wu since subject lacks distinct, independent notability. The opera is indeed well known. - The Gnome ( talk ) 11:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Sources have been added, and this seems to have a great deal of notability, considering there's book sources thousands of years after his life giving pages of coverage to him, in addition to a number of modern websites also having stories focused on him. ""Merging"" to Liao of Wu would likely equate to ""ing"", which would result in a loss of relevant and encyclopedic information on a notable and wanted topic ( thousands of views in the past year ; only a few people from 2.5 thousand years ago can claim that!). Meanwhile, if we actually did """" all this information to that article, the article would then be more focused on the assassin than the king its about! (Not to mention the Chinese Wikipedia has way more information as well.) Thus a standalone article is the best option. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What other-language Wikipedias are doing carries little to no weight as to how we proceed here . As to the predicted ""imbalance"" in the text in case this is d to Liao of Wu , if this indeed proves to be an issue, it would be addressed in its own time per WP:WEIGHT , WP:SIZE , and WP:BALANCE . In the meantime, the search for significant, independent notability goes on. - The Gnome ( talk ) 15:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The only way to correctly ""balance"" it out would be to have standalone pages (and as your main rebuttal, you misinterpret a minor point of my argument with an essay that doesn't really rebut it). As for whether he needs ""significant, independent notability"" of being an assassin, note that per WP:1E (the policy on that): If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. Wikipedia's policy literally uses this type of example as what is an appropriate standalone in this sort of event. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC) Underbar dk and User:BeanieFan11 . The lesson here is that if you combine multiple scripts in the same search query, you may not find much, so that is not really an adequate WP:BEFORE search. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 11:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And how many as well as how strong notability - supporting sources do we obtain by the correct search? Not enough, really. - The Gnome ( talk ) 15:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Plenty, actually. See below. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC) Once again, and without any more feeling than before, whatever notability can be scared up belongs to the assassination itself and the art works inspired by it; most notably the opera. Not the person per se. - The Gnome ( talk ) 15:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yet there's pages and pages and pages of works talking about him (e.g. this book with several pages on him, one of the first results ) and the article gets several times as many views as the king he assassinated – all indications are that this is worthy of a standalone page. We could of course move this to ""Zhuan Zhu's assassination of Liao of Wu"", but the content wouldn't change any and it wouldn't look right because its a biography on a page that is not titled as a biography is. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Consensus split between and . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong He is a highly notable historical figure from the Spring and Autumn period . The article has been expanded, and a strong source, ""The Biographies of Assassins,"" has been added. He is an example of a king killer, and King Helu honored him by holding a state funeral. In the modern era, a street is named after him, establishing a pagoda in his honor. Being a stub article is not a problem, and we don't want to lose such a valuable biography of such a notable figure. Thank you. 2A02:1406:6B:9548:68EE:F8E1:674B:2343 ( talk ) 00:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Great work with the expansion, IP. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 00:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Notability#General notability guideline . 2A02:1406:6B:9548:68EE:F8E1:674B:2343 has done impressive work on expanding the article, clearly showing the subject's importance and notability such that a to Liao of Wu would be undue weight. Cunard ( talk ) 07:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"2023 Rutgers University strike: An event happening and being reported on is not sufficient for Wikipedia notability; it must demonstrate lasting significance beyond the time and place that it occurred. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 03:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New Jersey . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 03:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Aintabli ( talk ) 06:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Given similarly topical articles such as 2021–2022 Columbia University strike and 2022 University of California academic workers' strike , pages on strikes have relevance. There is added historical significance for this case as well. FelpixTheMaker ( talk ) 12:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC) OSE is seldom a viable argument at AFD. I think you are confused about what constitutes a secondary source. At this early date, journalistic sources are all going to be primary sources as they will only be eyewitness accounts with little in depth analysis (and how valid is any analysis of an ongoing event?) By definition, any accounts made now will lack the in depth analysis required to be secondary due to lack of perspective only time can provide. At best, this is way TOOSOON , rendering this an unnecessary WP:FORK . I was going to ! vote , but upon closer inspection of the suite of articles on Rutgers, the entire suite needs a ton of work. The mother article is in desperate need of forking (it's longer than articles on major countries for Pete's sake) and it appears someone started doing that at some point. At best, for now this is a couple sentences in either a recent history section or the history article. As where to put it can't even be clearly defined the only viable option is to with an option to recreate once time has given perspective on the event. 69.92.163.38 ( talk ) 22:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Was going to abstain from the deletion discussion but I have to dispute some of your points. Secondary sources already exist for the strike action- the Reactions section contains several articles which contextualize the strike and analyze it in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, a left-wards shift in the Democratic Party, and a demonstration of the shifting dynamics of Gen Z. The great majority of strike articles for the past 10 years are nearly-entirely sourced by contemporary articles, and that doesn't discount the depth of their analysis. The 2020 Michigan graduate students' strike , for example, is entirely sourced by ""primary sources"" written near the dates of their events, and yet it still provides an in-depth and contextualized overview of the subject. I understand being concerned about the shallowness of sources given how recent this event is, but that doesn't automatically discount the existence of well-researched sources just because they aren't written years in retrospect. Assuming you meant to write Wikipedia:CFORK , I don't see how any of this article is covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. The Rutgers article is indeed very large, but not atypical when it comes to university articles- the mother article for Rutgers is shorter than that for the University of Florida and Arizona State University , both of which are smaller in terms of enrollment. Even if you look at GA or FA only, Columbia University and Pomona College are less than half the population of Rutgers and have much larger articles. This isn't to imply that they should be cut down either- they are fantastic articles as is and I only bring them up to demonstrate that universities can and benefit from having large articles. HadesTTW (he/him • talk ) 23:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] for now. WP:NEVENT does not state that events must act as a precedent or catalyst for something else , it just says that events are commonly considered notable if they do. The fact that this is the first strike in the school's history is covered by quite a few sources including CNN , the NY Times (which admittedly is a bit more local), USA Today , etc. This happened after a year of bargaining failed to reach a conclusion, so I do not think WP:NOTNEWS applies here either - the lead-up to the strike is quite significant. WP:SUSTAINED says that Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability , but since the strike has started just recently and has attracted a large amount of comprehensive news coverage, it does meet the WP:GNG . I don't think we are in a position to assess whether the coverage is sustained just yet, however. – Epicgenius ( talk ) 22:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] no valid rationale for deletion provided. In particular, demanding it must demonstrate lasting significance beyond the time and place that it occurred is generally impossible for contemporaneous events, many of which have coverage. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 18:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , even though I understand this is a historic strike to the university (and the first in its history), it is without any doubt that while I absolutely agree on the fact that while we can improve the article, I feel the rationale given to this wiki is not justifiable. I also have to agree with many of the points that were given, especially with the extensive news coverage which has made it notable. I do think we can look into deeper analyses on what we can improve, especially to how the unions ended up to striking and the lead up. Remember, there were under negotiations for a long time. However, I feel it is possible we should on helping out making it more better down the road. 20chances ( talk ) 03:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Considering it has been widely reported on across the United States ( WP:DEPTH and WP:GEOSCOPE ) and involves such a large number of people, this strike definitely has great significance. As another has already mentioned, WP:NEVENT merely says Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else and, in fact, specifically says This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable . It is also far too soon to say that the article is not high quality enough to . There has been little time for it to be edited yet. Bryce Springfield ( talk ) 06:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait, leaning - per reasons mentioned above. Ayyydoc ( talk ) 13:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral Numerous reactions and references (58) but I haven’t heard about this on Long Island, so I don’t know if it actually meets notability guidelines outside NJ. 98.116.131.119 ( talk ) 18:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is just anecdotal, but I've been hearing about this from within NYC. Not sure if LI and NYC share a television market, though. – Epicgenius ( talk ) 22:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I co-sign Epicgenius' point - it's been spoken about here in the city. Ayyydoc ( talk ) 23:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is national news and you can find numerous instances of this being reported or categorized as such . In addition, many of these articles describe the strike as ""historic"" or ""unprecedented"" for US higher education. I can tell you from my own anecdote that people in my community in Florida were talking about it, especially educators--that might not be all that useful compared to what media actually says (which I just linked to), but I'm just trying to fully illustrate my perspective. Bryce Springfield ( talk ) 06:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC) 31, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Notable. Wjfox2005 ( talk ) 12:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Walt Yoder. It's premature to evaluate whether the nom's charges are true. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 14:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sourcing here demonstrating broad coverage in reliable and verifiable sources demonstrates notability. Alansohn ( talk ) 14:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Babar Ahmed (director): The coverage that exists is mostly very minor. He isn't notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. Dravoon ( talk ) 21:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Pakistan , England , and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Director of at least two notable films that have received substantial coverage, Amka and the Three Golden Rules and Royal Kill (reviewed in the Washington Post, among other things), he is therefore notable according to Wikipedia:NDIRECTOR : ""People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards (..)The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)""- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . pass in WP:DIRECTOR criteria Worldiswide ( talk ) 04:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"William Christian Hackett: Appears to be promotional. Pprsmv ( talk ) 15:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Likely autobiography. I found a capsule review of Quiet powers of the possible ( ProQuest 1807074607 ) and a review of his co-translation of Wahl ( ProQuest 2371191098 ). Outside the Gates does not appear to be notable; I couldn't find any significant independent coverage of it. This falls short of WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC in my opinion. Jfire ( talk ) 16:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Quiet Powers seems highly notable in the field of Continental Philosophy. Besides the review noted, I located scholarly reviews here and here: ffrench, Patrick. Review of Quiet Powers of the Possible: Interviews in Contemporary French Phenomenology, by Tarek R. Dika, W. Chris Hackett. French Studies: A Quarterly Review, vol. 71 no. 3, 2017, p. 450-451. Project MUSE muse.jhu.edu/article/666301. Notre Dame Philosophy Reviews, https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/quiet-powers-of-the-possible-interviews-in-contemporary-french-phenomenology/ Quiet Powers book is an important achievement and was published in the most prestigious book series (Perspectives in Continental Philosophy) in English dealing with Continental Philosophy. Hackett's edition of Wahl’s Human Existence and Transcendence was reviewed here: https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/human-existence-and-transcendence/ and here (Continental Philosophy Review, the premier journal in its field): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11007-020-09488-8 These reviews show it is a notable acheivement by returning Wahl back to prominence in contemporary Continental Philosophy in English as well as recovering an historical witness to philosophical engagement in France during the Occupation and the Holocaust. The book, in French, is commonly called a ""watershed"" and its English translation is a big deal. Hackett's writings and translations are published in major academic publishers that form the upper echelon of his academic field(s) (Fordham UP, Northwestern UP, Bloomsbury Academic, University of Virginia Press, University of Notre Dame Press, most notably) and his translations and monographs have been reviewed in the most significant outlets in modern theology (incl. Modern Theology itself) and continental philosophy (Cont. Phil Review, Notre Dame Phil Reviews, etc). A look at his CV on Academia.edu shows that he has published dozens of articles in most of these outlets as well, and has publications, beyond English-lang journals, are found in Hungarian, French, and Spanish outlets. Dr. Hackett's Outside the Gates was reviewed here: https://europeanconservative.com/articles/reviews/a-philosophical-adventure-towards-freedom/ Based on this, Hackett should be called a central figure in French Phenomenology, Continental Philosophy, and has made significant contributions to Catholic Theology from out of this nexus. As a key figure in the reception of French Phenomenology into English via translation and publication, as an author developing a constructive philosophical vision based on this reception, I would say he's a notable figure in his academic fields. The problem with this article is that it frames Hackett as a novelist instead of a philosopher. 216.249.67.21 ( talk ) 15:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Continental Philosophy review is the same one that I found, but I agree that the other sources put him over the threshold, and now that",keep
+"Kent Edunjobi: The sources doesn't seem to be significantly covered and per se , have more of PR and paid writing. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC) withdrawn by nominator. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 07:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , Artists , and Nigeria . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Significant awards ( https://thenet.ng/kent-edunjobi-wins-first-amvca-for-anikulapo-soundtrack/ ) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC) ANYBIO doesn't mean the person is notable. It means likely and the award hasn't be credited multiple times. My major concern here is the source as much of them are somewhat PR. — Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 06:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC) As pointed out by Mushy Yank, the subject won a major award. Moreover, he has produced the soundtrack to notable films such as Roti , Citation , A Naija Christmas , and Anikulapo . Although majority of the sources ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) discussing the subject aren't independent of him, I feel like the two previous facts stated are enough for a weak . Versace 1608 Wanna Talk ? 21:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC) awards mean he passes notability outlined by WP:MUSICBIO InDimensional ( talk ) 11:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Center for Inspired Teaching: I don't see WP:ORG level coverage here. Much of the sourcing is primary, churnalism and/or not in depth Star Mississippi 00:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , and Washington . Star Mississippi 00:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – this org has been in the news since 1996 (the news link above shows plenty of hits over the years) and won awards in 2022 and 2023. Sure, it could use work – I just fixed the latest refs which were very poorly done by someone who probably cares about the org but is not experienced with WP referencing. Let's improve it rather than remove it. Dicklyon ( talk ) 17:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Dicklyon 's comments above and his work cleaning up the article. This is a ""weak "" for me - I think notability is still just over the line. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Dicklyon. There's enough RS coverage here to pass the notability bar . Sal2100 ( talk ) 20:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Anne Philomena O'Brien: Could not find significant coverage. Only 3 gscholar hits. LibStar ( talk ) 00:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC) who created this article in 2021. The source listed as The Encyclopedia of Women and Leadership in Twentieth-Century Australia is pretty impressive. Also, scroll down to all the listings in the Authority Control template. It takes a bit of checking into each returned listing, but there's enough IMO. — Maile ( talk ) 01:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . Grahame ( talk ) 07:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , and Women . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak I think the listing in the Women and Leadership Encyclopedia is notable. Could use more sourcing, but it should be ok. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I added more published book reviews. There are enough for WP:AUTHOR . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC) reviews of her books in WP:RS indicate notability. Pam D 08:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Northside School of Innovation, Technology, and Entrepreneurship: Either Northside Independent School District or Oliver Wendell Holmes High School could be a target, but I don't know which would be preferred. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 23:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Texas . Walt Yoder ( talk ) 23:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Business , and Technology . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Likely notable, to Northside School of Innovation, Technology, and Entrepreneurship as it pass WP:GNG as per WP:BEFORE but current version of article needs huge cleanup. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️ ) 23:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC) 05, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep- The article is a c-class article, but it is almost entirely unreferenced and will need a complete rewrite. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 00:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've Stub-ified it for now. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 18:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] but SEVERE trimming —This article needs editing down to supported and verifiable information. ANY action should come with a Major trimming of content. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey ( talk • contribs ) 01:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , looking at the page now, it has been stub-ified. That should make a lot of the previous ! voters happy. microbiology Marcus ( petri dish • growths ) 17:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Joan Gilmore: It's just someone local doing their job locally. Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 08:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , United States of America , Illinois , Missouri , and Oklahoma . Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 08:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC) Beyond obit coverage in the Oklahoman, not much of anything found. Simply a person doing their job, wiki is also not a memorial. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - She was also a founding member of Leadership Oklahoma City and Oklahoma Children's Medical Research Foundation. For her life's work, Gilmore was elected to the Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame , among other things. Comments such as those above, dismissing achievements of women, is why various Wikipedia projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red , WP:WIG , WP:WOMEN were founded. — Maile ( talk ) 13:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It has absolutely nothing whatsoever in any imaginable way whatever or any conceivable construction possible got anything at all to do with her gender. Good grief, get a grip ... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The article cites three substantial obituaries in three independent reliable sources, that's enough to meet WP:NBASIC . – Joe ( talk ) 14:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , agree with Joe Roe. -- Ipigott ( talk ) 15:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC) GNG . TheCatalyst31 Reaction • Creation 15:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , article has significantly expanded since this discussion began. Penny Richards ( talk ) 16:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Significant accomplishments beyond ""doing her job"", as per Maile ; significant indication of notability as per Joe and TheCatalyst31 . And as Penny Richards points out, this is a new article, still in process. To call for the deletion of an article that is only three days old on the grounds of notability seems extreme. — scribbling woman 18:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame is a serious accolade. Lajmmoore ( talk ) 21:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC) I think this is a close call, but the coverage is just enough to meet WP:GNG . Combined with @ Maile 's points on the undercoverage of women (especially in Oklahoma) I'm leaning . TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 22:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Coming here from the notice at WiR disparaging this nomination. The pieces about her by her former employer The (Daily) Oklahoman are obviously non-independent, and it looks like the OKC Friday obit is a submission (""Joanie, you will be deeply missed"", plus instructions for funeral attendance). Are there any independent sources of SIGCOV on her? JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you're stretching the definition of independent a bit much here. As you said, The Daily Oklahoma was Gilmore's former employer. She stopped working there 42 years before the obituary was written. It's also very normal for obituaries to be written by someone who knew the deceased (it's pretty hard to write them otherwise). What's important in terms of assessing independence is who published it, in this case OKC Friday , which looks like a perfectly respectable local newspaper with no discernable connection to Gilmore. – Joe ( talk ) 05:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is very relevant that she worked at The Oklahoman , as evidenced by that fact being prominently emphasized in the title and body of her obituary there. Coverage of someone by the company that employed them for 28 years does not reflect attention from the world at large, as required by N. We do the same thing for obits on athletes by their former sports clubs, why wouldn't we do so for employers? Obituaries written by people who were affiliated with the subject are flatly not accepted as independent sources, and the prevailing view is that un-bylined obituaries in local papers are presumed to be submissions. The OKC Friday obit is indistinguishable from any of the others this very tiny ( three small neighborhoods/villages in the OKC metro area) weekly paper runs, I don't see how we could assume it's not a submission. JoelleJay ( talk ) 02:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That does not appear to be the ""prevailing view"" here and it's the first I've heard of it. Is there a written guideline you can point us to? – Joe ( talk ) 04:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, here are two from the Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame (now refs in the article, but they weren't when you asked). Rodely, Billie. ""Joan Gilmore and Al McLaughlin"" Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame. ""Joan Gilmore donates $30,000 for future hall of fame museum, scholarship"" , Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame (2022). - Penny Richards ( talk ) 15:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those are also not independent or secondary, as they are coverage by the organization that gave her the award (and to which she donated $30,000). JoelleJay ( talk ) 01:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think I agree with Joe Roe that the definition of ""independent"" may be getting stretched a bit here. She left the Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame $30,000 in her will --what they wrote about her after she died can hardly be ascribed to her direct influence. It's also fairly common the cite halls of fame or other award-granting bodies, where they explain why someone was recognized, as in the first ref above. Penny Richards ( talk ) 02:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Independence isn't only a measure of how much influence someone has on coverage of themselves; it is also a necessary quality to ensure that the coverage actually represents attention from the world at large for reasons that are of interest to the world at large. When the source is also necessarily covering themselves in a piece, that is a good indication that its interest in the subject is not derived wholly from an independent assessment of the subject's noteworthiness. This is especially the case for bodies with a financial incentive to promote positive coverage of themselves and to foster potentially lucrative relationships. What the awarding body publishes about the subject in the press release for the honor is thus not an independent commentary because it is inextricably tied to promotional coverage of itself. There are hundreds of thousands of honors awarded every year, and many of them are accompanied by SIGCOV of the recipients in the award announcements; if we were to consider all of these acceptable for GNG then I would get an article for receiving some external awards in high school, college, and grad school. None of them were remotely major, but each had a couple paragraphs on my background and detailed the reasons I was recognized. I'm not notable because no one who was completely unaffiliated with me or the awards considered those reasons important enough to publish commentary on them independently. JoelleJay ( talk ) 18:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Respectfully, Jay, I think you are a bit off base with this particular person. The Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame is a significant honor; enough so that anyone that has been inducted passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO automatically. Trying to equate it to a forgettable award someone could achieve in high school or grad school is simply ludicrous. This is the highest honor given to women in the state and is operated by a government commission. We generally do articles on people who have received a major honor at the National or state level. Best. 4meter4 ( talk ) 07:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC) HEY - article has been greatly expanded and improved since being nominated. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV . Additionally, has been recognized at the state level with two significant honors. Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO . 4meter4 ( talk ) 07:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Ruben Muradyan (ballet dancer): Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC) N . Archives908 ( talk ) 19:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Care to elaborate on how it's well sourced? Can you read Armenian? Or are you just saying this should be kept based on a cursory glance. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 18:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 19:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC) ANYBIO . Noorullah ( talk ) 00:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is there any evidence that Honored Artist of Armenia qualifies as a well-known and significant award or honor ? If it truly were one then presumably its article would be more than a tiny stub. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is awarded by the president of Armenia. One nation bestowing significance through an award seems to fit the definition for WP:ANYBIO in my eyes. [1] It can also be something seen as of ""historic"" value now being a historic award, as it seems Armenia possibly does not give out these awards anymore? [2] @ Pppery Noorullah ( talk ) 03:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] several articles are already present on the page such as aysor.am . Shinadamina ( talk ) 05:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Peat pulp bath: All other sources I could find were trying to sell something. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , History , Environment , and Geography . Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC) There is scientific evidence on physiological mechanisms and efficacy of peat pulp therapy. I added two sectios on both topics and provided references. -- Jwdietrich2 ( talk ) 07:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - seems to be a topic of discussion by academics in published papers, which is normally considered a strong sign of notability. JMWt ( talk ) 19:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Colonial Athletic Association Football Conference: The consensus of previous discussions was not to separate the articles, making this article unnecessary as it is a new article created in May 2023 that is merely a duplicate of information already available on the main article that was created in March 2004. Superman7515 ( talk ) 00:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 39, 14 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools , Football , and United States of America . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Colonial Athletic Association per previous discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 09:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC) CAA and CAA Football are separate entities similar to the Missouri Valley Conference and Missouri Valley Football Conference and the ASUN Conference / Western Athletic Conference and United Athletic Conference . In addition, there is enough additional information about the CAA Football League that would warrant its own article. The information has been removed from the Colonial Athletic Association article and moved to this article to shorted the length of the other article. Shl13132 ( talk ) 15:06, 15 July 2023 (EST) per above. No reason or need to split this off. SportsGuy789 ( talk ) 15:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Shl13132. See the CAA's official announcement (7/20/23) that ""The name change will carry over to the league’s football conference, which will be officially recognized as the Coastal Athletic Association Football Conference but continue to be referred to as the CAA Football Conference."" SportsGuy789 ( talk ) 17:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Comment/Question Is this basically similar to the Missouri Valley Conference / Missouri Valley Football Conference situation? - UCO2009bluejay ( talk ) 17:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, this is the same situation. It was also similar to the Southland Conference and the Southland Bowling League before the bowling league was absorbed by Conference USA . They are run by the same administration/use the same branding but are different entities. Shl13132 ( talk ) 17:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per discussion above. It would be a misnomer to two separate entites. - UCO2009bluejay ( talk ) 17:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] similarly named but distinct entities. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs ) 21:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , as they are distinct entities. Dmoore5556 ( talk ) 22:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Clemenger: Laterthanyouthink ( talk ) 06:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have rewritten it, adding 3 entries. Boleyn ( talk ) 07:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Laterthanyouthink , do you think it meets the criteria now? Thanks, Boleyn ( talk ) 08:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure - thanks for adding the names. Makes more sense to it now! Laterthanyouthink ( talk ) 08:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reasonable dab page now. Pam D 07:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Bogdan Khmelnitsky Battalion: ManyAreasExpert ( talk ) 22:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Russia , and Ukraine . Owen× ☎ 23:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article needs more work about the unit's actions in 2024. It's lazy to call for a deletion of a page because you don't find sources from a certain year. On that note, the vast majority of the sources from 2023 in this article are considered reliable. Salfanto ( talk ) 01:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Important unit of the war in Ukraine. The article is sourced well enough, and the sudject has been covered rather extensively. And if @ Manyareasexpert didnt several news articles covering the battalion, there would be no reason for nomination. F.Alexsandr ( talk ) 09:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Greetings, only unreliable sources were d. Thanks! ManyAreasExpert ( talk ) 18:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC) 10, 7 May 2024 (UTC) Many RS to establish notability. FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 12:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 11 . This was NAC-closed as ""SNOW"" early, despite not meeting the general criteria for SNOW. I encourage the AfD nominator (also the DRV appellant) to reply to some of the "" opinions above, addressing their concerns from a P&G standpoint and discussing SUSTAINED as it may apply here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 02:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Notable unit, enough RS. Florificapis ( talk ) 02:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Greetings all, thanks for all the votes. WP:GNG is a complex guide, and all of the criteria of it should be met for the article to meet GNG, including WP:SUSTAINED . It's not enough for the article to have ""good"" or ""many"" RS, the SUSTAINED criteria should be met for the article to exist. Thanks! ManyAreasExpert ( talk ) 18:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC) NUNIT , obviously notable, and per above. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 23:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC) NUNIT It doesn't fit WP:SUSTAINED of GNG. NUNIT covers military units, and if you read article content, all of it is reported ""by Russian sources"", so it looks more like a media phenomena, not a real military formation. ManyAreasExpert ( talk ) 20:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Eagle Fortress: tagged for notability issues since the month the article was created. ltb d l ( talk ) 09:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks and Korea . ltb d l ( talk ) 09:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Everland . It's a possible search term, but the article itself isn't worth saving. The Squirrel Conspiracy ( talk ) 09:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong I may be a bit biased as someone who does South Korean amusement park stuff, but I genuinely believe this is notable. The SIGCOV in RS is definitely there but the sources are all in Korean, thus leading to misconceptions that this is not a notable coaster. A quick search through Naver shows all this coverage: [64] [65] [66] . Plus older news sources show signs of SIGCOV as well - [67] . #prodraxis connect 13:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] for same reasons that @ Prodraxis provided. Coverage in the Korean language is easily notable. toobigtokale ( talk ) 02:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Millennial pause: Tkbrett (✉) 12:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Atlantic is a reliable source as are other listed sources. ""One-off article"" is not a problem with a source under WP:N . JoshuaZ ( talk ) 13:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Sources are easy to find ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ). It seems no WP:BEFORE was done here. Cortador ( talk ) 14:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These sources are still insufficient because they only provide passing mentions. Refer to D3 at WP:BEFORE . Tkbrett (✉) 15:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, they do not. The first two sources especially are only about the concept and nothing else. You clearly didn't read them, just like you didn't look for sources before you started this AfD. Cortador ( talk ) 19:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not subscribe to paywalled German websites, nor do I read German. And, again, the English-language sources provide no more than a passing mention. Refer to D3 at WP:BEFORE . Tkbrett (✉) 20:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You claimed above that the sources ""only provide passing mentions"", not that you couldn't access to read those sources. What language the sources are in doesn't matter, English-language Wikipedia doesn't require sources to be in English. Cortador ( talk ) 20:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This isn't quite the zinger you think it is, as it further indicates how little reliable sourcing there is. Tkbrett (✉) 22:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I kindly ask you to come up with a coherent argument why this article should be d. You started with there not being enough sources, then moved on to sources only mentioning the topic in passing, then to sources covering the topic but not in a language you can read, and finally that there are sources but not in a sufficiently high number. Cortador ( talk ) 09:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It was the same argument the whole time. But I am not going to waste my time trying convince you; the sourcing presented has been flimsy, and you seem to know this, which is why you pivoted away from trying to produce anything more substantial. Coming from a side of the encyclopedia that deals mainly in books, it is quite surprising to see how the weakest of sourcing passes on some parts. Tkbrett (✉) 10:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It clearly was not - you claimed above that the sources ""only provide passing mentions"" and then admitted that you didn't even read them because you lacked access to the (paywalled) site, and because the articles were written in a language you can't read. Cortador ( talk ) 10:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, they seem to be trying to argue that something being not in English makes it less reliable? JoshuaZ ( talk ) 01:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The entire paragraph in the business insider (culture) source is not a passing mention. It counts partially to the notability. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 13:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Here's another source in addition to all the ones already mentioned. Definitely seems like there's enough reliable sources to justify an article. -- Aabicus ( talk ) 14:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC) BUSINESSINSIDER . Outside of one Atlantic article, I have not seen a reliable source which points to this topic's notability. Tkbrett (✉) 20:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This probably fails the Wikipedia notability test, under the Not a (Newspaper/Tabloid) disqualification. Nontoxicjon ( talk ) 23:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Tkbrett @ Nontoxicjon This source falls under the Culture section, which RSP explicitly calls an exception that has consensus as reliable. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 13:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Abstain/weak This seems to be one of those ""just-so"" popcorn articles that as of this writing are hot on Reddit. There is definitely a flavor of being contrived as the concept has less empirical backing here in quality sources than similar articles like the vocal fry . -- ~Sıgehelmus♗ (Tøk) 23:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC) NEOLOGISM . I was considering nominating this article when I first saw it, and at least from a WP:PAG perspective, the case for not ing the article seems even stronger as I read through the support ! votes here. This very much seems to be a neologism that that exists when you do a Google search, but the sources presented so far don't really reach WP:N , especially as I read through the comments here so far. Instead it's more in the purview of pop culture stuff that isn't always WP:DUE coverage for an encyclopedia (see WP:FART ). It's similar to how Human-interest story isn't really considered hard news, and soft news is often considered flaky at best for discussions of notability. The other issue I'm seeing is that sources presented so far don't show sustained coverage, another required aspect of notability. It seems most of the pop-culture blogs, etc. talked about it in late 2022/early 2023. If the topic ever gets substantial and sustained coverage above the lower quality sources presented here and in the article here so far, then inclusion can always be reassessed, but I'm very wary of arguments merely saying sources exist. KoA ( talk ) 00:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with N. JoshuaZ and Cortador above. Maxx1222 ( talk ) 01:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC) The sources above already establish notability. As an editor who deals a lot with book sources, the nominator should know that a source being less-than-accessible does not hurt its notability at all. Two years seems enough for sustained coverage to me. I will not comment on the “all soft news are flaky” part as a proud member of m:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTAD . Aaron Liu ( talk ) 13:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough, thanks, Aaron. Though I do think they are different things; there are topics covered in great detail by hard-to-find books, but there does not to seem to be any substantive discussion about the topic, which instead seems to only be covered in clickbait articles from the first couple months of last year. I do not think those articles collecting social media posts would qualify as reliable on any article I'd normally work on, so it is surprising to hear that it helps establish notability. I don't deal in this area of the encyclopedia normally, so I'll just drop it. Tkbrett (✉) 13:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the clarification. I feel like the purpose of these articles are to identify longstanding online phenomena and what they mean. While, indeed, no sources have analyzed the topic yet, the coverage does confer notability and the topic seems like something worthy of further research. Even though there isn’t much information, it does seem big enough to at least document. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 14:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , as painful as it is -- this is a silly article, which cites silly clickpieces, but our policies are that dumb clickpieces = notability, so until such a time as we revisit our notability guidelines, let this (and others like Cheugy which I wrote some years ago) stand as monuments to our hubris. jp × g 🗯️ 01:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , Article is necessary and provided with Reliable sources. I suggest to the Article. Caxwax ( talk ) 05:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC) N and WP:NEOLOGISM . The referenced sources consist entirely (besides dictionary definitions) of opinion articles that are collations of social media posts, and the article spends as almost much time explaining what millennials and zoomers are as it does on the subject matter. Sources are irrelevant, article contents are mostly irrelevant. Would be better suited for a Wiki focused on TikTokisms. Timothy ""The Baron"" Pickle ( talk ) 16:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is the only edit Baron has made so far. NEOLOGISM only applies to those that have little or no usage in reliable sources . This is clearly not the case with the sources above, which I don't see how are ""opinion"" articles, and summarizing the neologism is pretty relevant. RSes pick up and explore it (which is more than just collected usages and has been done), so we include and explore it. The article also only spends 4 footnoted sentences for explaining what generations are. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 17:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"In situ electron microscopy: There is nothing called ""in situ electron microscopy"" the same way there is nothing called ""in situ x-ray diffraction"". It is just the ability to use the EM while doing an experiment. The references are about that, doing an experiment while imaging or characterising, i.e., using the EM. FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 18:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions . FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 18:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Essentially an WP:OR topic name. UtherSRG (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Traditionally, electron microscopes examine samples in stable configurations, after careful preparation. The article is specifically about imaging with an electron microscope in a dynamic environment, like while an experiment is taking place. The topic has significant coverage separate from electron microscopy in general, see review article book1 book2 conference . I agree the article does not introduce the subject very clearly at the moment, but the topic has enough coverage that I think it can be improved. 〈 Forbes 72 | Talk 〉 03:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Forbes72 Environmental scanning electron microscope is a good example of what are you trying to say when talking about developing a microscopy for a specific test. and - quoting the review article that you mentioned - "" The recent advances in in situ methods, including liquid and gas sample environment, pump-probe ultrafast microscopy , nanomechanics and ferroelectric domain switching the aberration corrected electron optics as well as fast electron detector has opened new opportunities to extend the impact of in situ TEM in broad areas of research ranging from materials science to chemistry, physics and biology. In this article, we highlight the development of liquid environment electron microscopy .. (PS: I linked the developed EMs) to expand on the example, the environmental scanning electron microscope (ESEM) is an example of in situ microscopy, specifically for studying samples in their natural or hydrated states. Traditional electron microscopes typically require samples to be in a vacuum, which can alter or damage certain materials or biological specimens. However, ESEM allows for imaging samples in a controlled environment with variable pressure, enabling observation of materials and biological samples without extensive sample preparation. thus, ""in situ microscopy"" as a thing does not exist but developing instruments to allow for in situ testing exits. the article is about the first The article should not exists the same way that an article about ""Operando X-ray"" should not. Cheers .. FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 14:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC) 13, 4 August 2023 (UTC) BEFORE style search turns up a review article ""Frontiers of in situ electron microscopy"" and and a couple of books In-situ Electron Microscopy: Applications in Physics, Chemistry and Materials Science , and chapter 1 of ""In-situ Electron Microscopy at High Resolution"" as decent-looking secondary RS for the field of in situ EM. The field thus seems notable. I think the crux of the dispute here is the researcher's POV. For some, EM technology is most important and the specimens studied are secondary. For others, the specimens are the important thing and the kind of EM used is secondary. For the latter, the ability to analyze specimen dynamics in situ is the important thing and so for them, situ EM is a bona fide field. -- {{u| Mark viking }} { Talk } 17:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Would be particularly good to see response to the most recent sources posted. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk ) 21:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC) 33, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Quantity of sources is not relevant. Quality, with regard to WP:42 is. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Edesio Alejandro: Fails WP:GNG , WP:BIO and WP:NMG . Only one reference to a source of questionable reliability. Geoff | Who, me? 20:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Cuba . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Article may need a copyedit but does indicate notability. Seems to meet both WP:BASIC /GNG and WP:NMUSIC . Bit of a BEFORE shows a ton of English language stuff. Allmusic prose biography with a credited author is promising per WP:ALLMUSIC [7] . Some sigcov in books eg [8] Credited composer on several notable films including some festival awards and tons of niminations. Given native language, Spanish language sources will likely provide more. — siro χ o 22:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC) 57, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new sources brought up in this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC) NMUSIC and means we really should be covering him. Looking for sources there are many articles in Cuban news. There is significant coverage here from Radio Enciclopedia , imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"West Moreton Anglican College: Fails the general and organization notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Australia . UtherSRG (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Likely . This college seems to be much better documented than many. Academic article here [9] , lots of newspaper articles, unclear to me if it's the same school as St. Paul's Day School under a change in name, but that school dates back to the 19th century. Jahaza ( talk ) 23:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Jahaza. Meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Calvin Lo: Except Forbes staff article, all news articles on internet have a clear COI, published without any research (Now removed from his page). LO doesn't qualifies for a Wikipedia page with just one news reference and really his scam to be a billionaire is not enough. I am sure, a lot of (his) paid editors will jump-in with a vote, lets UNKEEP them and this spam page. All around news is just about Fake announcements for buying F1 and other things. Simple, lets Wikipedia clean and ask Cunard why he created page by title Calvin Lo (businessman) instead of Calvin Lo? Fishgrail2 ( talk ) 14:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. This looks like an attack AfD directed at Cunard A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Cunard did not edit this article; he just moved the existing article to a different title. — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) , A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fishgrail2 , you appear to have misread the article history. Cunard did not create the article. Please redact those portions of your nomination statement that imply Cunard did anything Cundard did not do. ~ ONUnicorn ( Talk | Contribs ) problem solving 20:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, he's notable. Appears to not be what the article claims he is/glosses over it. He's apparently tried to fudge his way onto a billionaire's list, for example [17] . Article given here has a brief mention, but I think he's more notable as an, um, ""Forbes list enthusiast"" and his attempts get on the list, then for anything else. I won't wade into the discussion of how rich or not rich he is or pretends to be, but there's a story here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Hong Kong , and Canada . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC) //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Calvin_Lo_(businessman)_(2nd_nomination) which closed earlier this month. - Indefensible ( talk ) 21:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy per Indefensible ’s comment and in reaction to the troubled nomination statement above. — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Amit Malviya: Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 18:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC) 15, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 02:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] -- sources already in article are more than sufficient to satisfy GNG. Furthermore nom fails to adduce any actual deletion criteria. Central and Adams ( talk ) 20:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Ethnic cleansing in Kosovo: No objection to a to War crimes in the Kosovo War or a consensus target // Timothy :: talk 09:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Kosovo . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see how this page is POV, it simply offers s for the user to different ethnic cleansing campaigns that took place within Kosovo throughout the 20th century. If you could elaborate on your concerns about the DAB, I'd be happen to discuss this dispute in further detail. Yung Doohickey ( talk ) 03:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . While War crimes in the Kosovo War is indeed the most likely target for those typing ""Ethnic cleansing in Kosovo"" into the search box, the DAB is helpful, and doesn't present an obvious POV, as far as I can tell. Owen× ☎ 15:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] useful dab and not POV imo. AryKun ( talk ) 17:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong . This is not a dab page at all, just an WP:OR collection of articles that violates WP:DABCONCEPT : ""If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it and not a disambiguation page."" All the links are ""instances or examples"". Clarityfiend ( talk ) 01:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't necessarily see what qualifies as OR in this DAB. The rule you've provided, if applicable, would turn this page into an article, and it wouldn't need to be d. Yung Doohickey ( talk ) 05:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Googling ""Ethnic cleansing in/of Kosovo"" brings up only what happened in the Kosovo War, so I'm changing my lvote to to War crimes in the Kosovo War . Possibly a hatnote could be added there for the other articles (though not Yugoslav colonization of Kosovo , as less violent means were employed than is the case of ethnic cleansing ). Clarityfiend ( talk ) 12:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: or ? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. NYC Guru ( talk ) 10:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 4 valid entries. Boleyn ( talk ) 09:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as I can reasonably imagine at least a few people every year searching for the term while thinking of a particular campaign of ethnic cleansing. The entries all address ethnic cleansing in the region that is modern-day Kosovo. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 19:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Villieria: No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. Clearly fails GNG. Regarding SNG, there is no evidence (including in a search I made) that it meets the SNG. Appears to be just a census tract and is actually Pretoria North8000 ( talk ) 14:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] When you said "" is actually Pretoria "", I think you meant to say "" is actually a suburb of Pretoria "". GeographicAccountant ( talk ) 17:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If I could find anything that says that it is a suburb of Pretoria (I.E. is actually a village/town etc. ) I would not have nominated. I meant that it appears to be IN/ a part of Pretoria, not a suburb of it. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 17:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A ""suburb"" is a section of a town/city here. It is not a town itself. Saying ""it is a suburb of Pretoria"" & ""it is a part of Pretoria"" is the same thing here. Sincerely, GeographicAccountant ( talk ) 19:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe we are using different meanings of ""suburb"". I meant ""suburb"" in the typical USA context, which is a separate town/village with it's own government and which is not legally a part of the city which it is a suburb to. And to say that from the research I did, it appears that Villieria is not that.... that it is legally a part of the city of Pretoria. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 21:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC) NPLACE in each of those countries. Park3r ( talk ) 10:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a neighborhood in NE Pretoria, if you believe GMaps (the coords in the article go to dead center Pretoria). I couldn't find anything except real estate ads and clickbait, or routine listings. Mangoe ( talk ) 18:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC) NPLACE . It is a a populated, legally recognized place, and a suburb of Pretoria as described in multiple WP:RS [45] [46] [47] [48] , with a population of 14,000 people in the 2011 census [49] . Lots of references on Google Books, it has a primary school called Laerskool Villieria (Villieria Primary School) [50] . It has a police station called the Villieria Police Station [51] [52] Google Maps clearly shows the place exists with defined boundaries, doesn't point to the ""dead Centre Pretoria"", and Google Street View shows the school in the suburb [53] . There are a numerous references to the place in legal (Government Gazette) and other publications in Google Books. I'm quite surprised that a WP:BEFORE didn't turn any of this up. Here's a street sign that shows the entrance to the suburb on Google Street View [54] Park3r ( talk ) 10:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - In South Africa, a ""suburb"" is a section of a town or city (it is not a town or city itself) & since this is a South African Article, this is the definition we use here, as stated in my above reply to the nominator. As Park3r has stated above, Villieria is indeed one of the many suburbs that make up the city of Pretoria & it is a legally recognized place. I see the article has also been improved a lot since this AFD was announced & taking that into account, I vote for it to stay on Wikipedia. GeographicAccountant ( talk ) 10:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC) HEYed since this AfD was started, easily passes GNG, nice work by Uncle G. SportingFlyer T · C 19:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wow, what a lot of good work! With that amount of great sourced content, I'm in favor of whether it be via wp:IAR or practical edge case or GNG or ngeo or whatever. I'm not withdrawing the nomination, I would still like this to be decided. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 21:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You can't withdraw it since there's still a ! vote, but why wouldn't you if you had the chance? SportingFlyer T · C 22:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Coulomb Affair: No reliable sources have been put on the article in over a decade. The German Wiki article also has no references so wouldn't be of help. The links in the ""External links"" section are all unreliable. Even the Theosophy Wiki which is unreliable cannot provide a single independent source [60] , so you know this topic has not been covered outside of the field of Theosophy. There is no academic coverage or reception of this topic from historians. The only reliable source I have found is from J. Barton Scott but one source is not enough to have an article. Psychologist Guy ( talk ) 12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC) multiple sources listed in 'Literature' and 'External links' by different authors and publishers, both contemporary (19th century) and much later (20th century). Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 22:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment None of those sources are reliable unfortunately, they are all written by Theosophists or link to the main Theosophy website as does theosociety.org. http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/ fails WP:RS . We can't cite biased sources written by fringe advocates WP:Fringe . Are there any neutral academics or scholars that have discussed this topic in detail? I am not seeing any mainstream academic coverage. One of the books cited in the ""literature"" section is ""Hartmann, Franz: Wahrheit und Dichtung, Die Theosophische Gesellschaft und der Wunderschrank von Adyar . o. O. 1906"", no page numbers are given. Looks like WP:OR to me, but Franz Hartmann was a Theosophist. We wouldn't cite this source. It look's to me like someone has just dumped those sources to pad out the article. Psychologist Guy ( talk ) 22:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This was a notable event in the history of Theosophy, and it has been studied by historians. It is covered on pages 87–95 of Campbell's Ancient Wisdom Revived [61] , which summarizes the importance thusly: In order to comprehend the larger significance of the Coulomb affair and the report of the S.P.R.-the reasons the controversy drew so much attention in both India and Europe-it is necessary to examine the symbolic position of Theosophy in Asia and in the West... The year of the Coulomb affair was the year in which the forces of change and those for perpetuation of the colonial situation struggled with the symbolic issue of the Ilbert Bill, a measure to give Indians greater power over their own affairs. The issue inflamed passions on both sides and was associated with deep Anglo-Indian hostility against the natives and those Europeans who sympathized with them. The Coulomb affair reflected as well the antagonism between Theosophists and Christian missionaries. Theosophical support of Hindu religions was counterproductive to the Christians efforts to evangelize. Madame Coulomb found a receptive publisher when she offered her letters to a missionary college journal. A second source from a historian of religion which covers the topic in detail is Scott, J. Barton. ""Miracle Publics: Theosophy, Christianity, and the Coulomb Affair"" . History of Religions . 49 (2): 172–196. doi : 10.1086/649525 . ISSN 0018-2710 . Here is the summary of this paper, from its introduction: With an eye to recent scholarship that theorizes the contemporary relations of religion, publicity, and secularity, this essay returns to an earlier moment in the unfolding of global modernity: the colonial and occult late nineteenth century. It analyzes documents from the Coulomb Affair of 1884-85 in order to ask how various participants in that scandal conceived of the public sphere and its purchase upon the truthful, the divine, and the real--a complex of concerns distilled by the Theosophical slogan, ""There is no religion higher than truth."" In particular, I ask how Theosophists and Christian missionaries negotiated the ethic of openness so characteristic of the affair and, arguably, of modern publics more broadly. These sources demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Jfire ( talk ) 00:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] there isn't enough secondary material to make an article about this. Maybe someone could throw a line in the Theosophy article, but that's about all the notability I can find. Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 00:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The sources presented by Jfire are convincing. Plus, the German page has 2 footnotes with what seems to be reliable refs. Plus, a really quick look at the GB results show that this is an important event in the history of Theosophy and beyond, and that it was discussed in numerous reliable sources, more or less extensively. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: to assess the sources provided Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 04:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak It is indeed frustratingly difficult to find coverage that is not authored by the Theosophists themselves, because boy did they ever sweep the field on this one in the following century. However, I think the two sources presented above should be sufficient for minimal requirements. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 13:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Alaska Historical Society: 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC) WP:ATD would be a to List of U.S. state historical societies and museums . Curbon7 ( talk ) 01:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It looks like the Alaska Historical Society's activities regularly make state news. I was able to find a few recent articles about its conferences ( [8] [9] [10] ), and there seems to be plenty more on Newspapers.com ( [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] ). TheCatalyst31 Reaction • Creation 06:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] a state historical society would be very unusual if it did not receive enough coverage to make it notable, and it seems TheCatalyst31 has found enough to demonstrate notability. Mccapra ( talk ) 10:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note — Alaska History (journal) was d through PROD in 2019. If this article is kept, that article should be restored for the purposes of merging into this article, as the two topics are closely intertwined. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . State historical societies are highly notable in the United States. They often maintain the principal state archives . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the article needs improvement, but I see sourcing that would allow for a more descriptive stub to be built. Agree with RadioKAOS' suggestion about the journal as well as they can easily be covered together. Star Mississippi 13:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ; all state historical societies are individually articled. Swampyank ( talk ) 16:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC) This subject meets the WP:GNG as there are secondary coverage of activities done by the organization. Let'srun ( talk ) 20:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC) GNG based on the sources found by Catalyst. Given the age of the organization I would bet there are more newspaper articles on them. TipsyElephant ( talk ) 03:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Yvonne Harrison: Since I can't find any more SIGCOV otherwise about the Puerto Rican athlete, nominating for deletion. Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 03:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Puerto Rico . Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 03:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment SIGCOV requires significant coverage from sources independent of the subject . I believe that some will argue that her coaching page on St John's University is SIGCOV, but technically that isn't since St John's U is her employer and not independent . Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 03:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] She won a gold medal at a central american and caribbean games and participated at an Olympic games, so based on that, I will say . Jeanette irresistible Martin ( si? ) 07:18, January 11, 2024 (UTC) Strong , thank you for nominating the article because it helps us improve it. Please read the first part of Yvonne Harrison#Biography , Harrison's name became a household name in Puerto Rico in part because of the coverage given to her career by local newspapers such as El Vocero and El Nuevo Dia , which follow her accomplishments and doings almost on a daily basis. The daily coverage in multiple newspapers and the ""household name"" descriptor are the clearest possible evidence of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG . Annoyingly the newspaper website paywalls all content over 30 days old, but you can see from the search results that there are a number of website hits, not even including the paper newspaper hits where I assume most coverage was published. -- Habst ( talk ) 16:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As I stated, I searched those newspapers and I saw no coverage. All four articles seem to have at the best of my ability and level of access, mention her in passing. Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 16:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Their archives don't go as far back as when Harrison competed, however; I would AGF that the creating user 20 years ago knew what they're talking about, as otherwise I don't see why anyone would write that. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC) ""At 16, She's Letter Perfect"" . Newsday . 1992-10-08. p. 181 . Retrieved 2024-01-11 . Please read it in its entirety. It is a full page story dedicated entirely to the subject, clearly demonstrating WP:SIGCOV . It has a lot of details, including that she was ""best friends"" with Flo-Jo before her death, with them calling each other once per week and staying at Flojo's home. That is pretty amazing to me actually, and deserves more fleshing out in the article. But yes, this is a very strong to me. -- Habst ( talk ) 19:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . This find by Habst is excellent and proves notability. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Hanoi Medical University: Has had maintenance tags since 2008(!). Has promotional language. Perhaps a into Hanoi ? Qcne (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Qcne (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Medicine , and Vietnam . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC) 10, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - there should be sources in Vietnamese that could be translated. - Indefensible ( talk ) 07:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Searching for ""Đại học Y Hà Nội"" results in thousands and thousands of results. For example https://daibieunhandan.vn/giao-duc--y-te1/truong-dai-hoc-y-ha-noi-don-chao-1-349-tan-sinh-vien-trong-le-khai-giang-nam-hoc-moi-i344460/ , https://viettimes.vn/truong-dai-hoc-y-ha-noi-khai-giang-nam-hoc-moi-trong-tam-la-chuyen-doi-so-quan-tri-hieu-qua-post170281.html , https://tuoitre.vn/diem-san-truong-dai-hoc-y-ha-noi-tu-19-23-5-diem-20230726215636475.htm . The subject is a century old and the leading medical school in Vietnam, it should easily meet on notability. - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . We generally state-accredited universities. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . It does not appear that an adequate WP:BEFORE was done, and while I haven't thoroughly investigated the sourcing, it's pretty inconceivable that qualifying sources do not exist. The remedy for examples of systemic bias like this is improving the articles, not AfDing them. {{u| Sdkb }} talk 22:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"PetaPixel: Onel 5969 TT me 12:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Photography , and Websites . North America 1000 12:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , we use them as a source nearly 400 times , and there's no shortage of references to them in reliable sources (note the current page's further reading for some examples). The problem appears to be finding sources that talk exclusively about them, but this is a challenge of them being referenced so frequently but often for only a paragraph or two in part of a larger story. For example, The New York Times has referred to them ~40 times , The Washington Post ~10 times , etc. At some point all that ""minor"" coverage, IMO, makes the subject notable. As an aside, WP:CORPDEPTH gives examples of ""trivial coverage"", and most of the coverage I'm finding would exceed the examples given (thus being non-trivial). For example, their interview with Camille Lepage , which was referenced by FOX News (in article currently), The Washington Post , and other major media outlets. — Locke Cole • t • c 15:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC) CORPDEPTH by virtue of being a stub, but still a complete one and barely passing the bar of not being brief (but it's pretty close). There is significant coverage and notability by virtue of WP:GNG as it has been covered by reliable secondary sources and has been included in a number of citations and articles. Kcmastrpc ( talk ) 22:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . A news site mentioning the subject in passing is a passing mention, it might be considered an RS but doesn't pass COREDEPTH. There isn't an significant coverage in the article currently, not here, and I can't find any searching online. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions ∆ ° co-ords ° 20:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC) NCORP - Examples of trivial coverage explicitly states it is not exhaustive, but the type of coverage I see for PetaPixel is significantly more than the trivial examples given. It's not merely quotes, they're citing them as a source for their tertiary content. It's also rather quick to go from article creation to deletion in less than a month in what is very clearly a WP:STUB . — Locke Cole • t • c 00:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's no discussion or analysis of the company in any of that, just passing mention of their reporting. The timeline of article creation has nothing to do with notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions ∆ ° co-ords ° 23:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The ""passing mentions"" listed there are much more benign than the type available in our sources. — Locke Cole • t • c 21:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Struck my comment given the source found by Skynxnex, . -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions ∆ ° co-ords ° 21:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh ( talk ) 08:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . PetaPixel is pretty widely cited throughout photography press archived on archive.org, a few examples: If you're bored with your camera read this book , f11 magazine : Petapixel is the first port of call for many photographers with articles, photographs, reviews and good worldwide gossip. , and Amateur Photographer . And mainstream press: A photo-editing AI thought this blurry photo was actor Ryan Gosling's face and fairly high praise when using it as a source When Pictures Are Too Perfect , WSJ: PetaPixel, which has been out front in chronicling the McCurry case and other Photoshop controversies, reported on ... . And the interviews are referenced in textbooks: Psychology, 2nd edition , publisher Oxford. And here's a write-up about PetaPixel in a magazine Amateur Photographer : Nothing short of a portal to a wealth of photographic knowledge, filtered and available at click of a mouse, PetaPixel is the brainchild of computer programmer and photography enthusiast Michael Zhang, and photographer and writer Jessica Lum. The blog is updated regularly and covers a lot of ground, which is impressive for a site that began only two years ago. and book Blogging for Photographers : Not as math-intensive as that description might make you think, Petapixel gets a lot of coverage in the photo blogosphere for its impressive mixture of up-to-date news stories and well researched perennial posts with lots of great advice for photographers of all skill levels. , and, to me, a surprising number of cites/references in books on Google books . Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A notable and long-running photography web site, often used as a reliable source in Wikipedia articles. Klausness ( talk ) 12:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Jason Schmidt (photographer): Successful career for notable projects, but notability is not inherited. No suitable WP:ATD . Boleyn ( talk ) 12:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and New York . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as non-notable. Alextejthompson ( Ping me or leave a message on my talk page ) 19:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . His website's about page conveniently lists a bunch of significant coverage. De Stefani, Lucia (2015-11-19). ""See the Photographers Behind Some of the World's Best Images"" . TIME . Retrieved 2024-02-14 . ""Caught in the art"" . The Los Angeles Times . 2007-02-25. p. 67 . Retrieved 2024-02-14 . Rosenberg, Karen (2006-10-12). ""Show and Tell"" . New York Magazine . Retrieved 2024-02-14 . ""Portrait of the Artist"" (PDF) . British Journal of Photography : 18–23. January 2007. Lombardi, Lisa (July 2001). ""Meet the new Portraitists"" . Photo District News . 20 (7). Jfire ( talk ) 06:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The references listed above seem to establish that he is an important photographer in his own right (not just by association with famous subjects he has photographed). There are at least three reputably published books of his work – which is also widely published in periodicals, exhibited and collected. As such, the article seems like one that should be kept and improved (perhaps by adding some of the above refs). -- Cl3phact0 ( talk ) 11:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with above points that the references listed suggest notability and the article could easily be improved. Editing84 ( talk ) 08:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"The Legend of Shelby the Swamp Man: Fails WP:NTV . Spinixster (chat!) 10:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . Spinixster (chat!) 10:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC) GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 12:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak [24] and this [25] , combined with the Common Sense media link in the article, I think we just have enough for notability. Just barely over the line. Add this for what it's worth [26] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know if the Washington Post source can be used since it seems like it's just a listing of the shows airing for the day. Spinixster (chat!) 03:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Oaktree b. The sources seem ample to meet the WP:SIGCOV threshold of covering the article subject sufficiently directly and in sufficient detail that no original research is needed to extract the content . Even the WaPo paragraph reaches that threshold in my opinion -- it's a bare 55 words but can be cited directly for a number of salient facts without running into OR concerns. As a fallback, if not kept, I'd advocate merging to Ax Men as a new L3 section, since that seems like a reasonable way to cover a marginally-notable spinoff. -- Visviva ( talk ) 03:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Shefi Yishai: This article Shefi Yishai does not meet the notoriety to remain on Wikipedia nor can I find reliable and independent sources Acartonadooopo ( talk ) 16:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 17 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 16:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Theatre , and Israel . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC) MUSICBIO #1. Sufficient coverage in Hebrew RS such as [28] [29] [30] [31] Marokwitz ( talk ) 12:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC) . GNG is met (barely), though this article certainly needs a cleanup and probably a stubification. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 15:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC) this says it's the second nomination, of this article, but I can't seem to find the first (maybe there was a mistake?). Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Allan Nonymous by removing information you are reducing the relevance and notoriety of the article. Acartonadooopo ( talk ) 16:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Clear pass of MUSICBIO #1. This nomination is the product of failed reasearch. gidonb ( talk ) 03:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Basile High School: I could not find significant coverage in secondary , reliable sources , just trivial mentions in local newspapers. Per SCHOOLOUTCOMES , the general consensus is that high schools are not inherently notable. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 00:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Louisiana . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 00:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] it then, and I'll stop wasting my time creating pages. EddieDean19 ( talk ) 00:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC) I originally BLARed this article, so I propose ing it back to Evangeline Parish Public Schools . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 00:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC) DEMOLISH , and already there is a WP:HEY case for ing it. However, it is important to note that the sources on the page are largely local press. News reports and articles like these are primary sources, and so we don't currently have the multiple reliable independent secondary sources required for this to pass GNG, and the nom mentions SCHOOLOUTCOMES so notability is not presumed. However the school is 99 years old, and coverage is sustained over that period. Per WP:SUSTAINED Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability . An indicator of notability is not a clear GNG pass, but it is what it says: a good indicator that this is notable. In addition to local press, I found mentions in books (but beware the Italian school of the same name). The book mentions were largely directories, local plans etc, or in some cases newspaper collections, e.g. [52] . Again, nothing for GNG but plenty for SUSTAINED. It aso gets included in the study in this paper [53] although that is because of the district rather than the school. Thus, all in all, I think there is good indication of notability here, even though it is not a clear GNG pass. It may be weak support, but it is still a for me. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 21:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough regarding demolish; Self-trout . That said, as you've noted, I don't think this is a HEY case because, as you've noted, all of the sources are primary. SUSTAINED does not displace the GNG; like the GNG, it offers another presumption (an ""indicator"") that something (usually an event) may be notable. There might be an ""indication"" of notability here, but we still need SIGCOV in secondary sources to get past GNG. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC) , struck 23:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . While breaking news is indeed considered primary, newspaper articles in general are not considered WP:PRIMARY as they are subject to editorial review, etc. The purpose of this is stated: Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. That makes a lot of sense. What we are dealing with here is definitely not breaking news. Newspaper sources should not be dismissed wholesale as PRIMARY sources. Jacona ( talk ) 14:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG , as with pretty much any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The connection to Newspapers.com from the Wikipedia Library has been restored after a short blip...and there are over 14,000 matches for ""Basile High School"". While it will take some time to go through these, it appears there is WP:SUSTAINED coverage from around the beginning of the 20th century to the present. While some of these are WP:ROUTINE , some are good sources that will count as significant coverage . This article will pass the general notability guideline . Jacona ( talk ) 12:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC) MILL coverage in the Basile Weekly ; it seems that the Weekly has regular updates about the goings-on in the schools, largely what student clubs are doing and awards/achievements of students. Here's my analysis of some sources from the sampling: MILL coverage of commencement Primary source (proceedings of local school board meeting published in newspaper) MILL coverage of student clubs MILL coverage of student clubs MILL coverage of school board refusing to pay bills and brief mention that the school should hire more janitors MILL coverage of student clubs voorts ( talk / contributions ) 23:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Passes GNG. Bring back the SNG for schools so we can end this sort of time-draining nomination. Carrite ( talk ) 22:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] amen. Jacona ( talk ) 00:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Maria Cherkasova: All assertions of notability are of ""worked for/on X"" except for a single event, so falls under WP:BIO1E . UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Environment , and Russia . UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC) I cannot find sources that substantiate notability. Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://greencleanguide.com/maria-cherkasova-ecologist-and-journalist/ generic content farm ~ generic biography ✘ No http://www.seu.ru/members/cnep.htm published by the organisation which Cherkasova allegedly co-founded ✘ No https://ecologyofrussia.ru/zhenshchiny-za-prirodu/ generic content farm only one short biography from a list ✘ No http://zmdosie.ru/chitalnyj-zal-zm/rekomenduem/819-posledstviya-raketno-kosmicheskoj ? passing mention ✘ No https://www.svoboda.org/a/24197748.html the only actually reliable source I could find one short quote from Cherkassova ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . All the best, Akakievich ( talk ) 16:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I actually disagree about Ecology of Russia, at the bottom of the page they say it is an independent media. I do not see why it is not reliable. It is indeed one bio out of the list, but I was able to confirm most of the text of the article using it. In addition, it talks about awards, and, indeed, I was able to confirm one of the awards by the UN press release (now all added to the article). I am leaning . Ymblanter ( talk ) 07:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps I was uncharitable in my assessment, I just don't think a content farm that is unlikely to verify anything they print is particularly reliable. All the same, WP:BASIC requires at least two independent, reliable sources, so this alone does not make Cherkasova notable. Akakievich ( talk ) 09:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment An academic journal published by the University of Michigan has an entire article talking about her work [30] which goes a long way towards establishing notability. DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 10:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - she is also one of the people profiled in the 1998 book Women pioneers for the environment , which is now listed in the Further Reading section of the article. There are 6 pages of details on Cherkasova in that book. DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 11:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per given the above book as well as [31] [32] which both have sigcov. Additionally, they've had some success in academic publication themselves: [33] has 91 citations on google scholar, [34] has 1. Seem to be more, but I'm satisfied. — siro χ o 19:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Buda, Nebraska: – dlthewave ☎ 18:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Nebraska . – dlthewave ☎ 18:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment what township is it in, if any? Would that be a possible target? Does it still exist? There is no content here other than a name and an indication that a post office might have once been located there. Google Search results are filled with auto-generated spam, and also references to a place in Lancaster County, Nebraska , but nothing reliable about this one. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 16:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Fitzpatrick's Nebraska Place-Names refers to Buda as ""town"" (back when it was called Shelby). It's unclear from the text whether the place had ever been incorporated (which would make it inherently notable) or if it's just a sloppy use of the term, but it's probably worth searching for additional sources before deleting this for good. — Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo? ); April 3, 2023 ; 05:20 (UTC) 05:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC) Fails GNG and NGEO. Another place name connected to the wave of CE immigation, but no indication this meets GEO. If any sources exist, I think they will be in sources about Hungarian immigration, not railroad sources. Ping me if sources are found and added to article . // Timothy :: talk 05:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 08:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Kearn(e)y Station (1866), Shelby (1876), Buda (1878) [40] [41] Was prominent enough at the time for an appearance in Around the World in Eighty Days , but don't confuse with the stage stop . fiveby ( zero ) 21:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ellis,Mark R; Stauffer, Heather E. (2006). Kearney . p. 44. ""Several Hundred Lost Towns Once Sought Greatness"" . March 31, 1910. was carried by a number of Nebraska papers and has The most famous was Kearney station. This was located across the Platte river from old Fort Kearney... but unfortunately goes on to confuse with Fort Kearny Station the stage stop west of the fort. Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC) WP:GEOLAND requires non-trivial sources to meet GNG for places lacking legal recognition. The above are simple mentions, nothing which meets SIGCOV for passing GNG; they show nothing other than existence and existence doesn't mean notability. // Timothy :: talk 11:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You bolded added to article above, so adding to the article i was. There's not a great deal to say about ""Buda: The oldest ""Town"" in Buffalo County"" but there is something mildly interesting, it just takes a bit of time and effort. But if WP:GEOLAND frowns on unincorporated places, railroad stations and immigration from central Europe and calls for it to be d, then i've sure got better thing to do than go looking for sources. fiveby ( zero ) 13:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] satisfies GNG for places. Djflem ( talk ) 14:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC) The source above ""Buda: The oldest ""Town"" in Buffalo County"" is interesting. It clearly existed and has a some history. Its not a BLP, so think this article won't hurt anything if it remains. The above source persuades me more that there would probably be information in immigration sources. A local historical society [42] might be able to point to sources. I'll own up to a bit or two of ILIKEIT on this one. // Timothy :: talk 15:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On the edge of OR and RS, but 19th century should probably get a little break, it's a lot more work. The real value to WP here i think will be a link to Moses H. Sydenham . fiveby ( zero ) 15:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (nom) now that we have some sources and history. – dlthewave ☎ 00:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"MV Nantucket: I don't think it is more notable than MV Martha's Vineyard, which doesn't even have an article on Wikipedia. Interstellarity ( talk ) 20:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation , Florida , and Massachusetts . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC) FYI, large ferries usually get their own articles. That's not to say they should -- just that it's common. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC) WikiProject Ships . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] just as notable as any other ferry of which there are many articles. Her sister ship not having an article isn't justification for deleting this one. Perhaps the OP should create an article about the MV Martha's Vineyard to accompany this one. Murgatroyd49 ( talk ) 08:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I agree with Murgatroyd49 . A stub can be expanded. QuincyMorgan ( talk ) 19:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - I'm seeing what I presume is significant coverage in Marine Engineering plus some meager coverage in The New York Times . A bevy of coverage from Martha's Vineyard (particularly when the ferry breaks down) puts it over the GNG threshold for me, but the case is not particularly strong. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak as per sources here , just about meets GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I think another week is warranted with two s and two weak s. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - seems to have sufficient coverage online although more sources need to be added to the article. - Indefensible ( talk ) 20:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Biodiesel in the United Kingdom: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 13:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC) Doesn't look like trivia to me. If Biodiesel wasn't so long I would have voted to it there; as it is, it works best as a standalone. Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . ""Trivia"" is not a valid for deletion . It seems to pass WP:GNG , based on a quick view of significant coverage in reliable sources . It's part of a series on Biofuels and Energy law . The current articles on energy , and biodiesel specifically, are getting too long for our core readership to read on their cell phones, so a back is not feasible. Bearian ( talk ) 15:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] UTC) Comment Sorry ""trivia"" was the wrong word - I should have written something like ""excessive detail about historical UK taxation"". Chidgk1 ( talk ) 07:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Don't see a valid reason for the nomination. Excessive detail is a content issue. What Wikipedia policy the article fails has not been enunciated, so the nomination smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT . Rupples ( talk ) 21:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC) Summary style maybe. But I don’t like the article because it wastes the reader’s time - a lot is not specific to UK and that which is specific to UK I doubt is useful nowadays Chidgk1 ( talk ) 14:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"BMI Lehman Engel Musical Theatre Workshop: #BMI Lehman Engel Musical Theater Workshop , but it does not have that enough sources to establish notability. A {{ notability }} tag was placed three days ago but no new sourcing was introduced. Toadette Edit! 18:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep. This is an important musical theatre institution, numerous sources about which are easily found on Google as well as pre-internet sources. It already had plenty of good sources, and I added a couple more. This article should be greatly expanded. I think the nominator should do a Google news search and withdraw this AfD. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 22:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Clearly notable, given the number, range and weight of sources (the retrospective on its fortieth anniversary in the industry magazine Backstage should be enough od an indication on its own really, but there are numerous others). - SchroCat ( talk ) 05:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC) SNOW . Clearly a notable organization with lots of WP:SIGCOV across several decades in a wide range of sources. It even gets 47 hits in google scholar which shows there is coverage in academic publications as well as in the many newspaper and magazines used as sources in the article already. This was not a well thought through nomination. 4meter4 ( talk ) 17:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Zubaan Books: It's not a an article shall be created for a publishing company for it's general publications. In that case, every book publishing company and NGO on the globe shall have its own page. There are lots of feminist publishing houses and this happened to be the first. The parent company page already exists, then why do we have a different page for this. Thewikizoomer ( talk ) 19:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak There is one good source, one so-so given in the article as it stands now (both green per sourcebot). I can only find evidence that they exist (book reviews for books they've published, list of books by them at various book fairs in India). One more decent source, it would be a . Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Live Mint seems to be better than the Hindu source, both in the article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per sigcov already in the page and this article in The Punch . I also don't appreciate the nominator threatening me with administrative action for deprodding this article earlier. pburka ( talk ) 21:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That’s really inappropriate. Closing admin see: diff 1 , diff 2 — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This publisher meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. A search for their name in Wikipedia Library returns 196 hits in magazines and journals. In addition, I found media coverage of the press in Scroll.in ( link ), Outlook India ( link ), The Punch Magazine , Ananke Magazine , Paper Planes , Frontlist , and other places. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 22:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - lots of refs and notable. — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - notability per above. Also note to the nominator, pleass note that WP:WHATABOUT is not a good reason to nominate an article for deletion. Raladic ( talk ) 18:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . Espresso Addict ( talk ) 01:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Zoltan Torey: Coverage confirms he wrote a few books but nothing indepth. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO . LibStar ( talk ) 23:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Psychology , and Hungary . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 01:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . LibStar ( talk ) 01:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the SMH obit, which contrary to nomination's claim is indepth, is not enouh to convince you I've included details of book reviews below. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 07:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC) The MIT Press Philosophy in Review [26] , [27] , Terrible Gifts David McCooey , 2003 review, Australian Book Review , September no. 254 2003; (p. 50-51) — Review of Out of Darkness : A Memoir Zoltan Torey , 2003 autobiography Light in the Darkness Shane McCauley , 2003 review, The West Australian , 6 September 2003; (p. 16) — Review of Out of Darkness : A Memoir Zoltan Torey , 2003 autobiography Conscious Decisions Mary Rose Liverani , 2003 review, The Weekend Australian , 26-27 July 2003; (p. 11) — Review of Out of Darkness : A Memoir Zoltan Torey , 2003 autobiography ~654 words Seeing Clearly Through the Mind's Eye Lesley Chow , 2003 review, The Sunday Age , 20 July 2003; (p. 10) — Review of Out of Darkness : A Memoir Zoltan Torey , 2003 autobiography ~691 words Light from Darkness Luke Slattery , 2003 review, The Weekend Australian , 28-29 June 2003; (p. 24) — Review of Out of Darkness : A Memoir Zoltan Torey , 2003 autobiography ~907 words The Remarkable Clarity of What a Blind Man Sees A. P. Riemer , 2003 review, The Sydney Morning Herald , 5-6 July 2003; (p. 15) — Review of Out of Darkness : A Memoir Zoltan Torey , 2003 autobiography Also worth looking at [28] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 13:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with the book reviews above, passes AUTHOR. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , that's plenty of reviews. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 09:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Proposed expungements of the impeachments of Donald Trump: The second point in NOTNEWS states that ""routine news coverage of announcements... while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage"" . I would consider all of the reporting in reliable sources I could locate about this effort to be coverage of the latest antics of MTG and the divisions between House Republicans. If it turns out to be a nothingburger , which appears likely, it certainly will not pass the WP:10YT . I can see a case for draftifying the article, to be moved back to mainspace if the proposed expungement actually takes place. House Blaster talk 22:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . House Blaster talk 22:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I see that there is reporting quoting law professors on the legal theory here (i.e. can you constitutionally ""expunge"" an impeachment ?), is there any law review article by law professors on the subject of expunging impeachments that would demonstrate notability of the legal theory? I could see a page on the legal theory being notable and lasting, but I'm skeptical on the article as is. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 23:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See the forbes article Georgetown University Professor Joshua Chafetz told Newsweek “an impeachment cannot be expunged because it has effect outside of the House,” noting the House couldn’t technically undo the Senate trial, while George Washington Law Professor Jonathan Turley told Reuters “it is not like a constitutional DUI. Once you are impeached, you are impeached.” vs. “I am hard-pressed to see why the House is bound by an impeachment passed by a prior one,” seems to indicate some level of scholarly disagreement, but not enough sourcing on its own for notability for the legal theory. I'm tempted to move to Expungement of impeachments in the United States and , but not sure enough to ! vote yet. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 23:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would not move, as there is no other instance which I am aware of of this having been previously discussed for impeachments. SecretName101 ( talk ) 23:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe the deletion here would necessitate duplicate sections at the articles describing each of Trump's impeachments. This is a notable-enough proposal (having received backing from two of the House's Republican majority's leading figures in Stefanik and Speaker McCarthy) that it warrants mention on Wikipedia. I believe it is best described in context that outlines the debate of what it would actually mean, and that having two long duplicate sections on two already-long pages would be un-ideal, hence why a separate article makes clear sense. SecretName101 ( talk ) 23:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC) NOTCRYSTAL grounds are pretty weak. This is about a matter for which resolutions have already been introduced. Not very speculative there, and plenty of articles have existed on resolutions and legislation before they were passed (and many that were never passed). Obviously, I am not saying every proposed resolution or bill introduced warrants enough notability: I am only highlighting that NOTCRYSTAL does not really fit this. SecretName101 ( talk ) 00:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 23:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . As far as I know, political initiatives don't require more than GNG (like political parties do) and this plainly meets GNG within the first two sources provided. WP:10YT seems mostly to suggest avoiding edit wars in a case like this as consensus can change. The topic exhibited a level of WP:PERSISTENCE at this point, if editors in 10 years determine it doesn't fit it will be removed at that time. As another editor nodded to, NOTCRYSTAL doesn't apply to something that has already happened. Last but not least, WP:NOTPAPER . — siro χ o 04:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Properly sourced content that passes GNG. -- Valjean ( talk ) ( PING me ) 13:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . As I commented before, this subject is notable and warrants contextualized mention on the project, which without this stand-alone article would result duplicative lengthy sections within the already-lengthy articles about each impeachment. SecretName101 ( talk ) 16:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC) Cited sources show sigcov. Oppose move as being a big rescope (although I will create that here as a {{ R with possibilities }} ) . Decided against that per WP:REDYES . C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 21:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC) C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 21:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC) Per WP:GNG and others. Conyo14 ( talk ) 21:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is an interesting case as it is an example of how Trump’s volume of controversies has numbed the public to the historical rarity of many of them. Here, the discussion pertains to an attempted to expunge a presidential impeachment, which is a significant and rare occurrence in American history. I vote to this article because if this vote and congressional debate had taken place with any other U.S. president, there would be no discussion about whether it should be kept as an article. It would be an easy Keep. Same here and I vote to this article. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 13:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question From the article, this effort is currently a couple of resolutions that have been dropped in the hopper by members of congress with no further action. What is the traditional threshold for notability for ""normal"" congressional resolutions? I ask as I don't follow congressional articles, but I know members of congress drop resolutions all the time. That includes ones they know have no chance in ever passing or will be killed in committee, for reasons as varied as a favor to a constituent/donor or putting on a show for the base. I find it difficult to believe many, if any, of those resolutions have Wikipedia articles, despite the fact they are covered, especially by political commentators. It seems more appropriate to wait to have a standalone article until this effort has progressed to a bill/hearing/comittee passage/vote/whatever is the usual threshold of notability. If there is precedent for even just a resolution having an article, so be it. However, I'm inclined to say no, this content should just be covered as a paragraph in the impeachment articles, not a standalone article, unless this effort advances a couple more steps along the process. Dave ( talk ) 22:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Moabdave This is an effort that has been given support now by the Speaker of the House, which I believe places it above most resolutions in notability. That, combined with the highly unusual nature of what is being proposed in the resolutions, gives it far more notability than most resolutions. I'd draw a partial parallel to efforts to impeach Joe Biden , the effort and what is being proposed in the resolutions is more notable than the individual resolutions themselves. It also has resulted in some interesting public discussion of the legal implications (or lack thereof) of such a resolution. SecretName101 ( talk ) 23:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and as for precedent, I'd point to efforts to impeach Donald Trump , efforts to impeach Joe Biden , and efforts to impeach George W. Bush as examples of Wikipedia articles created to cover efforts that (at the time the articles were started) involved resolutions that had not demonstrated any likelihood of passing or even reaching a full floor-vote on adoption. Efforts to impeach Barack Obama did not even have any resolutions to actually impeach. SecretName101 ( talk ) 23:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC) Cited sources are easily enough to pass WP:SIGCOV . 'Nuff said. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk ) 01:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] has significant coverage. Any proposal to expunge a presidential impeachment is unprecendented and therefore far from a ""routine announcement"" under NOTNEWS, as seen by the amount of news and legal coverage wondering whether it's even possible. Pinguinn 🐧 11:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"East Rugby League: Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 ( talk ) 19:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 20:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England . Owen× ☎ 00:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system plus found a few sources not yet added - . Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Gomer Pyle: If the character is not notable, I suggest a and/or to List of The Andy Griffith Show characters Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. . Spinixster (chat!) 07:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Spinixster (chat!) 07:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. characters#Private First Class Gomer Pyle . This character does not seem to have enough SIGCOV. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment ""Gomer"" or ""Gomer Pyle"" has become a slang term for ""fool"" in English. That suggests significance to me. I will see if I can find SIGCOV not already present in the article. Wow, that's a lot... Gomer Pyle and the Music of Southern Poverty Rural Comedy, Public Persona, and the Wavering Line Between Fiction and Reality [9] Gomer Questions Not all of these are suitable for use in the article, but they're there. Stumble, bumble, mumble: TV's image of the South When I use a word . . . Medical slang: gomers and gomerettes Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 20:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That seems like notability only on one thing for me and can be easily d into the show's legacy section. As for the sources... First and third sources are blogs and are thus unreliable. Southerncultures and Proquest source are just passing mentions on the show. That leaves the medical slang source, which can be used for the legacy section, as I said, because that's not enough to prove the character's individual notability. Spinixster (chat!) 12:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact that this character was the lead on its own television show causes me to question whether it's appropriate to it into a list of characters on another show, which seems to have run for five seasons. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 00:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would think to it to Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C instead because it seems like the character is more popularized by it rather than The Andy Griffith Show. Spinixster (chat!) 02:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Weak . My BEFORE suggests he may be notable due to his cultural impact (per cited BMJ scholarly article and some other sources above). Here's another good academic ref: “There Goes Old Gomer” Rural Comedy, Public Persona, and the Wavering Line Between Fiction and Reality . And Stumble, bumble, mumble: TV's image of the South . Granted, the first one is balancing on SIGCOV, and I couldn't (quickly) access the second one, but with what we have here already I am was leaning . Ping me if anyone does a deeper dig in the sources and wants to dispute SIGCOV being met. PS. Changed from weak to abstain/leaning because I did not notice Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. . I am not sure if the characer has stand-alone notability separate from the show, this would require more reading than I have time dedicate. For those who want to vote and would like me to change my vote, please tell me which sources contain SIGCOV about the character, not the show? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The two sources were already broken down by me above. Spinixster (chat!) 07:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Did you look at the first one I link? I don't see it mentioned? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's the second link Darkfrog gave. Spinixster (chat!) 09:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - The problem with a is the target could be the character, the term, or the nickname in Full Metal Jacket . [10] So I don't see an obvious consensus for a target, so it has to be at least kept. The article could be trimmed and cleaned up, rather than being d. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The nickname in Full Metal Jacket seems to be based on the character. But either way, if it isn't notable, it shouldn't be kept ( WP:N still applies here). An option would be merging the page into Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. and then making a disambiguation page, or just ing it fully to Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. instead. Spinixster (chat!) 10:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I'm looking at the discussion above, and it's like it's an exercise in how can we dismiss references one-by-one. Which makes it look quite a bit like WP:IDONTLIKEIT . The character appeared not only initially on the Andy Griffith Show, but then was deemed worthy enough to be spun off to their own show which ran for 5 years. And also appeared in character on the very popular and renowned I Love Lucy and Carol Burnett shows. And as noted above, the name has entered the lexicon of language. See also: wikt:gomer#Etymology_3 . - jc37 10:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jc37 Just because the character is the main character or has appeared in many other shows does not mean that they are notable on their own. Gomer Pyle the series may be notable, but not necessarily Gomer Pyle the character. See WP:N and WP:PAGEDECIDE . Spinixster (chat!) 11:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia. Even if something is popular, that does not mean it warrants a separate page. This character page can be easily d into the Gomer Pyle series page. Spinixster (chat!) 11:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just because the series may be notable, does not mean the character is not notable. You're just doing a circular fallacy. And all of Wikipedia could be d into a single page. That does not mean that we should. And yes, I'm very well aware of WP:N , etc. I'm watching you seemingly trying to dismiss things individually, rather than see the topic in the aggregate. And others above have shown you sources for notability. Our focus is our readers and what they might look for. So yes, this really comes across as IDONTLIKEIT. - jc37 11:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jc37 Those sources talk more about the show of a similar name, I have dissected it above. And again, unless the character has individual notability, then they are not notable for a separate page. I have already said that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The whole article is 90% plot summaries and mentions of the character in popular culture. If you think the character is notable, please put forth sources that talk in depth about the character, don’t just say that “He is notable” and leave it at that. See WP:USEFUL . Spinixster (chat!) 13:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC) USEFUL in the original comment, but WP:N also says that popularity does not equal to notability, so 🤷 Spinixster (chat!) 13:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] JSYK, I have felt free to post sources for discussion here that I wouldn't necessarily use in the article itself. I am not upset that you pick them over one by one. I see that a bit like you thinking out loud. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 00:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak or to Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. . I'm seeing signs of coverage. The threshold here is unclear, and there is a logical target if there is a consensus this shouldn't have a separate article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 13:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong . Golly, he is a character in two notable series, The Andy Griffith Show and Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 02:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Clarityfiend As I've said above, being a character in two notable series does not mean that the character is notable individually. Spinixster (chat!) 09:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe being a regular on two well-known series does. See, for example, Lou Grant or Frasier Crane . Clarityfiend ( talk ) 09:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Clarityfiend That does not mean that the character is inherently notable. At least with Frasier's page (because I think Lou Grant's may not be as notable) it has clear WP:SIGCOV , so they're definitely notable, but with Gomer, there's not much. I have already said a lot, and I don't want to repeat myself, so please take a look above. Spinixster (chat!) 09:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I concur with the analysis of both Jc37 and Clarityfiend . I see no real question about notability , but I see it reasonable to consider navigation. The nomination suggests a / to an Andy Griffith characters list, which while not without a reasonable basis, seems very unfortunate when considering the character played an important (23 episodes) but relatively minor role on that show and later had a much more prominent role on the highly successful show titled with the characters name. The list of Griffith show characters is therefore IMO a total non-starter. To / to the Gomer Pyle show is not unreasonable, although it would seem to minimize the characters impact beyond the TV shows. While I could support a to the Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. , I think that the typical Wikipedia treatment of super-characters, as well as prominent businessmen, is to have articles both on the individual and their organization(s). Therefore I'm going with . Jacona ( talk ) 11:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I forgot to do this, but I changed the original target of the nom from list of The Andy Griffith Show characters to Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.. I suggest all future voters take a look at what I've said above before voting. There may be another option to disambiguate the page to either refer to the character or the series. Spinixster (chat!) 11:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The subject meets WP:GNG with sources in the article including America on the Rerun and ""When I use a word ... Medical slang: gomers and gomerettes"". Further solid sources have been presented here. There are literally 80 years of sources to comb through, and a quick before shows that many of them provide sigcov as well. Here's a couple for good measure [11] , [12] While in some cases, even the most notable character could be d to the benefit of readers, that clearly would not benefit readers here. Not only is this a character in two notable shows, but the character is arguably more notable than either show they appeared on for the breadth and depth of cultural impact. — siro χ o 03:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC) The first source has a chapter focusing on Gomer, Goober, and Howard that can be used. I don't know how useful it really is because it seems to mostly be a summary of the character's plotlines, which usually doesn't prove notability. The rest of the mentions seem to be passing. The second source doesn't seem to mention the Andy Griffith show, let alone Gomer. The America on the Rerun book seems to mention Gomer in passing; there is a dedicated chapter on the Andy Griffith Show, but it's mostly quotes from interviews and focuses more on the actor. Spinixster (chat!) 04:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please, say that again, and then share with the room that you understand what the concepts of coverage and notability mean. It's tempting to be humorous about this, but I read your comments and you seem serious. - jc37 05:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The notability of fictional elements is a hard subject, especially when you try to decide what is notable and what is not. WP:FICT does exist, but it doesn't go in depth enough. I myself have experience writing these pages, and I find that: Sources on plotlines and trivia don't always prove the notability of fictional elements. Unless there are sources talking about a certain plot point from a real-world perspective, and that's on a case-by-case basis, I find it to be WP:CRUFT , even if there's a lot of coverage about it. The character has to be notable in multiple aspects. In this case, ""Gomer"" has become a slang for idiot, and its use is common within popular culture, but that's just one thing, so unless there's more, it fails WP:SUSTAINED . Of course, this is just a flexible idea, and it may change in the future. Spinixster (chat!) 07:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - The Full Metal Jacket character (not to mention other characters, common insults/slang, etc.) is named after him because it's (or maybe it was) a ubiquitous cultural touchstone. One of the most famous characters on US television (I would be surprised if there were anyone in the US over ~45 that hadn't heard of Gomer Pyle). In addition to sources already found, we'd need to dig through pre-digital sources (unfortunately my newspapers.com subscription doesn't seem to be working at the moment). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC) TWL if you have access to it. I wish you luck in finding information, but do try to find sources that talk about the character in a real-world perspective. Spinixster (chat!) 13:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You know, I think that last phrase was a bit much. We're all Wikipedians here , and how long we've been editors shouldn't matter much, but still when I look at your contribs and you've been around for all of 3 years, and Rhododendrites for 16 years. We all are expressing our opinions here, based upon sources. And you seem to have a rather different interpretation of policy than I've seen. But whatever, that last comment was a bit much. I was surprised above by your comments, but seriously, wow at this last one. You couldn't me rolling my eyes. But I was... - jc37 14:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This makes me think I didn't understand Spinixster's comment, which I interpreted to be an odd application of SIGCOV or something. And yes, it's when I try to access the account I have on newspapers via TWL is when it doesn't work. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was just giving out a tip. I didn't mean it in a harsh way and English is not my first language so sorry if that was what you read it as. Spinixster (chat!) 14:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough. For future reference, it was the ""...but do try..."" that lent rather emphasis to the phrase, telling a long term Wikipedian something rather obvious, that made your words sound rather bad, to say the least. - jc37 18:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Systemic bias , and WP:RECENTISM , might be worth reading, along with Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source . - jc37 18:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Gomer is too recognizable and well known for his page to get d. It’s like deleting the page for Peter Griffin . Scratchu90 ( talk ) 18:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC) JN ? Per that page, it's not useful just to say he's notable without explaining why and/or giving sources that prove notability. Spinixster (chat!) 02:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Rugby League Conference Welsh Championship: Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 ( talk ) 20:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 21:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Rugby league , and Wales . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC) After a little bit of further research, this used to be the RLC Welsh Regional. Still can't find anything more than a passing mention so maybe a to a subsection of South Wales Men's League could be a better alternative. Mn1548 ( talk ) 19:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC) and to South Wales Men's League as successor competition. Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Charlie Pellett: As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs, and have to be reliably sourced as the subject of coverage and analysis about their work to independently validate its significance -- but this essentially just states that he's had jobs, and is referenced solely to his staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer, which is not a notability-building source as it doesn't represent independent attention being paid to his work by people without a vested interest in it. Nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of coverage in sources other than his own paycheque provider. Bearcat ( talk ) 13:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Radio , and United States of America . Bearcat ( talk ) 13:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just no. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC) GNG. As a Bloomberg anchor, there is no presumed notability and none in RS presented (or evident with a BEFORE) regarding the subject. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Epicgenius , siro and Oaktree b are wise. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 16:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you sure about that (that it's not the stuff of GNG)? I remember a big fuss being made in the media a few years ago when the person who voiced the ""mind the gap"" message on the London Underground retired or died or something. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 09:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or to New Technology Train . I conducted a BEFORE search and only found a few sources about him . They all seem to be related to his announcements for New York City Transit, which are already covered in the NTT article. Besides that, Pellett unfortunately has no standalone notability. – Epicgenius ( talk ) 17:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC) 44, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or to New Technology Train#Recorded announcements seems best for the encyclopedia. — siro χ o 19:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the many reliable sources starting with this one . NYC Guru ( talk ) 01:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That source actually talks primarily about a different announcer, Bernie Wagenblast . As far as I can see, the source only mentions Pellett once, so it isn't significant coverage of him. Epicgenius ( talk ) 15:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Not seeing any policy-based rationale for deletion here, and nom doesn't seem to have done even a perfunctory WP:BEFORE . We have at least the following: 106 words (excluding quote) in The New Yorker , approximately 300 words (excluding quotes from subject) in The New York Post (""no consensus"" on RSP), over 1000 words with significant biographical content in Straus News , 107 words on Vox (not independent of New Yorker piece). I would also note substantial portions of this 4-minute news clip (I think this might have been what NYC Guru meant to link to above?) from NBC New York, which is probably not GNG material but certainly helps to show that the article subject is WP:WELLKNOWN for BLP purposes. I would assume there are more as that's just when I got tired of searching. This seems to meet the GNG threshold of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject , where ""significant coverage"" requires that no original research is needed to extract the content . And while these sources mostly aren't optimal for article-building, there are plenty of non-independent sources to fill in non-controversial biographical information. -- Visviva ( talk ) 02:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the NY Post, its RSP entry states that there is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics... , but it excepts sports reporting. My reading is that in this case, as it's neither politics or sports reporting, it is still generally unreliable. Hence, unless I am missing something, I'm not sure where you got that there's ""no consensus"" on RSP . (However, I have no strong opinion on the NY Press source and am not making a !vote now.) Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC) BIO with sources presented above. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP ( talk ) 01:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still caught between and Keep. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC) BLP - the New Yorker coverage isn't really significant and the best feature story is a neighbourhood newspaper. SportingFlyer T · C 19:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've updated my above ! vote from just to or . I'm fine with either option. — siro χ o 20:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Besides the reliable print sources that have been added in the past week (which are enough right there), there are also a number of media occurrences, including video clips from Conan O’Brien and The New Yorker. LingLass ( talk ) 23:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The justification to speaks about the article being sourced only to something written by his employer. But searches indicate there is news reporting about his voice work, which is described as one of the most famous voices in New York. Independent reporting about his work is what the nominator said was needed. I think arguably, he meets WP:CREATIVE criterion 4c, but less arguably the justification to is incorrect, a searches as per WP:BEFORE identify more sources than are discussed in the nomination. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-most-recognizable-voice-in-new-york https://abc7ny.com/molly-clark-comedian-subway-tiktok/7220253/ https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/sweet-spot-voice-of-the-subway/ CT55555 ( talk ) 02:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC) Notability . Let's analyze these three sources and see if they meet the GNG. Here is a source assessment table: Source assessment table: prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? New Yorker Independent media. New Yorker meets journalistic standards Enough to be significant. ✔ Yes ABC Independent media. ABC meets journalistic standards Enough to be significant. ✔ Yes CBS Independent media. CBS meets journalistic standards Enough to be significant. ✔ Yes This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . IAmHuitzilopochtli ( talk ) 20:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Sure, we said ""last relist"" once already, but that was before new sources were unexpectedly presented. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC) I don't think the CBS source has significant coverage as a passing mention, but I agree that the other two sources count toward GNG. 0x Deadbeef →∞ ( talk to me ) 12:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yep. Significant for sure. IAmHuitzilopochtli ( talk ) 00:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Joyce brothers: Google results for the term, even with words like ""psychologist"" and ""doctor"" removed, still return the more famous Joyce Brothers , but no James or anyone else. Should be a targeted to her and labeled {{ r from miscapitalization }} , as I think that result would be far less surprising for readers (I certainly wasn't expecting it). I would oppose a hatnote as I think this is all a bit too silly to exist in any form, but if it's insisted upon then I'm willing to renege. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 09:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Disambiguations . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 09:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speaking of surprise, I was not expecting this to have been up at RfD just this month. Quite the hot button issue I suppose. Looking at that discussion, I don't think it should've been closed as early as it was, so I will argue against a procedural close of this as I think the issue is unresolved. Pinging Shhhnotsoloud , jnestorius , 162 etc. , and Presidentman who participated, and * Pppery * who closed, as it's only fair if I'm going to claim this as a continuing discussion. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 09:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as per previous discussion. I am neutral on renaming to Joyce brothers (disambiguation) as long as there is a {{ }} hatnote from Joyce Brothers . jnestorius ( talk ) 10:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm 100% in favour of deleting this, but opening an AfD immediately following a consensus at the RfD discussion isn't the right way to do it. WP:MRV would be your next step. 162 etc. ( talk ) 16:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC) RFD would be WP:DRV not WP:MRV . But I have no objection to my RfD closure being undone and the RfD relisted - looking back at it with a clearer head I agree my restore closure really doesn't properly reflect the consensus so you don't need to use any formal review processes. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Had I seen the RfD first, I would've done just that. My mistake for not doing so. Bit too late for it now, but I'm glad you're aware and hopefully it helps your process in the future. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 03:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the consensus at RfD (now I've seen jnestorius's rationale). Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 18:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The fundamental question here is: will this aid readers in finding something for which they might be searching. Yes, yes it will. BD2412 T 21:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See, but I very much disagree with this. Sure, readers might be searching for the famous writer James Joyce and his far less famous brother, or the other two brothers, or they could (and I think far more likely are; see the page views where Dr. Brothers consistently gets hundreds of times the viewership as the brothers other than James) looking for the famous psychologist with this exact name. If we're desparate to this, then jnestorius' suggestion to add ""(disambiguation)"" might be useful, but regardless I don't see how this isn't a SURPRISE issue. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 03:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and move to Joyce brothers (disambiguation) . The answer to BD2412's fundamental question is an emphatic no: most people search in lowercase, and someone typing ""joyce brothers"" is almost certainly looking for the primary-topic psychologist. I guess there's no policy basis to the disambiguation page (even though I'm not convinced it's useful), but ing it at the current title would make things harder for readers. Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 00:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no objection to moving the page; I just don't think it should be d. Of course, we have a distinct process for requesting page moves . BD2412 T 01:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"List of paramilitary organizations: UtherSRG (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Lists . UtherSRG (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment as far as I know, if a topic is notable a list of that topic is notable. Paramilitaries are definitely notable, so shouldn’t this be notable? I’m not actually voting “” because I suspect the real reasoning here is that the list looks like crap and will almost certainly never be improved to a usable standard, so WP:TNT and WP:IAR could easily apply. Dronebogus ( talk ) 17:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC) TIND . The list does at some points feel incomplete, of varying standards and what not, but a lot of lists on dynamic topics (and paramilitary organisations tend to come and go as they are formed, engage in conflict and are wiped out, or offhand information might simply be lacking) tend to be incomplete by definition. -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 18:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a valid information and navigational list. Links to plenty of articles for paramilitary organizations. Would be better if there were columns for information like the start of the Asia section has right now. D r e a m Focus 00:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This passes WP:NLIST , as paramilitary organizations have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources . These include Paramilitary Groups and the State Under Globalization , ""Goons, Gunmen, and Gendarmerie: Toward a Reconceptualization of Paramilitary Formations"" , ""Strong militias, weak states and armed violence: Towards a theory of ‘state-parallel’ paramilitaries"" , and many other reliable published works. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Erin Harkes: Boleyn ( talk ) 21:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , New Jersey , and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree. Doesn’t meet GNG guidelines and thus should be d. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 00:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Go4thProsper Please check the new citations I have posted below and reconsider your vote. Royal88888 ( talk ) 03:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, I withdraw my “Delete” vote. I am neutral to this AfD post. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 22:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Nominator has not done a good job at BEFORE. Just found a whole bunch of news articles about her and have updated the article. Check 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 . Royal88888 ( talk ) 03:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] refs provided satisfy GNG. Djflem ( talk ) 10:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC) I can't find more than passing qualitative coverage of her music or comedy -- and that includes the additions by Royal88888 none of which fully meet WP:INDEPENDENT . National attention (Fallon) is clearly not sufficient. Her best-established claim for notability is against WP:MUSICBIO #7 for winning multiple local newspaper polls for best local singer-songwriter, but that still requires sufficient independent coverage of her. What tips me over the line for MUSICBIO#7 is her hosting the 2019 Capital Region awards . But this is rather operating by sonar, and it would be nice if there were clear significant RS coverage of her work -- music and/or comedy -- that wasn't agglomerated with an interview or press release (noting that there may well be coverage that is not or is no longer offline). ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 09:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Additions by Royal88888 have clearly demonstrated notability. -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 08:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"The ClueFinders 4th Grade Adventures: Puzzle of the Pyramid: Article does not have enough sources to support notability. I checked Google and the Newspaper archives and was unable to find any notable sources. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks @ Zxcvbnm for the great resource for video game reviews. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] MobyGames lists no less than 6 magazine reviews, so it seems notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, I just looked at it, I'm neutral . I don't really see the problem with a , but by the standards of a video game article today it is barely meeting GNG. Andre 🚐 06:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Education . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Shut Up and Eat: There is in fact a restaurant of the same name in New Jersey. https://www.nj.com/food/2023/04/shut-up-and-eat-inside-njs-wackiest-restaurant-with-servers-in-pajamas-and-a-sea-of-kitsch.html LibStar ( talk ) 02:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Oregon . AllyD ( talk ) 06:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . North America 1000 13:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC) creator). The article now has approximately 30 sources, ranging from books and major newspapers/magazines ( The Oregonian , Portland Monthly ), to local publications ( Portland Mercury , Portland Tribune , Willamette Week ), to industry sites ( Eater , The Daily Meal ), and other media outlets ( Thrillist ). I'm satisfied with the amount of independent secondary coverage and I've not yet searched the Oregonian archives. This seems to be yet another nomination submitted before a proper source assessment. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC) RESTAURANTREVIEWS . Note Further, the reviews must be published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications . LibStar ( talk ) 17:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC) 19, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does this restaurant get any coverage outside of Oregon? It does for a different restaurant in New Jersey. LibStar ( talk ) 17:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not having this discussion again. I gather you understand my position and we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I would encourage you to start a wider discussion at an appropriate venue about WP:AUD and specific sources (specifically The Oregonian ) instead of mass tagging for deletion. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Contrary to the claim in the intro, this restaurant meets both WP:GNG and WP:AUD . gidonb ( talk ) 11:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC) closure has nothing to do with notability, ever. This article passes all relevant notability criteria. ɱ (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Felix Neff: An ED entry is not enough to satisfy notability. Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 13:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Switzerland . Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 13:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC) An Encyclopedia Britannica entry is, broadly, usually enough to satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards. Neff also gets an entry in Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature , which is generally considered reliable for biographies. Neff's memoirs and musings are considered indicative of early 19th-century Continental Protestant thought, such as in this article . Neff, interestingly, seems to have had some contemporary influence on popular imagery of the Alps (see this article ), but perhaps a bit more is needed to pull on that thread. In any case, he’s notable and we have the sources needed to cover him. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 15:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, the Waldensian Evangelical Church seems keen on him (see this link , initially introduced by a disruptive editor). ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 15:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . Pbritti ( talk ) 16:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the source linked by Pbritti lists several dead tree books (admittedly some from the 19th century) with his name in the title. Enough for a GNG pass, and per WP:NEXIST they don't have to be referenced in the article to count towards notability. Jclemens ( talk ) 20:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Take one single look at fr:Felix Neff and you know this is an article that needs expansion, not deletion. Sam Sailor 07:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I can readily believe that the article needs expanding, rather than deleting. However, it definitely needs some attention from someone familiar with sourcing and how we write - I'm guessing that it is a copy/paste from an old copyright-expired entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica. It's written in an archaic, hagiographical style. Girth Summit (blether) 18:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The Encyclopædia Britannica is far more selective than Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC) 44, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Pbritti's work - thanks for your work on this. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the article, but don't the existing text, which reads like it has been copied from the Britannica. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 05:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"MIKTA: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 14:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't it man. Bourenane Chahine ( talk ) 16:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Bourenane Chahine Why it? Chidgk1 ( talk ) 17:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The group is mentioned on websites operated by the individual countries (for instance Australia , Korea , Turkey , Indonesia , Mexico ). Of course, these links could be regarded as primary/non-independent sources, but they do show that the group is active and relevant to these governments. More importantly, its purpose is discussed by the UNDP in Seoul [14] and it also received coverage by the Council on Foreign Relations [15] , the journal Global Summitry [16] , The Diplomat [17] , the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs [18] and so on. There's plenty more using a basic Google check. A Google News search also provides regular coverage of the group's activities. Pichpich ( talk ) 22:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the sources found here. toobigtokale ( talk ) 00:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC) 48, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Marion Hepburn: WP:GNG seems to be failed here. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 12:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Connecticut . Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 12:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in many books and periodicals. Amongst other coverage, she actually has an obituary in the New York Times [31] . There is also one in United Press International [32] and there are book reviews [33] [34] and other coverage of her books [35] , amongst other coverage. James500 ( talk ) 19:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand your concerns, and saw this as well. My concern here is that I'm not sure a single notable source covering one notable event of her life is enough to satisfy WP:GNG , particularly with respect to WP:BIO1E . I will grant that NYT is a very notable source, but I think more sources would be needed here. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 20:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I said ""amongst other coverage"". I have just added some additional items, and I could add even more. An obituary is a biography, not coverage of the event of a person's death, so BIO1E is not applicable. The obituary is not purely about her death, its also about her career as a historian and author, and her activist activities. I have never heard of a person with an NYT obituary being d, and I am under the impression that the community generally regard it as being overwhelming evidence of notability. James500 ( talk ) 20:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC) OBITUARIES ). The remaining books you cite seem to be tangential coverage, hence, not good for establishing notability. As for the WP:REDACT violation, I will WP:AGF , and WP:MUTUAL it. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 20:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC) REDACT . Please put your changes below as a reply to the comment. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 20:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am alarmed to see an account with less than 970 edits, mostly made in a sudden recent burst, that has just nominated a person with an NYT obituary for deletion, badgering my ! vote, and then wikilawyering , in an attempt to prevent me from adding additional sources. What you are asking me to do would make my ! vote incomprehensible to the closing admin. James500 ( talk ) 20:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, I just want to be clear here that I wasn't assuming you were acting in bad faith here, I was merely concerned about the clarity of the discussion. (It generally makes sense in these cases for somebody to just say ""hey I found some sources here"" below to reinforce your point above rather than pre-address the comments be editing your vote, which can be quite confusing for people reading the discussion.) I was merely making a good faith request here, and apologize if it seemed like I was casting WP:ASPERSIONS . That being said, please refrain from doing the same to me. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 21:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC) MUTUAL the whole thing. I accept that you were not trying to upset me, and I promise I was not trying to upset you either. No hard feelings? James500 ( talk ) 21:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] None whatsoever here, and I appreciate your feedback on this AfD, even if I may disagree with it. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 21:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Meets WP:GNG . In addition to the NYT and UPI obituaries, here's a front-page one from the Hartford Courant : [36] , [37] . A 1981 profile: [38] . She was making headlines for her writerly ambitions as a teenager: [39] . Jfire ( talk ) 23:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Good find on [8]! Could you add it to the article? Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 17:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] because of the obituaries identified in this discussion. Toughpigs ( talk ) 21:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC) OBITUARIES ). However, I think sources [8] and [9] provided by User:Jfire are quite compelling, and I want to thank him for doing the digging here. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 17:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the comments here, this looks to be a solid Keep. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 14:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Fararu: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The nominator misinterpreted the WP:WEBCRIT guideline as and (instead of or ) making the WP:BEFORE unclear. I read the lede incorrectly. But the WP:BEFORE is still unclear. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 ( talk ) 17:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . Though the website seems to be a popular news outlet in Iran, English-language web search reveals little to no in-depth coverage. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 ( talk ) 17:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per new sources. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 ( talk ) 12:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Apart from its being a popular news website in Iran, it has significant coverage in [53] , [54] , [55] , [56] , [57] , and [58] . Ali Pirhayati ( talk ) 09:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 14:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 07:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Coverage in foreign languages counts toward notability. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 22:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024): Lack of independent reliable sources. Almost every source is from either marxist.com, socialist.net, marxist.red or another website affiliated with this group. Wellington Bay ( talk ) 01:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics , United Kingdom , and Scotland . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] almost everything is a source linked to them, and those that aren't are for other groups they're linked to (notability is not inherited). I wasn't able to find anything from a WP:BEFORE to show WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources Shaws username . talk . 14:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC) 22, 29 February 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON , I would consider draftifying it as an atd, but given that it was renamed and old content moved I think moving/restoring the old content back so it has it's edit history makes more sense, and then a page can be created for the 2024 RCP if/when it has the coverage for notability Shaws username . talk . 19:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Revert as Hemmers has decribed below, what's happened has baffled me slightly. Shaws username . talk . 19:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m glad it’s not just me that’s baffled. I started off on “”, and then rewrote my reply twice as I dug through the edit history and became increasingly bemused! Hemmers ( talk ) 19:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Very few sources not linked to the party, no demonstration of notability. AnOpenBook ( talk ) 15:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sort of. But revert to 17 December 2023 , when it was actually a moderately well-sourced article about a long-standing publication/movement (the Socialist Appeal). Then the latest edit of Socialist Appeal (Britain) back on top of it and that article. Then move the entire stack (with edit history) back to Socialist Appeal (Britain) where it belongs. I'm at an absolute loss as to what the blazing nonsense has gone on with this article. They've moved a long-standing article, blanked it and rebranded it, and then someone's copied the old content into a new article using the old name!?! A quick hunt back through the History shows it is notable - they've just removed all the references to the former name, instead of creating a new article for the new name/body (which likely wouldn't pass NPP). Failing all that, , it's just a shame to lose the edit history for Socialist Appeal (Britain) , which is currently underneath this article. Hemmers ( talk ) 18:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I concur. My feeling is that member(s) of the party and/or its international affiliates have done what you describe above for appearances, namely to give the impression that this is a new party with a fresh face rather than simply a rebrand. It makes more sense to have just renamed the old Socialist Appeal article. The pretext for a new article is that this is a r of two parties and thus a new organisation. This is something of a pretense since there's no real reason to think there were separate English and Scottish parties that have d rather than just one organisation which had a Scottish and English newspaper (especially as the IMT has always opposed Scottish independence). Even if this is the r of separate Scottish and English organisations (which is a supposition rather than a sourced claim) they were two sections of the same international organisation so it wouldn't really be a r as much as a reorganisation. Wellington Bay ( talk ) 19:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 56, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and restore previous version as per Hemmers. Suonii180 ( talk ) 23:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC) The separation into two articles looks to have been the work of a now banned single-purpose sockpuppet account. I think the heart of the problem here is that this article is preceding the establishment of the group itself (which isn't until May). The situation isn't helped by the frankly deliberate obfuscation by the organisations involved (which seems to be for the sole reason of hiding their numbers so you think it's more than two blokes in a shed) so we don't know if it's a r/rebrand. Quite honestly I think there needs to be a real reconsideration of the notability of a lot of International Marxist Tendency related pages as they appear to be overwhelmingly reliant on their own webpages (of which they run several, also seemingly a deliberate attempt at obfuscation). Rambling Rambler ( talk ) 13:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC) Socialist Appeal was an entryist group within the Labour party, synonymous with the newspaper of the same name. the RCP is an open political party with a noticeably different political identity. the two groups employ different methods. The Revolutionary Communist Party will also see the merging together of the forces previously organised around the paper Revolution Scotland (revolution.scot) and the forces previously around SA. it's a different entity. the content of the two pages is also different. one deals thoroughly with the history of the Militant split etc, whereas this one is mostly about the party's very recent history. I think a r of the pages will only confuse people. @Tedgrant1917 Hewer7 ( talk ) 20:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In the absence of any reliable sources and the lack of independent sources there simply isn't enough to justify a separate article on the RCP. Wellington Bay ( talk ) 20:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Gaean Reach: A search showed only trivial mentions, no significant coverage in reliable sources. My assessment is that it does not pass WP:N . Jontesta ( talk ) 02:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Jontesta ( talk ) 02:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Science fiction BEFORE searches should include scholar and books. PhD thesis from South Africa here has detailed commentary on pp 91-100, and is contrasted to clearly notable science fiction universes like Asimov's Foundation. Also appears to be covered in Handbook of Vance Space by Andre-Driussi, ISBN 978-0964279568, but I am unable to see previews for that. Also appears in Xeno Fiction: More Best of Science Fiction: A Review of Speculative Literature by Broderick and Ikin, ISBN 978-1479400799, but again--I don't have access beyond snippet view, which appears promising. Jclemens ( talk ) 03:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Does the nominator have a response to sources mentioned in the discussion? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To me the provided sources are not trivial mentions and enough to establish notability, and are supplemented by shorter treatments like here or here . Daranios ( talk ) 10:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , per Jclemens above. / Julle ( talk ) 21:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Kyne: It appears like it may be trying to be a dictionary entry. Sourcing is nearly non-existent. AquitaneHungerForce ( talk ) 14:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Rambling expansion of a dictionary definition. Athel cb ( talk ) 15:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . It looks like it underwent an edit to get more inline with other surname entries. I think the page should be renamed to Kyne (surname). I would also support a to Coyne (surname) if that article were fleshed out to include this variant. Lindsey40186 (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The sourcing and sources support a short surname/DAB page. As we now have. Deletion is not cleanup. Guliolopez ( talk ) 17:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC) Kyne (surname) does sound like a good solution Either way I'm sure there are other well known Kyne articles to be written, such as Raymond Kyne, Irish industrial designer, artist, stamp designer and past-president of the Society of Designers in Ireland, now called the Institute of Designers in Ireland . ww2censor ( talk ) 10:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC) Since an editor unilaterally chose a topic for the article and replaced all the content present at the time of nomination, none of my original nomination stands. The replacement article is a fine stub. AquitaneHungerForce ( talk ) 11:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC) BEFORE check may not have been done. It's a valid name SIA now and nom has agreed to so I'd recommend a speedy close. I'd also recommend moving Kyne to Kyne (surname) and turning Kyne into a DAB, given the other two topics listed in the hatnote, over which the surname does not seem to have prominence. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 04:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC) AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 04:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Stephanus Muller: Had this been written only a few days ago, I would have immediately draftified it. As it is now a few years old, a discussion needs to happen in order to do that. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Music , and South Africa . UtherSRG (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Enough book reviews (now added to the article) for WP:AUTHOR . As for the shape the article is in: despite the plethora of scary cleanup banners, I've seen much worse (in BLPs in no danger of being d) and WP:DINC . And calling for draftification of a years-old article with years-old cleanup banners is just a dishonest way of calling for its full deletion after it sits unaddressed for another half-year. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC) The recent addition of book reviews strengthens the article's compliance with the notability guideline for authors. Deletion seems like a harsh solution. We should improve the article, not it. Waqar 💬 17:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . per WP:NAUTHOR the subject is notable. While there are some issues with the article, this is WP:NOTCLEANUP . -- hroest 10:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. While I accept the reasons for moving Draft:Friedrich Wilhelm Jannasch to drafts and will continue working on it, @ UtherSRGhas also reversed my call to move Draft:South African Music Encyclopedia into the mainspace. Seems like a blanket clampdown on my actions, without regard for the relative merit of the articles. Viljowf ( talk ) 15:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"List of most-disliked YouTube videos: Dislikes on Youtube cannot be reliably counted anymore. The last deletion discussion decided to it for so-called ""historical relevance"", but I don't see how historical relevance justifies having an article that just progressively worsens with no hope of fixing it unless there's a chance of YouTube returning the dislike count. ― Howard • 🌽 33 22:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , nothing has changed since the last AFD attempt. There is sufficient coverage of this topic even if dislikes no longer exist. Esolo5002 ( talk ) 22:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's the problem. Nothing has changed and ever will change about Wikipedia's list, which means it's always going to be inaccurate and eventually won't be able to provide any list that is consistent with what reliable sources consider to be ""the most disliked videos"". ― Howard • 🌽 33 23:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , Since allegedly there is still an extension to check dislikes. Thehistorianisaac ( talk ) 23:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The extension is merely a very rough estimate and will never be a reliable source. ― Howard • 🌽 33 08:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , since this list's topic is covered by multiple reliable sources. That said, I think a requested move discussion might be worth it. The addition of something like ""(2010–2021)"" would help make the title much more precise at this cost of a little concision. I hope that would address some of the nominators concerns. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs ) 01:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I disagree that article needs to be renamed as there are still videos that get dislikes to today despite not being publicly available. Some sources to justify WP:LISTN would help. Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Any RS coverage of “the most disliked YouTube videos” post-2021 would most likely be referring to the current most disliked videos in reality. If you can find sources that justify maintaining a list that only goes up to 2021, I will reverse my deletion request and instead start a move request. ― Howard • 🌽 33 05:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No matter how trivial this whole subject sounds, it is still notable and there can be no policy based reason to justify proposed deletion. Ratnahastin ( talk ) 04:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The deletion request is not based on “triviality”, it is due to the fact that we cannot reliably update the article to align with reality. If the dislike count were returned by YouTube, I would support ing the list but certainly not now. ― Howard • 🌽 33 05:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not being able to update the page is not a rationale for deletion. Anarchyte ( talk ) 09:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In this case, it is. Like I said before, YouTube dislike counts are still growing, and are most definitely are overtaking some videos from 2021. But Wikipedia cannot definitely say what videos exactly are now the truly most-disliked. Ergo, ""List of most-disliked YouTube videos"" is a misleading title, and a list Wikipedia can no longer present. ― Howard • 🌽 33 10:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The valid deletion rationales don't change between AfDs; there's always the same list of reasons. Please see WP:DEL-REASON , and note that ""cannot be updated"" is not one (another piece of reading could be WP:WIP ). Anarchyte ( talk ) 11:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Looking at some news sources post-2021, they’re all regurgitations of the wikipedia list, which I guess could be notable enough considering that RS coverage of wikipedia does recursively get articles on wikipedia itself. After considering the matter further, I’ll retract my request for deletion but I will push for a Moving of the article to a title similar to List of most-disliked Youtube videos up to 2021 . ― Howard • 🌽 33 11:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the last f o u r nominations. Anarchyte ( talk ) 11:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The first three nominations are all pre-2021 and unrelated to this discussion. ― Howard • 🌽 33 11:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC) NOTTEMPORARY . Anarchyte ( talk ) 08:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The argument that we are obliged to update the article does not make sense because updates will eventually be provided by the users who are taking interest in the subject. Azuredivay ( talk ) 14:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article cannot be updated. It is impossible. Dislike counts are no longer viewable. ― Howard • 🌽 33 15:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The topic of most disliked videos is covered by RS. If the concern is that it can't be updated, the scope should be refocused to the period up to 2021, you know, like the nominator said they would do. Not a reason for deleting. Neocorelight ( Talk ) 07:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Juan Carlos Loustau: Single-source BLP. Fails WP:GNG . UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Football , and Argentina . UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I would recommend withdrawing this nomination. A web search throws up dozens of Spanish-langauge newspaper articles about the subject – [17] and [18] alone are massive ones – and that should come as no surprise considering he refereed one of the most famous matches in World Cup history and was considered a world class referee [19] . Robby.is.on ( talk ) 22:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per above. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 23:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 19:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV . Its been on the cat:nn for list for 13+ years and never been updated. It was sent to Afd to get a discussion going, instead of a prod. Hopefully somebody can update the article with suitable references. scope_creep Talk 08:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - I think there's just enough in-depth coverage available. Most of the source mentioned above (and results in my BEFORE) are not secondary (lots of quotes from the subject), yet I think the La Voz del Interior piece is good (and indicates his stature among football referees) plus Clarín 's piece on his family ""dynasty"" helps get where we need to be. Jogurney ( talk ) 15:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC) 44, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"William Tash: Drowssap SMM 23:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This isn't appropriate for soft-deletion as the primary contributor is still actively editing the article. Relisting to form consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] non-notable. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Significantly expanded since nomination with coverage in multiple reliable sources. Easily meets the GNG and has scope for further expansion. Philafrenzy ( talk ) 16:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC) GNG . Edwardx ( talk ) 13:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Appears to have been appropriately expanded. Whispyhistory ( talk ) 21:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Hevenu shalom aleichem: The article creator acknowledges as much at Template:Did you know nominations/Hevenu shalom aleichem ; in the interesting of settling that nom, I'll punt on the notability question to here. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 18:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions . theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 18:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – It's been the subject of scholarly literature (Troyke 2021, Frühauf 2021), covered as significant in media ( Die Rheinpfalz , Deutschlandfunk ), and is published in about 30 hymnals and songbooks ( multilingual and German ). It's undoubtedly popular and notable, as the results from the search links at the top here (books, news, scholar) demonstrate. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk ) 01:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC) Troyke and the two media sources don't provide significant coverage. I can't access Frühauf, so if you want to copy and paste the relevant passage, we can take a look at that? theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 22:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC) I also think that nominating this song at this time is insensitive. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk ) 00:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Passes WP:GNG . There's a large number of books in google books which acknowledge it as a well known Israeli folk song of cultural importance, or mentions its performance at notable/historic events. (some examples [3] , [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] [16] Additionally, this magazine article about the song states that it is sung by Jews worldwide and this website dedicated to songs of the Holocaust calls it a ""Jewish standard"" and includes it in a list of songs used by the ANU - Museum of the Jewish People . The newspaper article names it as a song commonly used at weddings by American jews. This book mentions that the tune was used by Felix Mendelssohn in his Symphony No. 5 (Restoration Symphony commentary on page 25), and this book mentions the song was used in Frank Ticheli 's Angels in the Architecture . The work is included on pages 8, 9, and 15 in Peace and Brotherhood as Reflected in Jewish Music: A Listing of Selected Works . National Jewish Music Council. 1959. . This book mentions the songs gained popularity among Christians after Vatican II and this book ties the work's inclusion in Protestant hymnals to a mainstreaming of Isreali culture globally in the 1970s. This book mentions the tune actually predates Isreal and it of Hasidic origin (see page 194). Unfortunately the further commentary on 195 as indicated in the index is not viewable in google books. The song is also included in the Harvard Library 's Judaica Sound Recordings collection according to Violet Gilboa, ed. (1996). Judaica Sound Recordings in the Harvard College Library: Subject index . Harvard College Library. Judaica Division. p. 373. All together I think this constitutes SIGCOV collectively. 4meter4 ( talk ) 01:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC) are there a WP:THREE best? I'm not unsympathetic to the ""lots of mentions=grab bag cobbled notability"" argument, but there should be at least one source that goes into some detail about it. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 18:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Trying to reduce this unusual case of notability to a limited number of ""best"" sources misses the point of the """" arguments above. ~ ToBeFree ( talk ) 23:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC) THREE as the best measuring stick at AFD, in this case some WP:COMMONSENSE should be applied to how we interpret WP:SIGCOV . Our WP:NSONG criteria is targeted towards popular commercial music and is honestly not well designed to handle traditional songs or music that comes from a different cultural place (i.e. music that was never intended to make money but is just part of a culture and its identity). In this case, we have an old traditional song whose melody dates back at least to the 19th century and possibly earlier that has become a ""Jewish standard"" at cultural events such as weddings, religious services, political rallies and events, etc. on a global scale. The song is ubiquitous in Jewish communities around the world as attested to in a wide range of sources. It's inclusion in museum and library collections, its publication in not only Jewish religious publications but also Christian hymnals, its inclusion in a scholarly work by the National Jewish Music Council , its use in other works of cultural significance such as Felix Mendelssohn 's Symphony No. 5 , its performance at events for American presidents, the Pope, etc., its performance by professional orchestras, recordings by musicians, etc. all attest to the work's wider notability as an important musical work for its broad impact on culture and its role in Jewish culture and identity. There's not a valid argument to be made here that this song isn't encyclopedic, and the wide range of reliable RS has made it possible to write a lengthy and interesting article which is verifiable and beneficial to improving wikipedia's coverage on Jewish culture. 4meter4 ( talk ) 14:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (strong). Easy pass of the WP:GNG and WP:NSONG . It is extremely strange and troubling that a song of this stature would be nominated! Wikipedia already suffers from too many AfDs. There is no need to add baseless and chanceless AfDs to make things worse, and then argue with each respondent! gidonb ( talk ) 12:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Brian Merchant: Ktkvtsh ( talk ) 21:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Journalism . Ktkvtsh ( talk ) 21:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration . Thriley ( talk ) 22:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - As Mr. Merchant is a published author and a columnist with a regular byline, I find him notable. I think the article, presently a stub, is lacking in content, but that is no reason to it. Far better to add useful comment to the brief history and his growing corpus of work. Jax MN ( talk ) 23:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Meets WP:NAUTHOR by a mile. The One Device was reviewed by Financial Times , New York Times , and The Guardian , among others. Blood in the Machine was reviewed by Wall Street Journal , New York Times , and New Scientist . Jfire ( talk ) 16:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC) Needs a rewrite, but the book reviews posted in a comment above mine are good for passing AUTHOR. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The article needs work, but AfD is not for quick fixes. Jfire identified many potential sources . Bearian ( talk ) 20:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Jfire makes a good case. The subject specific guideline for authors has been met. D r e a m Focus 06:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"True Buddha School: No in-depth coverage by RS. Title should re-direct to article about its founder Lu Sheng-yen . HouseOfChange ( talk ) 17:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions . HouseOfChange ( talk ) 17:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Buddhism , Taiwan , and Washington . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Kniss, Fred; Numrich, Paul D. Sacred Assemblies and Civic Engagement: How Religion Matters for America's Newest Immigrants . New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press . p. 154. ISBN 978-0-8135-4170-9 . Retrieved 2024-01-07 – via Google Books . The book notes: ""Contrast the English printed materials at this temple with those at one of our Buddhist project sites, Ling Shen Ching Tze Temple, Chicago. Here the visitor receives booklets and periodicals produced by the temple's parent organization, the True Buddha School (TBS), and prominently featuring its founder, Grand Master Sheng-yen Lu. These materials often include a list of more than two dozen TBS local chapters throughout North America, plus the home temple in Redmond, Washington, after which the Chicago temple is named. The content reflects the syncretic nature of the True Buddha School, which combines elements of Tantric Buddhism and indigenous Chinese religions and claims psychic and healing powers for Master Lu. Perusal of the True Buddha School's Web site reveals the strong sectarian identity of the group. ... This form of Buddhism is far different from the modernist Buddhism of the temple described above. In fact, a modernist Buddhist would denounce the type of empowerment promoted by the True Buddha School as nonrational, even superstitious. This group's sectarian expressions of Buddhism do not have the same appeal to non-Buddhist inquirers as modernist Buddhism. Ling Shen Ching Tze Temple has not moved very far in its civic engagement. The temple is not affiliated ..."" Melton, J. Gordon (2010). Melton, J. Gordon ; Baumann, Todd M. (eds.). Religions of the World : a Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices (2 ed.). Santa Barbara, California: ABC-Clio . pp. 2892–2894. ISBN 978-1-59884-204-3 . Retrieved 2024-01-07 – via Google Books . The book notes: ""The True Buddha School teaches a form of Gelugpa Buddhism that begins for members in their taking refuge in the Three Gems of Buddhism—the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha (that is, Buddha, Truth, and Fellowship)—and additionally in the guru, their teacher. Members are taught a form of Buddhist practice that includes a daily cultivation through the recitation of Buddhist sutras, the calling upon the name of Amitabha Buddha (as in Pure Land Buddhism), and visualization of their receiving empowerment from the pantheon of Buddhist deities. This practice is believed to lead individuals to Buddhahood (enlightenment)."" The book later notes: ""The True Buddha School is one of a half dozen new Buddhist groups to e in Taiwan in the last generation, but is unique in adopting a Vajrayana perspective a fact that has set it in opposition to some of the Taiwanese-based Chan and Pure Land organizations. Some five million people have taken refuge in Grand Master Lu, though only a minority of those have gone on to become active members of the school and attendees at one of its centers."" Liu, Tannie (2010). ""Globalization and Modern Transformation of Chinese Buddhism in Three Chinese Temples in Eastern Canada"" . In Harding, John S. ; Hori, Victor Sōgen; Soucy, Alexander Duncan (eds.). Wild Geese: Buddhism in Canada . Montreal: McGill–Queen's University Press . p. 285–291. ISBN 978-0-7735-3667-8 . Retrieved 2024-01-07 – via Google Books . The book notes: ""The True Buddha School is a controversial group among the Chinese sangha due to Lu's innumerable claims in his writings and lectures to extraordinary religious experiences and spiritual attainments. Lu admits that in the course of his career he has received massive criticism particularly from the dominant Chinese Buddhist sangha. ... In spite of the worldwide presence of the True Buddha School which currently has 282 chapters (True Buddha School Net), Lu advocates group practice but not necessarily the building of temples. He believes that the collective mind present during group practice is optimum in securing one's goal. The earliest organizations of TBS had no formal structure and some were housed in an apartment or a house or commercial buildings. But the diamond masters (meaning the lineage holders) were handpicked by Master Lu based on a system of astrology and intuition. The masters can be married. Because they are deemed to be incarnated masters, their status is much higher than the monks and nuns in the order. ... True Buddha School Comes to Canada. The earliest temple of the TBS in Canada is the PTT Buddhist Society (formerly Pu Te Town) at 514 Keefer Street, Vancouver, British Columbia. With 6,000 square feet including the basement, it was converted from a Christian church and modelled after the Potala Palace in Lhasa. The second temple in Canada was the Ling Shen Ching Tze Temple (Jim Sim Branch) at 18 Trojan Gate, Unit A&B, Scarborough, Ontario inside a commercial building. The TBS currently has eleven chapters in Canada."" Irons, Edward A. (2008). Melton, J. Gordon (ed.). Encyclopedia Of Buddhism . New York: Facts On File . pp. 520 – 523 . ISBN 978-0-8160-5459-6 . Retrieved 2024-01-07 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: ""The True Buddha school ed in the 1990s out of the life and experience of Master Lu Shen-Yen (1945). Master Lu had a deep religious experience in 1971 that led him from his Christian upbringing into a period of seeking, study, and learning. ... As of 2005, the students of the True Buddha School (TBS) had established more than 300 centers for TBS practice and worship. These temples operate independently of Master Lu and the school’s international leadership but receive a charter and basic guidelines from the school. Participation in a center is not required, but most students find the local centers and the senior disciples in residence helpful to their progress. Master Lu has appointed a number of teaching masters. It is from among the teaching masters that a central committee is selected to oversee the school internationally. It oversees, for example, publishing and outreach programs. These have somewhat gone hand in hand, and while the school is still based primarily in the Chinese diaspora, a concerted effort has begun to translate Master Lu's writings into different local languages from Malay and Indonesian to English, French, Spanish, and Russian."" Goossaert, Vincent; Palmer, David A. (2011). The Religious Question in Modern China . Chicago: University of Chicago Press . p. 299. ISBN 978-0-226-30416-8 . Retrieved 2024-01-07 – via Google Books . The book notes: ""the True Buddha School 真佛宗, which was founded in 1969 through the revelation of a spirit medium of a Cihuitang spirit-writing temple to a member of the Presbyterian Church, Lu Shengyan 盧勝彥 (b. 1945). In the revelation, Lu Sheng-yan was ordered to accept instructions from Taoist masters, with whom he studied for a few years; eventually he turned increasingly to Tibetan Buddhism. The True Buddha School, which established its headquarters in Seattle, Washington, USA, in the early 1990s, offered practitioners a combination of body cultivation and meditation with congregational participation in Tantric rituals, as well as a relatively easy progression through a spiritual hierarchy. Mail-order initiations could be conferred through visualizations, by sending an application card and check to the head office in Seattle. In this fashion, the number of ""members"" increased from 40,000 in 1984 to 4 million in 1996."" Melton, J. Gordon (2021). ""Making Sense of the New Un-Sinicized Religions on China's Fringe"" . In Madsen, Richard (ed.). The Sinicization of Chinese Religions . Leiden: Brill Publishers . p. 166. ISBN 978-90-04-46517-6 . ISSN 1877-6264 . Retrieved 2024-01-07 – via Google Books . The book notes: ""The True Buddha School, a relatively new esoteric Buddhist group based on Taichung, has built a large following from Korea to Japan and ..."" Tam, Wai Lun (2001). ""Integration of the Magical and Cultivational Discourses. A Study on a New Religious Movement Called the True Buddha School"". Monumenta Serica . 49 : 141–169. JSTOR 40727437 . The article notes: ""The True Buddha School belongs to an esoteric form of Buddhism known as the Diamond Vehicle or Vajrayāna ( mizong 密宗). Its members are mostly Chinese. It was started in 1973 in Taiwan but it also attracts members from Chinese communities all over the world. The school calculated the number of its members in 1984 as forty thousand, but in twelve years it had increased one hundred times and numbers over four million today. We were told that their membership count is based on the issuance of membership certificates. Anyone who wishes to ""take refuge"" in the founder of the school would do so either by going directly to the headquarters of the school, which is now in Seattle, or by sending a letter of request together with a sum of money in a red envelope. An initiation ritual called consecration or empowerment ( guanding 灌頂) can be done in person or by remote initiation ( yaoguan 遙灌) that involves a magic performance by the founder of the school (sending of deities to carry out the consecration) and a visualization of the consecration process by the would-be disciple. The convenience of having the form of remote initiation certainly helps the school to develop fast."" Tam, Wai Lun (2016). ""The Tantric Teachings and Rituals of the True Buddha School"" . In Gray, David B. ; Overbey, Ryan Richard (eds.). Tantric Traditions in Transmission and Translation . New York: Oxford University Press . pp. 308–330. ISBN 978-0-19-976368-9 . Retrieved 2024-01-07 – via Google Books . The book notes: ""A recent development in the teachings of the True Buddha School is an attempt to integrate the Chan School of thought with the Tantric teachings in the form of commentary on the Chan text Wudeng Huiyuan 五燈會元 (Lu 2005, Bk 182; 2006, Bk 184, 188; 2007 Bk 192, 195; 2008, Bk 199; 2009, Bk 207, 211). Emphasis is put on the potentiality for Buddhahood that existed embryonically within all sentient beings as the womb of the Tathāgata ( tathāgatagarbha ). This new development uses Chan concepts, such as the idea of a teaching that does not rely on the written word but instead points directly to the human mind. The analysis of this process of integration of Chan Buddhism with Tantric Buddhism in the True Buddha School, however, has to be addressed in a future publication."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow True Buddha School ( Chinese : 真佛宗 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 00:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for finding these good sources, which I failed to find. I searched News for mentions, but I failed to search books or scholarly research. The article needs real improvement from sources like these. HouseOfChange ( talk ) 03:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC) I don't think the above is SIGCOV, and this will fit well and improve the target article. Right now both the article have questionable notability, together along with the sources above they make one passable article. Ping me if there is a strong argument for reversing the order. // Timothy :: talk 04:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Cunard's sources above. The religious school appears to be notable. A source in a non-English language is not a problem, but the article needs improvement in terms of sources. We should not consider votes from auto- voters like above. 1.47.195.61 ( talk ) 14:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear further review of newly found sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Lion lights: Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 18:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal , Products , and Kenya . Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 18:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Has significant coverage from CNN and WIPO already cited in article. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 18:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The CNN Business piece reads like a promo piece a marketing agency would put out same with the WIPO Piece, although the WIPO piece seems to be more of an informal piece with interview quote throughtout. So while CNN is normally reliable it feels like in this case, it is one of the less reliable end of CNNs articles. Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 19:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC) our WP:G11 policy states: ”This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. ” I don’t think this article meets the criteria for a CSD G11 tag; that’s why I removed the tag. We’ll see what others say. The article has multiple refs, in particular CNN and the World Intellectual Property Organization ’s WIPO magazine. — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The CNN Business piece reads like a promo piece a marketing agency would put out same with the WIPO Piece, although the WIPO piece seems to be more of an informal piece with interview quote throughtout. So while CNN is normally reliable it feels like in this case, it is one of the less reliable end of CNNs articles. Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 19:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These lights won first place in the young inventor category of the European Inventor Awards , sponsored by the European Patent Office . That’s a big deal. Slam dunk notability based on that. — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Has significant enough coverage but article very much needs fixing to sound less promotional in tone and images are both copyright violations. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 19:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Clearly notable, and any promotionalism has been removed. This discussion should closed per WP:SNOW . ~ Anachronist ( talk ) 19:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SNOW in the desert. Nice. I'm not getting it to snow, see below. Copyright concerns over the photo, is a red flag. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Copyright concerns over a photo means you propose the image for deletion. It's irrelevant to the notability of the topic, or to the original reason this was proposed for deletion. ~ Anachronist ( talk ) 20:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They do if the article is to be d, they go hand in hand. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Boy this needs a rewrite. It's been covered in NPR [25] although it looks like a different thing. Georgia PBS [26] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Kukos on copying the photo from the World Intellectual Property Organization, that's getting a tag as a copyvio. It's sourced there to someone else, who doesn't match the name used here, so red flags all over the place. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two copyvios, both from WIPO. Dude, they basically enforce copyright around the world and coordinate treaties, don't steal from them. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So, the photographs. Your points are irrelevant to the notability or promotional questions. ~ Anachronist ( talk ) 20:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, they are red flags though, they pop up when people try to promote stuff on here. More times than I'd care for. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to the inventor (who doesn't have an article). I don't think the light system is notable, there are a few discussions around the teen that invented them. The Copyvio photos are a red flag though, this is PROMO. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC) @ Louloudi92 uploaded commons:File:Richard Turere-profile-picture.jpg and commons:File:Lion Lights system.jpg to Commons. His user page says he is the assistant editor of WIPO magazine. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well the Commons admins will look into it. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are Oaktree b 's deletion requests at Commons. No response positive or negative so far: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Richard Turere-profile-picture.jpg commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lion Lights system.jpg A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] for lack of notability; the red flags certainly don't help either. SilverTiger12 ( talk ) 15:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] definitely notable. I say, people who nominate referenced things like this. Danstarr69 ( talk ) 16:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yikes! That’s a pretty rough comment. — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A. B. Even if it wasn't referenced, the references are easy to find. If they weren't then fair enough. It's like with someone I added to a 16 year old short film the other day on IMDB. As it was her first, and only film credit as far as I can see, I searched for external links to add to her profile. However I only found two, most likely because she's got married. One self-published. And one partial-interview in a local newspaper. She got to the final of a county Miss World type competition, and got to the final of two national Miss World type competitions, all three in the same year, plus is or was a model and a dancer. If she had an Wikipedia article, and someone nominated it for deletion then fair enough, as there's nothing to prove she's notable. Did she win those 3 competitions she got to the final of? Who knows, because there's no follow up stories after January 2012 when that news story was published. Editors are supposed to try and improve articles before nominating them for deletion. Yet there's 100s or 1000s of people who seem to spend all day, every day, going around deleting or nominating articles for deletion, with no attempt to improve them first. Danstarr69 ( talk ) 20:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Correct, we aren't here to rewrite the article after a deletion discussion, we're here to ""process the paperwork"". Wikipedia has a whole volunteer staff that need to do the work to it functioning. There are hundreds of AfD's that come up weekly, in English alone. If we stopped after each one and did the work on the article, the rest would get backed up and we'd never recover. I look at the discussion in AfD, say my piece, move on to the next one. That's my ""job"" here, that is entirely voluntary I might add. No one pays me to do this, I do it as I enjoy it. Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] without a doubt. Agletarang ( talk ) 18:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Katherine Jashinski: Possible WP:1E . It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn ( talk ) 19:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] -- Jashinski is widely discussed in reliable sources regarding the current state of conscientious objector laws. Here are some examples, more than enough to establish notability: Interview in Objector Journal from 2006 Discussion in scholarly journal Peace and Change from 2013 Discussion in Rules of Disengagement, a monograph published in 2013 by NYU Press There are more, but these are the ones that are visible without subscription or a copy of the book. Try the GScholar search above to see what I mean. In any case, these sources are spread over seven years and there are other even more recent ones. They're enough both to meet the GNG and to refute any claim that this is a 1E issue. Central and Adams ( talk ) 20:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Appears to have coverage in RS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC) HEY if and only if the sources found are added to the current stub. Bearian ( talk ) 15:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I have added the sources to relevant points but I have not expanded the article. -- StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 19:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Siobhan Austen: Could not find coverage to meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO . LibStar ( talk ) 02:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . See the well-cited articles at https://scholar.google.com/scholar? q=%22Siobhan+Austen%22 Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . Phil Bridger ( talk ) 12:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC) HEY , Phil Bridger. Seemed to already well meet WP:PROF to me, but for the absence of doubt I've added 4 reliable sources. Cabrils ( talk ) 12:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC) PROF as per discussion above. LibStar continues to nominate articles for AfD without performing basic WP:Before, or demonstrating a competence in evaluating source for SIGCOV. Raises questions of competence Jack4576 ( talk ) 07:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC) There are two reviews of their book [9] . Source eval: Comments Source Publisher, primary 1. Austen, Siobhan (2003). Culture and the Labour Market. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. [1]. ISBN 9781843763178. Primary, from employer 2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d ""Curriculum Vitae Siobhan Austen"". Curtin University. Primary, from employer 3. ^ ""Overview of the Wiser group"". Curtin University. Iffy 4. ^ Wood, Stephanie (18 June 2022). ""'I don't mind camping, but I won't sleep in the car': what happens when superannuation s failing women"". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 19 May 2023. Iffy 5. ^ Costa, Monica; Sharp, Rhonda; Austen, Siobhan (29 September 2020). ""Each budget used to have a gender impact statement. We need it back"". The Conversation. Retrieved 19 May 2023. Iffy 6. ^ Wade, Matt (16 July 2019). ""There's a reason Australia's gender pay gap is so persistent"". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 19 May 2023. Primary, from employer 7. ^ ""Overview of Siobhan Austen"". Curtin University. Its a close call between TOOSOON and Keep, I think the squeeks past GNG and NPROF ""7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity."" states that ""if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area."" gives a little room past the two reviews of their work. // Timothy :: talk 04:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Limosa (disambiguation): The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 14:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 14:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC) DABMENTION -satisfying entries. A hatnote on Godwit will suffice. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Pppery , the disambiguation page has been updated and Limosa (magazine) has been created as a mentioned in its target. If you're fine with it now, please change your vote so that I can withdraw this nomination. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 15:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Go ahead and withdraw. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC) BEFORE ? :) In this case, you can e.g. see that Special:WhatLinksHere/Limosa_(magazine) has numerous links so it qualifies for inclusion. Why should we hide this from readers? -- Joy ( talk ) 21:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC) DABMENTION . NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 01:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC) 18, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, that's what I meant. Unfortunately, it seems that nobody was willing to help check WP:ONEOTHER candidates in the last month after I tagged 200+ dab pages (of all 1,200+ candidates) with {{ One other topic }} , although I have excluded ones resulted from vandalism. Thus, I believe PROD has to be used to draw more attention from our community. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 11:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, the cleanup tags aren't going to be very effective within just a month at rarely visited pages. Especially in cases where there weren't even hatnote links to some of these. -- Joy ( talk ) 12:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC) 56, 26 November 2023 (UTC) PTM rules on scientific names so someone else should look at it. Spamming all this into a hatnote at an article that actually has a different title seems like it would be excessive. -- Joy ( talk ) 10:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well spotted. Pam D 13:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC) adequate little dab page, too much for a hatnote. Pam D 13:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] several valid entries, plus see also section. Boleyn ( talk ) 15:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Organizations of the Dune universe: There is some content here that is off-topic but might be able elsewhere, such as the sentence from the lead that ""Herbert's concepts of human evolution and technology have been analyzed and deconstructed in at least one book, The Science of Dune (2008)"" , but overall this is a fancrufty mess that at best can be SOFDELETED and ed to Dune (franchise) . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and tag – This article is fully sourced and provides a good overview to the series background and their universe. I think it would be good if it was trimmed and tagged for notability/real world info, such as what critics/audiences/readers/the authors and producers etc thought about it and the development and the reception. Also just making it seem less in universe would be a good idea in order to make it more relevant to the real world and more in line with notability standards. At the very least, this could be d and ed to the main series page under settings and context/plot, or draftified until it is cut and more Real world context is added. But I absolutely do *not* think it should be d. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 08:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] but rename to Factions of Dune (in a similar manner as Factions of Halo ). I would be surprised if they are not notable as a group though, and the problems described in this AfD amount to WP:SURMOUNTABLE (AfD is not cleanup). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 11:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - A good place to the various stand-alone lists and articles related to these organizations. ""Factions"" seems odd as applied to this universe. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and rename per Zxcvbnm. Individual entities are substantially notable, should be a WP:SS parent for those and a destination for those which are not. Jclemens ( talk ) 18:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , and I'm amenable to replacing ""organizations"" with ""factions"". This list is the destination for most of the listed topics, and was created as both a consolidation of smaller articles and a more detailed explanation of certain topics beyond what could be adequately covered in Dune (franchise) or Glossary of Dune (franchise) terminology . The factions listed here are pretty key to the franchise and can be complex to understand. I think any sourcing or notability issues will be easy to resolve, because with the advent of the Villeneuve films, there is a lot more media coverage available on some of these topics than when the list was created. — TAnthony Talk 18:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Abuta bullata: Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 14:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions . Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 14:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and South America . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 14:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, see also a notice on the talk page here , I don't think there will be any intention on improving any of the mass-created unsourced articles. microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 15:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC) Updated following significant article improvements by Significa liberdade. microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 16:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions . microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 15:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC) NSPECIES . The plant clearly exists. This article has the plant name in the title, and it's included in various plant guides, as now shown on the page. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 15:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] obviously - for validly described recent taxa, we maintain articles at the species level. Admittedly this was the worst possible logorrhoea dump before the recent improvements, but those improvements were readily made. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 16:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC) //www.selinawamucii.com/plants/menispermaceae/abuta-bullata/ (""© 2023 Selina Wamucii""). Uncle G ( talk ) 20:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just for clarity, I added some sources, but I did not add actual content to the page. The original editor had ""headings"" in the source text that were incorrectly done. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 01:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's one indicator of a copy-and-paste job. The headings were in the original, in the same order as they are in Special:Permalink/1192070528 . But most copy and paste mechanisms don't preserve the formatting. So they are apparent in the raw wikitext, as here, but come out as unformatted sentence fragents in the rendered page, also as here. Uncle G ( talk ) 07:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This article "" is "" the main species article . Loopy30 ( talk ) 03:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Herbert Polzhuber: Not an obvious as he competed at more than one Olympics and in more than one sport but Austria at the 1968 Summer Olympics might be best as it was his highest finish. Suonii180 ( talk ) 08:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics , and Austria . Suonii180 ( talk ) 08:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There has to be offline coverage for a guy who was a multi-sport Olympian at four Olympics. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 14:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This piece from SB Nation has a wild story about his participation at the World Pentathalon Championships. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 14:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This book that I can't access discusses him on nine pages, it seems. He also seems to be discussed in this magazine that only gives me snippet view . Olympedia also has a decent paragraph on him, which is rare for historical foreign athletes - so that should go for something . This mentions him as "" one of Austria's best epee fencers "". BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 14:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This piece seems to discuss how the PED laws were affected due to his play at the 1965 Championships, giving a paragraph on him. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 14:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Teol seems to have another piece on him at the world championships. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 14:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC) //magazin.spiegel.de/EpubDelivery/spiegel/pdf/45950013 , https://web.archive.org/web/20090519062613/http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/summer/1968/MOP/ , http://archiv.oefv.com/new/indexc903.html? page=298&printview=1 , https://www.spiegel.de/sport/auf-fremdem-ross-a-1df134e9-0002-0001-0000-000045950013 and https://digi.landesbibliothek.at/viewer/fulltext/AC13228472_1964/33/ . KatoKungLee ( talk ) 01:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Added up, I think we should be able to weak this one. Competing at four different Olympics for a foreign country in the pre-internet era is almost a 100% guarantee that offline coverage is going to exist. And then we've even got a piece discussing him from an American publication, plus a story on him from Teol (Hungary); one of the sources mentions that he was one of his country's best all-time fencers, and we have at least two sources that we know mention him, but can't access. Additionally, Olympedia devotes a decent-sized paragraph to him, which is rare for foreign historical athletes - which has to show something. So in all, I do believe we have enough to write a decent biography and to this per NBASIC (mixed with a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE ), which states ""If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"". BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 14:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak I agree with this assessment. The American point of view is interesting, and the Hungarian one is another interesting case. Notice of a western athlete from behind the Iron Curtain at that time is odd. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak I also agree with BeanieFan11's assessment. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"List of female superheroes: I don’t, but suffice to say A LOT, probably so many we don’t need to list them all per WP:MILL . Dronebogus ( talk ) 09:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Lists . Dronebogus ( talk ) 09:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Too large to make a usable list, even if limited to individually notable characters. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 18:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You mean, as large in scope as List of sportswomen ? Or List of women writers ? Daranios ( talk ) 21:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We don’t honestly need those either… ~50% of the population are women. Dronebogus ( talk ) 01:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd bet that is not the case for notable people in those fields, as opposed to people in general - there's still a strong need for such lists to highlight important boundary-breaking people. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is there though? Women routinely become sportspeople and writers— some sports (like gymnastics and netball) and genres (romance fiction) are probably dominated by women. Similarly there are huge numbers of female superheroes, and if you included groups like magical girls (which arguably are just a slightly different kind of superhero) females would dominate certain areas of that too. That’s why I referenced WP:MILL — there’s no real novelty behind women being superheroes that requires listing them exhaustively. Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC) Women in Red . Or we could look to secondary sources rather than our own impression. Check out this one : ""...certain demographic groups have been overrepresented while those from more marginalized groups have been underrepresented and stereotyped. Female superheroes exemplify this underrepresentation and stereotyping..."" One example of how female superheroes have been of interest to scholars, rather than being so common as to ""not stand out from the rest"" . Daranios ( talk ) 14:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 18:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . It's only indiscriminate in that the page currently lacks prose putting the list into context, but the topic of women superheroes is clearly notable, given that entire books have been published on the subject, so that could easily be remedied. pburka ( talk ) 19:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is there a strong reason to have a list with prose providing context, rather than a prose article? TompaDompa ( talk ) 19:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We could even have both . pburka ( talk ) 21:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is there any strong reason to? If the problem with the list is that it needs prose, having a list with explanatory prose and a separate prose article seems terribly redundant. TompaDompa ( talk ) 01:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This list can't be redundant with an article that doesn't exist. pburka ( talk ) 03:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure if you're missing the point or intentionally ignoring it. You said that the problem with the list is that it needs prose. I'm asking whether you think there's a strong reason to add prose to the list rather than replace the list with prose. You suggested that we could have a list with prose and additionally a prose article. I'm asking whether you think there's a strong reason to have both, since having both seems redundant to me. You rather nonsensically said that the list isn't redundant to a prose article since the latter doesn't exist, which may be true but really has nothing to do with your suggestion to have two articles: a list article that includes prose and additionally a prose article. TompaDompa ( talk ) 10:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A prose article discusses the topic. The list article provides a navigation help for what on the subject exists distributed on Wikipedia. So both have separate functions and therefore independent reasons to exist. Daranios ( talk ) 11:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I know that's your view on the matter and that we generally disagree on the navigational merits of lists like this (why does the list have redlinked and unlinked entries, is anybody actually going to come to this list to find the article they are looking for, would prose be better for exploratory browsing, and so on). pburka suggested that the list needs prose for context, and also suggested that a prose article be created in addition to the list. I'm trying to figure out what they think the benefit of organizing it like that would be. TompaDompa ( talk ) 11:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC) INDISCRIMINATE problems - which is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE issue. Daranios ( talk ) 18:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC) it is by design not meant to be exhaustive (unlike e.g. List of James Bond novels and short stories ), not ordered in a way that conveys information (unlike e.g. Stephen King bibliography ), not informational in other ways either (unlike e.g. List of cities founded by Alexander the Great ), and not plausibly a navigational aid for people looking for a specific article (unlike e.g. Lists of Ancient Roman governors ). It is essentially an exercise in stamp collecting. As with most topics, WP:PROSE would almost certainly be a better way to cover the subject matter. TompaDompa ( talk ) 20:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lists are popular among certain Wikipedians because they’re extremely easy to “improve” (essentially busywork ) or they can’t use categories and/or assume most readers can’t. If categories were made more accessible, especially in mobile, we would easily be able to cull most “stamp collecting” lists. Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm afraid you've missed my point. The nomination rationale is false because this list isn't indiscriminate, or, if it really is lacking context (as described by WP:INDISCRIMINATE ), the problem is WP:SURMOUNTABLE . pburka ( talk ) 13:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I know that's your view on whether this list article should be d, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about your suggestion to add prose to this article and also to create a separate, stand-alone prose article. Why organize it like that? TompaDompa ( talk ) 13:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I haven't expressed a view on whether this list article should be d, and I haven't proposed any reorganization. pburka ( talk ) 13:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You said we could have both a list with prose providing context and a prose article. TompaDompa ( talk ) 13:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you saying we can't have a list and an article on the same topic? pburka ( talk ) 14:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm saying that if the list needs prose for context (in order to not be indiscriminate, or for some other reason), adding prose to the list and creating a prose article seems like a weird way of organizing it. TompaDompa ( talk ) 14:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think lists should have a few sentences of prose putting the contents into context and explaining the inclusion criteria. This isn't the same as an in-depth discussion of the topic of the portrayal of women in superhero fiction, which one might hope to find in a standalone article. pburka ( talk ) 16:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Much like the list of female supervillains, this is too broad a list. As TomaDompa so well put it, a prose article would be massively better, possibly discussing both female superheroes AND supervillains. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thinking about it more, I'll have to vote instead - this article has a companion page already, Portrayal of women in American comics , and simply needs cleanup to remove non-notable characters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While we can surely debate if we want this list on Wikipedia or not, I have not seen any policy-based arguments backing up the -opinions. Length, specifically, is not a reason for deletion . As long as we limit the list to notable characters, as suggested by LaundryPizza03 and mostly already the case, none of the points of WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies: This is not a collection of indiscriminate, uncommented information, but rather a cross-reference of information which has already been deemed notable and encyclopedic enough to include on Wikipedia, making this a navigational list in accordance with WP:LISTPURP-NAV . So far the only additional information the list gives beyond the category is the publisher/comics series and sometimes minor bits of commentary. Ideally, this could be somewhat expanded and made sortable, but it is already something. Pinging if any of the participants of the long past previous deletion discussion are still around: @ Jc37 , Gandalf61 , Smeazel , BOZ , and Jack-A-Roe : . Daranios ( talk ) 06:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The list is clearly not WP:INDISCRIMINATE and I haven't seen a compelling argument to it. It does have lots of room to WP:IMPROVE , e.g., I'd recommend converting the list to a table and including additional context, such as date of first appearance and creator. The list should also be restricted to individually notable characters in order to constrain its scope (either blue links or well-referenced ref links). It should also link to prose articles offering deeper coverage of this notable topic. pburka ( talk ) 22:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Representation is a thing. When a form of media, genre, or say, a type of character is almost always one way for a long time, exceptions often get press coverage -- not just because they're unusual but because the people represented are often enthusiastic and want to share examples. Nominating a bunch of ""[group historically underrepresented] in [an area in which they were underrepresented]"" articles as WP:INDISCRIMINATE is, well, indiscriminate . Obviously there will be sources to satisfy WP:NLIST for this topic, and inclusion criteria seems pretty easy to set up. The rest is just cleanup . — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC) Gender, Power, and Representation , Carolyn Cocca, 2016, Bloomsbury Publishing - ""Over the last 75 years, superheroes have been portrayed most often as male, heterosexual, white, and able-bodied. Today, a time when many of these characters are billion-dollar global commodities, there are more female superheroes, more queer superheroes, more superheroes of color, and more disabled superheroes--but not many more."" Beccaynr ( talk ) 23:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.156.253 ( talk ) 00:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Arboricultural Association: A search does not reveal any non-trivial coverage of the subject. The only source in the article is primary (the organization's website). XabqEfdg ( talk ) 02:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . XabqEfdg ( talk ) 02:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Biology . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Its journal Arboricultural Journal: International Journal of Urban Forestry (formerly Arboricultural Association Journal ) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q96326792 is indexed in Scopus. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak when you are the authoritative body in a niche sector there’s a bit of a notability conundrum - all the learned and professional papers are published by you, all the spokespeople are on your board, and pretty much everything connected with the topic is associated with you in some way. Nevertheless I find 1 , multiple references in Horticulture Week, and they are the publishers of the scholarly journal of their discipline. Mccapra ( talk ) 11:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Mccapra. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Miguel Mies: His personal website lists multiple media appearances , but they are all either interviews or articles by his university, so no independent secondary sources here. The best sources could be this one which repeatedly quotes Mies on his research and even has a paragraph quoting a researcher critical of Mies' work, and this one which discusses his team's research in detail and briefly quotes him. However, neither seems to rise to the level of a full secondary source significantly covering him. The only other things found in a quick WP:BEFORE are, comparatively, not very interesting: a mention as contributor in a book in Google Books, more databases [1] [2] [3] [4] , a team presentation and his research articles on Google Scholar. Nothing close to establishing notability. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs ) 22:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Science , Biology , and Brazil . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . A recent (2019) PhD whose citation counts [5] have not yet built to the level needed for WP:PROF#C1 , with no evidence of any other kind of notability. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Lokotim ( talk ) 18:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC) NPROF #7a which says Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area . He is widely cited in Brazilian media as an academic expert in a niche area: [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] . Weitkemp ( talk ) 14:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It doesn't matter when he did his PhD. He meets 7a. More refs: [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] . Weitkemp ( talk ) 14:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] , [39] , [40] Weitkemp ( talk ) 14:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, that's a good point. I forgot that specific subcriterion, but it should work for the SNG. Guess it's time then. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs ) 14:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. It's helpful to share sources that can help establish notability but it is unrealistic to list 34 as if participants have the time to check each one. User:Weitkemp can you narrow that down to 3 or 4 that best illustrate your argument to this article? And while it doesn't really matter when an article subject received their PhD, it is more likely that an academic would have receive sufficient coverage when they have progressed further in their career. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Nowhere near a pass of WP:Prof . Xxanthippe ( talk ) 01:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] per above arguments. Meets WP:PROF as it stands - I think deletionists should get a consensus to deprecate Point #7 of WP:NPROF. Otherwise, academics like Mies are notable if they are widely cited in the mainstream media as an expert. Academics from Brazil are just as notable as those from the U.S. Also, RE to Liz, WP:GNG is not mandatory for academics. 89.23.224.133 ( talk ) 22:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Unclear where this discussion stands now that the nominator is arguing to this article but hasn't withdrawn their nomination. With some editors advocating Delete, it wouldn't lead to a Speedy here but it might make a difference in how editors are viewing the nom's argument. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Weitkemp . consensus can change , but as of the recent past , rule 7 has existed as a loophole of the PROF test. While I used to be an inclusionist, I am now more of a deletionist . Bearian ( talk ) 17:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - meets NPROF criteria #7. Bhivuti45 ( talk ) 10:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV . Sources outside of the US are just as good as sources inside the US. Contributor892z ( talk ) 18:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Midlands Today: My BEFORE search found this Coventry website , BusinessLive , and this mere mention and I still don't see enough for WP:GNG . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 02:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and England . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 02:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC) We would probably move to BBC Midlands Today since BBC regional news since many articles have the BBC prefix in it. Akhil K. ( talk ) 18:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed. Rillington ( talk ) 09:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC) I see no justification for this article's deletion, It is a significant regional news programme and contains independent references. Rillington ( talk ) 09:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 11:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. There's enough coverage in the sources already in the article and these further sources to pass the GNG: A look back over the first 50 years of the programme is SIGCOV. [27] . Brief comment on new look [28] . Changes to the set [29] and similar. [30] Suzanne Virdee leaving [31] . Mentions in this book [32] Agree with title change to BBC Midlands Today. Rupples ( talk ) 04:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"United Breast Cancer Foundation: What news can be found is either in the form or press releases, or negative coverage about their questionable fundraising practices and costs. But even then, they are not especially notable as a bad charity; it's just that that is the only thing they are even minorly notable for. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 11:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Organizations , Medicine , Maryland , and New York . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . A Google News search suggests that the group is notable. Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Criminal_acts may be relevant. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 16:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Notability_(events)#Criminal_acts is relevant. UBCF has received coverage as a ""bad charity"", but only in the context that there are many bad charities, and UCBF is one of them. No coverage about their poor fundraising practices has focused solely on them and any particularly heinous criminal act. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 11:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak , we could build a case for notability. They do charitable things [22] and have a somewhat questionable public image [23] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 13:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC) Appears to be just enough to pass GNG [ [24] ][ [25] ] User:Let'srun 21:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Hotel Rose: Coverage is mainly travel listings or very local as per WP:AUD . Also searched by previous name. LibStar ( talk ) 23:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC) creator). I'm not convinced nominator has completed a thorough search for sources. I was able to find coverage of the property as Riverside West Motor Hotel, a Four Points by Sheraton, Hotel Fifty, and Hotel Rose quite quickly. I've expanded the entry to include book, newspaper, journal, and magazine coverage spanning at least a decade, and I've not even checked the Oregonian archives yet. This article should be expanded, not d. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Business , and Oregon . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Unseen University: Additionally, it is made up of entirely plot summary, which is forbidden under WP:NOT . As for the previous AFDs, the last one was in 2010. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 23:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Schools . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 23:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is clearly not a plot summary, but it does need more references. PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 23:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please explain where the article mentions Unseen University's real-life importance or reception. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 23:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Check out the sources I posted in the second AFD a dozen years ago. Most of those links still appear live. If you'd prefer, it is well within the nominator's remit to do up a source evaluation matrix on them. Jclemens ( talk ) 00:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the sources I brought up a dozen years ago and two AfDs back. Jclemens ( talk ) 00:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Jclemens . If people don't want to as a standalone article, to Discworld , but I think it should be kept. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 00:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's possible, but creates all sorts of SIZE issues. Fact is, we have a bunch of sprawling articles that could all stand to be tightened up, but being poorly maintained is not a deletion criterion. Jclemens ( talk ) 00:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Jclemens . Also Unseen University and Discworld have become part pf popular culture in many places. -- Bduke ( talk ) 05:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC) 18, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I appear to have missed those when looking through the page history. I would like to withdraw this AfD. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Discworld . The article is still 100% plot summary. If we have sources, then we had years for someone to write some reception/analysis section. Enough is enough. If noone cares for years to make this policy-compliant, this until someone does. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"List of mayors of Rapid City, South Dakota: AusLondonder ( talk ) 06:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Lists of people , and United States of America . AusLondonder ( talk ) 06:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Isn’t Rapid City capital of South Dakota, or biggest in the state, or something like that? Hyperbolick ( talk ) No and no. Don't see the relevance of that to a mostly unsourced list of mostly non-notable people anyway. AusLondonder ( talk ) 07:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 02:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Vialble list; none on list required be individually notably. Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA and Wikipedia:CSC describe how the this list should be complete. City size doesn't matter. (Bit odd, nominator mentions it and then later calls it irrelevant, which is it?). Djflem ( talk ) 16:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure where the snide comment comes from. What I was saying was not relevant was whether Rapid City was a capital. I disagree completely with your comment that city size doesn't matter. There are many tens of thousands of cities globally and unsourced lists of past mayors is not encyclopedic. What criteria of WP:CSC is met by this list? Every entry meets the notability criteria - no. Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria - Note that this criterion is never used for living people. Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group doesn't appear to apply, either. It notes that ""The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources"" AusLondonder ( talk ) 08:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It was in reference to your dismissal of someone who was questioning the size of the city, which incidentally does not matter. Why wouldn't ""Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K)"" apply? A complete list of historical data with clearly finite number is rightfully expected. You are welcome to add sources. Djflem ( talk ) 20:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 08:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of the list appears to be cited to verifiable sources (and those that are not could be d). This is a complete list of mayors (meeting WP:CSC ). The size of the article makes it appropriate to be split from the main city page ( WP:SPLIT ). Size of city does not matter whether an article is kept. -- Enos733 ( talk ) 17:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Alisha Newton: None of the cited sources are considered reliable. I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:ENT / WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raqib Sheikh ( talk • contribs ) 00:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 11 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 00:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Just noting that this account has only been registered for an hour and their only edits have been to start this AFD. No editing on any other Wikimedia projects either so I'm not sure how they know policy abbreviations. L iz Read! Talk! 01:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , Television , and Canada . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC) probably her most well known role, trivial amount of coverage [7] , [8] , outside of that, only CBC promotional material. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC) https://en.m. wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources 103.237.36.24 ( talk ) 16:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm ok if it gets ! d as well, I didn't see coverage that I'd use to build an article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If that is so, would you please recommend deletion for this article in this talk page. For some reason, this AFD hasn't produced much discussion as of yet and I'm not sure how Wikipedia will deal with such nomination whose discussion page doesn't even have one recommendation. Raqib Sheikh ( talk ) 11:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No reliable sources or coverages to build an article. Izzac Leiberheir ( talk ) 03:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Izzac Leiberheir , you barely joined here in less than six days, and after two edits here , you jumped to deletion. Hmmm, is there anything we don't know here? — Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 02:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have also looked into the article and I frankly agree with the nomination. Couldn't find a single reference from a reliable source. Ashik Rahik ( talk ) 05:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC) Most of the sources if not all were based on a notable film. I was also thinking of the nominations when WP:ACTOR said, ""multiple and lead roles"". I became skeptic if her roles in the films other than Heartland (inclusively too). But the film.is notable and she was much credited for it. I have no other option that this meets notability guidelines. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 02:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC) NACTOR has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Theroadislong ( talk ) 07:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Theroadislong , appearing in multiple films without verifiability doesn't meet notability. Besides, almost all the sources were centralized to reviews or mention of her on the film, Heartland and remember, that isn't significant coverages. While Wikipedia is not perfect, seems to work here per her acting non or less lead roles. Unless the article has been covered for playing a particular role in two or more films (considered notable per WP:NFILM ), it should be kept, if not — per WP:ATD . — Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 10:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Consensus currently seems split between and . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 13:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the sources here look good enough. And here's another one from a major newspaper in 2013 . A decade of media coverage! And really, 10 seasons in a major national TV series - I'm not sure why we are here. Nfitz ( talk ) 16:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you sure the sources are reliable? Because they don't seem reliable to me, as per Wikipedia's reliable source list: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - Wikipedia . None of the cited sources within the article are on the list. And as per my knowledge about Wikipedia, when an article does not have reliable sources as references, which is when some or at least one these sources is not cited, then there's a big reason to the article. Raqib Sheikh ( talk ) 05:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Raqib Sheikh that a 120-year old Postmedia broadsheet is not a reliable source? That list came about to document bad sources. The Toronto Star - the largest newspaper in the nation, and the paper of record in Toronto isn't there as well. Neither is The Gazette - the largest English-language paper in Quebec. Would you discount those? Their lack of presence on that list simply indicates no one has ever felt a need to question it! Nfitz ( talk ) 20:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC) GNG MaskedSinger ( talk ) 05:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Married (TV series): Agusmagni ( talk | contributions ) 17:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America . Agusmagni Agusmagni Agusmagni 19:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 25 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC) GNG and WP:SIGCOV , there are plenty of reliable references in the article. EggRoll97 ( talk ) 22:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The nominator needs to stop nominating American TV series articles at this point; well passes GNG with the sources existing minus weekly ratings, and a Judy Greer/Jenny Slate FX prestige project isn't going to be d. Consider this a final warning to understand our deletion processes better, @ Agusmagni : ; this is like Angel Hernandez thinking they were calling strikes, when the pitcher threw wild pitches so bafflingly high that they hit play-by-play announcers in the press box three times over. Nate • ( chatter ) 01:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy . The nominator does not understand how Wikipedia works, and runs a WP:Single-purpose account to fruitlessly nominate various TV series. Geschichte ( talk ) 09:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Clearly notable series, the nominator is raising some WP:CIR concerns. Toughpigs ( talk ) 20:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC) GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 03:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Funny show with dedicated fanbase deserves a Wikipedia page. Waqar 💬 07:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Joseph Otterbeen: The best source is the one-paragraph obituary and the rest are databases, I haven't been able to find better and even his name is unclear. Rusalkii ( talk ) 01:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Rusalkii ( talk ) 01:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The SR piece is outdated (became Olympedia, which has since updated to reflect that the Olympian was actually named Joseph) – also note that the Nederlands Wikipedia has some more text and lists a bunch of offline sources, including some that specifically seem to be about him (being mentioned in the title). BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics , Sport of athletics , and Belgium . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] based on the sources from the Dutch Wikipedia. Remember that per WP:NEXISTS we only have to show that sources exist, we don't actually have to have physical or electronic access to them to the article. We know that these sources exist, even though I don't have access to the Dutch media, we can find someone who does to help improve the article: ""Beroepsloopen - Over onze vervlogen Olympische droom. Jos. Otterbeen verdwijnt uit onze sport"". Sportwereld . 4 March 1925. ""Athletiek"". Sportwereld . 18 July 1920. ""Voetloopen - Ronde van Brugge"". Sportwereld . 17 October 1919. Thanks, -- Habst ( talk ) 16:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC) Otterbeen disappears from our sport""). BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC) 41, 22 March 2024 (UTC) 50, 22 March 2024 (UTC) At the Demulder discussion it sounded like you were able to get access to that source. Can you tell if any of the results for Otterbeen are sigcov? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 20:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV , we don't have to assume based on titles or otherwise, because we can read the facts cited to them on the Dutch Wikipedia. The sources speak to Otterbeen's intentions (""Otterbeen was originally a professional runner, but with a view to participating in the Antwerp Olympics, he joined the amateurs...""), we know that it would be impossible to read someone's intentions from just a database or results listing. So, based on the reading of WP:SPORTCRIT cited above, we are obligated to delay deletion. Thanks to @ BeanieFan11 's great research, I created an account on Belgica Press and retrieved the 150 matches. For example, look at page 3, top right corner here for some coverage (you shouldn't need an account to view this): [31] . Or see right hand side of page 3 here: [32] I don't know the language, but there are hundreds of matches for Otterbeen's name and I can see many more of them in prose. Would you consider changing your vote to at least ""delay deletion"" based on this evidence, as your reading of the policy would obligate us to do? -- Habst ( talk ) 18:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We do not know it is IRS SIGCOV because we do not know whether the facts are being relayed through secondary analysis by independent journalists or if they are coming from non-independent, primary quotes. JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC) IRS because it comes from a newspaper, Sportwereld , which has an editorial team and it is not sourced to an advertisement. We also know that the facts aren't coming from quotes, because in the Dutch Wikipedia they don't say that Otterbeen ""was quoted"" or similar, they simply state the facts as relayed through the journalists. If they were being sourced from quotes, we'd expect wording such as ""Otterbeen said"" on nlwiki or even an inclusion of the quote. Because that isn't there, we know that it's SIGCOV, obligating us to at least delay deletion. As proof of this, I found the actual cited article here (click the 4th page at the bottom, middle left hand side of the page): ""Beroepsloopen - Over onze vervlogen Olympische droom. Jos. Otterbeen verdwijnt uit onze sport"" . Sportwereld . 4 March 1925. p. 4. You can see by reading the article, Otterbeen is not merely quoted, but there is substantial analysis by secondary independent journalists done on the subject. Based on this, could you please change your vote to delay deletion as obligated by SPORTCRIT, or if you think that the multiple sources provided and shown to have existed are sufficient to establish notability? Thank you, -- Habst ( talk ) 21:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That indeed looks like non-trivial coverage so I will strike my ! vote. However, just because something comes from a newspaper does not mean it is IRS! PR notices, specials to the paper, etc. do not get labeled as ""advertisements"". And certainly we cannot assume Dutch wikipedia would attribute as a quote every single fact about the guy that was sourced to a quote (by him or anyone else). We know that editors routinely state basic info derived from quotations as fact. JoelleJay ( talk ) 17:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JoelleJay , thank you for striking your vote. I appreciate your point of view. In this case, I think we did know it was not sourced to a PR notice or paper special, because the title and contents were known and I can't think of any way that combination could have been part of anything but a standard news article in context. The editor @ Akadunzio has a great reputation with over 37,000 edits and 14 years of experience, so I think it would have been stated as such if facts were obtained only from quotes. Now with hindsight, we know that the facts were not obtained from quotes anyways, because we have the full article text and it contains enough non-quote information. Thanks, -- Habst ( talk ) 20:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - thanks to much work by Habst (and agreement with Beaniefan11's exasperation). Ingratis ( talk ) 18:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As nom, withdraw my nomination per alternative language sources (which I really should have remembered to check) and Habst's research. Rusalkii ( talk ) 19:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Samsung Galaxy S Plus: XDA Developers is referenced in the article as a source, but XDA Developers are user generated . Nothing is close to notable about this article. Jeffhardyfan08 ( talk ) 15:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 20 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 15:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Computing . Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes but I Think if it gets expanded and gets reliable references this would become a good article. PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 02:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC) https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_i9001_galaxy_s_plus-3908.php PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 02:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] GSMArena isn't notable. Jeffhardyfan08 ( talk ) 12:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Deletion is not cleanup, article could be improved. Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 12:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Yes I agree If it gets expanded and gets reliable references this would become a good article. PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 23:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] AndroidCommunity and TechRadar reviews establish notability. Garuda3 ( talk ) 19:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC) GNG Lightburst ( talk ) 19:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Subject meets GNG. Although the article does need to be significantly improved as others have pointed out. CycloneYoris talk! 23:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Madison Jeffries: No showing of real-world notability. Reads like a fanpage. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 06:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation . Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 06:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC) sources appear to be reliable, and primary sources are fine to use; at least within reason and to not make inappropriate claims. Given that this is a fictional character the use of primary sources to make claims about the entry for the most part seems fine. The fact that the primary sources are comic book pages is absolutely no problem. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD Regardless, the Marvel official handbook counts as a secondary source on the character and is cited. Notability is demonstrated by the character's prominence in an extremely notable form of American media. (i.e. marvel comics) Character is also created by a notable author, and appeared in multiple stories. I think this is sufficient to cross the notability threshold. Issues with style can be addressed through edits or article's talk page. Jack4576 ( talk ) 07:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV makes it very clear that at least two sources have to be ""independent of the subject"" to quality for notability, which this clearly isn't, nor is there any online. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Where are you getting the 'at least two' from? Can't see that requirement under WP:SIGCOV. The singular secondary source, paired with the numerous primary sources suggest to me that its more likely than not that this subject is notable Jack4576 ( talk ) 07:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since the guideline uses plural sources, ""at least two"" is the most mimimalistic interpretation of ""it has received significant coverage in reliable sources"". Sources, not source. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 10:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC) 51, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Genuine Question - how can a Marvel handbook be a secondary source? It's an additional fiction created by the same company that created the comics, it just has a different format. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 06:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The handbook documents and describes a fictional subject, but is not itself an instance of the fictional subject. Hence secondary. Marvel being the publisher for both doesn't matter. (I note the authors for both texts are different anyway) Jack4576 ( talk ) 13:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's crazy. Unless they've changed drastically since I last picked one up, they're written in-universe and often add extra fictional information (e.g. abilities never seen in comics, such as strength levels, or retcons like labelling Iron Man's armours). Marvel being the publisher for both really should matter as everything ultimately comes under the same editorial vetting; they're no more (or less) valid than a profile printed in a comic itself. Same goes for any of the heavily-vetted Official DK books and the like because it's all fiction licenced by the publisher and a primary source. A useful primary source, but a primary source nonetheless. It's no more valid in a sense of third-party notability than a YouTuber making a guide about themselves; they are not independent or objective. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 16:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] CBR and ScreenRant have in-depth write-ups on this character. Obviously needs to be integrated into the article, along with other appropriate editorial cleanup. Jclemens ( talk ) 07:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Jclemens sources are... not bad. I'd prefer something academic, and where reception is less passing, but they are better than some random listicles. I don't think it's enough for me to vote , but I am also not inclinded to go with right now. That said, if nobody adds this to the article, at minimum, {{ sources exist }} and {{ plot summary }} and like should be added. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 10:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC) J . Far too many primary-source based Marvel fancruft articles. If someone can pull it together it can always be returned to being a standalone article then , but until then it's another Marvel fandumb article that tried to run before it could walk. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 06:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Jack4576 and Jclemens. BOZ ( talk ) 18:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC) GNG . Daranios ( talk ) 20:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC) , @ Jclemens : , @ BOZ : , and @ Daranios : . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 23:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Death of Alexei Navalny: Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 14:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politics , and Russia . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 14:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose for now. Information is still coming out. Suggest giving it a week tops. Borgenland ( talk ) 14:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support it's not like we're gonna learn any details anyway besides the dry press statement and then an official declaration of death a couple of weeks down the line. If or when we learn the truth (and thus more detials) decades from now, we could recreate the article then Kasperquickly ( talk ) 14:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC) There's a decent chance that there will be an article about this event, but I think that this is a clear-cut case of WP:TOOSOON . We don't know what the precise implications of his likely murder will be. BOTTO ( T • C ) 14:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] no ordinary death would have domestic and international protests as a consequence; there's also quite a lot of coverage of his death, and there can only be more once there is an investigation into his death. If it turns out in a week that everyone has moved on and there's nothing more than reactions, then sure, it then. Jaguarnik ( talk ) 15:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose It's too early to determine if this will be notable enough for a full-fledged article. Best to wait a few days as this will certainly have media coverage. AverageLogic ( talk ) 15:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose . For many Russians, this is a political event of historic proportions. Although we cannot know the exact details yet, it will clearly be remembered and discussed. HFoxii ( talk ) 15:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - if in a month nothing more happened concerning this death. Then we might have a discussion, at this moment this is a highly notable death and a needed article. Per WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk ) 15:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - As per above. We should at least wait until the dust settles before such a discussion is made. TheBritinator ( talk ) 15:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC) 45, 16 February 2024 (UTC) 18, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] don't be ridiculous. Jmj713 ( talk ) 15:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC) 25, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This will be going on for a long time as the international news investigations unfold. — Maile ( talk ) 15:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , probably an important political murder. Wikisaurus ( talk ) 15:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] P. S. In ruwiki there is quite a long and detailed description of how his health was undermined by Russian prison authorities. Wikisaurus ( talk ) 17:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Too soon to make such article, it is Wikinews . With evidence of intentional death and the circumstances of the investigation there should be such an article, but right now there is no information or sources to confirm or deny anything. evs 💬 15:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . There is already, just hours after the first announcement, an international reaction that will easily make the event notable , for example this BBC article . Mike Turnbull ( talk ) 16:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As creator, it's obvious his death will acquire significant coverage and analysis in the coming years. No Swan So Fine ( talk ) 16:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Additional info in connection with his death cannot be included in full in other articles. -- Ipigott ( talk ) 16:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC) 1700:3FB0:9C20:DD91:FCC8:35DD:E70F ( talk ) 16:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC) 19, 16 February 2024 (UTC) This is already covered in the New York Times and other outlets; given his profile within the country, I'm almost certain more will come out. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC) 22, 16 February 2024 (UTC) 30, 16 February 2024 (UTC) 33, 16 February 2024 (UTC) 39, 16 February 2024 (UTC) FORK and WP:SIZESPLIT from the main biographical article. Abcmaxx ( talk ) 16:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC) 19, 16 February 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON ). A couple of people ( Ur frnd , Abcmaxx ) have also cited the large size of the parent article, which a would only add to, and Ipigott also wrote that information about Navalny's death would not be able to receive adequate coverage in a separate article. These are all sound policy reasons, and I think the ""immediate relevance"" argument convincingly outweighs the ""too soon"" concerns. -- 3 kids in a trenchcoat ( talk ) 17:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Snow . This article has adequate coverage and s a POV slant about his death out of the main article. Knowledgekid87 ( talk ) 17:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment While notability is obviously there, the fact that even Navalny's family and his lawyer haven't confirmed the death brings this close to BLP violation territory. On the (extremely slight) off-chance that Navalny is still alive, or the (slightly more likely) chance that there won't be independent confirmation of his death anytime soon, this article will need major rethinking. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs ) 17:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the various reasons already provided. Clear Looking Glass ( talk ) 17:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - A large number of media outlets, reliable ones too, have covered this event. This subject is already notable enough to be its own article HetmanTheResearcher ( talk ) 17:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC) NOTNEWS and/or WP:TOOSOON . As noted above, many of the """" votes are WP:CRYSTAL arguments that the topic will eventually warrant a separate article in the future, or are plain arguments that we should this as a WP:POVFORK and WP:QUOTEFARM (or are variations of WP:ILIKEIT ) which are not good reasons to content. The ""events"" section and a summarized form of the ""reactions"" section (trimmed and likely omitting the international reactions which are just social media quotes) could easily be d into the main biography, with the rest of this article then being redundant. See Death of Henry Kissinger for a similar example. Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 18:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Henry Kissinger is a bad example to use as his death was straightforward. I don't know what long term coverage there might be, but this certainly isn't a usual death case. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk ) 18:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And what are your sources for that, roughly half a day of breaking news coverage? Do I understand correctly that there isn't even an official confirmation that he has died? Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 18:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC) ""The weight of international opinion does not appear to tally with Russia's account of what happened to him. "" [9] This is significantly different from Kissinger who died of natural causes. If Navalny were alive then it would go against this consensus. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk ) 18:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] with Alexei Navalny per Ivanvector. Generalissima ( talk ) 18:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This event can be viewed from different perspectives, there will be more materials coming out which will obviously cause controversy and it will need its own page. IKasio ( talk ) 18:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] for now and see how events develop - because the event is already notable by itself. No doubts, he was murdered by ing him is for a long time in a ""punishment cell"" in the Arctic prison [10] (they usually a very low temperature in such cells), or by other means. Hence, the page would be better named a Murder of Alexei Navalny . Informally speaking, his poisoning in Russia was already a death sentence issued to him by the Russian government, so it was only a matter of time when he would be executed. My very best wishes ( talk ) 18:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, that doesn't sound at all like a separate article to push a particular point of view at all. Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 18:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What point of view? It only matters if the event was notable enough for a separate page - based on the coverage in multiple RS. My very best wishes ( talk ) 18:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC) 44, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Snow . obviously notable Tdmurlock ( talk ) 18:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC) per WP:SNOW . Notable opposition to a dictator mysteriously dies in prison? Probably notable. StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 19:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Above and Beyond: The Encyclopedia of Aviation and Space Sciences: A quick Google search and Google Scholar search have not brought up any reliable, secondary sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 03:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 03:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , History , Astronomy , Aviation , and Spaceflight . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Sources McGregor, Jim (1969-03-23). ""Book Review"" . Montgomery Advertiser . Archived from the original on 2023-11-27 . Retrieved 2023-11-27 – via Newspapers.com . The review notes: ""This fascinating 14-volume set of space and aviation reference books has a direct Montgomery connection, since New Horizons, the publisher, is a division of Fuller And Dees Marketing Group of Montgomery. This factual set would be a leather in the cap of any publisher. ""Above and Beyond"" is sure to become one of the most notable reference works in the country. Billed as the first complete encyclopedia of space and aviation, the set is certainly complete and it is as interesting to read as a good novel."" Mollwitz, John E. (1969-01-05). ""Books: Encyclopedia of Aerospace"" . Wisconsin State Journal . Archived from the original on 2023-11-27 . Retrieved 2023-11-27 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""It appears primarily designed for junior and senior high school students, although the entire family would find the wealth of information useful as they watch developments in space and in the super-sized airliners. Biographical data on airmen who have made history is one of the most significant contributions the set makes. One apparent missing discussion, however, is the controversy over who flew first. The encyclopedia gives the credit to the Wright brothers, but it makes no mention of Gustave Alvin Whitehead. ... Nevertheless, the entire set makes a significant contribution to an understanding of aerospace."" Keeler, Robert A. (January 1969). ""Above and Beyond: the Encyclopedia of Aviation and Space Sciences"". School Library Journal . Vol. 15, no. 5. p. 88. ProQuest 1966017596 . The abstract notes: ""Gr 6 Up-- Billed as ""the world's first encyclopedia devoted exclusively to aviation and space science,"" Above and Beyond is avowedly aimed at the school and library market, with a target age bracket of 10 to 16 years. Although older children and adolescents will be the main readers, adults consulting the set will not detect misleading simplifications or condescending writing. "" ""Above and Beyond: the Encyclopedia of Aviation and Space Sciences"". Booklist . Vol. 67. May 1971. p. 707. EBSCO host 527111769 . The excerpt notes: ""Designed for the upper elementary and senior high school student, [this encyclopedia] will also be of interest to adults. . . . In general the information is accurate. . . Extensive coverage is given to space exploration and astronautics and to the related field of astronomy. Considering the emphasis of the books, coverage of the physical and biological sciences is not so extensive, but it is adequate. . . . Somewhat more than 20 percent of the material is devoted to military applications of aviation and space research. . . . [There are] useful biographies of men and women associated with aviation and space activities. . . . [A] weakness is the lack of bibliographies. . . . [This set] collects in one source much more information on aerospace than is likely to be found in the more general encyclopedias. . . . Recommended."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Above and Beyond: the Encyclopedia of Aviation and Space Sciences to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 12:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, Cunard ! Would you be willing to add these reviews to the page? Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 03:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Cunard's in-depth ""after"" work (good job!). Randy Kryn ( talk ) 12:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per displayed sources above. 213.239.67.134 ( talk ) 23:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Immanuel Ness: He has a very low citations count. There is no way he meets WP:GNG . Oluwatoniyi ( talk ) 15:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 28 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 15:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Colorado , and New York . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I see evidence of Ness passing GNG in the citations. Fix the COI issues, the article. -- User:Namiba 19:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC) NAUTHOR combined with his work as editor of some journals. They are oxford university press journals, quite low but it its a low citations field. I think there is more than enough to pass WP:GNG . The article needs about 20 hours worth of work to clean to references and add additional references. There is bits of it that are cited to single refs and don't cover it properly per WP:V . The image of Ness, he looks like ""Death warmed up"". Perhaps a better image? scope_creep Talk 08:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC) passes WP:NAUTHOR for having reviews of his academic books, and I would say also passes WP:NPROF on the grounds of being the editor of several encyclopedias. -- asilvering ( talk ) 01:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] his edited scholarly books are important--he succeeds in bringing together lots of established scholars writing essays for his encyclopedic multivolume worked on major topics. Rjensen ( talk ) 06:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Stateline (TV program): Despite running for 15 years between 1996 and 2011, and an additional 3 years as 7.30 from 2011 to 2014, the article so far, only has 2 references. I hope someone adds more references to the article. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 05:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia . Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 05:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . There is significant coverage in reliable sources. E.g. ""ABC cuts: state 7.30 programs broadcast emotional final episodes"", The Guardian , ""Affairs of State"", The Sydney Morning Herald , ""7.30 Report cut back as States get ABC airtime"", The Sydney Morning Herald , ""State affairs back on ABC's 7.30 slot"", The Age . Jenks24 ( talk ) 08:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC) HASREFS and improvement rather than deletion is appropriate. Storm machine ( talk ) 21:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Storm machine , as the nominator, I am pinging @ Cunard to see if he adds the references mentioned by @ Jenks24 to the article. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 07:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jenks24 , as the nominator, I have added the references that you have mentioned to the article just now. I am pinging @ Cunard again, to see if he can find any more references for Stateline . Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 05:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Troy Trepanier: This source may not be considered reliable or independent, as it is a website that focuses on automotive topics and may have a conflict of interest or bias towards the subject. The article does not provide any other sources that cover the subject’s life, career, achievements, awards, or impact. Therefore, the article may not show that the subject meets the notability criteria for people. DarklarkOxs ( talk ) 21:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . DarklarkOxs ( talk ) 21:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC) SK#2 as a bad faith revenge nomination. The deletion rationale also appears to have been written by ChatGPT. 192.76.8.94 ( talk ) 21:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC) Striking as an editor in good standing has voted . 192.76.8.94 ( talk ) 21:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy per 192.76.8.94 , as ZeroGPT detects the text as being 93.41% likely to be AI generated. In addition, nom is currently softblocked for talk page vandalism. WhichUser AmI 21:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 20, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no revenge/bad faith, I literily clicked random article and saw this was poorly sourced. DarklarkOxs ( talk ) 21:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as I was able to find several sources which establish reliability about this individual, and believe the article could be expanded upon as such. See |1 |2 |3 |4 WhichUser AmI 21:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The second and third refs returned 404 errors. A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 21:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ A. B. I've fixed the links. WhichUserAmI had made a mistake in the wiki markup and accidentally added an extra pipe character to the end of the urls [1] . @ WhichUserAmI You only need to use a pipe character when making internal links. for external links you use a space to separate the url from the text you want the link to display. 192.76.8.94 ( talk ) 22:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or at least pause this one for consideration. The nom is apparently in bad faith, but this is a pretty sparse BLP that I'd like to investigate further. As it stands at the moment, the sourcing is not sufficient. Note that this renders Speedy criteria #2 moot. Zaathras ( talk ) 21:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] on its merits since speedy is no longer an option. This person and their creations seem to have received multiple full length pieces of coverage in reliable sources, see [2] [3] [4] , for example. 192.76.8.94 ( talk ) 21:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] # 1 is essentially the blogger portion of a car sale website, # 2 is an article about the car, and only mentions the person in passing, # 3 is the lone source already cited in the article. If one can even call a stub an article. Zaathras ( talk ) 22:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first source doesn't appear to be a blog to me. It appears to employ proper editorial staff, and most the writers I checked appear to have experience writing for decent publications or other reporting experience. The stuff submitted by readers is clearly marked up as such and it attributed to ""ClassicCars.com Guest Contributor"", e.g. [5] . The author of the piece I linked, Larry Edsall, spent a decade as an editor of AutoWeek and appears to have published more than a dozen books - it's not like it's some random person writing on blogger. Yes, the second article is about a car he built. I don't think we have a standalone notability criteria for hotrod builders, but the notability criteria for creative persons, WP:CREATIVE , includes the person's work receiving critical attention as an indicator of notability. 192.76.8.94 ( talk ) 22:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Illinois . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural speedy due to bad faith nomination. No prejudice to anybody looking into it further and renominating it properly if they think that is justified. -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 22:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Administrator note . I closed as speedy another disruptive nomination by the OP, but chose to leave this one open. Recommend it proceed with no weight given to the OP given subsequent commentary. Courcelles ( talk ) 23:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 09, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I added some references. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 03:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC) Agreed with all editors involved. CastJared ( talk ) 15:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak I find more sources about the vehicles he builds rather than him [6] , [7] . I guess he's notable, individual cars rarely are, so the notability goes to the builder. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment We're now up to 8 references, many of which are more about the cars rather than the man, and the article body is all of 3 choppy sentences. Is this about proving a point? Because it doesn't seem like an actual biographical article is being written here. Zaathras ( talk ) 00:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] many of which are more about the cars rather than the man Yes, I addressed this above. I think the most appropriate notability guideline to apply here is WP:CREATIVE , which states a person in a creative profession is notable if The person's work (or works) has: ... (c) won significant critical attention . His car builds have received coverage in motoring related journalism and have won awards, this implies he has received critical attention and is therefore notable. the article body is all of 3 choppy sentences the content in or state of the article does not determine notability. WP:ARTN . Is this about proving a point? Why have you immediately jumped to assumptions of bad faith? Once you voted I did a few searches and very quickly found multiple full length pieces of coverage of his work, implying he was notable, and accordingly provided a few example links while voting . 192.76.8.86 ( talk ) 01:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yet no article improvement. Why is that? Zaathras ( talk ) 01:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC) - moot. Zaathras ( talk ) 01:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC) ARTN )? Because notability is determined by what sourcing exists, not what is present in the article ( WP:NEXIST )? Because Perfection is not required and Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. are part of the core editing policy ( WP:IMPERFECT )? Because the point of AFD is to evaluate whether a topic is suitable for inclusion, not to improve pages ( WP:NOTCLEANUP )? Because you have no right whatsoever to make demands on how other volunteers should spend their time ( WP:NOTCOMPULSORY )? 192.76.8.86 ( talk ) 01:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment x2 As there appears to be no chance of deletion, I am striking the lone vote, i.e. mine, so that the inevitable will not be prolonged. The filer certainly nominated this article in bad faith, but circumstances have now devolved into the project being saddled with ing a sub-par article. That is regrettable. Zaathras ( talk ) 01:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Snow - article has been improved, and now is a viable stub. Suggest we close this AfD soon. PhilKnight ( talk ) 21:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Cole Valley Christian High School: A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 12:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , Christianity , and Idaho . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . While some sources are available, they do not meet WP:SIGCOV . Fails WP:NSCHOOL . 33ABGirl ( talk ) 14:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - This article from the Idaho Statesman appears to be enough on its own to satisfy GNG. Additionally, the athletic achievements detailed in the article, along with the achievements this small school has achieved in music not in the article would indicate more sources are available. Please understand that notability guidelines are not proscriptive (telling us what we can't do); but rather descriptive (telling us what we usually do). Most US schools have sufficient sources somewhere; high achieving schools even moreso. And if it's a toss up, we . Although notability is admittedly weak for this school, IMO it's sufficient to . 69.92.163.38 ( talk ) 18:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] due to the "" Cole Valley Christian to double enrollment with new ‘state-of-the-art’ Meridian campus "" article and sections of the "" As educational choices grow, Valley religious schools fight to attract families "" article. I will check Newspapers.com for other articles. WhisperToMe ( talk ) 01:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I added a few historical details supported by newspapers.com sources, and as a non-profit, the school meets WP:GNG and WP:NORG . — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 17:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Available sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC) GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC) GNG , so we should this article. Jacona ( talk ) 15:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the above. St Anselm ( talk ) 21:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Andres English-Howard: Zero notability outside murder. Onel 5969 TT me 20:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC) rename to “Murder of Andrea O’Donnell” or something similar. An option with BIO1E is to just make an article on the event. Coverage is about abuse and truth serum as well as the murder; whole book here , as well as a page of analysis here and probably more than that here . One of the books is 20 years later (in 2011), giving lasting coverage. Mrfoogles ( talk ) 23:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , I don't think the individual is notable (per nom), but the murder/case seems to be notable, and therefore moving the article to Murder of Andrea O'Donnell seems like a better way forward, and an ATD. Would the nom agree? Aszx5000 ( talk ) 09:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC) NOTNEWS . Onel 5969 TT me 09:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But does the legal implications of the murder and the truth serum coverage sway you? Aszx5000 ( talk ) 12:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, not really. Stuff like that happens all the time, although I understand your viewpoint. Onel 5969 TT me 15:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] & rename to Murder of Andrea O'Donnell . The perpetrator is not notable, but the case is. – brad v 00:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"2022 Carlos Alcaraz tennis season: Everything significant in the tables can and should be summarised, in prose, at Carlos Alcaraz . There is nothing especially notable about this season. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 14:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Tennis , and Spain . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 14:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Number 1 players generally are eligible for these sorts of articles, I'm not sure why this would be an exception. SportingFlyer T · C 21:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , zero reason to have a separate article fork. We don't have season articles for individuals in any other sports besides tennis and cricket, and given the active consensus for eliminating the latter it's clear these tenniscruft articles are unencyclopedic too. JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's a huge difference betwen tennis and cricket. Cricket is a team sport and most people follow teams rather than individuals; tennis is an individual sport and fans follow their favourite players across the tour. Iffy ★ Chat -- 11:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We don't have season articles for sportspeople in other individual sports either, even though every single high-profile athlete even in some team sports receives just as much or more coverage during a given season. JoelleJay ( talk ) 17:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Season articles for individual teams (eg. in Association Football) still remain. I do not think it is the most appropriate to make a comparison on that basis between team sports and individual sports, when one individual cannot necessarily influence the entire outcome of a team performance on a consistent basis. There is also a reasonable argument to be made that singles tennis is the most prominent individual sport in the world in terms of outreach and popularity. 115.66.66.93 ( talk ) 04:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The only issue with the article as it stands is that the Yearly summary section has no text in it. This is an issue that can be solved by improving the article, not deleting it. Iffy ★ Chat -- 11:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC) NOTSTATS : Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article . I'm not really seeing a rationale for deletion here, let alone a policy-based one. -- Visviva ( talk ) 04:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – both as a standard split off and an encyclopaedic topic that is quite easily notable. Should, however, include prose commentary on the season, but that is not a rationale for deletion. J947 † edits 11:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ J947 , what about the rationale that IRS SIGCOV of the season as a whole has not been identified to demonstrate the topic actually passes GNG? JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC) I'm not sure why coverage of the season as a whole would be necessary? It's a splitoff article from Carlos Alcaraz that can go into more detail than the main page. It's just for convenience; it is helpful but not necessary that the season is consistently discussed in itself. What matters is that across the season there is enough coverage to sustain an article. And of course there is. J947 † edits 22:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Splitting is permitted only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia . The topic does need to receive GNG coverage as any other page would. JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nothing about notability as a whole being required. If rs A has sigcov on John Doe's tennis career, rs B has sigcov on John Doe's scientific endeavours, and rs C has sigcov on his brief acting career, and the link between these roles of John Doe is only mentioned in passing, then John Doe is notable irregardless of whether he isn't covered as a whole. Because that is the job of an encyclopaedia – to connect evidence together and provide a broad overview of a topic. There's a wealth of information to cover on Alcaraz, far too great for one article, and splitting attempts should not be thwarted by a narrow interpretation of an information page. It makes sense that his famous seasons are discussed in separate articles, and perhaps for lesser seasons cover two seasons in one article, whether or not any RS has happened to discuss ""Alcaraz' 2025–26 tennis seasons"". It is also quite probable that there is sigcov on this season as a whole, but that's not the question. J947 † edits 23:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not think it is fair to claim that there was nothing notable about this season, considering Alcaraz broke the record for the Youngest Player to ever be ranked No. 1 on the ATP rankings. He also won a grand slam. He also broke the records of the youngest player to win the Miami and Madrid Open, both of which are Masters 1000 events and are only second in prestige to the Grand Slams. Seasons like Novak Djokovic’s 2009 season and Rafael Nadal’s 2006 season also have articles but are not being considered for deletion, despite these players arguably achieving less in those respective years than Alcaraz in 2022. 115.66.66.93 ( talk ) 04:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . There is literally not a single source discussed here or in the article that covers his ""season"". Without such sources being identified there is no P&G-based rationale to this article. JoelleJay ( talk ) 17:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Alcaraz's 2022 season is notable for him becoming the youngest year-end World No. 1 in the Open Era of tennis - a record that had previously been held by Lleyton Hewitt for nearly 20 years. Throughout that season, Carlos accomplished a number of other feats - such as being the youngest-ever champion of a few prestigious tournaments - which is of interest to tennis fans and students of the sport alike. If anything, I'd rather condense the corresponding section of his main Wikipedia page than get rid of this one. Chernorizets ( talk ) 02:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Chernorizets , the subject still needs to meet GNG as a standalone topic. Do you have any sources of SIGCOV in independent (so not from ATP or any sports org) secondary RS on this season as a whole? I'm also curious how you arrived here with only ~115 edits... JoelleJay ( talk ) 16:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JoelleJay I'm a big tennis fan, and in particular a fan of Carlos and his meteoric ascent to the top of men's tennis, so I noticed the deletion proposal banner on the page not long after it had been placed there. I'm going to gloss over the passive-aggressive undertones of your last sentence because, as a good friend likes to say, you do you. This whole discussion is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Only current, and in some cases former, world No. 1 tennis players have dedicated articles about their tennis seasons on Wikipedia. That's a tiny percentage of all the players in general, and of those for which there are articles in particular. It in no way ""overburdens"" the encyclopedia or detracts from its tone. Season-specific articles are of great significance for tennis fans, because they often depict historic rivalries, achievements in the sport, changing of the guard, etc. It is part of tennis culture, and some of the individual matches themselves have articles when they've reached sufficient notability. Even if you wanted to make a broader argument that per-season tennis player articles should not exist, or that they should be brought to a higher standard, proposing the deletion of the current world no. 1 player's historic 2022 season seems like a strangely selective, piecemeal way of going about it. Start with the players that have multiple such articles - like Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic - and observe the reactions of the community. Chernorizets ( talk ) 21:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC) ATA ). To have a standalone article on wikipedia, a subject must meet WP:N, and that requires SIGCOV in independent secondary RS. No one has put forward a single source meeting those criteria, let alone the multiple required. We are an encyclopedia, not a statistics directory or fandom. JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that the article can be improved with sources, and the sources fortunately do exist. That, however, is a different conversation from ""just it"". I see no issue with adding the appropriate notices on the page that it needs to be brought up to a better standard, and in fact I've recommended as much on the Carlos Alcaraz talk page (as well as moving relevant content here). Chernorizets ( talk ) 22:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The kid won a Grandslam at 19, became world number 1 at 19 and finished year end number 1 at 19, in addition to numerous Masters 1000 wins. Definitely . Its the first top season of a historic tennis player Exxcalibur808 ( talk ) 19:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Thin down the main page and move it to this article. He won the US Open in 2022. Fyunck(click) ( talk ) 22:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Immittance: Notability is unclear. The term is used in various works, but this article likely requires a total rewrite ( WP:TNT ). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Technology . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with emphasis on TNT. WhichUser AmI 06:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC) Can you give any reasoning for your ! vote? I'm very confused. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 06:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe that the article has the potential to be helpful if it were rewritten, given the fact that it is a topic used by several fields as noted by Elemimele . Additionally, I am interested in topics like these and could be involved in research and the recreation of the article. WhichUser AmI 10:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , the article is badly referenced and very incomplete, but the briefest of Google searches reveals that the term is widely used in audiometry [40] but also in other fields [41] [42] . AfD isn't clean-up, and the article isn't so dreadful that it can't be a foundation for improvement. Elemimele ( talk ) 10:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [43] , [44] , and [45] . The concept is also used in electrochemistry and electrical engineering: [46] , [47] , and (a primary source but with a good historical intro . The topic is well above threshold for wikipedia notability. The article itself is a poorly referenced stub, but the content is fine as far as it goes. A notable subject and a stub with the WP:POTENTIAL for improvement leads to an obvious recommendation. -- {{u| Mark viking }} { Talk } 17:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC) 54, 19 May 2023 (UTC) WhichUserAmI may improve this article, and sources found by others, I am happy to withdraw this AfD. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Y Accepted, began improvements to the article. WhichUser AmI 05:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"2023 Texas dairy farm explosion: Fails WP:NEVENTS , WP:NOTNEWS , and WP:NSUSTAINED . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 20:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Texas . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 20:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions . Yadsalohcin ( talk ) 22:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - high casualty and unusual event - 3% of Texas' cattle wiped out in a single day in what is one of the deadliest animal-related incidents ever and the deadliest in a decade. It has widespread, sustained WP:RS coverage. - Knightoftheswords281 ( Talk - Contribs ) 21:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - 18,000 deaths. Yadsalohcin ( talk ) 22:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is there are threshold for number of animal deaths? LibStar ( talk ) 09:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No. CT55555 ( talk ) 13:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - This is a very notable event, because of the very high death toll, which is the highest known for cattle from an incident that was not caused by a disease or stress. -- Multituberculata ( talk ) 05:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC) Note that ""death toll"" is an argument about whether the subject is WP:INTERESTING and is not part of WP:GNG or WP:NEVENTS , and all arguments based on death toll should be disregarded when closing. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 14:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If 3% of Texas’s human population was killed in an instant, it would make global news immediately. Also meets WP:THREE . 96.57.52.66 ( talk ) 16:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes it would if it was 3% of human population, but this isn't the case. LibStar ( talk ) 12:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . Unusually large livestock casualty event. This may be more of an ""interesting"" or ""odd"" event rather than a significantly notable event, which makes it a weak support for me. And I feel compelled to echo TheBigUglyAlien's comment as well - arguments purely noting the number of cows killed are not helpful for this discussion, and regardless of what one may think, 3% of Texas's cows being killed isn't anywhere near 3% of the people being killed. DarkSide830 ( talk ) 18:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC) GNG . Blaylockjam10 ( talk ) 08:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just having sources isn't enough for GNG. It has to be outside of a single news cycle. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 15:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've read the GNG several times. At no point does GNG say that the coverage needs to be outside of a single news cycle. The only time coverage is mentioned in GNG is the following sentence: """"Significant coverage"" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. "" At no point does it say anything like what you claim it does. -- Jayron 32 17:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC) SNOW . Major event that was headline news and will lead to changes in law and practice in the industry. BD2412 T 00:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC) CRYSTAL ? LibStar ( talk ) 09:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC) 52, 18 April 2023 (UTC) NOTNEWS trumps GNG. The number of animal deaths is not relevant. What if it was 50 or 1000 cows? LibStar ( talk ) 09:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC) Can you show me where, in policy, that WP:NOTNEWS overrules GNG. I'd like to know where that is written, so that I may adjust my thinking to be more in line with policy. -- Jayron 32 14:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC) NOTNEWS , not WP:NONEWS . If it passes GNG, then it is notable, done. Juxlos ( talk ) 15:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC) 06, 18 April 2023 (UTC) GNG . It is likely that academic papers and significant coverage in literature will exist in future. Sources that support the international reliable coverage: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65258108 https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/texas-dairy-farm-explosion-injures-1-person-kills-18-000-cattle-1.6354509 https://www.dw.com/en/texas-dairy-farm-explosion-kills-18000-cows/a-65310099 CT55555 ( talk ) 13:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC) 16, 20 April 2023 (UTC) NSUSTAINED is/was a valid concern that made notability murkier here, but in looking at the continuing coverage, it does satisfy WP:NEVENT . In reality, this article's creation probably should have waited a week or so in terms of WP:NOTNEWS , but that does not mean it should be d now. Looking at sources just from today since some time has passed, the largest cattle death toll in Texas history for an accident [4] and the country's largest such accident [5] is kind of a big deal in terms of NEVENT The topic of an article should be notable, or ""worthy of notice""; that is, ""significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"". The sources are already making that case. In terms of sustained coverage, agriculture sources are still covering this, so that alleviates initial SUSTAINED concerns I had when I first saw this AfD that had me on the fence. KoA ( talk ) 17:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"William Henderson Kelly: Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR . Onel 5969 TT me 17:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Arizona . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Only thing I can find is this very passing coverage. [1] Not many citations of any of his works. I'm convinced by the sources added by David Eppstein. Snowmanonahoe ( talk ) 18:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC) ; edited 18:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC) //www.google.com/books/edition/Cultural_Negotiations/Yh3RDwAAQBAJ – True the article needs de-stubbing improvements. But the Tombstone Epitaph editorship and contributions to Arizona anthropology are noteworthy enough to endow him with WP-Notability. Moreover, this is a very new article from a very new Wikipedia editor. A deletion is not the best way to encourage editor participation. – S. Rich ( talk ) 19:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC) 19:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC) NACADEMIC . CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 20:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which one? Snowmanonahoe ( talk ) 22:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I'm not seeing GNG or the supposed WP:NACADEMIC pass. I'd be happy to change my mind if anyone can find evidence of either. -- asilvering ( talk ) 23:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps these results will help . Let's supply our new WP editor with resources and guidance rather then a 'slap-down-your-very-first-article' got d. – S. Rich ( talk ) 03:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, a it is. -- asilvering ( talk ) 02:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . I found and added to the article five published reviews of three books (one edited). I think it's borderline but enough for WP:AUTHOR . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 05:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC) does that guideline apply to nonfiction writers? Snowmanonahoe ( talk ) 11:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why wouldn't it? There is nothing in it restricting it to fiction. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 15:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Upgrading my opinion to after finding significant coverage of his newspaper and academic work in published articles by Brinegar and McGuire. I think those two sources bring WP:GNG into play as well as WP:AUTHOR . (I also added another published source by Elliott, Wild, and Dinges, but I don't think it has enough depth of coverage of Kelly to count for much.) — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It applies even to journalists! The important thing is the ""significant or well-known work or collective body of work"", whatever that work happens to be. -- asilvering ( talk ) 02:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . Having a collection of papers kept by the Arizona State Museum and University of Arizona is usually a signifier of notability, although not automatic. But I found the same five reviews of books that David Eppstein did, and believe the WP:NAUTHOR case. I'm not seeing the citations I'd look for with WP:NPROF , but this is not unusual in a ""book field"". Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 07:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC) we often use ""multiple reviews of multiple books"" as a rule of thumb for WP:NAUTHOR , but what that is supposed to be getting at is ""multiple notable works"" (so better to have an author article than several stubs on books) or, in the actual words of WP:NAUTHOR , either regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors or created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work . But these reviews actually show the contrary: for the one book that has three reviews, two of them criticize it for being unuseful - which does rather explain the low citation counts. -- asilvering ( talk ) 03:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Significant or well-known are not the same as useful. Which is to say that, for me at least, the depth of coverage of a review is relevant, but whether it concludes with a positive or negative verdict is not. All three of these reviews have significant depth of coverage. If you're looking for other evidence of whether the book became significant or well-known, you might also observe that it has triple-digit citations on Google Scholar, high for this sort of topic. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 22:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, it's not the negative verdict that is the concern, it's the implication that this isn't really a significant body of work. But I don't think we need to show a standard author/prof pass here anyway, given the newspaper stuff you found. I'm confident there would be more coverage in historical newspapers as well. -- asilvering ( talk ) 02:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC) 51, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources added to article. // Timothy :: talk 06:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Another contested prod without improvement. Editors really should understand what ""uncontroversial"" means. By rights, no article that has been prodded should even have a chance of being kept if taken to AfD. Prodding is not a way to get around taking a possibly notable article to AfD, which is what some editors seem to see it as. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Lumberton High School (Texas): WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Available sourcing sufficient to meet WP:GNG , as with pretty much any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment notability is determined not by the references in the article, which at the time of nomination were as noted, not so good, but by whether such references exist . There are, loads of references available in an easy internet search. First , just using Google, I found a bunch, and added a few to the article. I apologize for putting out some bare references, but due to situations beyond my control, I don't have much time right now. Secondly , I took a look at newspapers.com via the Wikipedia library and confirmed that historically, there are many, many more references over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time. A good bit of the coverage is from national sources, try searching for ""Lumberton High School"" + Burqa for one such instance. IMO, a robust WP:BEFORE would have yielded the conclusion that 1.) the article was poorly sourced, but sources clearly NEXIST and so the article should be improved, not torched. Jacona ( talk ) 19:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . There is WP:SUSTAINED and significant coverage in many reliable sources . The article meets WP:NSCHOOL . The article is poorly sourced and needs improvement, but the subject is notable and should be edited for content and utilize some of the sources available, rather than being d. The sources currently in the article are more than sufficient to demonstrate that the school meets NSCHOOL, but much polishing is needed. Jacona ( talk ) 19:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per Jacona although with the caveat that those sources are news sources and thus primary. Still, the school received national news attention, and sustained coverage. It is a large school, open since the 1960s and is shown to have actively particiapted in and won state championships. That looks notable to me. I fixed some of the bare url refs but none of the 12newsnow.com urls work for me. Could you check those? If they work for US readers it may be a site that only allows regional access to its content, in which case I would say it is not suitable for verification purposes. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 20:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Phoseon Technology: I looked on Google and the listed sources are just blogs and trade press. Therefore, this medium-sized manufacturing organization fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) BigheadBigheadBighead ( talk ) 18:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Technology , and Oregon . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - as initial author, and I just updated it for the first time in a decade, there is substantial coverage in independent sources. None are the local paper (this company is in Hillsboro and the then local paper was the Hillsboro Argus). The PBJ and Oregonian are regional papers, and there are journals and other publications covering the company or its technologies. This is not a company on the scale of Apple, but we don't require that. May need some clean up from what appears to be COI edits over the last decade though. Aboutmovies ( talk ) 21:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Good coverage from editorial staff from editions of the American City Business Journals . TLA (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Mike Sarimsakci: Article has had a notability tag since 2017 with no substantial edits since. Other than occasional local coverage mentioning him being involved in various low-profile real estate deals, he seems to only be notable for a real estate deal with the Trump Organization in Dallas that didn't go through (WP:1E). Slinkyo ( talk ) 01:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 14 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 05:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Turkey , and Texas . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC) WP:NOTWHOSWHO Aintabli ( talk ) 17:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . This individual has been significantly covered by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events. These include a >1,500-word profile in Intelligencer , a >2,000-word profile in The Dallas Morning News , coverage within broader investigative reporting by The New York Times , another profile in the St. Louis Business Journal , and some coverage in The Mercury-News in the context of development in California. As always, the important part of 1E is the number 1 , but we've got multiple events here. As such, he appears to pass WP:GNG / WP:NBASIC , and I see no alternative but to the article. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's all coverage about bad business deals though, I'd argue that's still 1E, being bad at something over and over. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I reject the notion that all of these separate instances of coverage can be plausibly considered as a single event. They are clearly different events happening in different states and in different years. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC) He's gotten coverage, but one bad business deal after another. [46] , [47] , [48] , could argue we have GNG, but I'm not sure we have enough to build a non-neutral article. I don't think being bad at your job is what gets you an article, unless it rises to criminal notability, which this doesn't. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The GNG imposes no talent or aptitude requirements. We have articles about William McGonagall , Stuart ""Captain Calamity"" Hill , Robert Coates (actor) , and Tommy Wiseau . So whether Sarimsakci is good at his job or not is irrelevant, providing there is significant coverage of more than one event, which Red-tailed hawk has demonstrated. Jfire ( talk ) 01:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm tempted to add to that list, but I realise that if even just the obvious cases were listed ( Eric the Eel anyone?) it would soon get very long. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 09:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC) 59, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing vote to after seeing Red-tailed hawk's points. Aintabli ( talk ) 05:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Muhabbet: Not notable. A BLP with no references at all. The external links are a self published web page and IMDb which is user generated. Does not meet WP:GNG . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 06:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Germany , and Turkey . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 06:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . He meets WP:NSINGER #2 several times over, having had songs chart in three countries. Here's [26] an article about him in a magazine run by Deutsche Welle and another [27] in the same magazine. There's an article in Der Spiegel [28] . Additional sources, including links to the charts justifying the WP:Singer pass are available on German Wikipedia. Jahaza ( talk ) 08:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC) SINGER#C2 with no shortage of verifiability as Jahaza has shown above. And thanks to Jahaza for first steps in improving article. — siro χ o 10:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC) NMUSIC criteria 2, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"King of Fighters R-1: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 16:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Chidgk1 ( talk ) 16:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - As a Japan-only release, there may be some Japanese reviews/sources, though they may be hard to find online now. I will note that on the Japanese Wikipedia, this game actually does not have its own article, and it is just covered as part of the article on the KoF franchise. If no sources can be found, this should at least be ed to List of The King of Fighters video games rather than d. Rorshacma ( talk ) 19:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The game has reviews from Pocket Magazine and Video Games magazine, and some other reviews that may not be reliable. However, it also got a blurb in Retro Gamer and a full review in Fun Generation . Per WP:NEXIST it appears fully notable, sources currently in the article are irrelevant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 00:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The sources identified by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ look to be enough to me. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 17:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak per sources given above. I'm not entirely convinced of their reliability, but it seems reasonable to think that offline/non-English sources do exist. ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 23:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] striking out weak, multiple refideas present on talk page. ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 23:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Marie Boulton: Fails WP:NPOL . Uhooep ( talk ) 23:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women , and Scotland . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC) GNG . This Press & Journal article or this BBC article is certainly good enough (they cover the same event). This Press & Journal article should also qualify, and there's other similar articles in both BBC and Press & Journal which go into some detail about her. The best I can find outside those two newspapers is this from Aberdeen Live , which I think does contribute some, but the BBC coverage was already enough to push me over the edge. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC) She may fail WP:NPOL , but she passes WP:GNG , as proven by Skarmory. FatCat96 ( talk ) 03:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC) meets WP:GNG --- Tumbuka Arch ★ ★ ★ 15:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC) meets WP:GNG per existing references. Upper Deck Guy ( talk ) 18:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC) though material from at least that BBC article really ought to be added ( yes, I know... ). UndercoverClassicist T · C 10:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"UKGameshows.com: Only trivial mention in random blog posts and connection to a fake image. No real notability from third parties. Zim Zala Bim talk 21:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Websites , and United Kingdom . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC) ITSNEAT . In 2024, the s look embarrassing, and this simply has no current-day notability at all. Half the in-article sources are circular references to the site, and we're still sourcing a YAHOO recommendation (that can't even be accessed because Yahoo is hardly in that field any longer and 404ed it long ago) from 2005 for N, which is in "" Al Bundy scored four touchdowns in one game"" territory. I hate deleting articles for websites run by a couple of people, but our standards have tightened up for good reason. Nate • ( chatter ) 01:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Like Nate I also hate deleting any articles from Wikipedia because it means that people's efforts, which are voluntary, are d and their time has ultimately been wasted. However, we still have to find a balance and ensure an article meets certain standards and reading through this article it's a very difficult one to call, not least due to a lack of any reference for anything other than recognition. One possibility here, if the consensus is not to it, might be to draftify, thereby giving those who see the topic as being notable enough for inclusion the opportunity to improve it by finding other independent references. Rillington ( talk ) 11:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria says: Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources , and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations Sources Holmes, Su (2008). Quiz Show . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press . pp. 18 , 24 , 74 . ISBN 978-0-7486-2752-3 . Retrieved 2024-01-31 – via Google Books . The book notes on page 18 : ""The established British website www.UKgameshows.com is a veritable celebration of the quiz and game show, but it still invokes the concept of originality as a criterion of evaluation. Endemol's rather short-lived Shafted (ITV1, 2001), for example, is lambasted by the site for being a 'checklist of features from more original and successful shows' ..."" The book notes on page 24 : ""In contrast, the internet site www.UKGameshows.com, which provides information about more than 1,000 game show formats from 1938 to the present day, welcomes these newer strands of programming. It does not have to worry about the economic constraints of scheduling, and it explains that its 'definition of ""game show"" is wide-ranging, taking in children's television, traditional quizzes and panel games, lifestyle TV, reality TV and talent shows'. Its own criteria, on at explicit level at least, is more related to questions of national context: it excludes 'imported programmes' unless a British version has been produced. Yet it too has more implicit generic criteria for inclusion and exclusion which rest upon evaluative criteria."" The book notes on page 74 : ""But as Hills acknowledges, one of the few spaces to offer a more evaluative recognition of quiz show aesthetics is the established British website, www.UKGameshows.com, designed for interested viewers and fans, as well as the quiz and game show industry. In the extensive entries for each show written by the owners of the site (Chris M. Dickson and David J. Bodycombe), we come across such comments as: ..."" Hills, Matt (2005). ""Who wants to be a fan of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? Scholarly television criticism, 'popular aesthetics' and academic tastes"" . In Johnson, Catherine; Turnock, Rob (eds.). ITV Cultures: Independent Television Over Fifty Years . Maidenhead: Open University Press . pp. 189 – 191 . ISBN 978-0-335-21730-4 . Retrieved 2024-01-31 – via Google Books . The book notes on page 189 : ""But, by contrast, ukgameshows.com anthropomorphically converts the show into a personality: ‘it' became 'arrogant', and 'insisted' on being on all the time. ... Although ukgameshows.com and its contributors are evidently aware of commercial forces, and of debates over ‘public service' versus ‘commercial' television, they do not a priori or consistently pursue economic explanations for the (sub)genres and texts they evaluate, instead moving in and out of discursive framings linked to notions of 'the commercial'. For instance, ..."" The book notes on page 190 : ""The structure of ukgameshows.com also anticipates and imagines a range of priorities for its users. It promotes the report/manual How To Devise A Game Show , interpellating its users as wanting to produce as well as consume game shows. This indicates a sense, ... Furthermore, ukgameshows.com's first 'featured' link is 'Be on TV', which at the time of writing (28 February 2005) included 'Contestant calls' for a wide range of quiz/game shows. It should be noted that BBC programmes are, if anything, more in evidence here than those of broadcasters primarily and discursively defined as 'commercial'. "" The book notes on pages 190 – 191 : ""This difference in symbolic and cultural power is very much recognized by ukgameshows.com. The site's contributors do not seek to challenge the hierarchical value of being a 'media person', but instead desire to cross the ordinary/media boundary in any manner possible, whether this is a fleeting movement within the industry as a contestant, a recurrent series of appearances on game shows, or an interest in devising a game show format."" ""Playing the game. TV game show addicts can log on to a lively website that has all the answers and more"" . The Times . 2006-04-29. Archived from the original on 2022-12-08 . Retrieved 2024-01-31 . The review provides 172 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: ""As guides to the genre go, ukgameshows.com is deservedly the most popular. It has more than 1,800 articles, many of which can be found in the A-Z guides to Shows and People. There are items on auditioning for shows, their history and an annual poll for “Best Game Show of All Time”. ... Much of the site’s appeal can be credited to its resident scribe, Iain Weaver. As well as a guide to the coming week’s game show itinerary, his “Weaver’s Week” column is compulsory reading for those who have missed out on recent shows."" Dee, Johnny (2003-07-19). ""UK Game Shows www.ukgameshows.com"" . The Guardian . ProQuest 245974738 . Archived from the original on 2024-01-31 . Retrieved 2024-01-31 . The review provides 100 words of coverage. The review notes: ""A great site for ing abreast of breaking game show news (essentially what Clare Balding is wearing on Countdown this afternoon) and advice on devising and appearing on TV game shows."" Clarke, Sam (2003-01-25). ""Webzone"" . Glasgow Times . Archived from the original on 2024-01-31 . Retrieved 2024-01-31 . The review provides 63 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: ""UK Game Shows: www.ukgameshows.com/contestants/index.htm. Put yourself in the hot seat with some of tellyland's biggest quizzes and game shows. Choose from National Lottery Jet Set, new shows, Under Construction and Brainteaser, as well as old favourites like Blind Date. The site is independent of any TV companies but carries an up-to-date list of programmes looking for contestant and full contact details."" Wright, Michael (2003-09-14). ""Never surrender: Michael Wright finds Japanese endurance, half-baked ideas and graver matters - That's amazing"" . The Sunday Times . Archived from the original on 2024-01-31 . Retrieved 2024-01-31 . The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. ""The exhaustive history of British gameshows, collated at www.ukgameshows.com, requires equal persistence, and will bring a shiver of horrified recognition to anyone who remembers The Golden Shot (""Left a bit, right a bit... fire!"")."" ""Here's the Way to Set Your Sites on TV Fame"". Western Daily Press . 2003-10-18. Factiva FWDP000020031020dzai0006i. The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: ""At UK Game Shows - www.ukgameshows.com- you'll find a whole section devoted to contestant calls for shows from Ready Steady Cook to Fort Boyard, with an A to Z of the most popular programmes and addresses to contact. "" ""Finds of the Year 2005"" . Yahoo! . c. 2005. Archived from the original on 2006-01-11 . Retrieved 2024-01-31 . The text ""Game Shows"" links to http://www.ukgameshows.com/index.php/Main_Page . The page provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The page notes: ""Game Shows: The absolute mother lode of British game show news, views and info. “I’ll have a P please Bob” (hilarity ensues)."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow UKGameshows.com to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 11:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Following on from the above post, and assuming this can be included into the article, then it definitely should be kept. Rillington ( talk ) 12:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've now added some of those independent references to the article. Rillington ( talk ) 10:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I was torn whether to close as "" or 'no consensus', or to relist. Cunard's excellent contribution was made 6 days ago, and the subsequent ! vote is also to based on Cunard. However, prior to Cunard there were a few people (including the nominator) ! voting or leaning that way. I think another 7 days will see consensus become clearer here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 04:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as notability has now been demonstrated. Cortador ( talk ) 06:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Mimi Mariani: No real sources beyond a wordpress blog. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 00:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Bands and musicians , Women , and Indonesia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Why are the other sources cited in the article— pa Siapa Orang Film Indonesia 1926–1978 [ What and Who: Film Figures in Indonesia, 1926–1978 ] ( Sinematek Indonesia , 1979), the national Indonesian newspaper Kompas , and the Indonesian film magazine Film Varia —not real sources ? Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 08:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Obviously meets WP:NACTOR. ...- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The sources already in the article are ""real sources"" and establish notability. Jfire ( talk ) 01:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Although the article was created by a well-known sockpuppeteer, the individual in question meets the criteria outlined in WP:NACTOR and is genuinely notable. Ckfasdf ( talk ) 02:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The nominator tried every type of deletion (CSD, BLPPROD, AFD) to get this article d and I don't really understand why. L iz Read! Talk! 03:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC) It appears that the nominator is actively targeting articles created by Asphonixm, a known sockmaster, due to their history of creating non-notable Indonesian biography articles. However, some of the articles created by Asphonixm actually feature notable individuals. Ckfasdf ( talk ) 11:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes. I apologize if I was a bit hasty to characterize sources here, but the sockmaster here has a habit of using rather poor sources or misinterpreting source. As he has created a lot of articles, I was working with speed in mind here. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 17:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Because he isn't trying to nominate a deletion of page based on their notability and rules. He is trying to and revert all of the article/edit that was done by sockpuppet user Asphonixm even though some of the article has notability and was created before the user was blocked. Like what he did here by put a notability tag [16] ] on Olga Syahputra , the legendary comedian of Indonesia. And also here when he nominated a deletion for Moesa Pancho due to WP:GNG even though the article has another reliable sources apart from Tempo itself [17] , [18] . There is also no indication that he did WP:BEFORE before doing the deletion activity [19] . He always focused on creating a deletion page about Indonesian article even though he himself did not understand the subject or even know the notability of the sources used in the articles [20] [21] . Based on these two facts, no indication regarding WP:BEFORE and lack of capability to understand the notability of sources used in the article due to language limitations, all of his deletion nominations should be invalid. 202.43.93.9 ( talk ) 03:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] — 202.43.93.9 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - If this article was targeted for deletion because of the misdeeds of its creator, that is the wrong procedure because a deletion investigation must be focused on the subject of the article. (See also WP:EASYTARGET .) Per a Google Books search, the actress is easily found in many histories of Indonesian cinema, and a few of those were already cited before the nominator's dishonest claim about the sources. The article simply needs to be cleaned up, and could probably be expanded by someone with the skills to investigate old Indonesian books and newspapers. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC) G5 . However it's not the case for this article. Ckfasdf ( talk ) 20:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC) G5 is a speedy process, while here we have a full AfD discussion in which a lot more is required from the nominator, including a fully researched analysis of whether the subject is notable . If this nominator is indulging in this process regularly, that might call for an investigation. See the nominator's 31 March admission about ""speed"" above. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The discussion on this page, such as from Doomdsdayer520, demonstrates that there are real sources that do provide sufficient coverage to establish notability. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 17:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC) NACTOR . Has had leading roles in film or TV. Maxcreator ( talk ) 04:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC) ""Working with speed in mind"" is bad practice. Work with thoughtfulness and care. Toughpigs ( talk ) 04:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Lucy Shtein: Significance according to WP:POLITICS is not observed. -- Анатолий Росдашин ( talk ) 20:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women , Politics , and Russia . Shellwood ( talk ) 17:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article in the Economist (cited on the article) is extended coverage of Shtein. I also find mentions of her in the New York Times, the Guardian, and the Washington Post. DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 21:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with DaffodilOcean. Clearly establishes WP:GNG MaskedSinger ( talk ) 04:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Extended significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources already cited in the article at the time of commenting—the Economist, the Guardian, the New York Times—demonstrate fulfillment of the general notability guideline . WP:NPOL is a guide for when a person is presumed to be notable, but people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline . Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 08:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , subject has been shown to be notable, she has received significant coverage in independent sources. - Samoht27 ( talk ) 17:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Barnens lexikon: Not clear the topic passes WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG . 4meter4 ( talk ) 19:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Sweden . Shellwood ( talk ) 19:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I added a review, but I haven't been able to find any additional reviews. I would expect a work like this would have been reviewed by publications aimed at libraries, parents or teachers when it was first published, but I can't find any online. The Swedish article is pretty much the same as the English one. Still, it seems like a topic that belongs in Wikipedia. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 01:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC) It was reviewed in major newspapers, actually; this was a big thing in Sweden. But the sources are printed and not easily accessible; even the material which has been digitized is (for copyright reasons) very inaccessible. See my comment below. / Julle ( talk ) 13:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . This was an important publication, and generally reviewed in major newspapers (partial newspaper archive: a lot of newspapers are not included, as they have yet not been digitized); unforunately I can't access the full texts, which requires being at the National Library of Sweden or in front of one of the few university library computers with access, none of which reside in my city as far as I'm aware. A search in w:sv:Mediearkivet which has full texts and more newspapers give hits, but only in passing; the articles are written decades after Barnens lexikon was published and refer to it as a thing everyone is assumed to be familiar with. In short, I'm utterly convinced this easily passes WP:GNG and is very relevant for inclusion: it was the Swedish encyclopedia for children of its time. But it was published in the early 80s; the relevant sources are print material. Through the National Library's newspaper archive, we can see that the articles exist, but not what they actually say so we could reference them. / Julle ( talk ) 13:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course, there are English Wikipedians who would have access to the newspaper archive at the National Library of Sweden; those who live near the library or students or staff at universities with access to the archive. When I say that ""we"" can't read the articles I mean that they are not easily acessible to most of us. / Julle ( talk ) 13:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC) GNG since it has been reviewed in several newspapers. Sjö ( talk ) 07:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , since references have been added after it was taken to AfD, in combination with the articles I've pointed to above. / Julle ( talk ) 11:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] based on what's avaliable in the DN archive I'm convinced that GNG is satisfied. Draken Bowser ( talk ) 09:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Abul Hasnat Zulqarnain: Also, he is a judge of a local court so fails WP:NJUDGE . HistoriesUnveiler ( talk ) 15:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Law , and Pakistan . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC) The judge has received significant coverage as he was judge in a major case against former prime minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan sentencing him to ten years in prison. Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 16:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please share at least two in-depth references about him here. I couldn't find such references. HistoriesUnveiler ( talk ) 17:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sentencing a head of state is often a significant event covered by reliable sources. Therefore, judges involved in such cases can meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. His action of sentencing Imran Khan attracted significant attention and coverage in reliable sources. This judgement of his is of historical and legal significance. That is good enough reason in my opinion of him warranting an article. One such example could be of Judge Richard Goldstone , who served as a judge in South Africa and later chaired the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict in 2008-2009. His role in this high-profile investigation made him notable on Wikipedia. If that is not an appropriate example, then another example of a judge who became notable because of presiding a case is Thokozile Masipa who was presiding judge in Oscar Pistorius trial. As for more recent example, the civil judge Arthur Engoron who is hearing case against Donald Trump , already have an article since November 2023. Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 21:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC) NJUDGE as he is a district court judge. WP:SIGCOV has not been shown, only passing mentions in the press. Broc ( talk ) 14:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not a great fan of basing an article on news sources myself, but I seem to be in a small minority at Wikipedia. A click on the word ""news"" in the nomination reveals plenty of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, certainly more than passing mentions and many articles focussing on the judge himself. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 17:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to closing admin AFD ed from the actions of a blocked editor who misused multiple accounts and was not committed to enhancing the encyclopedia but rather had a distinct political motive. This editor engaged in numerous conflicts with me, leading them to target my contributions in any manner possible. This AFD was a result of their battleground behavior. I believe this AFD should be closed without any action due to it being created by a blocked editor. If we left their actions in good standing, it will incentivize the pattern of creating new accounts at will and causing disruption on Wikipedia, only to face a minor consequence of a straightforward account block. Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 17:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I totally agree with the above arguments presented by Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 and Phil Bridger . I am also tired of seeing all these fairly good articles getting d on this forum. Articles that already have some good sources, like this one, should be tagged and improved rather than outright d... Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 22:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"New Delhi–Kalka Shatabdi Express: This is not done for other countries. I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason: (Many of these already have multiple issues and/or are stubs) Post-close admin comment : I have commented out the full list of nominated pages because it was triggering the post-expand limit for templates on the daily AfD page. -- RL0919 ( talk ) 01:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC) All such articles about individual services. E.g. Humsafar Express articles, members of Slow and fast passenger trains in India, members of Indian express train stubs, etc. Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 06:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India . Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 06:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC) AfD participants hate very long lists of articles. Also just to put it out there, Shatabdi Express#Active is a good ATD for all the Shatabdi trains. - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 08:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] AfD participants hate very long lists of articles. Then should I make multiple AfDs? Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 08:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What is happening Arnav?? Why are all these pages being asked for deletion?? I mean this is insane. Sameer2905 ( talk ) 09:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am following my interpretation of the policies. As an example, there are no articles about individual ICE or TGV services, or the train services of China. Similarly, these articles are not suitable for the wiki. Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 09:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy One of the craziest AfDs I have ever seen. A couple I spot-checked are under-sourced, but train lines can be and are generally notable, and it's absolutely crazy to try to use a mass AfD to all of these at once. This basically has to be closed as an administrative since you clearly didn't do a WP:BEFORE search for any of these, and WP:NOT doesn't cover your reasoning. SportingFlyer T · C 09:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These are not train lines. These are individual train services, with articles consisting mostly of timetables, halts and coach compositions. Everything else in these articles can be summarised into tables, these tables already mostly exist, just lack all the columns. Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 09:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] so request to add all train services to this list. BhandupAamche ( talk ) 10:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC) I counted at least 600 more articles. I don't have the time or patience to nominate such a large number. My hands are already cramped from this list. Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 11:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] but request to add only the services like Shatabdi, Duronto, Uday, Vande Bharat, Amrit Bharat, Tejas Rajdhani & Rajdhani, like these not the normal express trains or ac express. BhandupAamche ( talk ) 12:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Adding any additional articles after the AfD has started is likely to just be further disruptive. SportingFlyer T · C 15:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which is why I stopped. Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 15:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural . While the nomination is well-intentioned, it's too hard to evaluate so many different articles (I count over 230) at one time, in one discussion. Some might be notable and some night not be, but a bundle this large is unwieldy. Shaws username . talk . 11:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But you have to agree that nominating more than 800 articles in any bundle size will be unwieldly. Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 12:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC) //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Coimbatore%E2%80%93Bengaluru_Cantonment_Vande_Bharat_Express as extension for more services articles. BhandupAamche ( talk ) 12:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC) BEFORE (which usually takes longer) it would take them just under four hours to go through all of them and specifying which are different (if some are) would get very difficult. Shaws username . talk . 12:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC) NOT as consisting mostly of information that does not belong in Wikipedia, such as train timetables and coach compositions, which may also be subject to frequent change. In this case most of the checks of WP:BEFORE shouldn't apply, right? I agree that it is very difficult, but something has to be done as soon as possible, otherwise the number of such articles will continue to grow. Is there a place where I can establish consensus on whether a train service article consisting mostly of such things should exist on Wikipedia or not? If there is, then I will withdraw this nomination and instead go there first. Once consensus is established, such articles can slowly be d, via, say WP:PROD . Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 13:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC) NOT and they sound unencyclopedic. However, some might have notability from other reasons but there's no way to know without a WP:BEFORE . I definitely agree that something should be done though (although I'm not sure what) or the list will growing. Like IgnatiusofLondon , I'd also agree that s are preferable to a mass-deletion (at least until they can call be checked) An RfC might also be a good idea, perhaps a concensus that a certain topic needs to be checked and then nominated editors can work through with a faster deletion? And no I'm not proposing doing 100 a day, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas had a procedural close for the same reason, they've been listed 3-5 a day to slowly work though. (Although with an amount this large that would obviously have time issues) Shaws username . talk . 15:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the lot, strong objection to ""procedural "" - I do not think that ""procedural "" is helpful. There are lots of these train service articles - they are not about lines - they are about allegedly-named services on those lines. There needs to be a way of discussing whether Wikipedia should have these articles. Discussions on Wiki projects don't really work. People have articles on their watch lists - they do not find out about Wikiproject discussions relevant to the articles - there needs to be a fair way of having these discussions - and this is probably the only way that might work. I doubt if any of these train services are sufficiently notable to justify having an article on them. The ones I have on my watch list tend to cite train timetable websites and sometimes news articles that mention the service. Are ""procedural "" editors saying that they would prefer that Arnav Bhate started (for example) 100 deletion discussions each day? If he/she did, the text of the justification for deletion would be identical in all 100 each day. -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Deletion is the strongest possible remedy. Some of these articles might pass WP:GNG , or at least seem like they do. Some of them obviously don't as written but might with a WP:BEFORE search. It's just impossible to tell when there are so many nominated at once - bulk nominations have to be done with care. In the past, figuring out the question of if we should have these has been done by RfC, and then the articles d through a series of bulk nominations. SportingFlyer T · C 17:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not familiar with the process of creating an RfC. Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 17:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC) Blow it up and start over and Wikipedia:Delete the junk . These are not policies but essays and they are not exactly applicable here, but ing so many bad and possibly inaccurate articles just in case a few might be good does not sit right with me. These articles pop up on the first page of google results and may potentially contain outdated information. Editors who want to can start the article again. We can even instead of to make it even easier. But an RfC is probably the best. Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 17:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC) In this context, the essays sidestep the major concern that several editors have expressed: that some of these articles might be fine, but nobody's going to pick them out when we have 243 articles bundled together for deletion. For what it's worth, notability aside, the few articles I've sampled from the list aren't shockingly bad: they just need to have their timetables removed and their contents copyedited to ensure the articles are aware that they have been written at a particular point in time. If we applied WP:TNT , I don't think any new articles on these services would be dramatically different to the articles we currently have, if these articles should exist at all. Thus, the strongest deletion argument for these articles is notability , not the state of the articles. The rationale in your nomination, WP:NOT , applies to sections with these articles, especially the timetabled sections, but we can imagine (and in fact, Wikipedia does have) articles on train services that don't violate WP:NOT . If the only reason for deleting these articles is that some of their current content should be d, then per deletion is not cleanup , WP:TNT is a little lazy. As I said in this discussion, nobody has bothered to update those unreferenced sections describing mostly-defunct passenger services at Italian railway stations for 10 years. I'm fairly confident that train operating companies and booking sites have a similar if not higher SEO ranking than Wikipedia, and people expect Wikipedia to be unreliable on this kind of topic. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 18:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I know they are not applicable, they are just similar in sentiment. When sections violating WP:NOT are removed,what is left in most articles can be summarised in a table similar to the one at Vande Bharat Express . Also, yes, it is lazy, which is why I said RfC would be best. And you can see why someone might be a bit lazy: there are more than 900 such articles that I found in a list, with many more that I know exist but were not in the list. Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 18:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And no one has improved the articles despite them being tagged for multiple years, this shows that there isn't much interest in improving them. Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 18:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Articles about services definitely aren't the norm. For example, you will find that none of the services in List of TGV services have articles. Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 18:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC) OTHERSTUFF . Each article should be evaluated on its individual merits, not the merits of other articles. I'm fairly confident that there is sufficient coverage using reliable, secondary sources to sustain an article on Frecciarossa 's Paris–Milan route that started a few years ago; that there isn't an article on it, nor any other Frecciarossa route, doesn't mean that there shouldn't be one, just that no editor has got round to it yet. Besides, Template:Infobox rail service is used on approximately 3,000 pages. And notability derives from the universe of available sources, not the current sourcing an article uses. So, your previous comment, no one has improved the articles , is textbook WP:NOIMPROVEMENT . The strongest argument for deleting these articles (and this is only my opinion) is their notability, not their current content or presentation. Indeed, it is preciely the notability bar that means that many railway services do not justify standalone articles. By whichever process this series of articles is brought to community review, I suspect that the community will likely want to evaluate the individual notability of individual articles, or pursue appropriate alternatives to deletion for articles that do not evidently demonstrate notability. I notice this is among your first AfD discussions, and I offer these suggestions as friendly advice (and it is only my opinion, as a new-ish editor), just as other editors have offered the friendly advice that bundling so many articles for deletion together is unlikely to yield the result you expect. It's worth having a read of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions if you haven't already. Your commitment to ing Wikipedia's coverage of Indian transport at its highest possible standard is laudable, and I'm grateful that you're giving this series of articles the attention it deserves. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 21:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC) I'm minded to agree that ""train service articles"" likely fail notability guidelines. I also agree with other editors regarding WP:NOT : the schedules are unencyclopaedic and I doubt anyone is going to maintain them consistently for them to reflect future changes. I recently came across a similar issue on Italian railway station articles : ten years ago, an editor decided to add the services passing through each station unsourced, but a recent spotcheck found that many of these services are no longer extant. All the same, I'm not convinced AfD, either as bundled or individual nominations, is the best or most efficient venue to discuss where the line should be drawn for a series of articles this large. There might be subtleties in coverage that allow some services to have a stronger case for meeting notability guidelines. Only for that reason, if this AfD isn't closed as """", I think s as alternatives to deletion are preferable to mass-deletion, because the likelihood of a ""mistake"" is quite high when editors can't reasonably be expected to carry out WP:BEFORE on such a large number of articles. At the back of my mind, I wonder ( WP:IAR ): could this issue be brought to RfC or some kind of temporary WikiProject/taskforce specifically to decide and execute consensus? IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 15:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC) NOT . Further complicating matters is a number of these do actually meet GNG and the problematic parts of the article, including timetables, can simply just be removed without deleting potentially encyclopedic information. SportingFlyer T · C 15:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree 100%. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 02:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirects to the main service articles are fine with me as well. Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 15:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support in principle but procedural , I do agree the vast vast majority of these articles are not notable (seeing as they are not named and are just called ""[TERMINUS A] - [TERMINUS B] [TYPE OF SERVICE]"") but a 200 page size bundle is impossible to go through in 7 days. RfC first would probably work better, or some particular egregious examples can be done maybe 10ish articles at a time? Jumpytoo Talk 19:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the lot the articles I have sampled are poor quality and not important or useful enough to here. Sgroey ( talk ) 01:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Procedural due to the unwieldy size of the list of nominated articles. Consider steps mentioned in WP:ATD , such as ion, and nominating articles in much smaller batches. Java Hurricane 02:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So would you be fine if I ed these articles to the main service articles? Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 06:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you did that en masse , ing might also be disruptive... SportingFlyer T · C 21:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC) NOT from the first few articles. If this is fine, then I will continue to do so later. Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 06:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've reviewed three of these and this looks good to me. One was clearly under-sourced and might have been d at a stand-alone AfD. SportingFlyer T · C 12:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural . It's not possible for a single discussion to evaluate 200+ articles when there's variation in the content. An RfC would be helpful for gathering information about Indian train services--naming, sources, what is and what is not encyclopedic. Given that standard, it would be easier to evaluate individual articles. Mackensen (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC) 54, 25 February 2024 (UTC) 39, 25 February 2024 (UTC) GNG . As stated above, evaluating 243 articles at one go is impractical. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk ) 20:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Kim Porter: Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO . At best, return to a to Sean Combs#Family and protect. Geoff | Who, me? 23:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote , but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts : {{subst: spa | username }} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed | username }} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry : {{subst: csm | username }} or {{subst: csp | username }} . Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Bands and musicians , Women , Fashion , and Georgia (U.S. state) . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Refs 1, 3, and 7 are solid, I'm not sure what the issue is. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment When nominated, the article had no sources at all. Question whether the sources added since nom are sufficient for WP:NACTOR and/or WP:BIO . Geoff | Who, me? 17:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Single purpose accounts and IP addresses contributions prior to this being semi-protected to avoid disruption. Daniel ( talk ) 19:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the page. She is someone that was a celeb in her own rite and connected to a lot of celebrities. 104.136.7.126 ( talk ) 02:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC) — 104.136.7.126 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] I agree that Ms. Kim Porter's Wikipedia page should remain intact. Ms. Porter is a separate individual from Mr. Combs who is deserving in her own right to be remembered. Please do not Ms. Porter's page to Mr. Combs. Nuqueendna ( talk ) 07:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC) — Nuqueendna ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 09, 22 November 2023 (UTC) — 71.178.178.126 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The page is basic biographical information. Considering that the subject was with a celebrity and existed around celebrities, all of the sources are legitimate. The media sources are from mainstream media magazines. PushinUpdates ( talk ) 02:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC) — PushinUpdates ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The page consists of legitimate biographical information regarding the celebrity. Different sources online prove it is legitimate. Looking up the individual, her information from Wikipedia is completely gone. Resources101 ( talk ) 03:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC) — Resources101 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Comment Resources101 , do you know PushinUpdates ? Or any other current or former editors? Just wondering how you both found this AFD discussion on your first day as an editor. L iz Read! Talk! 03:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC) the information on the page is true and someone is trying to Kim Porter's page for nefarious reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.186.234.36 ( talk ) 05:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC) — 104.186.234.36 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Diddy is trying to make this page go away. Kim Porter was a celebrity in her own right. Do not let Diddy get away with deleting her memories too! 2601:2C5:C380:7CF0:491C:D345:51A4:8D09 ( talk ) 14:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC) — 2601:2C5:C380:7CF0:491C:D345:51A4:8D09 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2601:2C5:C380:7CF0:491C:D345:51A4:8D09 (UTC). [ reply ] You should be ashamed for trying to take down this page. She was not married to Sean Combs. The page should not be linked to Sean Combs. He did not treat her well and should not control what people know about this beautiful woman. Leave this site alone. 104.186.234.36 ( talk ) 05:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC) — 104.186.234.36 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Just discuss the sources please, I don't care for the rest of it. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please Don't Erase Kim Porter from Wiki. She is an important person loved by millions. It's hard enough knowing she's passed away. Please do not wipe away information about her and who she was. A Loving Mother, Model, Entrepreneur, daughter, sister and friend. Why are you even considering this, its hurtful. She's a shining example of love to the African American community and those who honor and love her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.188.252.70 ( talk ) 17:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC) — 99.188.252.70 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] . Changing my response. Im not sure there's enough for WP:ACTOR or even WP:GNG . There are a number of short articles specifically related to her death, and one article about her in a magazine from 2008. I'm not convinced there was enough WP:SIGCOV of her. A lot of tabloid stuff, and mostly just mentioning her because she was dating Sean Combs . Zenomonoz ( talk ) 20:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (saw notice at AN). In addition to general sourcing improvements by Melonkelon (her non-Diddy life briefly summarized by AJC ), sources of significant coverage include this Essence dual profile ( page two ) and the Jet cover story . The Source article apparently has more but only offline. These alone suggest notability, but there are also other decent sources to add such as this Atlanta Constitution writeup of Three Brown Girls, this remembrance in Bustle (more than a typical aggregation of social media posts), and this semi-independent profile for Runway magazine . Hameltion ( talk | contribs ) 22:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Drowssap SMM ( talk ) ( contributions ) 01:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral - This is the first time I've seen someone wanting to out-right an article talk page, because they don't like the edits therein. You have the options of (1) Simply the edits if you think they are disruptive, or (2) archive the edits. — Maile ( talk ) 03:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - That said, the Personal life section in the article does not confer any notability on Kim Porter. That leaves the Career section, and there's just no substance there to give her notability. All these instances of ""appeared in"" could be nothing more than small parts, or walk-ons. This just doesn't look notable to me. — Maile ( talk ) 03:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Even setting aside the WP:NOTINHERIT argument, there's just no substance there isn't how notability is assessed: see my comment above, the Jet cover story and Source article in particular. Hameltion ( talk | contribs ) 16:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK. Thanks for your input. — Maile ( talk ) 20:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Not seeing independent notability from these sources. JoelleJay ( talk ) 05:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Weak . The Jet magazine spread wasn't loading more than one page for me earlier, which made it seem much less comprehensive than it is. That said, I'm generally hesitant to attribute much weight to celebrity-oriented magazine stories that are based around interviews. JoelleJay ( talk ) 04:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The erasure of Kim's page will play into the narrative that Sean ""Diddy"" Combs is trying to cover up something nefarious. Let's not turn Wikipedia into a gossip rag. Her page should NOT be d as she's a significant figure in the world of Black American celebrities as both a model, a wife/girlfriend, and a mother to children who are now famous themselves. Also, per her status, sources will be media magazines and other smaller publications most likely, which tracks as non A-list ethnic celebrities generally aren't covered by mainstream media. — J ( talk ) 00:15, 26 November 2023 (EST) — Note : An editor has expressed a concern that Chaoticdiva ( talk • contribs ) has been canvassed to this discussion. . She was a model for decades that turned into acting. Her death was covered by every major publication there is. If necessary it could be an actor/model stub but a complete deletion is not needed. Dam! ta ( talk ) 16:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC) — Note : An editor has expressed a concern that Dam! ta ( talk • contribs ) has been canvassed to this discussion. [ reply ] I've not canvassed this discussion. I was shocked to see she would even be up for deletion. She's been on the cover or major magazines, an acting career, a notable model. Dam! ta ( talk ) 04:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A three-month gap of editing to come back and immediately and only ! vote here seems questionable. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Diddy, Kim Porter have been in the news a lot over the last few weeks. I'm not sure how that's questionable. 14:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Dam! ta ( talk ) 14:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Hameltion and Dam! ta . I think there is significant, independent and reliable coverage of Porter. She had a cover story and 5-page spread in Jet magazine; both her death and cause of death were covered in major publications like Variety , The Hollywood Reporter , Billboard , Essence and The Sydney Morning Herald ; she received coverage for her role in co-founding Three Brown Girls and for her roles in film and TV. As Dam! ta mentioned, she had been a model since the 1980s, and had shot a number of ad campaigns. Article should be expanded rather than d, as based on what I have read, she was modeling internationally with Wilhelmina Models, so there is likely some more coverage of that time period. As Hameltion mentioned, not all of this coverage is available online; some of the coverage is only available in printed magazines like The Source and Runway Magazine (and she was on the cover of the latter). Melonkelon ( talk ) 19:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] given there are multiple RS to support notability [4] [5] , her obituary was published in the NYT, and she had a Jet Magazine cover article from 2008 [6] . This nomination is baffling. -- Citrivescence ( talk ) 02:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's how I feel. It's a little baffling that her page is up for deletion. Dam! ta ( talk ) 14:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC) GNG (plenty of focused coverage referenced throughout this discussion, in well-respected publications) and WP:HEY (well done to Melonkelon and the many other editors who contributed sources and edits to this article, which is in much better shape than when it was first nominated). Cielquiparle ( talk ) 03:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Kilasu Ostermeyer: Fails NBAD too. Timothytyy ( talk ) 12:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Badminton , Thailand , and Germany . Timothytyy ( talk ) 12:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 12:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - this LN piece might be enough to add a sentence or two to the article but isn't a GNG pass on its own. If more sources can be found, then we could build something here. If not, then I'd agree with the nominator and we need to this. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] two time medalist at the European Mixed Team Championships, the highest level tournament in Badminton Europe Confederation. Also, a medalist in European Women's team championship, a continental equivalent of Uber Cup. zoglophie 15:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zoglophie Notability is based on coverage, not by achievements. It does not even pass NBAD. No coverage at all online. An article which fails GNG, SNG and SIGCOV at the same time should definitely be d. Timothytyy ( talk ) 00:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Her achievements are not low. Her article should be kept based on her achievements alone. And mind you, WP:NBAD doesn't include World Championship, Sudirman Cup, Continental Championship etc. but it does not make them a non notable tournament at any bounds. It's laughable when someone is saying that. Winning medals in those tournaments alone should be more than enough. zoglophie 04:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability is not based on achievements , it is based on coverage . I am not saying the subject is a weak player, I am saying it is not notable because it just doesn't pass GNG. If you don't understand the guideline you can read WP:GNG , WP:BASIC and WP:BIO so that you can understand what notability is. Timothytyy ( talk ) 11:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 1 , 2 . Stvbastian ( talk ) 11:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you so much for doing research, after considering the two sources provided by you and the sources provided by Spiderone, I decide that I will withdraw this AFD after you add the sources on the page. Timothytyy ( talk ) 13:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Gaston Gelos: Dejaqo ( talk ) 20:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Businesspeople , Germany , Economics and Uruguay . Dejaqo ( talk ) 20:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Following a review of the article and its sources, I made some changes. With sources like [1] , [2] an other citations in that, notability can be clearly demonstrated. Also he is frequently quoted by major financial media outlets including Bloomberg, CNBC, and the Financial Times, as an economist. Southati ( talk ) 14:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Looking on GS under both RG Gelos and Gaston Gelos seems sufficiently well cited for a pass of WP:Prof. ( Msrasnw ( talk ) 17:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC) ) Prof, clearly passes WP:GNG. Gedaali ( talk ) 20:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Comedian Marcus: 1 out of 5 on a source review. Cumulatively, these don't meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:SUSTAINED withdrawn microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 17:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , India , and Goa . Owen× ☎ 18:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Tiatr#Past_tiatrists with the one extensive source about his work that the nominator has Identified ( The Navhind Times ). He is listed there and the target article lacks sources. (Note: I am not familiar with this type of theater, so if he is found notable after all, feel free to discard my comment). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] --> . WP:HEY and arguments and sources presented by The Discoverer below. Thanks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Not a shred of Notability. Maliner ( talk ) 15:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Mushy Yank (adding Marcus's name to the list of past tiatrists). This page is obviously a labor of love for User:Rejoy2003 . Comedian Marcus was clearly an accomplished person and I would love to have seen him perform. I hope you will find other spaces to memorialize him and his achievements. Llajwa ( talk ) 20:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC) The Discoverer below, I withdraw my and switch to . Llajwa ( talk ) 17:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article has many more references now in comparison to the time when it was nominated. Admittedly, several of these references have only passing mentions of the subject, but this is a complete article in a mainstream newspaper focussed on the subject. These four: [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , are records of recognition accorded to him, while another newspaper article praises his performance in a play. I think that these are sufficient to establish the notability for an artist who performs in a language that has very little presence in the online and offline publishing world. The Discoverer ( talk ) 16:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , withdrawn above, the article has received significant improvement. I'm bookmarking this to point to in the future in case people are curious as to the good that can come from AfD! microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 14:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Lars Moe: Not enough academic achievements, since he is not in any list with highly cited researchers or with any highly impact publication. Chiserc ( talk ) 07:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Norway . Chiserc ( talk ) 07:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There seems to be coverage in Norwegian media. This [45] appears to be in a RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, there is some coverage. I have found some sources based on WP:BEFORE : Vettimes , E24 , and the one source you mentioned. However, I don't think this coverage is enough for notability. Chiserc ( talk ) 14:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC) //www.researchgate.net/profile/Lars-Moe/publication/11571627_Population-based_incidence_of_mammary_tumours_in_some_dog_breeds/links/62383edabe72d414dad174ca/Population-based-incidence-of-mammary-tumours-in-some-dog-breeds.pdf (Google Scholar says cited by 278) and his other work (in some cases, he is not the primary author) and as a university president (which I think rector is a synonym for). Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 23:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are academic publications that had some impact, I agree with that, but there should be always a caution with Google Scholar , as mentioned in the citation metrics . I have seen his Scopus profile Lars Moe and his h-index is 22. I don't have access on his Web of Science profile to double-check it, but I don't think his impact is quite convincing to establish WP:PROF . Chiserc ( talk ) 10:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] based on the comments above, regarding his impact factor. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Prince Inigo of Urach: Marcelus ( talk ) 22:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Lithuania . Marcelus ( talk ) 22:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Royalty and nobility . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Numerous self-proclaimed pretenders have articles dedicated to them. Royals that never ruled anything also have articles dedicated to them, e.g. Iniga von Thurn und Taxis . -- +JMJ+ ( talk ) 12:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I hope you know a bunch of non-notable modern day nobles have articles about them, and they never ruled anything in their lives. Also, his grandfather was officially elected as the King, whether you like it or not. If anything, this is more worth ing than the other articles about people of noble/royal blood who are part of deposed dynasties. YT DomDaBomb20 ( talk ) 15:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wilhelm was elected, but this election was reversed after a few months by the same body. It was also never accepted by Germany, which controlled Lithuania at the time. His grandson never laid claim to the throne, nor did any major political party or group ever do so. Inigo is a completely private person. Marcelus ( talk ) 21:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't use the existence of another article to prove that this article should remain. See WP:WAX for more info. ""Flux55"" ( talk ) 15:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC) ALLORNOTHING . And I would also be in favor of deleting Iniga von Thurn und Taxis for what it's worth. As for his grandfather being elected king or not that doesn't make Inigo notable as notability is not inherited WP:INHERIT . D1551D3N7 ( talk ) 00:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update - the Iniga von Thurn und Taxis article has been d for lack of notability for what it's worth. D1551D3N7 ( talk ) 02:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 04:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC) Passes WP:GNG with Lithuanian RS: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 . -- StellarHalo ( talk ) 12:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any comment on the sources found by StellarHalo? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering ( talk ) 04:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist for the verification of new sources provided. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per StellarHalo. Mach61 ( talk ) 03:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] notability according to StellarHalo. Axisstroke ( talk ) 10:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC) 54, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per StellarHalo. Azarctic ( talk ) 10:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Ma Famille: BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions ) 17:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ivory Coast . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC) While the article is insufficient currently, there is definitely notability, with several reliable sources in French: Le Monde , Le Point , analysis article on JSTOR , TV5Monde , rfi , La Libre Afrique , Jeune Afrique ... and others which are perhaps less reliable / reputable Africine , IvoireBusiness , L'Infodrome , Pulse.ci , LeFaso , MediaCongo , AllAfrica . As someone with limited knowledge of African TV, I'm sure there are other, better sources, but this is really just from the first few pages of Google Search results. Shazback ( talk ) 19:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as per Shazback above. Orange sticker ( talk ) 14:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] thanks to Shazback's sources. The JSTOR result seems especially strong. Toughpigs ( talk ) 15:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Russ Laribee: He once held the record for most times striking out in a game (since broken by Khalil Lee ), but the game in question has its own page at Longest professional baseball game and Laribee's record can be covered there. O.N.R. (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball . O.N.R. (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut , Massachusetts , and Rhode Island . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I am finding coverage to meet GNG, for example [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] , besides coverage of his record setting game, where he got a lot of coverage, such as in this book . Just because his record was broken is not reason to (in fact, if we cover his record in the game article we should at least retain a from here). Rlendog ( talk ) 15:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 17:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC) The sources provided by Rlendog all meet the WP:GNG , along with [ [21] ]. Let'srun ( talk ) 20:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC) Reliable sources and a book demonstrate sufficient coverage to meet the General Notability Guideline (GNG). Additionally, the player's record-setting game received notable attention, as evident in the coverage. The fact that his record was later broken does not diminish the historical significance of his achievement, and retaining information about him in a dedicated article is justified. Therefore, deletion is unwarranted, and the article should be kept based on the established notability criteria. "" KarKuZoNga ( talk ) 05:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am almost sure that this is an AI-generated summary of the comments above. See this user's other AfD contributions and all of them are just summaries of other's comments written in a very AI style. GraziePrego ( talk ) 05:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Summarizing comment doesn't make it ai. Not sure about your point. If you have issue with my vote and its justification please give proper argument to oppose that. KarKuZoNga ( talk ) 10:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Kristin Adams: Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Television , and Texas . Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 20:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC) neither the nominator, nor anyone else, have provided assurances that a reasonable search has been made for additional sources per WP:BEFORE I'm willing to change my vote to if assurances are provided that those searches were made Jack4576 ( talk ) 08:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Invalid justification. Timothytyy ( talk ) 09:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, it's a valid procedural objection. This nominator has nominated at least a dozen pages all with similarly vague rationales and provided no evidence that they've followed BEFORE. The nominator has not responded to concerns raised in ongoing discussions. Many, if not most, of the nominations are already heading towards . This increasingly looks like a disruptive mass nomination. pburka ( talk ) 22:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources Rushfield, Richard (2011). American Idol: The Untold Story . New York: Hachette Books . ISBN 978-1-4013-9652-7 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 – via Google Books . The book notes: ""Kristin Holt had made it as far as the semifinals on season 1. To Idol audiences, the former cheerleader and beauty queen had been distinguished for sliding under the judges' desk when she raced to hug them after her audition. After being eliminated, Holt did some on-air work with a local TV news show, getting a taste for hosting. When she read that Dunkleman would not be returning, she called up Lythgoe and requested his slot. ""Come on the road with us, cohost,"" he told her. ""We'll see how you do. "" There's some confusion, a decade later, what role Holt was signed on for, but media reports at the time make clear that she was brought aboard as the new cohost. After shooting some initial segments wearing the cohost's hat, when the audition episodes aired, Holt was relegated to the role of correspondent, filing occasional pieces on life at the Idol mansion."" The book notes: ""Ryan Seacrest's almost cohost, season 1 contender Kristin Holt, can now be seen as a correspondent on nerd central G4 network."" Peele, Britton (2017-02-20). ""Former Dallas Cowboys cheerleader and 'American Idol' contestant goes viral with lip-sync video"" . The Dallas Morning News . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: ""Fans of Dallasites on reality TV may recognize his wife, Kristin. But they might know her by her maiden name, Kristin Holt. The Plano-born actress, who went to school at Texas Christian University, was once a morning co-host on WILD 100.3 in Dallas, was a top 30 finalist in the first season of American Idol and spent some time as a Dallas Cowboys cheerleader. She has also spent time on TV in a variety of other locations, including regular appearances on the former TV network G4, where she hosted the show Cheat!"" Scales, Kylee (2017-02-14). ""Indianapolis couple's hilarious Valentine's Day lip sync video goes viral"" . WXIN . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: ""Kristin and Danny Adams have been married for eight years and have two kids, ages 6 and 3. In June 2015, Danny and Kristin were singing to a song on the radio when they decided it would be fun to create a lip sync video together. So they filmed and posted their first video. ... They posted the Valentine’s Day video to their Facebook page on Monday, and they already have nearly 10 million views."" Porter, Rick (2002-11-23). "" 'Idol' Contestant Goes From Loser to Co-host"" . Zap2it . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 – via Orlando Sentinel . The article notes: ""Kristin Holt, a semi-finalist on the show last summer, will be back for Idol’s second edition in January. Instead of singing, however, she’ll join Ryan Seacrest as a co-host of the show. She replaces Brian Dunkleman. Holt, a Texas native and onetime Dallas Cowboys cheerleader, returned home after not making the final 10. After hearing that the show was still without a co-host for Seacrest, she says she decided to give the producers a call."" Skinner, Paige (2017-04-11). ""13 Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders Who Went On to Bigger and Sometimes Better Things"" . Dallas Observer . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . THe article notes: ""Kristin Holt. DCC 2000. Who needs Kelly Clarkson when you have Kristin Holt, now Adams? She competed on the first season of American Idol and now she has a successful YouTube channel with her husband, where they vlog about their family and lip sync to popular songs."" Osborne, Ryan (2017-02-20). ""TCU alum's Valentine's-themed lip sync video goes viral"" . Fort Worth Star-Telegram . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: ""TCU alum Kristin Adams and her husband Danny have grown a decent following making goofy videos for their two young children. ... Kristin Adams — formerly Kristin Holt — is from Plano. And before graduating from TCU, she was a Dallas Cowboys cheerleader, according to her personal website."" Mendoza, Manuel (2002-06-18). ""Superstardom, here they come - or not"" . The Dallas Morning News . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: ""Dallas Cowboys cheerleader Kristin Holt was so excited after her successful audition for Fox's American Idol: The Search for a Superstar she accidentally slid feet first under the judges' table. It was nothing compared with the other wipeouts. ... Slipping and sliding Ms. Holt, for one, looks better than she sounds. The 20-year-old Plano resident is joined by three other Texans in the group of 30"" Wilkes, Neil (2002-11-24). "" ""Idol's"" Kristin back for second season"" . Digital Spy . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: ""Kristin Holt, semi-finalist in the first ""American Idol"", is returning to the show as a reporter for the second. The former cheerleader from Dallas, Texas, will chat to the wannabes during the audition process and ""possibly"" further on down the line."" ""Former Frogs Kristin Holt '03 and Brian Ching '96 find the spotlight in reality TV"" . TCU Magazine . Texas Christian University . Spring 2003. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: ""For two former Horned Frogs, reality TV is real life. Kristin Holt ’03, a semi-finalist on last summer’s “American Idol,” has joined the talent-search show in its second season — this time as a co-host."" Day, John-Mark (2002-03-06). ""More than just a Cowboys cheerleader"" . TCU Daily Skiff . Texas Christian University . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: ""And at the end of the day, when the numbers go up, Kristin Holt has a passing score. The girl who decided three days earlier to try out on a whim, had become the newest Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader; and the most hated girl on TCU’s campus. ... Holt would later make the traveling squad of the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, the elite 12-person team that represents the squad around the world. Two years later she would win a new competition, sweeping every category of the Miss Burleson pageant. Now she faces the Miss Texas pageant in July."" Halperin, Shirley (2011-05-19). ""You Made It To Hollywood, Now What?"" . The Hollywood Reporter . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: ""1. Kristin Holt Adams Season 1 Currently Hosting G4tv’s X-Play and this fall’s GT Academy on Speed Channel. Formerly Girl who fell during audition; Lindsay Lohan’s backup singer."" Thompson, Kevin D. (2003-01-21). ""Former 'Idol' loser, new co-host: 'I got the best deal out of everyone' "" . The Palm Beach Post . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""You remember Kristin Holt, don't you? The former Dallas Cowboys cheerleader was a top 30 finalist on the first American Idol. She's a 21-year-old stunner who's perhaps best remembered for falling down in front of the judges' table after her audition. This time, Holt is on the other side of that table as a special correspondent on the second Idol. The personable Texas Christian University senior gave us the lowdown on the show."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kristin Adams (née Holt) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 22:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC) BEFORE as part of my WP:DEPROD and found what I considered to be significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 20:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC) BLP, fails GNG and BIO per the above source eval, which clearly shows no SIGCOV from IS RS. All sources presented are brief mentions in routine promotional news, and some involve subject directly, eg: ""The personable Texas Christian University senior gave us the lowdown on the show."" and others are affliated with the subject, [ Day, John-Mark (2002-03-06). ""More than just a Cowboys cheerleader"" . TCU Daily Skiff . Texas Christian University . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . ]. And there is some promo listcruft, ""13 Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders Who Went On to Bigger and Sometimes Better Things"". None of the sources has significant direct and indpeth coverage of the subject from independent reliable sources. // Timothy :: talk 03:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Simple GNG pass, per Cunard. Carrite ( talk ) 15:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Kidnapping of the Bibas family: The article does not state why the individuals are notable enough for a specific article. نعم البدل ( talk ) 15:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ; the sources cited establish notability. Jweiss11 ( talk ) 15:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis . News coverage on its own is routine primary coverage and does not meet WP:GNG . If the target page becomes too long, we have the option to WP:SIZESPLIT to List of kidnappings in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel or something similar. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 16:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The highly notable event meets the criteria outlined in WP:EVENT and WP:GNG . The sources clearly establish its notability on a global scale, and the enduring nature of the coverage signifies its historical significance. For example, consider the recent continued coverage from last week, just a few quick examples of many CNN [21] YNet [22] TOI [23] Marokwitz ( talk ) 19:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Their notability is attached to the Israel-Hamas war. Aside from that, no-one knows who they are. As per WP:Event People notable for only one event shouldn't have an article about them. This seem exactly so. نعم البدل ( talk ) 19:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC) Notability (events) , you've misapplied it, as this isn't a bio article about any member of the Bibas family. That guideline would apply to Shiri Bibas , if it was a stand-alone article, but it doesn't apply here. Jweiss11 ( talk ) 20:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The point still stands, whether it's an individual or a group, their notability is still attached to the war. If the war didn't take place, there would not be an article on them, if they were kidnapped, for instance, by regular criminals. The article only seeks to emphasise on their kidnapping because it was done by Hamas and that doesn't warrant an article. It could easily be mentioned in an already existing article, if need be. نعم البدل ( talk ) 20:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ نعم البدل The story and its notability are almost the opposite of that. They were held by ""another group"" (not Hamas or Islamic Jihad), that is exactly what makes this case notable. That is why they were not released with the other women and children, whoever they were held by was not involved in the negotiations. It is very ambiguous how much control Hamas had over the situation, but the IDF did believe the story that Hamas didn't have them and thus were not able to release them. Irtapil ( talk ) 03:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC) NOTABILITY and WP:GNG . Marokwitz ( talk ) 21:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or into an article discussing the Kidnappings. نعم البدل ( talk ) 19:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC) Articles for deletion . Marokwitz ( talk ) 20:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC) Ah apologies, I didn't know, I just wanted to reiterate that I'd be fine with all the articles being d into one. نعم البدل ( talk ) 21:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , per the sourcing that this has. Davidgoodheart ( talk ) 02:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . While I agree we shouldn't create pages for every hostage kidnapped by Hamas, this is clearly a notable case that has received significant coverage in global media as the above links show. Eladkarmel ( talk ) 14:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC) 28, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This article is notable because it includes the abduction of the youngest hostage in Gaza, Kfir Bibas. He has become a symbol for the hostage crisis and his abduction is notable. Many newspapers such as the New York Times and the Wall Street journal have written articles about this family. [24] https://www.wsj.com/articles/my-cousin-kfir-1-is-hamas-hostage-kibbutz-israel-the-hague- 5070924e https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/world/middleeast/bibas-family-israel-gaza.html Sivanadames ( talk ) 16:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC) 47, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Strike out per WP:ARBPIA WP:ECP . You must have 500 edits to participate here. Marokwitz ( talk ) 08:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Apparently all the articles on individual Hamas kidnapping victims are being nominated for deletion on the same specious grounds. No, the fact that 200+ non-notable persons were kidnapped by Hamas is not grounds for deleting articles on notable kidnap victims. Evena cursory review of the article indicates that there is ample basis for having an individual article on this particular set of widely written-about Hamas kidnap victims, and I am puzzled that the nominator fails to notice that. Coretheapple ( talk ) 18:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * this has significant coverage in the media in world news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.11.113 ( talk ) 21:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Strike out per WP:ARBPIA WP:ECP Marokwitz ( talk ) 06:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Another notable kidnapping widely covered in the press without clear reason to have it it. Hogo-2020 ( talk ) 09:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep! Their story is different to most of the others. It is notable for multiple reasons. youngest hostage held by the mysterious ""another group"" not released in the hostage exchanges (negotiated by Hamas and Islamic Jihad) that released the other civilian women and children. There are still some gaps in the story, and there are likely to be more unusual aspects to it. But those three already make their story unusual enough to be covered separately. They are well documented (referenced in the page last time I looked?) and unusual. Irtapil ( talk ) 03:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Highly notable and well referenced event of a toddler and a baby, kidnapped as hostages and held in captivity for more than 100 days!!! The sources unequivocally confirm its global significance. Meets the criteria in WP:EVENT . GidiD ( talk ) 09:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC) GNG MaskedSinger ( talk ) 12:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Abdou Manzo: The now-removed claim that he was the record holder in the marathon is disproven at this website , saying Mohammed Abbas defeated him by nearly 10 minutes. Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 04:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics , and Africa . Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 04:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment You should retract the part about records faster than the wind, because your source is clearly named athleticsNIGERIA.org, whereas the subject is from NIGER. Two different countries... Geschichte ( talk ) 20:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yup I deserve a trout for that. struck Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 20:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as a national record holder and Olympic flagbearer for Niger. I think that enduring coverage exists, and as evidence I found a 2009 article describing Manzo as a (translated) ""glory of Nigerien athletics"" showing he is still active in some form, which I added to the article. -- Habst ( talk ) 15:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . Our access to sources from Niger is extremely poor; many of their sources from today remain offline, let alone newspaper articles from the 1980s and 1990s (when Manzo would most likely be covered). There's about 15 newspapers currently operating in Niger , I don't think we really have access to coverage from the 1990s in any of them. The fact that Habst found an article mentioning him as a ""glory of Nigerien athletics"" is very significant considering this. Also pretty notable I think that he was able to make it to three straight Olympics – including when he was 37 – as a runner ! There has to be offline coverage of him based on what has been found. It also seems that he may have played for the Niger national football team ? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . Per BeanieFan11's reasoning. It's hard to believe someone who competed at 3 modern Olympics isn't really notable. I know they don't get a presumption anymore but still. ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 14:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Per Habst and BeanieFan11 above. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 16:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Johann Eyfells: Insufficient WP:RS and WP:IS sources with WP:SIGCOV . Fails WP:GNG . UtherSRG (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Artists , and Iceland . UtherSRG (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC) GNG . @ UtherSRG : , here is alot of significant coverage on him in the Icelandic newspaper database Tímarit.is , such as these [24] [25] [26] [27] . More can be found here . Any chance that you might reconsider this nomination? Alvaldi ( talk ) 14:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC) 20, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are also significant english sources on him on Newspapers.com , including this from the Orlando Sentinel Part I / Part II . Alvaldi ( talk ) 14:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the 1993 Venice Biennale puts him into notable territory. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources found above. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 18:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Horses Galore: Unsourced. Fails WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom . UtherSRG (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC) BBC Children's and Education , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject BBC , and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Equine . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Only primary sources and/or passing mentions found. Unlikely that more will turn up considering how long ago and short-lived the series was. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 21:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC) GNG Donald D23 talk to me 20:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Morris, Jill (1980-07-17). ""Time to saddle up for tips on riding"" . The Age . Archived from the original on 2023-08-13 . Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "" Horses Galore , a new programme from the BBC, begins on Channel 2 at 5 pm Thursday 24 July, is galloping-full of tiny tips for horse care, showjumping skill and training in dressage. In the first programme three young riders are given tips and practice in jumping by former champion equestrian Paddy McMahon; old Bert shows us in detail how to clean a saddle; and we have a sneak early-morning preview of rehearsals for the Musical Drive of the Royal Horse Artillery. 'Horses Galore' is rather like a series of items from 'This Week in Britain', and it constantly refers to the ""children"" who ride, clean saddles and so on, which is annoying. ... My tip is that 'Horses Galore' will become very popular. Don't miss it that is, if you're not too busy outside grooming your horse."" ""Horses galore"" . Reading Evening Post . 1979-01-05. Archived from the original on 2023-08-13 . Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""So there is likely to be a big following for the new series of Horses Galore, which starts on BBC1 at 4 45pm this evening. Susan King introduces four special programmes, each one devoted to a particular aspect of horses and horsemanship. The opening programme features on last summer's World Driving Championships held in Hungary."" O'Hara, Monica (1977-09-12). ""The ladies really raise the roof!"" . Liverpool Echo . Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive . The article notes: ""Over 2,000,000 people ride regularly in Britain, and the figure is increasing annually. Horses Galore (B.B.C.-1, 5.5 morrow) is a new nine week series about horses, presented by Susan King. Each week, she will meet people involved in every aspect of the equine world. Three of her programmes will concentrate entirely on one subject, the others will look at different items. In the first, she visits show jumper Paddy McMahon at his Oxfordshire home and gives tips to amateur riders."" Pacey, Ann (1977-09-11). ""Week's TV"" . Sunday Mirror . Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive . The article notes: ""Horses Galore (BB C-1, 5.5). More than two million people ride horses regularly in Britain, at least half of them children. Fresh-faced and country-wise Susan King introduces this new series about horses, ponies, show-jumping and breeding. But not how to win your way to the stars via the bookmakers. Children will love it."" ""Sudworths s the heat in"" . Huddersfield Daily Examiner . 1978-01-31 . Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive . The article notes: ""A BBC film crew is expected to arrive on Thursday to take shots of work in progress for the TV programme ""Horses Galore. "" The feature, about junior horse riding, goes out under the production of David Turnbull, who visited the works the other day to prepare for the filming. The presenter is Susan King."" ""TV Spotlight"" . Chester Chronicle . 1978-04-21 . Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive . The article notes: ""A record that has stood for 98 years is broken in dramatic fashion in Horses Galore' with Susan King on Friday, April 21 (BBC 1). Susan King witnesses the new record-breaking attempt, masterminded by 81-year-old George Mossman, who acts as coachman. ... From the time the wheels of the coach stop to the time the coach speeds on its way with four new horses in harness takes just 42 seconds."" ""Back in Harness"" . Daily Mirror . 1978-05-09 . Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive . The article notes: ""They're off on a super new series of Horses Galore (BBC- 1, 4.40). Susan King visits Hampshire farmer Tom Sampson to see his antique horse-drawn fire-engine in action. In the days before motorised fire engines many houses were saved from destruction by the combination of such engines—and a team of fast horses."" ""Courses for Horses"" . Coventry Evening Telegraph . 1979-01-19 . Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive . The article notes: ""Horses Galore (BBC 1, 4.45) ... In this programme, Susan King looks behind the scenes at Stoneleigh, in particular at a sponsored course for promising riders — and promising horses. She also visits the Horse Of The Year Show and she learns how freeze marking may finally frustrate the horse thief."" ""Hats off to Major"" . Daily Mirror . 1979-01-12 . Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive . The article notes: ""Producer David Turnbull was chatting to farmer Tom Sampson for Horses Galore (BBC-1, 4.45) when a six-month-old foal gently took hold of Tom's cap in his teeth, and placed it neatly at his feet. The foal, Major, started removing farmer Sampson's cap out of naughtiness.. Now he does it as a party trick. Susan King introduces the programme, which shows carthorses working on farms, taking part in a ploughing match and pulling brewery carts."" ""Horse facts and fiction"" . Coventry Evening Telegraph . 1979-07-25 . Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive . The article notes: ""Susan King has been around horses all her life, but it was pure chance that she landed the job of presenting a television programme about her favourite animal. But Susan knows her subject, and in Horses Galore (Pelham, £3-95), the book of the BBC - TV series, she captures the same enthusiasm in print that she did on the small screen. The book, which will appeal to horse lovers of all ages, covers 28 subjects from road safety to the Horse of the Year Show. And the story of how she got the television job is something of a fairy story come true."" ""Horses Galore"" . Lincolnshire Echo . 1979-01-13 . Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive . The article notes: ""In just ten years the National Equestrian Centre at the Royal Showground. Stoneleigh. Warwickshire. has become known as the ""University of the Horse,"" and that is the sub title for Horses Galore' on Friday (BBC 1) Established in 1967. the NEC is dedicated to the care of the horse and rider and is the home for several equestian organisations. Presenter Susan King looks behind the scenes at a sponsored course for promising young riders — and promising horses Susan also visits the Horse of the Year Show and she learns how freeze marking may finally frustrate the horse thief."" ""Wednesday"" . Aldershot News . 1979-05-22 . Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive . The article notes: ""4.40-5.05. p.m. - Horses Galore. While breeding thorough-bred horses today is an expensive and carefully thought out business to produce the best possible animal, the most prized breed in the world - the Arabian - has unknown origins. Susan King traces the 5.000-year history of the most influential breed of horse in the world."" ""TV Spotlight"" . Chester Chronicle . 1979-01-26 . Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive . The article notes: ""The Junior European Three Day Event is the subject of Horses Galore on Friday, January 26 (BBC1). Presenter Susan King joined the British team at Burghley where they were competing against 14 other countries. While there Susan talked to Bill Thompson, who builds the famous obstacles on the cross country section, Isabel Reid, who manages the junior team, and David Hunt, who trained three of them."" ""Watch out for... Wednesday"" . Aldershot News . 1979-06-12 . Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive . The article notes: ""4.40 - 5.10 p.m. - Horses Galore . Tanya Larrigan is Britain's youngest international dressage rider and she has just been selected to represent Britain in the European Team Dressage Championships on her horse Salute. In the last programme of the series, Susan King meets Tanya and gets advice from her for some of the many viewers who have written in with queries."" ""Watch out for... Wednesday"" . Aldershot News . 1979-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive . The article notes: ""4.40-5.05 p.m. - Horses Galore . Hay is a better fuel for transport than petrol for a surprising number of South London traders, as Susan King discovers. It's quite surprising how many street traders prefer a horse and cart to a delivery lorry. Jim Bellman has worked with horses since he was a boy and can well remember the days when the streets of London were crowded with horses delivering everything from milk to coal."" ""Behind the scenes with Susan King"" . Reading Evening Post . 1979-08-18. Archived from the original on 2023-08-13 . Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""Many of you will have seen the Horses Galore series on television. Now it has been turned into a book. But did you know that some of the series was made locally at Wokingham? This was the episode featuring competition involving the King family and their ponies. ... The episode at Wokingham featured their Welsh Mountain pony stallion — who has won so many trophies and rosettes that the family have trouble finding somewhere to put them all."" Belsey, James (1981-06-26). ""The Best of Horses Galore"" . Bristol Evening Post . Archived from the original on 2023-08-13 . Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""The Best Of Horses Galore (BBC-1, 5.5) sounds a bit like a mixture of the Derby, Grand National and Horse Of The Year Show. In reality it is Susan King returning with six specially compiled programmes including a selection of her favourite clips from four previous series shown between 1977 and 1979."" ""TV and Radio Programmes for This Evening and ... Tomorrow Until Teatime"" . Evening Sentinel . 1981-06-26. Archived from the original on 2023-08-13 . Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""The Best of Horses Galore. Susan King returns in the first of six specially compiled programmes all about horses and ponies. Tonight Susan rides through the snow in search of a rare Exmoor pony, meets the Banwen Pony Club, 1977 holders of the Prince Philip Cup, and sees a cross country rave in which ""wheeled"" horse power is tested against the four-leg- ged variety."" Hardcastle, Barbara (1979-08-23). ""Facts About Show Jumping. Genevieve Murphy/Deutsch, £2.95 Horses Galore. Susan King Pelham, £3.95"" . Huddersfield Daily Examiner . Archived from the original on 2023-08-13 . Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""Horses Galore, the book of the BBC TV series of the same name, offers a wide range of equestrian activity. Taking in the renowned Appleby Horse Fair, where gipsies gather from all parts of Great Britain, through the spectacular displays of the King's Troop, named by the late King George VI and retained by the wish of the Queen, the role of the circus horse, brewery drays still used in London by the famed Young's Brewery, there is something to satisfy every horse lover. Profusely illustrated by some fine photographs."" ""Get Lost — by the seaside: what's on tonight"" . Reading Evening Post . 1981-06-26. Archived from the original on 2023-08-13 . Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""Susan King returns in the first of six specially compiled programmes The Best of Horses Galore (BBC1, 5.05pm). The series, all about horses and ponies, includes Susan's favourite selection of films from the four series of Horses Galore shown in 1977, 1978 and 1979. The new series includes a wide selection of equestrian sports and activities in which everyone can take part, whether they own a pony or take lessons at their focal riding school."" ""Horses Galore"" . The Bookseller . No. 3816. 1979-02-10 . Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Internet Archive . The review notes: ""This delightful book is a followup to the popular TV series of the same name, and in it Susan King covers some of the many topics which were featured in the shows. Subjects range from training a racehorse to the Horse of the Year Show. The book also takes a peep behind the scenes in the making of the show. Illustrated in colour and black and white."" ""You ask us"" . The Sunday People . 1979-07-09. Archived from the original on 2023-08-13 . Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""Title, please, of the music in BBC's Horses Galore series, writes D. Keane, of Stockport. Pulstar from the R.C.A. L.P. Albedo 0.39, by Vangelis."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Horses Galore to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 10:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC) I expanded and added sources to the article. Cunard ( talk ) 10:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting so that some of these new sources can be evaluated. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 16:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC) GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Council High School (Idaho): A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 12:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Idaho . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This school has been in existence for over 100 years. We generally public high schools (not policy, but that's what happens). Sources do not have to be in the article, they need to WP:NEXIST , and they don't have to be online. This is the second oldest school I've ever seen nominated. As to the article, it is at this point a pitiful stub, which needs great improvement, but why it instead of fixing it? Jacona ( talk ) 13:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:NORG . Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 14:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV about the expansion of the high school from a 3 year to a 4 year curriculum. That's the oldest WP:RS I've found thus far. I have found trivial mentions as far back as 1901. — Jacona ( talk ) 14:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV , ""A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."" Trivial mentions do not count towards WP:GNG . Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 14:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lavalizard101 , First, this is not a trivial mention. Second, it's not the only source, but I've provided this one to show this school has existed and has significant coverage as far back as over a century ago. I don't really intend to waste a lot of effort to show that sources exists for a public high school in the U.S. that is so old, as experienced editors should know that sources are going to WP:NEXIST , both online and off. Just as a comment, before I nominate any articles for deletion, I always do a search on newspapers.com. There is a wealth of coverage. You can access it for free at the Wikipedia Library — Jacona ( talk ) 14:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not saying that that source is a trivial mention, my comment about trivial mentions is a response to your ""I have found trivial mentions as far back as 1901"". Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 14:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC) NEXIST also states ""once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive"". Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 14:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is why Newspapers.com and Newspaperarchive.com are important, as one can check some newspapers. One issue is that not all sources are online and some sources require visits to in-person centers for microfilms. This puts a very large burden on ordinary people trying to get sources for articles. We are lucky that the Idaho newspapers do have articles about the school online. WhisperToMe ( talk ) 03:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . While some sources are available, they do not meet WP:SIGCOV . Fails WP:NSCHOOL . 33ABGirl ( talk ) 14:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV and WP:NSCHOOL -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 17:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC) Council High School Seeking to Teach All Four Classes "" so Wikipedians can see the article for themselves and determine whether it meets SIGCOV. There should be a priority in ensuring articles on government-run comprehensive high schools have the necessary sources to meet SIGCOV, because Wikipedia does function as an almanac, and documenting public facilities such as schools are an important ingredient in being a good almanac. As per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools , any American school operated by a school district which doesnt meet notability should be folded into the respective school district article. WhisperToMe ( talk ) 03:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC) I checked Newspaperarchive.com and found coverage of the school fire and the subsequent efforts to build a new building from the Idaho Free Press of Nampa, Idaho . A school fire almost completely destroying the building is not routine coverage, and the articles delve into Wikipedia:SIGCOV WhisperToMe ( talk ) 03:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Jacona's argument is compelling, and between the sources he and WhisperToMe have brought forward, GNG is clearly met. Aa a side note, the community it's located in had a local newspaper up until the early 90s. It hasn't been Archived anywhere online, but is available in both the local library and the Idaho state repository library at Boise State University. It's a fair assumption that there would be some highly detailed articles in it. And as the newspaper of record for the county, it should be considered a reliable source. There's a vast world of information beyond the internet. 69.92.163.38 ( talk ) 16:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Sources provided by Jacona and WhisperToMe easily meet requirements for non-profit schools under WP:ORG and WP:AUD : The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. (Italics mine.) The tip above about the local newspaper is also an appreciated reminder of life beyond the internet. Finally, notability requirements for public (non-profit) schools are WP:ORG or WP:GNG , and this article meets both. — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 21:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC) NSCHOOL and now WP:GNG . I commend users @ Jacona and @ WhisperToMe for adding sufficient sources proving WP:SIGCOV . Burgeoning Contracting 02:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Available sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Jessie Baetz: The sources listed only mention the subject in passing, or are trivial local press covering minor events. The New York Times article for example includes her name in a long list of names. (FYI The article's title is ""Art In Review"" in the subsection of ""At the Jumble Shop"") The reviewer, Edward Alden Jewell , didn't even review the art only mentioning food was available and people could walk around and look at the art. The main criticism of the piece was directed at other unconnected art events in other parts of New York City. A WP:BEFORE search didn't yield anything better. There isn't anything here to suggest the subject is encyclopedic. 4meter4 ( talk ) 14:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC) More than enough discussion of their work as a composer in Gscholar. A quick perusal shows the first 6 mentions in Gscholar to be decent. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b I looked at most of those (as in actually read them). They only mention Baetz in passing as a student of Johanna Beyer who performed with Beyer at the Composers’ Forum Laboratory Concert in 1937 (a work composed by Beyer not Baetz) with no other biographical content or discussion of Baetz's music compositions or work beyond that. The articles in question only briefly nod at Baetz, and do so entirely in the context of coverage of Beyer's music and its performance in 1937. Can you please point to a journal article that actually has ""in-depth coverage"" that goes beyond a passing mention in a single sentence (literally that is the length of Baetz's coverage in those journal articles). 4meter4 ( talk ) 15:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, I've had deep dive in the sources, (the Jstor one in particular), Baetz seems to be a student of Beyer, mentioned as you said over, and over, in her article. I feel like we could selectively some of the Baetz article into the Beyer. I mean, Baetz is mentioned several times, but always as being ""a student of"" Beyer. That would make the most sense to me, rather than a wholesale deletion of this article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's what it seems to be, this thesis on page 52 [1] mentions Baetz in a footnote; that appears to be the extent of coverage/notability. She's a student of Beyer with some connections to her, but never rising to her level of critical notice. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Bands and musicians , Women , and Canada . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - much of the original article, and the current one, directly matches this article (footnote 38) - however, the user who added that text has a username that matches the author of the article, so this is presumably not a copyvio as such. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , leaning . There seem to be multiple articles discussing her as a composer, esp. ""Never Call Us Lady Composers"": Gendered Receptions in the New York Composers' Forum, 1935-1940 by Melissa J. De Graaf American Music , Vol. 26, No. 3 (Fall, 2008), pp. 277-308 ( JSTOR 40071709 ) as well as the book The New York Composers’ Forum Concerts, 1935–1940 also by Melissa de Graaf (review by John D. Spilker mentions Baetz; Journal of the Society for American Music , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , November 2016 , pp. 511 - 514 doi : 10.1017/S1752196316000420 ). Newspaper search finds local newspaper coverage of an art exhibition ( Kingston Daily Freeman 31 Oct 1970) and several other mentions. Not really seeing a pressing need to . Espresso Addict ( talk ) 23:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing to formal per additional sources found by Tagishsimon. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 21:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per Oaktree b and Espresso Addict. I'd like to add too that as a female composer of note, she would be of historical interest there as well. I'm confident that going through books more will be turned up. Karl Twist ( talk ) 08:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a consensus to but it's unclear if newly discovered sources are sufficient to meet GNG. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I personally believe the voters haven't demonstrated WP:SIGCOV . In looking at the sources presented by Espresso Addict and others above, the coverage appears to be very thin. There isn't any critical commentary on her compositions and no larger discussion of her work as a composer. She's largely only mentioned in passing in connection to Beyer. Further, it's telling that no one has been able to come up with a review of her music; which to my mind demonstrates a lack of notability for a composer. One would think a critical review of a concert where here music was performed would be locatable, but there isn't anything newspapers.com, The New York Times archives, or music magazines or journals. That would be very odd for a notable composer based out of New York. The ""art reviews"" aren't all that significant as they are all small local affairs and not at a significant art venue, and the reviews themselves don't have in-depth coverage of her art and work as an artist. They are more focused on her husband's work (the couple exhibited together), and the one larger art review in the Kingston Daily Freeman only mentions her as creating new pieces while people were watching at the art exhibit as a form of ""improvisational art"" in one sentence while her husband's work got a few paragraphs of coverage. In short this is all trivial coverage in my opinion. I also note the subject doesn't meet any WP:SNG criteria either. 4meter4 ( talk ) 00:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, we're aware that you believe the article should be d, but I don't personally believe that you have demonstrated a case for the necessity for deletion. None of us can access the book I mention, so the extent of coverage of Baetz is only known via the fact that a book reviewer explicitly chose to highlight her, which to me suggests likely to be significant. I don't believe anyone commenting here has access to specialist music library sources -- I certainly don't. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 00:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Besides incidental mentions, there's a couple of pages on Jessie Baetz in The New York Composers' Forum concerts, 1935-1940 by Graaf, Melissa J. de, pages 100 & 101, available via Internet Archive. Not sure if this was the book Espresso Addict is pointing to. More generally, an IA search for ""Jessie Baetz"" comes up with plenty of hits suggesting that she's not obscure. -- Tagishsimon ( talk ) 01:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am aware, but I fail to see how this essentially one event passes GNG. All of the music related sources are about the New York Composers Forum. The one you found, while in-depth (where the others are not), is so negative in its reception of the subject and her work I question whether this really lends notability/credibility towards creating an article on the subject. It looks to me like we have a composer who had her music performed at only one notable event at which point her music was harshly received and she simply stopped after that. To my mind that doesn't reach the standard of GNG, WP:MUSICBIO , or WP:NARTIST . 4meter4 ( talk ) 19:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ima stop you at 'while in-depth'. 'so negative in its reception of the subject and her work' might be said about any number of people; it's not an AfD criteria that people must like her music. -- Tagishsimon ( talk ) 19:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Tagishsimon I never said a positive review was required. However, WP:SIGCOV requires multiple sources with significant coverage and this is only one source. Further I take issue with this source as providing a neutral or balanced picture of Baetz. Reasonably WP:NPOV requires a balanced reporting on a subject. Ironically, the author of the book including this coverage was doing so to demonstrate a larger historic pattern of bias against women composers in music criticism; and really the main topic here was not Baetz and her music but the potentially unfair assessment of Baetz and women like her through a cultural problem of systemic bias against women composers of that era. Unfortunately, there is no counter-assessment from a contemporary author to remedy the historical critique. My main concern in creating an article based on this one solid piece of evidence is we are essentially encoding the negative reception of Baetz from a single event into an encyclopedia article on her, and are taking one small window of her life and work to build an article which will inevitably skew negative. More importantly, there are zero sources with a broader view of her life and work as either a composer or an artist, which all add up to failing WP:SIGCOV in my opinion. In short, I believe the scholarship just isn't there to create an ethically responsible encyclopedia article. This is clearly a woman that deserves to be researched and potentially re-assessed. However, that is not our job at Wikipedia. Until that original research is done by academics in published sources, I really don't think we should have an encyclopedia article on her. 4meter4 ( talk ) 23:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] tfw it's your ethical responsibility to remove an article supported by 15 referenes, on a women, b/c. -- Tagishsimon ( talk ) 10:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC) 39, 29 September 2023 (UTC) ""Notability"" appears to be based entirely on passing mentions. Looking through newspaper archives and JSTOR does not turn up any significant coverage. Am I missing something here? — CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 18:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Flipping through the de Graaf book right now. Again, mentions of Baetz are all in passing: as being one of several ""ultramodernists"" (p. 46), her music was played at the Forum twice once (p. 97), the audience derided her music (p. 101). What very little is mentioned sounds tantalizing enough to make one want to hear her music and learn more about her. But as de Graaf herself admits (p. 100) ""unfortunately, very little is known about Baetz"". — CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 18:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC) GNG here; notably, pages 100-101 are 'significant coverage' in GNGs terms, and the rest of GNG is met. Only knowing little about the subject is not a reason for deletion. -- Tagishsimon ( talk ) 19:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV , significant coverage would address ""the topic directly and in detail"". However, de Graaf's book does not do this. I agree that knowing little about a subject is not necessarily reason for deletion, but in Baetz's case there are also no studies, books, reviews, etc. that specifically cover her work. Whatever the worth of her music—and, again, de Graaf suggests that it may have been very interesting—that does not make up for lack of significant, much less sustained coverage. — CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 19:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A couple of pages is in detail, CurryTime. It's not a passing mention. It is direct. GNG is satisfied. -- Tagishsimon ( talk ) 21:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Four fleeting references that total about 2 1/2 paragraphs in a 290-page book is not ""detail"", Tagishsimon. They are passing mentions. They are not direct. GNG is not satisfied. — CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 22:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SIGCOV is not determined based on the length of the rest of the source. 2 1/2 paragraphs is indeed significant coverage. A passing mention would be one or two sentences. Silver seren C 22:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this matter. To me, 2 1/2 paragraphs of scattered passing references in a book that otherwise is not about her specifically, but about an organization of which she was but one member of many (and where her music appears to only have ever been performed once) is not significant coverage. My vote to has nothing to do with the possible intrinsic quality of her music, which may be considerable. If any other editors turn up reviews, interviews, studies, etc. about her specifically , believe me, I would enthusiastically vote against deletion. — CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 23:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Bowling Bowling Bowling Parking Parking: Knowledgegatherer23 ( Say Hello ) 14:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC) NALBUMS as it charted in Japan . Plus I added another reference. J04n ( talk page ) 15:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , the Japanese chart source is dispositive. Also discussed in reliable sources from BEFORE search: Rock Extreme and DiPerna . Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 22:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , per above. JeffSpaceman ( talk ) 14:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC) 43, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Big Bear (food company): I'm on the fence as to whether it IS notable or not, hence why I'm giving this an AfD instead of a PROD, but IMO, it's better safe to nominate this than sorry. 100.7.44.80 ( talk ) 01:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator. Above text is copied from article talk page. As for my own view, the article definitely needs better sourcing, and on my first pass through Google there might be enough out there for to meet WP:GNG , but I haven't yet delved into it enough to justify a ! vote either way at this time. -- Finngall talk 17:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think I see enough sources to meet GNG here. [1] [2] [3] [4] I don't know how reliable these sites are though. Snowmanonahoe ( talk ) 17:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC) //www.confectionerynews.com/Article/2019/10/03/Leicester-s-Big-Bear-Confectionery-factory-to-close-after-122-years ^ https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/240218Z:LN ^ https://www.talkingretail.com/products-news/confectionery/big-bear-launch-halloween-friendly-poppets-format-26-06-2018/ ^ https://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Article/2018/08/09/Big-Bear-owner-buys-Black-Jack-chews-manufacturer . This was the norm back in the day, we used to have many articles like this. The fact that it may pass WP:GNG doesn't mean it should exist. It is the same as creating an article about this company in Albania or any company for that matter. ▪︎ Some1 { talk } 05:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak A food company that was in business for 122 years is quite likely notable. That doesn't mean sigcov is easy to find, though. I'm a bit on the fence. Valereee ( talk ) 15:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Big Bear as a company (which I believe to be the topic of this article) was formed in 2003 to take over brands being disposed of by Northern Foods . [12] . It's the factory that's been in operation for 122 years under different owners, not this company. Rupples ( talk ) 20:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Exactly. As I said, it is pointless to have bunch of articles about some not-so-notable company. Some1 { talk } 12:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources by Snowmanonahoe. // Timothy :: talk 12:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Dany Engobo: UtherSRG (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Africa , and Democratic Republic of the Congo . UtherSRG (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps a weak . I've done a rewrite of the article and found some sources including The New Yorker [45] , although, the mentions are a tad fleeting yet he is used as an example of popularising a musical style in an Encyclopedia. I didn't do a check on French sources. With WP:MUSICBIO , I think his band meets criteria 4 and 7. I wouldn't oppose having a band page be created Les Coeurs Brises and a made to it from Dany Engobo . Meanderingbartender ( talk ) 20:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Meanderingbartender's decision. CastJared ( talk ) 20:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 00:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For further input on Meanderingbartender's findings. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment A . fr Google website search doesn't turn up much [46] mentioned about another person during Eurovision in 2010. He has a listing at BNF (the French National Library), so I think he's released a few records/CDs'. I'll digging. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He appears to have been making music as part of ""Les Coeurs Brises"" before 1991, then alone in the late 90's/early 2000s, so likely exists in paper sources. He's mentioned in this book [47] , which Google doesn't have much of beyond a snippet view; it's published in the Congo, so I doubt it will be in many libraries. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak I think his notability hangs on MUSIC #7 in particular. He created a new musical style/dance as described in the article. And about a paragraph in this book [48] , briefly talking about him, and this [49] , mentioned in an African cultural encyclopedia. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Did on search on BNF Gallica, hoping for newspapers, nothing turns up [50] . Appears he was big in Africa in the pre-internet era, so not much has been digitized from that part of the planet and time. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 22:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Lloyd Garmadon: and their sources are only a passing mentions from film reviews? The sources that were brought on previous afd discussion were also passing mentions, except this [2] , but looks trivial. Meanwhile, in the influence section, it was sourced by weird source like Brick Fanatics and Block Fanatics except collider; thou they only discussed about its design but not as a character so this doesn't count as sigcov. BEFORE shows nothing but film reviews. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 22:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC) INDISCRIMINATE , as all the reception is either unreliable or based on a primary source. If that is removed as it likely should be, there is no clear significance to the character that has been established. I am open to changing my view to if the article is cleaned up and reliable, significant coverage is shown. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 03:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] since the sourcing exists, this is the protagonist of a fifteen-season television series that began in 2011 and an animated featured film, but heavily rewrite , copyedit, like this article is awfully written, yikes. 91.219.238.98 ( talk ) 03:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A heavy rewrite would need third party reliable sources though. Do we have that? Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Most of the reception seems to be on the relationship between father and son in Lloyd and Garmadon, but the sourcing exists. 91.219.238.98 ( talk ) 14:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rolling stone and Paste are the only reliable here, but they are all trivial. ""The leader of the team is the creatively named Green Ninja, who is actually teenager Lloyd Garmadon, son of Lord Garmadon"". ""Green Ninja is beloved. But, twist! Everyone in the city knows that Lloyd is Garmadon’s kid"" so AwEsomE. I don't think that's a WP:SIGCOV . And, most of the sources were from films + Lloyd were just passing mentions. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 01:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are some more from a Google. [12] [13] [14] I am sure there are more, given just how many years Ninjago has been going, so I think WP:ARTN applies. Does this article suck? Yes. Is there enough sourcing to warrant a rewrite? I say yes. There should be more refs included on the merch too, not just the reception. 91.219.238.98 ( talk ) 03:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, but the sources were just about the actor's role in the films. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 03:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per @ Zxcvbnm . Kind regards 14 novembre ( talk ) 🇮🇹 15:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per 91.219.238.98. Blubewwy ( talk ) 01:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I agree with Zxcvbnm that the sourcing just isn't there. All of the sources that have been linked either consist of passing coverage or don't seem like RSes. ― novov (t c) 06:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For a lack of better words, this article is pretty terribly written but secondary covering does exist as demonstrated by 91.219.238.98 and I'll probably do my own dive into sources when I have more time to do so. I will also add that most of the sources brought up don't seem to have an established consensus on their reliability. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk ) 03:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article doesn't look ""terribly written"" (The author could be offended by this). It's actually quite good, but the thing is the sources, which I disagree with. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 23:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Institute for Political and Legal Education: The reference is dated 1995. This is the reference that I can find to IPLE. That suggests it was not widely used. On that basis, I suggest this page is d. Newhaven lad ( talk ) 14:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Organizations , Politics , Education , United States of America , and New Jersey . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG . Sal2100 ( talk ) 22:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – Source searches are demonstrating that this may meet notability requirements. I have copy edited the article to denote that it is an educational program, rather than an organization. Additionally, regarding the nomination, the degree to which a program is used has no bearing on notability for topics. Below are a few sources to consider: Huberman, A.M.; Miles, M.B. (2013). Innovation up Close: How School Improvement Works . Environment, Development and Public Policy: Public Policy and Social Services. Springer US. ISBN 978-1-4899-0390-7 . Retrieved April 22, 2024 . Park, J.S.; United States. Office of Education (1978). Education in Action: 50 Ideas that Work . DHEW publication ; no. (OE) 77-01018. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education . Retrieved April 22, 2024 . United States. Office of Education (1974). Innovative Education Practices: 1974 . Innovative Education Practices. The Office . Retrieved April 22, 2024 . – North America 1000 16:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in books and periodical articles in Google Books and Google Scholar. [1] , for example, is a very detailed article by a freelance writer. There are a lot of other sources. James500 ( talk ) 21:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Changing from my earlier ! vote of per WP:HEY . Sources provided above by Northamerica1000 and James500 make a convincing case for passing WP:GNG . Sal2100 ( talk ) 15:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC) While I'd love to see more sources, especially from non-government entities, to further cement notability, this does pass notability per NA. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 02:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak and reluctant . While I question the scope of this program and therefore wonder how notable it really is, it does appear to pass based on available information. If it really is a program affecting numerous areas, this article needs a lot more information. My Google search for this institute did not impress me but did show there is some legitimacy to it. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Order of the Great Siberian Ice March: No sources provided. Fails WP:GNG . UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards , Military , and Russia . UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . There appear to be plenty of sources in the much longer Russian article. Meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nominator failed to assess Russian sources. There are mentions of the insignia even in non-phaleristics works. Kges1901 ( talk ) 19:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the work done by Kges1901. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk ) 12:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"List of chairmen of the State Council of the Republic of Adygea: The criteria for lists is irrelevant to notability of politicians . NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 05:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Russia . NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 05:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 05:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Иванов, Анатолий Георгиевич . The people listed are all automatically notable under notability of politicians as elected officials of a subnational government. Adygea is one of Russia's republics. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 06:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To be clear, I have never contested its notability. However, this list contains no extant pages on English Wikipedia for more than 12 years since its creation, although it's not problematic on Russian Wikipedia. That leads it to be a speedy deletion candidate under WP:G14 . I will support once an article like Anatoly Georgievich Ivanov is created. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 07:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC) I have created Anatoly Ivanov (politician) , so by my understanding G14 no longer applies and we can the page. Akakievich ( talk ) 10:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC) The English Wikipedia has an enormous problem with covering major politicians from non-English speaking countries and deleting this would be a step in the wrong direction. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 11:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Twink Twining: fails general notability guideline . preliminary search only turns up databases and mentions of his name. ltb d l ( talk ) 11:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC) (edited 07:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Baseball , and Pennsylvania . ltb d l ( talk ) 11:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Seems to be covered here [27] , but paywalled. I can't find anything beyond trivial mentions of this person. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Philadelphia Baseball Players Who Made the Major Leagues ; it also mentions a newspaper quote stating that he was a ""well-known athlete"" who captain the basketball team at Swarthmore, managed the football team and was a star pitcher for the baseball team who led victories over major schools such as Michigan and Penn. there's arguably enough for a decent biography / pass of WP:NBASIC in my opinion considering the obit which is at least one piece of sigcov for this 1910s-era MLB player... @ Oaktree b : in case you're interested in seeing the uncovered source. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 20:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's no evidence the obit is independent. The fact that it lists the location and time of the funeral suggests it is not. JoelleJay ( talk ) 20:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Obits are by nature independent, as the deceased don't tend to write much. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC) I'd say there's a good chance its independent. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 20:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if it was an editorial obituary, those are still not written independently of relatives, who have to send all the biographical details themselves, and they also rely on the family to nominate the decedent for consideration. JoelleJay ( talk ) 02:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't most journalists have to rely on closely-related people to help cover the events / develop the articles? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 02:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is a massive difference between a journalist collecting research on a topic by speaking to people close to an event, and a family member soliciting the newspaper asking it to run a profile on someone and providing all of the details they want to be included. JoelleJay ( talk ) 02:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And you know that Twining's family and the Inquirer did all this how...? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 02:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From the newspaper...? You mentioned they had staff-written obits. These are their instructions for submitting a candidate for an editorial obit. Clearly not independent. JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They (the Inquirer ) still have to judge whether the submitted candidate was a notable person and the obits are still written by the journalists; I would dispute that that is ""clearly not independent"". BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The act of ""judging"" whether someone was (locally) ""important enough"" has absolutely zero bearing on whether the coverage is significant or independent. The obits are written with the assistance of relatives , which does not count as independent commentary. Do you really think that every local long-time florist or attorney in the city who gets one of these obits is notable enough for a standalone if they also happen to have a handful of mentions elsewhere throughout the years? JoelleJay ( talk ) 06:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And almost all good sports reporting includes what you'd call ""assistance"" from closely-related people; the fact that its written by the independent staff journalists versus the people closely-related to said events is what makes the sources independent. As for The act of ""judging"" whether someone was (locally) ""important enough"" has absolutely zero bearing on whether the coverage is significant ... Do you really think that every local long-time florist or attorney in the city who gets one of these obits is notable enough for a standalone if they also happen to have a handful of mentions elsewhere throughout the years? – you're right, we do not consider whether a newspaper considered someone locally important as to whether the coverage is significant, we take whether the coverage is significant ; and in this case, it is. Discounting significant coverage on an MLB player under the guise of ""then we'd have articles on florists!"" is a fallacious WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC) 1) re-direct (instead of ) to List of Major League Baseball players (Ti–Tz) , 2) retain Category:Cincinnati Reds players on the re-direct page so the player is not d from the category record, per WP:RCAT . Somewhere down the line it might be appropriate to have List of Major League Baseball players who played in one game . Rgrds. -- Bison X ( talk ) 23:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability not derived from playing a single game. Local newspaper obituary was not independent and recognized him more for career as prominent local doctor than as one-time athlete. Reywas92 Talk 14:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I don't think an article on an MLB player whose full name was known has ever been d? Regardless of the ""consensus"" at WP:NSPORTS2022 , MLB players have been considered notable for decades on Wikipedia. Every MLB player ever has had an article since probably 2009 or 2010 I think. Personally, I'm never going to vote to an MLB, NBA, NFL, or NHL player but I don't technically have a guideline based reason for ing right now (since NBASEBALL got nuked and hasn't been replaced with anything)...so I'll just leave this comment... It feels like there's been an anti-sports bias here in recent years. I guess everyone just plays video games nowadays. If you want stuff to work on deleting, Category:Company articles with topics of unclear notability is littered with ads. Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 16:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FWIW, there was one MLB player with name known who was d - that would be Rit Harrison of 1875 in a kind of questionable close. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Playing for the New Haven Elm Citys of 1875 is a lot different than the World Series era Cincinnati Reds . (though I wouldn't have voted there either). ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 16:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] After expansion by BeanieFan11. ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 19:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC) NBASIC ... BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ... played in major league baseball for the Reds. I agree with WikiOriginal about the status of such ball players and the sources mentioned by others seem legitimate to me. Spanneraol ( talk ) 16:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - There are some passing mentions I found on Newspapers.com, and apparently he was the first MLB player from Swarthmore College , so maybe there's more out there, but right now I'm not seeing notability. I would suggest ing to 1916 Cincinnati Reds season rather than the List of MLB players mentioned above, but either target would work. Hatman31 ( talk ) 17:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm impressed by the research and expansion; my first choice is now . Hatman31 ( talk ) 01:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I have just performed an extensive expansion of the article to over 600 words and 14,000 bytes; this expansion clearly shows a pass of WP:NBASIC , which states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability ; and additionally, we are not restricted by WP:SPORTCRIT as we have the piece of significant coverage from The Philadelphia Inquirer , in addition to many shorter pieces that add up to build a big picture of this person's life (many of them mention that he was a very prominent figure in the area, so its probably safe to assume this MLB player has further offline sources as well - plus he's on SABR's list for wanted bios , so once someone does that it will be more sigcov). @ Ltbdl , Oaktree b , Hatman31 , Bison X , and WikiOriginal-9 : Does this major expansion persuade any of you to suggest ing this extensive and well-sourced MLB biography? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's much better now with the information added. If it was up to me, we'd all these ball player articles, cause it's baseball! Anyway, I think it's fine as it stands now, more than a one or two line notation. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And I added some snazzy photos from the 1916 yearbook. Now it's a full article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC) President of the Dermatological Society and his activities as a doctor also help notability, pretty minor career as a baseball player. Seems to have a decent record as a coach in college. We've at least met BASIC now. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] President of the Philadelphia Dermatological Society. There are hundreds of regional medical specialty societies in this country – that does not contribute to notability, especially when it's only mentioned in the obit and not independent sources. Lots of orgs rotate presidents regularly too, maybe not a long-term or significant position. Reywas92 Talk 16:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC) HEY . can't close right now due to other people voting and ltb d l ( talk ) 07:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC) Appreciate the work people have put into this, but as it stands there doesn't appear to be enough GNG level coverage. as a ATD. Let'srun ( talk ) 18:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But do you realize that GNG is not the only route to notability ...? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 18:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed, but here that does not apply. Let'srun ( talk ) 14:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hm? NBASIC is the notability criterion for people (of which is concerned here), whereas GNG is a broader criterion for any subject not passing a particular sub-criterion; may I ask why you say that the notability criterion for people does not apply and thus we should get rid of this well-sourced extensive MLB biography? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"John O'Brennan: -- HPfan4 ( talk ) 09:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Politics , and Ireland . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Passes WP:Prof#C5 at least. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 10:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] . As mentioned above, passes WP:PROF parts 5, and by the look of stuff like this ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ) from both Irish national news outlets and EuroNews, he passes part 7 (note part ""a"" of that) too. ser! ( chat to me - see my edits ) 11:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . WP:NPROF does appear to be met. That said, the article needs significant cleanup. In its current state it is a (frankly embarrassing) puff-piece in which the supposed ""references"" do not support the text, and it was clearly written by someone (apparently an SPA and/or COI contributor) who was more interested in promoting the subject than in creating neutral content based on reliable and verifiable sources (to discuss rather than to promote the topic/subject). Guliolopez ( talk ) 16:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . My thoughts are the same as Guliolopez : While the article itself is in terrible shape, the subject of the article is above the threshold of notability. CeltBrowne ( talk ) 09:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify until the article can be re-written properly. It's in pretty bad shape. Problem with WP:NPROF is that it's difficult to find good references to un-puff an article. SportingFlyer T · C 22:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the usual approach is just to strip it down rather than trying to bolster the puffery that is already there. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC) PROF #5 (and seemingly #7 as well). Sal2100 ( talk ) 19:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Rox De Luca: I hope to be proved wrong! IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 10:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Artists , Arts , Visual arts , Italy , and Australia . IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 10:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , there seem to be enough reputable sources on the page for notability. Will watch this discussion. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 10:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , please let me know what is missing to make notability. louibu ( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , considerable work has been done on this page since the AfD was posted. Can the discussion be closed and the notice removed? Louibu ( talk ) 06:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC) NARTIST , so I won't be withdrawing the nomination. In particular, in my reading, the presented sources don't seem enough to constitute significant critical attention , nor is the subject's work represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums , which seem the two easiest criteria for the subject to pass. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 08:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion will run at least seven days. There is no reason present for a speedy close in either direction. Star Mississippi 13:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , evidence of the subject's work represented within permanent collections of several notable galleries has been added. Carolinephillips ( talk ) 21:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What are these notable galleries, and where is the evidence? IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 22:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC) Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://www.roxdeluca.com/images/Gleaning_for_plastics_defying_wastefulness_by_Paul_Allatson_2020_.pdf This is a reupload on the subject's website of a blogspot article ( WP:SELFPUBLISH ). See WP:SELFPUBLISH . ✘ No https://www.roxdeluca.com/index.php/artist-cv-curriculum-de-arte This is the artist's CV. See WP:ABOUTSELF . See WP:ABOUTSELF . ✘ No https://theculturetrip.com/pacific/australia/articles/sea-of-plastic-an-artists-quest-to-address-ocean-pollution This is a travel guide website that ran an article on the artist. ✔ Yes https://searchthecollection.nga.gov.au/object? keyword=anna%20de%20luca&searchIn=artistOrCulture&searchIn=title&searchIn=medium&uniqueId=127158 Doesn't mention the subject; this is just the link to a painting by the subject's mother. ✘ No https://gunyah.blogspot.com/search? q=rox+de+luca This is a residency report from the subject itself on a blog. See WP:ABOUTSELF . See WP:ABOUTSELF . ✘ No https://www.artshub.com.au/news/features/artists-giving-materials-a-new-life-2512531/ ~ This is a fairly short mention; the subject is not the main focus of the article, but is quoted, with some commentary on their work. ~ Partial Millner, Jacqueline; Moore, Catriona (2022). Contemporary art and feminism. New York: Routledge. p. 193. Offline source, accepting in good faith: according to the block quotation, this is a paragraph mention in the book. ✔ Yes Brennan, Anne (1 December 1997). ""Beyond reason: Jo Darbyshire and Rox De Luca"". Eyeline. 35: 22–24. Offline source, accepting in good faith, though the title suggests this may be an interview. ✔ Yes https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/45398/2/The%20Transcultural%20Edge.pdf A paragraph mention on the subject and their work. ✔ Yes Allatson, Paul (1996). ""Men and Mettle"". Artlink. 16 (1): 24–26. Offline source, accepting in good faith. ✔ Yes https://www.gq.com.au/style/trends/the-style-download-15324/image-gallery/a1114634ed7db996d49f80ed40e73536 Very short mention of the subject and one of their works. ✔ Yes https://www.projectvortex.org/ This is a project with which the artist is associated. Name doesn't even feature in the source. ✘ No https://www.artshub.com.au/news/reviews/review-deakin-university-contemporary-small-sculpture-award-2018-256473-2360787/ Very short, one-sentence mention of the subject and one of their works, which to me constitutes a trivial mention. ✘ No https://www.unsw.edu.au/news/2017/07/the-inaugural-ravenswood-australian-womens-art-prize--finalists Just the subject's name is mentioned. ✘ No https://www.artshub.com.au/news/sponsored-content/turning-waste-into-art-is-a-community-affair-261135-2368551/ Just the subject's name is mentioned. ✘ No https://www.woollahragallery.com.au/Artists/Artist-in-Residence/Rox-de-Luca This is her biography as an artist-in-residence, almost certainly written by the subject. See WP:ABOUTSELF . ✘ No https://www.deakin.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/2192259/deakin_university_art_collection_artists.pdf Just the subject's name is mentioned. ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Your mileage may vary, but to me, these sources, assessed together, do not demonstrate that WP:GNG is met. In particular, we have only one ""chunky"" piece that focuses on the artist, while the rest are either borderline trivial mentions or the artist and their work are discussed, in no more than a paragraph, as a subtopic. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 10:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , the source analysis shows that sufficient sources have been obtained to reach GNG. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 11:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC) BASIC is marginally met. X ( talk ) 13:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Xela Arias: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Lots of coverage in Spanish, the look like RS [12] , [13] . Could really use a rewrite. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Arias easily meets GNG as a basic internet search might show to anyone who might never have heard of her.... To make things short simple and in English, just open Galician_Literature_Day#List of authors honoured on Galician Literature Day to have an idea of her notability. I am inviting nominator to kindly withdraw. ( Very strong )- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Oaktree B, sources seem to demonstrate SIGCOV. Also more coverage here [14] , so looks like there's enough for WP:GNG. - KH-1 ( talk ) 04:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Reliable sources abound. --Asqueladd ( talk ) 10:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Zalaris: Routine references don't support the article. While the company is listed, with the assumption that it is automatically notable, references must support it that WP:V and WP:SIRS , not press-releases and profiles. Wikipedia is not an automatic listing service. scope_creep Talk 11:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's pretty much nothing out there and, yes, they're listed on the Oslo exchange, but the company is totally lacking in any SIGCOV in RS presented in the article or indeed anywhere else. Probably deserves coverage as the most under the radar payroll company since the invention of the invisible cheque. Fails WP:NCORP with brio. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 11:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Software , and Norway . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC) widely covered in Norway where it's seen as a high profile tech success: Lund, Kenneth (3 April 2023). ""Strong growth for Zalaris: - It turns out that we sell more in difficult times"" . Dagens Næringsliv . Retrieved 26 July 2023 . Note: Google will translate this if you enter the Norwegian URL but for some reason it doesn't produce a valid translated article URL. Haugen, Stone Ove (27 April 2023). ""Zalaris rally toward one billion"" . Google translation . Finansavisen . Retrieved 26 July 2023 . Bamvik, Benedict Storm (28 February 2023). ""Zalaris will have a turnover of one billion kroner in 2023"" . Google translation . Finansavisen . Retrieved 26 July 2023 . Bjergaard, Anders Pedersen (23 August 2020). ""Jackpot for Zalaris-gründer"" . Google Translation . Finansavisen . Retrieved 26 July 2023 . I hope this is helpful,-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC) None of those is substantial coverage of the business: they are all just reports of individual events, such as the company's stock market value having increased this year. They are also all written in such glowing terms as to make them look like press releases or other promotional material, and sure enough on searching I found that one of the web sites says of itself ""Our mission is to empower ambitious people and businesses."" On the other website I haven't found any such direct statement of promotional purpose, but I have looked at a sample of 10 other articles on the same web site, and every one of them had the same promotional tone. These sources certainly don't provide substantial coverage of the subject, and it seems clear to me that they don't provide independent coverage either. Being ""seen as a high profile tech success"" is not a part of any of the notability guidelines. JBW ( talk ) 17:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC) NCORP mostly because they are PR. scope_creep Talk 18:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC) RS but they don't establish notability. If you still really, really think these truly are press releases, just run sections of their Norwegian text through a search engine. If they're press releases, you'd get lots of hits. But you won't because these are news articles . In any event, the closing admin will read the articles and make their own decision independent of your comments or mine. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dagens Næringsliv and Finansavisen are the two primary business news organizations in Norway. Like many other news organizations ( Wall Street Journal , Bloomberg ), they carry press releases but those are not bylined. Somewhere they note the source. These are bylined stories, not recycled press releases. My point about ""high profile tech success"" is not that that makes this company notable but rather to note why the Norwegian press is very interested in Zalaris. The resulting press coverage is what makes Zalaris notable. Other than 7-month COVID market drop, the company's stock has done well as have the company's sales if you look at the financial reports (not cited above). So, like any story nowadays about Apple's business, they're getting mostly positive press for now. That will inevitably change at some point. One article does note they're cutting costs even as sales grow because profits aren't following. So if you're looking for bad news, there's some for you. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Back to the old bylined wheeze as though that is important. Depth of content, significance and independence of thought per WP:SIRS is the consensus based criteria, not whether there is a presence of a sentence that somehow signifies validty. I have zero confidence that your capable of evaluating a good reference. I have completed a WP:BEFORE on the article, per best practice. scope_creep Talk 21:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Multiple sources are there to establish notability. Okoslavia ( talk ) 17:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment We will go through the references at some point. scope_creep Talk 21:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC) Ref 1 [14] Company report. Non-RS. Ref 2 [15] Investment report containing information obtained from company website. Fails WP:SIRS . Ref 3 404 Ref 4 Company profile on Zalaris. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS . Ref 5 [16] Company listing. Routine. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS . Looking at the references above: [17] Interview with the CEO. Fails WP:ORGIND . [18] Info taken from company report. Turnover and operating margin. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as routine coverage. [19] Behind a paywall. Now aiming to cut costs, reads like a press-release. It states in the article, information taken from the last quarterly report. Not independent. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH . WP:SIRS . None of the references above pass the bar of WP:NCORP . It is the usual kind of a routine information published by a relatively small company. scope_creep Talk 04:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In case it wasn't clear from my ! vote below, I agree with the above analysis of sources, none meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 19:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC) NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* . ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject . Just in response to a comment above by A. B. , it is not one of our guidelines nor does it form part of any criteria whether an article is ""bylined"" or not. Indeed, the idea that we don't examine an article's content (if it is bylined) so as to check it meets the criteria for establishing notability would provide an exception not contemplated by the guidelines and otherwise flies in the face of the checks required. I largely agree with the assessment of sources above and I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. If this company is as notable as some say, I would expect to see a number of sources that analyse the company without relying on an interview from the CEO or information/forecasts provided by the company. HighKing ++ 20:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to add, usually a company trading on the stock market generates sufficient attention for analysts to produce detailed reports on the company. The company's website says that they are covered by the following analysts - ABG Dundial Collier, Arctic Securities, SpareBank1 Markets and Kepler Cheuvreux - but I am unable to locate anything which meets GNG/NCORP. In addition, it might appear that these ""analysts"" may be more concerned with raising capital and selling bonds in recent times and this might well affect whether their output (if any can be found) can be considered independent. HighKing ++ 20:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Specific analysis as to whether the available sources about this subject meet WP:NCORP would be very helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Rennie, Elizabeth (2023-03-13). ""Zalaris - Cloud HR Transformation Services 2023"" . NelsonHall. Archived from the original on 2023-08-14 . Retrieved 2023-08-14 . This link contains an abstract of the report. The abstract notes: ""Headquartered in Norway, Zalaris is dedicated to HR and payroll services, with SaaS, BPaas, and consulting offerings. It primarily services the SAP HCM market with HR services and complementary proprietary Zalaris technology (including Zalaris PeopleHub). Zalaris has two divisions: • Professional Services: the implementation division offering project management, technical consulting for SAP HCM/Payroll, SAP SuccessFactors and Zalaris platforms, test management & execution, change management, and digital adoption execution • Managed Services: primarily managed payroll as well as application support (AMS). Its Managed Services business also has payroll services clients where the HCM technology is not SAP. To support this, it delivers HCM integrations with Workday and Oracle."" Bjergaard, Anders Pedersen (2020-10-12). ""Tror på snuoperasjon i Zalaris. Etter to mislykkede oppkjøp i 2018 falt driftsmarginen i Zalaris som en stein. Nå tror Arctic Securities-analytiker Henriette Trondsen på snuoperasjon og reprising"" [Believe in turnaround in Zalaris. After two unsuccessful acquisitions in 2018, Zalaris's operating margin fell like a rock. Now Arctic Securities analyst Henriette Trondsen believes in turnaround and replay.]. Finansavisen (in Norwegian). Archived from the original on 2023-08-09 . Retrieved 2023-08-14 . The article notes from Google Translate: ""Now that all the new Tech companies are getting a lot of attention, Zalaris is quickly forgotten. The company has a high degree of repetitive revenues and low customer ways. After two bad acquisitions in 2018, the stock developed weakly. In fact, the operating margin fell from 9-10 to 2 per cent, says Henriette Trondsen. ... The company is in the midst of a turnaround, supported by some activist investors. The margin has also improved during the first half of the year, although some derives from cost cuts associated with the corona pandemic. Nevertheless, Zalaris shows positive development, says Trondsen. ... If Zalaris manages to deliver a margin improvement, it is up to a replay of the stock, says Trondsen, and continues: 'I think they're going to make acquisitions so I wouldn't have been surprised if they take any steps in relation to this. Therefore, my recommendation is long -term and not short -term.'"" Johannessen, Andreas; Kringhaug, Glenn; Haakon, Amundsen; Schjøtt-Pedersen, Karl Fredrik; Kapanen, Ludvig; Magnus Braaten, Rikard (2020-03-17). ""ABGSC Daily Report - Bonds"" (PDF) . ABG Sundal Collier . Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-08-14 . Retrieved 2023-08-14 . The analyst report notes: ""However, in our view, the main near-term risk revolves around its Professional Services segment that primarily consists of consulting/project-based services. Zalaris could very likely experience that their consultants are unable to work due to either being sick, in quarantine, or that the customers put off work for the same reasons. Some of the work could possibly be done from home, but we don’t know to which extent. To put this into context, Zalaris had 2019 revenues of NOK 777m, EBITDA of NOK 104m, and personnel costs of NOK 437m in the PnL (+NOK 16m of investments in intangibles that likely is capitalized R&D expenses). That said, the company laid off 52 FTEs / 6% of its workforce ahead of the Covid-19 situation that should soften the effect somewhat. In other words, the 2019 figures include limited / no effect from the lay-off, in addition to extraordinary costs due to the use of external consultants."" Johannessen, Andreas; Kringhaug, Glenn; Haakon, Amundsen; Schjøtt-Pedersen, Karl Fredrik; Kapanen, Ludvig; Magnus Braaten, Rikard (2020-05-08). ""ABGSC Daily Report - Bonds"" (PDF) . ABG Sundal Collier . Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-08-14 . Retrieved 2023-08-14 . The analyst report notes: ""We attribute the strong beat to the fact that the COVID-19 situation has had limited financial impact on the company. We also note their comment that the underlying margin is higher after concluding the cost-cutting program, although it was negatively affected in Q1 by lower utilization on freed-up capacity during the quarter. This has been a concern of ours during the past time, but the management does not seem to share that concern for now."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zalaris to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria , which requires ""significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 09:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I see your back foisting raw financial information from company reports and press-releases as genuine reliable secondary references. I will go through them when I come back from work. scope_creep Talk 13:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You will need redo them, they are wide of the mark. scope_creep Talk 13:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Thanks Cunard! The first is a research report on Zalaris' offerings and capabilities and meets NCORP. Individually, the others are weaker and arguably fall short but I'm going to change my ! vote to Weak on the assumption there are sources available perhaps (maybe in Norwegian, maybe no longer available elctronically, maybe a paper research report..) HighKing ++ 14:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Dear Santa (upcoming film): Existing sources are nowhere than procedural announcements only. WP:DRAFTIFY should be the better option. Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 15:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America . Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 15:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC) has been accepted through AfC. Filming has started. Even if this is never released, cast and director are extremely notable and most of all, coverage presented in the page or existing online is sufficient to satisfy the general requirements for notability. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films says: Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no ""sure thing"" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun. ... Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines . Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines. The sources verify that the film commenced principal photography in March 2023 in Atlanta, Georgia. The production is notable per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources Ho, Rodney (2023-03-16). ""Jack Black, Farrelly Brothers reunite for 'Dear Santa' comedy shooting in metro Atlanta"" . The Atlanta Journal-Constitution . Archived from the original on 2024-07-04 . Retrieved 2024-07-04 . The article notes: ""Jack Black is back in metro Atlanta to shoot the Farrelly Brothers Christmas-themed comedy “Dear Santa.” ... Black was seen in downtown Decatur last week shooting the film and he posted an Instagram photo from the set teasing the movie’s thematics in what appeared to be a Christmas village. ... Others in the cast include Robert Timothy Smith, Keegan-Michael Key, Brianne Howey, Hayes MacArthur, PJ Byrne, Jaden Carson Baker, Kai Cech and Austin Post."" Kroll, Justin (2023-03-15). ""Jack Black & The Farrelly Brothers Reunite For Christmas Comedy 'Dear Santa' At Paramount"" . Deadline Hollywood . Archived from the original on 2024-07-04 . Retrieved 2024-07-04 . The article notes: ""The movie centers on a young boy who, in writing his yearly note to Santa, mixes up the letters and sends it to Satan instead. Black recently teased the project on social media when he posted a photo of him posing with Christmas decorations with no context — it got everyone talking about what it could be."" Couch, Aaron (2023-03-15). ""Jack Black, Farrelly Brothers Team for Paramount's 'Dear Santa' "" . The Hollywood Reporter . Archived from the original on 2024-07-04 . Retrieved 2024-07-04 . Thea article notes: ""After more than 20 years, Jack Black is reteaming with his Shallow Hal filmmakers the Farrelly Brothers for the Paramount comedy Dear Santa. The feature centers on a child who intends to write a letter to Santa Claus, but mixes up the letters and sends it to Satan instead. Bobby Farrelly will direct and produce, with brother Peter Farrelly producing along with Jeremy Kramer. The Farrelly brothers penned the script with Ricky Blitt, the writer behind the 2005 Johnny Knoxville feature The Ringer . The story came from an original idea from Dan Ewen, known for the John Cena comedy Playing With Fire ."" Bedard, Mike (2024-06-03). ""Jack Black Is Unrecognizable As Satan For A New Christmas Movie"" . Looper . Archived from the original on 2024-07-04 . Retrieved 2024-07-04 . The article notes: ""Following his previous Christmas movie, 2006's ""The Holiday"" — where he was half of one of the most memorable holiday movie couples ever as Miles — Jack Black is dipping back into the Christmas spirit with a decidedly different project and character. Now fans can see him become unrecognizable as Satan on the set of the upcoming flick, ""Dear Santa. """" Hedash, Kara (2024-04-03). ""Post Malone's Next Movie Is More Promising After Road House's $85 Million Success"" . Screen Rant . Archived from the original on 2024-07-04 . Retrieved 2024-07-04 . The article notes: ""Next up, Post Malone will star in the upcoming Christmas comedy Dear Santa alongside Jack Black and Keegan-Michael Key. It's unclear who Post Malone will be playing in Dear Santa, but the movie's premise will undoubtedly catch attention, considering it follows a young kid who accidentally writes a letter to Satan (Black) instead of Santa ahead of the Christmas holiday. The movie also reunites Black with the Farrelly Brothers, who collaborated together on 2001's Shallow Hal. Dear Santa will be another chance for Post Malone to showcase his comedic chops while also trying his hand at a Christmas movie for the first time in his acting career. "" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dear Santa to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 09:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC) both votes appear to have missed the films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines part of NFILM. Is the production itself notable? I don't see any evidence that there is, which would make this an improper AfC acceptance and lead to redraftification until we have a release date. -- asilvering ( talk ) 18:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 03, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 02, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 39, 14 July 2024 (UTC) NFILM allows us to have articles on films that are not out and are not likely to come out, but are nonetheless notable. Like The Man Who Killed Don Quixote , which spent decades in development hell before finally coming out in 2018. The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996 film) is another example - you can see on that article that almost all of the content we have is about the production of the film. These are examples of films where the production is notable, which is completely different from ""the movie was mentioned in the press while it was in production"". -- asilvering ( talk ) 20:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Coyote vs. Acme . -- asilvering ( talk ) 20:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It might have enoough to pass GNG, but it's simply a news story at this point. Might never get released. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC Draft until it's a bit further in the production cycle. TO9SOON. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC) The production itself meets WP:GNG . See above sources by Cunard. C F A 💬 21:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 19:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] weak The film has notable individuals attached, including Jack Black and the Farrelly Brothers, and is backed by Paramount Pictures. However, its current state lacks comprehensive secondary sources that offer in-depth coverage. Improving the article with more references from reliable sources can bolster its credibility and notability. Yakov-kobi ( talk ) 00:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This sounds like it was taken straight from ChatGPT. Did you write this comment yourself? C F A 💬 19:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC) I see several and one Draftify ! votes. Draftifying the article does not seem like a good option to me, as the nominator's rationale is based on TOOSOON. The article would essentially just sit in draftspace until a release date is announced. The content of the article would not see a great difference, and I do not see why this wait cannot be done within the mainspace. The subject film commenced filming last year, satisfying NFF. Some of the ! votes are based on GNG, but the coverage is a bit weak imv, only covering the basic production details. However, I agree that the notable cast and crew should be sufficient to meet NFO . So I believe the film has enough notability to warrant an independent article, and it is never too late to file for an AFD if the film ends up being scrapped. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 13:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Peekaboo Galaxy: The available sourcing is one paper that has been cited a grand total of 5 times, 3 of those by the original authors and the other 2 being passing mentions. The original announcement was greeted by a typical flash-in-the-pan of pop-science website coverage, all based on press releases. (It's easy to get splashy churned hype about astronomy stories, but much harder to get reporting that passes the ""quote a person not involved in the original study"" sniff test.) Trim the fluff, and nothing remains. If PGC 5060432 does need to be covered, anything worth saying about it can be covered in a couple sentences in an article about a broader astronomical topic to which it is relevant. XOR'easter ( talk ) 23:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions . XOR'easter ( talk ) 23:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC) I'm inclined to lean toward a since the object has only just become readily observable, and the paper did receive secondary coverage in a number of reliable sources. The paper itself discusses studies of the object from different observatories (HIPASS, ATCA, GALEX, then Hubble and SALT). Also, the object was supposedly identified as a dwarf galaxy using GALAX, not by the paper authors. Praemonitus ( talk ) 03:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC) notable for being ""one of the most metal-poor, least chemically enriched"" galaxies. If future HST/JWST results find it to be 'average', 'meh', 'boring', etc., then I'd lean & . until such time, since astronomy takes time. ~ Tom. Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf ) 10:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Surely that's a reason to cover it at Metallicity#Galaxies , where it is already mentioned? XOR'easter ( talk ) 15:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] weak . This is kind of a marginal case. The recent work on this galaxy does give some pretty interesting results, but one could argue that it's also WP:TOOSOON since the paper in question was just published in 2023 and only has a few citations to date. The one thing that I do feel strongly about is that if the article is kept, the title should be changed to an actual catalog name of the galaxy, because the name ""Peekaboo galaxy"" just sounds awfully dumb, and I really hope that name won't continue to be used in future scientific papers on this object. Aldebarium ( talk ) 20:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can we go ahead and move the article to a catalog name now? I really dislike ""peekaboo galaxy"". Makes my skin crawl. Viriditas ( talk ) 20:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC) COMMONNAME . Yes it's dumb, but so is ""Milky Way"" and ""Tadpole Galaxy"". Praemonitus ( talk ) 14:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This galaxy has been discussed so little that saying that it has a ""common name"" seems a stretch. XOR'easter ( talk ) 04:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC) COMMONNAME is about the most commonly used name, not whether the name is common. Praemonitus ( talk ) 14:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, it's about which name is more common, relatively speaking, but in this case the comparison is, like, 3 instances to 2. Maybe there's a relative difference, but the absolute numbers are awfully small. It just seems an odd guideline to invoke here. XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The name might appear silly but at least is better than a lot of random numbers. 21 Andromedae ( talk ) 21:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC) GNG given the large number of references solely about this galaxy. 21 Andromedae ( talk ) 15:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Would until it is no longer considered notable. ‹ hamster717🐉 › ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠 ) 20:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per 21 Andromedae. Choucas Bleu ( T · C ) 12:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Intercontinental Hotel Bali: Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep ( talk ) 09:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Indonesia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Sarangapany, Veda (2011-05-29). ""Warming to the Bali buzz"" . The Sydney Morning Herald . ProQuest 869129621 . Archived from the original on 2024-04-13 . Retrieved 2024-04-13 . The review notes: ""I decide to celebrate with breakfast; there are three restaurants - Bella Singaraja, Jimbaran Gardens and KO - as well as poolside service. The scrambled eggs are light and fluffy and the coffee is good. I wish I could fit in more. Tomorrow morning, perhaps. Next stop is the Club InterContinental pool. I don't have far to go and there are plenty of lounges or, if you want some privacy, you can stake your claim on a bungalow. I can see Jimbaran Bay from the pool and know I should drag myself off my lounger to check it out."" McCabe, Christine (2009-03-07). ""The butler did it - Asian Holidays"" . The Australian . Archived from the original on 2024-04-13 . Retrieved 2024-04-13 . The review notes: ""The Imperial is the flagship of a premium collection of rooms at InterContinental Bali, including five categories of suites designed to replicate the villa experience that has become so popular on this Indonesian holiday island. These suites are located within Club InterContinental, a collection of 110 elegant rooms that operates as a hotel within a hotel supporting its own management, houseing and engineering teams. ... The new-look guestroom decor (the hotel was renovated last year) features indigenous timbers and batiks, gorgeous marble bathrooms, flat-screen tellies and all the latest whiz-bangery. The value-added nature of the club is popular with Australian travellers; it's excellent for families, given the free kids' club, beachfront locale and enormous complex of swimming pools. But the resort is just as delightful for couples, who can enjoy the privacy of the Club wing."" Rosenfeld, Kelly (2024-02-29). ""Review: InterContinental Bali Resort"" . TravelAge West . Archived from the original on 2024-04-13 . Retrieved 2024-04-13 . The review notes: ""Originally opened in 1993, InterContinental Bali was one of the first luxury properties built on the coastline of Jimbaran Bay (in southern Bali), a stunning stretch of clean, white-sand beach that hotel guests have direct access to from the resort grounds. ... A guestroom renovation project took place from 2017 to 2019 and was followed by a second phase that updated public areas, including its multiple pools, restaurants, the lobby and the ballroom, which was transformed into meeting space in 2022. During my stay, the main Nirvana pool was also undergoing a since-completed refresh to be in tip-top shape for the coming high season."" Smiedt, David (2022-11-30). ""We stayed at… Intercontinental Bali. Fresh from a million dollar refurb, this grand old dame of the Bali hotel scene has rediscovered her sparkle"" . Escape . Nationwide News . Archived from the original on 2024-04-13 . Retrieved 2024-04-13 . The review notes: ""The property is immaculate - so much so it feels cleverly art directed - with traditional style fountains, bridges and so many pools and koi ponds that we stopped counting after a bit. As far as facilities and activities go, the Planet Trekkers kids club has a distinct eco focus, there's a Technogym laden fitness centre, tennis courts, yoga, kite making and bike tours of the local markets."" Fordham, James (2018-08-20). ""Review: InterContinental Bali, Jimbaran"" . Executive Traveller . Business Travel Media. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13 . Retrieved 2024-04-13 . The review notes: ""The resort itself is a large property stretching all the way down to Jimbaran Beach. With six pools, multiple restaurants and expansive immaculately manicured gardens it can take a little while to get your bearings, but friendly staff are always nearby should you need assistance. In the notoriously high turnover hospitality industry, I met several staff that had worked there since the resort opened in 1993 - after 25 years of working there, these staff were still passionate, friendly, knowledgeable and service-driven, which was a pleasant surprise."" ""travel42 Hotel Review: InterContinental Resort Bali"" . Travel Weekly . Archived from the original on 2024-04-13 . Retrieved 2024-04-13 . The review notes: ""The InterContinental Resort looks out across Jimbaran Bay to the distant airport. This means that the ride to the property is much shorter than to Nusa Dua or Ubud, making it popular with shorter-stay or late night-arriving guests. Its architecture was designed to honor the sacred axis between the mountain and sea. In a recent makeover, decorators followed the tri hita karana principle that balances the ideals of God, nature, and humanity."" McCabe, Christine (2007-08-11). ""Stay and Play - Family Holidays"" . The Australian . Archived from the original on 2024-04-13 . Retrieved 2024-04-13 . The review notes: ""On Bali's Jimbaran Bay, the glamorous InterContinental Bali Resort operates one of the best children's clubs on the island. Dubbed Club J, this extensive facility functions as a resort within a resort replete with large airconditioned clubhouse, outdoor swimming pool, climbing frame, mini basketball compound and a popular internet cave."" Lees, Rachel (2023-06-22). ""10 tropical family resorts to blow your mind"" . Escape . Nationwide News . Archived from the original on 2024-04-13 . Retrieved 2024-04-13 . The review notes: ""A luxurious take on a traditional Balinese fishing village, the 430-room InterContinental Bali Resort in Jimbaran has all the mod cons you’d expect of a five-star hotel. But the resort’s activities, a deep-dive into Balinese culture, make it a standout. Families can learn traditional net fishing and kite-making, and when the grown-ups need a break, the Planet Trekkers kids’ club instructs four- to 12-year-olds in Balinese dance, Bahasa language and the art of preparing traditional Balinese offerings. There’s also a professional nanny service for children under four. "" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Intercontinental Hotel Bali to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria , which requires ""significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 10:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Sawerchessread ( talk ) 16:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Notable hotel with plenty of potential sources. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . All the references provided above are essentially reviews from past customers, and I don't consider reviews from past customers to be a reliable source due to their lack of editorial oversight , IMO they should be regarded as user generated content WP:USERGENERATED . Additionally, I couldn't find any sources about this hotel that are not past reviews or coming from travel agencies (such as Expedia, etc.), hence it fails significant coverage requirement. Ckfasdf ( talk ) 12:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Clearly notable. Cunard has dug up plenty of reliable, independent, in-depth discussions of the hotel, which could be used for an extensive article. It would be surprising if a hotel of this size and calibre had not been noted. Aymatth2 ( talk ) 12:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . For some reason, the nominator considers that all the hotels and resorts in Bintan Regency fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Aymatth2 ( talk ) 16:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] v t e Hotels and resorts in Bintan Nikoi Island Banyan Tree Bintan Club Med Ria Bintan Angsana Resort & Spa Loola Adventure Resort Mayang Sari Beach Resort Comfort Hotel & Resort Tanjung Pinang Hotel Sadaap Hotel Laguna Hotels portal The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Aquamarine (video game): Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 08:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The references already in the article seem to establish notability. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 08:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait, you mean this isn't about a mermaid? Anyway, the sources currently in the article are very much trivial coverage, merely WP:MILL announcements, and some are strictly unreliable from WP:VG/S . I could find WP:SIGCOV in this IGN source that wasn't in the article, but that's about it. Which is strange since you'd think a game that nice-looking would get actual traction. It seems like an example of ""otherwise interesting game fails to market itself enough for notability"". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wrote this article around a year or two ago assuming it would get coverage outside of previews, but it never did. Before submitting this for Afd, I checked for any reviews, and I couldn't find a single one. There's not enough sources to justify the article, which is a shame because it's actually really good. FlyingKangeroo ( talk ) 18:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even preview coverage is fine if it's significant, but most of the previews don't seem like it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The PC Gamer, Rock Paper Shotgun, and IGN sources make this notable. QuicoleJR ( talk ) I agree with IGN, but the other mentions are trivial. Announcements should be distinguished from reviews. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those are way too in-depth to be trivial. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 16:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC) VG/S . -- Mika1h ( talk ) 16:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's solid, I am still not convinced to change my ! vote to however. Besides that, reviews from WP:RS are extremely scant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per QuicoleJR and Eastmain's decisions. CastJared ( talk ) 21:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the IGN piece and PC Gamer review, plus the promise of the Gameplay (Benelux) review puts this over the line for me. Yeah, the IGN piece isn't a full review, but it's got several paragraphs of description of the game's aesthetics, mechanics and development beyond what's quoted to the developers. signed, Rosguill talk 02:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per Rosguill, I think it just about makes it; and the article itself is not offensive so worth preserving. Aszx5000 ( talk ) 09:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Exposed (CoCo Lee album): Ergo, AfD. I would strongly suggest restoring the ; this album is not notable as would be demonstrated through appropriate coverage in reliable sources. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 20:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Coco Lee . Even on Chinese WP this is a to her page. [36] Show me the sources and I'll reconsider my vote, but I looked and couldn't find anything of substance. Oblivy ( talk ) 02:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing my vote. Based on the yule.sohu.com and Philippine Daily Enquirer articles (and frankly none of the others) I think there's sufficient in-depth coverage to establish notability. Oblivy ( talk ) 02:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC) SCMP https://amp.scmp.com/article/495032/coco-lee-exposed-us-market ( https://archive.today/rMdxz ) Guang Ming Daily (Malaysia) https://guangming.com.my/%E5%BE%9E%E6%97%A9%E5%B9%B4%E5%88%B0%E6%BC%94%E8%97%9D%E7%B6%93%E6%AD%B7-%E6%9D%8E%E7%8E%9F%E4%B8%80%E7%94%9F%E5%A4%9A%E5%A7%BF%E5%A4%9A%E5%BD%A9 (top of 3 charts in first week) The West Australian https://thewest.com.au/news/oceania/chinas-queen-of-pop-helps-open-jackson-shrine-ng-ya-220019.amp Tatler Asia https://www.tatlerasia.com/lifestyle/entertainment/celebrating-coco-lee The Philippine Star https://www.philstar.com/entertainment/2005/07/01/284295/coco-lee-exposed/amp/ Sina Corporation http://ent.sina.com.cn/y/d/2005-05-13/1811723273.html Sony Music Entertainment Taiwan https://sonymusic.com.tw/album/exposed-%E6%9D%8E%E7%8E%9F-coco-lee-5190149/ The Star (Malaysia) https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=8YosEV9wszk (~04:09) There are probably more, but that will eat up much of my time. So perhaps that’s it for now. -- Dustfreeworld ( talk ) 16:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC) -- Dustfreeworld ( talk ) 14:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’ve edited the page, added sources and a cover image. Please take a look. Thanks. -- Dustfreeworld ( talk ) 16:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Yes, the article is considerably expanded. There are some places where the sources don't match the text (e.g., ""album remains popular"" which isn't supported by the Guangming article). But at least it's not a bare stub which is an improvement. Four of the sources, SCMP, Philstar, Sina and Sony Taiwan, are album release articles that seem to be based entirely on press releases and canned quotes. If they are purely PR-driven media that's not going to count. That leaves four: - Guang Ming Daily - a passing mention - West Australian - slightly more of a mention, but just a sentence - Tatler Asia - about the same as West Australian, just a sentence - Youtube (the Star) - passing mention, about the same detail as West Australian and Tatler A few hints on other sources. This article from the LA Times has two sentences about the album [37] . There's also this, a blog post that claims to be quoting Oriental Daily News regarding the ban of her album in China. That's at least an entire non-PR article about the album, but it's a blog. I've made an effort to look for it, maybe you can do better. Oblivy ( talk ) 06:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the comment. Though IMHO we may not need so many sources for notability, they will be useful later anyway. So here we go: About the ban: http://yule.sohu.com/20050328/n224890549.shtml https://news.cts.com.tw/cts/entertain/200503/200503270172672.html http://ent.sina.com.cn/x/2005-04-13/0840701535.html http://the-sun.on.cc/cnt/entertainment/20130710/00470_004.html A review of the album: https://www.sohu.com/a/196066220_763990 More: https://books.google.com.hk/books? id=W1g1AAAAIBAJ&pg=PA36&dq=%22Exposed%22+CoCo+Lee+album&article_id=2022,22238783&hl=zh-TW&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjj_73skvaBAxXENd4KHevnBhcQuwV6BAgIEAY https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2005/12/29/2003286549 (already added to the article by another user) -- Dustfreeworld ( talk ) 18:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC) https://amp.scmp.com/article/496393/trick-lite ( https://archive.today/NeQ6u ) https://hashtaglegend.com/legends/the-impact-of-coco-lees-legacy/ -- Dustfreeworld ( talk ) 19:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC) -- Dustfreeworld ( talk ) 14:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Coco Lee . The article wasn't even properly recreated and is currently only one incomplete, unsourced sentence, and the actual article which was ed was rightfully PROD'd/ed as providing zero evidence of notability. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 05:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FYI The article is being worked on by another editor. Vacosea ( talk ) 14:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC) 07, 13 October 2023 (UTC) HEY and WP:NEXIST . S5A-0043 Talk 04:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Passes WP:SIGCOV per sources found and added to the article or at this AFD after the nomination was made. 4meter4 ( talk ) 20:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Sundari Neeyum Sundaran Naanum (TV series): fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM , and WP:NTVNATL Karnataka ( talk ) 19:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , India , and Tamil Nadu . Karnataka ( talk ) 19:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC) 18, 12 June 2023 (UTC) @ Aspiringeditor1 @ P.Karthik.95 can't seem to reply to the other comment, the Times of India is usually seen as being unreliable due to accepting payments for positive coverage . Furthermore IMDb is also not reliable and is correctly in the external links section on the article . Furthermore, in my opinion www.exchange4media.com seems to be routine coverage that only summarises the plot of the article, and I'm not sure about the reliability of this source. Ignoring these, I'll give my view of the remaining sources that have been added: Source 4 is routine coverage that also lists the cast, the director, and a mini plot summary Source 5 seems to be a tabloid source. Ignoring this, only 1 and 1/2 paragraphs talk about the subject and is only speculation of why the serial ended as well as the name of some cast members and director Source 6 is also routine coverage that also lists the cast, the director, and a mini plot summary Source 12 is routine coverage that talks about how the serial is doing as well as pictures of the episode and other minor plot details. Karnataka ( talk ) 21:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Karnataka i don’t blame you, but i feel like some articles on ToI actually focus on the topic in question, regardless of notability. Aspiringeditor1 ( talk ) 23:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC) TOI ) Karnataka ( talk ) 06:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC) GNG have added references from The Times of India [32] , [33] , [34] , www.exchange4media.com [35] , IMDb [36] . sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources. Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: to review most recent addition of sources against RS Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak , with thanks for the work that has been done on the article since nomination. My reading of WP:TOI and the linked RFC is not that the TOI is excluded from consideration (outside of political topics) but that it should be approached with some caution. I don't see any particular reason for it to be wholly discounted here. While the nom has characterized the Oneindia article in source 12 (now footnote 13) in the article as routine coverage, I think it is sufficiently in-depth that it should not be discounted under WP:ROUTINE (and also, from the little I can glean, there is some interesting commentary on the respective popularities and motivations of the shows involved in that crossover episode). Oneindia is not currently on RSP but a previous discussion on RSN was generally positive. There are numerous other OneIndia articles on the show from the same writer, e.g. [37] , [38] , [39] . There doesn't seem to be a lot to work with here, and I don't have the expertise to fully evaluate the sources, but overall it seems that there is enough to likely meet the GNG. -- Visviva ( talk ) 18:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Zain Masri: Existing media citations serve as a form of promotion. Charlie ( talk ) 16:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women , and Jordan . Charlie ( talk ) 16:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Could be the same person [54] , [55] , but I'm not sure. The wiki article is about what looks like a tech executive, the sourcing I find is about a young person preserving embroidery; their ages could be about the same. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner ( talk ) 19:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - She is the same person Oaktree b mentioned in the sources. Masri is the one of the first women from her country to hold such a key position in Google and is known for her contributions to the technology industry. She has been also the subject of a documentary. There are also sources in Arabic language. Jabralgi ( talk ) 04:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 04:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] sourcing found seems fine. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Seems to me to meet WP:GNG . Tollens ( talk ) 00:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Paul Boujenah: doesn't meet WP:GNG . Password (talk) (contribs) 08:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, I don't mean to be rude, but can you please do a better check for this director? Such as a basic Google books search for example. And/or see WP:DIRECTOR , Thanks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] thank you for this. there are articles that mainly talk about his brother, but have enough coverage of him, so Wikipedia:DIRECTOR looks okay. withdrawing. could someone close? Password (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Tunisia . CptViraj ( talk ) 09:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. Is this actually withdran or not? Why the relist? @ User:Liz @ User:Password1233210 -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 13:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC) Probably enough to build an article, [16] , trival coverage but a mention [17] , [18] . Here's some discussion of a film [ https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/images/1987-n31-32-images1076311/22081ac/abstract/ ] and [19] but it won't open for me. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Stefano Černetić: The rationale for the prod was that it portrays the subject in a negative light as they were acquitted of the charges against them. The original article did include the information that they were acquitted, and in my view gave the bigger picture. This is clearly a deletion with two sides to the argument, and I think needs proper discussion. Therefore I'm bringing it here. Note that the editor who prodded also subsequently blanked the article, so you'll (currently) have to go back in the history to find the text we should be deleting. Elemimele ( talk ) 13:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ... original material has been restored. Elemimele ( talk ) 13:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Interesting case, and that's just the provenance of this article, never mind the chap himself! The sources are certainly strong enough to establish notability per WP:GNG . The citations also support the contents well enough; I don't even see anything that would need removing for BLP reasons. And given that this person has gone out of their way to ensure they are not a low-profile individual (!), per WP:BLPPUBLIC we can publish well-referenced allegations even if the charges didn't stick o/a/o some legal technicalities. (PS: I foresee an RFPP being needed erelong, though...) -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 14:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC) 51, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Italy . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 15:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC) 00, 11 January 2024 (UTC) 32, 11 January 2024 (UTC) 55, 11 January 2024 (UTC) 55, 11 January 2024 (UTC) 50, 11 January 2024 (UTC) 57, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] He's an interesting story as an eccentric person, he did nothing wrong but he's still worthy of note for his actions. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's a lot of coverage in reliable publications, more than enough to meet GNG in my opinion. I rewrote the lede to be more neutral. RSes and the trial seem to have determined that this individual is not a criminal but is an impostor, and that's an easy enough distinction to make. It seems like an interesting hook for DYK if this nomination closes in the next week. BuySomeApples ( talk ) 18:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The whole article shows the person in a bad light and at the end of the article it is said that he was not convicted in court, so the whole article condemns the person from the beginning and presents him in a way that has been proven not to be so and that he was badly presented and described. Even the artical is passionate and bad at wanting to harm a person. Bajsikus ( talk )Bajsikus — Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (unrelated user comment) it doesn't matter if the person is painted in a bad light. If what they did is bad, and the reliable sources say their bad, then the page should follow what the ref's say. Babysharkboss2 was here!! X ♡ O 20:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are only allowed one ! vote, please don't repeating it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 20:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I see no reason why this should be d. It's no featured article, but it is well-researched, and a reasonable topic for Wikipedia. I originally found the article from the Teahouse, where I saw the creator begigging for it's deletion? I'm assuming the author is just a big fan of his (or possibly him, but I'm assuming good faith here) but that doesn't justify any sort of deletion. TransButterflyQueen Ɛï3 20:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I want to thank you. You're right about missing the bigger picture. In a lot of editing, the truth was lost and it went in the wrong direction. A lot of introductory facts and information were d and edited and thus totally changed the article, which now does not have those essential and key facts, and thus the article is damaged, at the same time the reputation of a person and casts a shadow on the credibility of Wikipedia. Bajsikus ( talk ) 21:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong - As said before, this article is well-researched, notable, and somewhat neutral. ""Flux55"" ( talk ) 20:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] before someone got involved, the article read differently. It was full of facts describing the person, his historical background, his ancestors, the sequence of events as they really were without bad news and tabloids, bad news fabricated to tarnish someone's reputation. Unfortunately, it is everyday. Whoever deals with editing and revision of such a specific nature as heraldic heritage, nobility and history, must do his homework well and learn in both cases the history of the Balkans, the countries that existed and how the dynasties changed over the centuries. It is very complex in the territory of the Balkans, like everything in that territory even today. Stefano Černetić is a descendant of an old Crnojević ruling family, after which Montenegro got its name, and their ancestors were ruling families in the Roman Empire, these are all the facts. The original article which may have been clumsily written but true, which has been totally edited and which contains the facts, read as follows Stefano Černetić, Crown Prince of Montenegro, Serbia, Albania and Macedonia, of Orthodox religion and dual Serbian and Italian nationality, was born in Trieste, Italy, on 29 April 1960, married to Charoula Dontsiou, of Greek nationality, and the father of two sons, Crown Prince Konstantin, and Prince Ivan-Nenad. Stefano, baptized Stefan, is also the father of a daughter, Natalija, by Barbara Donat Cattin, granddaughter of the Italian minister Carlo Donat Cattin, historic deputy secretary of the Christian Democrats. Professional journalist and humanitarian diplomat for some Austrian, Swiss and Hungarian NGOs, Stefan Černetić comes from the family, also known by the variants Crnojević, Čarnojević, Cernovic, Csernovics and Cernovichio/Zarnovicchio, who reigned over Montenegro and gave the small Balkan state its current name; in fact before it was called Zeta; as well as on Albania, having a Stephen Černetić Duke of Zeta married Maria (or Mara), sister of the Albanian hero Giorgio Castriota Scanderbeg, and on Serbia and Vojvodina with Tsar Jovan-Nenad Černetić in 1526, the last sovereign before the Ottoman conquest . Also famous is the patriarch of Peć and head of the Serbian Orthodox Church Arsenius III Černetić (Čarnojević, Cernovic, Csernovics, Csernovits), who in the years around 1690 led the famous exodus of the Serbian and Montenegrin people (perhaps 40-80,000 people) in Hungary, through agreements with the Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary Leopold I, who repopulated and rebuilt that nation after the Turkish devastation. In Transylvania, now Romania, the Černetić princes received the castles of Mácsa, today Macea, and Zam, enfeoffed with the titles of counts of Mácsa and Kis-Orosz, a town in Vojvodina also known as Čarnoevićevo, today Rusko Selo. Two statues of Ivan Černetić are in Montenegro in Cettigne and Podgorica, and one of Tsar Jovan-Nenad Černetić in Subotica, Vojvodina, Serbia. The Tchernetich princes, direct descendants of the Byzantine emperors Angelus Flavius Komnenos Palaeologus, as widely documented, adopted various surnames and nicknames in Montenegro, as with other ruling houses, as in the Balkans surnames changed with each generation until the early twentieth century. Also known to the world press for having given the noble title of ""Countess of Lilies"" to the American actress Pamela Anderson, during an evening at Villa Durazzo, in Santa Margherita Ligure, he is known for his various and continuous participations in Rai television programs and Mediaset. In 2017 he was served with a notice of investigation, undergoing a trial that had great media coverage. The case involved the government of Montenegro, the Montenegrin embassy in Rome, the Italian ministries of Foreign Affairs and the Interior. It was also the subject of a parliamentary question on the initiative of MEP Carlo Fidanza, of Fratelli d'Italia. The trial ended in 2023 with an acquittal sentence ""because the fact does not exist"". The criminal court of Turin therefore also recognized his royal princely titles and the dynastic claims of Stefan Černetić, recognizing the existence and veracity of his imperial and royal lineage. The family of the Chernetic princes lives in four states: Italy, Greece, Serbia and Germany: Turin, Athens, Belgrade and Esslingen Am Neckar (Stuttgart). "" These were facts, but now Wikipedia is giving false information, THAT'S WHY I'M BEGGING FOR THE ARTICLE TO BE REMOVED — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajsikus ( talk • contribs ) 21:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Bajsikus , you can only cast ONE ""vote"" so please stop bolding your comments. I have struck your second, third and fourth votes. L iz Read! Talk! 22:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems that reliable sources have enough to say about this fellow (and more than they do about such socialites as Karl Friedrich von Hohenzollern or the current "" Prince Napoléon ""); thus . -- Hoary ( talk ) 22:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC) I am amused by the fact that the creator of the original article that was promoting this individual's claims is now begging for its deletion because an alternative view of their claims has since been given greater emphasis in the article. I suspect a strong, undeclared WP:COI here. A salutary lesson in how not to use Wikipedia to promote one's favourite topic! Nick Moyes ( talk ) 23:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (un-involved user comment) I was also thinking COI, but I wanted to Assume good faith about the user . Babysharkboss2 was here!! X ♡ O 13:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . There seem to be plenty of reliable sources to establish notability. AndyJones ( talk ) 13:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Meets GNG, sourcing is sufficient. Seawolf35 T -- C 17:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article that was edited was badly edited, because it is necessary to distinguish the former titles and borders and that the branches changed a lot over time in the Balkans and also the dynasties, which often went against each other. This is how this person finally proved his belonging to an important historical family. The problem starts because the person who edited the article immediately spoke in a ostentatious tone and in the end still says that he belongs to a noble family. It does not make sense. The whole story is poorly presented without knowing the entire history of Crnojević, Čarnojević, Skanderbeg and all other noble families that were totally d from the original article. This is exactly why confusion and conflict arise. Bajsikus ( talk )Bajsikus — Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You only get one vote. Babysharkboss2 was here!! X ♡ O 13:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"John Hackett (musician): 4 sources do come up relating to his band but all of them are from the same website, which I don't believe counts as significant coverage. Article only uses three sources, and only one seems barely notable. Dawnbails ( talk ) 00:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , and Music . Dawnbails ( talk ) 00:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. I can't find any third party independent sources which aren't interviews with him, so it fails Wikipedia:MUSICBIO . Qcne (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources MacKenzie, Gary (2017-10-12). ""John Hackett"" . Prog . Retrieved 2023-07-09 – via PressReader . The review notes: ""But tonight they are showcasing John Hackett, with his prolific five-decade long career encompassing classical and full-on rock. ... Easing in gently, Hackett kicks off a varied night by playing a short duo set with collaborator Nick Fletcher on classical guitar. With Hackett playing a strange looking instrument – “It’s a vertical flute, not a plumbing tool!” – they open with the spritely yet gentle Entr’acte, by French composer Ibert, and Hackett’s own Freefall, a pastoral musical sketch evocative of wide open skies."" Reijman, Alison (2022-03-13). ""John Hackett in conversation"" . Prog . Archived from the original on 2023-07-09 . Retrieved 2023-07-09 . The article notes: ""With a musical career spanning almost 50 years, John Hackett is one of prog’s ‘go to’ flute players, appearing on albums by musicians such as Anthony Phillips, Nick Magnus and most recently, Ms Amy Birks. He’s collaborated on and recorded several classical albums as a solo artist, in duets or bands, including Symbiosis, and these days he records and tours with his own eponymous band, but it’s his contributions to elder brother Steve’s albums for which he’s best known."" Barnes, Mike; Kendall, Jo (2023-04-14). ""John Hackett Band"" . Prog . Retrieved 2023-07-09 – via PressReader . The review notes: ""The scope of the music is progeclectic. Songs such as The Spyglass are melodic, multi-harmonied and Yes-like – with a creepy Big Brother vocal – others such as Theme And Rondo have, naturally for flautist/keyboard player Hackett, a classical influence. Burnt Down Trees has blues and jazz-rock at the centre and Hackett’s mellifluous playing on the Latin-influenced, bouncy instrumental Queenie And Elmo’s Perfect Day – and the Focus-tastic romp Red Hair – is balanced nicely against Fletcher’s rip-roaring prog-jazz guitar work (possibly the band’s secret weapon here)."" Marsh, Steve (May 2009). ""Reviews ... : CDs - John Hackett: ""Prelude to Summer"" "". Classical Guitar . Vol. 27, no. 9. p. 43. ISSN 0950-429X . ProQuest 1433306 . The abstract notes: "" A recording of guitar duets and flute/guitar duets featuring flutist, guitarist, and composer John Hackett is reviewed (Hacktrax)."" Jones, Petra (November 2006). ""From Minor to Major: An Interview with John Hackett"". Flute Talk . Vol. 26, no. 3. pp. 6–8, 27. ISSN 0744-6918 . ProQuest 1388830 . The abstract notes: "" Flutist and composer John Hackett is profiled. Growing up in London, he began his musical career as a guitarist like his brother, who became the lead guitarist for the rock band Genesis. Seeing Ian McDonald of King Crimson inspired Hackett to try the flute. He attended Sheffield Univesity, specializing in flute performance and studying composition. After leaving school, he toured with Genesis for a few years. A 1993 neck injury left him unable to play for a year and forced him to switch to a curved headjoint on his flute. Changing his style of playing to the new type of flute was a challenge."" May, Philippa (2018-09-25). ""Feast of prog rock in Ewyas Harold with the John Hackett Band"" . Hereford Times . Archived from the original on 2023-07-09 . Retrieved 2023-07-09 . The article notes: ""The John Hackett Band come to Ewyas Harold Memorial Hall for a night of prog rock on Saturday, September 29. Progressive rock flute player, guitarist, keyboard player and singer John is best known for his work with his brother Steve Hackett, the former Genesis guitarist. Since 1975 he has recorded and toured with Steve in Europe, USA and Japan alongside a career as a solo flautist and session player. The band is full of exceptional players who weave beautiful themes from atmospheric soundscapes to funk and rock."" Bryan, Kevin (2018-01-16). ""CD reviews : Blue Rose Code, John Hackett Band, Dreamboats & Petticoats, Sandro Ivo Bartoli"" . Messenger Newspapers . Newsquest . Archived from the original on 2023-07-09 . Retrieved 2023-07-09 . The review notes: ""John Hackett Band,""We Are Not Alone"" (Esoteric / Cherry Red)- The multi-talented Mr. Hackett is probably best known for his flute wielding exploits with brother Steve during the late seventies and early eighties but he's now firmly established as a band leader in his own right, and ""We Are Not Alone"" serves up a veritable feast of free flowing prog rock for your listening pleasure. The 2 CD set is divided equally between live and studio recordings, with classical guitarist Nick Fletcher's contributions also deserving a mention in dispatches as Hackett and his gifted cohorts unveil freshly minted gems such as ""Take Control,"" ""Never Gonna Make A Dime"" and the instrumental ""Blue Skies of Marazion. """" Bryan, Kevin (2020-12-17). ""Music reviews"" . Messenger Newspapers . Newsquest . Archived from the original on 2023-07-09 . Retrieved 2023-07-09 . The review notes: ""John Hackett,""The Piper Plays His Tune"" (Hacktrax)- This beguiling home produced offering provides an eloquent vehicle for the consumate artistry of the multi-talented John Hackett, whose instantly identifiable flute sound has graced many of his elder brother Steve's critically acclaimed prog-rock projects since the mid seventies. ""The Piper Plays His Tune"" captures John at his most melodic and accessible as he indulges his lifelong passion for the delights of good old fashioned pop music via skilfully executed solo ditties such as ""Broken Glass,"" Julia"" and the reflective ""Too Late For Dreamers. """" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow John Hackett to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 10:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC) 42, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From this book , "" Flute Talk magazine is an informative resource and a fun read for flutists of all ages and playing levels. It includes interviews with accomplished flutists, features on various performance styles, a column on piccolo playing, performance guides for flute repertoire, masterclass and event listings, and much more. Check out the Web site for more information: www.flutetalkmagazine.com. "" This book verifies that Kathleen Goll-Wilson served as editor of Flute Talk . I consider Flute Talk to be a reliable source about music-related topics. This book verifies that since 1982, Colin Cooper has been features editor of Classical Guitar . I consider Classical Guitar to be a reliable source about music-related topics. Wikipedia:Notability (people) does not exclude local sources from establishing notability. If editors would like to exclude local sources from establishing notability, they need to achieve consensus to change the guideline. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says, ""If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. "" It is clear that after combining the biographical coverage in all these independent sources, there is enough coverage to establish notability. Cunard ( talk ) 01:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to review newly located sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC) GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 00:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Political positions of Andrew Cuomo: The Andrew Cuomo article is pretty long so I understand the idea of a split. If this article was expanded significantly I would change to . Esolo5002 ( talk ) 05:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Politics , and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 08:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Short and also largely duplicative. Split wasn't needed, or at least not done like this. Reywas92 Talk 14:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , as pointed out by others, Andrew Cuomo is waaay too long already. This page isn't perfect, but I think we can it. Toadspike [Talk] 17:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC) 43, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak When I created this page, Cuomo was considered to have a big future in government and politics. Within a few years, his career was essentially totally over. I still think there is historic validity to a Political Positions page and it will shorten how much text is on the page, but there is no great strength to the page existing on its own anymore. PickleG13 ( talk ) 23:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] since the main Andrew Cuomo page could do with being shortened and cut up already. Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib. ) 18:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"James Morton (baker): Gained notoriety for appearing on The Great British Bake Off (series 3) . Sure, he wrote cookbooks, and he reappeared once in a GBBO special, but do they make this person notable outside the series? I doubt that his (non-notable) medical career makes him meet the WP:GNG guideline or makes WP:BLP1E inapplicable. Matter was previously discussed in one past r discussion and one discussion after r/ion was reverted . Regardless of notability, I'm not confident that the standalone article can hold on its own any longer. Should be (re-)ed to List of The Great British Bake Off finalists (series 1–7)#James Morton , whose content I derived took from the article with some improvements. George Ho ( talk ) 15:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , Television , and Medicine . George Ho ( talk ) 15:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. BLP1E is only applicable when all three of its conditions are satisfied: Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. I don't think this subject meets any of these conditions, let alone all three. pburka ( talk ) 16:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC) BIO1E then? George Ho ( talk ) 17:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's an even less restrictive guideline. Which do you consider to be the 1E: his first GBBO, his second GBBO, or his career as an author? pburka ( talk ) 18:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] His GBBO debut, i.e. the third series, which aired in the US as the fifth season on PBS . His GBBO reappearance hasn't made much of an impact, and his career as a cookbook author is to me just resume-building. George Ho ( talk ) 21:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would suggest not deleting, still an active public person, author of 8 books. Previous reliable sources d from article. Simply needs updating. 150.143.105.147 ( talk ) 16:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Scotland . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC) What's your stance on this article so far? -- George Ho ( talk ) 23:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't have one. pburka ( talk ) 00:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What about my answer to your 1E question then? George Ho ( talk ) 04:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I still don't think that BLP1E is applicable, since the subject had a substantial and well documented role in GBBO , and isn't a low-profile individual (he's a published author). Again, I have no position on the subject's notability, except that BLP1E isn't applicable. Any arguments to this page on those grounds are invalid. pburka ( talk ) 22:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , a prolific and award winning author, a newspaper columnist, his television appearances, his brewing career, etc., seems to pass muster (and GNG). Randy Kryn ( talk ) 12:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , Subject looks notable and renowned to me. There appears to be quality relevant sources online about him. Meets the GNG requirements. Mevoelo ( talk ) 17:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) 02, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Would seem to have achieved notability as an author in addition to his TV appearances. Dunarc ( talk ) 23:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC) content from James Morton (baker) to another page? If so, please add {{ d-to | destination page name | date }} to Talk:James Morton (baker) . Once you copy content from a page, we can't the original article for license/copyright reasons. (We could the original article, however.) WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 04:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I really wish. I just derived content months before the bold by another editor:",keep
+"American Polar Society: The article is titled as if it is about a topic. It's just a list of members without any real context as to why the members are notable or what the purpose of the society is. Shadow311 ( talk ) 15:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Organizations . Shadow311 ( talk ) 15:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism , Environment , and United States of America . Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ? I'm not really sure what the procedure is for when the topic has a lot of available material but the article is only minimally present. I'm pretty sure this article in Polar Record gives the most detail on what the organization actually was for, but of course, that's the one I don't have immediate access to. Still, the journal published obituaries of people in the field (pdf here ) and the one for APS founder August Howard gives some context. This biography of Louise Arner Boyd also appears to dedicate a couple of pages to the society and Boyd's interactions with it on page 289+. Also, I'm not sure if it matters for inclusion standards, but Ohio State University's library maintains a special collection of the society's historical records. Lubal ( talk ) 18:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC) A ton of coverage in Gnewspapers [8] talks about it. It's described here [9] . Obituary here about the founder [10] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Looked at the sources, there are some indepth content that can be used to expand the article beyond NOTDIRECTORY. Passes notability guidelines. Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 23:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC) SOFIXIT . Geschichte ( talk ) 08:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Needs cleanup, not deletion. There's enough reliably-sourced coverage here to easily pass WP:SIGCOV . A. Randomdude0000 ( talk ) 12:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Fighting Antisemitism Together: Cannot find the required in-depth, independent coverage to establish notability * Pppery * it has begun... 22:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Canada . Shellwood ( talk ) 23:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC) I just added three RS from mainstream news, including what appears to be SIGCOV from the Globe and Mail . Coupled with the non-local, non-trivial coverage from the Jerusalem Post , I believe this qualifies as notable. Owen× ☎ 19:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] since with the new sources, FAST seems notable. Cortador ( talk ) 20:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and remove the notability tag. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 14:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Stacy Blake-Beard: Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk ) 13:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Women , Business , and Social science . Bridget (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . In this case we have both well-cited publications ( WP:PROF#C1 ) and in-depth coverage specifically about her in multiple newspaper stories ( WP:GNG ). The fact that someone tag-bombed this article 14 years ago is not an actual deletion rationale. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . I'm not seeing a C1 pass; her Scopus citations look to be right around the average among her coauthors. However, if she's received enough newspaper coverage for her work that C7 or GNG is met then that's sufficient. JoelleJay ( talk ) 19:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Finch Motors Ltd v Quin (No 2): — Panamitsu (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Transportation . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC) I mean, the case happened and it's mentioned [34] but I don't find critical discussion of it... This reads like an essay written by someone in high school. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Clicking on the Gscholar link brings up law journals, but it's above my pay grade to try and understand what's discussed about the case. What do others thin? Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article has been online for 9 years before it has had its notability challenged. Given this and the fact that it has 2 law books cited n support and that it has been subsequently edited by several others, I believe meets notability in spades Kiwisheriff ( talk ) 11:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] -- I am a bit surprised as the paucity of sources showing online. This case was often mentioned in consideration of so-called Lemon Laws. Although the case's impact pretty well faded a soon as the 1993 CGA went into effect, notability does not expire . The subject is enclyclopaedic, sourced, and (at least during the 80s) sustained. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 21:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the support for the article. However, I would argue that the legal concept of ""merchantable quality"" has not faded with the implementation of the CGA, as not only was this section under the SGA copied into the CGA, it actually enhanced it, by making it illegal to contract out of the law by the retailer, ie. ""no refund"" signs. Kiwisheriff ( talk ) 02:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Implied warranty would be a good candidate for expanding on the state of the NZ law, for anyone interested. — HTGS ( talk ) 03:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I am surprised at a nomination that doesn’t address the two books cited, which, if they give reasonable coverage, would be sufficient alone to support notability. Then, as mentioned, the scholar links (eg [35] ) add plenty of potential sourcing. Obviously the article’s current quality, nor the length it has existed do not affect the decision here. As some of us know well, NZ law is still underdeveloped on Wikipedia, but if it weren’t, I would support a up into the relevant area-of-law article. — HTGS ( talk ) 03:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Satisfies GNG. This case has received significant coverage in books and periodical articles in Google Books, Google Scholar and elsewhere. There are entire periodical articles about this case: [36] . (There are also entire periodical articles about the concept of ""merchantable quality"" generally). James500 ( talk ) 01:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Recompose: Even ignoring the self-promotion, it seems that Recompose fails to meet the notability criteria. Kitzing ( talk ) 23:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] but tone down promotional content . References 6, 10, and 12 (Seattle Times) establish WP:SIGCOV and are both independent and non-passing in nature. I agree that the article seems rather self-serving and should be trimmed down considerably. But the company does have detailed coverage in secondary sources. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 01:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WeirdNAnnoyed , I have concerns with regards to the Seattle Times coverage by Kiley. Can you point clearly to a passage independent of people directly affiliated with the company, other than the short quote from Van Slyke (who said the emissions and odors from NOR are expected to be minimal compared to other operations they review, including cremations, demolitions of asbestos-filled buildings and marijuana cultivation. Recompose’s air permit requires no visible emissions from the facility, adequate filters, no detectable odors and independent review by a third party every three months. )? That segment does not seem secondary to me. Or, perhaps a second source? The BBC coverage mentioned by Sionk (as currently cited in the article) seem to be entirely quotes from Spade and Carpenter-Boggs, so I'm excluding it from my consideration for now. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 11:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Washington . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not quite sure I understand...Reference 10 provides lots of background information and analysis that is independent of the subject, which is the definition of a secondary source. There are some quotes in there, but it's not an interview. The two paragraphs beginning with ""The Recompose process..."" give a summary of what the company does without relying on quotes and without sounding overly promotional. I guess I don't know what you mean by ""independent of people directly affiliated with the company"". Of course the articles get their information from people directly affiliated with the company; that doesn't mean they aren't reliable secondary sources. If those pieces had consisted of nothing but direct quotes or on-the-spot, breaking-news type coverage, then that would be different. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 21:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see how those paragraphs could be independent or secondary. We could take it to RSN ? Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 00:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd say there is a little secondary coverage in that article. The second clause of the Van Slyke quote could be that, and the paragraph immediately before the two you selected covering pricing would be considered secondary as well, but I don't see any analysis in those two paragraphs specifically. As for independence, WP:ORGIND 's requirement for intellectual independence doesn't necessarily explicitly say that it's stronger than ""sufficient paraphrasing to be out of quote marks and still not be plagiarism,"" but it still very strongly implies it. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 00:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , on the basis the company has clearly attracted more than passing interest, in a number of major news outlets, and internationally (BBC). Sionk ( talk ) 09:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Porta-bote: DirtyHarry991 ( talk ) 06:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC) Weak , this review in a NZ magazine [58] and some discussion in Australia [59] Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC) Subject passes the WP:GNG with the sources provided in this discussion. Some promotional language stands to be removed but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP . User:Let'srun 14:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . If the article weren't so ancient, I'd suggest draftifying. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 10:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Thistle Dew Dessert Theatre: Also I couldn't find any of the first 5 sources online, and 6th source is trivial coverage. Therefore not notable. -- unsigned post by EternalNub Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . Helping get rid of non-notable articles : I'd like to AGF that the offline sources are legit, in which case there is SIGCOV. Perhaps an editor with access the relevant archives can verify? -- D'n'B - t -- 10:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC) 56, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Theatre . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 14:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC) ""I couldn't find any of the first 5 sources online"" is not an acceptable argument for deletion; see WP:PAPERONLY , which says There is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Restricting editors to using online sources would mean that most of the information in the world would be unavailable to us. Toughpigs ( talk ) 16:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Whoa! According to its website , this is an amateur theatre company with 39 seats performing in a Victorian house. No stage productions are currently scheduled -- it appears mostly to screen movies. It serves dessert with its shows (if they ever have any) and supposedly won a non-notable amateur theatre award. The article notes that a non-notable playwright premiered a non-notable work there. No one involved in it is asserted to be notable. Assuming this is all true, why is this an encyclopedic topic? Its website says that its theatre is available for rental for weddings, parties and classes. This seems to be an extreme case of a run-of the mill community theatre company. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 17:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, it got coverage in The Los Angeles Times in 1999, and the San Francisco Chronicle in 2008. Neither of those are local to Sacramento, so apparently it was a bigger deal in the past than it is today. Toughpigs ( talk ) 21:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . As Toughpigs correctly pointed out, sources being offline doesn't matter. Cortador ( talk ) 20:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Microsoft Puzzle Hunt: 331dot ( talk ) 13:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games , Business , and Popular culture . 331dot ( talk ) 13:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC) A WP:BEFORE check comes up with a few sources. [ [14] ][ [15] ] User:Let'srun 14:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong A major event at one of the largest companies in the world that's been going on for 23 years and has inspired events at other companies (Amazon, Google, Facebook, and many smaller companies, etc.) belongs in Wikipedia. One spinoff is Microsoft Puzzleday, one of the largest recruiting-related events at Microsoft (and probably any company). MSPH has been written about in, among other places, WIRED and GAMES magazine. The word ""puzzlehunt"", coined for Microsoft Puzzle Hunt 1, is now the word used to describe any event with a series of puzzles and meta puzzles (the word has even appeared in the NY Times). On the comment of needing sources, I think the reason is that it's nobody's job to add sources and this is not an incredibly important article. Here's one piece in WIRED ( https://www.wired.com/2011/09/trains-of-thought-inside-the-microsoft-puzzle-hun/ ); I believe there was another. I don't have a reference to the GAMES article handy, but it was 2002 or possibly early 2003 (GAMES articles are not available online, so somebody with physical copies would have to find it). Note: I was part of the founding team of MSPH 1, but I think that is irrelevant here. RoyLeban ( talk ) 08:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here's a reference to the Tableau Puzzle Hunt, also inspired by MSPH. https://www.tableau.com/tableau-developer-puzzle-hunt Not only shouldn't the article be d, but it should be expanded to discuss it's inspiration (the MIT Mystery Hunt) and what it inspired. Of course, that takes somebody who wants to spend the time. RoyLeban ( talk ) 08:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Let'srun mentions, but the first is hardly substantial. The second, from WIRED, is the best source for notability I can find, but I don't think that alone warrants GNG . I see no reason this can't be folded into a sentence or two at Microsoft#Corporate culture . StereoFolic ( talk ) 03:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ StereoFolic The first article is indeed substantial. Perhaps you are paywall-blocked, and so did not realise there's a larger article beyond the one paragraph mentioned? I have been following this discussion but have not yet participated because I cannot yet locate the GAMES magazine article discussed above. I currently believe the two articles linked might be enough to meet GNG already. If I find the GAMES article/it's reliable and significant, that will definitely be enough to meet notability. Soni ( talk ) 16:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah yeah, I missed that paywall, thanks for pointing that out. Having read the article properly now, I'm still unsure if this meets GNG. I agree the GAMES article would help answer this more clearly. I will defer to editors with more AfD experience than my-new-self. StereoFolic ( talk ) 16:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I have been unable to find the GAMES article yet. But based on the two sources we currently have, the notability seems marginal but sufficient enough to be there. Full disclosure, I am aware of this article from my other communities/discussed this article there in the context of finding more RS. Soni ( talk ) 08:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Arto Nyberg: The main concern here is that this BLP is completely unreferenced, and the Finnish version of the page doesn't contribute much, too. However, I may miss something. MartinPict ( talk ) 14:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Journalism , Radio , Television , and Finland . Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - It's also a bit difficult to separate him from his TV show, which also frustrates searching as there's a lot of false positives along the lines of ""So-and-so said something to Arty Nyberg"" in Finnish. But still, there's plenty of coverage about him in all kinds of Finnish papers, even if a lot of it is interviews or profiles you'd expect about a ""generic famous person"". I'll look for more when I have the time from other stuff, but here's something to start with: Large profile in Anna (subscription required; only shows a snippet by default): [33] Profile/interview in Seiska : [34] Profile/interview in ET : [35] A thing in Seura : [36] Profiles/interviews in the [Iltalehti]] tabloid: [37] , [38] , [39] Some more in the Ilta-Sanomat tabloid: [40] , [41] , [42] , [43] , [44] , [45] , [46] , [47] , [48] (there's more, but that's a representative sample) Pretty much none of these are great in isolation, but the pure mass and sustained length of coverage gives me pause and I think I'm leaning towards a weak at the moment. - Ljleppan ( talk ) 07:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌) 🔥 00:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Yleradio, I think is the best option. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I added some references. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 06:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC) BIO with sources presented above and added by Eastman to the article. They're reliable enough, with some in-depth IMV. SBKSPP ( talk ) 05:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC) nothing individually earth shattering, but there's plenty - Ljleppan ( talk ) 07:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Sail Forth: No indication of sufficient sourcing found in my BEFORE Star Mississippi 16:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Star Mississippi 16:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . NL Eurogamer PC Gamer (though the latter two aren't particularly thorough). Situation VG/S search also pulls up Gaming Age Softpedia ~ A412 talk! 17:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I wrote a reception section. ~ A412 talk! 20:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's hindered by some gaming sites not giving actual scores in their reviews anymore, but besides the Metacritic-listed Nintendo Life one, there's a PC Gamer review and a Eurogamer review. That's in addition to the earlier mentioned Softpedia one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong . See Talk:Sail Forth . TWOrantula TM ( enter the web ) 22:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per TWOrantula . Sources properly presented on the talk page. Svartner ( talk ) 02:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Mick Sweda: But then a single-purpose account, likely Sweda himself, popped up to remove the without an explanation and restore the article -- FMSky ( talk ) 21:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC) HEY . I found three secondary reliable sources to back up most of what was already in the article, one of which goes into much detail about the subject or his family. I also added new sourced information that wasn't there previously, and made things more wiki-friendly. Note that there are many sources mentioning the subject as part of BulletBoys, but those are mostly passing mentions and therefore not really useful for a biography. But I think much of what is included now would not fit well in either of the band articles. Stony Brook babble 22:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I acknowledge your efforts to improve the article, but I think it's telling that you were able to find only one source that talks about any of Sweda's works outside of BulletBoys and King Kobra, and that was in his hometown newspaper (Merced). Perhaps not enough to qualify for ""significant"" coverage at WP:SIGCOV , but I will accept the consensus of others in this discussion. Also, the fact that he has a wife and son is not particularly encyclopedic even though a newspaper said it. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to the band per above - doesn't seem to pass GNG on his own. SportingFlyer T · C 11:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC) MUSICBIO.6 and the sourcing improvements made since listing. Probably still needs another edit pass but a would probably not improve the state of the encyclopedia as a whole. — siro χ o 07:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Grimlock: Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 15:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Honestly, what the fuck is the point to these AfDs? BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 17:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Getting rid of non-notable articles with a lot of fancruft. Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 17:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Didn't someone tell you to stop ? Anyway, the discussions are pointless. - https://www.ign.com/articles/2009/06/10/transformers-our-favorite-autobots? page=3 - it's a list, and lists don't count - https://www.looper.com/181677/the-most-powerful-transformers-ranked/ - Looper (website) isn't the New York Times - https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykarcz/2023/07/19/robosen-asks-transformers-fans-to-dig-deep-as-1699-auto-transforming-grimlock-stomps-onto-the-scene/ - it's about a toy and nothing about a toy can possibly be notable in any way shape or form. - https://www.cbr.com/transformers-comic-grimlock-different-marvel/ CBR writes about literally everything, hence all the hits you get on every single fictional character ever. - https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Transformers/YBVjDwAAQBAJ ? - not a real book because Reasons - https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2014/02/14/transformers-age-of-extinction-movie-toy-line-first-look/5490205/ - not written by a prize-winning journalist - https://screenrant.com/transformers-5-last-knight-grimlock-returning-details/ - guys i think this website wants people to read it, untrustworthy So , it's what's going to happen anyway. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 17:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - The USA Today article above is good. Additionally he is discussed well in a two-volume publication ( Vol.1 and vol.2 ). These are similar to the Forbes piece above, but The Verge and Gizmodo gave good coverage of a new toy iteration without the ""Forbes contributor"" concerns. Older coverage from the existing article and previous AfDs at IGN (Did the nominator review the sources that are already present and the sources brought forth in prior AfDs?) Also, he was the inspiration for a whole video game in the franchise per Polygon . I don't understand the comment regarding the toys; the character is a toy. A character can also be portrayed in multiple formats, and discussion of any of them is discussion of the character. - 2pou ( talk ) 22:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I fully recognize that there is a whole lot of cruft in here. By all means a lot of that content, but outright article deletion is not appropriate when sources WP:NEXIST to justify at least having the article in this WP:NOTPAPER encyclopedia. - 2pou ( talk ) 22:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To List of The Transformers (TV series) characters#Dinobots . It's clear that Boombox is heavily invested in the character, but saying WP:IQUIT and being uncivil is not a convincing argument. What this needs is hard proof of notability, and there is almost none. Besides the one Polygon article, which is decent, the most that sources comment on Grimlock is ""ooh, robo T-Rex"", with the character not having the depth of coverage from reliable sources to satisfy WP:SIGCOV . The book appears self-published, which, per WP:SPS eliminates a major potential source. Therefore, unless more significant sources can be shown, it should be d. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 00:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You interpreted that as me quitting Wikipedia? You wish. I'm just not dancing to the tune of a sockpuppet account with highly dubious motives. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 08:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per arguments presented by 2pou. BOZ ( talk ) 15:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] obviously satisfies GNG. InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 00:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate the discussion must still run its course but it is worth noting that the nominator has been blocked for persistent bad faith actions. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 19:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , He is clearly one the main characters in the Transformers cartoon series and franchise as well. Davidgoodheart ( talk ) 03:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Gugak FM: Previous deletion discussion said that ‘government-licensed broadcast radio stations have been held generally notable’ but that does not show this one is notable. Chidgk1 ( talk ) 19:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and South Korea . Chidgk1 ( talk ) 19:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC) mentioned in [6] and in [7] , but no significant coverage to establish notability. Owen× ☎ 21:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Changed to per sources found by Freedom4U . Owen× ☎ 03:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm really wary of deleting a national FM radio network like this. The kowiki article is little help, though it does cite a couple of articles on new transmitters for this service. There appear to be two articles in the Korea Herald from its launch in 2001, but I cannot access them. I also see it sometimes transliterated as ""Kugak FM"", and it gets mentioned in some of the academic literature—apparently this was an idea on the table going back to 1998. Someone with Korean language fluency and access to sources in the 1990s and 2000s could save this page. I don't have a ! vote right now, but I'm skeptical of deletion. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 23:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sammi Brie Your hunch was right—Google and Korean-language topics are often a terrible combo when looking for sources. I've left three SIGCOV sources in my vote below. I'd be interested in the Korea Herald article too, would it be possible to provide a link ot it? ~ F4U ( talk • they/it ) 01:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm also on the fence. Looking on Google Books , there's a number of mentions of Gugak FM in English. This book [8] seems to have a reasonable discussion of it, although I can't access it beyond the preview. I think maybe the article could be rescoped to cover the parent Gugak Broadcasting Foundation [ ko ] , which possibly has more notable coverage as it covers a wider number of stations, but I don't know who's willing to do that work (I'm not). I'm not sure how much popularity the radio station or its parent have, although they are mildly important for Korean culture. I also doubt anyone is likely to come around in the near future and flesh out the article if we do it. Complicated; if it's d I'll be very slightly disappointed but I don't think it'll make much of an impact. toobigtokale ( talk ) 12:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 19:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Btw I lean if nobody is willing to step up in near future to fix up and save it. So many more substantial Korea-related articles are in need of fixing, think it's unlikely anyone will ever fix this organically at this rate toobigtokale ( talk ) 17:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Significant coverage here of them expanding to Busan , here going in-depth into their opening logistics , and here on their celebration of their thirteenth year open . ~ F4U ( talk • they/it ) 01:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok nvm, ; these are better results than the quick ones I looked at. toobigtokale ( talk ) 02:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also ! voting . This is the kind of sourcing I was expecting to see as soon as a Korean speaker turned up. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 18:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Rhys Dacre: I could not find any significant coverage. LibStar ( talk ) 00:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics , and New Zealand . LibStar ( talk ) 00:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] another Lugnuts substub he was sanctioned multiple times for making thousands of. No medal, no GNG --> deletion Changing my vote to thanks to source discovery. BrigadierG ( talk ) 00:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . There appears to be only one available New Zealand newspaper from his time period, and that one newspaper has extensive coverage of him, see for example numerous pieces of in-depth coverage for his Olympic appearance and national sprinting records: [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] and [47] , among many others . This is enough to satisfy WP:SPORTCRIT and be able to presume additional GNG-satisfying coverage exists, per SPORTCRIT. Pinging @ Paora : to see if they can find any more coverage, as well as @ BrigadierG : , who hasn't yet seen the coverage. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC) CANVASSing . LibStar ( talk ) 01:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC) CANVASS, an example of an appropriate notification would be for a user known for expertise in the field – Paora is known for expertise in the New Zealand athletics area, having found coverage for notability in many cases where others were unable to. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm pretty sure Paora follows NZ sorted articles, there is no need to notify known voters. LibStar ( talk ) 01:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC) INAPPNOTE "" Vote-stacking : Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions"" LibStar ( talk ) 01:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not notifying Paora ""based on their known opinions,"" but because Paora is known for expertise in the field . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why the need to notify? Paora follows NZ sorted articles? LibStar ( talk ) 01:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (edit conflict) Because I haven't followed Paora around to learn that they follow NZ sorted articles (not suggesting you do, but how do you know that?) – I just know that that user is good at locating sources; CANVASS states that it is appropriate to notify editors known for expertise in the field . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Canvassing includes notifications that are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. LibStar ( talk ) 01:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC) AGF ? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC) CANVASS . Paora is not necessarily an expert in athletics? You interacted with them here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blair Telford where he clearly displays a tendency. I suggest you refrain from making similar notifications in future AfDs. LibStar ( talk ) 01:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FWIW CANVASS is not a policy... but Paora seemed like a user who has ""expertise in their field,"" (called out as an appropriate notification by CANVASS) as I've seen them find decent coverage for New Zealand athletes several times in the past - that's the only reason I notified them. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And in those several times, has Paora tended to vote on every occasion (regardless of their supposed expertise)? LibStar ( talk ) 01:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know – prior to the Telford nomination it had been awhile since I had came across Paora, but I remember coming across other deletion discussions in the past where other users said things like ""pinging Paora who's known for being really good at finding sources for New Zealand topics"" – that's really the only reason I notified them. I'm tired of repeating this point – I'm done discussing over this notification. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] where other users said things like ""pinging Paora who's known for being really good at finding sources for New Zealand topics is not an excuse to do the same because ""I saw others do it. "" LibStar ( talk ) 01:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC) DROPTHESTICK my friend, this isn't the fight to fight. BrigadierG ( talk ) 10:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC) SPORTSBASIC , WP:BASIC . — siro χ o 06:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC) MILL coverage in the local paper of an athlete who didn't earn a medal. Delete. — S Marshall T / C 08:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC) 49, 13 September 2023 (UTC) 53, 13 September 2023 (UTC) 05, 13 September 2023 (UTC) //www.newspapers.com/article/calgary-herald-dacre-cfl-try-outs/131717748/ ^ https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-ottawa-citizen-dacre-olympic-village/131717767/ . Coverage is enough. Themanwithnowifi ( talk ) 18:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC with the additional sourcing. As others have noted, The Press is one of the major New Zealand newspapers and is far from a ""local"" or ""small-town"" paper. Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 21:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] following expansion. Paora ( talk ) 08:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"War Galoh: JoeNMLC ( talk ) 20:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator - I added a reference for this Somalia populated place. JoeNMLC ( talk ) 10:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Somalia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - A location does not require significant coverage in order to be notable. WP:NGEO says "" Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low."" Millows ( talk ) 00:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC) 29, 27 July 2023 (UTC) //www.google.com/books/edition/Gazetteer_of_Somalia/CKQ7AQAAMAAJ? hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=War+Galoh&pg=PA489&printsec=frontcover Graywalls ( talk ) 03:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] -- per Graywalls . Central and Adams ( talk ) 03:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -- Yesterday I found a website ( War Galoh, Geographic.org, Geographical Names ) and added to article. So above, Withdrawn. JoeNMLC ( talk ) 10:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Nedunkerny: Dan arndt ( talk ) 14:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions . Dan arndt ( talk ) 14:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC) WP:PLACEOUTCOMES is an essay, not a governing policy. The governing policy is WP:GEOLAND , which states, Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable . This article meets WP:GEOLAND. Owen× ☎ 15:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC) PLACEOUTCOMES is an essay. WP:GEOLAND is the policy covering notability of settlements. Nedunkerny satisfies the very first criteria under WP:GEOLAND i.e. it is populated and legally recognised. The town is divided into two Village Officer Divisions (Nedunkerny North and Nedunkerny South), the fourth level administrative division in Sri Lanka. The Department of Census and Statistics collects census data at the village officer division level. Nedunkerny is the headquarters of the Vavuniya North DS Division , the third level administrative division in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Post allocates a post code to Nedunkerny. -- Obi2canibe ( talk) 15:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Has presumed notability under WP:GEOLAND . Has shops and an army check point per Google Streetview in 2022. Mentioned in numerous books listed on Google Books about the Sri Lankan Civil War and looks like there's ongoing religious conflict. [12] Note the different name spellings. Rupples ( talk ) 16:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC) GEOLAND . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 01:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] nomination seems mistaken, clearly notable. SportingFlyer T · C 23:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Dipak Sharma: There's no way that this person is notable enough for Wikipedia. Expressive101 ( talk ) 10:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Nepal . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There seem to be at least three references containing sufficient assessment work by the authors for them to be counted as ""secondary"" and which contain enough for a brief article. [16] [17] [18] The apparant reference bombing is due to the detailed referencing for the excessive lists of awards, etc. Thincat ( talk ) 10:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notable person. Citadeol (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Sources like Online Khabar, Annapurna post, Himalaya times, Image Khabar is a reliable, secondary as well as independent sources to the subject. Fade258 ( talk ) 10:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC) There are a lot of sources. It can be considered significant. -- Jasulan . T TT me 14:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , subject has been making the news for quite some time, therefore has a credible claim to notability. ihateneo ( talk ) 01:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 11:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Heather Gemmen Wilson: Startling Beauty doesn't seem to be notable either. Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 17:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Literature , and Canada . Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 17:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I found a few sources, but not enough reviews and reliable independent coverage to prove notability. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 16:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources Timmerman, John (2013). A Biblical Understanding of Pain: Its Reasons and Realities . Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock . ISBN 978-1-61097-109-6 . Retrieved 2023-05-21 – via Google Books . The book notes: ""When I knew her as a student in college, I had no doubt that Heather Gemmen would become a writer. Even then she had what I call ""the writer's eye,” that peculiar ability to match the prose with craft and care to the subject discussed. Nor was I surprised that Heather went on to become a very successful author and editor of children's books. Yet, nothing prepared me for her book Startling Beauty: My Journey from Rape to Restoration . Nothing prepared Heather for it either. Out of one of the worst violations of personal shalom, Heather crafted a poignant testimony that is both graceful and gracefull. "" Agar, John (2004-03-13). ""An ugly crime, a beautiful life - An ""amazing, strong"" rape victim writes the story of the daughter she chose to bear. The attacker has remained at large for nearly a decade"" . The Grand Rapids Press . Archived from the original on 2023-05-21 . Retrieved 2023-05-21 . The article notes: ""Today, the former Grand Rapids woman will sign her book, ""Startling Beauty, My Journey from Rape to Restoration,"" at Family Christian Stores in Grandville. ... Gemmen, an editor of children's books, grew up in London, Ont. She moved to Grand Rapids to attend Calvin College, where she met Steve. They made a home here, and enjoyed living in their diverse neighborhood, but left three years ago when she took a new job. Her book was released nationally several weeks ago. Gemmen has tried to avoid publicity in the Grand Rapids area, since the rapist has not been caught. "" Holland, Jeff (2004-04-21). ""Finding beauty after brutality"" . Elizabeth City Daily Advance . Archived from the original on 2023-05-21 . Retrieved 2023-05-21 . The article notes: ""Some people who read Heather Gemmen's book ""Startling Beauty: My Journey from Rape to Restoration"" tell the author they find it ""a powerful book,"" a statement that catches Gemmen by surprise. ... In penning her story, Gemmen, 33, attempted to be candid about the entire experience following her rape a decade ago and about the road she traveled to recover and find healing for her emotional well-being. Her story has taken her before local, national and international audiences via television talk shows and magazine articles. She recently taped a segment of ""The Montel Williams Show"" and has also been interviewed by ""20/20."""" Northey, Hannah (2007-10-09). ""After The Nightmare - More Than 400 Hear Speaker Tell Of Rape, Rebirth Of Hope"" . Daily News-Record . Archived from the original on 2023-05-21 . Retrieved 2023-05-21 . The article notes: ""When Heather Gemmen Wilson found out she was pregnant after being raped at knifepoint, she questioned her faith and whether she should have an abortion. In 1995, Wilson said she put her two sons, Chad and Simon, to bed one night, waiting for her husband to return from a church meeting. "" Epstein, Warren (2002-09-26). ""Springs resident to tell her story on talk show"" . The Gazette . Archived from the original on 2023-05-21 . Retrieved 2023-05-21 . The article notes: ""She leaves today for Los Angeles to appear as a guest on ""Rob Nelson,"" a new talk show that airs locally at 2 p.m. weekdays on KXTU/Channel 57 (channel 7 on Adelphia.) "" Ellis, Amber (2004-06-12). ""Rape Victim Escapes 'Secret Club' - She Goes Public, Now Helps Others Voice Pain, Raises Biracial Daughter Conceived in Attack"" . Akron Beacon Journal . Archived from the original on 2023-05-21 . Retrieved 2023-05-21 . The article notes: ""Not long after Rachael was born, Heather and Steven adopted their older son's best friend, Deshawn, who is black. Having Deshawn in the home and teaching Rachael about her black heritage has helped Rachael take pride in herself, her mother said. "" Midgley, Carol (2005-02-13). ""The joy of Rachael"" . Herald Sun . Archived from the original on 2023-05-21 . Retrieved 2023-05-21 . The article notes: ""And, sadly, Steve recently left her -- a cruel hand for fate to play that after all they have been through together over the past decade. She is still in shock, hopes the split is only temporary, and wonders if part of the reason is that Steve found it hard to deal with the public exposure that came with the new book. The book is dedicated to him. "" Wilberding, Beth (2010-10-08). ""Banquet organizers 'excited' about turnout, involvement"" . Messenger-Inquirer . Archived from the original on 2023-05-21 . Retrieved 2023-05-21 . The article notes: ""Though Wilson and her then-husband initially asked a married couple they were friends with to adopt the child, the couple ultimately decided to her child, a daughter. "" Asay, Paul (2004-03-20). ""Spiritual Messengers - Christian writers pursue craft to satisfy their souls, not their wallets"" . The Gazette . Archived from the original on 2023-05-21 . Retrieved 2023-05-21 . The article notes: """"I think there is a lot of energy in writing here,"" said Heather Gemmen, editor for Cook Communications Ministries and author of 50 books. ""My critique group here, we're all published writers. I know there's a lot of groups like that here."""" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Heather Gemmen Wilson to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 12:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For evaluation of the sources provided above. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It only took a simple search on Google and I found a bunch of stuff about this person. Is the article good? No. Should it be d? No. Is the subject notable? Yes. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the reliable sources that have been found. Archrogue ( talk ) 17:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Database of Recorded American Music: I am unable to find anywhere near the depth of sourcing required for N:ORG which appears to be the best barometer for this database. Star Mississippi 23:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Museums and libraries , Organizations , and Software . Star Mississippi 23:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Has many independent reviews in journals, see [1] [2] [3] Mach61 ( talk ) 02:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the nom doesn't make sense, notability does not degrade over time . microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 16:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC) NORG Mach61 ( talk ) 18:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Added some sources. A simple Google search of ""Database of Recorded American Music"" brings up oodles of university sites that provide access to this database. There's no doubt this is notable. The link I added from The Recording Industry Association of America® (RIAA) has a pretty impressive graph of 1973-2022 sales. — Maile ( talk ) 01:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Professional support lawyer: CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 02:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions . CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 02:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] somewhere . It seems noteworthy, if not independently encyclopedically notable, that some lawyers have this internal research support role. Perhaps this can find a home in Law firm#Structure and promotion . BD2412 T 02:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC) can I ask you all to take another look? I reworked the article. Lightburst ( talk ) 23:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm fine with a , though I admit I wasn't sure a good target. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 02:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the additional sources were used to expand the article, and included therein, I wouldn't be upset in ing the article. Onel 5969 TT me 23:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I would agree with a if the article had better sourcing and was better written. Until then, I'm leaning towards a or draftify. Fad Ariff ( talk ) 12:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration . Lightburst ( talk ) 13:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - not enough in-depth coverage to meet notability criteria. Onel 5969 TT me 14:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC) I see sources which can be used in the article. The Law Society Gazette , Knowledge Management and the Smarter Lawyer , A Handbook for Corporate Information Professionals , The Knowledge Manager's Handbook , Kirsty McFarlane: Why professional support lawyers are growing in importance Lightburst ( talk ) 15:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Due to the sources mentioned by Lightburst. The article is currently in poor shape, so hopefully someone will overhaul it if it is kept. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - The sources found by Lightburst are sufficient for GNG. WJ94 ( talk ) 13:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"List of countries by southernmost point: List of countries by northernmost point ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) List of countries by easternmost point ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) List of countries by westernmost point ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Traumnovelle ( talk ) 08:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 10:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There do not seem to be any sources cited for the co-ordinate locations in any of the articles. However, I think the article itself should not be d. The concept of the extreme latitudes and longitudes of a country or region is definitely a notable subject, and the concept of compiling and comparing different extreme points in a list should also therefore be notable. Are not some of these locations/points only notable because they are the extreme points of that location? Are you going to Extreme points of Africa and other articles at the same time? Spiralwidget ( talk ) 15:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My argument applies exactly to that one, so yes? Traumnovelle ( talk ) 19:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning all . I agree with Spiralwidget that extremes of latitude and longitude are notable, and therefore listworthy. BD2412 T 17:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] comment Assuming that the sourcing can be coughed up, this could just as well exist as a single article with the four extreme points of each country, sortable by each column (NESW). It would not surprise me to learn that there is already a list of countries which contains the information, or for that matter a list of countries by some geographical property to which these data could be added (e.g. a list ranked by area). Mangoe ( talk ) 04:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Extreme points are a topic covered by some sources, if only in a fun trivia way. Agree with above though that four sortable columns in a single table is likely a better format. List of countries by extreme points , like Extreme points of the European Union / Extreme points of the Commonwealth of Nations only hopefully more notable. CMD ( talk ) 07:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Republicans pounce: There's almost no non-opinion coverage of the topic, and most of the individual opinion pieces are only using the term briefly while focusing on a more specific issue. It also over-represents the views of a tiny number of news outlets; the opinion pieces are lopsided representations of the Washington Examiner and the National Review. It's not appropriate to make a Wikipedia article for every opinion-piece talking point, especially ones that have failed to attract significant secondary or WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Aquillion ( talk ) 22:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as the article's creator. There's almost no non-opinion coverage of the topic See these articles which engage in an analysis of the phenomenon itself: When 'conservatives pounce': The right finds its cautionary tale of subtle media bias Tucker Carlson and the oversold ‘Republicans pounce’ complaint When Politicians ‘Pounce’ most of the individual opinion pieces are only using the term briefly Clearly not true. There are multiple opinion articles which do not merely use the term, but discuss the overall phenomenon as their primary focus: Republicans pounce! ‘Conservatives Pounce,’ Again When Republicans ‘Pounce’ ‘Republicans Pounce’ Coverage Is Toxic to Government Accountability It also over-represents the views of a tiny number of news outlets The ""Analysis"" section is a fair balance of the opinion sources I found when researching the topic, per WP:DUE . It is not surprising that more right-leaning commentators would discuss this phenomenon than left-leaning ones, nor that their views would appear in prominent right-leaning publications such as National Review and Washington Examiner. The Kevin Drum piece in Mother Jones is the only one I could find from a left-leaning perspective. And in any event, this ""overrepresentation"" is a content dispute, not a notability one. Regarding WP:SUSTAINED , this Commentary article discussing the phenomenon is from 2015, which is indicative of sustained attention. Astaire ( talk ) 23:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Conservatism , Politics , and United States of America . Shellwood ( talk ) 23:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The WSJ piece (which you listed as non-opinion) is actually labeled as opinion. -- Aquillion ( talk ) 00:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment this article reads more like a defense of the term. It needs more content about its usage, its history, generally the things that would make it notable. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 00:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] • Comment I believe this article needs more reliable sources to prove notability if it wants to avoid deletion. Most of the sources were previously opinion pieces from random news websites, and an opinion cannot be considered factual sources. In fact, at one point, there was only a single source that was not an opinion. If actual valid sources could be found, I would not mind the article staying, but not in it’s current state where sources are dubious at best and the term hasn’t really been proven to be an actual notable thing outside of a couple rare “here and there” uses. For now I must support Aquillion’s AFD request, but it appears people are actively trying to edit the article to make it better and should be given more time first. Tritario ( talk ) 19:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As the editor who added a ""This article has been mentioned by a media organization"" template. As I said on the article's talk page: ""Since the creation of the article by Astaire some of the cites have been d, but the sources actually exist and I believe their existence contributes to notability. Of course cited articles are opinion pieces since it's an article about opinions so I don't see what policy or guideline that objection is based on."" Peter Gulutzan ( talk ) 13:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Would this make a better entry to Wikitionary? Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 13:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dunno, I don't use Wiktionary. Peter Gulutzan ( talk ) 14:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see how it can misrepresent publications overall when the authors are all individually named. Potential alternate notable opinions include 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 . On the surface it is a bit long for an article based on 3 sources, but reading through it doesn't stretch them too far. Editors should continue to be conscious that this is a relatively thin article and should allow any new sources that appear to substantially impact our treatment of its subject. GordonGlottal ( talk ) 14:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The idea is that the Wikieditor shoudn't be the one to string it all together. There should be at least one article, preferably more, that mentions these people collectively and says ""Yes, that's the same thing."" Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 00:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC) If a major paper like The Journal uses this term as a headline, there is little doubt that this is notable and that a Wikipedia page has merit. Quote Veteran ( talk ) 05:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC) HEADLINES , though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 17:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I may be somewhat biased on this specific issue, because I have a draft on my computer of an article very similar to this one, but I will say this nonetheless. As a few people have articulated above, it seems to have some pretty wide coverage, and meta-discourse topics like this can certainly be encyclopedic if they're written well. jp × g 🗯️ 20:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC) "" Thankfully, the farce has reached critical mass. Savvy social media users have caught wind of Wikipedia entry, and it’s now under review for deletion. "" Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 08:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Eastport, Idaho: There's only a few sources, and I feel that a couple of sentences can fit in the border crossing rather than being placed in an article that feels like a stub with nothing interesting or pleasing to the reader. NoobThreePointOh ( talk ) 03:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Idaho . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 03:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . See historic images here . See this United States government report: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/master/pnp/habshaer/id/id0100/id0128/data/id0128data.pdf More coverage of Eastport: https://bonnersferryherald.com/search/vertical/news.story/? q=Eastport From Medium.com: https://medium.com/@cheri_28877/canadian-border-crossing-eastport-idaho-69df61947348 Also, https://boundary.idgenweb.org/history/post/eastport-idaho Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC) Note that WP:MEDIUM is generally considered unreliable. No comment on the other sources. Let'srun ( talk ) 02:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] /expand The issue here is really that now the border crossing has basically co-opted the town. I think the latter makes the most sense as a section within the crossing article rather than as a separate article. Also, I have to point out that the only ""good"" source here, that is, the only one that has content which could be used as the basis for writing article text, is not likely to cut the mustard as a reliable source, given the lack of authorship info and citations. Mangoe ( talk ) 04:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with the proposed ion, I feel it will make the page more useful. 24vikie ( talk ) 21:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs ) 04:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Meets GNG per Eastmain. ~ EDDY ( talk / contribs ) ~ 13:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per Eastmain; lots of newspaper coverage as well [54] [55] . AviationFreak 💬 03:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Cody Daigle-Orians: However, it seems the major thing this person is known for is their book and a social media account. They've received some passing mentions for both of these, but there has not been consistent secondary sources about them. For instance, many of the citations are only passing mentions with little in-depth content. Ultimately, it does not appear that this person currently meets the standards for WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR, so this should be d in accordance with Wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkinspyce ( talk • contribs ) 03:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote , but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts : {{subst: spa | username }} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed | username }} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry : {{subst: csm | username }} or {{subst: csp | username }} . Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Sexuality and gender . Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 27 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 04:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] but rewrite. Coverage in newspapers [30] , book review [31] and here [32] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC) GNG guidelines. Pumpkinspyce ( talk ) 15:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Theatre , Louisiana , and Ohio . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The artilcle says that they wrote a non-notable book, a college play and ""several other plays"". How is this person notable? See WP:MILL . -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 18:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I agree, I have neither found nor been shown anything that indicates that this person is notable according to Wikipedia standards. Paul H. ( talk ) 19:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC) 43, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails WP:AUTHOR . One Publishers Weekly review isn't enough (and another by a local librarian doesn't help either). There are a few interviews, but they don't do much for establishing notability. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 03:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . One book with sparse reviews isn't going to be enough for WP:AUTHOR . But I think the Geeks Out , Philly Gay News , Hartford Courant , and Good Morning America references count as SIGCOV towards WP:GNG . Some of these are interviews but I'm not one of these believers in the theory that choosing to format a story as an interview rather than as prose somehow magically causes it to fail to count; they are independently-published stories that in these instances include in-depth information about the subject. The last two are for their Ace Dad column but the others (and the book reviews) are not, so I don't think there's an issue with WP:BIO1E . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC) GNG . There seems like there's a lot of puffery with this article even now, which is why I put it in the AfD queue. Pumpkinspyce ( talk ) 15:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . There is enough WP:SIGCOV as pointed out above by User:David Eppstein and User:Oaktree b . They were also quoted in this Cosmopolitan article about asexuality and apparently they were also nominated in the British LGBT awards 2023 . Raladic ( talk ) 22:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But that isn't a significant award. It's not something widely recognized, so it won't be something that can contribute to the guidelines under Wikipedia:GNG in this case. Pumpkinspyce ( talk ) 15:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC) ANYBIO per the guidelines. Raladic ( talk ) 22:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong . This is such a week article and doesn't meet the guidelines for significant coverage or notability. Seriously, how did this article -- with all of the puffery -- get approved for Wiki? 2600:1009:B06B:ACE6:0:4E:C4DE:D401 ( talk ) 15:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC) — 2600:1009:B06B:ACE6:0:4E:C4DE:D401 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] . I've heard of this person because I live in Central Ohio, but I'd def agree that this is a , since they don't actually meet significant or notable criterions. They've done some stuff (like authoring a book). But all of this is under the WP:Mill , as someone else noted; it's not notable. For the WP:AUTHOR guideline, they also fail. Like I said, they wrote a book, but it's DEFINITELY not something that achieves the level of notability under that. In short, this should totally be d from Wikipedia. 75.118.97.206 ( talk ) 00:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC) — 75.118.97.206 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment, likely a pass at AUTHOR, reviews in Publisher's Weekly [33] , a brief discussion in WaPo [34] , and buzzsfeed, which is less RS [35] , I think we have more than enough for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC) GNG . SportingFlyer T · C 13:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree per nominator. Article also seems to fail WP:GNG , and there's not really much information that seems to indicate importance or notability. 147.0.5.247 ( talk ) 03:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC) — 147.0.5.247 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"James Loxton: I am not seeing anything to indicate he passes WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG , with the only coverage being either signing info, match reports, and stats pages. Primefac ( talk ) 10:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Sports , Rugby union , Germany , Ireland , United Kingdom , and Wales . Primefac ( talk ) 10:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . My own WP:BEFORE has thrown up quite a bit of coverage of the eligibility debate (between the WRU, IRFU and IRB) which is at least contributory under a form of WP:LASTING . I've updated the article with the refs/etc. Not cut-and-dried (hence ""weak ""). But, when in a grey area, I'd lean towards a ... Guliolopez ( talk ) 11:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd go on this one given what Guliolopez has been able to find. Seems to be enough there (albeit just) for the article to be kept. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Guliolopez found a good amount of coverage, particularly due to the IRB eligibility situation. RodneyParadeWanderer ( talk ) 13:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Jaroslav Kopřiva: (NAC Bobsleigh & Skeleton) in Park City. However, this article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG due to lack of sufficient coverage. The closest references I found about him are Ref 1 and Ref 2 . CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 09:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics , and Czech Republic . CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 09:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I expanded the page and I think it is enough to pass GNG. FromCzech ( talk ) 10:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC) FromCzech . -- Habst ( talk ) 13:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - sources added during this discussion establish notability. C 679 16:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Bland skurkar, helgon och vanligt folk: Unfortunately, I don't have access to other sources, and this article isn't easily ed. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Finland . I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Can somebody check Swedish media for notability? Given that the Swedish page for the article lacks sources, I'm doubtful, but it could breathe life into this article. -1ctinus📝 🗨 02:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions . / Julle ( talk ) 09:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . It's a tad difficult to get a good overview of sources from things released in 1999, since the archives tend to be less reliable. Nevertheless, this tour seems to have been one of the most signficant of the year. It got an award from one of the biggest Swedish newspapers, it was talked about as ""the best tour"" and so on. I've tried to expand the article: The singular focus on the album doesn't make sense to me, when the album was a product of an acclaimed tour. My access to sources of the time is not good enough to split them into two separate articles; they belong together. The article also lacked information about the band, which, yet again, might not work as well in a separate article, but should be briefly explained together with the tour and the album. I've expanded the article somewhat and added sources. / Julle ( talk ) 09:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Removed Finland from the deletion sorting. Seems to have been added my mistake instead of Sweden? Don't see the Finnish connection, but please undo my edit if I'm mistaken. / Julle ( talk ) 09:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 02:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , there's quite some significant coverage of the tour, the article should probably be expanded to talk more about the tour/band as the main topic like Julle said, the album seems like it would work better as a section to that article. AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 16:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Could we have an assessment of available sources? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Julle’s assessments above are correct as well. BabbaQ ( talk ) 06:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"An Chol-hyok: Zero references on article. to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_national_football_team#Top_goalscorers Simione001 ( talk ) 23:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 23:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 23:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 23:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. Corresponding article on Korean Wikipedia is also unsourced. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Played a 2 major tournaments so there should be sources, but none located. Giant Snowman 18:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC) What's wrong with this source? It also mentions that there's apparently a story on him in the Choson Sinbo , although I can't find it. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One source on its own is insufficient. Giant Snowman 19:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Though, it seems to mention that there's another story on him in the Choson Sinbo ? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That story could be a 3,000 word overview, or it could be a 3 line puff piece. Giant Snowman 20:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC) SPORTCRIT (which states that it means more sigcov is 'likely'), the appearance of another offline newspaper article on him, and a top player for a very under-developed and difficult-to-find-sources-for nation, I'm not sure I see deletion as the best course of action. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 21:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] let's not be dumb here - he was in the 23-man squad for the World Cup for a country that is famously difficult to find sources for, there's one good article directly on him currently in the article, and the odds that there have been nothing else written about him are incredibly close to zero. I know we've been eliminating bad sports stubs of late, but deleting this one makes absolutely no sense to me. SportingFlyer T · C 22:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Convinced by SportingFlyer. Also, not that it definitively establishes notability, but the fact that 21 other languages have articles on An should say something... BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] —I’m with the two above for the same reasons they expressed. I’ve made this same argument before, especially in the relation to North Korea. There are a bunch of largely useless North Korean articles around here, and I appreciate all the moves to them, but this one should not fall under that general umbrella. Anwegmann ( talk ) 07:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC) the article is now referenced and he took part in a football World Cup, besides playing for a long time for the national team. Rkieferbaum ( talk ) 10:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Maxime Stefani: The most that came up were interviews ( 1 , 2 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league , and France . JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong - French professional footballer. Full France international, played for France B, member of the World Cup squad. Over 100 club appearances. 12 sources in place to back this up. Fleets ( talk ) 20:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey there. Nice work digging these up. If you or anyone else could present a source with a similar amount of coverage to Source #6, I would happily withdraw the nomination. JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC) World Cup player with 8 refs. Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The new sources added to the article show sufficient coverage to pass SPORTCRIT. J Mo 101 ( talk ) 11:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"2024 Valencia residential building fire: If this continues without their response I will take this to ANI. Cutlass Ciera 02:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC) 27, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I suggest ing in the draft space until the subject is more notable? waddie96 ★ ( talk ) 11:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] being as you have put all of my recent articles for deletion without looking further and looking at the basics I feel it is sort of personal that you are deciding to nominate my articles for deletion especially seeing that you looked back a year to see me creating vehicle accident articles mainly in the Philippines that is not in mu opinion relevant here as I am providing a basic paragraph saying what has happened in the article adding the references adding the event of how and what happened and if the article is notable enough to be seen by an official member like a president of a country that should be notable as it is an acknowledged Incident by a leader of a country. Dubstar44 ( talk ) 03:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I caution Cutlass and Lukt64 to use Dubstar44 ’s talk page, followed by dispute resolution if that doesn’t help, before turning to ANI. A threat to a 'complaint to ANI' is disturbing and gut-wrenching for a Wiki user , I’m sure we’ve all had the threat wavered over our heads, and it’s no shallow one. Let’s be civil. We all have one clear goal editing Wikipedia. I have made comments on a draft space article of Dubstar44’s, and also posted some comments on their talk page. waddie96 ★ ( talk ) 11:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . When BBC News covers an incident in Spain, that's a pretty strong hint that the topic is notable. The corresponding article in the Spanish Wikipedia is much longer and has several references from reliable sources. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC) Incendio de Valencia de 2024 Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC) 40, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "" the way the building was in flames within 10 minutes should be notable in itself"" No that is a criterion for notability. LibStar ( talk ) 05:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you look at the Wikipedia list of building or structure fires, ones that do have an article have either more societal impact or deaths. Yxuibs ( talk ) 03:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The incident has happened recently and with cutlass ceearing this deletion the article was up for no more than 15 minutes allowing no time for the article to be expanded on. Dubstar44 ( talk ) 03:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Spain . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC) NOTNEWS , the fact that BBC covers it doesn't necessarily add to notability. Revisit in 6 months to see if this fire has an WP:EFFECT . LibStar ( talk ) 03:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Currently 4 people are confirmed dead and 19 others are missing, which could make it one of the deadliest building fires in Spain's recent history. It's already being reported as the most serious fire in Valencia since the 19th century and the story is dominating Spanish news media. This easily passes notability. I also think articles shouldn't be nominated for deletion when the incident itself has not even concluded yet, as doing so only discourages people who make a sincere effort to write something. At least give it some time. Johndavies837 ( talk ) 03:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia, we definitely don't document every event with 4 deaths. What next a traffic accident with 4 deaths covering in the media? LibStar ( talk ) 04:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A large fire potentially killing up to 23 people and leaving hundreds of people homeless is not at all comparable to a traffic accident. Johndavies837 ( talk ) 04:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""potentially killing up to 23 people"". Now you're WP:CRYSTAL balling. LibStar ( talk ) 04:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Spanish firefighters have said they don't expect to find the 19 missing people alive, so yes that would be up to 23 killed. Johndavies837 ( talk ) 05:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's still speculation. LibStar ( talk ) 05:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's relevant to the discussion when it's coming from an official source. There's really no need to an article while the event is still ongoing. Although I would still vote even if the death toll remained the same. Johndavies837 ( talk ) 05:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC) N and WP:NEVENT before commenting on AfDs like this. Nothing you're saying is actually relevant to whether this article is notable or non-notable. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 05:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC) N and WP:NEVENT . My original comment said it was already the worst fire in the region since the 19th century, possibly one of the deadliest building fires in Spain's recent history, and dominating Spanish media. It's also getting international coverage as noted by others. This event clearly passes all notability requirements. Even now, more than 24 hours later, it's still the top story on the BBC. Johndavies837 ( talk ) 18:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . An event being in the news does not make it notable. Being deadly means absolutely nothing in regard to the notability criteria. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 04:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Although not as serious as the Grenfell Tower fire , there is a significant number of deaths, with the toll likely to rise. The current death toll (mid-teens) is high enough to sustain an article. Mjroots ( talk ) 06:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I just checked the death toll, right now it's 4 not mid teens. LibStar ( talk ) 11:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] for now. I would be happy to reassess its notability in a few months, but it looks significant enough at the moment. Ron Oliver ( talk ) 06:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify . It's WP:TOOSOON to say there's a lasting notability, and while there may be it's speculation to say there is, so draftifying instead of deleting makes sense to me, although a to evaluate again in a few months is also agreeable. Shaws username . talk . 11:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Looking at more sources since my last ! vote I'm more inclined that it does merit ing, the BBC still has a live reporting page for it. There's widespread international coverage from the US , India , France , South Korea , Aljazeera , the Ledbury Reporter (which seems to be a local newspaper in England) and more. It remains to be seen if it's WP:SUSTAINED into the future but that can be looked at with an AfD in a few months. Shaws username . talk . 16:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It appears to be a notable fire. It's very likely more information will become available of the aftermath and investigation. In this case WP:RUSHDELETE apply in my opinion. 82.174.61.58 ( talk ) 14:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The scale of the devastation is too big and is a serious mass casualty incident. Borgenland ( talk ) 14:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong At 6 people dead right now, and over 10 more missing and presumed dead, it might be the deadliest fire in the history of València and the second-worst peacetime building fire in Spain after the 1979 Hotel Corona de Aragón fire . MaeseLeon ( talk ) 16:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC) 32, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How is the number of people that died a criterion for notability? LibStar ( talk ) 23:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC) May have a lasting impact like the Grenfell fire did, but it is too early to know. Either way, a fire which kills 10 people in a developed country like Spain is notable, especially as it has been covered by many international sources like BBC News , CNN , Al Jazeera and ABC News (Australia) . harrz talk 16:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""May have a lasting impact like the Grenfell fire did, but it is too early to know."" Which is a reason for not ing. LibStar ( talk ) 23:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fatal incident widely covered in international media. Parallels to Grenfell Tower fire have been noted in several articles already, sparking discussions on the use of cladding materials. Consider WP:SNOW close RWalen ( talk ) 16:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 10 deaths in one of the most serious fires in Spain's recent history, with international coverage and with an article in good condition is notable. There would be no doubt if it had happened in Kansas City or Manchester. _-_Alsor ( talk ) 21:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC) This is a catastrophic fire that has killed at least 9 with many more missing. The fire echos back to the Grenfell Tower fire with two entire buildings engulfed and appears to have involved flammable cladding like the Grenfell Tower fire. This event is very significant and will likely go down in history as one of the worst fire in modern Spanish history. The fire has also been covered by media from around the world. User:Stormchaser246 ( talk ) 23:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC) 9 deaths + 1 missing, the worst accident of this kind in the Valencian Community and in the Spanish state for ages, echoes to the Grenfell Tower fire , international and foreign local media attention are enough reasons to it on the wiki. Had it happened in an Anglophone country we'd probably wouldn't even be discussing it. -- Sacesss ( talk ) 09:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC) The very rapid spread of the fire tips the event into notability for me. (The fact that the article was started by someone who has also started unrelated articles on non-notable subjects is irrelevant.)-- A bit iffy ( talk ) 04:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC) 26, 24 February 2024 (UTC) 34, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , per all noted above (death toll, reported worldwide, debate over cladding materials). Alexcalamaro ( talk ) 06:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment should we also create an article for this? China: 15 dead and dozens more injured in Nanjing flat fire LibStar ( talk ) 09:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Definitely yes. As @ Sacesss suggests, had it happened in Kansas City or Manchester instead of Nanjing, there would already be a 100 Kb article by now, and nobody disputing if it's notable enough. You're invited to start it. MaeseLeon ( talk ) 10:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have already created Nanjing fire article in Chinese Wikipedia. The article about València residential complex fire at least has a cause and effect, and is not simply news. And a large scale fire will have investigation results in the future, so it is likely to be mentioned again in the future. 日期20220626 ( talk ) 11:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong , far from local news, made the top bracket of the BBC home page. Ten deaths in a housing catastrophe in a developed country is far from usual. I have no doubts that if this had happened in Nowhere, Vermont and the in-depth sources were in English, this page would be 300k in length now. Unknown Temptation ( talk ) 15:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A misleading and unconstructive nomination containing a bad-faith attack on an editor. If a fire of this scale had occured in the UK or US there would be no credible suggestion of deletion and the article would be nearly unreadable in length. 2022 Bronx apartment fire was literally listed at ITN, not being nominated for deletion. Some editors need to understand systemic bias and stop trying to make the issue worse. AusLondonder ( talk ) 18:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is an unfounded accusation. At the time of nominating this article for deletion the death toll was marked as 4 and it was a stub with one source. The article when I nominated it I looked at the sources and noticed it was mainly routine coverage. After I nominated this article for deletion the article was massively expanded. The creator of the original article has had many problems with creating disaster stubs and one sentence vehicle accident stubs. Cutlass Ciera 18:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a building safety related topic. This is not another fire in a building, this fire was caused by a bad thermal insulation material choice. The death toll was low due most of inhabitants left the building early. -- RíoCigüela ( talk ) 23:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] also per all noted above (building materials, worldwide reporting, etc.). JoseJan89 ( talk ) 11:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Spain . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 18:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC) I just sorted this into the events and Spain deletion discussion lists. I do not believe this should be SNOW closed so that editors who watch those lists should be given time to review this article. (Note: brought here by discussion on the enwiki Discord channel .) voorts ( talk / contributions ) 18:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it already was on the 23rd, the text saying that just burried among the comments. Shaws username . talk . 23:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC) Note that there is a discussion about this AfD at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Questionable activity at an AfD . The big ugly alien ( talk ) 23:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per all noted above. waddie96 ★ ( talk ) 11:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Iron man (sports streak): Article seems to suggest that McGinnity was the first person to be given such a moniker, but the sources don't suggest that. Seems like a thing more suitable to being used at the already existing Iron Man , where's there is scope for a WP:CONCEPTDAB . Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 13:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sports . Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 13:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong - as an encyclopedic concept, this easily passes GNG with in-depth coverage that exists on the web. Nominator (and other editors discussing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#The mess at Cinderella (sports) ) appears mostly to have an issue with the table at the bottom of the article, and to that I repeat what Bagumba said in that discussion, AfD is not cleanup . Demonstration of GNG pass: ESPN The Hockey News mlb.com as well as numerous mentions in articles detailing specific athletes/leagues: Frontstretch CBC.ca etc. ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But these just refer to long-held records. Just because a term is used frequently, it doesn't make the concept itself notable. It has no real place of being different from, say winning streak , or losing streak (which, should probably be d). It's just a streak set about by someone doing the thing consistently. How is this distinct from the idea of ""Iron Man"" that would cover the start of the DAB page? Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 15:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC) CONCEPTDAB . "" at either Iron Man , which is an article about a fictional character (and you have referred to with this capitalization multiple times now), or Ironman , which is a DAB which contains numerous entries including the aforementioned character and Iron Man (song) , neither of which have anything to do with the sports concept. What is covering the start of the DAB frankly, shouldn't be there as ""Ironman"" has WP:NOPRIMARY and the list of people should be moved to a relevant section in that DAB page or removed entirely, since the link to this article exists in that DAB, too. Even within the Sports section, Iron man match and Ironman triathlon are entirely different concepts from this one. Secondly, the concept is based heavily on ""the thing"" , which is holding a record for most consecutive starts. It is not merely a simple winning or losing streak. MLB.com (which would need attribution in wiki-voice for this specific claim since it is talking about an MLB record) says that Ripkin's record ""feels like one of the sport’s most unbreakable records"" , while Frontstretch says that Jeff Gordon's ""won’t be on thin ice for a long, long time. "" after Kevin Harvick retires following this season. The prose needs serious WP:TNT , and the table could use some trimming to address your issue with WP:INDISCRIMINATE (I cannot find anything describing Lewis Hamilton's record in my searches so far, for example). But I disagree entirely with your assertions here. ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Subject is notable, regardless of the current quality of the article. – Muboshgu ( talk ) 15:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Ghost of Dan Gurney. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 17:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] it's a widely used term, Ghost of Dan Gurney said it well. » Bray talk 19:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC) GNG as there are several significant sources that discuss both individual and lists of Iron men in sports. Some examples: The Iron Man Club: Top Consecutive Games Played Streaks in Sports (SportsCasting), Beyond the Streak: The Iron Men of Sports (Medium), Phil Kessel joins Ripken, Favre and other ironman athletes (ESPN), Nets’ Mikal Bridges is more than NBA’s Iron Man; he’s determined: ‘I just want to play every game’ (The Athletic), A Salute to the NFL Ironmen of the Decade (Sports Illustrated), PBA: LA Tenorio’s ‘Iron Man’ streak ends at 744 games (Philippines Daily Inquirer), Phil Kessel ties NHL's 'Iron Man' record with 989 straight games (CBS News). Alvaldi ( talk ) 09:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As the creator of the article, I'll defer to others judgement on the matter, but the idea regarding creating the article in the first place is that the concept of a sports ""iron man"" is widely regarded in many major sports and is notable in those circles, and commented on and newsworthy, which is significant and is of interest to many in the sports world, and written about quite a bit. Stylteralmaldo ( talk ) 12:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Cwmgelli Cemetery: No significant details I could find. Nagol0929 ( talk ) 14:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - part is a war grave, but these are relatively common in municipal graveyards in Wales and therefore I don't think shows notability. I'm not seeing anything much else. JMWt ( talk ) 16:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC) I cannot find good enough references to indicate that this passes WP:GNG . InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 18:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC) ATD : there is still salvageable information and it deserves a mention even if it should not have its own article. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 16:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC) merging is now impractical because a lot of information has been added. The article just passes WP:GNG . InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 18:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with Treboeth - Per the above, nothing makes this a significant cemetary. Page is an orphan, and would be a permastub as there is insufficient information to write an article. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 10:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, I put this up there as a starter. I didn't realise that a page had to be created in such a fully rendered form. I've added more detail and will continue to do so in the hope that the page remains. Thanks for you help with this. Orange Sorbet ( talk ) 10:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, no need to be sorry. Many pages start small and per WP:DEMOLISH , we shouldn't be deleting articles just because the article is new and unfinished. The concern here, however, is that there is not really anything that can be said about the subject that is notable for an article. It might be better to put a few lines about the cemetery in the Treboeth article, which does not mention it. I'll happily change my ! vote to """" on that basis. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 11:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (or if not enough content for a separate article) - It is on the register of historic parks and gardens so seems notable enough, and more sources can be found by searching alternative spellings - cwmgelly, or cwm-gelli. EdwardUK ( talk ) 13:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think we have a policy that says being a registered historical park and garden is sufficient indication of notability for inclusion, but I'd be interested to see precedence or policy if there is one. JMWt ( talk ) 15:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The register was given statutory status in 2022, before which it was unlikely to have been considered as indicating notability. It usually means there will be descriptions on the Cadw and Coflein websites similar to those given for listed buildings, and though this is no guarantee of notability, these can be helpful for passing GNG, but this would still depend on what other sources are added. EdwardUK ( talk ) 18:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] that seems to me to be contradicting what you previously said It is on the register of historic parks and gardens so seems notable enough . If you are not offering presence on the register as a sign of notability, what did you mean please? As far as I can tell, listed buildings are not presumed notable by WP:NBUILD so I can't really see why a park or other urban open space would be under a similar designation. JMWt ( talk ) 18:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Having checked the sources again may be the better option. my original statement was not worded very well – the so seems notable enough should have been at the end. It is more that I think a heritage listing indicates that a site is not non-notable – the content is worth mentioning, so even if the other sources do not provide enough for it to be a separate article it could still be used as part of a wider article (in this case the nearest town/settlement), rather than deleting. A brief search suggested the cemetery is mentioned in various other sources though on closer examination these are generally about the people buried there so would probably not pass the ""No inherited notability"" guideline. EdwardUK ( talk ) 23:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes we do. WP:GEOFEAT : Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC) 51, 13 June 2023 (UTC) GEOFEAT . That goes for all categories of listing, not just Grade I (and yes, gardens are listed at I, II* and II just like buildings). -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC) GEOFEAT specifies that listed parks and gardens are presumed to be notable but that listed buildings are not. However, this is not the place to debate that issue. I don't object to retaining the article on that basis. Verbcatcher ( talk ) 17:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It doesn't. It specifies that all heritage listed man-made features are notable. Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. That clearly includes buildings and has been held to include buildings at pretty much all AfDs on the subject (usually with the exception of editors who'd like to as many articles as possible). -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 07:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Treboeth as things stand but if one more source with indepth coverage is found. Just falls short of passing the significant coverage requirement of WP:GNG . The following ought to count as one of the sources towards notability, namely, a 670 word report on the cemetery's opening in the Swansea Journal and South Wales Liberal (28 Sept. 1895 page 4). The article details and comments on the site's cost, acreage, capacity, drainage, the lie of the land, has a brief description of the chapel, proposed tree planting & flower borders. The article notes that it is "" the first public cemetery in Wales in which no portion is consecrated "", adding to its notability. The listing at CADW should also count so we have two sources providing independent, reliable, indepth coverage. There's shorter pieces on the planning and financing of the cemetery in The Cardiff Times (17 Aug. 1889) and the South Wales Daily News (17 Aug. 1892), but that's all I've managed to find. Rupples ( talk ) 04:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Spent some time thinking about this and after further consideration I'm changing my opinion from to . I didn't properly examine the WP:GEOFEAT case put forward by Necrothesp . The CADW website states that Historic parks and gardens are part of Wales’s national identity. They enrich the texture and pattern of our landscapes and form a valuable record of social, cultural and economic change . . . . Registration identifies parks and gardens which are of special historic interest to Wales. . . . These nationally important places provide a connection with the lives and ambitions of past generations. A search of CADW listings here [1] under asset type 'Historic Parks and Gardens' with site type 'cemetery' revealed only 6 listed cemeteries for the whole of Wales. The cemetery is notable and sources are adequate to write a short but informative, encyclopedic article. Rupples ( talk ) 17:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above, and the fact that this article is now bigger than Treboeth, making a r impractical. Dank Jae 15:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion seems divided between those wanting to this article and those advocating a Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , changing by view from , in view of the expansion of the article. In particular, the paragraph about consecration, which reflects the tensions between the established church and Non-conformist groups which led to the Welsh Church Act 1914 – but I'd like a modern source for this. Verbcatcher ( talk ) 20:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Corinne Silva: No references. No pages linked. Never quite sure with artists where notability lies. Don't think so in this case. Seaweed ( talk ) 18:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Women , Photography , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I'm guessing this is either an autobiography or other type of COI creation by a gallery that shows her work due to the entirely unsourced article containing many details about her. A WP:BEFORE search found a review of her work in Financial Times : [7] , but almost everything else I have found so far seems to be gallery PR, social media, an interview [8] (primary source that doesn't count towards notability because no editorial content), a book review on F-stop magazine's blog, [9] , database listings, press releases. I also found an online artist project for which she took the photos [10] . The Wikipedia Library found an in-depth article by TJ Demos in Photoworks Journal [11] (you might have to log into WP:LIB to read it). What seems to be missing are a track record of art reviews by critics or art historians, works in museum collections, so I don't think she meets NARTIST, but I think she may meet GNG. Holding off on ! voting for now, as I'd like to hear feedback from others who edit in the visual arts/photography area. Netherzone ( talk ) 20:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I had marked this for notability in 2021. I was in the middle of another task, and did not get back to clean-up/. No improvement made to article. Notability tag removed by SPA without adding a single reference. I am not finding any RS to confirm claims made in the article. Fails WP:ARTIST . -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 18:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC) - Changing vote to per WP:HEY . I rewrote the lede becasue we still don't have a birth year or place and the second sentence was artspeak, not supported by the citation. I also think the unsourced last paragraph of shows should be removed. Only to be returned with sourcing. Article has changed from an artist statement to an article. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 23:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC) Everything about it leaves a bad taste. Nowhere near statisfying WP:GNG . MaskedSinger ( talk ) 07:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - This is nothing more than a artist statement and bio. Complete with the empty ""art speak"". This has no business being on wikipedia. Steelyphilly ( talk ) 13:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC) As the article has rewritten I flip my vote to . Thank you@ Netherzone for your research! I still think that artist statements have no business being on here! Steelyphilly ( talk ) 01:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC) BEFORE finds that she clearly meets WP:GNG . While in the early stages of her career as an artist who works in the genre of environmental photography and socially aware photography, her work has indeed received critical/analytical coverage that one would expect a notable artist to have. While she does not yet meet WP:NARTIST , there is enough WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources that she solidly meets the general notability guideline . I invite WomenArtistUpdates , MaskedSinger and Steelyphilly to consider the in-depth reliable sources that have been found: Magazine article on her work: Financial Times Magazine, January 2019 “Plants, Power and the Israeli State” by Shela Sheikh , https://www.ft.com/content/2847ba10-08b4-11e9-9fe8-acdb36967cfc (try clearing your browser cookies to bypass the paywall) An entire academic journal article on her work: ""Cultivated Affects The Artistic Politics of Landscape and Memory in Amman’s Gardens"" by Colin McLaughlin-Alcock, published: 17 December 2020 https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/var.12219 (you will need a WP:LIB card to access this on Wiley) Journal article by Caruso, Martina. 2019. ""Conversing with Ghosts of the Previously Tamed: lens-based media technologies and non-human animals in the work of Christoph Keller, Corinne Silva and Basma Alsharif"" in ESPACE art actuel ‘Point de vue animal/Animal Point of View’, no. 121 (Winter), pp. 28 – 33. Book chapter on her work in: “Photography Reframed: New Visions in Contemporary Photographic Culture.” Editors: Ben Burbridge, Annebella Pollen, the chapter by Chad Elias is on her work: “Landscape Photography's 'New Humanism”, pages 175-186. ISBN 9781784538828, I.B. Tauris (I was able to view on Google Books) Her book, “Garden State”, in addition to the review by Hans Durrer in F-Stop Magazine’s blog [12] linked above, there is this review: 2016 Book review: Corinne Silva: Garden State, by Francesca Laura Cavallo, Camera Austria, Issue 135 [13] In addition to the twelve-page spread by TJ Demos linked above, (2012) Spaces of Global Capital: On the Photography of Corinne Silva & Jason Larkin, TJ Demos, Photoworks 19, ISBN 9781903796368, [14] there is this review: [15] , this review [16] , this interview: [17] , The article need to be rewritten, probably pruned back to a short stub with proper citations. Netherzone ( talk ) 17:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] fair enough. i will take a look. MaskedSinger ( talk ) 17:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] indeed. I added three of the refs above to the article. Still not finding any biographical information that can be used in the article. I will continue looking. I can't get past the FT paywall. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 17:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [18] I copied the text from the article and will email it to you where you can read it offline if you can't access it thru an alternative browser. If I post it here it will be a COPYVIO. Netherzone ( talk ) 18:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC) 25, 23 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions . Netherzone ( talk ) 15:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per HEY, and if this one has been improved enough to make WomenArtistUpdates flip to that's certainly an indication that things are looking up for the page. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 11:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Gerhana Skacinta: I would PROD but an IP just started editing it again (which is why I remembered it existed) and would likely be a waste of time. Primefac ( talk ) 12:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music , and Malaysia . Primefac ( talk ) 12:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC) BAND#C7 . Moreover, the band has 62 total hits on ProQuest, and while it's likely that many of those are only brief mentions, it's enough to show that they're well known in the region, and that detailed Malay sources are likely to exist. Mach61 14:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm the one who started the article. ""Non-notable"" where? There were popular and well known in Malaysia. Are they now? I don't know but that's not necessary for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a policy of trying to include topics left out due to systemic bias and, ""They were popular in Malaysia, but who cares about that???"" is the kind of systemic bias we should be working against here. I didn't add citations or sources when I started the stub: that was not common back then. I might try to do that now, or others can help. Interlingua ( talk ) 13:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Also some coverage in NME (which is considered a RS): [4] , lesser coverage here [5] Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Christmas Next Door: Everything is either routine coverage or blog reviews. Should be d as non-notable, or a to List of Hallmark Channel Original Movies . Was previously PROD'd. Donald D23 talk to me 11:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Television , and United States of America . Donald D23 talk to me 11:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . What is currently on the page seems enough. There is at least also this in Romper . — MY, OH, MY ! 12:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] a one-click search also gives this , and this ...— MY, OH, MY ! 14:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC) RS as it is WP:USERGENERATED . Donald D23 talk to me 17:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok. But Romper , see 1st line of my comment, is not a blog, Is it? — MY, OH, MY ! 22:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC) (actually it was already on the page, I had missed it. But large audience + at least 2 sources seem to be enough) [ reply ] I concur that Romper is a RS. Donald D23 talk to me 11:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . It was already kept once [4] . Kirill C1 ( talk ) 12:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Someone removing a PROD with the rationale that it ""may be notable"" is not a valid reason. Sources proving notability must be provided, not an opinion that it is notable. Donald D23 talk to me 13:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC) NEXIST says. Jclemens ( talk ) 15:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand that sources MAY exist, but nothing has be provided. We don't based on MAYBE. Sources don't need to be added, but they need to exist. Nothing has been added except blog reviews, and just saying """" based on those blog reviews will not suffice. Sources must be RELIABLE, meaning oversight. There is zero oversight on a personal blog. Donald D23 talk to me 17:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources in article do seem sufficient, and those presented above seal the deal. Jclemens ( talk ) 15:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources in the article are blogs. Out of the 2 listed by Kirill, only the Movie Scene can be considered reliable. The other one...yep, another blog. Donald D23 talk to me 17:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC) NFILM Donald D23 talk to me 11:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"J. Sai Deepak: Recreated in June 2023. Evaluation of the references are below but subject fails WP:ANYBIO . I noted the dates so it can be seen if there are any significant changes since the 2020 deletion. CNMall41 ( talk ) 03:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Law . CNMall41 ( talk ) 03:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here is my evaluation of the sources. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 03:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Business Standard – (July 2018) Reliable source but it is written by “Indian News” with not byline. Publication is known for being a content farm so source is questionable imho. Indian Express – (July 2018) Talks about a case he was involved in and not about him. Mumbai Mirror – (August 2018) Reads like a puff piece so not sure if we can consider it reliable. Owned by The Times Group with this discussion (although only one comment) from WP:RSN . The Print – (June 2018) Never heard of publication prior to this but the article only contains quotes from the subject about a legal case so not significant. Live Mint – (October 2020) Branded post (sponsored or paid for) so not reliable. The Quint – (February 2020) Talks about a court case he argued but is more about the case than about him. The Hindu – (May 2022) Another that talks about a case he argued but is more about the case than him. Time of India – (February 2023) Brief mention. Article also has no byline and is likely part of paid content as recently discussed at RSN . India Today – (November 2022) – Another one with byline of “India Today Web Desk” so no actual author and indicates more content farm as noted in the RSN discussion above. Google link to search results – Original research. Points to no actual reference. First Post – Subjects author profile. Not in-depth about the subject. First Post – (September 2022) – This is a good article and thought it would be useful. However, the disclaimer at the bottom says “This author is opinion editor……views expressed are personal.” The Print – (May 2022) This has a section about his book, but not in-depth about him. Could possibly be used to show notability for the book, but not for him personally in my opinion. The Sunday Guardian – (October 2021) I will assume this is reliable for the book (not him), although I cannot find any editorial standards. There is a Wikipedia page about the publication so absent a discussion I am not sure. Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and India . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 11:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC) Passes NAUTHOR as his books has been subject of multiple reviews. Firstpost , Vivekananda Institute Of Professional Studies , Business Line , O. P. Jindal Global University and The Sunday Guardian . ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk ! 17:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC) NAUTHOR . The book itself would ALSO need to be ""significant or well-known."" Having a few reviews only verifies its existence. In addition, I previously cited sources such as First Post and stated why I feel they are not notable. I am seeing a lot of these types of references being part of content farms and believe this is also the case here with some of the references you cited. No byline, no editorial oversight, or written in a promotion manner. That aside, how do we know the book is significant of well-know? Was it possibly on a bestseller list? -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 05:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Multiple reviews"" is a criteria for meeting notability guidelines. There are four criteria for NAUTHOR and it is not necessary to meet all fours. We can say that the book is notable and ""significant or well-known."" because as per NBOOK, if ' The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself . This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews .', then the 'book is presumed notable'. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk ! 17:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source Analysis 1 - Firstpost - Reliable website which has detailed review about his book. 2 - Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies - Reliable journal which has detailed review about his book. 3 - Business Line - Reliable newspaper which has detailed review about his book. 4 - O. P. Jindal Global University - Press Release by Staff 5 - The Sunday Guardian - Reliable newspaper which has detailed review about his book. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk ! 18:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It means that the writer passes NAUTHOR and his book also passes NBOOK. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk ! 18:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""There are four criteria for NAUTHOR and it is not necessary to meet all fours"" - You are correct. The issue is that you stated it meets one of the four (NA3), yet only quoted part of that one which supported your contention. You stated it must have multiple reviews but left out the part of NA3 that states ""significant or well-known."" -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 06:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are mixing two notability guidelines. The book must be significant or well-known. Just because a book meets Wikipedia notability guidelines does not mean that it is significant or well-known. Under WP:NBOOK , two reviews would qualify a book for a Wikipedia page. So maybe a book would qualify for a Wikipedia page but that doesn't fit the well-known criteria. If that were the case, anyone can self-publish a book, get two reviews on it, then qualify for an author Wikipedia page based on those reviews. I also think your assessment of significant coverage is wrong as you cited a press release which I have never seen used to establish notability for anything on Wikipedia. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 06:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry to butt in but the existence of reviews or other independent sources IS what establishes notability. It's entirely possible for a hypothetical self-published book to meet notability guidelines while something from a big publisher doesn't, it's just that books from big publishers are more likely to become well known. BuySomeApples ( talk ) 09:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are more than welcome to butt in of course. You are correct about the reviews making a book notable. However, a book being notable for Wikipedia does not mean that it is ""significant or well-known."" I think the argument for ! in this case is that there is a presumption that if a book has a Wikipedia page it is significant, but that is not the case based on my previous statements above. It simply means it qualifies for a Wikipedia page and there is no inherent notability. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 16:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm relisting because there are two contradictory views on whether or not book reviews received by the article subject are sufficient to establish his own notability. More opinions and review of all of these sources would be welcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC) 's sources. BuySomeApples ( talk ) 09:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC) 17, 16 August 2023 (UTC) The 2 books written by the author have been cited by peers. The citations for the 1st one are available here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=835200378983711540&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en , the citations for the second one haven't come in since this book is relatively recent. The author has significantly advanced the understanding of Decoloniality , the Two-nation theory and the Constitution of India . He has also contributed tremendously to intellectual property law & its interpretation in India as one of his blogs has been cited by the Madras High Court in a judicial decision. Now should only that blog post be eligible to have a Wikipedia article, and not the author? Clearly the author isn't notable only for his 2 books but also his blogs & research papers, which have a decent number of citations & good h-index scores. The author has created a significant body of work, including but not limited to: books, blogs, newspaper articles, research papers, lectures, speeches, forum discussions. The author's work has attracted a lot of critical attention as evidenced by the citations & reviews, so NAUTHOR (4c) is satisfied. The author's work is also represented within the permanent collections of multiple notable galleries, including the European Parliament, multiple universities including but not limited to Harvard Law School & the University of Oxford, the British Library among many others, as evidenced by the WorldCat results: https://www.worldcat.org/title/1263872808 , https://www.worldcat.org/title/1346408038 . Overall, NAUTHOR says even if only the book/body of work of an author is notable, the author is still found to be notable. Would like to know your thoughts @ CNMall41 , thanks for the stimulating & civil discussion. PunishedRottweilerAppreciator ( talk ) 14:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC) 40, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""This guideline applies to authors ... and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. "" In my opinion all 4 conditions above have been met as explained in the comment you replied to. I would be glad to provide more evidence of this criteria being met if required. PunishedRottweilerAppreciator ( talk ) 20:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC) NEWSORGINDIA . -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 16:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC) 01, 17 August 2023 (UTC) 15, 18 August 2023 (UTC) This is the author's Google Scholar Page: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22J.+Sai+Deepak%22 . He has a total of 60 citations for his research papers/books, I believe this is a good number of citations. Also, he has been cited by the Madras High Court in one of its judgements, this court is the Indian equivalent of a US Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. I believe this satisfies the 1st point. Evidence for criteria #2: It is hard to prove whether someone has originated a new theory, idea or concept. However, the reviews pointed out by @ LordVoldemort728 show that the author's books have significantly advanced the understanding of decoloniality, the Two Nation Theory and the Constitution of India. Evidence for criteria #3: The author's Google Scholar Page, his books, speeches, lectures, forum discussions & arguments in courts of law do constitute a significant body of work. They have also been subjected to independent critical review as pointed out by @ LordVoldemort728 . Evidence for criteria #4: This person's work has indeed attracted significant critical attention and has become a part of the permanent collections of several notable galleries/libraries. Linking the WorldCat results once again: https://www.worldcat.org/title/1263872808 , https://www.worldcat.org/title/1346408038 . Book #1 is a permanent part of 81 libraries, Book #2 is part of 22 libraries. These lists include the European Parliament, Harvard Law School, University of Harvard, the British Library among many other such institutions which are notable. PunishedRottweilerAppreciator ( talk ) 18:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We are going to have to agree to disagree at this point. Also, ""galleries/libraries"" is not the guideline. It is ""galleries or museums. "" Please do not misrepresent what the guideline says. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC) 35, 18 August 2023 (UTC) 44, 21 August 2023 (UTC) https://allaboutil.wordpress.com/2021/10/13/top-cited-international-law-scholars-in-india/ , the author concerned here would be at number 19 with the number of his citations. PunishedRottweilerAppreciator ( talk ) 09:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC) 32, 21 August 2023 (UTC) 42, 23 August 2023 (UTC) 10, 28 August 2023 (UTC) https://www.proquest.com/docview/2829780528/D826625A5184D56PQ/7 , https://www.proquest.com/docview/2841176437/D826625A5184D56PQ/10 , https://www.proquest.com/docview/2835516155/D826625A5184D56PQ/27 . As these are more negative than positive, they cannot be said to be promotional but add to overall notability. - Indefensible ( talk ) 19:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC) 45, 28 August 2023 (UTC) https://pq-static-content.proquest.com/collateral/media2/documents/newsresources-catalog.pdf . PunishedRottweilerAppreciator ( talk ) 07:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC) 03, 29 August 2023 (UTC) 11, 28 August 2023 (UTC) GNG BlackOrchidd ( talk ) 06:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to closer - There are additional ""! Votes"" on the talk page of this AfD for your consideration. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 17:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Tim Anderson (programmer): If anyone wants to add enough details to justify a stand-alone biographical article that option would remain available. CapnZapp ( talk ) 12:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Science fiction and fantasy , and Video games . CapnZapp ( talk ) 12:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC) BEFORE finds some passable sources [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] Working on WP:HEY 'ing article IceBergYYC ( talk ) 06:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC) The reason I nominated this article wasn't because it wasn't sourced, but because it basically said nothing about the individual past ""creating Zork"". Thus, my suggestion to to Zork . I still don't see why this person merits an article if we can't find any sources actually discussing the subject. As for co-founding Infocom, well, not all of the co-founders have their own Wiki page. What I'm trying to say is: while I commend your work to save articles from deletion, so far I don't see any addition that convinces me the article merits ing. However, I realize that being notable for two things (both creating Zork and co-founding Infocom) likely will make some editors not want to have to decide where to . CapnZapp ( talk ) 07:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Expanded again. I feel that now in its current state it's likely enough to stand alone. IceBergYYC ( talk ) 15:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - article has been significantly improved, looks to have sufficient referencing to support article quality and notability. - Indefensible ( talk ) 21:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Sufficient, sourced information on a clearly notable person. Kind regards, Grueslayer 05:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"The Hope Division: Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs , United States of America , and California . UtherSRG (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC) The Sputnikmusic review had to go because it wasn't from staff, but the other three reviews (which were already there, just not in ref tags) should be plenty. Both AbsolutePunk and Alternative Press are listed at WP:RSMUSIC . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 17:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 01:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC) per norm. Non-charting album, no certificates nor awards. ihateneo ( talk ) 13:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are plenty of notable albums which have none of those things. Does the GNG pass mean nothing to you? QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 15:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] QuietHere , that's why i said ""per norm"", the reason why this is a discussion is because the outcome or fate of this article isn't solely decided by one person. I covered what wasn't mentioned, you want me to repeat what's already been said? ihateneo ( talk ) 01:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ihateneo this response makes no sense to me. What norm? Again, plenty of notable albums don't have charting or certs, but they get a pass based on the amount of coverage they received from reliable sources anyway. The ""norm"" would be to look at all tenets at play, including GNG/NALBUM#1, and determine whether they are met, not ignore them for no reason and anyway. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 06:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think they meant ""per nom"". - UtherSRG (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: And it is true that albums do not have to chart or have awards to be considered notable. But it helps. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC) This from Australia [100] helps, I think we have enough to . Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC) NALBUM .1/GNG given sources presented by QuietHere and Oaktree. — siro χ o 05:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Tom Zubrycki: Blow it away and let someone independent start over. Note that the author has repeatedly removed the autobiography tag from the page but has self identified as the subject. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 09:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Australia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Am in the process of editing entry to make it less 'promotional'. Have added links to film referred to in ""writing/directing career"". Over the next 7 days will check and add references and citations. I would like to take on board any suggestions to improve this entry. Thanks Tzub ( talk ) 11:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your use of promotional in quotes suggest you disagree or don't understand. You need to immediately stop editing this article about yourself, if things have gotten so bad you end up at AfD, the game is up. Read WP:COI right now. You risk not only complete deletion of your Wikipedia profile, but public embarrassment - oh look the guy who got into a pissing match at Wikipedia because he was editing his own article. Duffbeerforme is right, let other people edit the article, this is how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not your CV or place in history, it's whatever people besides yourself want to say - that's why it's valuable. You have your own website to write about yourself. There are so many problems with your article clearly you don't understand the norms and rules of Wikipedia, or flaunt them, either way it will not go well for you if you continue this way. -- Green C 15:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC) 24, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC) The quote from the film encyclopedia seems solid, this also helps [25] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"List of cities in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania: Shellwood ( talk ) 23:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the two lists. I think the AFDed article, List of cities in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania is probably the better target to be updated with data and information from List of cities in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern by population . As always, I am willing to undertake such a . — siro χ o 00:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the two. It may be worth looking at the German Wiki article here for comparison and any references. Bermicourt ( talk ) 08:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the two. I agree with both opinions here. Horst-schlaemma ( talk ) 09:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"S. Horowitz & Co.: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . Article is highly promotional in tone and needs a rewrite. However the firm has significant and ongoing national-level coverage in Israeli press, with the firm existing since 1921. For example [21] [22] Marokwitz ( talk ) 14:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per",keep
+"We All Love Ella: Celebrating the First Lady of Song: No valid targets that I'm aware of. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 23:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 23:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Could it be the soundtrack for this PBS special [1] ? They both came out about the same time... Very minimal review in a Seattle newspaper [2] . I'm not seeing enough extensive coverage to build an article here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC) I can't wrap my head around the idea to an album that shows various musicians paying tribute to another. Many of them are a surprise in this context, so the tracks are a valuable addition to their discography too. The album had an international release in eight countries, it comprises original material, some nowhere else to be found, others featured on later compilations (eg k.d. lang, m.bublé) Discogs . I understand the point of the album not being better documented. But on the web it is is a little harder to find reviews from 2007, many papers don't have a proper archive that is easy to access. There are many lemmas of albums with only a reference to AllMusic where this album has also a review . (It is actually found everywhere my search shows, deezer, jazzecho, jambase, spotify, apple...) It is a release of the Ella Fitzgerald Charitable Foundation, who has heard about that? archieved booklet It is certainly good music. So why would you want to it! Isn't there anything else to do? Improve this article? / MenkinAlRire 08:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The concern is with notability , i.e. encyclopedias (and thus Wikipedia) do not include all available information indiscriminately. If there isn't reliable coverage available that shows notability, then there's nothing to be improved upon. The AllMusic review is useful in this regard, but the rest of your links aren't for various reasons. And we can't just the album because notable artists were involved, as notability is not inherited . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 09:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC) , I've added numerous reviews from The Wikipedia Library. No Swan So Fine ( talk ) 20:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment but most likely --It charted on the Billboard 200 and gets lots of hits in ProQuest, for one--granted, that is picking up ""release date"" articles and some repeated wire service articles. It was reviewed in Popular Music and Society and other publications. We're paying for The Wikipedia Library [3] , folks... Caro7200 ( talk ) 14:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which I checked, saw a bunch of announcements, and moved on from. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 21:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added reviews from The Boston Globe , The Philadelphia Daily News , The Baltimore Sun , The Buffalo News and The Evening Standard found in The Wikipedia Library. No Swan So Fine ( talk ) 14:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as multiple reviews have now been located to show that it has received enough coverage to be considered notable enough for a separate article. Aoba47 ( talk ) 23:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , thanks for NSSF for looking through TWL. Hameltion ( talk | contribs ) 06:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , excellent expansion shows it comfortably meeting notability guidelines. Geschichte ( talk ) 10:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC) notability demonstrated satisfactory to the GNG. microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 16:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Buccaneers–Dolphins rivalry: Some coverage definitely exists calling this a rivalry due to the regional proximity, but barring source #5 is mostly passing coverage in the context in the preseason, which is when most of the games between these teams have been played, or in the case of source 3 is WP:CRYSTAL . Per WP:NOPAGE , all the pertinent content here can be easily covered on the respective team articles. Let'srun ( talk ) 04:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , American football , and Florida . Let'srun ( talk ) 04:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per above. killer bee 09:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This clearly passes GNG. There is extensive coverage available. See just on newspapers.com: Florida Today 1991 , Palm Beach Post 2003 , Florida Today 2001 , Tampa Tribune 1981 , Tampa Tribune 1978 , Sun Sentinel 1997 , AP 1991 , AP 1984 , Miami News 1984 , News-Press 1992 , Poughsie Journal 1976 , Miami Herald 1984 , among others; then online: Sun Sentinel 1986 , Baltimore Sun 2000 , etc. – in addition to what's already in the article. @ K6bee9 : BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Clearly you didn't read my deletion rationale. I am aware of the coverage but don't believe it rises to the WP:NRIVALRY . The coverage is mainly either routine game previews or is WP:CRYSTAL in the case of the 1970s articles. Let'srun ( talk ) 21:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NRIVALRY states that GNG is the only thing that matters; additionally, as far as I'm aware CRYSTAL applies to Wikipedia articles (e.g. me writing an article about someone who I think will be notable in ten years, but isn't yet), not to the sources themselves (but even if it did, the amount of 1970s sources it would discount is two). BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 21:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per GNG. Rlendog ( talk ) 20:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per GNG. What BeanieFan11 has posted is more than enough to satisfy notability. Conyo14 ( talk ) 20:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the sources presented by Beaniefan. While much of it is passing mentions and routine coverage, there is enough significant coverage to establish notability per GNG. Frank Anchor 00:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per discussion and added sources for evidence of GNG. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 04:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC) I get the feeling here that some people are forgetting WP:NOTINHERITED . The fact that the teams are notable doesn't make an alleged ""rivalry"" between them notable on its own, especially when most or all of the coverage is in-passing or is speculative. How many of the responses are actually based on ""Regardless of the teams' notability, I have examined these sources and I am certain that several of them provide in-depth coverage of the rivalry as a thing unto itself"" reasoning? I'm skeptical that it's any of them, but none of them cite specific sources as being in-depth. And its important to remember that just because a stand-along article could exist doesn't always mean that it should; it seems perfectly reasonable to me to summarize this material at the team articles, instead of devote an entire page to it with increasing amounts of fancruft over time. Anyway, I have not yet pored over all of these newspaper.com result in detail, so I'm in the neutral camp for now I suppose. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Personally, I don't see why coverage of other rivalries are okay, but this one isn't. ------- User:DanTD ( talk ) 04:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Dean Webb: Knowledgegatherer23 ( Say Hello ) 21:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Bands and musicians , and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to the closing admin. I would like ask please that if by chance the consensus leans towards deletion, we look at ing the page to Ivor Kirchin , Basil Kirchin as he was a member of The Kirchin Band for a year, having replaced the featured singer Rory Blackwell in 1957. Webb stayed with the band for a year and I believe sang on at least two recordings. He was involved with both Ivor and Basil. This would also preserve the history. Thanks Karl Twist ( talk ) 06:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , there's a couple of good articles in the The British Newspaper archive. Unfortunately its pay so you can read thing. There's also this article with his picture below, Disc , No. 67 Week ending May 16, 1959 - Page 7 THE BLACKSMITH WHO PREFERRED BEAT TO THE ANVIL CHORUS, Big break I haven't got time to comb through the other UK music trade magazines and a lot of the earlier ones can't be word searched. So it's a case of having to go through all the content of this often faded but thankfully preserved historical music info. I'm satisfied to call this a . Karl Twist ( talk ) 10:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC) GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"MEDICA Trade Fair: Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Medicine , and Germany . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - this thing is huge. It's spread over 15 exhibit halls. The best way to comprehend the magnitude is to look at the satellite image . It's held at the Messe Düsseldorf , one of the few places in the world big enough to hold it. The Las Vegas Convention Center is the only venue in North America bigger than Messe Düsseldorf. MEDICA's the biggest healthcare show/gathering in the world. 5,000+ companies have exhibits there. When COVID's not around, almost 100,000 people from around the world attend. That's not nothin' -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 21:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC) 08, 29 July 2023 (UTC) independent refs are challenging to find. My experience so far: German newspaper articles cited in the German article are mostly behind paywalls. Sorry, I don't care enough to pay. 5,000 companies all issue press releases touting what they're bringing to the show. These clutter a Google News search. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 21:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Size and longevity (and inclusion in Trade_show#List_of_major_trade_shows ) are good indications of notability. No strong argument given by nom. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 13:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC) NEVENT , although the fluff about the most recent event should be toned down. Graywalls ( talk ) 21:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Under the Radar Volume 1: Shellwood ( talk ) 21:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for pinging me. I don't have a huge amount of emotional investment or interest here (I was more interested in the topic five-ten years ago, when I worked on these pages), but I think there are a range of sources which can help establish notability. These look useful, for instance: https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/robbie-williams-announces-surprise-new-4714614 https://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/robbie-williams-announces-surprise-album-under-the-radar__7543/ https://www.nme.com/news/music/robbie-williams-9-1214301 https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/28/robbie-willams-named-album-cover_n_6235976.html -- Jonie148 ( talk ) 08:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC) BEFORE search and only found the NME source so many thanks for finding these, I'll add them to the article, Thanks, Warm Regards, – Davey 2010 Talk 00:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Voting per Jonie148. I think there are enough sources for a short but helpful album entry here. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - per Jonie148's findings. Bhivuti45 ( talk ) 10:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Giorgio Marchetti: The ""best"" sources in the article seem to be along the lines of [25] , which is both a tabloid and also just an interview so not really in depth secondary significant coverage. — Amakuru ( talk ) 10:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Italy . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. — Amakuru ( talk ) 13:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] following article improvement which seems to show notability. Giant Snowman 11:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC) THESUN . I don't see how this passes modern GNG anyway. Govvy ( talk ) 15:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC) , @ Govvy : , Besudes the Daily Star source above, I found [26] , [27] , [28] among many more Italian sources. Clearly siginficainf figure in UEFA and European football with Italian Wikipedia page and ongoing career. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 18:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] two of those sources are the same... Giant Snowman 18:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fixed. Clearly siginficainf figure in UEFA and European football with Italian Wikipedia page and ongoing career. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 19:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC) , @ Govvy : , See below. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 23:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Das osmnezz . Plus there is more just one click away. gidonb ( talk ) 17:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC) GNG and WP:HEY . Significant coverage focusing on Marchetti in the Italian media (cited in the article), and as the article explains, he has a cult following within the European football fan community as the ""face"" of the UEFA Champions League (and other league) draws – meaning, coverage can be found in multiple languages; the more you look, the more you find, though admittedly for Wikipedia purposes we have to ignore all the tabloids, which are considered non-RS. Plus as director of competitions for UEFA, he is frequently in the spotlight for decision making that has Champions League-wide ramifications. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 05:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I don't know, if I did change my vote it be a very weak , but the sources provided at the moment isn't really enough for me. The telegraph one in the article, ""UEFA moves to save Champions League"" well, I have access to the Telegraph and there is no article by that name on their system. And why there is a via there, I don't get that. So I don't think I am changing my vote at present. Govvy ( talk ) 14:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Alien Kulture: Shellwood ( talk ) 00:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . There are a number of secondary sources on this band - including print/web media, books, and academic. See for example Guardian article [5] and a chapter in the The Oxford Handbook of Punk Rock [6] . A number of books have coverage which is more than a passing mention - including those referenced in the article. The Evening Standard also states that Alien Kulture were the biggest ""musical thrill"" of Rock Against Racism here . It is worth noting the WP:sustained level of coverage this band has attracted, even though they were active circa 1980-1981 there are a number of recent sources discussing them. Resonant Dis tor tion 14:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Meets GNG with the added citations. Sam Sailor 06:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as clearly meeting GNG, as demonstrated by recently added citations. Cordless Larry ( talk ) 08:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC) HEY as the article has been significantly improved since nomination with the edition of a number of reliable sources references such as The Guardian, Evening Standard, and reliable books Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Black & White (G.NA album): I guess I can't definitely call this non-notable, but it's at least gonna need some work to meet that burden of proof, and if it can't do that then it should be ed to G.NA . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 02:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and South Korea . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 02:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , I think; but could use some help from a Korean-language speaker. It charted at #22 (debuted there and never went higher); and it got coverage in Korean-language news (e.g., [40] ; [41] ; [42] ) (She's sometimes identified in Korea as ""지나"" rather than ""G.NA"", which helps a little on googling.) I think those satisfy a couple of the factors in WP:NALBUM (1. ""been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works...""; and 2. ""has appeared on any country's national music chart""). I'll add the charting; I'm reluctant to add the news coverage, since I don't read Korean and would need to rely on machine translation. TJRC ( talk ) 02:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just noticed that the article as it exists says it peaked at #1; but the reference has rotted away, even via the wayback machine, and I cannot independently verify that. If it indeed was a #1-charting album, it would certainly meet notability; but I'm a little skeptical of that. TJRC ( talk ) 03:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Gaon Music Chart was rebranded as Circle Chart last year, so anything that wasn't archived on the Wayback Machine died, but the charts are all available on the Circle Chart website. The album peaked at number 11 [43] . It was the song that topped the chart [44] , which ranked at number 22 on the year-end chart [45] . ✗ plicit 03:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes the title song for the album seems to have been number one for two weeks. . but on the show M countdown, which is like a south korean music chart show. Waltzingmogumogupeach ( talk ) 17:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC) 56, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Siroxo and others. Meegvun ( talk ) 08:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Heather Mason: Ref 26 and 27 might be helpful, but isn't enough to pull WP:GNG around somehow. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 11:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Characters of the Silent Hill series#Heather Mason . I don't see any evidence of WP:SIGCOV at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] There are other scholarly sources that seemed to discuss Heather that I don't seem to be able to access, but these six sources cover Heather in a significant fashion. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 16:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [9] This source goes over the character's recent resurgance on Tik Tock, and I believe Variety is a high profile source to count as a SIGCOV per Wikipedia's rules. There's also this piece from Collider that goes into the character from 2021 [10] , but I don't know if Collider meets the SIGCOV guidelines. Transformers03 ( talk ) 08:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, but both the sources you cited were unreliable but I think the article will survive because of the discovered sources above. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 13:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC) RSP . - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 15:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I wrote down Variety, but I meant Vulture, and Cukie Gherkin is right. Vulture has been used multiple times as a reliable source for film and television, and is listed as reliable source on the Reliable sources/Perennial sources Wikipedia page. Vulture is listed reliable as as a subsidiary of the New York magazine. The Vulture piece is a real commentary about the subject within a modern context, showcasing the character is still relevant. Transformers03 ( talk ) 19:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've looked through the presented sources and am still unconvinced. It's essentially a few paragraphs of real commentary mixed with a lot of fluff - there is no slam-dunk evidence that the character list would be too small to hold all the commentary about her, which is what the argument must be here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure what your point is here. A few paragraphs of significant commentary isn't discounted by the presence of fluff around it. It just seems like you admitted that there's significant coverage of Heather to me! As WP:GNG notes, the article itself doesn't have to be about the subject for it to constitute as sigcov. Also, ""this character could fit into a list"" isn't an argument either, as the question of if a character could have an article is weighed more on the character's individual notability than the character's ability to work in a list. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 15:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To make a comparison, it was argued on the World of Ruin talk page that the subject, even if notable, could work better as part of the FF6 article. In that case, there is an argument to be made that the subject actively works better as part of the FF6 article, not just that it could be covered. Unless you've changed your mind on that article, I would contend ""it could work in its main article"" applies more there than it does here. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 17:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pointing to an editor's other, totally unrelated article to impugn them is an argument to the person . You are essentially accusing me of bad faith when there is no evidence that is the case. AfD is a harsh enough environment without other editors insinuating you lack the credentials to ever participate there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 11:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I made the point that I find it difficult to understand the standard you are applying based on previous discussions, which I think is a perfectly valid thing to bring up. My argument is that I cannot understand the rationale behind your argument or why you're making it. As you yourself noted, Heather has real commentary, so I legitimately have no idea what your objection is. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 13:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I usually consider the nature of the commentary, whether it is done as an aside to a larger topic or as part of something largely focused on the topic in question. If there were a couple other articles like the Vulture one I would probably think it was weakly meriting an article, but I am seeing larger discussions about the plot of Silent Hill 3 in which Heather is brought up in passing alongside various other characters who are given equal billing (thus making it better for a character article reception discussion), and listicles. Unless some really good alternative sources come up I won't be swayed on this, but that's my opinion and people are free to dissent. I'm not gonna argue if everyone else thinks otherwise. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC) useful sources discovered. The dogcat ( talk ) 17:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The sources linked by Cukie Gherkin and Transformers03—digital magazines like Vulture and Vice , the horror media network Bloody Disgusting , and the Changing Views – Worlds in Play conference proceeding—are what convince me of notability. I don't consider myself familiar enough with Resident Evil Silent Hill to give this article the work I think it does need, but I think we can it around to let that happen. P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk ) 06:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [Correction posted P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk ) 06:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC) ] [ reply ] Correction. Silent Hill , not Resident Evil . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 06:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Quite right! Sorry about that slip of the keyboard. P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk ) 06:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Telephone in United States history: The one source is from 1988, but is used to make claims about the ""current"" situation of women and phones, which is for such rapidly evolving topics (both the use of telephones, and the role of men and women in society) not acceptable. WP:TNT if people believe this title could host an acceptable article, or simply if even the title is not really worth ing (or at most as a ). Fram ( talk ) 15:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Technology , and United States of America . Fram ( talk ) 15:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC) Seems like it is still an ongoing creation-in-progress, but I agree that it's not appropriate in mainspace in its current state. Would benefit from incubation in draftspace so the creator, who is an experienced editor, can continue to work on it. Curbon7 ( talk ) 15:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just started the article today--and started by making links to current articles (most of which deal with the electrical technology), plus the working bibliography I am using to find historical material. As for ""current"" -- this is a history article and so far there is only one sentence on post 2000 developments like the smartphone. It is cited to the standard history. As a work in progress it is already well advanced in terms of bibliography and links--and it covers a major topic that somehow got missed. Rjensen ( talk ) 18:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify , yes, this is what draft-space is for. This article has the potential to be fascinating, well-referenced, and exactly the sort of stuff that an encyclopaedia should contain. But although Wikipedia articles don't need to be perfectly finished in main-space (WP is a work-in-progress), draft-space is the nursery in which articles can be nurtured until they're sufficiently well-grown to stand on their own two feet (even if someone comes along later and adds a few more feet...). Rjensen , if your worry about draft-space is that you don't want to go through AfC, you don't have to. You can move your draft to main-space yourself, when it's ready. Elemimele ( talk ) 18:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC) The arguments against this article appear to be ""it's not very good"". I fail to see any procedural argument on NOTE or similar grounds, and the editor appears to be actively editing it. I'm inclined to give the editor some time, it's not like there is any particular hurry here. Maury Markowitz ( talk ) 18:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ... I should add, although I went with draftify, I'd have no problems with a weak . I intended the use of draft-space to protect the article from excessive criticism while it's still half-finished. I would not favour draftify as a covert-deletion; I want to see this article back in main-space as soon as it's ready. Elemimele ( talk ) 18:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Subject is notable. Like Rjensen pointed out, there is still much to be added as the article is in infancy. GuardianH ( talk ) 19:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy as the nominator's rational no longer applies since the article has been expanded since this AFD was created (barely an hour and a half after the article was created). Premature AFD. IMHO. ArcAngel (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . The topic might be notable. If this is kept, consider renaming to history of the telephone in the United States ? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC) 38, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Absolutely, please the title as it is. The history of the telephone in the united states is a completely different subject, it means the history of the phone, not an article about how the phone has influenced history. This may be one of those rare examples where we should have an article whose title begins ""The"", as, were you writing a book, you would undoubtedly entitle it ""The Telephone in United States History"". Elemimele ( talk ) 10:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The subject is notable. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 02:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . While the subject may be notable–how can the telephone's impact not be notable, and which has certainly been covered by many authors, such as John Brooks–this article provides no sensible overview of history, nor impact of the telephone on American society. Especially the profound intertwining of Bell System practices and policies with development of telecommunication in general and American corporate philosophy and regulation, from the patent system to the implications of the Kingsbury commitment and the telecommunications act, labor relations, industrial management and workforce practices are ignored, and it does not appear that the author appreciates those aspects. The text does not convey a theme for the article. This is instead a random assemblage of factoids covered probably better already in various WP articles, and I suspect adapted from them. The language is often not encyclopedic, nor enlightening. An article with such a vague and open-ended title needs to have a clear vision of its subject matter and scope, otherwise it will become a bottomless pit of stuff, which it seems already. A junk pile. kbrose ( talk ) 14:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, the topic of the impact of the telephone on American society & culture and has not been covered. John Brooks book was sponsored by ATT and it focuses on the ATT leaders down to 1970, with very little on the phone's impact on USA. The best cultural history (by Fischer) covers three small town in California before 1940. So there is no published model to follow. I have not tried to create my own interpretive history--that would be original research. However I have tried to report what many diverse experts have written, and I have tried to provide a good bibliography that will help editors and readers do their own further research. Rjensen ( talk ) 02:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC) 25, 26 April 2023 (UTC) that it has "" certainly been covered by many authors. "" but today all those authors are mysteriously gone--despite Kbrose's ""certainly"". Now he says that really big topics like the telephone and the internet are too big for Wikipedia. Well in fact dozens of scholars have written about subtopics on the telephone and I have been summarizing their published results-- I think that is what Wikipedia does best. (perhaps this is the "" real supporting content"" that Kbrose asks for.) An article that cover the telephone in 192 countries would be ""too big"" but I limit this to USA (plus a touch of Canada). Rjensen ( talk ) 00:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC) notable topic, has enough sources to remain in mainspace, needs cleanup but AfD is not for cleanup. // Timothy :: talk 16:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Himanshu Sharma: Nothing special found any search engine! Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 05:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , India , and Uttar Pradesh . Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 05:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Fairly meets WP:CREATIVE with at least 8 credits as writer of notable films. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC) +significant awards that have him meet WP:ANYBIO + coverage that seems to have him meet GNG .... [ reply ] The current sourcing is not very good, though. All that's there are two or three short articles with maybe two paragraphs describing him between them, a social media announcement, and an IMDB profile. Mrfoogles ( talk ) 20:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe if you count the IMDB profile as one source, and one/multiple of the news articles as another? Mrfoogles ( talk ) 20:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC) CREATIVE for his multiple credits as writer (also sourced), so I am leaving it at that, as I consider the requirement for notability is met. two or three short articles with maybe two paragraphs describing him between them may be considered a description of significant coverage. Thanks. Just added 2 sources. Feel free to remove ImDb. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please review newly added sources to the article, especially the nominator Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC) A triple fulfillment of notability guidelines (GNG, ANYBIO, and FILMMAKER). The subject person is the sole writer of six notable films, namely Tanu Weds Manu , Tanu Weds Manu Returns , Mr. Pellikoduku , Raanjhanaa , Zero , and Atrangi Re , fulfilling WP:FILMMAKER #3. He also won two National Film Awards , a Filmfare Award , and a Times of India Film Awards , fulfilling WP:ANYBIO #1. I have also found personal interviews with the subject person (see Times of India [41] , The Telegraph [42] , and India Today [43] ), and media coverage on his personal life (see The Indian Express [44] [45] , Times of India [46] , and NDTV [47] ), fulfilling WP:GNG as well. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 14:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Snow per Prince of Erebor's sources. DareshMohan ( talk ) 00:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Place of Peace: glman ( talk ) 22:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and South Carolina . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC) I think references 1, 2, and 5 are significant secondary coverage. The article does need a lot of work since many of the other references are primary and/or irrelevant. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 01:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 1 is good, I agree. 2 is a passing mention, not WP:SIGCOV - ""The family, including Tsuzuki’s children Yuri and Seiji, was also responsible for the creation of Place of Peace at Furman University."" 5 is a list, it's better than two, but still a trivial mention. I don't think this meets WP:GNG. glman ( talk ) 03:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and Japan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] -- In addition to what's already in the article this piece from The Chronicle of Higher Ed shows that it meets GNG. [8] Central and Adams ( talk ) 17:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] this article, a bit a of an absurd nomination. In addition to coverage noted by previous votes, there's an AP article [9] which was syndicated as far away as California & a reworked version of which appeared in the Japan Times [10] . Also passing coverage in Forbes as a key part of naming the college campus one of the most beautiful in America [11] . DCsansei ( talk ) 15:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC) 45, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Hook, Line and Sinker (TV program): The PROD that I proposed, was removed by @ Necrothesp , who said that deletion of a programme that's run for 22 seasons is hardly uncontroversial. I hope that someone adds additional references about Hook, Line and Sinker to the article. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 20:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia . Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 20:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Water, Rob Black Agnes (2009-04-24). ""TV hosts fall for 1770 reefs"" . The Observer . Archived from the original on 2023-10-07 . Retrieved 2023-10-07 . The article notes: ""Popular television co-hosts Nick Duigan and Andrew Hart fell for the Town of 1770 and its offshore reefs, as their TV show suggests; Hook, Line and Sinker . ... Hook, Line and Sinker has become one of Australia's most popular fishing shows, with a bit of lifestyle and cooking mixed in with an irreverent blend of humour setting it apart from some of the more traditional programs. What comes through in the series is the boys love of fishing and all things boating, with a couple of twists that include; beefing up an old Bertram (boat) with a huge new 350hp outboard, catching fish using a remote controlled model boat, using Andrew as a live lure as he water skis behind the boat and entering an all-female fishing contest dressed in drag - until organisers twigged and they were booted out."" ""Hooked in the Whitsundays: A crew from one of Australia's most popular fishing television shows 'Hook, Line and Sinker' recently filmed in the region"" . The Courier-Mail . 2014-09-07. Archived from the original on 2023-10-07 . Retrieved 2023-10-07 . The article notes: ""A crew from one of Australia's most popular fishing television shows 'Hook, Line and Sinker' recently filmed in the region. Nick Duigan and Andrew Hart spent several nights on the outer reef with Sea Fever Sportsfishing's Ashley Matthews, and were able to capture footage for an entire episode. The boys caught fish jigging, on poppers and even dived in to grab crayfish."" Ellerton, Phillip (2007-12-20). ""New Gear"" . The Mercury . Archived from the original on 2023-10-07 . Retrieved 2023-10-07 . The article notes: ""Although some purists may not enjoy the Hook, Line and Sinker DVDs, they offer a fresh, exciting and often humorous approach to fishing."" Martin, Hannah (2012-03-04). ""Tassie fishing show hooks big deal"" . Sunday Tasmanian . Archived from the original on 2023-10-07 . Retrieved 2023-10-07 . The article notes: ""One of Tasmania's longest- running television programs has cracked the big time. Fishing series Hook, Line and Sinker has snagged a coveted television slot, with the show soon to be aired in national metropolitan areas. The move to 7mate this year is expected to double audience numbers to 600,000 a week for local fishermen Nick Duigan, 41, and Andrew Hart, 31. The milestone comes as the show prepares to film episodes for its 10th season."" ""Backs to the wind works wonders as inland anglers score lion's share of luck"" . The Canberra Times . 2006-04-21. Archived from the original on 2023-10-07 . Retrieved 2023-10-07 . The article notes: ""Keep your eyes peeled for a new fishing show, Hook Line and Sinker, running for the next 11 weeks at 6pm Saturdays on Southern Cross Ten. Described as A River Somewhere meets Russell Coight, it features two larrikin anglers, Nick Duigan and Andrew Hart, roaming Australia chasing fish. The first episode, shown last week, promises some great fun."" Wade, Rohan (2004-12-18). ""Reeling them in"". The Mercury . ProQuest 353181196 . The article notes: "" Andrew Hart and Nick Duigan, who not only present but conceived the Tasmanian television fishing program Hook, Line and Sinker, are about to embark on their third full season of a combination of fishing adventures and fishing misadventures. While not always madcap, the antics of Hart and Duigan are often more about good humour than good fishing, but it is a style that is winning over viewers as an alternative to the super-slick, highly produced interstate fishing shows that produce a steady stream of fish. Catching a fish for the Hook, Line and Sinker crew, while always the aim, sometimes doesn't happen. ... It is a recipe that has helped the show go from strength to strength since Hart and Duigan filmed two pilot shows in 2001."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hook, Line and Sinker to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 09:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: An assessment on these recently unearthed sources would be a welcome addition to this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am pinging @ Happily888 , in order to leave his opinion on this discussion. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 07:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Great job by Cunard, not just here presenting sources that show the subject clearly passes the GNG, but also in their expansion of the article. Jenks24 ( talk ) 11:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Callum Dixon: No non-trivial coverage from any secondary sources. dummelaksen ( talk • contribs ) 15:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions . dummelaksen ( talk • contribs ) 15:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral . The article is pretty bare bones, and a lot of the links have gone dead, but I think someone should dig a little deeper before we rush to this. He has done a lot of work in West End theatre and other UK theatre. Playbill wrote a paragraph about his work here . More theatre credits here . He has also done quite a bit of TV work, but I don't know how significant his roles were. The Playbill article isn't about him and only lists his works − I don't think that qualifies as coverage. dummelaksen ( talk • contribs ) 16:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . There's something there, but it's borderline: [69] , [70] . Suitskvarts ( talk ) 13:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV . However I did some across this newspaper article from 1991 (see preview here ) which is a column dedicated to discussing his work and is some way towards significant coverage, which leads me to think there will be more coverage in the archives (more likely the BNA ). Looking through the BNA search results from the '90s shows numerous mentions in other publications, however many are indeed trivial so I remain weak in my ! vote. Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 10:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC) now clipped for free here ). I am thinking, based on the search results, this person can pass WP:BASIC . Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 11:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting because of the Weak Keeps. This tilts the discussion to a No Consensus closure unless an another week brings in more participants who can provide additional sources or a further source analysis. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Per the sources provided by others, this subject has just enough WP:SIGCOV to meet the GNG, mainly via the Leicester Mercury article and aforementioned 1991 article from Bungle. Let'srun ( talk ) 02:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC) 47, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . WP:BASIC is met. The Leicester Mercury source is an ideal starting point. Note also that BASIC says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability , making exception for trivial coverage, where examples of trivial coverage include statements by the subject, jobs the subject has undertaken, database entries and the like. As such, we can examine sources for short but non-trivial coverage to establish BASIC. Reading through proquest you get lots of short-but-non-trivial bits of coverage. In fact based on these first 3 sources, we have verifiability that multiple critics thought the subject was funny in his role as the pizza man in Mr Kolpert . A key comic catalyst is Callum Dixon's hilariously bemused pizza man, who s arriving with the wrong order at the worst possible times, his knock regularly confused with the knock that seems to be coming from inside the trunk. [71] Callum Dixon is hilarious as the pizza man who finds he has stepped into social mayhem. [72] Meanwhile, Callum Dixon's bemused little pizza man s arriving with the wrong order and blundering into scenes that would faze a hardened war correspondent. [73] Max Stafford- Clark's mesmerising production features an outstanding cast, ably led by lippy Callum Dixon ... [74] . Matters aren't helped by Stephen Rayne's laborious direction and some startlingly unsubtle acting. Honourable exceptions include Callum Dixon's Nat, whose Cockney chirpiness is convincingly edged with menace ... [75] ... and her horse-mad son, wirily incarnated by Callum Dixon. [76] ... Callum Dixon, 26, has just completed a run at the National in The Day I Stood Still. [77] But the play is never less than provocatively entertaining, and under John Burgess's direction there are striking performances from Charlotte Cornwell as the standup therapist, Callum Dixon as the anxious construction worker ... [78] Adrian Scarborough captures precisely Horace's mixture of romantic longing and fear of commitment. Callum Dixon is also suitably tentative as his younger self ... [79] This list is far from exhaustive, I didn't even check every result in ProQuest. And there appears to be quite a bit more in The Daily/Sunday Telegraph archives for which I don't have full text access. There will surely be more in other archives than ProQuest. — siro χ o 06:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"WBEM (AM): Unlikely that a tiny AM station ever got the kind of coverage needed to meet the WP:GNG but I await with interest others showing me how I'm wrong. JMWt ( talk ) 17:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Pennsylvania . JMWt ( talk ) 17:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC) GNG . - Altenmann >talk 18:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Toughie because the location does not have full-scan newspaper, but I have scraped about five sources. There is stuff that is quite mushy and SYNTHy. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 18:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Sammi Brie's sources seem to provide SIGCOV of the topic when considering the alternate call signs and ownership. — siro χ o 18:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Analysis of the newly-added source material would be quite helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC) Of the sources added to the article there appears to be enough WP:SIGCOV from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette articles to meet the GNG. Let'srun ( talk ) 20:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Begbroke Science Park: Possible WP:ATD of / to Oxford University , but could unbalance that article. Boleyn ( talk ) 17:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and United Kingdom . Shellwood ( talk ) 17:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC) Fifteen years of Begbroke Science Park . Resonant Dis tor tion 18:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC) there is extensive reporting available as noted above. Jonathan A Jones ( talk ) 08:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC) Perhaps this article could be used for expansion? https://www.costar.com/article/270065868/oxford-university-and-lgim-lodge-plans-for-giant-innovation-district-and-village Oliver Phile ( talk ) 14:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Wcquidditch. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 19:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Bethlehem Academy (Faribault, Minnesota): only sourced to a database (i assume, the link is dead). ltb d l ( talk ) 08:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Minnesota . ltb d l ( talk ) 08:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ●Comment- Found the link in the wayback machine here . it is indeed a database. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 15:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Christianity . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete- per all of the statements I have made above & Below. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 23:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . While the article is clearly deficient, the subject is notable and there are many independent links from Google. The article's sources are inadequate but sources exist. They show that the school has been in continuous existence for over a century and a half. Kablammo ( talk ) 11:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC) may i have links to those sources? ltb d l ( talk ) 15:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ltbdl I have added 9 new references to this article, the refs are most likely the same links @ Kablammo found. Although None of the refs I have found have significant coverage. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 17:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I took a look at the added sources, and everything except for the sports coverage is junk sadly. They are all simple database sites without in-depth coverage. Many of those can be modified by the school, and is of questionable reliability. Unless Kablammo's links are substantial, I agree with PaulGamerBoy that there is not enough coverage to write an entire article about the school. Ca talk to me! 17:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have reviewed the links and also some books citing local newspaper articles, and I agree that these, while independent, are little more than brief mentions rather than in-depth sources. Therefore I have stricken my . Kablammo ( talk ) 12:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC) 19, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is not about the school itself. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 20:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC) 55, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Whoops sorry i only read the first few paragraphs & the images didn't show on my browser. They appear now. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 17:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Wider assessment of the significance of the sources mentioned is needed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 12:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ● Comment- After assessing the sources provided I personally feel that they do not provide enough ""significant coverage in reliable sources"", see my ! vote above . 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 15:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PaulGamerBoy360 , Please consider a couple of additional sources below. — Jacona ( talk ) 18:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC) 47, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . [This https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-irish-standard-bethlehem-academy-fa/136433285/ ] clip from 1896 is WP:SIGCOV . This article (and part2) from 1915 discusses their 50th anniversary, so founded in 1865. There are more, but I stopped here. This school was around 130 years before the internet. I'd be willing to wager there is lots of offline coverage in those 130 years. While I'm not arguing that being old alone is a guarantee of notability , I find it exceedingly unlikely that a school in continuous operation for 158 years would not be notable, and found sufficient evidence in just a couple of minutes. Based on these and other references, this article passes WP:GNG and therefore WP:NSCHOOL . Jacona ( talk ) 18:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . There are book references, One is ""Preaching with Their Lives: Dominicans on Mission in the United States after 1850"" ISBN 9780823289660. I have also found multiple references to a 1954 book about the school entitled ""Five Decades"". I can't find the book online. Maybe someone else has better skills than I. Here is one mention. Jacona ( talk ) 20:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC) GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Global Legal Information Network: JMWt ( talk ) 17:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - GLIN is under the umbrella of, but separate from, the LoC and has independent notability. For my WP:THREE , I'd probably start with [15] , [16] and maybe either the NASA one about its development ( [17] which is independently cool in and of itself) or The Futurist ( [18] ). That said, the article is in desperate need of a loving editor (not exactly thick on the ground since you won't find a drier subject), but WP:DINC . Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 21:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Commentary on the sources would be great :) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sohom ( talk ) 19:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC) Last1in . BD2412 T 00:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 16:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , meets GNG with sources listed above by Last1in, especially The IALL International Handbook of Legal Information Management and The Futurist . The Law Library Journal piece is a good third source, though a bit shorter on coverage afaict. I am not confident the NASA/Maryland source is independent, but I might be misunderstanding Kalpakis' role. — siro χ o 19:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies: I was trying to figure out what to rename it to or how to preserve the content, but I couldn't come up with anything. I believe this is an original creation and a violation of our guidance on what makes a list. Andre 🚐 20:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Politics , and United States of America . Andre 🚐 20:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies#What ""controversies""? . It's the same problem with the other POTUS articles in Category:Federal judicial appointment controversies in the United States , an insufficiently discriminate page that isn't neutral . 21:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC) , borderline speedy. Historically, most judicial nominations have been uncontroversial. These lists convey the range of circumstances that arise where there is some controversy arising in connection with a judicial appointment. Given that the United States has lifetime appointments for federal judges, and that these appointments are made by the President of the United States and must be confirmed by the United States Senate, these are high-stakes issues of broad public interest, and it is perfectly reasonable to document them accordingly. BD2412 T 21:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of these are called controversy by RS, so it's synthetic. They were contested, but they weren't necessarily controversial. It's a false consistency. Andre 🚐 23:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you saying these were uncontroversially contested? BD2412 T 00:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Clearly, the new normal is for Republicans to contest judicial nominations just to be obstructionist and gum up the works. What's the source for it being controversy? A Joe Biden judicial appointment controversy? Why isn't that a total neologism? Andre 🚐 01:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For a ""new normal"", there are a surprisingly small number of names out of the 136 Article III federal judges appointed by Biden. BD2412 T 01:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC) SNOW see George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies George H. W. Bush judicial appointment controversies Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies etc — siro χ o 21:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also note that a parallel rename of all this type of article may be a good idea as ""controversies"" is a bit loaded. — siro χ o 21:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC) OSE Andre 🚐 23:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Some stuff exists for a reason . BD2412 T 00:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that a rename would be ideal. ""Controversies"" is not the correct term. I would suggest ""unsuccessful,"" but I do not think that term is quite correct either. -- Enos733 ( talk ) 22:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies#What constitutes a controversy? . This article should not be just any instance where any Republican made an objection or mere poor faith partisan politics. Rather it should cover actual controversies treated as such. If it cannot do that by trimming of less significant items, the article doesn't need to be kept. The article should also be trimmed of extraneous procedural details, such as who vacated the seat the person was nominated to and when, since that's rarely relevant a controversy. Reywas92 Talk 02:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Some stuff exists for a reason Snickers2686 ( talk ) 03:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are enough reliable sources to establish notability. The OP should be briefed about WP:BEFORE . 95.12.119.26 ( talk ) 19:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 18:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Some stuff exists for a reason . Maliner ( talk ) 07:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I was sceptical initially but, given equivalent articles exist for the last few presidents (as well as those posted by Siroxo above, there is also Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies and Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies ), it seems clear that an article should exist with this title. I would echo Reywas92 's concerns that we need to ensure they're actual controversies, as opposed to bad-faith objection by a small number of opposition politicians in our increasingly polarised age, though clearly that concern also applies to the last 2 presidents also. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk ) 08:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC) SNOW . See all above. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk ) 18:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Grahaml35 ( talk ) 19:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"GENIVI Alliance: Attempted COI editing. Written like an advertisement. Andre 🚐 18:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Companies , and United States of America . Andre 🚐 18:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] lots of good refs out there from Google News . I'm on the road with little time to list them properly. Here's a sample : [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] EBSCO via the Wikipedia Library - many are recycled press releases but there WP:RS as well (may or may not be sufficient for notability) Google Books also has references to meet notability The article may seem promotional but this is a nonprofit standards setting group using Linux for automotive operating systems. Participants are: ""GM, PSA/Peugeot-Citroen, Renault-Nissan, Hyundai, BMW and others, and more than a dozen global suppliers, including Robert Bosch, Continental, Denso, Aisin and Valeo."" We need this article - people are going to be looking for information. Article needs new title - organization is now the ""Connected Vehicle Systems Alliance"". ( press release ) -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC) ROUTINE press release type info. Andre 🚐 04:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC) ROUTINE press release type"", especially after you read each one. These are in-depth articles: [12] [13] The other articles I cite give several paragraphs. Less than a passing mention but not deep dives. Collectively they add up to an analysis of GENIVI as well as its competitors Books are not press releases, at least not in my country. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 07:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC) ROUTINE more thoroughly as it appears to cover all of this comfortably including those ""in-depth"" articles which are both basically press clippings. Every book mention is trivial as well. Andre 🚐 17:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per numerous references in scholarly papers. Please see [14] and connected edit request placed on talk page to improve article with better sourcing. TR?? Wiki5 ( talk ) 20:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC) COI (see their contribution history). Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page 20:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd iike to see more comments or a source analysis on the recently discovered sources. Also, since Soft Deletion is not available, there will need to be stronger support for a Deletion than the nomination statement. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - I just implemented an extensive COI edit request made by the above user, and added their COI on the talk page. The article has been almost completely rewritten, but may not include all the sources that were discussed above. The main difference seems to be that there are several research papers based on the organization's work that were added as references. I don't have full access to them and can't tell how extensive the coverage is, but the summaries shown here [15] reference the organization's work. I also don't have access to the books that were discussed above, but if anyone else does and wants to verify whether they can be used to improve the sourcing, I'd consider revising my vote to a regular . STEM info ( talk ) 23:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss the edits referenced in STEMinfo's ! vote Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - there is a lot of coverage of this subject per A. B., lots of primary stuff to filter but should be more than enough in my opinion. At least some of the studies indicated above look independent and seem to cover technical details in depth. More references on ProQuest, again some primary material but not all, which should further support notability. I think a subject of this kind, being a cooperative between major industry competitors which are themselves all uncontroversially notable, is a good target for inclusion on the encyclopedia. - Indefensible ( talk ) 05:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Article may need to be moved however per the subject's change in current name, which can be discussed on its talk page. - Indefensible ( talk ) 05:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"財閥: However, it's actually a WP:2DABS and Chaebol seems to be the primary topic with respect to usage per pageviews . Thus this dab page should be replaced by a primary to Chaebol with a hatnote on its top per WP:ONEOTHER , just like that of 文 . NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 03:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations , Japan , and Korea . NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 03:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Zaibatsu is an essential topic in Japanese history and economics, just as Chaebol is an important topic in Korean history and economics. Pageviews for each article do not necessarily mean that there is a primary topic for a , and here both articles have substantial page views, and there is no evidence that English-language readers want the page on the Korean topic when using the Chinese characters. (While both are likely vanishingly rare among English-language users, zaibatsu is the term more likely to be written in Chinese characters.) This does not really seem like a deletion discussion, but I would both the disambiguation page and oppose ing to the Korean term. Also, note that this differs from the case of 文 where the reasoning was "" primary meaning of the character is the character ""; this is a compound, not a single character. Dekimasu よ! 06:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note as well that there is the option to expand the disambiguation page if needed, which could be a simpler solution. It may not help users too much, but the meaning of 財閥 can be taken to include other topics like the Vanderbilt family or Rockefeller family . Dekimasu よ! 06:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't mean that Chaebol is primary in the same aspect as Radical 67 , but simply use 文 (disambiguation) as a precedence for a CJKV dab page with a as the primary topic. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 06:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"This Is Next Year: A Brooklyn-Based Compilation: The article was created and populated by Mcmeatm which appears to be a public relations effort accouont of Arena Rock Recording Co. based on edit history. Existance is not a valid reason on its own to have a product (such as an album). An album is not inherently notable Graywalls ( talk ) 20:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music . Graywalls ( talk ) 20:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I corrected the link to the AllMusic review and found this interview piece from Time Out New York , but that's not enough to convince me. to Arena Rock Recording Company ; there might be enough between the two sources to make a small section on that page if anyone wants to, but there's nothing here to . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 21:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC) interview with those involved in the article subject don't count towards notability. Graywalls ( talk ) 02:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC) NCORP which is being considered for deletion also Graywalls ( talk ) 21:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC) GNG : 216 word review in NYT via proquest: [9] , Pitchfork has about 80 words of sigcov in this article [10] , published a few years after the album, which contextualizes the album a bit. A key bit of verifiable info It was bloated with 42 tracks of NYC's finest-- including Interpol, the Walkmen, and French Kicks... Their debuts would all come within a year of the compilation's release. ~80 word review in Entertainment Weekly: [11] . There's also a couple capsule-style reviews that only have a sentence or two of SIGCOV but could aid in the article. A few words of coverage here [12] , a bit from [13] — siro χ o 04:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC) NYT piece they mentioned above is at: https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/27/arts/critic-s-choice-pop-cd-s-sounds-that-affirm-new-york-s-strength.html Graywalls ( talk ) 19:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would be nice to see some assessment of the sources brought up in this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The references noted above, along with AMG's review, are enough to pass muster. This product is notable. (An amusing way to put it; I admit that The Messiah and Sgt. Pepper are products, too, but I never once thought of them in so cynical a fashion.) Chubbles ( talk ) 14:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can compromise as a if that'll avoid a ""no consensus"" closure. Graywalls ( talk ) 04:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to closer, the target is itself up for AfD, so a here may and perhaps is likely to result in a in practice. Chubbles ( talk ) 07:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC) ( Graywalls ( talk ) 06:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Low Pavement, Chesterfield: The sources in the article are listings of individual buildings, but there's no evidence those buildings meet WP:NBUILDING . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 16:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , Transportation , and England . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 16:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Low Pavement is mentioned in various directories from the 19th Century, two of which I've just added, not to mention 5 (technically 6) different listed buildings on the small street. Thief-River-Faller ( talk ) 16:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Listings in directories are not significant coverage, and having listed buildings doesn't establish notability of the street that they're on. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 16:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have now added a couple of books that noted during the 1970s, the town council intended to demolish the buildings on the street, however decided the buildings together were considered to be of 'township merit' which is why the buildings are all listed around that time period. Thief-River-Faller ( talk ) 17:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those sources seem to be talking more about the neighborhood overall, rather than Low Pavement, which is mentioned but not described in detail. The false bomb threat is a minor aspect of the street and doesn't contribute to the street's notability, nor is a bomb threat in itself notable per WP:1E . Additionally, while Chesterfield Market is likely notable, that doesn't mean Low Pavement is notable. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 19:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Added another notable event, the then Prince Charles and Princess Diana opening The Pavements Shopping Center on the street in November 1981, another surely notable event. Thief-River-Faller ( talk ) 19:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There need to be sources showing that the street is notable, which means that it has significant coverage in reliable sources. The fact that an event occurred on the street does not mean that the street itself is notable. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 19:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 13 Grade II listed buildings, 2 Grade II listed Light posts, one of the oldest open-air markets in the country. the current king of England opening an indoor marketplace, and a recent bomb threat, I think that's plenty enough to prove the street's significance, but I'm of course happy to let others decide on this. Thief-River-Faller ( talk ) 20:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The number of historic buildings along this street show clear evidence of notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We still need SIGCOV to an article, rather than merging or some other ATD. Have you found any? voorts ( talk / contributions ) 15:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - While I'm not sure the bomb threat or the royal visit (both of which have happened in lots of places) contribute much to the Notability!, the listed buildings do. The buildings themselves meet WP:NBUILDING , by virtue of their listed status. The street is in a conservation area , [28] (see pages 27-8), which gives it both status and protection, and it won an award, [29] . Overall, I think there's enough. KJP1 ( talk ) 10:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC) having listed buildings and being in a conservation area does not make a street notable. By that logic, almost every street in every city would be notable because there's always something historic on most streets and many streets are in some type of designated arwa. Additionally, the inner city revitalization project won an award, not the street itself. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 15:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] By that logic, almost every street in every city would be notable because there's always something historic on most streets and many streets are in some type of designated arwa. That is very clearly not true. The vast majority of streets, even in countries with very long histories of built heritage like the UK, do not have a single listed building on them. And you're misunderstanding the argument. A street isn't inheriting notability from the historic buildings along it. The historic buildings along it shows that it is historic and therefore notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A street isn't inheriting notability from the historic buildings along it. The historic buildings along it shows that it is historic and therefore notable. That's circular: the street is notable because it is historic, it is historic because it has historic buildings, and because it has historic buildings it's notable. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 15:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Voorts I'm really struggling to see your argument with this, a street becomes notable because of the buildings and features on the street, or events taking place on the street, there's not one piece of asphalt/concrete/cobblestone on the planet that is notable solely for existing. As @ KJP1 noted above, The street is in a conservation area, which gives it both status and protection, and it won an award. Overall, I think there's enough 13 Listed buildings on one street, the notable market, I really cannot see your argument for this not being notable. . Thief-River-Faller ( talk ) 17:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This discussion is becoming rather philosophical. For me, a street covers the buildings that stand on it, it defines the area in which they stand. It can't just be the strip of tarmac down the middle. Queen Anne's Gate , which I'd agree is more notable than this, is important because it has a stack of Grade I listed buildings, in which notable people lived, worked, socialised, died. I don't think anyone would argue to AfD that, and the same argument holds true here. KJP1 ( talk ) 17:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you've summed it up perfectly there. @ KJP1 Thief-River-Faller ( talk ) 17:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] a street becomes notable because of the buildings and features on the street, or events taking place on the street, there's not one piece of asphalt/concrete/cobblestone on the planet that is notable solely for existing That is incorrect. Notability is not defined by whether a subject (here, a street) is related to another notable subject (that is what I meant by notability is not inherited ) A subject is notable for the purposes of Wikipedia if it meets the WP:GNG . The GNG defines a subject as notable if it has receiced significant coverage in relaivle sources. Here, Low Pavement, Chesterfield, is not notable just because there may be notable buildings on the street (and as I've noted before, under the subject specific notability guideline for buildings, even being listed isn't enough: you still need to show signifcant coverage). To use your example, Queen Anne's Gate is notable because a lot of people have written about it as a subject. If people have written significant coverage of Low Pavement, Chesterfield, then it would be notable. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 17:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Significant increase in body and references since deletion request. Enough refs in Historic England to warrant a stub for the street. Other citations are added bonus. - Bogger ( talk ) 10:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessment [ edit ] This is not a full source assessment. I've already explained why the fact that a potentially notable shopping mall exists on the street and the fact that royals visited the shopping mall to open it doesn't establish notability. Likewise, a bomb threat at a local pub doesn't establish that the street that the pub is on is notable. Moreover, there is no SNG that states that having several listed buildings on a street establishes notability. If editors would like there to be one, they should suggest that, but we can't invent SNGs to fit our preferences during AfD discussions. To summarize the below, there are two sources, both by the same author, that discuss one aspect of the Low Pavement (its preservation), albeit in the broader context of revitalization of the area. I would not oppose merging some of the information here to Chesterfield, Derbyshire , or in creating an article for The Pavements , since that seems to be notable. I think it's a stretch to say that the street on its own is notable. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? Derbyshire Times The source states, in full: ""The name Low Pavement simply refers to the road on the lower side of the Market Place – the ‘new market’ laid out in the 1190s to replace Chesterfield’s original market place to the north of the parish church. What is now High Street was known as High Pavement until the 19th century."" ✘ No Bagshaw ? This is a list of businesses on the street from 1846. ✘ No White This is a list of businesses on the street from 1852. ✘ No Bradley ~ Discusses preservation of Low Pavement as part of a broader revitalisation plan. ~ Partial Sadler The page linked to reprints an old advertisement from a business on Low Pavement. ✘ No Picture the Past This source is a photograph. ✘ No Chesterfield Online ? This is a list of businesses on the street. ✘ No Smith and Sykes This is a travel guide that reviews some businesses on the street. ✘ No Marsh From the website's about page : ""Destination Chesterfield delivers a number of marketing campaigns that are helping to improve the economic prosperity of Chesterfield by promoting it as a contemporary destination to inward investors and supporting existing businesses."" The source merely notes that wosmething called the ""Eco Hub"" is located on Low Pavement, but does not discuss Low Pavement at all. ✘ No Appraisal ? Appears to be an appraisal for the Town Council, but the authorship is unclear. ? There is no indication of fact-checking. Contains significant coverage describing the street. ? Unknown European Heritage Awards This indicates that the Town Revitalisation won an award, but it does not discuss Low Pavement in any significant detail. ✘ No Chesterfield Market By the Chesterfield Borough Council. ? Unknown whether this is fact-checked. Low Pavement isn't even mentioned on this page. https://www.chesterfield.gov.uk/explore-chesterfield/markets-and-market-hall.aspx#:~:text=Chesterfield%20Market%20is%20one%20of,and%20events%20all%20year%20round . ✘ No Revitalising Chesterfield Market Govenment website. ? Regarding Low Pavement, the source states in full: ""The re-siting of market stalls currently located in New Square and on Low Pavement into a single market ground of 100 stalls in Market Square – creating a more defined and vibrant market area. The area will also include a flexible events space."" ✘ No Derbyshire Victoria County History Trust Low Pavement appaers on the page twice, both in captions to photographs. ✘ No Bradley 2 ~ Discusses preservation of Low Pavement as part of a broader revitalisation plan. ~ Partial This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Comment on source analysis. The two sources ""Bradley"" and ""Bradley2"" are by the same author and so should be consolidated. When d I would adjudge the overall coverage from the two combined to amount to significant coverage. Rupples ( talk ) 18:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC) It's highly likely the redevelopment of Low Pavement received ongoing coverage in The Derbyshire Times in the early 1980s. Unfortunately, the issues of the newspaper covering this period have not been scanned in to the British Newspaper Archive, though they would be available locally on microfilm at the main Chesterfield library. [30] Rupples ( talk ) 19:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The source analysis above while pointing to non-notability isn't the whole story. The street contains numerous listed buildings. We could presumably have a page for each one under WP:NBUILD . Surely better to have the street as a 'wrapper' for the notable buildings; perhaps there isn't enough to say about each one (I haven't checked whether there is or is not). So, strict interpretation of the notability guideline in the way argued by the nominator in this case doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. The article does require improvement though. Recommend removing the bomb threat piece; it is an insignificant and trivial moment in the street's history and detracts from the article's merit. Rupples ( talk ) 00:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Erm. Just discovered the Low Pavement listed buildings are included within Listed buildings in Chesterfield, Derbyshire , which kind of negates my main reason for ing this. Not sure now, so striking above ! vote. Rupples ( talk ) 03:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - one of the most notable streets in the town, and on balance I think there is enough for an article. I've added some more history, and if anyone has access to Bestall's History of Chesterfield books, I suspect there will be more in there. Warofdreams talk 00:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to a new Chesterfield Town Centre article. There are also several listed buildings on Market Place and New Square on the opposite side of the square from this steet, as well as other nearby streets. With such an enormous number of listed buildings, there's also an enormous number of streets with multiple listed buildings, but that does not mean the street itself is necessarily notable. The town centre is a designated conservation area that includes other listed buildings and would provide better context as a notable area. Some of this article already duplicates Chesterfield,_Derbyshire#The_Pavements and Chesterfield,_Derbyshire#Shopping,_entertainment_and_leisure . Also, all these listed buildings are now just facades whose interiors are now part of The Pavements Shopping Centre. Maybe that should have an article instead. Reywas92 Talk 04:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Todd Herzog: Furthermore, being notable for also his Dr. Phil appearance as recovering alcoholic besides his win in Survivor: China makes me wonder whether it follows (the spirit of) BLP. Furthermore, the subject's accusation toward the production company of Dr. Phil (about giving away a vodka bottle and a Xanan pill) speaks WP:BLPGOSSIP . Speaking of BLP1E, I'm unconvinced that his Survivor win suffices to save this article from either deletion or ion to Survivor: China . I'm also unconvinced that appearing in Dr. Phil also makes him notable. Even if the Dr. Phil appearance does, I'm skeptical that such ""notability"" would comply with BLP policy. Furthermore, I'm unconvinced that both the win and Dr. Phil appearance disqualify him as a ""low-profile individual"". Moreover, non-notable or low-profile people appeared in Dr. Phil as recovering alcoholics ( [36] [37] [38] ), and there's not one Wikipedia article about any such individual. George Ho ( talk ) 00:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Television , and Utah . George Ho ( talk ) 00:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC) NOTTEMPORARY . Besides the RS already included in the article, I found more, including 1 and 2 from The Salt Lake Tribune, Newsday , People , Pittsburgh Post-Gazette , etc. I think George Ho makes a good point about the BLP gossip. That should probably be removed. APK whisper in my ear 03:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC) SUSTAINED , an article about low-profile individual whose notability is based on only one event should be generally avoided. Furthermore, Newsday is a tabloid. Also, the other sources you mentioned covered him in only the context of his Survivor: China win, and they were published around the time when his win was originally broadcast. Also, even notability alone may not guarantee a standalone article per WP:PAGEDECIDE . George Ho ( talk ) 07:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Newsday isn't a tabloid like the NY Post. APK whisper in my ear 07:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . BLP1E does not apply to a winner of Survivor , as it only applies If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. . There may still indeed BLP issues to fix up here. — siro χ o 04:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Siroxo. Okoslavia ( talk ) 04:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry to disappoint you, but more than ten articles about individual winners have been ed to their respective season pages per that policy, and two other such articles were d. Even the standalone list of the winners was d per AFD. George Ho ( talk ) 06:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC) BIO1E ? — siro χ o 07:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I really hope BIO1E applies if BLP1E doesn't. George Ho ( talk ) 08:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC) BIO2E . Even if we apply BLP policies to take more care with the coverage of the Dr. Phil stuff, this individual is still notable for 2 distinct events, so WP:BIO1E would not apply either. If you or other editors think a into a survivor article improves the encyclopedia, the talk pages where folks more acquainted with the territory can discuss over a longer-than-7-day period are probably a better location for that. — siro χ o 07:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I must rephrase what I said in my nomination, his notability for his Dr. Phil appearance is called into question. The Dr. Phil show itself may be notable, but most (if not all) individual episodes themselves aren't. Even the appearance itself isn't that notable, despite news coverage. But... whatever. I can't change your mind further. George Ho ( talk ) 08:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting although there is some confusion over whether WP:BIO1E or WP:BIO1E WP:BLP1E might apply to this article. Previous AFDs may have closed as but editors here are arguing for a Keep. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think it's a BLP1E, he was on Survivor for more than one episode. I'd to the Survivor article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yet he appeared in only the whole China season. How are all of China episodes separate events? Why not count all of the episodes as just one event? Oh, and why not WP:BIO1E if not BLP1E? George Ho ( talk ) 02:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know, he didn't do one thing, like grow a large grapefruit, he appeared in a series of tv episodes, multiple things together. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Definitely passes BLP1E. ɱ (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Per many of the arguments above. His notoriety extends beyond just Survivor . Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC) BIO1E nor WP:BLP1E apply based on my reading of the text. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the reasons above - It passes the notability standards, the page just needs additional sources and a little clean up. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 02:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with everyone else on here and believe that the page should be kept, while I believe that the page needs more sources. Historyday01 ( talk ) 14:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is it okay for me to withdraw from this nomination at this moment? Seems that the majority overwhelmingly favors ing the article. -- George Ho ( talk ) 16:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Nokia 6700 slide: Merge/ to Nokia would give undue relevance in that article. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk ) 15:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] TechRadar CNET Softpedia ~ A412 talk! 17:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC) I have added the sources given and expanded the article a little bit. StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 19:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the RS, the article does need cleanup so I will do a bit of copyediting. Lightburst ( talk ) 03:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Ourasi: I'm suprised it has existed for 20 years now. If it is possible to make a better article about the horse, it would be better to it and make it better . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah raji ( talk • contribs ) 13:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 26 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 13:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Horse racing . Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC) NHORSERACING a horse is considered notable if it won a US Grade I/Group I graded stakes race or the equivalent level in their respective nations. Horses, due to their relatively short careers, at least once . This horse won the Prix d'Amérique four times. The Prix d'Amerique is widely considered the most prestigious harness race in the world. Furthermore, nom gives no valid reason for deletion. In fact, they admit that the subject may be notable and cite only an essay in support of deletion. The notability guideline obviously trumps the essay. Central and Adams ( talk ) 15:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Personally, i'd say we it and rework it- add proper sources and use an enclycopedic vocabulary. Maybe expand on it in the style of other pages on notable racehorses like Affirmed YoursTrulyKor ( talk ) 09:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC) Blow it up and start over ). Abdullah raji ( talk ) 13:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC) TNT is an essay. It's one editor's opinion. It doesn't override an actual notability criterion. Also I don't see what's so bad about the article. It has the relevant facts. Central and Adams ( talk ) 13:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC) 55, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, it seems the french variant of the page has plenty of sources, so we could use that. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ourasi YoursTrulyKor ( talk ) 13:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The issue seems to be a lack of sources, if anything else. At least some sources should be found so that we could also expand the article YoursTrulyKor ( talk ) 13:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC) French article has many RS; the horse appears to have had book published about it in 2000 by Homeric, which I can't bring up on any sort of website; the author only having one name ala Cher or Madonna, makes me question the reliability of the source... Regardless, there are quite a few newspaper articles about this animal. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These are probably the most RS that English editors would recognize by name, Le Parisien newspaper [48] and Le Monde [49] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Hwang Jae-won (footballer, born 2002): No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Sources are just database entries. This is reflect in the prose of the article which is one sentence saying that he plays football and who for. North8000 ( talk ) 03:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC) I found this article by SPOTV , and this article published by the league he plays for and was republished by OneFootball . There's also these two Korean-language sources from the French Wikipedia article. Left guide ( talk ) 07:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources above which (I think) show notability. Young player with 60+ appearances as a professional in Korea, with ongoing career. Clearly notable. Giant Snowman 12:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC) GNG . Quality of the article right now is poor but it needs improvement not deleting. Inter&anthro ( talk ) 15:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC) GNG . Left guide ( talk ) 20:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per above. Young player with sources with ongoing career in fully pro Korean league. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 21:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Hedras Ramos: He doesn't have significant coverage. Johnmarrys talk 15:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Guatemala . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC) https://guatemaltecosilustres.com/archivo/artistica/hedras-ramos-3/ https://mundochapin.com/2018/04/hedras-ramos-y-su-pasion-por-la-guitarra/59649/amp/ https://www.cortguitars.com/cortBBS/board.php? bo_table=Artists&wr_id=165 https://www.prensalibre.com/guatemala/llevo-dentro-responsabilidad_0_551344886-html/ https://www.perspectiva.gt/uncategorized/super-cola-reconoce-y-apoya-el-talento-de-hedras-ramos/ I'll try to update the article once I'm able to edit from my computer (my residential IP is currently blocked and working on articles from the phone is rather complicated). – FlyingAce ✈hello 18:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 00:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Week . I think we have WP:BASIC but the language difference makes it hard to be 100% sure. The text of one of the above user's sources (perspectiva) seems independent of the subject , it's about a corporate sponsorshpi thing, but I do not think the article is sponsored. I found some non-interview with a byline from Siglo Veintiuno on ProQuest about a collaboration with Christopher Lee . There's several shorter non-trivial mentions as well that may contribute to BASIC, eg [66] and a similar note in Telegraph.co.ok via ProQuest. — siro χ o 00:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC) He is notable enough in his community, which this page caters for. Amaekuma ( talk ) 19:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Julius Hammer: As always, notability is not inherited , so people don't get articles just for being related to other people per se -- but ""had notable descendants"" is the only notability claim being attempted here at all, and the sole source is a glancing namecheck of his existence in a review of his son's autobiography, which is not enough coverage to claim that he would pass WP:GNG . Bearcat ( talk ) 21:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Russia . Bearcat ( talk ) 21:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Today, actor Armie Hammer and his personal life get all the attention. However his great-great-grandfather, Julius, and great-grandfather, Armand Hammer , were far more consequential. Julius led formation of the Communist Party of the United States of America [15] and worked as a Soviet secret agent in the U.S. Notwithstanding Communism's hostility to capitalism, Julius also made a small fortune for himself through his dealings with Amtorg Trading Corporation . Armand subsequently turned the small fortune into a huge fortune , also due in art to his Soviet ties. Here's a sample of coverage: Gillette, Philip S. (October 1981). ""Armand Hammer, Lenin, and the First American Concession in Soviet Russia"" . Slavic Review . 40 (3). Cambridge University Press : 355–365. doi : 10.2307/2496191 . Retrieved 28 July 2023 . Armand Hammer was working on behalf of Julius Hammer; the paper covers Julius Hammer extensively ""PAROLE DR. JULIUS HAMMER: Physician is One of 25 Prisoners Released From Sing Sing"" . The New York Times . 24 January 1923 . Retrieved 28 July 2023 . Dr. Julius Hammer was tried and convicted for performing an abortion in an unsuccessful attempt to save the life of diplomat's wife. The 1920 trial was sensational and widely reported. It created division among the New York physicians as to whether the law should be amended allow abortions to save a mother's life. ""SOCIETY REPUDIATES DR. HAMMER AGITATION: Bronx County Medical Assocition Tells Prosecutor It Favors Upholding the Laws"" . The New York Times . 14 July 1920 . Retrieved 28 July 2023 . ""400 DOCTORS UNITE TO AID DR. HAMMER: Will Petition Court Today in Behalf of Performer of Illegal Operation. WANT PENAL LAW AMENDED Thomas Sheehan, Tammany Captain, Indicted on Charge ofTrying to Bribe Juror"" . The New York Times . 30 June 1920 . Retrieved 28 July 2023 . Attempted jury-tampering by an agent of the Tammany Hall political machine further sensationalized the trial. Ingham, John (ed.). Biographical Dictionary of American Business Leaders, Volume 2 . Cambridge University Press . pp. 533–535 . Retrieved 28 July 2023 . Armand Hammer's biographical entry includes 2 pages devoted to the father Spence, Richard B (21 June 2017). Wall Street and the Russian Revolution 1905-1925 . pp. 94–96, 101, 145–146, 189, 199, 204, 241, 243, 257. ISBN 978-1634241236 . Julius gets more attention in this book than his son Armand since during this era, 23-year old Armand was working as his father's representative in the USSR. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC) 33, 30 July 2023 (UTC) OR. I don't know much about Armie Hammer ; I haven't had time to sink my teeth into his story. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify if the creator is willing to bring it beyond the barest of stubs. If not, it will need to be d until someone wishes to create an actual encyclopedic article. Thanks to A. B. for coming up with sources. Lamona ( talk ) 01:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per A.B.'s sources. signed, Rosguill talk 02:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Doug Sandom: He was replaced long before the band became notable and did not do anything significant afterwards. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done ) 00:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done ) 00:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 00:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC) Seems notable to me: obituaries in The Times and The Daily Telegraph also other coverage, for example Daily Express and Doug’s happy to have made his Detour from The Who Piecesofuk ( talk ) 13:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Being an early member of a band IS notable if he has been described as such in every imaginable biography of The Who from reliable journalists and authors. Sandom is regularly described as playing a noteworthy role in the band's early days. A Google Books search leads to dozens of reliable results. This nomination shows little knowledge of The Who's history, which is okay as everyone starts somewhere; but it also shows a disregard of WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST , which is not okay. The article needs expansion, not deletion, and expansion should be fairly easy. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 19:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Blackpool Council: Maybe it be best to be d given the borough article covers the council as well? DragonofBatley ( talk ) 17:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC) , @ Eopsid : , @ PamD : and any other editors, might wish to comment on this? DragonofBatley ( talk ) 17:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Category confusion. A borough is a geographic place and a council is a legislature and executive. The council is notable in its own right. Borough of Blackpool / Blackpool might be suitable for a r, but if there are places in the borough that are not considered 'part of Blackpool' then maybe not. MRSC ( talk ) 17:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy - No deletion rationale. The nom.'s argument is for so this should be a proposal (in any case, it should not be d per MRSC). Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 18:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC) UKDISTRICTS . Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 19:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC) The article is perfunctory at best, but the local authority and the district are two different things. Flip Format ( talk ) 21:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC) as others have said, a council is a governing body, a borough is a place, they are different. Nothing to gain by combining the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD ( talk • contribs ) 14:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] conflation error, two totally different, albeit related, subjects both of which are notable per se. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 04:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy . Potential s are discussed on article Talk pages not at AfD, though to be fair may get more input here. In any case, as has been mentioned, the Council is distinct from the borough it governs and notable in its own right. Bound to be sources discussing previous elections and policy, notwithstanding what little is included in the article. Rupples ( talk ) 22:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Kodi Medeiros: Nearly all sources are trivial mentions of transactions or statistics; Wikipedia is not a baseball fansite (where an article like this might belong). Anonymous Contributor 012786 ( talk ) 10:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 21 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 10:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Baseball , and Hawaii . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Subject has multiple GNG level sources already referenced in the article. Just because the subject never made the major leagues doesn't mean they aren't notable. Let'srun ( talk ) 14:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Literally the first source is enough for notability. It talks about him directly, then we trace his career through the sport. The rest given is fine. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Uptown Scottsbluff: While TPH may be limited from filing a DRV, they raised their opinion that the discussion was invalid. Because it has been recreated, a DRV is no longer viable so bringing it here for further discussion as prior closer. Star Mississippi 02:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls , Organizations , Companies , and Nebraska . Star Mississippi 02:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. I think I can identify four articles from three sources in this piece that pass the test for independent, significant, non-trivial, secondary coverage under NCORP : Omaha World-Herald , Star-Herald , and two KNEB sources: [81] , [82] . (The NCORP trivial mention test does not exclude coverage of rebranding or changes in ownership.) I recognize these were in the article when it was first nominated, so I would have leaned """" then as well. (P.S. If Uptown Scottsbluff can't clear AfD with these sources, then the rest of the malls in Nebraska should be nominated too.) Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 02:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Flagging comment from TPH located here . They are not able to participate here but I believe are able to opine and so flagging to be sure it's not missed by closer. Star Mississippi 00:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Enough sources to justify ing the article. There are some individual sources here I would not have used myself, but that does not affect the weight of the other sources. Esw01407 ( talk ) 12:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Julie Zeilinger: GeorgeMisty ( talk ) 00:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Women , Journalism , Internet , New York , and Ohio . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC) It might be worth it to be look at using these sources in the article: a review of her 2012 book A Little F'd Up in Publishers Weekly and an interview with PW ; review of this 2015 collection she contributed to in Kirkus Reviews ; coverage of her 2014 book College 101 by Buzzfeed News ; and Jessalyn Keller's chapter in this Routledge book, Girls' Feminist Blogging in a Postfeminist Age ( alternative link ). Also possibly useful is this article by Zeilinger on her family and a brief mention in this 2012 article in the New York Daily News on a Women in the World event. Bridget (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC) HEY . Article significantly improved. Bridget (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC) per sources provided by Bridget above, especially the Keller book which discusses Zeilinger. Pam D 08:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC) brief coverage of her and her FBomb.org blog in The teen bloggers who took over the internet (Guardian, 2009) somewhat more substantial coverage of her and her blog in REPORTERS' NOTEBOOK. Crain's Cleveland Business, 01972375, 7/27/2009, Vol. 30, Issue 28 (via Wikipedia Library, MasterFILE Complete) reviews of A Little F'D Up in Foreward Reviews and Library Journal 7/1/2012, Vol. 137 Iss 12, p96 (via Wikipedia Library, Literary Reference Center Plus) Where Are They Now: Julie Zeilinger (Cleveland Magazine, 2017) A Little F'D Up is evaluated over several pages by Katie Hogan in Feminist Teacher , Vol. 24, No. 3 (2014), pp. 229-233 (via JSTOR ) Her blog is discussed in a graf by Gayle Kimball in ""Media Empowers Brave Girls to be Global Activists"", Journal of International Women's Studies Vol. 20, Iss. 7, (Aug 2019): 35-56, ProQuest 2292913893 She is described in a review of Jessalyn Keller's work as one of the ""well-known girl feminists"" interviewed (via JSTOR ) With the sources identified in this discussion, seems well-supported, at minimum according to WP:BASIC . Beccaynr ( talk ) 01:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above! Crunchydillpickle🥒 ( talk ) 07:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Just a note that @ Beccaynr didn't just state that Zeilinger did a lot of amazing things (which is, frankly, a matter of opinion to a large extent), but that she's done things that have been noted in reliable, third-party sources . It's the sources that count; we all do amazing things, but not all of us are going to get an article. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 15:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] She's published two books. One is in it's third printing. 82.12.128.180 ( talk ) 15:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as everyone is saying above. She's accomplished quite a lot and has published two books and multiple articles. The woman did a phenomenal interview with Gloria Steinem when she was a teenager! Not many people can say that! SammyCarmichael ( talk ) 15:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Diana Perkins: JMWt ( talk ) 16:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine , Psychiatry , and United States of America . JMWt ( talk ) 16:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC) NPROF . Netherzone ( talk ) 17:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This is a high citation field but with first-author or single-author papers having citation counts of 1640, 799, 651, 310, etc [14] she passes WP:PROF#C1 . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC) PROF#C1 . XOR'easter ( talk ) 22:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , passed PROF-C1. -- Mvqr ( talk ) 11:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"FountainVest Partners: Refs are routine business news. scope_creep Talk 05:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] this one from the SCMP is a portrait of FountainInvest. The sources are independent such as Reuters, the company has majority stakes in household names such as Wilson (Basketballs), Atomic (Skiing), Salomon . It has acquired (together with others) majority stakes in two of the best known ski manufacturers in the world and that's just one of their investment. Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 06:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, not really. And they are not household names. What it looks like is a brochure advertising article similar to the ones created by Tim Templeton. scope_creep Talk 10:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you show me one of Tim Templeton to compare? I tried to find him over UserːTim Templeton , but he doesn't exist. And if you ever went Skiing or have played or watched Basketball or Tennis, you'd be rather familiar with those names. The outdoor clothes ( Arc'terix ) they also partly own are really popular as well. Have you ever gone past a Papa John's Pizza restaurant? In China its theirs as well. Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 11:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He was blocked and most of his stuff has been d. But the type of article that being created are identical to the type of stuff he used to create. What they own is not a definition of notability. scope_creep Talk 13:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Paradise Chronicle . He's referring to User:Timtempleton . I think I now get why I have multiple articles flagged. One that user's latest drafts was on Stone Point Capital which I have tried working on today so he may think I am that guy. Maybe I should stop thinking of even trying to recreate articles of drafts that were previously d since I have gotten into bigger messes doing so. - Imcdc Contact 16:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , China , and Hong Kong . Shellwood ( talk ) 07:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Ref 1 [34] Profile. WP:PRIMARY . Ref 2 [35] Company report. Non-RS. Ref 3 [36] Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS Ref 4 [37] Interview with the founder. Fails WP:ORGIND Ref 5 [38] Taken from Tang speaking at a conference. Fails WP:ORGIND Ref 6 [39] Press-releasse. Fails WP:SIRS Ref 7 [40] Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS Ref 8 [41] Interview. Fails WP:ORGIND Ref 9 [42] Comes from a press-release. Same news in multiple locations. Fails WP:SIRS Ref 10 [43] Monied raised. Fail WP:CORPDEPTH . Ref 11 [sdcera.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=328&meta_id=36781] PDF. FountainVest Introduction, SDCERA Board Meeting. Fails WP:SIRS . Not independent. Ref 12 [44] Press-release. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS Ref 13 [45] Company deal. Not idependent. Fails WP:SIRS . Ref 14 Same press-release as ref 13 There is not a single genuine source that confirms that the comany is notable. It fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV . All the coverage is generated from company news sources, the founder and the a conference, as with any other small private company. scope_creep Talk 19:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Small private company? FountainVest was involved in the largest company buyout in Chinese history and co-owns three to four major and very well known sports companies that also have their own article. I believe you can watch any World Cup Skiing race and you will see their skis in the very vast majority of events if not all. They have Salomon AND Atomic. The current champion of the Ski World Cup Marco Odermatt uses Salomon shoes . And you can walk into any better sports wear store and you'll see their Arc'terix clothes. At least where I live, you see them all over and it is the well established class who wear such clothes. And then you can watch any professional tennis tournament and you will see their rackets. On the sources, of which you withhold their names... . we have Wall Street Journal , on the establishment of its first fund of ca. 1 Bio. Reuters (FountainVest declined to comment), Reuters , (you call it interview, I call it notability, why does the founder get interviewed?), South China Morning Post on the largest company buyout in Chinese history, which was Focus Media FinanceAsia (no interview), Bloomberg News (Paywall, but Bloomberg News) on the purchase of Papa John's China branch ( Non-paywall link ) South China Morning Post On the eventual IPO of the sports companies Arc'Terix Atomic, Wilson etc. Thats just some, in the references are more. Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 01:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not so sure about this analysis. Ref 3 (the Reuters piece) says ""FountainVest declined to comment"" – you're saying they declined to comment in their own press release? — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 03:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A lot of that seems to be branding and advertising. How does that make the company notable, exactly? Companies advertise their products, that is what they do, to make profit. Society, modern civilization is soaked in advertisement and its never been cheaper in history to advertise on a global scale. Its very easy and cheap to do. I can't see how that is a criteria for being notable. When you look at these references, for example, taking the Bloomberg ""FountainVest to Buy Papa John’s Pizza China Franchisee From EQT"" It states in the headline ""FountainVest to Buy Papa John’s Pizza China Franchisee From EQT"". When you do a search on that term, it comes up in multiple locations, with the exact same text, indicating its a press-release from the company. Press-releases are the lingua franca of company's. So its not unique, some journalists doing the hard of going out and find the facts. Social media did for them in their business in big way from 2008 onwards, although paywalls are enabling real journalism to take place now, but not for this lazy way of reporting. On the WSJ one it is a similar outcome. Its a press-release. The WSJ that has been comprehensively debunked for showing it takes advertising dollar as much as anybody else. And it the same with all the rest. They are poor. Lastly, notability is not inherited. I may have made a mistake on size, for which I apologize for (I'll score it out), but there is nothing of real quality in the sources here. They're mostly generic second-hand information from the company news desk. scope_creep Talk 07:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Many of the sources are authored articles from perennial reliable sources not random press releases like from Reuters Staff or from the company itself. Then per the Establishing Notability linked by Imcdc below, FountainVest has way larger funds than 750 Million Dollars and closed its first around 1 Bio, and its fourth in 2022 at 2.9 Bio Dollars. It also holds by far more assets than the 1 Bio mentioned there. Besdie the aformentioned assests, it invested in 2009 in Sino, that launched Weibo the same year and which in 2017 overtook Twitter in market capitalization and by now is worth about 25 Bio. Dollars. FountainVests founder is Member of the Board at Weibo . Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 10:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No they are not. The amount of money that organisation has hasn't been a criteria for notability since at least 2008. Your completly ignoring the type of references. Per WP:SIRS , they must be independent from the company. It is another debunked argument, that for example, if it comes from Reuters then its cast in platinum reliable. It is not and hasn't been for a long time. The quality of the references matter, where the information is coming from, whether or not its independent. If its coming from the company, then its not independent. A simple search shows the same. The same headlines appear in multiple locations, on multiple news sites, with the same wording, indicating its comes from the company and is not independent, failing WP:SIRS . scope_creep Talk 11:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How are they not authored. The Wall Street Journal is authored , by Nisha Gopalan and Ellen Sheng The Wall Street Journal again by John Stoll on the purchase of the Auo Industry supplier Key Safety Systems The first Reuters in authored by Kane Wu The second an interview by George Chen The Bllomberg news on the Papa Johns China branch purchase by Vinicy Chan und Cathy Chan The Finacial Times on the largest buy out in Chinese history by Josh Noble Variety by Patrick Fraser in 2022 The Hollywood Reporter by Rebecca Sun in 2016 The New York Times by Neil Gough on the Sale of Focus Media for 7.4 Bio. On that next one I am not sure if they are a perennial reliable source. But the Financial Review and three authors seems a fairly researched. The Australien Finance Review on a purchase and eventual IPO of the Australian Loscam has even three authors, Anthony Macdonald , Sarah Thompson and Kanika Sood. Every each one is written by authors of agency, outlet known to be independent to FVP. If FVP bought shares of any of those it can be mentioned in Perennial sources as it is done in the case the South China Morning Post which is owned by Alibaba Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 16:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems you have not responded to my point about ref 3, which does not seem to be a press release as far as I can tell. I've also checked the second ref you labeled as a press release (ref 6) and cannot find any evidence that it's a press release either. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 02:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC) WikiProject Private Equity#Establishing Notability . For further reference. - Imcdc Contact 01:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the sources listed above. I've checked a few, which seem to be independent reporting, not press releases. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 02:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Here are three of the sources discussed by Paradise Chronicle that establish notability: Wu, Kane (2020-12-17). Feast, Lincoln (ed.). ""China's FountainVest reaches first-close in new private equity fund - source"" . Reuters . Archived from the original on 2023-07-02 . Retrieved 2023-07-02 . The article notes: ""Founded in 2007, FountainVest has been an avid investor in China’s media and entertainment, sports and consumer-related sectors. In June, it led a $750 million fundraising of online tutoring startup Zuoyebang as the COVID-19 crisis spurs investor interest in education technology. In 2018, the firm teamed up with China’s ANTA Sports and internet giant Tencent Holdings to buy Finland’s Amer Sports, which owns a range of sports brands including Wilson and Arc’teryx, for $5.2 billion."" Rovnick, Naomi (2011-06-11). ""Picking China's next winners"" . South China Morning Post . EBSCO host 875105615 . Archived from the original on 2023-07-02 . Retrieved 2023-07-02 . The article notes: ""Frank Tang, chief executive of FountainVest Partners, a US$1 billion Hong Kong-based private equity fund, has bet the farm on China making its long-heralded transformation from the world's workshop into a consumer-driven economy. Tang founded FountainVest Partners in 2007 with a group of former colleagues at Singapore's sovereign-wealth fund Temasek Holdings, which was an anchor shareholder. Today, FountainVest Partners holds stakes in nine mainland companies, most of which Tang believes will profit from Beijing's plan to retool the economy."" Gopalan, Nisha; Sheng, Ellen (2008-11-14). ""FountainVest launches China fund"" . The Wall Street Journal . Archived from the original on 2023-07-02 . Retrieved 2023-07-02 . The article notes: ""FountainVest Partners raised around $950 million for its first fund, a China-focused private-equity fund, despite the turmoil in financial markets. In addition to Singapore's state-owned investment company, Temasek Holdings Pte. Ltd., FountainVest's backers include the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan and other investors from Asia, Europe and North America."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow FountainVest Partners ( traditional Chinese : 方源資本 ; simplified Chinese : 方源资本 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria , which requires ""significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 05:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"List of NFL Championship Game broadcasters: Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent NFL fans. Fails WP:LISTN . Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE . As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced; besides being minimal, none of the two are extant, not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , American football , Lists , and United States of America . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This would have to have been from a while ago, so sources could exist on newspapers.com. However, this article stands as WP:LISTCRUFT and mainly consists of WP:OR . Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I have agreed with the previous AfDs directed at lists of broadcasters of various college bowl games and conference championship games, but there is room in the encyclopedia for a list when it is about the biggest game of the year. In recent history, that's the Super Bowl, and nobody has questioned the notability of List of Super Bowl broadcasters . The Super Bowl is not only the pinnacle of careers on the field but also in the broadcast booth. The best of the best are tabbed to broadcast the Super Bowl, and a list of its broadcasters serves a valid purpose as a navigational list. In the pre-Super Bowl era, the NFC Championship Game was the pinnacle, and the same rationale applies. Cbl62 ( talk ) 08:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC) . There is room for these lists in a legitimate encyclopedia if limited to top-level events. E.g., List of Super Bowl broadcasters , List of World Series broadcasters , List of NBA Finals broadcasters , List of Wimbledon broadcasters , List of Indianapolis 500 broadcasters , List of Stanley Cup Finals broadcasters . Being the broadcaster at such an event is the pinnacle for sports broadcasters, and the lists serve a useful navigational function in tracking sports broacasting history at the highest level. It is when we allow these things to creep to the middle and lower levels that we risk dippig into fancruft. Cbl62 ( talk ) 09:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not the Super Bowl though. I'd be willing to change my ! vote if sources are found regarding these specific game(s)' broadcasting crews. Conyo14 ( talk ) 16:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The NFL Championship Game was the top championship game in pro football during its time. The Super Bowl is that today. Cbl62 ( talk ) 16:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nobody can doubt that. The can't be said for the one about the FA Cup final, Moto GP, Ligue 1, Serie A, Bundesliga and the French Open ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination) ) SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 09:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , per Cbl62, being what was at the time the biggest American football game of the year. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 14:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We can all agree with that. This is not intended to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT but I wish people stop using ""the biggest sporting event of the year"" as an excuse to . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 07:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC) You wish people would stop referencing the fact that a list is based on a notable event, and the notability of said event, as a reason/relevant point when voting to something? That's a silly concept and definitely not an ""excuse"". Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC) Reliable sources discussing the broadcasters for this game as a group seemingly do not exist, and as such, this article fails to meet WP:LISTN . Notability is WP:NOTINHERETED . Let'srun ( talk ) 19:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A list can serve valid navigational purpose and not have sources discussing all entries as a group. In any event, here ( link ) is a piece by the Pro Football Researchers Association that does exactly what you ask. Cbl62 ( talk ) 21:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is a good start, but I'd need to see at least one more source like that before I'd be inclined to switch my vote. Let'srun ( talk ) 02:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, this functions as a navigational list such that we don't need sources dealing with all entries as a group (even though such a source has been found). This was the top pro football game in the world in the years prior to the Super Bowl (where nobody questions the validity of the List of Super Bowl broadcasters ) and has equal historical value. Cbl62 ( talk ) 10:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Per Cbl62. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Cbl62. Rlendog ( talk ) 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I think the problem with this article is that it only gives a list format of who did play-by-play, color commentating, and also on-field reporting. The notes section is actually much more reliable as a History of the NFL championship broadcasts article startup than maintaining it as a list. However, with only one good source from Cbl62, it doesn't seem like this article maintains WP:LISTN . Saying, ""it was the biggest event of the time, surely sources exist..."", please provide more and I will change my ! vote. Conyo14 ( talk ) 07:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] but move to History of the NFL championship broadcasts , per Conyo14 , with the footnote material about the various quirks of the broadcasts being moved to the body of the article ahead of the list, and the list being made a lesser section of the article. BD2412 T 14:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. and move? Or ? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and move per BD2412 . My previous rationale still applies, this does not meet the WP:LISTN but can meet the GNG though a rewrite. Let'srun ( talk ) 20:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Miroslav Kozák: References are terribly-formatted: secondary ones listed are routine football transfers (e.g. SME) and stories regarding his club appearances use database, the latter of which is obviously unacceptable per WP:BASIC . My Google searches showed nothing relevant besides silly, random namesakes. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Slovakia . ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The nomination does not make sense to me. Formatting of references is irrelevant in an AFD. It's not disallowed or even discouraged to ""use a database"". WP:BASIC is not an issue here, and the sources currently numbered 7, 8, 9 and 10 are significant coverage. Geschichte ( talk ) 20:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC) , See Geschichte's comment above. In addition, he definitely has offline sources, having had comprehensive pro career in early 2000s including a few seasons in the Slovak top flight, stints in theCzech top flight and Hungariuan top flight as well as Iranian pro leagues. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 07:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which of the sources show significant coverage? Giant Snowman 16:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See Geschichte's comment above. Nonsensical nomination. Clearly also meets WP:BASIC. In addition, he definitely has offline sources, having had comprehensive pro career in early 2000s including a few seasons in the Slovak top flight, stints in theCzech top flight and Hungariuan top flight as well as Iranian pro leagues. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 23:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Sirens (2014 TV series): Agusmagni Agusmagni Agusmagni 00:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , and United States of America . Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 9 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 03:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC) This is another nuisance AfD nomination, just like the others from this OP. The series is clearly notable, the article has plenty of sources. Toughpigs ( talk ) 21:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I removed PROD. Has plenty of critic reviews on RT. Other reviews are also available. Donald D23 talk to me 21:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC) Fails GNG. Sources in the article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth . Found promo, listings, nothing that meets the indepth independent requirement of SIRS. // Timothy :: talk 07:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ¿Why do you should a page of an American show that aired on a network owned by a bigger multinational group? Agusmagni ( talk ) 23:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC) Dennis Leary brings 'Sirens' to USA review (I think from the Washington Post originally but clearly syndicated also). The sound of Sirens: Denis Leary's new comedy series from goes topless, sort of feature story/semi-review from Sun Media . 'Sirens', 'Suits' are silly and serious , story about its upcoming release. 'Sirens' an enjoyable trip to the ency room a full page(!) positive review in the Boston Globe . Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Skynxnex. AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 18:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC) 12, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Skynxnex, in addition to the article already looking fine in its current state. A quick check of AFDStats shows nothing but controversial nominations from this user. AviCapt ( talk to me! ) 05:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC) Obvious fulfillment of WP:NTV . There are more than thirty sources currently in the article, all of which are strong and reliable sources. In addition, there are reviews from Variety [56] and Time Out [57] , and coverage from Deadline [58] and The Hollywood Reporter [59] on the renewal and cancellation. There is even an interview with the series' creators from Collider , which emphasizes that the series is USA Network's first original comedy series. [60] Quite ridiculous to be even filed for deletion, in my opinion. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 20:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC) Very clearly meets GNG. Besides the reviews already listed above, there are also reviews in Collider , Common Sense Media , The Chicago Tribune , Paste , The Orlando Sentinel , AV Club , The Boston Globe , the South Florida Sun-Sentinel , Deseret News , the Baltimore Sun , People Magazine , the Salt Lake Tribune , the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette , the New York Daily News , the Los Angeles Times , USA Today , Newsday , the San Francisco Chronicle , The New York Times , the Philadelphia Daily News , DVD Talk , TV Guide , the Winnipeg Free Press and the Orange County Register . Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 13:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Republic of China (disambiguation): A disambiguation page should be a list of articles that might otherwise be called ""Republic of China"", and any entries on this page that meet this criterion are all linked from Taiwan . Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 10:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and China . Shellwood ( talk ) 11:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] but possibly cut down. The title ""Republic of China"" is certainly ambiguous between Republic of China (1912–1949) and Taiwan , and is also occasionally used as shorthand for the Republic of China calendar , as in this source . Many sources say ""Republic of China"" or ""Republic of China period"" to refer only to the period of Chinese history from 1912 to 1949 (excluding modern Taiwan), whereas some sources use it to refer to modern Taiwan. I'm not knowledgeable enough to say whether any of the other topics listed are also valid topics for this DAB, but there are at least three, and that's enough to merit a disambiguation page. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 13:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think this is a great dabpage, since there are a number of links there that are not plausible for the search term ""Republic of China"", but the page should be kept and stubbified to retain disambiguation between Taiwan and Republic of China (1912–1949) . Folly Mox ( talk ) 13:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC) Sillyfolkboy 's cleanup . . Folly Mox ( talk ) 21:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've been bold and cleaned this up. The article is pretty much the definition of a valid disambiguation. SFB 16:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Deletion is not called for. The page seemed to have grown into a list of republican goverments in China, but as now revised, nicely deliniates the options. -- Bejnar ( talk ) 20:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC) 35, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Fabio Innocenti: The article needs citations from reliable, independent sources; is missing information about Early life, Career, Personal life, Achievements and honours (if any). JoeNMLC ( talk ) 14:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , United Arab Emirates , and Italy . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. No third party independent coverage found, zero references. Qcne (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC) Going through the page history, I found something interesting. The page was hijacked back in January and May by the IP 83.110.13.102",keep
+"Captain Citrus: , then deprodded by StarTrekker ( talk · contribs ) for alleged mass PROD, but then reinstated by BoomboxTestarossa. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 15:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 15:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC) as no notable independent sources, probably even tenuous to link it back to Not That Ralph Macchio unless that page somehow contextualises a random mascot within his career. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 16:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] . Most mentions post-2014 are very passing mentions: [19] , [20] . However, there are a few multi-paragraph mentions [21] and at least one entire article: Bouffard, K. (2015, Mar 30). 'Captain citrus': OJ sales fall more slowly; is it heroic? The Ledger Retrieved from [22] . And, perhaps surprisingly, a paper, although not very cited but still a published paper: Promoting Commodities through Comic Books: A Framing Analysis of the Captain Citrus Campaign . Journal of Applied Communications . 2016. I was going to vote probably but this is significantly more mainstream coverage of a comic book character than normal, even if it was mostly an ad-push, there was still some following on coverage. Skynxnex ( talk ) 13:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wow, that's good stuff! I wonder what I was doing wrong to not see that. It needs an overhaul but yes, definitely salvageable. How do I go about changing my vote? Do I edit the first one or just post ? =) BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 14:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC) DISCUSSAFD has some instructions but generally: Do not make conflicting recommendations; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between  and  after the * , as in ""• "". I've also see people strike their vote and then do their new vote in a different comment. Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 13:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Skynxnex thanks, appreciate the patience! =) per sources listed, apologies all around. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 14:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Consider the revision of the page as my penance for the premature nomination and as a thanks to @ Skynxnex for the sources. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 18:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Cry for Help (Steven Universe): Kuchi Kopi ( talk ) 16:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong . As I said in my comment on the AfD for The Answer (Steven Universe) , the reasoning for this deletion is not only absurd, but so broad that it makes little sense, especially since you are nominating, but claiming it is in regards to off-wiki information, but WON'T even describe what it is! Please withdraw this incorrect AfD. This episode IS notable and the fact you nominated this for an AfD instead of beginning a discussion on the talk page is an indication that this discussion is not productive to anyone. Historyday01 ( talk ) 16:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] BRV only applies to articles that were created in violation of a ban. It does not apply to editors who created an article, in good faith, and were later banned. Unless you're accusing",keep
+"Hip Hop Congress: I added 'notability' and 'primary sources' tags 9 years ago and they were removed without addressing the problems. My attention was drawn back to it today when an IP editor added a press release. Time for the article to go, in my opinion, fails WP:GNG. Sionk ( talk ) 23:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Organizations , and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The article is kind of bad but the organization is notable. There’s a book here , an article here , as well as some in-depth coverage in a book about college students’ lives here . The subject (if not the article) passes GNG. Mrfoogles ( talk ) 02:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) 11, 30 March 2024 (UTC) THREE that were provided and now added by Mrfoogles. microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 20:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Passes WP:SIGCOV based on the cited references already in the article. The was a poorly thought through nomination. Additionally, there are other sources in google books, so it's clear WP:BEFORE was either not done or incompetently done. 4meter4 ( talk ) 17:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center: Iskandar323 ( talk ) 13:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Israel . Iskandar323 ( talk ) 13:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - It looks like a topic that is likely to expand on the near future, so for now pending that. Irtapil ( talk ) 15:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC) CRYSTALBALL Industrial Insect (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From some quick research the ITIC is part of three loosely related entities with its parent the IICC, and an American ""friends of"" group the AFIICC. The meaning of the letters don’t really matter at the moment. What does is that the three form a quasi-private quasi-military intelligence organization with large resources of money and research and the ability to extend the military intelligence capabilities significantly. They get overlooked because they’re private, but this means there’s no oversight either. A Standalone article should be based on the IICC, showing how the other two support it and military intelligence. The three together have more RS including info critical of them which allows more NPOV. Short of someone volunteering to take on that article (I can’t) the info here should be d into one of the Other Israeli intelligence org articles so that the info is there for an enlarged article later. Ayenaee ( talk ) 21:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with GidonB. I’ve changed my vote from """" to """" to avoid confusion from the way I expressed myself. My waffle 😊 basically meant """" so it can be d into IICC future article. I have added the new article to my to-do - it just won’t be done quickly. So any who has more time is welcome to steal 😀 it from me. Ayenaee ( talk ) 05:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Terrorism . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - to ITIC. ~~ αvírαm | (tαlk) 09:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC) Passes GNG per sources already in article. // Timothy :: talk 02:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Passes the GNG. Sorry, I do not understand the opinions. ITIC is just another name for Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. That's not a . Also, we CANNOT our article into an article that we do not carry. Yes, the article should absolutely be renamed and rewritten as an IICC article but all that is beyond the scope of AfDs. Someone should want to actually engage in that. That person CAN and is encouraged to be bold and just move the article at that time! Until then, this unit is also notable so is the way forward! gidonb ( talk ) 05:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft given notability but some of these references are dodgy. Have cleaned up what I could but a lot of the mentions in cited sources are passing mentions, but multiple mentions so. 50/50. Kazamzam ( talk ) 17:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"List of Darkstalkers characters: However, Zxcvbnm objected, citing the previous AfD's consensus. However, I'm not arguing overlying notability for the characters as a whole separate of the franchise (which is a concern on its own vs reception for individual characters, but I digress), but instead that the list itself does not need to be a separate entity. As you can see from the link above, it fits perfectly inside the series article, without making it too large, the key concerns for such a split here normally. I don't feel in its current form a massive list is necessary, and I don't forsee it getting expanded further (the last new character added was Dee in 2005, almost 20 years ago). As it stands, there's no need for a separate article to compound our already overflowing list problem. Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 19:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 19:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC) For the sake of transparency, this was the version of the list's page prior to reorganizing, which not only included excessive detail randomly, but also random gameplay bits, trivial reception from past s, and some very questionable sources (EventHubs, ""Flying Omelette""?). The goal of the original reduction was to aim closer to more streamlined lists, and then cite any information as needed. This got interrupted mid-cleanup efforts. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 13:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Assuming no information is being lost, I am not opposed to a to Darkstalkers#Characters . Captain Galaxy 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Electric Boogaloo Similar to the last AfD, deletion is not cleanup and there's no particular reason a character list should not exist, as these sorts of articles are VERY well established on Wikipedia. It was shown that the article can certainly stand on its own if improved, as the cast of Darkstalkers is one of the more well-known in video game history. ""Overflowing list problem"" is a personal opinion and it's impossible to tell whether or not it will be improved, as you are no fortune-teller. That's simply a WP:NOEFFORT argument. If you really want to see it fixed, your time's better spent fixing it than arguing it should be removed. See also WP:BEBOLD . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC) OTHERSTUFFEXISTS : just because ""other articles"" are established does not mean that one cannot be d. This not a ""No Effort"" approach or a lack of ""Being Bold"", that's an honest observation from someone that has put a fair share of research into this subject. Additionally this is not an attempt at ""cleanup"" but to make an argument that the list itself does not need to be separate from the parent, which is fair game for AfD to determine consensus. So I will ask that you assume some good faith, and to not be rude. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 22:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC) 38, 18 March 2024 (UTC) 57, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This makes the other article too long if put there. Having it separate makes it more readable. Kung Fu Man made the article in October 2008‎. It was far longer through most of its existence. In December 2023, Kung Fu Man reduced it from 84K to 15K. [43] 104 references down to 7. I think some of the referenced information where reliable sources talked about the characters should be included. Also the overview chart showing which games had which notable characters should've been kept. D r e a m Focus 21:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of the refs appear to have shuffled off to standalone character articles so no information appears to have been lost. — M asem ( t ) 21:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is only one standalone character article, Morrigan Aensland , the rest are just s to here. Kung Fu Man seems to have d them over here last year. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Baby_Bonnie_Hood&diff=1154824604&oldid=1154823810 D r e a m Focus 21:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Given KFM's work on character articles and cleaning up bad sourcing, I trust that these trims and removal of sources followed in line with eliminating sources that barely touched on the subject, along with excessive primary sourcing. This judging from a scan of the ore trimmed version and where sources were used. M asem ( t ) 23:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I will say that I would have objected more to the rs of the various characters if I knew that the character list was set to be d too. Moving them all to a list is due weight. Moving them all to the series article is undue weight. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is an important point that bears a lot of scrutiny. Non-transparently planning to eliminate content via repeated rs is arguably tendentious editing. You want 'em all gone? Fine: nominate them all. Don't them all editorially... and then force a re- in AfD so there's very little left. Jclemens ( talk ) 05:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC) LISTN were purged from the character list for some reason and I frankly have no clue why they were removed, with the only thing I can think of being to make the article seem less notable for a deletion or . Why purge the character list from HG101, or GamesRadar ? It makes no sense; this is literally a list of characters from the game, so it's absolutely relevant. I tried to add a bit back in, but I'm of half a mind to revert the article gutting entirely. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC) 25, 20 March 2024 (UTC) 37, 18 March 2024 (UTC) of all the problems in Wikipedia, who thinks that collapsing character lists into their franchises is in the top 10? Jclemens ( talk ) 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC) 57, 18 March 2024 (UTC) 49, 18 March 2024 (UTC) the information here can fit inside the series article without a loss of material, and stuff like development and reception would apply just as much to the series as the list. No information would be lost, and no need to them separate. Articles can still be spun out from the series page just fine also if notability is established for a character later on.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 23:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC) CFORK . It's neither redundant nor a POV fork. Jclemens ( talk ) 00:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC) Darkstalkers at its core only has two truly ""full"" games between Darkstalkers / Night Warriors and the many iterations of Vampire Savior .-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 01:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC) 15, 19 March 2024 (UTC) 41, 19 March 2024 (UTC) No WP:CFORK violation exists, no other WP:DEL#REASON applies. Am I wrong? If so, please point me out the policy-based rationale for starting this deletion discussion. I'm just not seeing it. Jclemens ( talk ) 05:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC) 44, 19 March 2024 (UTC) USELESS argument) is not a technicality. There's something wrong if you think that anyone who dares argue a different opinion is being a Wikilawyer. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC) no policy-based deletion rationale articulated. Look, I'm fine with using AfD as articles for discussion--I quite favor it, in fact--but the price of entry is that you have to provide at least one rationale by which the target article could be d. I've asked. You haven't. So you can take this to a talk page discussion, but AfD should not be asked to compel a outcome when there is no policy-based deletion rationale articulated. Jclemens ( talk ) 06:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC) 47, 19 March 2024 (UTC) NLIST / WP:LISTN . And no, it's not precise. Maybe we need to have an RfC on estabilishing criteria for lists of characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC) 55, 19 March 2024 (UTC) NLIST which is as vague to when lists can be made into articles. However, I know that fictional character lists without a significant amount of secondary sources on development and reception of the characters, and excessive primary details, are only grudgingly accepted across WP. M asem ( t ) 02:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC) 37, 19 March 2024 (UTC) 43, 19 March 2024 (UTC) BEFORE and examination of the sources, it wasn't done in bad faith.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 02:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC) 50, 19 March 2024 (UTC) BLAR says, """"Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial [...] cases of blanking and ing."" The majority of video game characters should be considered controversial to unless the page is WP:ALLPLOT . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC) 29, 19 March 2024 (UTC) I am unsure if you are aware, but the article was pared down to a tiny fraction of its former size prior to being ""d"", including removal of numerous WP:RS . It fits in its current, barely-there state, but not in its previous fleshed-out one. I don't think much has been ""proven"" here at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC) 29, 19 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC) This is what you really want to defend as ""fleshed out""? Really? The one with Eventhubs, ""FlyingOmelete"", and leftover gameguide commentary from past s?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 13:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC) USERG outright. But you are cherry-picking the absolute worst sources that for sure should have been removed. You also d many usable sources, so it was, in the most charitable interpretation, a rushed, ""baby out with the bathwater"" situation. Why was a full article on Anakaris from VentureBeat written by a WIRED journalist d despite being SIGCOV? Such things completely torpedo your argument that all the cleanup you did was of poor sources, and that the characters cannot be expanded within the list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC) 27, 19 March 2024 (UTC) 21, 19 March 2024 (UTC) OTHERSTUFFEXISTS there is a commonplace practice of having character lists accompany the article: such as for Street Fighter , Mortal Kombat , King of Fighters , which originally didn't look too dissimilar to how this used to be honestly. It feels like there's not a settled approach to the future of this that has been exposed by the deletion nomination, and because there is not a self-evident notability issue the direction should be to err on the side of caution. No expert on this stuff though - as stated above there's not a lot of guidance on where the best approach lies for character articles and fictional lists. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 22:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC) Night Warriors is a re-release of Darkstalkers with two characters and the bosses playable, while every game after is just a modified version of Vampire Savior , story and all. When distilled there really isn't much story per character, or traits.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 23:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC) 57, 20 March 2024 (UTC) AFD2.0, we were just debating this article a month ago. I'm relisting the discussion as opinion is split between those editors advocating Keeping the article and those supporting a Merge. One editor states that the nominator is arguing for a Merge, is that accurate? No one is supporting an outright deletion, right? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC) The nominator is very clearly arguing for a , as they stated ""does not need to be a separate entity. As you can see from the link above, it fits perfectly inside the series article"", which is a rather than deletion argument. They acknowledge the notability of the cast but nevertheless believe it should be d as after they cleaned up what they believed to be poor sources, the article became a hollow shell. In its current state, the article could be d with nothing lost, however, many of the sources they removed are perfectly good, viable SIGCOV and their deletions resulted in a net loss of information. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC) 12, 26 March 2024 (UTC) NOPAGE : the information in this article can fit neatly inside Darkstalkers#Plot (as it currently does), and the development and reception info is going to be the same for the series as for the list. There's no need for a separate list.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 00:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC) 17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not to ask a dumb question, but wouldn't Den of Geek's article make more sense in the series article given it's reception on, well, the series? As for Anakaris' it is it's entirely about the character's gameplay which would be hard to work in; I mean many characters on List of generation I Pokémon have similar articles, would you argue those should be worked into there as well? -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 12:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it could be used for both articles, certainly. I am unsure why it would be disqualified from use in a character list however, as significant coverage is not required to be the focus of the source material. And ""entirely about the character's gameplay""... it's perfectly reasonable to use an article about the gameplay as a source. I don't see anywhere in policy that bans such a thing, frankly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC) NOTGAMEGUIDE. while gameplay coverage from secondary sources should be incorporated into our video game coverage, we don't want to pull gameplay from primary sources like gameplay guides. — M asem ( t ) 19:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC) NOTGAMEGUIDE actually means. It states that writers should ""Avoid lists of gameplay concepts and items unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context "". It's not a blanket prohibition of anything talking about gameplay, only specifies that guides should not pop up apropos of nothing, like just wanting to write a FAQ for the cool new game that just released. None of the sources I gave are primary; all are secondary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 00:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - So, it seems the main argument here is that the article isn't ""needed."" But on the other hand, I don't see any convincing reasons on why the article shouldn't exist either. In its current state, you can argue that it fits fine in the series article, but I also see WP:POTENTIAL for some expansion. There are some articles discussing some of its characters, such as from Game Rant , The Gamer and GamesRadar . MoonJet ( talk ) 10:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of these sources give at most a sentence of commentary on the characters as a collective, focusing more on giving short snippets towards the individual members. There's not enough in any of these articles to really buff up this one substantially, and I'd argue that your argument as a whole falls under WP: NOPAGE . If it doesn't need to exist and can be better covered at another article, than it should be. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 23:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, seeing as Felicia will soon almost surely be d per AFD result, that will leave Morrigan as the only Darkstalkers character with their own article. Surely there could some discussion on some of the characters d in there, even though it proved to be not quite enough for their article? Demitri also had has own article, until fairly recently, for example. in mind that WP:LISTN notes that one way to establish notability for lists is to have sources that discuss the set as a group, not the only way. In any case, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I see a valid split here. You don't. MoonJet ( talk ) 00:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If there's enough for a split, maybe, but most of the commentary is very fleeting for the bulk of the characters. There's probably a good chunk for recently d characters like Felicia and Demitri, but most won't have that, and those chunks can likely be covered in the main Darkstalkers article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 03:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC) 16, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Two articles have already been cited by Moonjet above and the other two suffer from similar reasons as above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 03:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"List of Storm Prediction Center meso—gamma mesoscale discussions: Editor has a history of creating similar lists that have been d. United States Man ( talk ) 12:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] — Similar list to the List of United States tornado encies . “Niche” lists are allowed on Wikipedia. An example of another niche topic is List of United States tornadoes in July 2023 , which has only one non-NOAA reference or Cylindera arenaria , which I found through the random article button, which has only 2 references and 1 sentence. More references were added this morning ( [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] ), so it passes notability criteria well more than the other two “niche” articles referenced above. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 15:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC) Here is a news article ( Are Radar-Indicated EF5s Possible in the Future? ), which covered the SPC’s issuance of the first one & here is an article from Forbes which also mentioned one of these products. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 16:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait Article hasn't been around for enough time to determine its notabilty . Is worth noting that nominee has often rushed to start a deletion process on new articles. Currently leaning towards but to early for me to make a conclusive decision. RandomInfinity17 ( talk - contributions ) 16:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral I don't think articles on MCDs are needed, but I don't feel like giving a yes or no here. Chess Eric 13:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait — I'm not necessarily against the article but I would like to see more references, or really any reliable references, confirming that the article subject exists in a meaningful and distinct way, separate from SPC mesoscale convective discussions (MCDs). Other NWS documentation —see pages 10 and 11—refers to this kind of product as a ""meso-beta scale MCD"", but with a slightly different definition. I know Andrew Lyons is an NWS forecaster but I don't know that his two off-the-cuff tweets are a supportive foundation for an article, given that the topic of MCDs as a whole don't even garner their own article. Penitentes ( talk ) 13:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found this (Subdividing the Mesoscale) from Penn State Universitiy’s meteorology department, which defines what the “meso—gamma” is. I’ll looking for any other references. I’ve found a handful of news articles that share the SPC’s meso—gamma/meso—beta mesoscale discussions, but they aren’t calling them “meso—gamma” or “meso—beta”. I’m fairly sure that is the term only meteorologists use for them. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 15:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - SPC MCD's are specialized and technical discussions. These discussions are mainly used by meteorologists and weather enthusiasts to predict and understand weather patterns, and do not usually have a direct and immediate impact on the general public. Wikiwillz ( talk ) 17:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did want to point out that these meso—gamma/meso—beta discussions are specifically for, “high impact high confidence violent tornadoes”, which are ongoing at the moment. SPC Forecast Elizabeth Leitman also said, “WFOs also aren’t our only users. TV meteorologists and EMs also use MCDs.” So, one could argue that it does have basically just as an immediate impact on the general public as say a tornado ency , which we have List of United States tornado encies . The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 19:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] -This article is very important and useful because of the topic. I am slightly leaning to deletion, but I think the page should be kept. Tornadoesarecool13 ( talk ) 22:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC) N guidelines. Looks in better shape since nomination began. Tails Wx 14:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"¡Qué Locura! : Seems like WP:ORIGINAL research. Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 14:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 14:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The article has two newspaper references. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 17:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Meets WP:GNG . Qué Locura was the main and most popular hidden camera-comedy television show in Venezuela. -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 18:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions . NoonIcarus ( talk ) 18:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC) https://www.produ.com/television/noticias/los-20-programas-mas-vistos-en-venezuela-son-de-venevision-segun-agb-nielsen/ https://www.laprensalara.com.ve/nota/8041/2019/11/iexclqueacute-locura-el-programa-de-camara-escondida-regresa and plenty of other coverage indeed show it's a popular and notable show. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"William Leslie Arnold : WP:NOTNEWS . TheLongTone ( talk ) 15:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, tenuously . The crime itself might not be notable, but being a double murderer, escaping from prison , escaping to several different countries under a false name and being the subject of a cold case, then being the cause of coverage over a decade after he died? Depends on how much coverage on the case before 2023 can be found, but this seems decently notable, presuming there was coverage of the double murder and prison escape at the time in addition to the recent coverage. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 09:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Simply two different minor news stories. Curious, yes. Notable, no. TheLongTone ( talk ) 15:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If it has significant coverage from reliable sources over a long period of time then yes, it's notable. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 20:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is significance in the manner in which the subject was found to be in Australia and under the alias John Damon. DNA testing using Public systems, such as Ancestry.com, and authorities tapping into these systems is a very current and relevant/notable topic. Panamax76 ( talk ) 07:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I came looking for an article after listening to a BBC radio programme that featured the case. [3] . We've also got the recent Guardian and CNN reports. It was reported luridly at the time e.g. [4] Sunday World-Herald October 12, 1958 page B-1 - 'Youth Kills Father, Mother to Get Own Way About Car. Hides Bodies in Back Yard Under Lilacs. Boy, 16 Told Kin Parents on Trip'. The prison escape and cold case follow-ups were also covered over the years. -- Cavrdg ( talk ) 17:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC) The CNN article from May 2023 provided by Cavrdg indicates ongoing notability. I've also found this article from the Lincoln Journal Star (August 1992): "" Escaped murderer gone 25 years now "". This indicates there was ongoing public interest in the case, from the 1950s on. Toughpigs ( talk ) 02:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC) The Omaha World Herald has an extensive multi-part series on this story. The way he was found in Australia, via DNA and Ancestry.com from unsuspecting relatives is significant, as covered by the BBC radio program ""The Gift"". This article can be greatly expanded upon. Panamax76 ( talk ) 05:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] comment I do not buy any of the above. There is no ocontinuing coverage, meaning that the initial murders & subsquent going on the trot are not notable; the subsuquent covearge on his death are likewise simply ephemeral news stories. Television is of course a whirlpool of sensationalist trivia and I can understand how a television program might be made, altho how the thin gruel would furnish a 'mini-series' I cannot imagine. Just another good reason not to have a television, imo. TheLongTone ( talk ) 15:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, let's treat all the breaking coverage for the three separate incidents (the 2023 discovery, the murder and the initial prison escape) as irrelevant. Only counting interim coverage, we have: 2022 - (on escape) Back in the day, July 14, 1967; Leslie Arnold escapes from prison 2022 - (on murder) Back in the day, Oct. 11, 1958: Leslie Arnold confesses to killing parents and leads police to bodies 2015 - A look at prison escapees who got away with it 2022 - Band Kid or Budding Psychopath? : The Crimes of Leslie Arnold 2017 More coverage: The Mystery of Leslie Arnold 2017 1958 Omaha murder, prison escape story inspires new song by Lincoln band There's a ton more. This is continuous coverage nearly 70 years after the murders occurred. This is clearly a notable case people remember. Also for searching purposes, he was almost always just referred to as ""Leslie Arnold"". If the page survives the page name should be changed to that - it's the clear common name. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 20:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] TheLongTone, you know television has existed for decades? You don't have to buy any of it but you do have to point to actual Wikipedia policies. The onus is on you. – The Grid ( talk ) 20:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Phillip Good : Last paragraph is essentially advertising. Tercer ( talk ) 12:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . Tercer ( talk ) 12:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and California . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , AfD is not clean-up. The subject is the author of multiple textbooks in his subject, textbooks that have been independently reviewed. [38] Some of his texts have run to multiple editions over considerable periods. [39] By all means anything that's promotional and reformat to make the text more appropriate, but deletion is inappropriate. Elemimele ( talk ) 12:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Being a co-author of a textbook that has received a single review is very thin gruel. Now being the sole author of a textbook that has received many reviews and editions is much better, but still not enough if that's everything he's done. I did check the 3 papers that are mentioned as his ""selected publications"", and they are not at all well-cited. this has 115 citations, which is rather little for medicine, and he is anyway only one coauthor of a long list of authors. this has 6 citations, which is almost nothing even for statistics, and this has 7 citations. Tercer ( talk ) 14:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak very thin mentions as above, weak pass at notability for Scholar. I think having 6 and 7 citations is still more than most academics we see here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, 6 and 7 citations is nothing. Any random PhD student has that. WP:NPROF requires much more. Tercer ( talk ) 09:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC) PROF#C1 pass. I definitely crossed that threshold well before I was done with graduate school. Nothing mentioned in this discussion so far amounts to a pass of any applicable criterion, in my opinion. Right now, I'm inclining towards a """" ! vote, but if multiple books have been reviewed multiple times apiece, that could change (per WP:NAUTHOR and maybe WP:PROF#C4 ). XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC) NPROF . He may pass WP:NAUTHOR having 2 books with one review each (which is the minimal criterion), but for one of the books he is not a sole author so I also dont see the subject passing this bar. -- hroest 18:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC) NAUTHOR is met for the reason I suggested above. Reviews of A Practitioner's Guide to Resampling for Data Analysis, Data Mining, and Modeling : [40] [41] [42] . Reviews of the co-authored Common Errors in Statistics (and How to Avoid Them) : [43] [44] . Review of The A-Z Of Error-Free Research : [45] ( [46] is very short). Reviews of Applying Statistics in the Courtroom: A New Approach for Attorneys and Expert Witnesses : [47] [48] . Reviews of Permutation, Parametric and Bootstrap Tests of Hypotheses : [49] [50] [51] [52] . XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC) AUTHOR and the reviews found by XOR'easter. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 05:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Procedural relist for closing an old log, and to seek some further input on the reviews found by XOR'easter. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 07:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . While the papers may not be highly cited, the textbooks seem to get a lot of citations. They also get reviews. I searched myself before noticing that XOR'easter had searched, and found an overlapping list: [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . The combination looks quite solid to me, and although the article is in poor shape, WP:DINC applies. Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 08:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Chołod : I find no critical reviews of the work either. Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I do not agree with the nominator's statement. As a Polish speaker, I would like to point out that the book received a lot of attention. In addition, it was written by an author of box office hits. It meets the stricter standards of the Polish Wikipedia, and I believe it will also meet the standards of the English Wikipedia. I completed the section on reception today, pointing out several reviews and notices by serious Polish media. Paradygmaty ( talk ) 06:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The Forbes and Kultura Liberalna reviews meet the two reviews necessary for WP:NBOOK (and it looks like there are more too). Thanks Paradygmaty for adding those to the article. ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 07:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Rellisting to consider additions by User:Paradygmaty to the article and whether that helps establish notability for this book. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Sources added by Paradygmaty seem to satisfy WP:NBOOK . ARandomName123 ( talk ) 05:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Giedrė Labuckienė : BLP, nothing found in article or BEFORE showing this has WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 00:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Basketball , and Lithuania . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On a number of wikis, including the Polish and French versions which have both more content and 14 and 15 sources, respectively. A 15-year-player for the Lithuanian national team, have any of the sources been checked? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 00:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC) 01, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I haven't looked through them but a brief look of Lithuanian sources gives numerous hits, did the BEFORE focus on those or just a general Google search? Alvaldi ( talk ) 12:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While the article needs work, the subject seems to be notable basketball player. [1] [2] [3] Alvaldi ( talk ) 13:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC) GNG . Aside from the ones provided by Alvaldi, I found [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. There have been substantial additions to the article since its nomination. A source review would be helpful as well as the nominator's opinion on the article improvements. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per rationale by JTtheOG. Chekidalum ( talk ) 11:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is evidently a notable player. Niafied ( talk ) 07:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Dead Air (2007 film) : Upper Deck Guy ( talk ) 02:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . Upper Deck Guy ( talk ) 02:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . There is the review currently on the page and there is this one . At least. MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 06:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think weak given the language divide here. It looks like this film did not get much exposure in English-speaking markets, but has just enough coverage in English to soothe my doubts, plus a very reasonable cast list. — siro χ o 04:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I am unconvinced that Asian Movie Web is a clear-cut reliable source . The about us page neither lists the staff or editorial policies, which is not promising. The only potential claim is some WP:USEBYOTHERS in Google Books, i.e., 1 , 2 , 3 from obviously RS books, and a few others, but I'm unsure whether it is widespread and consistent per the guideline. Likewise, movieXclusive has no clear staff page or detailed editorial policies, and USEBYOTHERS is even weaker (based on Google/Google Books at least). Otherwise I'm unable to find sufficient sources and will probably vote weak later, but I'm aware of the language barrier here and might take another look again at TWL and Baidu to find sources if I have energy for that. I had another look and was unable to find sufficient sources, and remain unconvinced on the reliability of existing reviews. However, I am not proficient at Chinese or Cantonese and had to rely heavily on the unreliable Google Translate, so on the balance this is a Weak . Siroxo and Mushy Yank , if you find more sources please ping me. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Updated on 22:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The film already has an article in the Chinese wiki. The film released during the age when film reviews were online yet no reliable reviews found. DareshMohan ( talk ) 18:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak per Siroxo. Regarding the arguments above: (1) I don't think there is a policy basis for AFD to require clear-cut reliable sources , in the sense of addressing every possible concern. Adjudicating the fine points of reliability is not something the AFD process is really suited for; we have a whole separate board for that. As we are assembled here to decide whether an article should be d, as a rule, any genuine doubts about the appropriateness of deletion should be resolved against deletion . (2) To the extent the existence of an article on the Cantonese Wikipedia weighs at all, it should be in favor of retention, since it shows that an independent community of editors who share our encyclopedic purpose decided that this was worthy of an article. I would consider that one of various secondary indicia of notability here, along with the existence of a Baidu article. (3) An awful lot of content from 2007 is nowhere to be found today (or is buried UnGoogleably behind paywalls) (or was never online to begin with), so I don't think our difficult in locating clear-cut RS reviews is likely to indicate their actual absence . In sum, as there doesn't seem to be any real problem with verifiability or encyclopedicity, and especially as there is at least a prima facie case that the GNG is met, I think the balance of considerations weighs in favor of retention here. -- Visviva ( talk ) 02:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well said in (3), Visviva ( talk · contribs ), as a lot of sources from 2007 are buried behind paywalls or were never online. Cunard ( talk ) 10:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The default here is that we things if they meet WP:GNG and we them if they don't, or if someone makes a compelling argument that we ought to it. AsianMovieWeb is not a reliable source, as far as I can tell, it is a website published by a one ""movie fan"" who doesn't want any other authors to contribute (source: https://www.asianmovieweb.com/en/about.htm ). It is normal to discuss if a source is reliable at WP:AFD . CT55555 ( talk ) 02:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Lin, Xinruo 林欣若 (2006-09-26). ""曾志偉兒子 「鬼計」嚇人"" [Eric Tsang's son's ""Dead Air"" is scary]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. D5. The article notes: ""由陳德森監製、李伯達執導的新片「鬼計」昨天在香港開鏡，參與演出的演員包括曾志偉的兒子曾國祥、尹子維、谷祖琳也參加開鏡儀式，陳德森解釋，雖然片名是「鬼計」，但其實是一部驚悚懸疑片。... 「鬼計」雖然昨天開鏡，其實早已拍攝四天 ... 在「鬼計」裡，曾國祥飾演靈異節目的導演，因為收視跌到谷底，被尹子維飾演的監製譏笑，為了突破收視率，曾國祥找來自殺未遂人士上節目表演各種自殺方法，雖然收視告捷，卻引來更多危機。「鬼計」的劇本很有創意，光是構思自殺方式，就讓編劇想破頭，還得忙著四處蒐集資料。"" From Google Translate: ""Produced by Teddy Chan and directed by Xavier Lee, the new film Dead Air opened shooting in Hong Kong yesterday. The actors involved in the performance include Eric Tsang 's son Derek Tsang , Terence Yin , and Jo Kuk who also participated in the opening ceremony. Teddy Chan explained that although the title of the film is ""Dead Air"", it is actually a thriller and suspense film. ... Although Dead Air started filming yesterday, it has already been filmed for four days... In Dead Air , Derek Tsang plays the director of a supernatural show. Because the ratings fell to the bottom, he was ridiculed by the producer played by Terence Yin. In order to break through the ratings, Derek Tsang recruited suicide attempters to perform various suicide methods on the show. Although the ratings were successful, it caused more crises. The script of ""Dead Air"" is very creative. Just thinking about the method of suicide made the screenwriter want to break his head, and he was busy collecting information everywhere."" ""曾國祥首次擔正感壓力"" [Derek Tsang feels the pressure for the first time]. Macao Daily News (in Chinese). 2006-09-27. p. D3. The article notes: ""由陳德森導演的電影《鬼計》昨舉行開鏡拜神儀式,出席演員包括曾國祥、黎耀祥、谷祖琳、黃浩 然、謝雪心及尹子維等,影片將在衛視電影台獨家首播。 曾國祥在片中飾演一名電視台導演,由於這是他首次擔正演出,加上稍後還要拍劉國昌執導的 ..."" From Google Translate: ""The film Dead Air directed by Xavier Lee held a shooting worship ceremony yesterday, attended by actors including Zeng Guoxiang, Li Yaoxiang, Gu Zulin, Huang Hao Ran, Xie Xuexin and Yin Ziwei, etc., the film will exclusively premiere on Satellite TV Movie Channel. Zeng Guoxiang played the role of a TV director in the film, because this is his first performance, and he will be filming the film directed by Liu Guochang later."" ""曾國祥幫女鬼接生嚇破膽"" [Derek Tsang was scared out of his wits when he helped a female ghost deliver her baby]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). 2006-09-26. p. C1. The article notes: ""另外,唐寧在片中首次扮演大肚女鬼,更要駁長發演出。甚少拍鬼片的她,雖然相信世界上有鬼但卻不會太驚,相信不刻意去想及拜過神便沒問題,而且媽咪也會為她祈禱。幸而故事環繞在電視台發生,不用去偏僻恐怖地方拍攝。而她雖聽過電視台不少怪異事,卻從未遇過怪事。至於拍鬼片經驗較多的谷祖琳,今次乃飾演電視台監製,是女版俞琤,故沒有感情線。"" From Google Translate: ""In addition, Tang Ning played the female ghost with a belly for the first time in the film, and she even had to cut her long hair. She seldom makes ghost films, although she believes that there are ghosts in the world, she will not be too shocked. She believes that it will be fine if she does not deliberately think about it and worship God, and her mother will pray for her. Fortunately, the story revolves around the TV station, and there is no need to go to remote and scary places to shoot. And although she has heard many weird things on TV, she has never encountered any strange things. As for Gu Zulin, who has more experience in making ghost films, this time she plays the role of a TV station producer. She is the female version of Yu Teng, so there is no emotional line."" Cheung, Wing-zi 張穎芝 (2006-09-26). ""唐寧首次演女鬼恐怖血腥"" [Leila Tong's first horror and bloody female ghost role]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). p. D2. The article notes: ""唐寧在戲中飾演大肚女鬼,首次擔演女鬼的她,駁了一頭長發配合角色。 ... 唐寧日前在郊區拍攝被殺後,曾國祥為���接生的一幕戲,場面很恐怖血腥,其餘大部分場景則在電影台內拍攝 ... 首次擔正的曾國祥日前在郊外拍攝,大髀內側慘被蚊狂叮 ..."" From Google Translate: ""Tang Ning played the female ghost with a big belly in the play. It was her first time to play the role of a female ghost, and she parted her long hair to match the role. ... A few days ago, Tang Ning filmed the scene where Zeng Guoxiang delivered her baby after she was killed in the suburbs. The scene was horrific and bloody. Most of the other scenes were filmed in the movie station. ... Zeng Guoxiang, who took the lead for the first time, was filming in the suburbs a few days ago, and the inside of his big thigh was bitten by mosquitoes."" ""唐寧生仔血淋淋"" [Leila Tong gave birth to a bloody baby]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2006-09-26. p. C13. The article notes: ""唐寧、谷祖琳、曾國祥及尹子維等昨日齊到清水灣,參與新片《鬼計》開鏡拜神儀式。唐寧飾演腹 大便便的女鬼,日前還拍攝一場血淋淋的生仔戲份,"" From Google Translate: ""Tang Ning, Gu Zulin, Zeng Guoxiang and Yin Ziwei all came to Clear Water Bay yesterday to participate in the opening ceremony of the new film ""Dead Air"". Tang Ning played the female ghost with a belly poop, and she also filmed a bloody birth scene a few days ago,"" ""唐寧拍鬼片阿媽代祈禱"" [Leila Tong's acts in ghost film, her mother prays for her]. Oriental Daily News (in Chinese). 2006-09-26. p. C12. The article notes: ""飾演女鬼的唐寧透露,該片已拍攝了多天,她謂第一場拍攝的戲份便是由曾國祥替她接生BB"" From Google Translate: ""Tang Ning, who played the female ghost for the first time, revealed that the film has been filming for several days. She said that Zeng Guoxiang delivered her baby in the first filming scene BB"" ""唐寧媽祈禱保佑女兒拍片平安"" [Leila Tong's mother prayed to bless her daughter's filming safety]. am730 (in Chinese). 2006-09-26. p. M31. The article notes: ""戲中唐寧與曾國祥有一段感情戲,而唐寧更首次要駁長發扮演女鬼,自言甚少拍鬼片的她相信世界上是有鬼的,記者問她是否害怕拍這類型的戲時,她答道:「《鬼計》故事主要描述電視台發生的怪事,我喺電視台就冇遇過鬼怪事,不過聽聞過好多怪異事件,我相信唔刻意去諗,同埋拜過神會無問題嘅,而且媽咪都會幫我祈禱,所以都唔會太驚嘅。 」"" From Google Translate: ""In the film, Tang Ning and Zeng Guoxiang had a relationship scene, and Tang Ning even refuted long-haired female ghost for the first time. She said that she seldom made ghost films and believed that there are ghosts in the world. When the reporter asked her if she was afraid of filming this type of scene , she replied: ""The story of ""Dead Air"" mainly describes the strange things that happened on the TV station. I have never encountered ghosts and strange things on the TV station, but I have heard of many strange things. Yes, and Mommy will help me pray, so I won’t be too surprised. ”"" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dead Air ( traditional Chinese : 鬼計 ; simplified Chinese : 鬼计 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 10:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Military reserve : Some references were recently added to this article, but no reference distinguishes between Military reserve and Military reserve force . Crashed greek ( talk ) 04:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I haven't looked into the sources, but it appears that they are attempting to address different topics. The nominated article seems to cover a strategic or tactical reserve , as part of an active battle formation, such as the German mobile reserves during the Operation Overlord . Military reserve force seems to cover the topic of a force that can be mobilized if needed but is not part of a countries standing force, such as Army Reserve (United Kingdom) and Republic of Korea Reserve Forces . BilledMammal ( talk ) 06:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , per above and per Ljleppan. BilledMammal ( talk ) 06:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One does not need to go beyond looking at the first sentences of both articles to see that they are, indeed, distinct concepts. The distinction corresponds to the difference between the two first definitions in DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms , which is the very first reference in Military reserve : Military reserve (this article) refers to Portion of a body of troops that is kept to the rear, or withheld from action at the beginning of an engagement, in order to be available for a decisive movemen , i.e. human beings currently working as active duty soldiers who just have been tasked with a mission of ""wait around, until we know what you should do"". This use of ""reserve"" is on tactical and strategic level, and is the antonym of a ""committed force"". Military reserve force (the other article) refers to Members of the Military Services who are not in active service but who are subject to call to active duty. In the US, these are members of the ""Reserve Components of the Armed Forces of the United States"", i.e. the Army National Guard of the United States; the Army Reserve; the Naval Reserve; etc. In Finland, these are members of the general public who have completed their conscription and have transitioned back to civilian life, but can be called back to active duty in case of a national ency. This use of ""reserve"" is on a defence political level, and is the antonym of an ""active force"". This distinction is so basic, that very few texts beyond dictionaries etc. would bother actually typing it out. - Ljleppan ( talk ) 06:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Jouko, Petteri (2019). Ylijohdon reservi: Suomalaisen panssaritaktiikan vuosisata [ Reserve of the High Command: A Century of Finnish Armored Tactics ] (PDF) . National Defence University /Edita. ISBN 978-951-37-7588-9 . One of the main points - to the degree it's in the title - is how the Finnish Army armored formation(s) were consistently conceptualized as a reserve force. Pulkkinen, Esa (1990). ""Sotateknisen kehityksen jääkäriprikaatin taktiikalle 1990-luvulla asettamat vaatimukset"" [Requirements Imposed by Military Technical Advancement on the Tactics of the Jäger Brigade in the 1990s]. Tiede ja ase . The article discusses the use of reserves and the requirements imposed on them throughout. Lehti, Olavi J. Panssarintorjunta ja sen tulevaisuus [ Anti-tank Warfare and its Future ] (PDF) . Suomalaisen sotataidon klassikot. National Defence University . ISBN 978-951-25-2971-1 . The book discusses the use of anti-tank reserves throughout. Finnish Army Headquarters/Personnel Section (2008). Komppanian taisteluohje [ Company Battle Manual ]. Edita. All kinds of tactical reserves discussed throughout. Ljleppan ( talk ) 07:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history . Ljleppan ( talk ) 06:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a subject that is distinct from Military reserve force and it is notable in its own right. It appears that the misunderstanding exhibited in the deletion rationale is in itself the perfect reason that this article is necessary. Exemplo347 ( talk ) 07:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . Ljleppan ( talk ) 10:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The two concepts have similar names, but are distinct. Both are extremely important elements of military strategy and military force structures. Nick-D ( talk ) 11:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree for the same reasons as Nick-D above. TheNavigatrr ( talk ) 03:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Tiny Urban Kitchen : It should be noted that this article has been marked for deletion for 12 years! pinktoebeans (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Websites . pinktoebeans (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Two references are still ""multiple"". Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC) Subject has good enough sourcing in the article to pass WP:GNG . As Eastmain noted, the subject has multiple pieces of significant coverage. User:Let'srun 19:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - Popular local blog, but hasn't received any attention from sources outside that local area (and not very much locally, either, apart from the Globe and a local award, which don't usually count for much in terms of notability). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC) Let'srun . They state that there are multiple SIGCOV sources. Then why did the nominator go ahead and nominate anyway? It's NOT the case that we lack AfDs! gidonb ( talk ) 07:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] it was also featured on a public radio segment a decade ago [4] . I think we have GNG. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If not the blog, the lady that runs it seems notable, she's gotten some coverage [5] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC) https://www.proquest.com/docview/2600523482/67C55DCEF3C34D01PQ/2 . - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Joseph Engel : MirrorPlanet ( talk ) 01:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Film , and France . MirrorPlanet ( talk ) 01:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The Canadian Screen Award is a top-level national film award of the type that automatically nails WP:NACTOR notability right to the wall. Every single actor listed in the award's article must be a blue link, with no exceptions — across all of Canadian Screen Award for Best Actor , Canadian Screen Award for Best Actress and Canadian Screen Award for Best Lead Performance in a Film , every other actor in all three articles has a standalone article, because it's the type of notable award that makes its winners and nominees inherently notable because they won or were nominated for it. And there are no ""insufficient"" sources according to NACTOR guidelines; every single footnote in the article comes from a reliable source , two of the sources are substantially about him and his performances, one verifies the award nomination that nails his notability, and while the other two admittedly just verify his presence in supporting roles in earlier films before his ""breakout"", they're still from reliable sources and the early roles aren't the crux of his notability anyway. Bearcat ( talk ) 02:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC) NACTOR The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films as verifiable via footnotes in the article. — siro χ o 06:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC) NACTOR and WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"The Academy (hotel) : I couldn't find sources to confirm it meets WP:N or a suitable WP:ATD . Boleyn ( talk ) 15:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] it has coverage in The Telegraph and is part of a Grade II listed building. While I don't think Grade II listed buildings generally qualify as notable when its a public building like a hotel it probably would qualify as notable as there is likely to be other sources etc like the Telegraph. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 17:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Starmer-Smith, Charles (2006-03-04). ""Hotel Watch"" . The Daily Telegraph . Archived from the original on 2024-02-11 . Retrieved 2024-02-11 . The review notes: ""Originally built as five Georgian homes in 1776, the Academy is a few minutes from the West End, Covent Garden and Soho. The draw: Retaining many original features, it is tastefully decorated with cosy lounges, open fires and two private gardens. Situated on a quiet residential street away from the rush-hour traffic it is, as claimed, an oasis in the heart of London. The drawback: The bedroom windows did not open, which is unfortunate if you like fresh air. If you are looking for a hip hotel with buzzing nightlife, look elsewhere."" Walton, Kenneth; Trodden, Clare; Glover, Gillian; Smith, Aidan (2001-12-01). ""Kings and queens for the day"" . The Scotsman . Archived from the original on 2024-02-11 . Retrieved 2024-02-11 . The review notes: ""The Academy, an elegant row of five connected Georgian houses on Gower Street, certainly doesn't feel like a hotel. The friendly, informal reception hall and winding corridors have a homely appeal. The 49 individually-designed rooms avoid the twee, opting for sensible comfort and quality. "" ""The Academy, London"" . The Guardian . 2001-02-17. Archived from the original on 2024-02-11 . Retrieved 2024-02-11 . The review notes: ""First impressions: Somewhat unprepossessing terrace on a busy road opposite the university and British library buildings. Walk inside, however, and you are transported in to an elegant townhouse, created by linking five Georgian houses together. What are the rooms like? As you might expect from a West End hotel, these are not massive. But the suites are spacious and tastefully decorated. Substantial double bed, sofa, and TV of course, but nice extra touches include a bowl of apples, CD player and stereo."" Horsford, Simon (2018-12-01). ""The Academy: Bloomsbury, London, England"" . The Daily Telegraph . Archived from the original on 2024-02-11 . Retrieved 2024-02-11 . The review notes: ""The Academy consists of five Georgian Grade II-listed townhouses, subtly spliced together and dating from the late 1700s. Since being bought by YTL Hotels (executive director Dato Mark Yeoh used to go to school near here and remembered the building), the formerly fusty old Academy hotel, which dates from the 1960s, has been transformed with a five-star look. New York-based designer Alexandra Champalimaud oversaw the redesign, creating an engaging blend of the modern and the original – such as the staircase and the fireplaces – with a nod to the lives of the Bloomsbury Set (there are books aplenty around the hotel, including novels by Virginia Woolf and E.M. Forster)."" McKenna, Steve (2018-11-04). ""Tomes sweet tomes in the bookish hub - Hotel"" . The Age . Archived from the original on 2024-02-11 . Retrieved 2024-02-11 . The review notes: ""Which is why 21 Gower Street - located on one of Bloomsbury's most bustling thoroughfares, around the corner from the British Museum, a book's throw from Bedford Square - is such an appealing address. Here, spread across five, three-storey townhouses, is the Academy Hotel, a boutique establishment that is as much a place in which to hang out as it is somewhere to stay, especially now it's flaunting a flamboyant multimillion-dollar refurbishment masterminded by New York designer Alexandra Champalimaud."" O'Flaherty, Mark C. (2019-01-28). ""Hotel Hit Squad: Its cosy bar, library and warren of small spaces make The Academy feel like a club – just without the bonhomie"" . The Daily Telegraph . Archived from the original on 2024-02-11 . Retrieved 2024-02-11 . The review notes: ""I thought of Number 31 when I was staying at The Academy hotel in Bloomsbury. It too has been converted from an old Georgian town house - or, to be precise, five of them. It's on that long stretch of Gower Street, close to the British Museum, that I think of as the bit the 73 bus goes down before I get to ""town proper"". The Academy has just been entirely renovated - by New York-based studio Champalimaud - to set it apart from the other kitschy luxe tourist B&Bs on the strip. The reboot is smart, bringing a lot of rich and heavy wallpapers by Liberty and Cole and Sons, and textiles from Kravet, Lee Jofa and Osborne & Little to relatively small spaces, adding presence and resonance."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Academy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 23:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those are primary sources, to meet GNG you need Secondary sources. James.folsom ( talk ) 18:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Every one of those sources is a review. Reviews in newspapers are the opinion of the author. These are not reliable sources. James.folsom ( talk ) 19:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) Listed buildings are an indication of notability and the sources shown in the comment above help establish notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Clearly meets WP:GEOFEAT as a listed building. But passes WP:GNG in any case. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"2023 Reddit API controversy : I don't think this event as a standalone article meets WP:GNG. 1keyhole ( talk ) 05:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Passes GNG. [16] [17] [18] Has been in the news for a couple weeks now, so is showing good signs of eventually passing WP:PERSISTENCE . The article Reddit has 10 paragraphs about this, and the subarticle 2023 Reddit API controversy has 18 paragraphs and is likely to grow, so a WP:SPINOUT here seems reasonable. – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 05:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Internet . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Pass GNG. It's an WP:OKFORK . CastJared ( talk ) 09:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Agree with Novem Linguae above. Additionally, note that Reddit is a huge topic and other sub-topics have grown their own articles such as r/place , r/IAmA , etc. — siro χ o 09:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This event is very different from r/place is a repeated event and r/IAmA is a perment fixture. 1keyhole ( talk ) 10:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This event has stand-alone notability and passes GNG, with plenty of sources. Reddit 's article is already over 200k bytes. There's no need to shove it back into that bloated article; if anything, Reddit needs to be split further. I would argue for a procedural close here, as this really should be a request instead of an AFD discussion based on the nom, as this article is over twice as long by bytes as Reddit#2023 API changes ; I'm not a fan of the giant AFD banner on what could easily become a heavy-traffic article when deletion is barely supported by the nom (if this did not meet GNG, the !votes would be for merging, not deletion). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Clearly seems to pass GNG. — Czello ( music ) 10:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Passes GNC and is an acceptable WP:OKFORK . ReneeWrites ( talk ) 11:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Passes GNG and meets Wikipedia:PERSISTENCE . Wikentromere ( talk ) 11:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"David T. Beito : There are only two references cited on the page; one only mentions the subject in passing, and the other is an article by the subject that has no bearing on notability. The subject also does not appear to meet any of the eight criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) ; e.g. the article does not show that the subject ""has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."" Orser67 ( talk ) 05:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , History , and Minnesota . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 05:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Alabama , and Wisconsin . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Plenty of book reviews, easy pass of WP:AUTHOR . The nomination's phrasing of ""only two references cited on the page"" suggests a failure to perform WP:BEFORE . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 19:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] -- Five books published by academic publishers, together with an unspecified number of academic articles ought to be enough to . Peterkingiron ( talk ) 11:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Nicholas Griffin (philosopher) : Seems promotional Very Average Editor ( talk ) 07:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC) (sock strike L iz Read! Talk! 07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC) ) [ reply ] As nominator. Also worth noting, most of the contributors are a sock master and his socks. Very Average Editor ( talk ) 07:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC) (sock strike L iz Read! Talk! 07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC) ) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada . Shellwood ( talk ) 07:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . ""Canada Research Chair in Philosophy"" should be an automatic pass of [{WP:NPROF]]. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 07:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The article is outdated, as he has retired [23] . The reviews of his solo-author books tip me in the direction of a """" by WP:AUTHOR . For Relative Identity , we have at least [24] [25] [26] [27] , and for Russell's Idealist Apprenticeship there's at least [28] [29] ). For The Cambridge Companion to Bertrand Russell, which he edited, a quick search finds [30] [31] [32] [33] . XOR'easter ( talk ) 16:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC) AUTHOR and the many published reviews of his authored books. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 23:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC) AUTHOR is met. XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Ironically, the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Maybe this is cause for a speedy close? — David Eppstein ( talk ) 19:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No objection from me. XOR'easter ( talk ) 20:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy - nom. was from a sock, and consensus clear per WP:SNOW . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 18:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Next Assam Legislative Assembly election : Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to the election, once actual sources start discussing it. For similar recent AfDs, see - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Next_Goa_Legislative_Assembly_election (July 2022), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Goa Legislative Assembly election (2nd nomination) (2 April), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 Goa Legislative Assembly election (19 May), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election (19 May) Soni ( talk ) 13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India . Soni ( talk ) 13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - This is the second AfD on this topic. I previously nominated this article, and the consensus was to it. I continue to support the previous decision. For reference: Previous discussion . Hitro talk 22:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC) CRYSTAL . I'm not sure what makes this one different. SportingFlyer T · C 23:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I waited for the 2 other AFDs from this month to close, just to be sure this was not a one-off of me misevaluating Crystal. But mainly - If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented . Examples of appropriate topics include the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2044 U.S. presidential election and 2048 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. I searched and found no sources talking about the election. I didn't find any consensus about next elections in any notability guidelines I could see. I found 5 (+2) AFDs that suggested deletion is the correct approach, and just 1 that didn't. This topic also needs a talk page notification and/or a higher level consensus established somewhere (I don't know where), otherwise each AFD will end at a different inconsistent place. But until I see such higher level consensus, my read of both Crystal and prior consensus says it's pretty clear it should be a . Soni ( talk ) 23:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [61] [62] along with articles about new delineation. SportingFlyer T · C 23:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah that Hindu article (published 5 days ago) is definitely talking directly about the elections. I disagree on the livemint article, it's not coverage of the elections as much as just ""BJP leader stated something about Hindu-Muslim divide in Congress"". It's not significant, and they only mention it as a ""in a few years"". I missed a couple other articles on my before check - [63] [64] so I do agree there is significant enough coverage for the election. Soni ( talk ) 04:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Too many of these future prediction pages. WP:TOOSOON . Way down in the future and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. RangersRus ( talk ) 12:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Articles for deletion/Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Manipur Legislative Assembly election , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next West Bengal Legislative Assembly election . This didn't seem to meet MULTIAFD as each of them are at a different level of RS reporting, but the general question (Is it CRYSTAL) would still apply. Soni ( talk ) 02:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If a date has been set for each of these, then they should each be moved to reflect that. Mangoe ( talk ) 18:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I guess I support ing this article now. See above comment. Coverage is now significant enough. Soni ( talk ) 04:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: ! vote balance at this time is leaning , although I will note that most of the connected AfDs noted above this relist have since been closed as consensus for deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC) CRYSTAl . Sourcing and existing information is sufficient. -- Enos733 ( talk ) 18:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's just not enough here for an election that is almost two years off; the only substance is the date itself. Failing that, it should be moved to 2026 Assam Legislative Assembly election since this has a set date. Mangoe ( talk ) 18:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further discussion since the previous list has not cleared things up. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC) 18, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. More policy based input would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources provided by SportingFlyer and Soni show that this meets item 1 of CRYSTAL – this election is notable and almost certain to take place . Toadspike [Talk] 04:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] too much original research here and the title is inappropriate. Whilst there may be sources for notability I don't believe the current article is viable it's pretty much complete OR without any sourcing. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 06:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC) As the next election following a long series of notable elections, it should exist, to be a collection of reliable information on it as that information arises. SmokeyJoe ( talk ) 12:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC) If not kept, Draftify. — SmokeyJoe ( talk ) 13:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Moto Guzzi Quota : GNG is not established. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 11:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Products , and Technology . ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 11:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Italy . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per WP:NEXIST : Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article . This important guideline is brought in the source in bold so will not miss it, yet overlooked in many nominations. Looking for potential sources, as NEXIST and BEFORE prescribe, it is clear that the Moto Guzzi Quota does pass the WP:GNG , as this motorcycle was reviewed by motor magazines around the world and has its own entry in several books. gidonb ( talk ) 15:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Gidonb you are correct regarding the policies. If you can find 2 quality sources, that would establish notability. Can be English, Italian or any language. I only found the Cycle Magazine and other advertisement pieces. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 07:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""and other advertisement pieces"", ""sources are advertisements""<-- why do some nominators still provide red herrings as a response and in the intro and continue focusing on references, rather than sources? References that do not support notability can have a VERY IMPORTANT FUNCTION supporting data in articles! There is absolutely no need to misuse these in discussions!!! gidonb ( talk ) 10:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you please indicate where you see the ads on article? The reasoning for is patently false and inconsistent. Now in page there are 6 authoritative sources of the motorcycle sector both on paper and ""virtual"", and are neutral authoritative, and affordability. See note on page and this There are sources of the time (late 90s early 2000s) and other more recent ones dating back to 2012, symptoms of the fact that despite the Guzzi Quota bike is no longer built, it is still remembered. See multiple citation on Google books [36] and the great attention given by the magazines of the time [37] . 5.91.150.80 ( talk ) 11:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think the Cycle World and American Motorcyclist articles are promotional or unreliable (let alone ""advertisements""), even at a superficial glance it is easy to see that two reviews contain some ""down"" tables highlighting the motorcycle shortcomings. C avarrone 17:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know much about Cycle World magazine, but this review for example reads incredibly puffy and promotional to me, without being a serious nor serious review/publication. Same for this other Cycle World review . ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 18:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] About Cycle World , it was at the time of these articles the ""the largest motorcycling magazine in the world"". The first article says, among other things, ""headlights prove inadequate"", the motorcycle ""perpetually dripped oil"", and complaints about the ""traverse-Vee"" that ""shook bolts loose and cracked the exaust headers"". The other one ends with ""Quota remains interesting, but not altogether appealing."" I wonder how is this ""incredibly puffy and promotional"". -- C avarrone 19:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Well sourced Samuel R Jenkins ( talk ) 05:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Brian Renfroe : Does not appear to meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG , and is sourced with fairly trivial coverage primarily from small local papers. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk ) 22:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - leaders of major labor unions are generally notable, but as Renfroe has just been elected, the sources are less strong. There are three articles profiling him from local newspapers, a mention in The Guardian which gives some brief biographical information, and a thorough profile from his union, which doesn't provide evidence of notability, but is helpful for additional biographical facts. Warofdreams talk 23:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Mississippi . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC) It is notable because of leaders of major labor unions. CastJared ( talk ) 09:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] President-elect of fairly large union, even if not much coverage now likely to get it given time. PatGallacher ( talk ) 12:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . There is enough media coverage of him. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 21:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC) GNG with secondary sources. Lightburst ( talk ) 14:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Akhil Maheshwari : I am myself ! vote as very weak if the identity of the IP editor can be confirmed, otherwise as . Note that the subject appears to pass WP:NPROF C5 as holding a named chair at a major university. The citation record is marginal for WP:NPROF C1 via citations, but the activism with Global Newborn Society probably contributes some notability. Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 07:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Issues connected to the article were earlier discussed at [13] . Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 07:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine . Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 07:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC) Not sure rather if it's on a behalf of an IP editor. CastJared ( talk ) 08:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC) The subject has logged in and commented here . Copying, with some minor formatting not to break this page, to be sure closer sees it. Star Mississippi 03:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Please this page named after me immediately. My impressions of Wikipedia have turned out to be very different - when I was asked, I thought that it'd be a new age Encyclopedia Brittanica. But at least my case, it became insulting as if I personally wanted to have this page. I don't - it is always the work that speaks, not propoganda. Have any of the wiki editors visited Africa and seen dying babies? It is very easy to talk from a desk. I also think that we need to be careful as an internet-based effort is not always protected from recognition as abuse. This IP address is a local office computer. Please have no confusion as if I am using a personal computer to ask for something. May God bless you. Akhil Maheshwari Jhuma1971 ( talk ) 03:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment that the Jhuma1971 account has previously said on their talk page that they are ""a software engineer from New Delhi and frequently visit the United States"", so not the subject of the article. I am not sure what to make of this. Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 06:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC) PROF#C5 and the named professorship at Johns Hopkins. The issue at hand appears to be the subject's inability to maintain the article in the promotional state they prefer [14] , and the valid efforts of other Wikipedia editors including User:Randykitty and User:Theroadislong to cut back the promotionalism. That is not a good reason for deletion. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC) The subject passes WP:NPROF as a named professor. Getting upset and requesting deletion because the subject's preferred promotional version of the article was reverted is not a good-faith use of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE . Curbon7 ( talk ) 18:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC) NPROF, as they hold a distinguished named professorship at Johns Hopkins University. AmusingWeasel ( talk ) 08:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Passes WP:NPROF . It seems that we are dealing with a UPE here, who is trying to impersonate Maheshwari . Maliner ( talk ) 10:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"1996 Abakan Ilyushin Il-76 crash : No significant lasting effects (demonstrated). Whilst it does have coverage, this is what would be considered a run-of-the-mill event. Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 14:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Aviation , and Russia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC) Articles for deletion/RA-78804 . Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 17:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] • although it has no lasting effects, the number of fatalities is significantly larger than its peers in the afd listings around it. The article itself has multiple issues however and needs extensive work to be fixed. The article indefinitely does not fail Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not however due to the large number of fatalities in this incident. Another thing is that it has a larger count than the 2024 Ivanovo Ilyushin Il-76 crash , standing at 16. These two factors combined can be sought to this article in particular. Lolzer3000 ( talk ) 15:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC) GNG , fails WP:INDEPTH due to sources not providing much in depth analysis of the accident. One source used in the page [23] , states that it is a first hand account of the accident which makes it a primary source. Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 11:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And stating that an article should be kept because of another article is not an argument . Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 15:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] An accident with 23 fatalities is definitely not a ""common, everyday, ordinary item"". Skyshifter talk 16:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not necessarily a ""common everyday ordinary item"" but controlled flight into terrain accidents are mostly common. Nothing was inherently unusual about the accident that would make it notable on itself. Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 11:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Considering the number of fatalities along with the value of the cargo on board this is very an accident that is not “common”. Alex Hoe ( talk ) 19:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you please specify what the cargo consisted of that would make this accident notable? As tragic as this accident was, this event doesn't have much notability other than the number of deaths. Other than that, there is basically nothing that gives this accident any enduring significance. The accident has not resulted in any lasting effects nor any long-term impacts . Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 08:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Yuriko Saito : Fails the general and professor bio specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Women , Philosophy , Japan , United States of America , and Rhode Island . UtherSRG (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Meets NPROF with >1000 citations on a solo-authored book chapter [3] , 1000 on a coauthored paper [4] , and many hundreds more on other works [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] . (addendum Thanks to David Eppstein below for noting the messy profile. I've updated my comment as such, but my ! vote remains the same. — siro χ o 19:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Her Google Scholar profile [11] is a mess of unrelated works, but I agree that the ones by her on aesthetics are heavily cited (especially for philosophy), enough for WP:PROF#C1 . Additionally, I found enough book reviews (and added them to the article) to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Just considering the works on aesthetics the subject appears sufficiently cited to meet WP:PROF (1174,257,227,220,119). Additionally David Eppstein has shown the subject meets WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 21:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per arguments above. -- JackFromWisconsin ( talk | contribs ) 16:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . A GS list that is, as David says, ""a mess of unrelated works"" is almost always a strong indicator that GS has again screwed-up. If you look closer, you will find that most of the highly-cited contributions in this GS listing (with the exception of the Everyday Aesthetics chapter) were not authored by the subject, but rather by other, similarly-named individuals at other institutions. Aside from the EA chapter, she seems to several other papers with >100 cites, but it tails-off quickly from there. To me, this is borderline, so I'll refrain from ! vote. 128.252.210.1 ( talk ) 18:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's merely an indicator that the subject has not curated their GS profile. GS always screws up, but with a fair amount of effort you can clean up your profile. Not everyone does this (nor should they be expected to) but when they don't it makes the profile not much better than searching the author's name yourself. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 23:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - NPROF, as this is an impressively accomplished and published philosopher author. Impressive sourcing, encapsulated on her Rhode Island School of Design profile, is more of the overall. You can find more on various searches. — Maile ( talk ) 15:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per comments that have already been made. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 10:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Marlboro Friday : Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Somewhat famous event that has inspired case studies [10] [11] and is referenced in reliable sources with regards to stock prices and branding eg [12] . The event is famous on its own and would not necessarily be appropriate for into any Philip Morris -related page. There's already a citation that has SIGCOV. Event is famous enough to demonstrate WP:PERSISTENCE . Seems like a perfect invocation of WP:NOTPAPER . — siro χ o 09:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] it's still taught in business schools, plenty of examples in Gbooks. [13] . It's even mentioned in History Channel [14] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 52, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Passes WP:Sigcov . Maliner ( talk ) 08:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Scott Savol : Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Television , and Ohio . Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Clearly fails WP:NSINGER . -- Tserton ( talk ) 19:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources Soeder, John (2006-01-24). ""The Same Old Scott: 'Idol' Also-Ran Making Tracks Back Home"" . The Plain Dealer . Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 . The article notes: ""Last year, Scott Savol was on ""American Idol,"" chasing his dream of a big-time music career in front of tens of millions of television viewers. Last week, he was in a Cleveland Heights house, holed up in a second-floor bedroom that had been converted into a home recording studio. ... Framed photos of Martin Luther King Jr. and Tupac Shakur look down from the walls. The studio is run by William Lynch and his son, Ray. They've known Savol for years, long before he went to Hollywood to compete on ""Idol. "" ... For the holiday season, Savol recorded a one-off single titled ""Upon a Christmas Night,"" available as a 99-cent download from Cleveland International Records."" Bernstein, Margaret (2008-01-21). ""Real life after reality television: Local 'stars' build careers, find callings after the cameras stop rolling"" . The Plain Dealer . Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 . The article notes: ""In 2005, Savol brought a burst of fame to his hometown of Shaker Heights and caused a frenzy of call-in support from local fans when he surprisingly plowed his way into the top five on ""American Idol. "" He didn't have the glamorous looks of an 'Idol'; one writer commented that Savol always looked as if he had stopped by the Fox show on his way to the mall food court. Yet his smooth voice only seemed to get more polished each week. The days are gone when Cleveland's homegrown star got invited regularly to croon for Leno, Ellen, Regis and the rest, but Savol's dad, Edward Savol, said that a long-promised debut album should arrive soon. The ""Idol"" star no longer lives in Shaker Heights; he got married shortly after the show ended and moved to Tennessee to be part of the Nashville music scene."" Rushfield, Richard (2011). American Idol: The Untold Story . New York: Hachette Books . ISBN 978-1-4013-9652-7 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 – via Google Books . The book notes: ""In contrast to the glowing presence of Carrie Underwood, Scott ""the Body"" Savol represented the other end of the spectrum. Pudgy, sullen, and uncommunicative, the R&B singer radiated anticharisma. Yet, as the season progressed, he survived as fan favorites fell. Even after The Smoking Gun revealed Savol had once been arrested for hitting the mother of his child with a telephone, he continued to climb. In the top six week of the competition, Savol finally outlasted one of the season's breakthrough stars, long-haired rocker Constantine Maroulis. The media went ballistic and set off an investigation worthy of the Iran-Contra affair. ""Maybe the conspiracy theorists are on to something. There's little else to explain Scott Savol's baffling longevity on American Idol,"" wrote USA Today. ... Savol's fortunes likely had more to do with his nods to Idol's Christian viewers, but Vote for the Worst was now part of the Idol dialogue."" Givhan, Robin (2005-05-06). ""Scott Savol, Left Holding the Baggy"" . The Washington Post . Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 . The article notes: ""There were many reasons why Savol could not win, the least of which was his inability to stay on pitch. ... Savol could not be the ""American Idol"" because he does not inspire mimicry. As judge Simon Cowell once noted, the inexplicably swaggering Savol was ordinary. Audiences might admire the chutzpah of an ordinary man. But they do not aspire to be him. ... Savol was styled in a jarring puzzle of hip-hop cliches, business casual jackets and debate club eyeglasses. His jeans were oversize and with the kind of washed-out look that announces their designer credentials."" Martin, Bill (2016-02-25). ""Scott Savol: Journey from Northeast Ohio to Top 5 on American Idol"" . WJW . Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 . The article notes: ""Scott landed in the Top 5 on season 4, the same year as Carrie Underwood. Now, he works for a local cable provider while he sings with his band ‘Avenue’ in his free time."" ""How Scott Savol can win American Idol "" . Entertainment Weekly . 2005-03-14. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 . The article notes: ""What's Off-Key: He showed a competitive side in the audition rounds that seems to have been snuffed out in front of a large, live audience. Clothes Calls: Scott hasn’t quite looked comfortable in any of his dull duds. Perhaps an area-code jersey is the way to go?"" Silverman, Stephen M. (2005-04-01). "" 'Idol' Scott Savol's Rap Sheet Exposed"" . People . Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 . The article notes: ""Another season, another Idol contestant whose past has caught up with him. This time, it’s American Idol finalist Scott Savol, who in 2001 was arrested on a charge of felony domestic violence after allegedly roughing up his infant son’s mother during a Valentine’s Day confrontation. The charge was eventually reduced to disorderly conduct."" Latifi, Sadia (2009-10-17). ""Idol Contestant at Hillside"" . The News & Observer . Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 . The article notes: ""A former ""American Idol"" contestant visited Hillside High School last week to sing and motivate students. Scott Savol, a top five finalist on season four of the popular singing competition, made a surprise visit to the school last Friday. Savol was the subject of some controversy during his time on the show because he had been charged with misdemeanor assault for hitting his girlfriend and mother of his son with a telephone on Valentine's Day 2001."" Smith, Troy L. (2014-05-18). ""Make or break for reality stars: We track down Clevelanders who made small-screen appearances"" . The Plain Dealer . Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 . The article notes: ""Scott Savol: The Shaker Heights resident finished fifth on Season 4 of “American Idol” (won by Carrie Underwood). Savol made headlines during the season when it was revealed he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct charges in 2001. Producers allowed him to continue in the competition. Savol recently tried out for NBC’s “The Voice” and sings in popular Cleveland wedding band The Avenue."" ""Scott Savol"" . The Plain Dealer . 2006-01-24. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 . The article notes: ""Birthdate: April 30, 1976. Personal: Engaged to Rochelle Waddell; a July 8 wedding is planned. Savol has a 5-year-old son, Brandon, from a previous relationship. Savol is the second of four children of Edward and Catherine Savol of Shaker Heights; he has an older sister, a younger brother and a younger sister."" Kadar, Dan (2005-08-03). ""Cleveland Cheers 'American Idol' Cast - Finalists BO Bice and Scott Savol Nearly Steal Concert From Winners Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood"" . Akron Beacon Journal . Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 . The article notes: ""It wasn't until local hero Scott Savol from Shaker Heights took the stage that the crowd really started to explode. Savol's fans filled the seats on the left side of the stage and barked at the pudgy singer whenever provoked. Creatively dubbed ""the Dawg Pound,"" Savol's fans went crazy as he finished off a three-song set with Hall and Oates' She's Gone. Savol even brought his son Brandon onstage to say hello to the crowd."" Washington, Julie E. (2005-04-22). ""Hometown fans are hot for Scott"" . The Plain Dealer . Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 . The article notes: ""On “American Idol” Tuesdays, Champps Restaurant becomes Scott Savol Central. ... Hometown pride has a lot to do with it. Many Savol fans say that while they like his vocal talent, spirituality and strong family ties, mostly it’s just fun to root for a Clevelander."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Scott Savol to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 01:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 02:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC) SINGLEEVENT , Lokys dar Vienas ( talk ) 03:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC) BLP1E says ""We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met"". The first condition is ""If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event"" and the second condition is ""If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual."" Savol is not covered ""only in the context of a single event"" and he did not ""remain a low-profile individual"". He was on the fourth season of American Idol which ""premiered on January 18, 2005, and continued until May 25, 2005"". He received received significant coverage afterwards in sources published in 2006, 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2016. A person who has received significant coverage for that long is not a low-profile individual. There is biographical coverage of him outside of his appearance on American Idol. There is coverage about his single ""Upon a Christmas Night"", his romantic ballad ""I Do"", his filming a television ad, his singing a national anthem at the Cleveland Browns Stadium for a Cleveland Browns football game, and his performing at his concert at the Shore Cultural Centre in Euclid, his trying out for the NBC television show The Voice , and his singing in the Cleveland wedding band The Avenue. Cunard ( talk ) 06:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC) GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC) My original nomination of this article was based on my interpretation of the criteria at WP:NSINGER . Reading the following - ""Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be ed to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable."" - it would be appropriate to this article to appropriate season of American Idol , which is what I probably should have done in the first place. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not seeing the song ""I Do"" mentioned in the above source excerpts, but I see where his single ""Upon a Christmas Night"" got coverage in The Plain Dealer , and I was able to find news coverage of ""I Do"" on my own, using ProQuest. -- Jpcase ( talk ) 22:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 02:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Popplio : Toketaa talk 20:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 20:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the nominator's argument is inherently flawed. What is POKEMON meant to prove here? And even then, that is an essay, not a proper policy of any kind. Also ""many more notable Pokemon"" not having a page does not immediately rule out an article for being notable. Popplio, while I agree is one of the worse off articles among the Pokemon lineup, does have a pretty large amount of significant coverage discussing it in depth that many other characters in the series do not have. There is no rationale in this argument that communicates to me a valid reason to this article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 20:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC) OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST , which is considered an invalid argument for deletion. The nominator doesn't explain why it is ""the least notable article,"" and their arguments about the quality of the article both lack foundation and are irrelevant to this discussion. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 20:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Idk how to close this page but yeah this should of been articles for creation for more notable pokemon, this is my first AFD so I will just remove the AFD notice on the article for now. Toketaa talk 20:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Deadly Descent: The Abominable Snowman : No RS either. Htanaungg ( talk ) 14:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America . Htanaungg ( talk ) 14:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , leaning . themoviescene.co.uk has a review , that also lists various alt titles (""Deadly Descent"", ""Abominable Snowman"", the combination of the two ""Deadly Descent: The Abominable Snowman"" and even the even longer ""Deadly Descent: The Legend of the Abominable Snowman""). The film is ... #36 in this listing , that includes a small assessment. — MY, OH, MY ! 09:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC) Strong . There is a review in Czech ( @ Onel5969 : , pinging you at your request). But most of all, 2-3 pages in Ski Films: A Comprehensive Guide , by Bryan Senn (McFarland, 2022), pp. 50-53, an extensive and comprehensive analysis of the film . The 2 reviews + this make the film appear quite notable. — MY, OH, MY ! 22:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC) GNG or WP:NFILM . If more reviews are found, feel free to ping me. Onel 5969 TT me 18:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC) HEY , in light of the sources found by My, Oh, My. Onel 5969 TT me 23:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC) GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 00:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine : At best this is Crystal ball and propaganda. At worst this is complete and total fake news as this hasn't happened. CaribDigita ( talk ) 18:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . CaribDigita ( talk ) 18:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The nom is inaccurate as the article does not claim that China participated in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Rather, this is an article about how China has reacted to the invasion and what attitudes have been taken by the Chinese government, media, and citizens toward it. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - If you go back to March 2022 when this article was written, the terminology at the time - at least the buzz phrase used by the media - was ""China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine"" So I would not quite call it ""Crystal ball and propaganda"", as that's how the general media saw it then. — Maile ( talk ) 18:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC) ""SOAS"" is just an event title. By ""a public research university in London, England, and a member institution of the federal University of London."" Those are all the same three sources over and over. First one is a government owned agency of the UK. Second one is a government owned agency of Canada. The third is just J.P. Morgan investor. And the rest are mirrors of the first three podcast and all. And actually that's the very epitome of propaganda ( Definition @ Merriam-Webster ). Is there any truth that China is *in* Ukraine per the title ""Chana & the Russian **invasion** of Ukraine""? CaribDigita ( talk ) 20:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC) I don’t understand this nom at all. It seems obvious but here are recent news refs covering the topic: [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] . The topic meets GNG. // Timothy :: talk 05:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Nominator seems to have misunderstood the article title. It's not parsed as ""(China and Russia's) invasion of Ukraine"" but ""China and (the Russian invasion of Ukraine)"". - Ljleppan ( talk ) 08:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -- How many countries are invading Ukraine? Is my point. ""AND"" is a conjunction. It should probably be the 'Role of (X-country) in the Russian Invasion of Ukraine' that would be more grammatically correct. CaribDigita ( talk ) CaribDigita ( talk ) 00:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The only country that is invading Ukraine is Russia. By using ""Role of China in the Russian Invasion of Ukraine"", it suggests that China is playing a *role* and are *directly involved* in the invasion of Ukraine; it is even more misleading than the original title and defeats your main argument. There is nothing Grammatically incorrect or improper about ""China and (the Russian invasion of Ukraine)"". Vincenty846 ( talk ) 02:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -- It makes it sound as though Chinese soldiers are on the ground in Ukraine. Which I haven't seen any evidence of? Have you? CaribDigita ( talk ) 02:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - No, it doesn't. Just because the title ""China and (the Russian invasion of Ukraine)"" sounds that way to *YOU*, doesn't mean that it is true for others. There is *nothing* in the article that states what you are suggesting (i.e. ""Chinese soldiers are on the ground in Ukraine""), because factually it is incorrect and false information; which mind you does not belong on any Wikipedia article. You can try and twist the words with your own opinions and ask as many rhetorical questions as you want; but it still doesn't change the fact that ""China and (the Russian invasion of Ukraine)"" is proper and grammatically correct. Vincenty846 ( talk ) 03:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - It seems like the nominator has misunderstood the title of the article. The nominator’s argument that “No such proof that China has ""invaded"" Ukraine” is irrelevant to the title and content of the article because the article is about the *reactions and responses* of China to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. There is nothing in the article that states nor suggests that China has invaded Ukraine with Russia. There is also an article on United States and the Russian invasion of Ukraine , does that mean that the U.S. is also involved with Russia and invading Ukraine? - Vincenty846 ( talk ) 12:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China , Russia , and Ukraine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The article title is being misinterpreted. We also have article titled Anonymous, Collective responsibility in Russia, Iran, Lithuania, Religion, United States, and Wikipedia and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, none of which are implied to have invaded. [29] And there are other variations with “in” or “X-ian involvement in,” “in the Russo-Ukrainian War,” etcetera. If the problem is an inappropriate title, then an RM is appropriate, not an AFD. — Michael Z . 22:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC) SNOW close Per above comments. Definitely a notable topic. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 04:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Yusuf Haroun : Macbeejack ☎ 12:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Health and fitness , and Nigeria . Macbeejack ☎ 12:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Psychology . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC) GNG . The subject had received significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources. Shoerack ( talk ) 19:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC) GNG . The subject has received significant coverages in a good number of secondary reliable sources. SuperSwift ( talk ) 07:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – clearly passes GNG after more than three GNG passable sources found. In addition, two full webpages that are independent talks about him in detail. Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 08:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] — Ogwo, Charles (28 October 2023). ""Meet Haroun Yusuf: A life committed to healthcare, education, others"" . Business Day . Retrieved 26 February 2024 . this is a full feature published by Business Day . Edema, Grace (28 September 2023). ""Leadership empowerment aids creativity, says medical expert"" . The Punch . Retrieved 26 February 2024 . — this is a significant coverage from The Punch where this subject is considered an expert. Koiki, Olusegun (12 February 2024). ""Yusuf Haroun Shows Commitment to Health Equity, Catalysing Change"" . The Independent . Retrieved 26 February 2024 . — another feature in a national daily. I didn't do any WP:BEFORE as these articles where just in the Wiki entry. Best, Reading Beans 12:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC) Clearly passes WP:GNG . Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 14:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC) Per Reading Beans and others; it definelty passes WP:GNG . Kaizenify ( talk ) 17:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC) I can't find anywhere it passe Otuọcha ( talk ) 19:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC) strong coverage in mainstream Nigerian sources ( WP:NGRS ). She was a fairy 00:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Leetcode : The only reliable source here is the Business Insider article, which is not enough. 93.72.49.123 ( talk ) 22:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC) NotAGenious ( talk ) 13:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet , Software , and Websites . NotAGenious ( talk ) 13:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC) to join the discussion. NotAGenious ( talk ) 13:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC) this is actually a second nomination, it was previously d under the name ""LeetCode"" in 2016. If this article is kept this time, the article should be moved to LeetCode, which currently exists as a but was previously d. Now, to notability: Sourcing looks worse than I assumed it would. Part of the issue here is that LeetCode is ubiquitous in tech blogs and online discussions, so there are many passing mentions: 500+ hits on Google Scholar, dozens on Google Books, etc. that make finding significant coverage challenging. There has been comparatively little coverage in the mainstream or business press (e.g. see the paragraph description of the product in the New York Times). There are articles like this one from Yicai Global that seems to me to meet WP:NPRODUCT , which is published by a subsidiary of Shanghai Media Group which would be unreliable for politics but may be reliable for business news (inferring from WP:RSP ). Suriname0 ( talk ) 16:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC) //www.dice.com/career-advice/coding-and-whiteboard-job-interviews-how-to-prepare . - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dice.com is a commercial website. I do not see any editorial guidelines and there is no indication of editorial oversight. While it is possible to use it for citing content, it would not be considered reliable to establish notability. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 07:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure a single paragraph is enough to establish notability. 93.72.49.123 ( talk ) 08:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That was just an example. Please do a search on Google Scholar for LeetCode: https://scholar.google.com/scholar? q=leetcode . I find it difficult to believe the subject would not meet on notability. - Indefensible ( talk ) 15:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Finding it difficult to believe is not an argument for AfD. We present our opinions based on guidelines and policies. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So to clarify, have you actually reviewed all 500+ results on Google Scholar? - Indefensible ( talk ) 22:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To clarify, I have not. Am I required to? You presented an argument that Google Scholar contains the in-depth coverage required by WP:ORGCRIT (a guideline you called ""imperfect"" ). It would be on you to present which specific Google Scholar articles meet that guideline. Your argument would be similar to me telling someone ""check Google."" -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 22:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, I just asked because you said that you ran a search and did not find enough acceptable sources, but you did not review all of the Google Scholar results. I just wanted to know and clarify. - Indefensible ( talk ) 22:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Products , and Computing . Suriname0 ( talk ) 18:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC) ORGCRIT . -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 07:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC) NCORP ; I was unable to find any in-depth coverage of the company at all. Is the product/site notable? I was only able to find some non-reliable blog reviews (e.g. 1 , 2 ), but I'm also not aware of any site with editorial oversight that writes traditional ""reviews"" for sites/products like this. Instead, I notice a number of informal discussions of the product ""where author describes personal opinions and experiences"" in books from publishers like Wiley and Springer Nature (Apress). The two books cited plus the coverage in the New York Times and Business Insider together comprise significant coverage of the product and its use to meet WP:NCORP . None of the individual sources comprises more than a few paragraphs (and in the case of the academic sources usually 1-2 sentences); I would love to see someone uncover a source that discusses LeetCode in more depth relative to its many competitors. Suriname0 ( talk ) 22:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So it fails NCORP but we should it anyway is what I believe you are saying. I am not sure what guideline would allow that other than WP:IAR . Also, none of what you described adds up to significant coverage so I must be misunderstanding your assessment of the notability requirements. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 22:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC) the company fails NCORP, but the product passes NCORP. The individual book sources, for example, contribute WP:SIGCOV product reviews. Suriname0 ( talk ) 23:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC) GNG at least based on user counts and general popularity. The article reads a bit like it is about the company behind the service, so it might benefit a bit from a bit of cleanup. Anton.bersh ( talk ) 20:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think that a high user count is enough. WP:BIG NotAGenious ( talk ) 06:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong LeetCode stands as a widely recognized and exceptional company, with a reputation that echoes through the software engineering communities of the US, India, and China. This website has left an indelible mark, aiding countless engineers globally in realizing their career aspirations and setting a benchmark within the industry. Despite their limited engagement in self-promotion, their prominence remains undeniable. A brief exploration would affirm this fact. Considering their extensive user base and substantial industry influence, they undoubtedly fulfill the criteria with distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.47.209.29 ( talk ) 04:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hm. But is that what the reliable sources say? NotAGenious ( talk ) 05:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand that this doesn't meet Wikipedia's strict standard for notability, but let's be honest, since that standard was written, most sources that would have covered Leetcode have gone out of business. Category:Defunct computer magazines published in the United States . Sean Brunnock ( talk ) 11:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am confused. Your statement of ""I understand that this doesn't meet Wikipedia's strict standard for notability"" is an agreement that it should be d. I am unsure of why it should be kept then unless this is a WP:LIKE vote. Your argument is saying you disagree with community consensus on notability guidelines, not that this page doesn't meet them. Let me know if I misunderstood what you are saying. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Cui, Cong; Dossetov, Ualkikhan; Wei, Songjie (2015). ""Computational Thinking Guided Programming Training for Oversea Students with Diverse Computer Literacy Skills"" . Journal of Information Technology and Application in Education . 4 : 59–60. doi : 10.14355/jitae.2015.04.008 . ISSN 2227-6459 . Archived from the original on 2018-06-03 . Retrieved 2023-08-15 . The article notes: ""LeetCode is a website for preparing and practicing programming interviews. It has 200 questions spanning many aspects in computer programming. All are rated based on difficulties. Users can type in source code and submit for testing online. LeetCode makes a good venue for our students to learn programming, testing and debugging, with realistic industry‐interview used programming problems. The browser‐based platform is easily accessible. Some of our students even worked on problems on smartphones in their spare time. ... A good grade on LeetCode challenge implies a student’s continuous, diligent and fruitful working on LeedCode problem solving, which requires not only spending time online, but thinking in computation, and efficient coding and debugging capability."" This appears to be an article published to a predatory journal. 0x Deadbeef →∞ ( talk to me ) 13:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good catch, the publisher (Science and Engineering Publishing Company) is included on the website of Beall's List . I've stricken this source from the list. Cunard ( talk ) 06:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sonmez, John; Butow, Eric (2020). Programming Interviews For Dummies . Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley . pp. 108–109, 219–220. ISBN 978-1-119-56502-4 . Retrieved 2023-08-15 – via Google Books . The book notes: ""The LeetCode website ( https://leetcode.com ) is one of the best places on the web to find and practice programming problems. All you have to do to view the list of questions is click the View Questions link on the home page to open the Questions page shown in Figure 18-1. What’s more, you’ll find problems to practice that are asked of interviewees at various large companies, including Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Amazon, and many others. Just click one of the companies listed in the Companies section on the right side of the Questions page. If you want to get the most out of the LeetCode site, sign up for a membership. LeetCode gives you the option of signing up for a monthly plan if you only want to use it while you’re looking for a job, or for a yearly plan if you want to use LeetCode as a resource for one calendar year. As of this writing, the monthly subscription costs $35 per month and the yearly subscription costs $159 per year."" The book further notes in a later chapter: ""Leetcode is also a popular site for programmers who want to get up to speed. When you open the LeetCode website at https://leetcode.com , you have to sign up for an account by clicking on the Create Account button shown in Figure 8-2. After you create an account, you can sign in by clicking the Sign In link in the upper-right corner of the screen. Like Codility, LeetCode has plenty of programming topics you can learn about, and you can take tests over and over again until you get a perfect score. You can also participate in contests against other LeetCode members. LeetCode also has several additional features: ..."" Wu, Jiang 吴江 (2021). 高效制胜：程序员面试典型题解 [ Winning with Efficiency: Solutions to Typical Programmer Interview Questions ] (in Chinese). Beijing: Beijing Book Co. [ zh ] . ISBN 978-7-115-55198-6 . Retrieved 2023-08-15 – via Google Books . The book notes : ""LeetCode是推荐最多的算法题练习网站,本书的算法题也都精选自 LeetCode。我认为LeetCode有以下几个优点。 1.测试覆盖率高。在提交代码以后,LeetCode会跑很多测试来验证代 码的正确性,而且很多题目的测试对于极端边界情况、复杂度和性能的要 求都有全面的考虑。为了保证代码的正确性,做题目的时候要养成审题的 习惯,仔细分析题目的条件范围,不要因为极端案例导致程序失败。 2.支持的语言比较多和新。LeetCode会定期更新支持的语言的版本, 保证能够利用到最新的语言特性。 3.讨论内容丰富。LeetCode现在有中文和英文两个版本,每个版本下 的评论都很丰富,通过阅读他人的评论可以加深我们对题目的理解,获得 新的思路。 当然,LeetCode也有一些缺点,比如题目数量太多、不够精练,而与 字符串相关的练习题偏少等。"" From Google Translate: ""LeetCode is the most recommended algorithm problem practice website, and the algorithm problems in this book are also selected from LeetCode. I think LeetCode has the following advantages. 1. High test coverage. After submitting the code , LeetCode will run a lot of tests to verify the correctness of the code, and the tests of many questions have comprehensive considerations for extreme boundary conditions, complexity and performance requirements. In order to ensure the correctness of the code, you must develop a practice of reviewing the questions when doing the questions 2. There are many and new languages supported. LeetCode will regularly update the versions of supported languages to ensure that the latest language features can be used. 3. Discussion The content is rich. LeetCode now has two versions, Chinese and English, and the comments under each version are very rich. By reading other people’s comments, we can deepen our understanding of the topic and gain new ideas. Of course, LeetCode also has some shortcomings, such as the topic There are too many, not concise enough, and there are too few exercises related to strings, etc. "" The book notes : ""LeetCode (力扣) 起源于美国硅谷,是最早的在线评测(Online Judge, OJ)平台之一。 "" From Google Translate: ""LeetCode (力扣) originated in Silicon Valley, USA, and is one of the earliest Online Judge (OJ) platforms. "" Liao, Shumin (2021-12-01). Litting, Tom (ed.). ""IT Job Interview Prepper LeetCode Pockets USD10 Million From Lightspeed China"" . Yicai Global [ zh ] . Shanghai Media Group . Archived from the original on 2023-08-15 . Retrieved 2023-08-15 . The article notes: ""LeetCode, a US startup that helps prepare software engineers for job interviews, has secured funding of nearly USD10 million from Lightspeed China Partners. ... Founded in Silicon Valley in 2011, LeetCode’s questions are widely used in interviews by major internet and tech companies. Demand for its services in China surged in 2018, so it set up a Chinese site to operate independently in the local market. ... LeetCode has over 100 million annual code submissions, and roughly half of Chinese programmers are believed to be using the platform, with many colleges and universities using LeetCode questions for auxiliary teaching. "" Nguyen, Nhan; Nadi, Sarah (2022-10-17). ""An Empirical Evaluation of GitHub Copilot's Code Suggestions"". MSR '22: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories . Association for Computing Machinery . pp. 1–5. doi : 10.1145/3524842.3528470 . The article notes on page 1: ""To evaluate the correctness of Copilot’s suggestions, we use LeetCode, a question pool website, which provides us with the context needed to create Copilot queries (function name, parameters, input, and output of the function) as well as test cases that we can use to evaluate correctness of the suggestions. LeetCode questions come with test cases in various programming languages, allowing us to assess the correctness of Copilot’s suggestions in 4 different languages (Python, Java, JavaScript, and C). "" The article notes on page 2: "" LeetCode . LeetCode is a popular Question Pool website (QP). Such websites provide various coding questions on different topics (array, algorithm, sorting, etc) along with corresponding tests to check correctness. ... LeetCode also provides a publicly available API to fetch submission details. Figure 2a shows an example LeetCode question, named Longest Increasing Path in a Matrix. The question contains information like the input (m x n integers matrix), the expected output (the length of the longest increasing path in a matrix), and any assumptions (no wrap-around). Each question also comes with a coding environment to submit solutions, shown in Figure 2b. This coding environment contains the function name (longestIncreasingPath) and parameters (self, matrix) with clear details into the type of each parameter. "" The book notes on page 2: ""LeetCode’s coding environment also contains a set of test cases in multiple programming languages. Figure 2b shows the Python coding environment for testing a submission against LeetCode’s predefined set of test cases. ... LeetCode’s tests also ensure that submitted code snippets “meet various time and space restrictions and pass corner cases” for the given problem. Users are also able to see a history of their submission status for the current coding problem and any past code solutions submitted for the same question, as shown in Figure 2c. The possible statuses are: ..."" The book notes on page 4: ""LeetCode stops execution at the first failed test case. "" Kolak, Sophia (2020-11-15). ""Detecting Performance Patterns with Deep Learning"". SPLASH Companion 2020: Companion Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Systems, Programming, Languages, and Applications: Software for Humanity . Association for Computing Machinery . doi : 10.1145/3426430.3428132 . The article notes: ""Leetcode is an online platform for practicing algorithmic coding challenges designed to prepare software engineers for technical interviews. After a correct solution is submitted, leetcode provides a distribution of accepted solutions according to run-time, along with representative samples from other users along this distribution. We scraped all such available samples across 32 array problems, for a total of 1,836 code snippets. This allowed us to study real implementations of the same problem at variable run-times, and to isolate syntax as the cause of either high or low performance. "" Siddiqui, Saleem (2022). Learning Test-Driven Development: A Polyglot Guide to Writing Uncluttered Code . Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly Media . pp. 220–221. ISBN 978-1-098-10647-8 . Retrieved 2023-08-15 – via Google Books . The book notes: ""LeetCode encourages social interaction with other developers with coding contests, challenges, and discussions. The “Playground” feature allows you to write code in several languages, including Go, JavaScript, and Python. However, there are some limitations. With Go, it is not trivial to import packages outside the standard library or to run tests via go test. With Python, it’s not obvious how to run tests using the unittest package. The free version restricts the number of Playgrounds (currently 10); the paid subscription removes this restriction and offers a host of other features, such as debugging and autocompletion. Figure A-4 shows a LeetCode window with JavaScript code from Chapter 1. The test in the code has been deliberately broken test to illustrate how test failures appear in LeetCode. "" Harper, Jocelyn (2023). A Software Engineer’s Guide to Seniority: A Guide to Technical Leadership . Wilmington, North Carolina: Apress . p. 20. doi : 10.1007/978-1-4842-8783-5 . ISBN 978-1-4842-8782-8 . The book notes: ""LeetCode is a platform that specializes in algorithm questions ranked from “Easy” to “Hard” based on the complexity of the subject and solution. They also have a forum where people share what interview questions they encountered in phone screens and on-site interviews to share with the larger public and to help software engineers prepare. I have been fortunate that the only time that I encountered a LeetCode problem during a screening process was for Amazon. As tedious as studying for LeetCode problems is, I have compiled steps that made solving them easier and faster as I was grinding algorithms. "" Poundstone, William (2021). How Do You Fight a Horse-Sized Duck? : Secrets to Succeeding at Interview Mind Games and Getting the Job You Want . New York: Little, Brown Spark . ISBN 978-0-316-49457-1 . Retrieved 2023-08-15 – via Google Books . The book notes: ""The equivalent for software engineers is the “LeetCode interview. "" LeetCode is a popular coding and interview-prep website that offers engineers hundreds of typical technical questions and interview work assignments. The right side of the Leetcode window is a code editor allowing the user to type in code in a selected language. The code can be executed (to see how well it works) or critiqued by other users. LeetCode offers a path for anyone, from 10-year-old prodigies to mid-career switchers, to learn coding. It allows users to conduct mock job interviews with questions, rated by difficulty, that have been asked at specific companies. Other sites, such as HackerRank, InterviewBit, and Topcoder, offer similar features. "" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow LeetCode ( Chinese : 力扣 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 08:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [35] [36] [37] plus book sources brought up above should suggest that this website is notable. 0x Deadbeef →∞ ( talk to me ) 13:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"2007 Alderney UFO sighting : Credulous youtube videos, a paper published in the poorly considered Journal of Scientific Exploration and a lot of WP:PRIMARY sources seem to be the only thing this article is hanging its hat on. WP:TNT is necessary here, I think. jps ( talk ) 13:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions . 5Q5 | ✉ 13:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Examining the article prior to the appropriate, jps-mediated application of dynamite, one learns of a non-notable non-event ignored by WP:FRIND sources and reported (I should probably write ""promoted"") only by dubious, unquestionably pro-fringe sources ( e.g . , David Clarke; Leslie Kean; the pro-woo Society for Scientific Exploration and their laughable Journal of Scientific Exploration ). JoJo Anthrax ( talk ) 14:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC) plenty of hits on Google Books verify that this was a reported sighting. Most of those sources aren't particularly high-quality in determining whether it was real (that is, actually aliens), but that's not our concern; they're reliable enough as documents of the claims of the sighting. Also reported in the Evening Standard here and the subject of a TV documentary here . Also made it briefly into a government document here and local-ish news here , at least briefly. UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 15:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry, which of those books do you think is reliable for accurately documenting the claims? Remember, too, that WP:SENSATION means that local press is not considered a reliable source for UFO claims. Additionally, if no one who isn't a believer in UFO absurdity has noticed , we probably cannot have an article on the subject. jps ( talk ) 17:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The books aside, we've got the Evening Standard, which is national news. Looking further, it's got SIGCOV by the BBC in this article , in the Register here , and here in the New Yorker . There's also this Times article hit on Google, but it's paywalled and might be a false positive) Again, I am not saying that it's a real UFO, but it's pretty undeniable that the claims of a sighting have been discussed in HQRS, and we report incidents of mass hysteria, hoaxes, cryptid ""sightings"" without giving credence to them. UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 18:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC) SENSATION . You seem to have been taken in by a craze that is producing unreliable content in what are otherwise normally reliable sources. The problem is that even claims of UFOs need to be verified by people who are separate from credulous community because false positives abound to such an extent that there is a WP:NFRINGE question whether every single claim is worthy of an article. In general, we go by WP:FRIND to establish when a claim about UFOs is worthy of discussion in this reference work. That is what we are lacking here: any third-party evaluation. It's all WP:PRIMARY and breathless speculation. jps ( talk ) 19:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've managed to get hold of the Times article from 2021; it certainly has SIGCOV, including a short interview with the pilot who allegedly saw the UFO. I'm going to have a go at knocking together a short article from the HQRS we do have; I should have the bones of something by the end of today. Hopefully we'll then be in a position to judge whether an article meeting WP:GNG is a possibility. UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 19:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Did they interview anyone who wasn't a UFO believer? jps ( talk ) 19:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC) GNG that the significant coverage in high-quality, independent, reliable sources has to be balanced; WP:GNG judges the quality of the source , not the article. I don't think WP:GNG has room to quibble the quality of the article, only whether its source is considered independent, published, reliable and secondary. Again, this is an article on a claimed sighting; it doesn't (any longer) engage with what, if anything, may actually have been seen. The BBC, the Telegraph, the New Yorker, the Times and the Evening Standard are all fairly unimpeachable, and all have WP's seal of approval of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources . That's five good sources reporting on the claimed sighting, which means that it passes WP:GNG by just any standards. UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 19:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no academic or skeptical reception for this alleged UFO sighting, this means there is a serious lack of reliable sources and the neutrality issue of not having a balanced article but one that is overly supportive of fringe content. Journal of Scientific Exploration and YouTube videos are not reliable. Psychologist Guy ( talk ) 17:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC) there's certainly coverage in reliable, non-fringe press sources. UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 18:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV on whether or not the sighting was real then there isn't WP:SIGCOV at all. All UFO claims are obviously just swamp gas but if it didn't even merit enough attention to get a full debunking it's just mindless media chatter, whatever passes for journalism these days should categorically not be considered a WP:RS for this sort of thing. - car chasm ( talk ) 19:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC) I've completely rewritten the article based on what I can find in undisputably HQRS. It's not going to be making FAC any time soon, but I think it fairly conclusively demonstrates WP:GNG , and I'm happy for the text to be picked apart to remove anything that isn't strictly factual or verifiable (note that the entire sighting is couched in ""Bowyer reported...""). I think the adoption of this 'sighting', particularly given the shakiness of its evidence base (basically a chat between a pilot and an ATC guy), by ufologists is interesting, but that would require citing some less-reliable sources as WP:PRIMARY , which I don't think is a good idea when the overall notability of the subject is in question. There's also the (self-published?) 2007 book on the topic, which gets referenced in some dodgy places but actually seems remarkably level-headed: the authors seem to be fairly respectable folklorists, it avoids anything about aliens and all but calls the pilot a liar. UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 21:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC) : Since your comments, the article has been blown up and started over . Thinking of WP:HEY , could you see if you think it now shows that the claims of the sighting have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ? UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 06:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Evening Standard and Daily Telegraph might be reliable for talking about someone's diet or if they own a pet dog but they are not reliable for fringe content. The article is unbalanced, there are no academic, scholarly or skeptical sources on the article. The Register is not a good source [23] . The Evening Standard is a credulous tabloid source [24] . For me I stick with what I voted, to . There are good and bad articles on Wikipedia, this in my opinion is still bad per lack of reliable sourcing. I am not a fan of the tabloid fluff. Psychologist Guy ( talk ) 10:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for this; I appreciate you taking a second look. I'd strongly dispute that label on the Telegraph ; I'm not fan of it in general, but it's regarded as one of the UK's newspapers of record, and it's considered reliable on the perennial sources page. Leaving those three aside, though, we still have The Times , the BBC and the New Yorker . That's three good, reliable sources, which should be a clear GNG pass even if we totally reject the others (which, again, I think would be incorrect). UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 11:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Telegraph is one of the three UK newspapers of record, alongside the Times and Guardian, all three are of equal quality. The Telegraph has repeatedly stated to be reliable at RS noticeboard. The Evening Standard is also a reliable source, if not as prestigious as the three aforementioned. There is no requirement whatsoever for RS to be ""sceptical"" in the sense that you mean it, being an ideological commitment to disprove claims of the supernatural, or in this case, claims that third parties might attribute to the supernatural. The articles record experiences that people claim to have undergone, in this case, multiple people, without taking a position on their explanation, or even their veracity. This looks very much like a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT . -- Boynamedsue ( talk ) 12:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC) FRINGE , WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV the article is not good because it is not balanced and is giving undue weight. Just because a website may be deemed reliable does not mean it is reliable per fringe content. Newspapers make their money by making sensational stories and that is all this article cites. Journalists are the last sort of people you would want to rely on for writing an article about UFOs and in this case we only cite journalists. Psychologist Guy ( talk ) 14:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC) SENSATION seems to be assiduously avoided by you. Why is that? Where in all these ""impeccable sources"" do you find the authors doing the due diligence of finding independent experts who are not in the sway of credulous belief in ufology ? Yes, in this area, sources that are normally reliable seem to be wont to fall into sensationalism which includes the BBC, The New Yorker, and so forth. Rather than this being an exemplar of WP:HEY , I am inclined to find this to be more of an exemplar of how there seem to be no good sources for this subject. jps ( talk ) 17:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC) SENSATION , which (to me) is warning against using low-quality journalistic sources, or using journalistic sources to support sensational statements. I don't see it as prohibiting the use of widely-acknowledged reliable journalistic sources to report statements made by people, where the fact of their having made the statement is not controversial or extraordinary (again, that's very different from saying that the statement they make isn't controversial). I appreciate that we may not agree on this one, though. UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 18:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No one is disputing the fact that the pilots made a claim. What is unaccounted is the context for this claim. People see shit all the time. For whatever reason , pilots who see shit end up getting noticed by sensationalized news services (probably because there is money to be made by such reporting). WP:NFRINGE deals with this sort of problem and explicitly calls out those outlets which are otherwise normally perfectly reliable. The problem is and always has been when it comes to this subject that it is in the same league as stories about Marian apparitions, haunted houses, or sightings of Bigfoot. It's all the same soft-ball journalistic game given to third-string reporters who either begrudgingly do the assignment or are themselves so compromised by credulity as to not be able to simple things like, say, fact check straightforward physical claims. Anyway, we have these WP:PAGs like WP:FRIND for a reason. There absolutely do exist sightings reports which have been noticed enough by third parties that you can write a WP:NPOV article on the subject. But this article has only the pilot's say-so breathlessly repeated in what I would describe as ""clickbait articles"". Wikipedia is not meant to be indiscriminate , and that is what I see this ""improved"" article still suffering from. jps ( talk ) 19:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think we're going to agree here, though I appreciate your time and effort in continuing this discussion in good faith. I'm sympathetic to a great deal of what you say, but I don't think it constitutes a reasonable interpretation of the acceptable reasons to an article . UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 19:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see a single source cited that I would consider reliable for this sort of thing. News sources are categorically bad for aliens per WP:SENSATION . - car chasm ( talk ) 15:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Psychologist Guy 's point as well: each AfD is different, but a useful comparison might be Flight 105 UFO sighting , which is a GA on a similar topic. There's plenty of use of newspaper sources there, and indeed I can't see a meaningful difference between the sourcing for this article and that one (the GA has books, but of the sort cleared out in previous edits as unreliable). On a related topic, we have Cottingley Fairies , an FA, which heavily uses news source as well. It's a valid belief to hold that Wikipedia shouldn't have articles on claims that are almost certainly untrue, but that ship has rather sailed. Similarly, the idea that news sources should be automatically discounted as HQRS in an article on a UFO sighting simply doesn't fit with WP:HQRS , or indeed the established practice across the encyclopaedia. WP:CONLEVEL is important here: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale . Saying that well-regarded news outlets cannot be used as sources for reports of a UFO sighting runs against the large-scale community consensus. UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 15:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd support an AFD for that article as well. I don't think the ship has sailed or ever will sail on platforming nonsense. - car chasm ( talk ) 16:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At least the Flight 105 article has the benefit of a reliable, independent third-party evaluation of the pilot's claim. This article doesn't even have that. The UK authorities just dismissed the report out of hand. jps ( talk ) 19:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC) SENSATION is hardly ""local consensus"". jps ( talk ) 18:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, but the interpretation of it you and other users seem to be attempting to implement here certainly is. The idea seems to be that reports on the topic of UFOs in reliable sources must, in all circumstances fall under WP:SENSATION , which is completely unfounded. Boynamedsue ( talk ) 19:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC) SENSATIONal , I think you are out on a limb far away from the reality of this subject. jps ( talk ) 21:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC) GNG exists for reports of moving objects in the sky which the witness does not recognise. We have articles on many things which empirically are not real, and many more which may not be real. If UFO reports were somehow an exception to this, it would have been mentioned in the guidelines. -- Boynamedsue ( talk ) 21:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You think GNG is magic sauce of some sort that automatically confers necessary to be an article status on every topic? You are mistaken. GNG is a standard by which one can judge the possibility of whether an article should exist. It is not a suicide pact. I can point to many subjects for which I can find sources that satisfy GNG which are not articles because, perhaps, they are part of another article or there are extenuating circumstances which prevent the article from being written with adherence to WP:5P . There are plenty of subjects that are covered by such awful souring that they just do not belong in Wikipedia. jps ( talk ) 23:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC) for the ping. I remain unconvinced that this article should be retained. What follows are two on-wikipedia examples that might help illustrate that opinion. In the first, the Varginha UFO incident , we have an ""incident"" involving a fairly large number of witnesses/observers to nothing unusual, and although nothing actually happened there is a large number of reliable, WP:FRIND sources that, for better or worse, establish its notability. The Alderney event has a small number of witnesses (and based on my readings, perhaps only one), and despite happening 16 years ago it has not generated anything close to the Varginha level of reliable sourcing, which I consider to be a bare minimum for inclusion in this encyclopedia. I also note that the Alderney event has attracted almost no reliably-sourced attention whatsoever since 2007. The second example involves events that occurred during the 1980s, in which dozens, if not hundreds, of people observed UFOs flying in the vicinity of the Hudson River in New York (see the Black triangle (UFO) page). Those events, which were hoaxes perpetrated by pilots of ultra-light aircraft, do not have (or merit) a stand-alone page in part because, like the Alderney event, the attention it has received is dominated by WP:SENSATIONAL , unreliable sources written by unquestionably pro-fringe ufologists. The Alderney event seems to me similarly dominated by unreliable articles/books from credulous, pro-fringe writers, including the currently-cited David Clarke and Matthew Campbell . Such attention does not signify notability. Perhaps the Alderney incident does merit brief attention in another article, such as here . Perhaps. But it remains insufficiently notable to have its own article. JoJo Anthrax ( talk ) 23:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC) I appreciate your taking the time to set this out. What are your objections to David Clarke (not currently cited in the article, except in Further Reading) and Matthew Campbell? Clarke is an academic at Sheffield Hallam University who works on the folklore of UFO sightings (not a Ufologist), and Campbell is a senior foreign correspondent for the Times . Those are both positions that carry with them a strong assumption of being WP:HQRS . UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 06:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In my opinion Clarke's long list of credulous, sensationalist writings and activities related to UFOs speaks for itself, and I note that having an academic position does not automatically qualify one's published works as reliable. Campbell's writings on UFOs, including his Twitter posts, in my opinion define everything he writes about the topic as unreliable. Assumptions of reliability are appropriate, but those assumptions go only as far as the actual material. JoJo Anthrax ( talk ) 14:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Observation by two pilots who went public, two passengers who went public, besides a sighting from land, and radar observations that seem to corroborate the sighting. So, visually observed from three directions, and from a fourth if you include radar traces, which also provided exact coordinates of two objects (now removed from article). Subject of a study by David Clarke. Something happened. As with the Tunguska event we don't know what caused it, but it happened. On a par or better substantiated than the 2006 O'Hare sighting . Does anyone want to that also? JMK ( talk ) 16:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We absolutely know what happened at Tunguska. Bizarre that you would claim otherwise (and concerning since competence is required ). This seems to be a sort of WP:ADVOCACY for you rather than a dispassionate approach to a subject which is rightly maligned as full of credulity and lacking rigor as the analysis presented still in the article seems to do. jps ( talk ) 18:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , and a fairly obvious one at that. The article as it exists now is impeccably sourced. Boynamedsue ( talk ) 07:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC) GNG . It also has WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Bruxton ( talk ) 20:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Canvassing jfs has posted this AfD on the Fringe Theories noticeboard with the intent of attracting support for deletion. While it may be considered relevant given their objections relate in part to WP:FRINGE , the way the notice is framed not neutral. That board is also something of a meeting point for users who identify as ""sceptics"", who they might reasonably believe would support their arguments. Boynamedsue ( talk ) 06:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC) AGF and a complete misapprehension of the rules for dealing with WP:FRINGE content. jps ( talk ) 07:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC) FTN ? Do you think you have psychic powers? jps ( talk ) 07:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC) TNT in both your nomination and your canvas at the WP:FRINGE noticeboard. This indicates your desired outcome. My psychic powers were quite unnecessary here. Boynamedsue ( talk ) 10:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just because I see cause for an article to be d doesn't mean my intent is to attract support for said deletion. Again, this is a massive abrogation of WP:AGF . jps ( talk ) 11:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC) INAPPNOTE . You fall foul of 3 out of 4 categories here. 1. Message. Your initial message on the noticeboard was not to ask opinion but to advise the board of what you believed to be a bad article. You then stated you had referred it to AfD and that ""I think we should WP:TNT this.""At no point were you asking for the opinions of others, you were canvassing their support. This is clearly what is advised against as a ""biased message"". 2. Audience. The audience you chose to advise is partisan, given the self-selecting nature of people concerned with removing Fringe Theories from wikipedia. It is exceptionally unusual to find users ready to state that mainstream newspapers are not reliable sources, this is an extreme minority position. Yet 3 have visited this page, yourself and two posters who are regular visitors to the Fringe theories noticeboard, attracted by your canvas. There are several other noticeboards which might be interested in this AfD, you did not notify them. 3. Transparency . No notification is visible on this page advising that you have posted this AfD there with your opinion on the article. So, AGF dictates that I assume this lack of care does not relate to any deliberate malice on your part, rather to a misunderstanding of WP:CANVASS . However, it does not require that I refrain from pointing out that your behaviour has contradicted this policy. Boynamedsue ( talk ) 11:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you think I am behaving badly, take it up with ANI. I reject your made-up rules about how people are supposed to frame messages. I have an agenda, I trust that others who read my posts can be competent enough to make their own decisions without parroting my own. My intent is to inform about what I think is best for the website and the public-facing content, nothing more. jps ( talk ) 13:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, I was merely making the closer aware of your canvassing, so it can be taken into consideration. Boynamedsue ( talk ) 15:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is absolutely no evidence of canvassing here. None. JoJo Anthrax ( talk ) 23:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is very strong evidence, given the non-neutral message, the partisan forum, and the fact that of 8 commenters on this RfC, 4 have voted , and 4 have voted . All of the latter are regular posters at Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Boynamedsue ( talk ) 05:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The audience you chose to advise is partisan, given the self-selecting nature of people concerned with removing Fringe Theories from wikipedia. Huh? Are you saying all the editors at WP:FTN are partisan? Or just some of them? Which ones? I've been volunteering at WP:FTN for several years and I'd love to know how you are able to determine the biases of all the editors that post there. - LuckyLouie ( talk ) 16:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, I fully recognise that many users at that forum either don't identify as ""sceptics"", or if they do, don't let it interfere with their editing. However, the choice to link at that forum and nowhere else had a vote-stacking effect here. -- Boynamedsue ( talk ) 16:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC) TNT this"" . There's no way that's a neutral notice - it's clearly urging people to go and get this article d. A neutral notice would (at the very least) not advocate coming here to vote one way. I wouldn't suggest WP:ANI unless it becomes (is?) a pattern of behaviour but Boynamedsue is right to flag it up to the closer. FOARP ( talk ) 10:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC) Thanks for striking the aspersions. Discussions on here seem to often ramp up in nastiness so I appreciate you de-escalating to things chill especially considering the ""gravel in your guts and the spit in your eye"". Regards, Rjjiii ( talk ) 07:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. - Roxy the dog 15:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC) (unsigned comment, that breaks page fornatting, removed. I came here from FTN, a noticeboard dedicated to improving the project by discussion about good, and piss poor articles, of which this is one. You need to refresh your understanding about WP:Canvass . Please avail yourself, whoever you are, of my helpful link. - Roxy the dog 15:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC) ) CIVIL while you were at it? Just to clarify, I believe that your post here kind of makes my point about WP:CANVAS , you are here because of a non-neutrally worded post in a forum with a strong bias against articles relating to topics similar to this. Boynamedsue ( talk ) 15:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC) CIR people, indeed. This is a prime example. - Roxy the dog 16:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PS. Are you going to complain about this? and this? oh dear me - Roxy the dog 16:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, that's quite unpleasant, isn't it? I think that the competence issue seems to be coming from the canvassed posters here. WP:GNG and the perennial sources list are pretty clear that The Times, Telegraph and BBC are reliable sources. We don't get to disqualify them when they say things we don't like, more's the pity. -- Boynamedsue ( talk ) 16:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You seem to think that the list of perennial sources is somehow more important than content guidelines which identify when otherwise reliable sources can go astray. That is the fundamental difference in editorial philosophies here. The fact of the matter is that we do get to disqualify sources when it comes to notability tests when there are problematic contexts for a particular subject. Just because a source is generally reliable doesn't make it a magic talisman for article writing in defiance of WP:NPOV (which is exactly what has happened here). jps ( talk ) 18:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC) The document mentioned in the New Yorker is available from NICAP . The appendices—all primary sources for this article—don't quite match the news coverage. The MoD respond saying, The position reported is outside of the UK radar coverage and in fact inside French airspace for air defence. We had no reports from the French that the object was seen or detected on radar. We believe the ATC radar at Jersey is secondary only and therefore unable to achieve a primary radar contact (if the object was capable of producing one). The contact was reported as stationary again making radar detection unlikely and no further reports indicated that the object had a heading towards the UK. Therefore, we conclude that there was no threat to the UK from this observation and will not be taking the investigation furhter. The other pilot account says visibility was fairly poor due to haze . Ray Bowyer gives a really thorough interview regarding weather and visibility. Bowyer says the BBC has the flightpath wrong. The account from the passenger sounds atsmospheric: Ray then dropped the nose of the plane down. I could then see something through the windscreen. It looked like the sun reflecting off glass. What I was looking at was a very bright light over the sea below us. It could have been sunlight reflecting off something. There were two lights. The second was roughly where I was expecting the airport to be (over Alderney). The lights persisted for a few minutes. I realize that a Wikipedia article can't be constructed from our analysis of primary sources compiled by ufologists. Regards, Rjjiii ( talk ) 04:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Thanks for the work improving the article. I want to give a specific issue with the sources. The New Yorker article seemed the most reliable, so I checked it out. It cites an in-depth private research paper linked above. The passage cited to the paper, seems quite a bit off. The source seems to conflate unexplained with unexplainable and misrepresent the ufo researchers. Take a look at each: The times New Yorker says: The “Report on Aerial Phenomena Observed Near the Channel Islands, UK, April 23 2007” was drafted with the coöperation of dozens of domain experts—meteorologists, oceanographers, harbormasters—and various French institutes and British ministries, and it culminated with sixteen prevailing hypotheses, ranked by plausibility. Largely ruled out were such atmospheric aberrations as sun dogs and lenticular clouds, and an exceedingly rare and poorly understood seismological phenomenon known as “earthquake lights,” in which tectonic distress expresses itself in bluish auroras or orbs. The report concluded, “In summary, we are unable to explain the UAP sightings satisfactorily.” The ufo research paper says: It proved possible to eliminate a number of theories with a fairly high level of confidence, but we were unable to conclusively identify the UAPs observed. We found that two theories had some potential to explain at least a majority of the features observed and might be the basis of a future explanation. But we are sensible that a potential to explain is not an explanation. These two theories involved atmospheric-optical phenomena (specular sun reflections on a haze layer capping a local temperature inversion) or geophysical phenomena (related to ‘earthquake lights’ or EQL). But each theory has some interesting problems. As we state in our Conclusions (Section 7): ‘It may prove possible for other investigators to adapt these theories and so improve the fit with observation, or further work might thoroughly rule out one or both of them.’ The New Yorker is generally reliable but that's an example of the kind of error I see in that specific article. I can try to take a look at The Times later. The other articles all seem to have come within the news cycle. Also, JoJo Anthrax , I hope you don't mind if I ping you to get your input on the above. Rjjiii ( talk ) 00:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Rjjiii . There's two things here: I'm afraid I don't see the contradiction you describe: the New Yorker (not the Times , I don't think) uses Largely ruled out were , which is a decent summary of It proved possible to eliminate a number of theories with a fairly high level of confidence . As I read both sources, they're saying that the researchers were unable to explain the sighting, not that the sighting could never be explained. The ""unable to explain"" quotation comes later in the paper. There's also a bit of a have-our-cake-and-eat-it problem here: if the research paper is reliable, it's evidence that the article passes GNG; if it's not reliable, we can't use it selectively to fact-check sources we don't like. I'd suggest that it's best for the moment to treat it WP:PRIMARY , and so to use it only to point out direct misquotations or mischaracterisations of it from the secondary sources. Again, I don't see that we've got that there: could you give me a little detail as to what you meant? There's a broader point on the meaning of ""reliable source"" here that's relevant to User:JoJo Anthrax 's point: while an individual author's authority does have a bearing on WP:HQRS , the more significant point is that in general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication . This is why we don't generally consider blogs, tweets or self-published works particularly reliable, even if their writers are generally considered knowledgeable and honest; conversely, when we trust a source like The Daily Telegraph , that's based on the fact that a reputable newspaper has editors and an approval process to catch and correct errors, has a large enough body of readers willing to make complaints against it, is subject to regulation that requires it to report with integrity and issue corrections when those complaints are upheld. Personally assessing each journalist through their own work (as opposed to secondary sources on it) is missing the point, and also essentially relying on a Wikipedia editor's subjective judgement, which has all the problems of WP:OR . UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 06:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I should preface this by saying that a Wikipedia editor's view of a journalist, based on a search into a their Twitter account, does not overturn whether or not the newspaper for which they write is considered reliable. However, since it has been suggested that Campbell's writings on UFOs, including his Twitter posts, in my opinion define everything he writes about the topic as unreliable , I searched his Twitter for the terms ""UFO"", ""space"", ""alien"", ""vessel"" and ""Alderney"". The only hit was this tweet , which is anything but credulous: note the scare quotes around ""UFO"". UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 16:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have striked (struck?) my comments about Campbell above, as I stupidly landed on the account of another, unquestionably pro-fringe writer named Matthew Campbell. Thanks very much to UndercoverClassicist for pointing out my mistake. For what it is worth - which after that is probably not much - I still believe this non-event has not received what I consider significant or sustained coverage since 2007/8, making it non-notable, and my opinion that Clarke is an unreliable source for this topic stands. JoJo Anthrax ( talk ) 14:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC) PRIMARY, and so to use it only to point out direct misquotations or mischaracterisations of it from the secondary sources. Again, I don't see that we've got that there: could you give me a little detail as to what you meant? To be clear, I agree about the private research paper. I've brought it up because the secondary sources are using it. And additionally to be clear, I don't intend to vote on this one. I'm honestly not familiar enough with Wikipedia policy and otherwise it would pass the notability guidelines. To give some more detail: I read the (primary source) paper as saying they ruled out all but two of the interpretations. I read the (secondary source) news article as including those two possibilities among those largely ruled out interpretations. Just past where the New Yorker cuts their quote, the primary source reads We are unable to explain the UAP sightings satisfactorily without either a) discounting at least some significant features of the reports, [...] and I think that snipping prior to ""without"" is rather huge. Eyewitness accounts are not 100% reliable. My reading of the statement is that 2 of the interpretations were considered plausible. Rjjiii ( talk ) 04:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think I basically agree with all of that, with the caveat that the two options presented at the end of the report (essentially, ""some details are inaccurate"" and ""all of physics is wrong"") weren't among the initial 16 hypotheses, so it's still true that 0/16 were found plausible). We have to be careful, however, in how far we can use that paper within the article. If we're not going to use the paper itself as a reliable secondary source (as has been suggested earlier in this discussion), we need to follow WP:DUEWEIGHT , and follow the decisions made in HQRS (here, The New Yorker ) as to which facts are presented. We're not talking about a misquotation here, and it's possible that the New Yorker had legal considerations in mind, and chose not to reprint a section of the report which could be construed as calling Bowyer a liar. To use our reading of what we consider a primary source over a high-quality secondary one, we'd have to be talking about a straightforward matter of fact (not interpretation or analysis, per WP:PRIMARY ), and that's not what we have here. UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 10:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Posted to RS Noticeboard Given the discussion here has focussed on reliability of sources, I have left a neutral message on the Reliable Sources noticeboard advising of this AfD. Boynamedsue ( talk ) 06:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC) GNG from the sources in the article already. -- Jayron 32 11:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC) GNG . Meanderingbartender ( talk ) 15:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to closer Could some attention be paid, aside from the issue of deletion at hand, to the disruptive behaviour of Boynamedsue in this discussion. thanks - Roxy the dog 11:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pointing out canvassing is not disruptive behaviour. I'd be happy to discuss it at ANI, if you feel differently. Boynamedsue ( talk ) 11:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Irony is that I actually found off-wiki canvassing by UFO believers for this AfD this morning. Apologies, but I will not be linking to it. jps ( talk ) 18:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You should definitely contact an admin about that then, and signal any comments on here you feel might have been canvassed off-wiki. There is absolutely no room for pro-UFO ""factions"" trying to influence AfD discussions. Boynamedsue ( talk ) 19:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per NOTNEWS, SENSATIONAL, INDISCRIMINATE, and FRIND. There is nothing remarkable about this topic. Reported sightings of UFOs or UAPs by pilots is common enough. Also there has been no real world impact such as identifying a new technology, boosting a regional economy, causing a plane crash, injury, death, and so on. For example due to the Varginha UFO sighting tourism has been markedly affected which demonstrates having an impact. Not so here. Also the Pentagon received more than 366 reports of UAP sightings in 2022 [25] , showing that this is merely a common occurrence. --- Steve Quinn ( talk ) 19:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC) GNG , the standard isn't how common the event is, but how widely it has been covered in high-quality, reliable secondary sources . On that topic, see above: I think it's fairly well-established that the subject does pass GNG by any commonly-shared definition of HQRS. Which of the reasons for deletion do you think applies here? UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 19:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No it is not only about how widely an event has been covered. As has been stated above, the available RS gives the presumption of a topic meriting its own article. Presumption means it is plausible, possible, or provides reasonable grounds to think it may be notable. But it is not a guarantee. Here and in your above responses, what I see is, you are claiming this topic is guaranteed because it has been ""widely reported"" or whatever. Once sources are presented, a more in-depth discussion ensues, which is the definition of this AfD. And the discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article "". Hence, there is nothing remarkable about this event. It's a report of a UFO, like another report of a UFO, like hundreds of other reports of UFOs, and becomes little better than gossip. This Wikipedia article has not reached beyond the level of a news report. And for that see NOTNEWS, "" not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia . "" Likewise a newsworthy event does not automatically bestow inclusion onto a topic. --- Steve Quinn ( talk ) 20:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC) 29, 20 May 2023 (UTC) INDISCRIMINATE , which gives four specific cases of article types that apply to it: summary-only descriptions of creative works, lyrics databases, listings of unexplained statistics and exhaustive logs of software updates. It further says that, to avoid falling foul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE , To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources . Are you saying that you don't think this article contains data put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources ? Otherwise, I'm struggling to see the policy-based objection you're making here, short of your expressed opinion that you want the article d : as that much-cited essay says, such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion . UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 20:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC) NOTEVERYTHING where it says ""...consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive. "" Therefore, since, in my opinion, this topic does not merit inclusion, and Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminately added information, this falls into that category. If the topic doesn't qualify then it is superficial (as I have described above) or indiscriminately added. We must and should discriminate--- Steve Quinn ( talk ) 20:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC) GNG can be over-ridden by personal preference. A text book definition of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT .-- Boynamedsue ( talk ) 05:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 51, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 23, 20 May 2023 (UTC) 29, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 20, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 29, 21 May 2023 (UTC) UNDUE , which says that coverage should be balanced in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources . If you think that's not the case, could you provide some HQRS covering the subject matter from another perspective? Otherwise, if such ""substantial skeptical coverage"" does not exist in published, reliable sources, there's no break of WP:UNDUE . Likewise, WP:PARITY explicitly concerns parity of sources : you haven't suggested any sources which aren't already included, so this would also seem to be a fairly clear misreading or misapplication of the guideline. UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 17:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 54, 22 May 2023 (UTC) UNDUE . You might feel that the article is unbalanced relative to the sources that should exist, or that you would like to exist, but WP:UNDUE specifically deals with the sources that do exist. There is no policy argument for deleting an article based on how its topic would or should have been covered in sources that do not exist. UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 19:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 30, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 38, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 32, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 33, 21 May 2023 (UTC) GNG . Kind Tennis Fan ( talk ) 01:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC) Hey . Over-zealousness in some quarters has led to people simply trying to ghost/cryptid/UFO sighting articles because “they’re not real”. They don’t seem to get that whether they’re real or not (and I doubt many !voting here are true believers in UFOs) doesn’t actually matter in whether articles are kept or not. What matters is whether reliable sources covered them, and in this case, they did. Obviously our coverage should also not assert that UFOs are real but that’s a content issue, not a DELREASON. FOARP ( talk ) 05:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 44, 22 May 2023 (UTC) any book not explicitly written from the POV of sceptics must be unreliable even if we're very clear in the article that we're talking about pseudoscience. FOARP ( talk ) 08:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC) MAINSTREAM analysis seriously either for lack of knowing that this is the mainstream approach or because they disdain it outright. We are left, then, with awful sourcing for individual sightings such as what we have here. This is not the case for all sightings. Some are famous enough to have sources which properly contextualize them. But this particular sighting was only noticed by charlatans and third-rate reporters (or, at the most, reporters who are not meeting the bar of due diligence in fact checking). This is the objection we have. The normal games of source finding just do not apply when you are talking about a subject that is consigned to credulity within even otherwise upstanding newsrooms. jps ( talk ) 20:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC) CANVAS when it comes to FTN in particular, I think that those concerns should be addressed on another forum.) The article summarizes a reported UFO sighting cited to what are generally regarded as HQRS. The problem is that this article covering an undeniably FRINGE topic merely describes the event and quotes witness testimony without providing any context from HQRS representing the prevailing stance of experts in the relevant fields (scientists, academic skeptics). All UFO sightings fall under bullet point 4 of WP:EXTRAORDINARY : Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, [...] No matter how dispassionately an exceptional claim is presented, no matter how carefully we attribute statements (""Bowyer said"" etc.), and no matter how many lay RS credulously cover it, it should not appear on WP if it cannot be appropriately contextualized: The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative. Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance Right now we lack sources that evaluate the legitimacy/interpretations of the sighting from the perspective of the mainstream skeptical stance on UFOs, by people qualified in the relevant fields. Per PARITY, criticism of the event could even come from non-academic secondary RS. But what we can't have is a simple summary of what the witnesses said they saw and their interpretations of it, because what they said they saw is plainly under the purview of FRINGE and thus just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article . Basically all we have is quotes, and basically none of them are appropriately contextualized. JoelleJay ( talk ) 21:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC) FRINGE and WP:EXTRAORDINARY here: many of these points have already been made in the discussion, but both guidelines apply to asserting the truth of a certain claim. The article does not claim that aliens visited Alderney. It is not a WP:FRINGE or WP:EXTRAORDINARY idea to say that a pilot made the reports cited in the article. Indeed, nothing stated as fact in the article is unverifiable or even particularly controversial: the potential implications of those facts might be, but that's a completely separate matter. I hate to repeat a point made many times already, but in response to The problem is that this article covering an undeniably FRINGE topic merely describes the event and quotes witness testimony without providing any context from HQRS representing the prevailing stance of experts in the relevant fields (scientists, academic skeptics : if there is material from HQRS representing sceptical views, it should be included, but there's no policy-based reason to an article based on the assertion that ""there must be sources"" which express a particular view, particularly when that article's subject already passes GNG from the material available. UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 21:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC) FRINGE and WP:EXTRAORDINARY here . "" The above description by JoelleJay is right on point. In fact it is well said. --- Steve Quinn ( talk ) 22:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC) FRINGELEVEL states Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources ) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. It adds Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction , should be documented as such, using reliable sources. If there are not RS available to provide that context, the material should not be in the article. Since this article is almost entirely sourced to (even secondary repetition of) a primary recounting of a FRINGE experience, it cannot comply with this direction. JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC) North8000 , I really don't see anything exceptional, fringe or, again, even particularly controversial. I think you might be assuming that ""UFO"" means ""alien spacecraft"" or even ""physical entity"". Note in particular the word perceived in the definition. UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 06:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC) I only did a quick overview of the sources, not a deep dive. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 02:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC) 44, 23 May 2023 (UTC) 58, 23 May 2023 (UTC) ITEXISTS , which is not a valid reason to an article. As Steve Quinn points out above, there is nothing about this report that stands out from the many, many other UFO sightings, and it has not generated any real in-depth coverage. This is WP:NOTNEWS , and does not substantiate an independent article. It's yet another trivial entry in the ""we don't know what we saw"" category of media reports. — The Hand That Feeds You : Bite 19:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC) 45, 23 May 2023 (UTC) GNG is passed and WP:NOTNEWS isn't a concern, since long-term coverage in HQRS can be demonstrated. Edited to add: it's worth saying that most of the academic study of UFO sightings comes from folklorists: that is, people who are interested in them as narratives that people construct to explain things that they see or think they see. If you look at the academic discussion on UFOs, you'll find very few articles trying to prove what they are or aren't, and far more talking about the social and cultural conditions that lead certain people to attach certain explanations to certain phenomena. This recent-ish article is a good example . It seems strange to insist on a source ""debunking"" something where no serious source has made a controversial claim about it . UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 21:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC) 45, 24 May 2023 (UTC) ...not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia [and]...most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion . Also this sighting has no historical significance (also per NOTNEWS). And the academic study you cited is exactly on point about the academic counterpoint needed in a Wikipedia article such as this. The author is doctoral student who was published in an academic journal. He applies folklore theory , an academic discipline, and cognitive anthropology , which speaks for itself as an academic discipline. This is a professional study. Pertaining to this particular journal: "" The contents of the Journal reflect a wide range of professional concerns and theoretical orientations. Articles present significant research findings and theoretical analyses from folklore and related fields . "" --- Steve Quinn ( talk ) 22:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 1. WP:NOTNEWS : that the article is simply a news report, and so meets c14 of the deletion criteria. However, the topic has been discussed at length in multiple sources outside its news cycle: even if you remove those within a week of the event from the article altogether, it would still pass GNG comfortably. 2. That the article meets WP:GNG , but should be excluded for some other reason: in your comments above, for instance, you've mentioned that it ""has no historical significance"", and that few academics have attempted to explain what might ""really"" have happened. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is that it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources: saying that GNG doesn't ""count"" because you don't think those sources should have covered it, or you don't like how they did cover it, is simply WP:IDL . As we've established, WP:DUEWEIGHT is fully satisfied as long as the balance of coverage in reliable sources is accurately reflected in the article. WP:CONLEVEL applies here: an individual AfD discussion between a handful of editors can't impose different standards for notability than those used across the encyclopaedia as a whole. 3. That the article deals with WP:FRINGE material, and therefore sources presenting the mainstream point of view are needed. Leaving aside whether WP:FRINGE is an argument for deletion (which it generally isn't), everything in the article is pedestrian, verifiable and cited to mainstream sources: it is, by definition, not fringe material if it's being reported as fact in the BBC, the Times , the New Yorker and so on. I don't think you've given an example of a non-mainstream claim made in the article that needs to be balanced. I appreciate that you've got a clear idea of what you'd like the article, and its sources, to look like. However, deletion needs to work by policy, not an editor's personal opinion of what they would like or not like Wikipedia to have. UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 06:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not my personal opinion. And please stop trying to throw shade on my contributions here by minimizing them as personal opinion. Also, that is just rhetoric for the benefit of the closer. And you are not the authority on ""deletion needs to work on policy. "" As an editor in good standing, I am allowed to interpret policy and guidelines. I never said that newspaper sources should not have covered it nor did I say that I didn't like how they did it. This kind of coverage is common. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth - again probably for the benefit of the closer. And no one is trying to impose different standards for notability in this discussion. It seems that these are standards that you are not used to dealing with and this comes through in your arguments. And these standards are wholly appropriate and valid. And I have to say, FRINGE material has been, is, and will continue to be covered in the press. Just because you don't think so, doesn't mean it's not true. --- Steve Quinn ( talk ) 19:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC) FRINGE , that is a separate issue from whether the article should be d. Partofthemachine ( talk ) 19:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 28, 25 May 2023 (UTC) CANVASS is not applicable here. I think there is a certain viewpoint among sceptic users that mentioning woo adjacent topics without explicitly stating ""this is not true"" renders any source unreliable, despite WP:GNG. These users frequent FTN quite a lot, and this type of AfD is always notified there. Unfortunately it is difficult to see a way round the problems arising from this within current policy guidelines which explicitly state this is not canvassing. Boynamedsue ( talk ) 12:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC) GNG . Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 19:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC) Has enough RS now. TNT is not needed (anymore). Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 06:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC) There is no need of separate page for fictional things because you can list in existing related article(s) like List of reported UFO sightings or by location lists. DSP2092 ( talk ) 07:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC) NPOV and WP:RS . Prototyperspective ( talk ) 15:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's ""too detailed"" because 75% of it is primary quotes from witnesses...if you remove those you just get a few sentences saying it happened and that various atmospheric phenomena might have been responsible. JoelleJay ( talk ) 16:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"House of Balloons / Glass Table Girls : Note that the article itself indicates that the song had a lack of commercial success. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, the one Billboard article is about all there is. Never charted, no critical attention in RS. Nothing we can use for wiki. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Between Billboard , Rolling Stone , and Pitchfork , I think it meets GNG/NMUSIC#1 handily. The two paragraphs on the song in Impact Magazine don't hurt either. Article does contain several unreliable sources which need clearing out though. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 17:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Looking at WP:NSONGS , commercial success is not a criterion for notability, though NSONGS notes that it is a good indicator. The two main criteria which NSONGS suggests this article must meet are being the subject of ""multiple, non-trivial published works"" and ""there is enough material to write a reasonably detailed article"". The Billboard article passes this easily as the article is specifically about the song, leaving one more source needed for the song to be notable. Rolling Stone and Pitchfork are more marginal. While both are part of a ""best of"" list, NSONGS does not disqualify a source's significance due to that, it only does if the song's coverage is in the context of an album review. Rolling Stone does not mention the album at all, so it passes that burden. Pitchfork does and the song's entry seems to be in the context of the Weeknd and House of Balloons , so I do not think it passes that burden. We, therefore, have two sources with non-trivial coverage out of the context of the album, certainly enough for the song to be notable (albeit barely). I also think a reasonably detailed article can be created from the sources here. The Impact & Critical Reception section seems well-sourced while the Composition section could be expanded using those sources. Cutting the unsourced part of that section, the article would be above stub length from those two sections alone. If I am wrong about that, I suggest merging and ing to House of Balloons if the song is only notable within the context of the album. ~ UN6892 t c 21:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've made some edits to the article to cut down on the unsourced material and I think the article should be able to stand on its own based on the ""Background and composition"" and ""Critical reception"" sections. The material in the article now would likely be unbalanced if it were all in the House of Balloons article. There is some extra material I found from that article, which I will use to expand this one, though there is much less material placed in that article than here. Thus, I am a bit more confident in my vote, though I am not yet willing to stop classifying it as ""weak"". ~ UN6892 t c 18:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Passes GNG/NSONG. In the spirit of WP:THREE : significant coverage in Billboard , Rolling Stone and Pitchfork . I disagree with Username6892 above - NSONG only excludes coverage in the context of an album review , not any coverage which mentions the album. Given that the source is ""The Top 100 Tracks of 2011"" and the song itself gets significant discussion, I don't think it should be excluded. WJ94 ( talk ) 15:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Noureddine Bikr : It's been repeatedly draftified / declined at AfC, so I thought an AfD discussion to establish a consensus on notability would probably be more useful than moving it to draft yet again. Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 12 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 07:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Theatre , and Morocco . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Searching in . ma websites, the gov't put out a statement when he died and the King talked about the individual in the press. [20] , [21] . Says he was a well-known Moroccan stage actor and had success in a play in the 1990s. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] multiple sources in Sky, France24, Moroccan Ministry of Culture, Al Watan, Al Sabah etc. Mccapra ( talk ) 22:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Apple Watch health monitoring patent dispute : Per WP:NOPAGE , this more suitable as a section on the main Apple Watch page than an entire article. Fails WP:NEVENT , WP:NOTNEWS , and WP:10YEAR . InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 01:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Law , Companies , Technology , and United States of America . InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 01:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC) NEVENT , considering the ""event"" in this case is a two-year legal dispute that has heaps of RS for its entire length. Meets WP:GNG on its own, and its length probably precludes including it as a subsection of Apple Watch . Acebulf ( talk | contribs ) 02:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC) You first tried ing the page with the edit summary Oh my gosh, not again. This topic isn't notable for its own article . Is there more context to this dispute than what is listed here? . Acebulf ( talk | contribs ) 02:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not with this article specifically, but this user has a history of rapidly creating articles about news stories that may not satisfy our notability guidelines. While their dedication is certainly appreciated, others and I have previously asked the editor to slow down and consider the applicable guidelines before creating an article. Whatever happened to Wikipedia being a lagging indicator of notability ? It is unfortunate that AfDs of such articles often end with ""no consensus"" or """" because participants simply observed the number of sources and concluded that GNG has been met. InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 05:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Given that your vaguely-referenced articles often pass the article for deletion process, it appears as though your critiques of stature are directed towards policy. WP:VPP may be of service here in resolving your quarrels. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC) N , when in fact we must consider whether a standalone article is truly warranted. InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 22:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A legal dispute is an event, so it should meet the criteria outlined at NEVENT. Many, many events have attracted ""heaps"" of RS coverage, which is why we have PAGs such as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YEAR . These events, while ""notable"" enough to warrant discussion on an article, should be incorporated in a larger article rather than a standalone one. For instance, the deaths of many famous people receive substantial coverage, but only a handful spin out into standalone articles (e.g. where is Death of Matthew Perry ? Death of Chadwick Boseman ?). Same goes for all kinds of corporate drama, celebrity gossip, and so forth. InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 05:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A major patent dispute with sustained coverage over multiple years. Of comparable significance to Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. , Motorola Mobility v. Apple Inc. , or Samsung v. Huawei . Easily meets WP:GNG . Jfire ( talk ) 02:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC) OSE ; many articles exist on Wikipedia that should be d, but haven't yet been uncovered. Looking at those three articles, the first can probably be kept considering that it covers a multitude of cases; the second and third do not meet WP:GNG or WP:SUSTAINED and should be d into Smartphone wars , Apple Inc. litigation , or similar articles. InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 05:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Sustained but do agree that the creator of this article has a chronic too soon article creation problem. Esolo5002 ( talk ) 07:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC) media coverage well exceeds our usual notability threshold. Long-term legal, technological and financial impact will more than meet our WP:10YEARTEST based on how similar scope cases went. Owen× ☎ 22:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Eleanor Janega : She has authored some publications, but she is not included in the list of Highly Cited Researchers and there is nothing to prove WP:PROF . Chiserc ( talk ) 10:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women . Chiserc ( talk ) 10:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . A sensible alternative to deletion appears to be ion to a stub on her notable book The Once and Future Sex , which has been reviewed in several reliable sources [34] [35] [36] [37] . I did not quickly find reviews of her other book, but WP:NAUTHOR is somewhat plausible. Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 10:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC) it's ""a graphic history"", not ""a graphic guide"". — David Eppstein ( talk ) 01:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I have not yet formulated an opinion on the merits of this specific article, but I found this on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators as part of a batch of five new deletion nominations by the same nominator , all of women academics. This is far out of proportion to the number of articles, or the number of new articles, on women academics. If this nominator is specifically targeting women for deletion, we have a problem. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 00:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC) The batch of women academic nominators had two different nominators. Of the two, the one I have been in contact with on my talk ( User:Chiserc ) appears to be unrepentant about the discriminatory effect caused by searching women's categories for deletion targets. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 22:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I found and added six book reviews to the article. She now has eight reliably published reviews for two books, enough for WP:AUTHOR for me. One of the books is in graphic-novel format, and there's also some incidental coverage that I didn't add about the choice to format it that way. In any case, using that format doesn't detract from notability. Citation counts are not usually very informative for academics in book fields. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 01:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . With 2 reviews for the 2nd book (and many for the other), the WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NCREATIVE case is now convincing. Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 06:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Passes the relevant wiki-notability guideline by virtue of having multiple books receive multiple reliable reviews apiece. XOR'easter ( talk ) 19:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC) HEY and WP:NAUTHOR . pburka ( talk ) 13:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability demonstrated through multiple sources critically engaging through Janega's work as demonstrated through the book reviews. Richard Nevell ( talk ) 19:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Jeroen van Wetten : A web search finds two short articles in [53] and [54] but no WP:SIGCOV . There may be offline sources but it seems doubtful to me. The article fails WP:GNG . Robby.is.on ( talk ) 00:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Robby.is.on ( talk ) 00:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Netherlands . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 01:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . As a three-year professional, including in the Dutch premier league, offline sources are anything but unlikely. In fact, it is EXTREMELY unlikely these wouldn't exist. This AfD is part of a mass nomination of Dutch footballers, who have played in a period for which the online newspaper articles are no longer available, while these are not yet included in the national newspaper archive, Delpher. I'm not going to bother with the others that are oneliners and contribute little to WP. gidonb ( talk ) 19:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC) GNG even with what is now available online. [55] [56] [57] [ [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] . gidonb ( talk ) 20:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Not sure if Sigcov is meeting here. Okoslavia ( talk ) 20:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you are not sure, why are you ! voting? Dorsetonian ( talk ) 22:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks Dorsetonian . Okoslavia ( talk ) 07:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 09:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Gidonb. Govvy ( talk ) 10:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 16:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Goober Pyle : If the character is not notable, I suggest a and/or to List of The Andy Griffith Show characters . Note that the character's name is Goober Pyle, not Gomer Pyle , so please decide your vote on the notability of Goober only. Spinixster (chat!) 01:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Spinixster (chat!) 01:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This character has its own identity aside from the actor and the Andy Griffth show, having featured on at least three major series, Andy Griffith, Mayberry RFD, and Hee Haw. I added a few citations. There's almost no cross-over with Gomer Pyle. Lindsey co-wrote an autobiography called Goober in a Nutshell (out of print, available on archive.org, and not a vanity publication - Worldcat lists 93 current library holdings), and the character was the main focus of Lindsey's LA Times obituary. Oblivy ( talk ) 02:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That does not prove the character's notability. Even if the character appeared in several other series, that does not mean that they are notable. The autobiography isn't focused on the character but the actor (the description says Lindsey, who spent four years playing the lovable lunkhead mechanic on The Andy Griffith Show, reveals what it was like to be part of one of the most popular shows in TV history. ) and the character being heavily mentioned in Lindsey's obituary does not mean that the character is notable (I took a look at the obituary, the character was not the main focus, because it's an obituary, not a character article, the character was only briefly mentioned.) More sources would be needed per WP:N . Spinixster (chat!) 03:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I looked again at the obituary. [47] I counted 14 paragraphs (admittedly some quite short) talking about the Goober character. Perhaps we're not looking at the same article? Oblivy ( talk ) 03:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC) CRUFT because it describe what he does on the show, not really some kind of reception to establish notability. Spinixster (chat!) 07:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] it for sure. AlexBogue89 ( talk ) 14:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC) JV , please express why you think the article should be kept. Spinixster (chat!) 14:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Meets GNG with many sources (eg, quickly [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] ) providing SIGCOV analyzing the character, the character in relation to the real world, the characters impact on multiple shows, the characters impact on television, etc. The sources I linked above don't represent an exhaustive search of any db or search engine, just a few promising clicks in a few. Also, don't forget the several decades of dead tree coverage this character received as well. — siro χ o 03:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A breakdown of the sources can be found below. The first source has a chapter focusing on Gomer, Goober, and Howard that can be used. I don't know how useful it really is because it seems to mostly be a summary of the character's plotlines, which usually doesn't prove notability. The rest of the mentions seem to be passing. The second source seems more focused on the Andy Griffith Museum , it briefly talks about the arrival of Goober's suit. The third source only briefly mentions Goober as Gomer's cousin. The fourth source is similar to the first: mostly a summary of the character's plotlines. The fifth source is also similar to the first, although it seems to be more about the actor. Spinixster (chat!) 06:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . George Lindsey 's obituaries pretty much all feature his best-known role in the title: ""George Lindsey, TV’s Goober Pyle, Dies at 83"" ( The New York Times no less), ""‘Goober Pyle’ actor George Lindsey dies"" (CNN), ""George Lindsey, Known as Goober Pyle, Dies"" (AP, via The Hollywood Reporter ). In the obituaries, the character is indeed the main focus (let's face it, Lindsey isn't really known for anything else). Clarityfiend ( talk ) 06:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just because an actor is primarily known for playing a character does not mean that the character is notable enough for an individual article. I've already said what I said above about the obituaries. Spinixster (chat!) 06:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact that major news outlets all highlight this character in their obits is an extremely strong sign of notability. In fact, Lindsey's notability itself depends solely on having played Goober. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 00:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does that really mean that the character is notable, though? Many actors are best known for playing one single character, but notability isn't inherited . More sources would be needed to prove the character's notability and not some WP:CRUFT . Spinixster (chat!) 06:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC) too recognizable Scratchu90 ( talk ) 18:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC) JN , and you will need to explain further why and give proof that he's notable. Spinixster (chat!) 03:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"London International Hot Air Balloon Festival : Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Transportation , and Canada . UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , I found CTV coverage from the 1990s. As it has apparently historic value, it was republished in 2017. See here . 109.37.149.106 ( talk ) 10:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 01:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Note WP:COMMONNAME is London Balloon Festival , and the article should probably be moved there. ProQuest shows coverage for WP:GNG over several years in various papers. Here's the first several hits, but there is more: [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] — siro χ o 05:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Cornwall Emards : Article has been tagged as unsourced for over a decade - I did a Google search and the subject does not seem to be notable . Chidgk1 ( talk ) 17:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Canada . Chidgk1 ( talk ) 17:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - did some digging in Newspapers.com and found a decent number of references to their matches against various teams in Canada and New York, have added to article. Kazamzam ( talk ) 19:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Meets WP:GNG . Bit more to add to above comment [13] [14] — siro χ o 19:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Broken Script : A small number of poor reviews in local media do not get us past criteria 1 of WP:NFILM, ""The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics."" while it simultaneously fails all other criteria with gusto. Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 14:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Film , India , and Tamil Nadu . Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 14:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC) 19, 17 September 2023 (UTC) There is more than one reliable review, and that satisfies WP:NFILM . Kailash29792 (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC) The Hindu is nationally known in India and Virakesari is widely known in Sri Lanka. DareshMohan ( talk ) 18:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The 3 ! votes above made it clear there are enough independent sources on the film to prove it can be considered notable. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC) per above. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk ! 05:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC) NFILM Neutral Fan ( talk ) 16:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC) NFILM . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 16:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Unjaded Jade : Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Coverage with two articles in the Times, a RS. Rest are helpful. Plenty notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC) I agree with Oaktree b on this one. Crunchydillpickle🥒 ( talk ) 18:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] •Keep- I agree with Oaktree b on this, the article is well written and well sources with reliable sources that prove notability. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 18:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"List of carnivorans by population : I would also like to bundle List of even-toed ungulates by population and List of odd-toed ungulates by population in this nomination, for the same reasons (out of date content forks to List of artiodactyls & daughters, and List of perissodactyls ). SilverTiger12 ( talk ) 02:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions . SilverTiger12 ( talk ) 02:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC) Articles for deletion/List of felidaes by population was that the population figures were also present in List of felids . But for List of carnivorans and List of artiodactyls the population estimates are not included so the same reasoning does not apply and the lists are not redundant. List of perissodactyls does indeed include population figures but before supporting the deletion of List of odd-toed ungulates by population I'd like to be sure I am not misunderstanding the whole situation. Thincat ( talk ) 10:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . It's an ""X by Y"" list that fulfills WP:LISTPURP . The lists currently seem to fulfill different informational purposes, as well. I would not be fundamentally opposed to a , but it would have to be done with care as each list has a purpose in its current state, so I'm not sure an AFD is the right place to make that determination. — siro χ o 20:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Agletarang ( talk ) 15:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can split off into other lists if it gets too long. This seems to be a valid navigational and information list. Having a column listing what year the information was gotten from would be useful. D r e a m Focus 23:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Thincat. The previous article that was cited as precedent was redundant, while this is not. Steven Walling • talk 06:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"MetaZoo : There is a article from Professional Sports Authenticator but I don't think that one article pushes this over the notability guidelines. BEFORE did not bring up anything that is not already amongst the references. Sohom ( talk ) 09:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions . Sohom ( talk ) 09:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] week Between coverage in Polygon and Den of Geek, this is probably notable. Hobit ( talk ) 23:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC) //www.journal-news.com/what-to-do/events/metazoo-trading-card-game-tourney-in-mason-to-be-streamed-on-twitch/YL6AHKB2QJBAJE7MMKS6RDIK7E/ , and https://icv2.com/articles/news/view/55088/metazoo-games-reveals-hello-kitty-crossover-set demonstrate there is notable activity. Needs clean up though. - Indefensible ( talk ) 05:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notable enough with coverage from Polygon and Den of Geek. RowanJ LP2 ( talk ) 00:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+Executive Committee of Gagauzia : No further edits should be made to this page.,keep
+"Anton Berisha : Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Literature , and Albania . UtherSRG (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] His life and career have been elaborated on by sources such as Robert Elsie , one of the most prominent Albanologists who is already cited in the article, and The Encyclopedia of Albanian Writers [49] . Ktrimi991 ( talk ) 16:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC) NOTABILITY . He is a renowned Albanologist . – Βατο ( talk ) 07:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - Considering the above mentioned points, and after going through the sources, I am not in favour of deletion! Ekdalian ( talk ) 13:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] given his importance for the local culture, importance as a scholar (even in a niche field), inclusion in an encyclopedia etc as mentioned above. -- hroest 18:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Searching Google Books finds an in-depth entry on him in Historical Dictionary of Kosova [50] which appears to be from a reputable publisher (and is referred to indirectly above by its author, Elsie). Together with the link already given by Ktrimi991 (which I verified to contain an in-depth entry on Berisha, although Google Books would not show me a preview of it) we have a clear pass of WP:GNG , better here than arguments based on his expertise or unsourced opinions of his importance. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 05:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Lidy Nacpil : Most are mentions of things she's involved with. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Philippines . Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC) BASIC . Here's some of the sources I found via TWL some background, not counting the interview short background some more background, and description of work short description of some of subjects work dissertation with a few pages of coverage — siro χ o 01:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC) BASIC - I have been reviewing coverage and have started to update the article; Nacpil appears to be nationally and internationally known as an activist, particularly for climate justice, and appears to be recognized as such by national and international press and scholarly sources. Due to the amount of coverage over time and the breadth of her activism since the 1980s/1990s, further expansion of the article seems possible based on available sources in e.g. GNews, GBooks, GScholar, and the Wikipedia Library. Beccaynr ( talk ) 15:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak (but I'm leaning more into a . I mean...as a Filipino living in the Philippines, I'm not 100% sure about how notable she is here. Her first husband for sure is a much more well known activist (and was even the subject of a musical). There are other activists who have a much higher public profile than her. The way this article was written looks a bit more PR-ish to me than encyclopedic. But, yeah, sure, if there are sources then we can it, just that it's gonna be a weak one for me. -- Tito Pao ( talk ) 05:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC) BASIC with sources presented by Siroxo. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP ( talk ) 07:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC) per WP:BASIC on the sources mentioned above. ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 00:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks to the sources listed by Siroxo above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Sidssy : the real ""notable"" thing that she did is ""talking in congress""? ---- modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 17:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Women , and Colombia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - she appears to have received coverage over time for her role as a high-profile human rights activist. She is ""Sidssy Uribe, sister of Lucas Villa, who was murdered in May 2021 in the city of Pereira during the days of the national strike"" (according to Colombian president calls for talks with victims of the State , Prensa Latina , 2023); see also “A mí no me pueden venir a exigir que yo no debería hablar”: hermana de Lucas Villa ( El Espectador , 2021 interview with secondary context, referring to her as Sidssy Uribe Vásquez); “Nos informaron que el asesino de Lucas Villa fue sacado del país”: Sidssy Uribe ( El Espectador , 2022, secondary context and some interview, also referring to her as Sidssy Uribe Vásquez); Colombia: mayoría en el Senado respalda actuación del ministro de Defensa ( France24 , 2021, quoting her Congreso de la República testimony, which was about more than her brother). Other examples of her apparent high-profile role as an activist include Hermana de Lucas Villa propone que grupo ilegal 'La Cordillera' esté en diálogos de paz , RCN Radio Jan. 2023; Muerte de Lucas Villa: Dos años sin entregar respuestas a todo un país ( Caracol Radio , May 2023, secondary context and quotes). I think the article can be reworked with available sources (identified here, in the article, and otherwise available online) to clarify translations from sources and to more clearly present her activist career over time. Beccaynr ( talk ) 16:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It looks like there is more than enough coverage to meet notability guidelines and build a reasonably broad page. BuySomeApples ( talk ) 16:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Juliet O'Hara : The references are mostly just episodes for the fictional biography and say nothing about any meaningful analysis or reception of the character. The main Psych article is almost undoubtedly sufficient for coverage. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC) NEXIST is not the decisive factor. Was the required WP:BEFORE search done? As there are a number of hits in suggested Google Books and Google Scholar searches, could there please be some commentary why these should not amount to sufficient coverage for a stand-alone article? Daranios ( talk ) 15:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am aware of the guideline. I almost doubt that it's necessary to justify denying the inclusion of these hits, since a fairly large portion of the first page are novel adaptations. The USA Network book seems to be a copy-paste job of Wikipedia, so that is obviously not allowed. The few books that mention the actual character are mostly reserved to passing mentions or don't really discuss the character in a meaningful way outside of their role in the show. Compare this to the Gus (Psych) article, where when I did search for material on the character, there were articles that mentioned him and took him out of the scope of just the television series, such as character identity and falling outside of the tropes commonly found in sidekicks of detective fiction. Google Scholar paints a similar picture, with Amino Apps being a hit for some reason. The ""Mystifying Rationale of Psychic Detection"" largely deals with the two main characters — Shawn Spencer and Burton Guster. The same guideline you cited is precisely why I haven't nominated these two main characters to be d. However, the Shawn Spencer article is in a bad state. I do know that it can be fixed at least. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks! Always better to hear the analysis than be left in the dark. Daranios ( talk ) 10:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Meets WP:GNG Loads of SIGCOV in Psych and Philosophy: Some Dark Juju-Magumbo [15] SIGCOV in Television's Female Spies and Crimefighters [16] A bit in Cable Guys: Television and Masculinities in the 21st Century [17] IGN has SIGCOV across many episode reviews, including e.g. [18] [19] [20] [21] SIGCOV across several reviews in Den of Geek . This review has a choice quote about how the character is used to speak to a real-life actor who is recovering from a stroke [22] . Den of Geek also has some other usable reviews, e.g. [23] [24] — siro χ o 16:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Robert Arp's Psych and Philosophy is the closest one to being any meaningful, significant coverage. As for the others, including the reviews, they really don't say much outside of her role in the show/episode/movie plot. Television's Female Spies doesn't elaborate much more than the relationship and her willingness to believe Shawn. The Cable Guys section rarely mentions Juliet. If anything, it's a good source for Shawn Spencer's page or Gus's page. Even the ""Very Juliet Episode"" review is mostly confined to the plot only to discuss that, despite the name, ""As usual, Shawn and Gus got the most screen-time"". So, I really don't think there's a strong reason to . I don't think Arp's book alone is sufficient. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 17:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources . I would also argue that the Psych and Philosophy does not confer notability . -- Mike 🗩 19:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to be clear, Psych and Philosophy in total has many pages worth of secondary analysis of the character throughout the book, discussing the character in context of multiple philosophical and sociological concepts, and occasionally comparing the use of the character to other media. The coverage also comes from multiple authors who have each contributed chapters to the book. The individual essay ""The Amazing Psych-Man Versus the Sexist Mentalist"" by Mona Rocha alone has several pages of secondary analysis of the character, and other essays have SIGCOV on their own as well. — siro χ o 23:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC) WHYN , so I see no benefit for the users of Wikipedia in deleting this article. Daranios ( talk ) 10:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Almost none of the coverage in the listed sources are significant. The sum of plot recaps does not make something notable. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC) WHYN and WP:ALLPLOT . Daranios ( talk ) 14:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is just combining the sum of trivial mentions. 7 words isn't much or enough to justify ing it. ""Juliet is interesting"". That says nothing of real value. Compared to the material on Shawn and Gus, who have been analyzed in the greater scope of detective fiction, tropes, and design, it just feels like there is very little on this character that has any weight. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""7 words isn't much or enough to justify ing it."" No, it isn't. It's the pages dealing with Juliet in Psych and Philosophy , somewhat supplemented by the other sources. And I readily believe that there is significantly less material than on Shawn and Gus. But more than the paragraph that the characters without their own articles on List of Psych characters have, and more than the usual threshhold between a stub and an article, which is the critereon for a stand-alone article applied by WP:MERGEREASON #3. And even if it were just on the order of the other characters on that list, outright deletion would make little sense: It would leave an empty section there, while more minor characters had their own paragraph. In that case a r there would be the way to go. Daranios ( talk ) 18:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Using the sources above, I've overhauled the article, adding a § Reception and analysis section which is now the bulk of the article. — siro χ o 19:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources and edits made by Siroxo. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 21:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Sarik Minasyan : He seems to be an elected official but per WP:POLITICIAN ""Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political officedoes not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. "" Shinadamina ( talk ) 05:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , and Armenia . Shinadamina ( talk ) 05:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC) A member of parliament is a clear WP:NPOL #1 pass, I would encourage the nominator to read the guideline more thoroughly. There are additional sources at the hy.wp article . Curbon7 ( talk ) 05:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC) POLITICIAN . An ""elected local official"" refers to a local councillor, not a member of the national parliament. In fact, members of national legislatures are presumed notable per WP:POLITICIAN . AusLondonder ( talk ) 08:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above rationale. Archives908 ( talk ) 13:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"John Webster (organist) : According to Discogs, his most notable album have a total of 21 listeners. He has published a total of 4 albums, which is not notable for a music artist. Sources are also not reliable. A simple Google search shows nothing related to the organist. Fails WP:GNG . Hadal1337 ( talk ) 16:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Bands and musicians , and England . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , (1) we could probably just about stretch to his inclusion under NPROF given that he was an academic musician who held the post of University Organist in a prestigious institution (Oxford), as well as being professor of organ at Trinity College, one of the most significant musical establishments in the UK; these are heavyweight positions at least as significant as many named/endowed professorships, which are deemed indicators of notability; (2) the whole concept of ""discogs"" and ""albums"" doesn't make any sense in assessing an organist who died in 1974. He was seven before commercial radio broadcasts began. He was already 47 before the cassette player hit the market. Much of his musical career was carved out in an era when people listened to real musicians, and recordings were rare and extremely expensive. The recordings he made will be on vinyl, not digital media. We have no idea how many people listened to those recordings. Overall, if he was notable back then (which I believe he was) he still is now. But fundamentally (3) we owe it to our readers to satisfy their curiosity about such historical figures, who did interesting things like play for the wedding of Harold Wilson. Elemimele ( talk ) 21:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (1) If we were to stretch his inclusion under NPROF, then could you please find me some papers he published? Because I am unable to. (2) You make a valid point regarding discogs, however, do you think a music artist who published a total of 4 albums is considered as notable? Unless I am missing some of his albums, please feel free to enlighten me. Also, like you said, we have no idea how many people listened to his recordings, if so, how did you come to the conclusion that he was notable back then without any source? (3) While satisfying readers' curiosity about historical figures who have done interesting things is a valid consideration, it is crucial to maintain a consistent approach to assessing notability. The inclusion of an individual based solely on their historical significance, without considering the established criteria for notability, may compromise the credibility and integrity of the selection process. Hadal1337 ( talk ) 08:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC) he might satisfy criterion 5 of WP:NPROF , holder of a distinguished chair or equivalent in a prestigious institution. This does not require academic publications. (2) the number of albums someone produced must be considered in the light of when they worked and the genre they produced; for an organist to get recorded at all in the period 1914-1974 might be a rather more than average achievement - I'm not sure, and would value a more knowledgeable opinion. Elemimele ( talk ) 10:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC) We know that coverage of him exists in newspapers because Harold Wilson's wife compiled a scrapbook ""mainly comprising newspaper cuttings with reviews of his concerts and recordings (some of which were recorded on the organ of University College)."" [5] In effect, Mrs Wilson has done the BEFORE for us... Elemimele ( talk ) 11:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – per above – full professor at a leading music college and a scrapbook of newspaper cuttings available in a reputable archive, collected by Mary Wilson, Baroness Wilson of Rievaulx , poet and wife of former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson . — Jonathan Bowen ( talk ) 15:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above discussion. Being a distinguished professor at a prestigious university does not require proof of numbers of citations for the PROF test. Bearian ( talk ) 17:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 02:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Maggie Szabo : Jdcooper ( talk ) 00:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women , Canada , and Tennessee . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . There are enough sources out there to meet WP:NMUSIC / WP:GNG . ""Szabo happy singing her own tune"" . The Hamilton Spectator . 2010-04-01. p. 41 . Retrieved 2024-02-10 . ""Dundas singer Maggie Szabo making her mark in L.A."" The Hamilton Spectator . 2016-03-26. p. 41 . Retrieved 2024-02-10 . ""34 Canadian Songwriters Honoured in US-Based 2014 International Songwriting Competition"". The Canadian Music Educator . Vol. 56, no. 4. ProQuest 1710994371 . It notes: A soulful Canadian singer who has won over audiences worldwide, with 13 million views on YouTube, Maggie Szabo honed her craft at a young age in her hometown of Dundas. Following her high school graduation, she moved to Nashville to continue the quest to improve her writing and performing. Her original sound, infused with soulful pop melodies, secured Maggie a record deal with Linus Entertainment in Ontario. Her debut pop album Now Hear Me Out was released in November, 2012. Maggie was named Bell Media's Emerging chosen by famed blogger Perez Hilton as his ""Can YOU Sing?"" contest winner. He hailed Maggie as a superstar on the rise. She also is the winner of the 2014 Toronto Independent Music Award in the Best Pop category. Crowley, Patrick (2017-09-19). ""Maggie Szabo Premieres 'Don't Give Up' Music Video As a Love Letter To Trans Youth"" . Billboard . Retrieved 2024-02-10 . Tagat, Anurag (2020-10-16). ""Premiere: Canadian Pop Artist Maggie Szabo Sings About Taking Chances in Love for 'Worth The Weight' "" . Rolling Stone India . Retrieved 2024-02-10 . Jfire ( talk ) 06:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - this article needs clean up, but there is also coverage in American Songwriter [1] , [2] and The Advocate [3] that could help. Beccaynr ( talk ) 05:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC) New sources identified above seem to satisfy GNG Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC) And Billboard [4] Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC) undoubtedly, especially the Billboard source, which is most reliable for musician pages. Password (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Robin Drysdale : Secondary sources cannot be found in the article, and no SIGCOV can be found on the web. Timothytyy ( talk ) 10:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Tennis , and United Kingdom . Timothytyy ( talk ) 10:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - what? This guy made the 3rd Round of the Australian Open and Wimbledon (Australia twice!)... the biggest tennis tournaments in the world. Fyunck(click) ( talk ) 07:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NTENNIS (part of SNG) cannot supersede GNG. Coverage is coverage. Anyway sources were added later. Timothytyy ( talk ) 10:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's your opinion and not universally accepted. Guidelines are not etched in stone no matter where they are located. They get crushed by the weight of consensus over and over again. You would do better to put up a template that more sources are needed rather than deletion nominations. Fyunck(click) ( talk ) 19:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Fyunck(click). Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC) Drysdale bids to topple Mcenroe, Coventry Evening Telegraph - Thursday 15 November 1979 and Drysdale improves with age, The Times (London, England) - Wednesday, 11 October 1989 Piecesofuk ( talk ) 14:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Nightlife : This random collection of badly-sourced stuff vaguely relating to the topic, as long as you don't think about it too closely, and as long as you limit the range of the article to the narrow confines of personal experience as a (rare?) Wikipedian who leaves their basement during the hours of darkness to socialise rather than doing actual research, isn't it. Accordingly, I propose that this abomination be d per WP:TNT , and suggest that anyone wishing to start from scratch does a little more investigation not just into the subject matter (which surely extends both culturally and chronologically way, way beyond this factoid-farm, and quite possibly back to the discovery of fire...), but into how to structure prose into something a reader might find vaguely informative, rather than brain-rot-inducing mush. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 23:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Social science . AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 23:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This is not a Good Article, but it tries. Much of it is a section on 'Sociological research'. It cites a totally reliable academic article by David Grazian . The history section is significantly based on a PhD thesis. That's not terrible at all. As someone who has brought stuff to AfD and called for TNT, sorry, Andy, I don't see this being the case here. PS. The 'Regulation' seciton is meh. But seriously, ""This random collection of badly-sourced stuff vaguely relating to the topic""? I don't think we are looking at the same articles, or perhaps our standards are different. What you wrote would apply to a lot of crappy lists in the popculture category, some of them even kept , sigh... but this is much better than that. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 08:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's nothing wrong with Grazian as a source - for what he's writing about, which is an interesting discussion based around a very limited subset of what a general article on 'nightlife' ought to be about, in my opinion. The problem is that using his piece in the manner it has been reinforces the idea that 'nightlife' is somehow only found in the bars and nightclubs of the contemporary urban 'west'. This is essentially the same issue (or rather one of many issues) I have with Wikipedia popcult coverage. It isn't 'popular culture' in general, it is 'the popular culture of a subset of Wikipedia contributors', who in turn are a narrow subset of those who have (or have had) 'popular culture' - i.e. more or less everyone, living or dead. Systemic bias is inevitable in a project like en. Wikipedia, but our popcult coverage actively reinforces it, by encouraging the substitution of primary-source personal experience for sourced critical analysis. Not quite what's going on here with Grazian, where the problem isn't with the source so much as the narrow outlook of whoever chose to cite him. Maybe I'm asking too much of Wikipedia though: I long ago reached the conclusion that Wikipedia habitually bit off more than it could chew, article-topic-wise, and that some subjects - especially broad and ill-defined ones like this- would be better left to specialised sources, and that Wikipedia's attempts to be an encyclopaedia of everything get less and less effective as it broadens its scope way beyond subject matter a crowdsourced project can reasonably expect to do justice to. But then Wikipedia is what it is, it does what it does, and maybe I'd be better off just standing on the sidelines heckling, rather than trying to fix the structurally unfixable. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 11:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is just a start-class article. It is expected to be far from comprehensive. And it's on a broad topic, and we know how tough those are to write. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Vital articles . Perhaps that is enough for a procedural close? - Indefensible ( talk ) 06:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC) TNT . It doesn't look like it's completely unsalvageable to me.. . it's just a typical low-quality broad topic article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Dasht-e Sar-e Gharbi Rural District : No notable source. OpenStreetMap doesn't make it notable. Hongsy ( talk ) 14:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions . Hongsy ( talk ) 14:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Reference #2 is the official Census of Iran . If a town or district is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#02 in this case), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable. @ Hongsy , is the Dasht-e Sar-e Gharbi Rural District listed? Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE . Thanks, -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Basically per the sources on FA wiki. FOARP ( talk ) 10:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC) GEOLAND . Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 17:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Dalleth : Boleyn ( talk ) 15:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Organizations , and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] no sources and none when I search. Not notable— Iadmc ♫ talk 15:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Have added references. Looks notable to me, and I think there will be additional coverage in offline sources and in Cornish-language texts - both whilst it was operating, and in memoirs and historical discussion of this period of the language movement. Tacyarg ( talk ) 00:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Anyone able to find some sources like those Tacyarg mentioned? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 19:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I've added another couple of references, and tagged as citation needed the only sentence which is now not sourced. Probably need a Cornish history or Cornish language expert for more, or at least access to a decent reference library in Cornwall. Tacyarg ( talk ) 21:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To consider sources added by Tacyarg. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 23:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the work done by Tacyarg to improve the article, including adding multiple references. Should be sufficient to presume notability for this historic support organisation. Resonant Dis tor tion 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Marco V : I found two sources relating to his 20/20 project, but that's it. Because of the limited scope of information I found in reliable sources, I believe this article fails WP:GNG . Mori Calliope fan talk 06:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . Mori Calliope fan talk 06:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak as the German wikipedia article here shows charting singles and albums. There is a brief AllMusic bio here but more is needed, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As in 2004, DJ Mag ranked him as the 16th top DJ in the world, and he remained in top 50 annually until 2009 . DJ Mag is the most respected ranking for deejays. As an EDM fan I have heard of him before, but don't know his music. There are bunch of bios on many respected EDM sites about him. Check: Beatport , Insomniac (major EDM promoters) , Resident Advisor , ALLMUSIC . And here are some articles meathchronicle.ie , Colorising , Digital DJ Hub , Crossfadr , Deep House Amsterdam , Rave Jungle , We Rave You . Pershkoviski ( talk ) 02:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 13:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak seems enough coverage as given above to just pass the notability. Being the top DJ as listed would be notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC) meets WP:GNG per sources listed by User:Pershkoviski; several of these now added to the article. Also meets WP:MUSICBIO #2: three singles top 40 hits in Dutch national charts and three singles in UK national charts. Resonant Dis tor tion 19:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Shabbethai Panzieri : Nothing much else found, little reason to think this is a notable person other than presence in another encyclopedia. JMWt ( talk ) 19:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Italy . JMWt ( talk ) 19:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. The encyclopedia entry is a good sign for notability, and it looks like it cites several non-English sources; at minimum those should be checked for coverage. Having this much information on someone from the seventeenth century usually suggests notability, and it's not surprising that there aren't a ton of sources in English available online. — Moriwen ( talk ) 22:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] -- The fact that it's in the Jewish Encyclopedia is sufficient to establish notability, as is inclusion in *any* reliable encyclopedia. There is an entire wikiproject devoted to creating articles based on this sole criterion . The fact that the encyclopedia is ""very old"" is the reddest of herrings. After all, WP:NTEMP . The linked JE article has plenty of sources, as Moriwen notes. Central and Adams ( talk ) 23:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability is demonstrated based on the encyclopedia source provided. It does not decline over time nor does the value of the ""very old Jewish encyclopedia"" as a source. The article for Joseph Fiametta , which is interconnected with this one, provides an example of how additional sources should be added here. Alansohn ( talk ) 00:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Inclusion of a topic in a scholarly encyclopedia is prima facie evidence of notability. Charles Matthews ( talk ) 08:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC) per above, being in a known encyclopedia meets WP:GNG . She was a fairy 02:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Snak the Ripper : I can't find anything beyond hyper-local sources that would support ing this. Not meeting general or musician notability guidelines. Also, no new sources have turned up since the last nomination for AfD. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (per last AfD), subject charted on the Canadian Albums Chart with two different albums. [26] Chart specifically listed at WP:GOODCHARTS . Subject passes WP:MUSICBIO . Mbdfar ( talk ) 02:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 04:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - GNG is met per my SA table made in the previous AfD, which took place just over 3 months prior to this. Such a quick re-nomination with no new substantive argument for deletion is disruptive and patrolling admins should consider a procedural close as such. ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I can't say yay or nay at this point since I haven't investigated the subject's notability yet. This would be the third AfD this subject is facing with the first one receiving strong support for deletion, and the recreation closing with ""no consensus"". An allegation of COI was made here and it is worth a look. COI Noticeboard regarding Snak the Ripper . Edit history and the discussion will reveal two obvious edit accounts showing strong indication of advocacy and public relations editing activity. Graywalls ( talk ) 22:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm wondering what has changed in the past 3 months since the last AFD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC) GNG more ""clearly"" (in the sense we have to debate this), but after review I think the sources available (a multitude of Canadian coverage from around the country at different time frames) still pass WP:GNG . SportingFlyer T · C 21:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Laspur : Almost entirely unsourced since its creation in 2014, now only being maintained by sockpuppets. Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 17:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan . Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 17:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC) GNG . I recommend using WP:ECP to prevent socks from editing the page. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 17:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. samee converse 18:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per LaundryPizza03 . I've edited this article; one of the sources is a permanent dead link, but the other actually supports some of the content in the page. The sockpuppetry is certainly tedious in the extreme, but not a valid reason for deletion; the protection applied by Daniel Case should help to limit that. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk ) 18:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Did some looking and found an archived link by the National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB), Government of Pakistan that still works and replaces the 'permanent dead link' mentioned above. I have already added this link to this article. Since it's an archived link, hopefully it won't go dead on us... Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 17:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Though not altogether convinced Laspur is the name of the town — the sources in the article only confirm it's a council area. Think the village/town is called Sor Laspur, with Laspur being the name of a valley and river as well as the council. Still, the article could cover all these and Sor Laspur appears to be a legally recognised populated place under WP:GEOLAND . The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Ruth Mulan Chu Chao : Though the article itself appears fleshed out and well-sourced at first glance, taking some time to read through it, I call into question whether Ruth is notable per GNG. More than half of the article pertains to her personal life, the events of which are not themselves notable. The only other section, ""Philanthropy"", includes only buildings named after her posthumously, due to donations from her husband and daughters, including a building at the Harvard Business School. There are 18 cited sources. Of those, nine are from the HBS website. Two are from the Foremost Group, an organization headed by her daughter Angela. One is a news story covering Angela's death. One is an obituary of her other daughter, Jeannette. Two are Ruth's obituaries - one is clearly just a death announcement. The other is called ""Chao's mother mourned"", explicitly defining her notability solely in relation to her daughter Elaine. One source is just about Elaine's comments on the Green Line expansion, ten years after Ruth's death. There is one source (#14) honoring Ruth (again, posthumously) and her husband as philanthropists, however this link is defunct. In addition, the source appears to be a press release from the organization that gave them the award. This is a nothing article. Thesixthstaff ( talk ) 15:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC) Some hits in Gbooks [11] , is the best. The NBC News article is fine. This [12] is in Chinese, but seems to be about her. Should have GNG with these. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Google Books source you provided is not about Ruth. It is about Elaine and Ruth is mentioned exactly once. Being related to someone notable is not notable. The NBC News article also 1. is about an event that happened multiple years after she died and 2. does not describe anything Ruth did that would be notable. Having something named after you because your family member who loves you is rich is not notable. If someone can translate the Chinese and use any of that information in the article I can be swayed, but the first two sources you gave aren't doing it for me. Thesixthstaff ( talk ) 15:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Follow-up, I went to the Amazon page for the book and translated the description from the original Chinese [13] . It appears that this book was written because Elaine has said publicly ""I really hope you have the opportunity to know my mother"". Other quotes from the description include ""She may seem like an ordinary housewife, but she has extraordinary circumstances"" and ""An ordinary life can also have extraordinary power"", which doesn't really bring me much hope that the book would have her meet GNG. Also, a majority of the testimonials are immediate family members. Thesixthstaff ( talk ) 15:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Business , China , and New York . Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It looks like the ILF source got rescued. I took a look at it, and it still doesn't help the case IMO. It claims that until Ruth's death, most of hers and her husband's philanthropic gifts were made anonymously. Her husband only began giving in her name once she had died in 2007. I guess my question here is: can you be made notable solely for someone else signing your name to monetary gifts after you die? Thesixthstaff ( talk ) 16:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Other sources do also exist, including this site of 17 slides and explanatory text , posted by the Baker Library of the Harvard Business School. The first slide, now listed as an external link at the bottom of the article, includes pertinent quotations from Laura Bush, Sandra Day O'Connor and Hillary Clinton. Another source: a book by Cui Jiarong, with the Amazon translation . Meets GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 17:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can we consider the Harvard Business School page to be an independent source, considering that this coverage is there only because the Chao family donated money for the building named for her? Also, the book you linked is the same book I addressed in a previous reply. Thesixthstaff ( talk ) 17:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . Although it's not yet referenced in the article, the Chinese book found by User:Oaktree b appears to be a full biography of the late Madam Chao. Although I don't have access to it, the author is a lecturer at a Taiwanese university and it was published by the books division of Commonwealth magazine, which we oddly don't have an article on, but is roughly Taiwan's equivalent to The Atlantic or The Economist . That's exactly what we need for GNG, even though it's not ideal to only have a single source. Matt's talk 17:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Bought the book, currently reading it by google translating each page and I will report back. So far, the thesis appears to be ""she raised strong daughters and after she died a building was named after her"". Which is admirable! But I still don't get the impression that she is independently notable. Thesixthstaff ( talk ) 17:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have read 10% of the book so far. A few quotes that stuck out to me: ""[Chao] is a typical housewife who has always made the happiness of her husband and children her life's work. In her memory, she just did things silently to make her husband's life with her children a little more comfortable and easier."" ""On the surface all the deeds related to big people in the world cannot be found on her resume. However, this good wife and mother with high output value wholeheartedly assisted her soulmate Zhao Xicheng who became an internationally renowned Chinese ship king, and at the same time, cultivated six daughters with excellent character and professional excellence with gentle maternal love"". This just really comes off to me as a very touching memorial project for a deeply beloved, but low-profile, family member. I don't think it confers notability, given the source itself basically says so. Thesixthstaff ( talk ) 18:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC) WP:BLUDGEONING is a form of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 18:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is true. That said, ""Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed."" Each of my responses has come after additional research into the topic, as I think folks here have raised valid points. I apologize for a potentially brusque or overconfident tone. Thesixthstaff ( talk ) 18:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your tone is fine. But volume is an issue: See top editors . — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 19:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC) This has a brief description of her life [14] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] it's really silly to a wikipedia article. Sure, this isn't that necessary of an article but deleting this does not have any benefits what so ever. Learning about this person is important and the goal of wikipedia is to spread information. I really don't agree with deleting an article about a person who is still a bit important. There are plenty of articles that should be d because they are about people who aren't notable, and deleting this is silly. RevolutionaryWar ( talk ) 19:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"LFO scandal : WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy . The nom did not bother do do WP:BEFORE , nor analyze the references (external links in this article, footnotes in the Polish article) - WP:TROUT is in order. The article is underrefrenced, but the scandal was covered by Polish newspapers of note of that time. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC) 16, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Don't forget BEFORE.C.3 and WP:ATD-T . Thanks to Piotrus for tagging it now. — siro χ o 18:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Tales of Aravorn: Seasons of the Wolf : The TechRaptor review is from early January 2015. They have stated that ""we had near-nonexistent editorial policies"" until January 2015 and removed large amounts of content from 2013-16 that was low-quality, but this review might have been missed in the sweep. RPGFan, a reliable source, has included it in several listicles that don't provide enough for notability. QuietCicada chirp 15:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . QuietCicada chirp 15:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Not all listicles are useless. In this case, they're clearly not intended as clickbait and have genuine useful insights into games. I think they are on par with the game getting a review from RPGFan. It isn't the strongest sourcing but it does squeak past notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . In general, if I was bringing a new article on a video game into the mainspace, I'd look for 3 solid sources, and if we grant the nominator's argument, we basically have two (RPGamer & Digitally Downloaded). TechRaptor pre-2020 is indeed a weak source, but the review seems unobjectionable enough. Basically, we have two-and-a-half good sources, and I don't think it's worth being a super stickler here. It's a borderline notability topic, sure, but in general probably best to err on the side of ing here. SnowFire ( talk ) 04:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Sean O'Hollaren : Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 11:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , United States of America , and Oregon . Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 11:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong . He was the Assistant Secretary for the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Deputy Assistant to President George W. Bush, and Chief External Affairs Officer of a multi-billion dollar company. Was Nike's senior vice president of government and public affairs. Was senior vice president of global government relations for Honeywell and director of tax and environment for Union Pacific Corp. Between these and his government positions, there are multiple secondary independent sources with non-trival coverage. Chamaemelum ( talk ) 13:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] due to persons' significant contributions both in public service and the private sector. His roles as Commissioner at the Port of Portland, Assistant Secretary of Transportation, and key contributor to the creation of significant institutions like the Transportation Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security (after 9/11 attacks) demonstrate his notable public service. He also serves as a trustee at Willamette University and as the chairman of the Board of Directors of the World Federation of the Sporting Goods Industry, with extensive media coverage of his roles in these positions. Old-AgedKid ( talk ) 12:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article meets several of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which helps ensure it. The person has significant coverage (a Commissioner at the Port of Portland, Assistant Secretary of Transportation, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs etc). The information provided in the article is derived from reliable and independent sources. Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people include the clause that an individual may be notable if they've held a high-ranking position within a notable organization or corporation. O'Hollaren's roles as Vice President at Honeywell and Senior Vice President at Nike, Inc., as well as his current position as CEO at Albemarle, meet this criterion. -- Loewstisch ( talk ) 08:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 01:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC) GNG with only the Politico birthday article possibly counting. Everything else isn't secondary or independent. Article also reads more like a CV than an encyclopedia article. SportingFlyer T · C 11:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] leaning towards . The subject is quite notable (WP:GNG) with significant roles in both the public sector and private industry. Additional credibility comes from additional sources like books and Congress reports (which I've just added), as well as the biggest global identifier systems (e.g., VIAF ID, ISNI, FAST ID, Library of Congress authority ID where O'Hollaren is presented). To address concerns of resembling a CV, certain content has to be revised and removed. Despite SportingFlyer's critique of the sources, Politico's biography details, government records, authoritative mentions in the international press (e.g. Xinhua) and reports from the organizations he has been part of may be considered reliable sources. Bash7oven ( talk ) 15:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Lionel Mark Smith : The Film Creator ( talk ) 15:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . The Film Creator ( talk ) 15:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The page needs improvement (with sources like this or this . No lead roles and various minor roles but some significant roles in notable films, which makes him meet WP:NACTOR (""The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions"") in my view. His performances have received some coverage (in the LAT) (or this in the NYT ) (that is not in-depth, but the guidelines does not require them for WP:NACTOR) The fact that he had his obituary in The Chicago Tribune , in Variety , in the LAT , and in the Hollywood Reporter seals the deal, I think. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC) (NB-Those sources have now been added to the page) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak due to Lionel Mark Smith's extensive filmography, including roles in films like ""Galaxina"" and ""Homicide"" and TV appearances on shows such as ""Seinfeld"" and ""NYPD Blue,"" I see notability. However, some sources should have been added, as one IMDB source doesn't help much. Also, great """" comment above I agree with! -- BoraVoro ( talk ) 17:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC) NACTOR. Owen× ☎ 00:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"1981 Lancashire County Council election : A combination of wp:Not for a stats-only article (and inherently subject) combined with no evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. There have been in-depth discussions on articles of this type which led to deletion. North8000 ( talk ) 20:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Politics , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] An election for a second-tier authority in a large country is clearly going to be notable, and particularly one for one of England largest counties that saw a massive swing from the ruling party to the opposition. I don't have access to newspapers at the time, but I would be amazed if there wasn't similar national/regional coverage to that given to the reverse happening in 2009. [1] [2] [3] I'm also not aware of any other AfDs on elections of this tier of government that have resulted in deletion; the only previous AfD I could find on county council elections resulted in a unanimous . Number 5 7 08:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Being the (requested) unusually thorough discussion, I consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Chorley Borough Council election to be informative not only for the result but also for the extensive discussion and wider participation. Do you think that the election in this current AFD is more impactful or of a larger scale? Or likely to have GNG sources to produce an article vs. ""stats only"" If so, could you expand on that? Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 15:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes – Chorley is a third tier (district) authority, below Lancashire as a second tier. And even that Chorley outcome was an outlier. All other AfDs on elections for third tier authorities that I can find (excluding AfDs on elections that had not yet taken place, a couple of which resulted in deletion due to WP:TOOSOON , but were subsequently recreated after the election took place) resulted in outcomes: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 . Number 5 7 18:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While I don't go with ""there are others like it"" argument, I think that the other two aspects that you talked about (level/size and resultant bigger impact) make this a special case. North8000 ( talk ) 18:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (with templates calling for improvements/more cites!) Regional significance to UK. Combined with historic swing to Labour - there will be a boatload of coverage for anyone with a subscription to newspapers.com. Hemmers ( talk ) 16:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (with improvement templates) The article pertains to an election which has significance in the county of Lancashire, a large geographic area with a significant population, as well as in the wider context of the relevant local elections in that year, important to guaging the popularity of this party or that. This data is, without this article, difficult to find and even harder to gain insight from, the Wiki format providing helpful data at a glance for any Lancastrian interested in the historic composition of that council, or any interested party looking more in depth at the 1981 locals. Previous discussions have unanimously kept similar articles and established the Elections Centre is a sufficient source: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1973 Lancashire County Council election . Djack1770 ( talk ) 10:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Nuzha Al-Ghussein : All of the article but a few sentence are unsourced. May be WP:SELFPROMOTION Seawolf35 ( talk ) 08:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Palestine . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC) The subject's name here is Nuzha Nuseibeh or Nuzha Nusseibeh , but the page is currently listed under the subject's maiden name, not her married and most commonly used name (as used for example, alongside her husband, in diplomatic records , or as president of the YWMA in Jerusalem , and as quoted in books ), so a WP:BEFORE search for sources under the actually more prevalent name for the individual is required. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 12:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC) On the face of it, that the subject received the Order of Jerusalem is alone sufficient for WP:ANYBIO . The subject's activism in politics and women's rights also makes it likely that more material is out there, quite possibly more in Arabic than in English given the geographies and time period involved. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 13:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Article requires clean-up, more citations, and a more neutral tone, but she seems to be a relevant and impactful figure in mid-century Palestinian philanthropy. Mistamystery ( talk ) 23:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Fat Worm of Error : Boleyn ( talk ) 17:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Massachusetts . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC) MUSIC bullet one, at minimum. Chubbles ( talk ) 04:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This band is known in and foundational in the experimental music genre. They are credited for influencing a wide swaths of bands of today include Guerrilla Toss, Aids Wolf, etc. ( https://www.psychedelicbabymag.com/2016/04/guttersnipe.html ) and is taught in jazz conservatory school. I believe that this band is important to understanding noise and experimental music. I believe bands like Caroliner also have the same level of reference and are seminal bands. I believe FWOE is as deserving. Based on the criteria for significance referenced ( WP:NBAND or WP:GNG , they meet the criteria of being on notable independent labels including Load, Ecstatic Peace, Feeding Tube , and more. I did a quick web search for reference and found the following: They were # 20 on “Highest Rated Experimental Rock Albums of 2006” on All Music. More links: interview , review in sputnik , Free Music , ADHD Weekly Listed shows in New York Times , The Stranger , ArtFuse Also, another criteria is members being in other notable bands. Besides Deerhoof and Caroliner as mentioned in post, members are in bands such as Gloyd with Wendy Eisenberg, named ""Best Experimental Music of 2024"" by Bandcamp Daily, duo with Bill Nace, Buddies, and on RRR. Poster with Deerhoof . 172.56.113.104 ( talk ) 17:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC) plenty of coverage which passes notability criteria. Article seems well referenced and a look online reveals plenty more sources. InDimensional ( talk ) 21:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC) GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Back to Godhead : And therein lies the issue, no WP:SIGCOV from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Onel 5969 TT me 09:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC) There is lots of independent/non-Iskcon coverage of BTG: a quick Google Books search shows, eg, [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] Dāsānudāsa ( talk ) 11:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC) I'm the one who reverted the . The magazine came up in conversation, and I came to Wikipedia to find out a few facts about it, dates of publication and so on. I was surprised to see the article had been removed from Wikipedia - surprised enough to come out of my self-imposed Wikipedia retirement to restore it. It may be somewhat obscure today, but there were times during its 80 years and ongoing history, especially in the 1960s and 1970s, when the magazine was very well known as the main publication of the "" Hare Krishna Movement "". There are certainly valid criticisms of the movement, I can understand that some people, perhaps like the editor who removed it, feel some antipathy towards it, and the magazine does not pretend to have a neutral point of view itself. Nevertheless, we don't articles just because we disagree with the subject. It is, or was, a significant cultural phenomenon in its time, both in India and the West, and the existing article does not appear to have any serious problems with WP:NPOV , WP:PROMO , etc. I disagree that there is ""no WP:SIGCOV "". It's clearly notable enough per WP:GNG for its own article, there were already some reliable sources, and I added a couple of new citations, for example: ""Bryant, Edwin; Ekstrand, Maria (2004-06-23). The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant. Columbia University Press. p. 142. ISBN 978-0-231-50843-8"". In addition to confirming the date of establishment of the magazine, that book provides numerous other details on other pages, that go beyond a mere ""passing mention"", and could be used to expand the article further. That's in addition to the several potential citations that Dāsānudāsa provided above. 77.183.180.87 ( talk ) 04:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fails GNG. Sources in article are primary, mentions, nothing with SIGCOV; BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV FOR IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 06:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC) 15, 25 April 2023 (UTC) Jahaza and others. Suriname0 ( talk ) 21:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Jahaza's source is a good one. But it's the only SIGCOV. And a single in-depth source does not equate to passing notability. Onel 5969 TT me 22:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment (from same IP editor as above). I'm surprised at the comments stating there is ""nothing that meets SIGCOV"" etc., or only one source. There were already three reliable sources cited, and it's really not that difficult to find more, as others here have noted. I have added a new citation, from Columbia University Press, and expanded the introduction based on it and the one I added previously. The point of notability is not to show that a publication is of high quality, or has won awards, or is held in high esteem. It's only so that there exists enough detail in reliable, independent sources, such that an article can be written from a neutral point of view, which is more than ""half a paragraph"" or ""only a few sentences"" ( WP:WHYN ). There are now about ten paragraphs directly supported by multiple reliable sources. SIGCOV doesn't require coverage ""in depth"", but ""in detail"" sufficient to write an article, and ""only that it's more than a trivial mention"" ( WP:TRIVIAL ). 78.54.176.194 ( talk ) 16:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC) GNG. I'm happy to reconsider if additional sources are found. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC) 41, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"2024 Mannheim stabbing : Nothing to indicate that this will generate significant lasting coverage. TheLongTone ( talk ) 14:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC) TheLongTone ( talk ) 14:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , and Germany . Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC) 16, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You do know that this is only the first day of the event right? Salfanto ( talk ) 15:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is all the more reason why we should not have an article on it. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 21:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The attack has received widespread global attention and clear impact on the highest political levels in Germany for a politically motivated attack on notable Islam-critic Michael Stürzenberger . Clear indications that this will have significant lasting impact/coverage. See also Stabbing of Salman Rushdie and 2024 Wakeley church stabbing (bishop Mari Emmanuel) for similar recent attacks. Thismess ( talk ) 16:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Widespread coverage. Obvious . Thriley ( talk ) 17:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC) 49, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why are you attacking the editor and not the nomination itself? I looked through his past nominations and they were all fine and consensus agreed with him/is agreeing with him. His AfD stats show 75%+ which is a fine number for AfD. As to the article itself, even though it may achieve notability in the future it has yet to. WP:TOOSOON applies here and we should not be creating these articles the minute these events occur. Thus I support the nomination in (Or turning into a draft) until it is actually possible for notability to be ascertained. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 21:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Not only agreeing with the editor above, but considering the past week of news regarding the surge of right-wing nationalism in Germany, this attack will surely stir something in the coming days/weeks. Volkish Kurden ( talk ) 19:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Michael Stürzenberger would appear to be a notable victim and the perpetrator is likely to face trial. There is likely to be ongoing media coverage . At least allow the German judicial processes to run their course, before passing final judgement . This incident is already a sub-article of the Michael Stürzenberger , so a Merger with that article is also an alternative to deletion. - Cameron Dewe ( talk ) 21:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Michael Stürzenberger . There are alot of WP:CRYSTAL arguments here. I see no reason why this can't be covered in another article for the time being. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk ) 23:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Stabbing of Salman Rushdie and Salman Rushdie are separate articles; and also taking into account that there were others affected in the attack besides Michael Stürzenberger himself, I think it is best to them as independent articles. ComradeHektor ( talk ) 04:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC) RAPID . Not even a day has passed since the event. The initial news coverage has not passed yet, and we're talking about lasting notability that can't really be proven until at least a few weeks later. The attack also involves notable activist and critic of Islam Michael Stürzenberger . Also considering the recent stabbing attacks in Australia ( 2024 Wakeley church stabbing and Bondi Junction stabbings ) still in the news cycle and the current surge of right-wing nationalism in Germany, I think there will be signifiant news coverage in the next few days. 106.71.58.30 ( talk ) 04:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] notable people involved and the whole event was recorded which will of course circulate the internet for years to come, and therefore I think deserves a stand-alone article. Kiwiz1338 ( talk ) 05:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Clearly notable violent event with a famous person involved, multiple injuries and one fatality. Killuminator ( talk ) 18:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] this article as it is a major event with where a known figure was attacked and one person was killed in the result of the attack. In my opinion this event is worth of having it's own wikipedia article Szymonexis ( talk ) 12:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC) when a politician is attacked, it is notable and important for history/archive/future reference. Compare with shooting of Slovak prime minister. it already has very significant coverage not only in Germany but internationally - every major newspaper in Sweden ran a story. this will become a major thing in right-wing circles as well as anti-immigration circles. That makes a Wikipedia-article and factual foundation even more important. 83.185.46.97 ( talk ) 07:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Plenty of national and international coverage, high-profile and public incident, multiple victims, etc. Johndavies837 ( talk ) 12:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC) 35, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . 1. Although this is related to Michael Stürzenberger in that the event happened during one of his protests, the event attack is not just related to him and his protest, but has a wider character including whether German Police policies and training were instrumental or contributory to the death of the policeman (which has nothing to do with Michael Stürzenberger) 2. The stabbing has received global media coverage to an worldwide audience for whom Michael Stürzenberger is an unknown or at least ancillary figure. 3. If the stabbing hadn't happened Michael Stürzenberger's protest would have been unreported beyond the local media of Mannheim. 4. To subjugate the murder of the policeman as a sub-topic of Michael Stürzenberger's wiki entry would be to diminish the policeman's bravery and tarnish his death in service, when in fact his courage and sacrifice should be lauded. 92.238.123.206 ( talk ) 20:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC) 00, 6 June 2024 (UTC) NOTNEWS . Altho having read that the first victim is notable I'd amend my opinion to a to this unpleasant individual's article. TheLongTone ( talk ) 13:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I know nothing about the person in question, but noted that you seem to hold unfavorable views of him. Quote: "" to this unpleasant individual's article "". is it possible that your negative views of the person affect your judgement? you are very alone in thinking that this shouldn't be a standalone article. 83.185.46.97 ( talk ) 13:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My opinion of the victim is neither here nor there. It does not affect my opinion that this is an event that will generate no lasting coverage. TheLongTone ( talk ) 13:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC) This is a BLP violation. Low profile individuals have been named in this article as having committed crimes without any conviction being obtained. Per WP:BLPCRIME this shouldn't be happening. This needs to be sent to draft at the very least. However it would be better to any useful material to the Michael Stürzenberger article as they seem to be the only notable person in this incident. Tar nis hed Path talk 15:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This event has caused a widespread media-echo, at least in the German-speaking countries. There's also an outrage, how this could happen. Yes, we are looking at a party/movement that is Islam-critical to Anti-Islamic, and attacker who seems to be from Afghanistan (so likely a Muslim), but who has lived in Germany for some time and is married to a German woman. It is likely that this event will stay in the heads of the people, and not be linked to one of the proponents of the party who organized the event where it happened. In that context, the focus should be to this article, and to amend what is missing from the German-language version, rather than deleting it. -- Eptalon ( talk ) 22:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC) 40, 2 June 2024 (UTC) 11, 2 June 2024 (UTC) 1 person is dead. Borgenland ( talk ) 06:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC) 39, 2 June 2024 (UTC) N(E) , widespread coverage for an extended duration of time comprises notability. Newgrass 82 ( talk ) 00:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC) 46, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Still meets WP:COVERAGE and has global coverage; meets WP:NEWSEVENT . -- Wiki Linuz ( talk ) 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] notorious victim, numerous sources, high level political reactions, possible influence on incoming elections. Diderot1 ( talk ) 20:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's an assassination attempt against a notable German Islam-critic, the attack caused many casualties, and the attack has been commented on by dozens of politicians and received widespread (and also international) coverage. This is clearly a significant event and not just a normal news story. Sarrotrkux ( talk ) 21:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC) NOTNEWS . Going to WP:N(E) from there, my judgement is that this event is definitely significant and interesting enough to . Newgrass 82 ( talk ) 22:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC) NOTNEWS , too, and I think that this article is not an original reporting (it is quite well referenced), it is not a WP:ROUTINE event (the mass stabbing happened during a political rally coming just one week before hotly-contested European elections , in which immigration is an hot topic), for sure it is WP:NOTGOSSIP . P1221 ( talk ) 08:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - This is an important event which has received lots of international coverage. Moondragon21 ( talk ) 16:304, 3 June 2024 (UTC) and close. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC) SNOWBALL and just get this over with.-- ~Sıgehelmus♗ (Tøk) 16:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC) GNG and WP:NOTNEWS . Inter&anthro ( talk ) 20:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There's been another stabbing in the very same city, a far right politician is the target again so I think we can put a fork in this discussion and possibly expand the scope of the article to include the new stabbing as well. Killuminator ( talk ) 14:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A minor incident that is unfortunate but will soon be forgotten by almost everyone. Low notability. -- EpicAdventurer ( talk ) 07:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Epic remark, indeed. I take it as sarcasm, for those who don't get it. A policeman is dead. 2003:C6:373C:F127:5099:D27:9B2D:4E98 ( talk ) 15:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We are neither a newspaper nor a media agency! EpicAdventurer ( talk ) 19:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and move to Assault on Michael Stürzenberger as the was the target (still is a target for many radicals, probably). Open hostility to him and his views is shown here and elsewhere. Also, a few days later, a ""2024 Mannheim stabbing, part deux"" on a local politician when he caught a guy who had removed/stolen his posters. 2003:C6:373C:F127:5099:D27:9B2D:4E98 ( talk ) 15:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC) 11, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per P1221. Procyon117 ( talk ) 18:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose renaming I already voted a few days ago but I want to add that I'm opposed to changing the title to 'Assault on Michael Stürzenberger' or something similar. There are multiple victims here and the only fatality was a police officer, not Stürzenberger. The police officer, Rouven Laur, has received significant media coverage as well. I'm also not sure whether there's enough evidence to say the attacker specifically targeted Stürzenberger or just the rally in general. Johndavies837 ( talk ) 10:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"The Goodnight Kiwi Stories : Only other sources found are IMDb or primary. Unnotable. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 12:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC) I've just expanded the article and count seven (secondary) sources other than IMDB. — Panamitsu (talk) Please ping on reply 13:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New Zealand . Shellwood ( talk ) 12:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per expansion by Panamitsu. - gadfium 18:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC) GNG . Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 00:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Goodnight Kiwi . I believe the editors above may be mistaken, they are mostly covering the parent subject Goodnight Kiwi and not specifically this subject Goodnight Kiwi Stories. - Indefensible ( talk ) 05:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Goodnight Kiwi animation is the inspiration for the ""stories"" series , but they are definitely different things. I can see how you might think otherwise, as the latter seems to get called ""Goodnight Kiwi"" as well in a number of the sources and is sometimes termed a reboot/revitalisation of the Goodnight Kiwi. But it has enough coverage in secondary sources to, to my mind, justify its own article. Cheers, Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 09:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are the refs in the article for Goodnight Kiwi or Goodnight Kiwi Stories? Very few of them seem to mention ""Goodnight Kiwi Stories,"" I am not really sure which are relevant since I am unfamiliar with the subject. Might be helpful to have a table. But if the articles do not specifically name the subject, is there really enough delineation for a separate article? Even if they are for Goodnight Kiwi Stories, I still doubt there is enough standalone notability. - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and rename to Goodnight Kiwi (TV series) per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The article should be renamed because sources call it Goodnight Kiwi , not The Goodnight Kiwi Stories . Ward, Tara. ""Review: Kids' TV show Goodnight Kiwi is short but very, very sweet"" . The Spinoff . Archived from the original on 2023-09-24 . Retrieved 2023-09-24 . The review notes: ""It might seem a bit weird to watch someone reading a book through the television, but Goodnight Kiwi makes the stories burst into life. Colourful animations make the illustrations move and dance, and the celebrities breathe energy and rhythm into each story. Like any good book, Goodnight Kiwi transports you to another world for a few precious minutes, a sweet reprieve from the real world to appeal to frazzled adults and tired children alike."" Murray, Anna (2019-11-12). ""Anna Murray: Time to say goodnight (Kiwi) to 24-hour telly"" . The New Zealand Herald . ProQuest 2313604863 . Archived from the original on 2023-09-24 . Retrieved 2023-09-24 . The article notes: ""... the Goodnight Kiwi is back. Having undergone a bit of a “glow-up”, our animated kiwi and his cat friend are on TVNZ OnDemand in a new series of short bedtime stories. The two icons are joined by some other slightly less famous Kiwis, like Jeremy Wells, Hilary Barry, the Topp Twins, Stacey Morrison and Oscar Kightley, as they read popular bedtime story books, with illustrations that come to life on screen. The first two episodes feature What Now’s Evander Brown reading The Bomb and Madeleine Sami and Jackie van Beek teaming up to read Baa Baa Smart Sheep. The latter duo are especially good at reading a bedtime story. So much so, that if the whole TV and film career ever falls over for them, they’d have a good back-up gig telling stories about smart sheep and quirky turkeys. Having these celebs reading New Zealand picture books is certainly a very cute way of bringing the Goodnight Kiwi back to our screens, but I have a really wild idea: why not bring him back for his original mission — marking the end of the TV transmission for the night?"" ""PM will read Goodnight Kiwi"". The Post . 2019-12-10. p. 2. ProQuest 2322790876 . The article notes: ""Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern will read the Christmas Day story in TVNZ's revamped Goodnight Kiwi series. Ardern will read classic New Zealand children's book Hairy Maclary From Donaldson's Dairy by Lynley Dodd. ... TVNZ resurrected the Goodnight Kiwi brand last month, 25 years after Kiwi and his mate Cat last shut off the lights and put out the milk bottle to indicate TV2 was shutting down for the day."" ""Celebrities read to store listeners"". The Daily Post . 2019-12-06. p. A14. ProQuest 2321678216 . The article notes: ""These story sessions are in celebration of TVNZ and The Warehouse bringing back the cultural icon Goodnight Kiwi this week, with famous New Zealand celebrities reading aloud New Zealand bedtime stories. General manager of marketing Anna Lawrence says The Warehouse is thrilled to get behind the cause and help inspire a love of reading among young Kiwis."" Henderson, Calum (2019-11-10). ""Now Showing: Goodnight Kiwi"". Whanganui Chronicle . ProQuest 2313159501 . The article notes: ""Fair to say I just about hit the roof when I heard they were bringing back the Goodnight Kiwi. “TV doesn’t just end like it did back in the olden days,” I spat furiously, “this makes no sense!” Once I calmed down and actually read the press release it did actually make sense — in fact it sounded like a bloody good idea. The Goodnight Kiwi and his wee cat have picked out some classic Kiwi bedtime stories and wrangled some classic Kiwi talent to read them to us, and got some local artists to do animations for them so our eyes don’t get bored."" Simich, Ricardo (2019-10-26). ""Stars bring back Goodnight Kiwi"" . The New Zealand Herald . ProQuest 2312259878 . Archived from the original on 2023-09-24 . Retrieved 2023-09-24 . The article notes: ""The iconic Goodnight Kiwi is returning to New Zealand screens next month with a plethora of local celebrities bringing the cultural icon back to life. The famed Kiwi was put to bed for the last time some 25 years ago with the arrival of 24-hour TV. But he will be resurrected with a new TVNZ OnDemand series that will see the animated bird and his cat cuddling up to celebrities who will read popular bedtime story books for young children. Kiwi and Cat's new friends include legendary entertainers the Topp Twins, Seven Sharp's Hilary Barry and Jeremy Wells, The Hits' Stacey Morrison, comedians Madeleine Sami, Jackie Van Beek, Urzila Carlson and Oscar Kightley, actors Dean O'Gorman and Jayden Daniels and What Now presenter Evander Brown."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Goodnight Kiwi to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 10:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's quite interesting because when they say 'Goodnight Kiwi' they're referring to the character rather than the character (but these sources are about the series). Looking at the series on TVNZ+ , they refer the series as both Goodnight Kiwi and The Goodnight Kiwi Stories , but primarily just ""Goodnight Kiwi"". I saw in one source they wrote Goodnight Kiwi stories (italicising Goodnight Kiwi and not the stories). So it does appear that the series is just called ""Goodnight Kiwi"", so I support the rename. It should be further noted that Goodnight Kiwi is a sign off animation rather than a TV series so the articles should be kept seperate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panamitsu ( talk • contribs ) 00:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Struck my vote above. But are the refs for Goodnight Kiwi or Goodnight Kiwi Stories though? If they are for Goodnight Kiwi then it should be a still. - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC) Goodnight Kiwi was an animation with music but no spoken words that was aired from 1975 to 1994 and again from 2007 to 2011. Any sources from 2019 to the present day talking about a television show called Goodnight Kiwi which features children's stories, are sources talking about the ""stories"" TV show. I agree with @ Cunard , though, it makes sense to rename the article. Goodnight Kiwi should remain the primary topic with a disambiguation hatnote pointing to Goodnight Kiwi (TV series) . Cheers, Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 23:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ( edit conflict ) These sources are about the 2019 television series Goodnight Kiwi , though some discuss the animation short Goodnight Kiwi as part of the historical background. Cunard ( talk ) 23:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks both. So User:Chocmilk03 does that mean you are recommending the article be moved? (Oh, I see Cunard's move recommendation above now.) - Indefensible ( talk ) 23:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC) ) I'm not sure if I should be updating my vote to ' and move', or if "" is fine and the move can be done separately. Cheers, Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 02:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, thanks for clarifying. Still think merging the articles would be appropriate because I am skeptical of their having enough separate notability for different articles, but I see the consensus appears to be to both currently. - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Sengol : Can be d with the Indian Parliament page. SubtleChuckle ( talk ) 02:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . SubtleChuckle ( talk ) 02:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC) Agreeing with the statement but would reject deletion. 139.5.240.112 ( talk ) 02:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC) I believe that deleting the article is too extreme. A simple disclaimer would be sufficient. This would allow us to the article open in case someone comes up with evidence that the item in question was more than just a gift presented to Nehru. Here is an example of a disclaimer that could be added to the article: The following article discusses the possibility that the item in question was more than just a gift presented to Nehru. However, there is no concrete evidence to support this claim. The article is presented for informational purposes only. By adding a disclaimer, we can the article open while still acknowledging the lack of concrete evidence. This would allow us to be transparent about the information that is available and to avoid making any definitive claims. Prateek23021995 ( talk ) 03:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC) — Prateek23021995 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] The problem is that we do not have reliable sources for the 'Background and 1947 ceremony' part, and getting rid of it would mean that 3/4 of the article is gone. If we are to this article, there should be no mentions of the rajaji et al story and should just be mentioned as 'XYZ claims that the sengol was ...'. SubtleChuckle ( talk ) 03:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support to . The sources are reliable, even if they came from this year. Less important historical artifacts have their own articles, so there seems no reason for deletion. Jagmanst ( talk ) 03:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources are merely newspaper from 2023 quoting religious establishments and ruling party. How is that reliable? SubtleChuckle ( talk ) 03:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Its not an historic artifact. It was a gift maybe one of the hundreds or thousands received during independence. 36.255.229.7 ( talk ) 03:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are contemporary newspaper sources that confirm that Nehru was given the sceptre by religious people, perhaps one of many gifts/gestures at the time, as pointed out. The story about Mountbatton giving it to Nehru in an official ceremony looks fabricated. The artifact seems to have been relatively unimportant one, historically (though important enough to be kept in a museum). However with the current government making it a central part of the new parliament, it has now become a significant object. So I suggest article is re-written with accurate facts. The re-branding of an unimportant historical object/event into something more important is interesting in itself. Jagmanst ( talk ) 04:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree. The obvious 'stories' that masquerade as facts should be removed, in which case the article becomes small enough that it might well be a subsection of the parliament page. SubtleChuckle ( talk ) 04:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC) GNG compliance here with some of the news sources [34] [35] [36] [37] . WP:NRVE is met from these sources, and I suspect there are some contemporary sources from around the 1947 ceremony, if that happened. There are some wiki sources that need to be replaced and a copyedit needed to smooth over the prose, but that can be fixed. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 04:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The news sources are merely newspaper quoting the ruling party, that isn't reliable. We need some contemporary sources that mention the event as anything beyond the gifting to Nehru, in which case we could it. SubtleChuckle ( talk ) 04:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ...but the sources I linked don't quote the Modi government extensively? This article is pretty critical of it, saying that the 1947 ceremony claim is false. Potentially there is more sourcing to be had about this? I suspect WP:NPOV is the main issue of this article, not notability. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 04:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] When you get rid of the fabricated stories present in the article, (those involving Rajaji and Mountbatten ), the article becomes trivial enough to be a subsection of either the Sceptre page or the new parliament page. SubtleChuckle ( talk ) 05:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It doesn't seem to be confirmed that the 1947 ceremony isn't real. WP:NPOV needs to be considered here. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 07:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mountbatten was at Karachi, Pakistan on the claimed time. All the available sources (written in 40s/50s) mentions the event to be taking place at Nehru's residence which clearly proves that it was not a Official/Ceremony. It was merely a gift presented to Nehru by a religious establishment. SubtleChuckle ( talk ) 07:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC) //tribune.com.pk/story/1160291/pakistan-created-august-14-15/ SubtleChuckle ( talk ) 07:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As the story has been claimed by some sources and disputed by others, there appears to be some form of controversy. The section can be reframed to reflect this. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 06:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Satisfies WP:GNG . Covered extensively by various news agencies. Has ample WP:RS . Rasnaboy ( talk ) 05:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC) Satisfies WP:RS . Extensively covered by various Newspapers, News channels and News agencies. Satisfies WP:GNG . 67.83.187.221 ( talk ) 06:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC) — 67.83.187.221 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. per< SubtleChuckle > WP:NRVE No verifiable source yet (other than a news article’s unverifiable and anecdotal claims) on the authenticity of the current sceptre’s (from Allahabad Museum/Parliament) claimed lineage as being from 1947. Sengol can have a wiki entry but section on 2023 should be removed/edited to include a ‘unverified/contested’ warning. MeowMeow77 ( talk ) 13:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC) The topic has been extensively covered by various news agencies. Satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:RS . I think it's an extremely important topic needing it's own page. PadFoot2008 ( talk ) 02:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC) I believe there is sufficient SIGCOV to to the article. While there might be dubious claims about the origin of the sceptre, now that a Afd has been raised, the supporters of ing the article have 7 days to find reliable proof. To the nominator: I would suggest you now step away from the article and now let the Afd run its course. Your current edits are now bordering on edit warring and being disruptive; the supporters spend more of their edit time replacing content that you remove than actually allowing them time to firm up the article with RS sources. No need to BLUDGEON the article while it goes through the Afd process. I also make the good faith observation that your edits seem very advanced for an account of such a young age. Equine-man ( talk ) 07:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Important historic object and widely covered in news. Has enough number of RS.- Nizil ( talk ) 07:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC) Object of historical and current importance, added a reference to TIME's article published on 15th August 1947. Satisfies WP:RS and WP:GNG . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:7400:56:2E8B:B441:4A94:CEE3:2A6C ( talk ) 10:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC) I do not think deletion of this article is good idea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tu it to man ( talk • contribs ) 15:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC) Sengol shows remarkable significance presence of South India in India Histor of Independence [38] , It's a symbol of Democracy from very beginning, ing it far better option rather than deleting a peace of Democracy — Preceding unsigned — Abhishekd189 ( talk 18:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC) Satisfies WP:RS and WP:GNG . Even if Nehru 1947 event has contested claims, the 2023 Modi event is widely reported and well sourced. The New York Times has noted it as an object that has come to encapsulate the meaning of the new Indian Parliament. It is object of historical and current importance, added a reference to NY Times article published on May 28th, 2023. RogerYg ( talk ) 21:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC) 59, 28 May 2023 (UTC) Asking for improvement is fine but this one clearly passes WP:GNG . This The Hindu article is about Sengol as mentioned in ancient Tamil literature. Possibly, a deeper search into history books & journals would reveal more details about it. -- Mixmon ( talk ) 22:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:RS . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 06:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC) 19, 29 May 2023 (UTC) As per abobe discusssions BlackOrchidd ( talk ) 06:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC) 38, 29 May 2023 (UTC) 15, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong to This is a current event many new generation people don't know the history of Sangol and it is getting current notable media attention for the new Indian parliament. People wanted to know more even what is described here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaushlendratripathi ( talk • contribs ) 13:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Historic events are not relevant. Currently, this staff is considered as the symbol of parliamentary authority by the elected government of India. For this reason has as much importance as the staff of Parliament in other democratic countries -- PastaMonk 15:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC) NOTNEWS policy. 119.152.238.112 ( talk ) 05:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC) per< SubtleChuckle > WP:NRVE , evidence not available in history as a devolution ceremony. -- Irshadpp ( talk ) 18:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC) NRVE . There is no need for any pre-2023 source to establish notability, since the topic has received more than enough coverage in 2023. Maduant ( talk ) 20:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There seems to be a strong consensus to the article. When will the decision be made? Jagmanst ( talk ) 06:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ ""Modi Opens India's New Parliament Building as Opposition Boycotts"" . The New York Times . 2023-05-28 . Retrieved 2023-05-28 . The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Chloe Lewis (figure skater) : Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator. I withdraw this nomination. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Sports , and Oregon . Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . This is a useful short article on a skater who was successful in international junior skating tournaments; her best result was the Youth Olympics. Articles such as Figure skating at the Winter Youth Olympics work in their current format because there are articles on most of the medalists; there is therefore no need to say anything about the medalists in such articles. Deleting articles such as this one, through an over-zealous application of rules to borderline cases such as this one, has a detrimental effect on other articles. -- Toddy1 (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC) 15, 22 May 2024 (UTC) gng Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Daniel ( talk ) 21:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC) NSKATE and fails WP:SIGCOV . Contributor892z ( talk ) 19:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 1 , consensus was to relist for further discussion. I will strike the sockpuppetry above. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Previous votes failed to assess the article's sourcing. At the time of the nomination, it was sufficient to pass WP:GNG —namely this profile in the Oregonian and this briefer one in the Colorado Gazette . The nominator has also since said I felt my original nomination was flawed , given that GNG tops an SNG. Hameltion ( talk | contribs ) 21:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am unable to close this as a ""speedy "" because there are additional """" votes, but I would endorse this being closed as """". Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Passes GNG per the references provided by Hamelton. These in-depth profiles offer SIGCOV of the subject. Frank Anchor 00:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC) There's WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS and therefore the subject passes WP:GNG . Tar nis hed Path talk 06:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"CocoWalk : DirtyHarry991 ( talk ) 06:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagree, the article is sparse at best but the actual place is a fairly significant shopping center in that area. Skroob ( talk ) 15:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin : Skroob ( talk • contribs ) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD . [ reply ] For the article to exist for 18 years...there's really nothing significant stated on it. – The Grid ( talk ) 21:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the existense of sources that meet SIGCOV guidelines. Here are links I could find of sources to satisfy this significant coverage requirement. I am currently unable to add these to the article, but I will be sharing the links here. https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/650904536 https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/article/the-miami-herald-cocowalk-property-1984/69726780/ https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/656236427 https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/657073065 https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/635805980 https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/642257530 https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/637566270 Burgeoning Contracting 16:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The contributions where I have synthesized information from the sources into the article. Burgeoning Contracting 04:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Excellent sleuthing, BurgeoningContracting . Meets SIGCOV. Acebulf ( talk | contribs ) 09:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I do not agree that this article lacks significant coverage. From my perspective, there are sufficient reliable sources to support what is written in the article. ST7733B ( talk ) 23:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Palay Khan : Historianfox ( talk ) 10:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Hits seem to be only about the film with the same name, nothing found for a person. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Terrible article, but I should have thought that anyone who was deemed notable enough to have both a biopic and a 13-part biographical TV series made about them was notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 06:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I've given the depictions a minor rewrite, and added a couple of sources on the 1986 film and 1990 TV series based on Palay Khan (just to prove that those depictions of him which allow him to qualify as 'notable' exist). I will admit that I am struggling to find a source on the man himself (best I've found so far was https://pashtunhistory.com/palay-shah-khosti/ , but it seems a little bit too WP:SPS to cite in the article), but there might be some half-decent non-english sources out there. 🔥HOT m̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃ 🔥 ( talk ・ edits ) 17:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above arguments... Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 22:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Necrothesp. Possibly notable. HistoriesUnveiler ( talk ) 22:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Subject is notable. There are films (Indian and Pakistani), TV series, and novel based on his story. -- Ameen Akbar ( talk ) 18:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Erin Regan : I could not find a single GNG-qualified source about her soccer career to establish her notability. However, it seems that she has received coverage as a Los Angeles County firefighter. She is better known for being a firefighter than a soccer player, yet the article is about her being a soccer player. The next point I want to make is that she is not notable as a firefighter either. Being interviewed a couple of times due to being a female firefighter does not make her pass GNG. She has received coverage for being ""one of 79 female firefighters in Los Angeles"" here , here , and here . Not everyone interviewed by CNN (which is what I think most of the coverage stems from since it's the oldest interview I could find) becomes notable because of that. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 18:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , United States of America , and California . Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 18:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Seems to have gotten some attention as a firefighter after retiring from soccer. WBUR in the article and this [8] seem to be enough for GNG. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does the attention as a firefighter really make her notable, though? I'm not so sure. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 04:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC) GNG as a firefighter. While Wake Forest Magazine is an Alumni newspaper for the relatively small Wake Forest University and is therefore probably not reliable, the combination of the WBUR piece and the CNN Business article, which has a lot of original content and doesn't really qualify as an interview in my view, is enough to showcase notability. Devonian Wombat ( talk ) 13:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per WNUR/CNN sources which show notability. Giant Snowman 13:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 15:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . In addition to the above and cited sources, she's also featured for both her professional soccer and firefighting careers in a section of the book Under the Lights and In the Dark: Untold Stories of Women's Soccer by Gwendolyn Oxenham (pps. 228–230). - 75.164.167.40 ( talk ) 17:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Per the policy of WP:ATD-I , this nominator — who is an active new page reviewer and, assuming good faith, may simply not be familiar with ATD-I — is both allowed and encouraged to unilaterally draftify new articles, especially those fewer than 90 days old, without requiring AfD consensus as a valid alternative to deletion. Incubation satisfies WP:ATD , allows time for potential collaborative improvement, allows for soliciting feedback via AfC, and automatically s the draft without requiring consensus if not edited for six months. Drafts are also not required to meet WP:GNG , and if questionable notability — not verifiability or reliability of sources — is the only concern, then draftification is the most appropriate action. Particularly, per ATD, ""The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input."" This specific nomination admits potential notability and instead proposes deletion over content issues that could have been flagged and discussed on the Talk page, or in comments on a draftified article. Instead, the nominator made no effort to flag or improve the article before nominating. - 75.164.167.40 ( talk ) 17:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per Devonian Wombat's reasoning above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Črnuče Bridge : Chidgk1 ( talk ) 16:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions . Chidgk1 ( talk ) 16:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I don't think this article should be d. It may be in a poor state at the moment, but otherwise the Črnuče Bridge (or its predecessor) has a long history starting in Roman times and was also prominent in World War II. [27] [28] -- TadejM my talk 17:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC) 17, 15 December 2023 (UTC) 25, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The article is informative about a site/structure that has had local/regional significance for millennia, and it is well sourced. Doremo ( talk ) 18:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems to be a notable bridge, good job TadejM! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Article has been significantly improved since the AFD nomination. An image of the bridge could also be added if any exist. Streetlampguy301 ( talk ) 21:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy As everyone has said """" I understand that as the nominator I can now change my vote as further discussion would be a waste of time. Thank you to everyone who improved the article, which is now interesting. Chidgk1 ( talk ) 06:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just remember that ""article hasn't been expanded"", and ""is too short"" isn't justification to nominate an article, only if you can't find any sources online. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My nomination did not mention the shortness of the article. Chidgk1 ( talk ) 12:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC) GNG . A09 | (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Chastity of structures is not a criteria for notability, last I checked. ;-) llywrch ( talk ) 20:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy per TadejM and Dr. Blofeld. -- A09 | (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC) On the revert. The lead is supposed to summarise the article though. Your version has information not in the body! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC) 38, 18 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Lyazzat Tanysbay : Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , looks unquestionably notable to me. Geschichte ( talk ) 03:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , agree on notability. JoeNMLC ( talk ) 14:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC) An article that meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:JOURNALIST . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC) -- Ashina ( talk ) 13:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Revaz Gigauri : Shinadamina ( talk ) 18:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Suggest a procedural as no rationale for deletion has been presented. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC) WP:CSK#1 applies as no deletion rationale has been presented. Let'srun ( talk ) 21:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I apologize, I have added the rationale now. Shinadamina ( talk ) 08:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Two World Cups and a simple search is bringing up GNG passing sourcing such as this and there will likely be more offline. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy You can improve the article too. Orientls ( talk ) 14:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Ritchie Street : It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn ( talk ) 14:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India . Owen× ☎ 15:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This Business Standard source appears to give decent coverage (something related to Chinese goods being sold there) [5] (though the full article is behind a paywall), the same thing was covered by The Hindu [6] , also a couple of paywalled sources by The Hindu, [7] (business and the pandemic) [8] (about the street reopening). There are a few sources in Tamil as well (I'm not a Tamil speaker but google translate shows coverage), asianet [9] , and a local paper Daily Thanthi [10] . Times Tamil also reported on the possibility of the street (shops) being relocated [11] . Bingo bro (Chat) 17:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - based on BingoPro analysis above. Bikerose ( talk ) 20:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Yandere Simulator : There is some reliable sources that cover it, but that does not always justify notability. Other than the sources, the article seems to be a collection of random information that does not wish to justify the body. Taking into account the numerous WP:BLP1E and WP:BLP situations associated with this article with them being constantly removed for good reason , it should be decided whether this game meets WP:GNG accounting for how the current article presents itself. The sources are fine, but the body suggests that it is just a collection of illegitimate information that doesn't seem to justify how Yandere Simulator is notable. 8ID ( talk ) 20:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Internet . 8ID ( talk ) 20:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To be frank, I think it's really easy for someone to make a standard ""but there's coverage"" GNG argument. I think this is one of those cases where we should really pay attention to the fact that GNG very carefully notes that these are just ""indicators"" and a discussion may still find the topic non-notable for an encyclopedia. I pretty much agree with the nominator. There was a flash of coverage, mostly driven by the controversial nature of the game, and then it all dried up. It doesn't seem any reliable sources have appeared in the last 3-4 years, despite the game's rocky development continuing. Nom has already pointed out the BLP issues, since half the coverage is about the developer, and half about the game. If we look at it from an WP:NPRODUCT view, sustained coverage is failed. Frankly, I don't believe there's any long-term significance here. I also want the note that this article has recently required Oversight due to BLP allegations lacking any reliable secondary coverage. The talk page has the details on THAT. -- ferret ( talk ) 20:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC) This is the absolute worse kind of deletion rationale. ""There are tons of sources, but it doesn't seem notable"". What does that even mean? How are you defining routine coverage? The essay you linked doesn't really support your rationale, either. I see reliable sources about this ranging from its release to a day ago (although, yesterday's coverage was less than pleasant). Clearly it has sustained coverage (and even then, notability is not temporary). Any BLP issues can be taken by locking it, especially when the article is about the game and not the developer. (Although, obviously, the developer will have to be mentioned.) Why? I Ask ( talk ) 21:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC) 19, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The current controversy applies to the game too. Here is a reliable source that shows that it is being impacted (voice actors and volunteers are stepping away from the project and the game is explained). Yet despite the coverage, the nature cannot really be included in the article due to obvious BLP issues. 8ID ( talk ) 21:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I see MarySue and TheGamer were both just added to the article. Both I think have been considered questionable sources in the past, with TheGamer being until the Valnet umbrella which are generally seen as not suitable for BLP claims (Screen Rant, Game Rant, etc). -- ferret ( talk ) 21:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My bad if they aren't suitable, I can go ahead and remove them if that's what you want. Jurta talk 21:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think Mary Sue and TheGamer are reliable if they aren't focused on bloggy, spammy coverage which I do not think this is. But even then, a small mention could be made that they have stepped down from the project without mentioning why to avoid BLP (since grooming is a pretty steep accusation and the sources aren't concretely, super reliable). Why? I Ask ( talk ) 21:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are tons of reliable sources for the original subject of Kiwi Farms , yet any mention of them is not allowed because discussion, not the availability of sources, determined that they are not noteworthy of anything particular. Like Ferret said, they are just indicators and discussion can determine if these indicators are still valid. A good indicator is just by looking at Google News for this year alone. Everything there cannot be particularly included, well, because it does not add to the context of this article and not to mention the BLP violations from sources that are not deemed reliable. Sure, it has coverage, but any sustained coverage from up to now would not be placed in this article due to WP:BLP and the lack of further sources that do not vaguely appear to be just WP:ROUTINE . Like my first point, further discussion is required from other editors to determine if general notability really applies to the subject of this AfD. 8ID ( talk ) 21:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it does. It was seen as a notable in 2017, so it would still be notable today. Even if it only got major coverage from its release to something like 2018, notability is not temporary. The reliable sources already present in the article from those years is plenty for me. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 21:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC) 02, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed again, just because big time outlets don't often cover the game anymore doesn't make it any less notable. MarkJames1989 ( talk ) 22:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC) There are plenty of reliable sources and the game is incredibly notable. It has billions of views across YouTube and TikTok coverage and has plenty of media coverage as well. This is the sad part about indie games on Wikipedia, since not all coverage is going to be mainstream their articles often don't get enough justice. A part of me feels like this article is only being nominated due to the developer being somewhat of an asshole. I completely understand that and agree, but I think this game getting years of coverage (and in light of recent accusations will probably skyrocket the coverage) I feel the article needs to stay. I don't understand the rationale of deleting this whatsoever. If the worry is vandalism, that's been taken care of for years, the article could just be locked if it's that big of a deal. MarkJames1989 ( talk ) 22:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC) — MarkJames1989 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] This is a video game that is still in development; no official release date has been announced nor are there any independent sources which indicate that a formal release may be imminent. While the article has gotten some media coverage, most of this was confined to the mid to late 2010s. There has been coverage recently, but this has focused predominantly on the developer rather than the game. (As 8ID mentioned, these sources carry significant BLP concerns restricting our ability to use them). Fundamentally, I see this as an unreleased product that got a flash of coverage before interest waned. Generally, I would not bring in the WP:NOTNEWS policy or our guideline against creating articles that only received “ mere short-term interest ” for an article that has received a few years of coverage. However, in this specific instance I think it is appropriate to apply these rules to the article’s coverage. Spirit of Eagle ( talk ) 00:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It does not matter if the game was released or not. Indefinitely worked on or even cancelled projects can still be notable, so that aspect of your argument means very little. And we also have different views. ""A few years of coverage"" is more than enough for thousands of Wikipedia pages. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 01:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I mean it's got a completed story, millions of downloads, and a lot of coverage. Minecraft was the same way, and you could argue that Fortnite was never completed. This isn't as unique of a case as it seems. It's for sure a notable game. Not to mention, like another user said, ""A few years of coverage"" has been more than enough for plenty upon plenty of Wikipedia articles. MarkJames1989 ( talk ) 04:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Generally, when a topic gets several years of media coverage, we'll have enough information to write a comprehensive article covering all of the main aspects of the article in at least some level for detail. This article is not comprehensive; the available sources have given us a collection of random bits and pieces of information, mostly from the first few years of Yandere Simulator's existence. The sources really just do not provide enough information to write a decent article. Regarding unreleased creative works, Wikipedia does generally require strong evidence of likely publication before allowing the creation of articles. For unpublished books, we generally require independent sources providing both the title and approximate publication dates. For unpublished music compilations, we require independent sources providing the title, cover image, release date, and track listing. For unpublished movies, we require independent sources that confirm that principal photography has started. The general trend across these guidelines is that we do not create articles on unpublished works unless independent, reliable sources have confirmed enough progress has been made on the unpublished work that future publication is very likely. This has obviously not occurred with Yandere Simulator. Spirit of Eagle ( talk ) 05:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These are not comparable. Forms of the (uncompleted) game are out. You can't discuss unpublished books, movies, or albums on the same vein as a game that has been played all over YouTube. The demo itself is already notable. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 06:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The fundamental issue here is that the existing coverage consists of a bunch of bits and pieces of information mainly released during the first few years of the game's development. I'm not impressed by the breadth of the sources and I don't believe that a few years of early coverage on a topic that's been ongoing for nearly a decade amounts to sustained coverage. Spirit of Eagle ( talk ) 06:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC) I don't see any reasons for deleting the page. Anyway, we have such pages as RapeLay . Why don't we it too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Shadow666666 ( talk • contribs ) 07:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC) — Dark Shadow666666 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS . Negative MP1 01:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Eurogamer article , Kotaku article , and the Vice article used as a source in the page show that GNG is clearly passed. Whether or not it's notable because of its own merits or because it's exceedingly controversial don't really matter as far as Wikipedia is concerned, only that it got coverage from major sites, which it clearly did. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 07:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just because the developer's a subject of controversy, doesn't mean the page should be d. Rickraptor707 ( talk ) 07:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Consistently covered in gaming publications for several years now. Partofthemachine ( talk ) 19:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This discussion has been linked to from a major Yandere Simulator subreddit. I’m not sharing the link since there’s a lot of BLP stuff, but the post has gotten hundreds of upvotes and contains comments providing instructions on how to vote in AfD nominations. Spirit of Eagle ( talk ) 22:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A subreddit that hates the developer of the game and yet they still want the article up. Hundreds of upvotes yet you're trying to argue the game isn't notable. Something tells me the game is notable. MarkJames1989 ( talk ) 00:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC) N or any SNG. -- ferret ( talk ) 00:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I think the bigger picture needs to be looked at here. Yes, sources cover this game, but is there enough material for the game to really be anything beyond the state the article is in now? The game is notorious ( amongst the Internet, which means nothing for notability ) for having an absurdly long development cycle to the point where the situation could be comparable to what happened over at KFConsole, the game will never be finished and most of the coverage comes from stuff from years ago with silence afterwards from most sources up until the developers recent outing as a potential groomer. It's even possible from rumors that the game was never intended to be finished to begin with, and no reception for the game exists. I think cancelled games can have articles, but based on what this game has and will likely have for as long as time lasts, this game and page have no long-lasting value or notability. Negative MP1 01:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC) Janik, Justyna. (Re)weave the Gameplay. Analysis of the spatial textures in Yandere Simulator . Philosophy of Computer Games Conference 2017. If there is enough coverage to meet WP:GNG , then it should be kept, even if we WP:DONTLIKEIT . Jumpytoo Talk 03:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My concerns here (as page creator) is finding sourcing that does more than give brief announcement or summarize primary sources. This looks like a good step in that direction. The person in question is a PhD student and it looks like the event was held at a university. The main thing would be trying to establish that this event had significant oversight in what was presented, which would be the biggest difficulty. This book mentions the presentation, but I'm not familiar with the publisher. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is better, as it's a PhD dissertation and while the game is used as an example of a larger topic, the author goes into some detail and also provides commentary in a reasonably neutral fashion. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Significant coverage by sources such as Vice , Kotaku , Eurogamer , and 4Gamer . WP:GNG is clearly met. Skyshifter talk 13:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] By this logic, a lot of indie games pages would be d. I think this is just a classic case of WP:DONTLIKEIT . LordEnma8 ( talk ) 15:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC) 01, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is obviously significant and sustained coverage from reliable sources. Charcoal feather ( talk ) 16:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This game has enough SIGCOV from reliable sources to meet GNG, and the coverage was sustained. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 22:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC) why was {{notavote}} added? -- Trade ( talk ) 02:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC) 24, 2 October 2023 (UTC) 45, 2 October 2023 (UTC) 01, 2 October 2023 (UTC) 24, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wouldn't the discussion of the article talk page violate BLP as well? Trade ( talk ) 13:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's a very careful line in discussing the viability of sourcing and developing information, and posting allegations in ""wikivoice"" to the article itself. Oversighters are aware of the discussion and at the moment it seems no further action has been deemed necessary. -- ferret ( talk ) 13:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Yandere Simulator is still under development and given the ongoing grooming allegations that left the team resigning in protest, the game will never be fully completed. Therefore, we can the article, but should include a section to mention the scandal. 9March2019 ( talk ) 21:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC) I strongly disagree. According to a news article on the talk page, the alleged incident never happened and is such the very definition of a hoax . -- Trade ( talk ) 23:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even though he admitted himself that the conversations happened. We can't rely on just one source for this LordEnma8 ( talk ) 11:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This game has substantial cultural notability, supported by plenty of sources. GraziePrego ( talk ) 01:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] • I am in favour of ing this page because I don't quite see any reason to it. We have lots of sources over a sustained couple of years. I also believe it meets the threshold of notability enough to be sufficient. It is my belief the only reason this is coming up is due to recent controversy surrounding the developer. Radiourgía Promithéas ( talk ) 14:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC) — Radiourgía Promithéas ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Page creator here. I wasn't sure of notability when I created the page. I'm STILL not 100% sure on notability because ultimately the game suffers from the same issues source-wise that it did when I made it, controversy coverage aside. Those issues ultimately center upon a depth of coverage. There's a lot of coverage out there but what I had problems with was that the coverage was kind of shallow. An outlet would report on the game, but said coverage was more along the lines of short articles that basically said ""this is going to come out"" or articles that were essentially them summarizing YandereDev videos or another outlet's article on the topic. It was actually kind of difficult to find anything that could feel like someone commenting on the game itself or ""reviewing"" the test builds as in most cases this would be limited to a couple of sentences rather than anything in-depth. This was an especially big issue with the updates. Those kind of took on a ""slow news day"" feel, as they tended to fall into the ""reprint of press release"" hole. Case in point is this article from Silicon Era, where it's just a summary of a YD video. It looks good, but when you really look at it you'll notice that it lacks any true commentary or reception on the update. Another example comes from Destructoid , where the article is little more than a basic announcement article. These are borderline trivial sources and unfortunately, most of the coverage out there is like this. That's not to say that this topic is completely non-notable. I wouldn't have made it if I thought that was the case, but I will admit that I created it with the thought that future coverage would make up for the sub-par coverage at the time. That's on me. My thought here is that we need to look to see if there's any better sourcing, particularly ones that do more than just summarize and give brief mentions. We need more in-depth coverage and especially ones that give some sort of review of the game and/or the updates. My concern is basically this: if the game coverage stops here, then is the coverage enough to justify notability in ten years? I personally don't really think the coverage in the article is enough to do that but I think there's a good chance that the needed coverage is out there. (And hopefully hasn't been taken down by those outlets.) ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC) I think the article needs some cleanup to really determine notability. I'll try to make some time for this task this week, but my job has really been ing me off Wikipedia lately so if anyone else wants to help with this please do! ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Articles for deletion/Skibidi Toilet (2nd nomination) , I have added an argument to the article, but I unable to edit the article because I have been partially blocked. This game is not a very popular at all. Should we have another semi popular memes like Kuruminha, Loituma Girl or Your Majesty, There's a Second Bus Coming? 2001:448A:11A2:1972:748F:59AA:F5ED:5592 ( talk ) 10:37 4 October 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, and being a meme is not a disqualifier for inclusion despite people assuming that ""ridiculous"" topics should not be covered. It goes by whether reliable sources have seen the subject as important enough to write about, which they have, and that's really all there is to it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC) I’m not sure why a game that’s produced collaborations with other indie games, has released multiple demos, and still receives notable news coverage from reliable sources is being proposed as “not notable” because the current article version needs work, because the creator’s notoriety attracts vandalism or drama, or even the bizarre notion that it USED TO have more coverage then it does now. Those are not valid reasons for removing an article on Wikipedia. Even the submission acknowledges the plethora of notable sources in the article. It makes sense a game that once had more active development but still hasn’t released would have coverage dry up - all video gaming coverage is like this especially for indie games like this. Sorry but this whole nomination feels like it was done in bad faith. Rebochan ( talk ) 07:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 23:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - controversial subject but appears to meet requirements on notability and referencing. - Indefensible ( talk ) 01:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Is Wikipedia not a website about providing a knowledge base for as many subjects as possible, in an explanatory method, as opposed to the Internet Archive's storage of actual content? Considering the notoriety of this game I really think it makes no sense to all of a sudden remove the article. Somehow I feel that people are proposing the deletion of this article because they want to retaliate against the developer for a recent controversy. It would seem to anybody impartial that the right solution is not to try and sweep the internet of any mention or ""homage"" to him in any form it takes, but to put, in all available spaces, some coverage of the controversies. I will note that this article has made mention of the controversies over the game itself, and bringing up the controversies over the developer on the same page seems like a solution that will not inflate a sense of the game's notoriety but instead give a space where a game that is pretty notorious gets a fairly summarized overview. If the issue of not having enough information or referential material is up for question, then the solution is again not to the article, but to provide the information and the references, which the internet provides a myriad of, as this is a game that has achieved quite a level of infamy; but, like similar games such as the PC game Harvester, needs summaries of the controversies for people to read and make up their own mind about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.71.123 ( talk ) 14:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, no, almost none of that is based in our policies and guidelines. The problem with Yandere Simulator is that it had a burst of coverage around 2016. Then, until this most recent controversy about the developer , not about the game , no reliable sources were covering it further. This is where the WP:NPRODUCT argument about sustained coverage comes in. It was controversial, had a burst of coverage, then disappeared from secondary reliable sources. -- ferret ( talk ) 14:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - This game, despite being unreleased, is still quite notable and has had much significant coverage. I think the development process itself is notable in this case. Bensci54 ( talk ) 17:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – Several of the sources demonstrate clear notability. Yes, the game is unreleased, but that does not make it unnotable. The reception section especially shows the real world development. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 22:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - in my personal judgement we are at that point where lolcows should have articles if they've done something profound enough that warrants one. This article isn't about Alex Mahan, sure, but it's about his passion project and it's a part of internet culture. It's so much bigger than just a game which in itself has countless countless countless sources by PC game journalists detailing it. But if none of that matters and we are looking at this solely from the ""video game article perspective"" alone then my question is rather: why do so many articles exist for trivial Nintendo 64 games then? Many of which don't ""meet WP:GNG "", but this on the other hand can pass almost four times over when compared to those. Second Skin ( talk ) 01:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Dolní Poustevna railway station : An ordinary and unremarkable building. The timetable is not a sufficient reference and there are no others. FromCzech ( talk ) 12:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Czech Republic . FromCzech ( talk ) 12:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The station building was bigger than normal for a community this size because it was a border station with space for customs officials (originally Austria-Hungary, later Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic). It has a long history (opened 1904). The article can be expanded with information from the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia at de:Bahnhof Dolní Poustevna , including this book reference: * Johannes Raddatz: Eisenbahn in der Sächsischen Schweiz, Band 4 Verlag Bernd Neddermeyer, Berlin 2012, ISBN 978-3-941712-20-1, S. 184–191 The Czech Wikipedia does not have a corresponding article on the station, but it does have articles on the community and the railway line . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 14:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , per Eastmain, a border station is highly likely to be notable. There is also a Czech book which seems to discuss the reconstruction and reopening of the line. [37] – filelakeshoe ( t / c ) 🐱 16:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Vanžura, Alexandr (2015-03-03). ""Dolní Poustevna koupí obří vlakové nádraží. Nechce, aby v něm vznikla ubytovna"" . Děčínský deník (in Czech) . Retrieved 2023-05-29 . - This article also contains a backgrounder to the historical usage of the station building Klaubenschalk, Alice (2018-02-05). ""Vlakové nádraží v Dolní Poustevně je na prodej, železnici se už nehodí"" . iDNES.cz (in Czech) . Retrieved 2023-05-29 . Jumpytoo Talk 19:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources provided, Meets GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC) GNG . WP:SNOW also applies! gidonb ( talk ) 02:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC) GNG KylieTastic ( talk ) 15:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Hopefully the article will be expanded with material from German Wikipedia and other sources noted in this AfD. References found look sufficient to achieve notability under the GNG. Rupples ( talk ) 01:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Alexis Baro : No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or the SNG. I looked at all of the references and could find even a small amount of GNG type coverage. The most written about him in any of those is the self-supplied bio in various announcements. One of the references is Wikipedia that that has just his his name is a list. Reviewed during new page patrol. North8000 ( talk ) 01:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the Jazz Journal review looks alright [88] , but couldn't find anything else. Might fall short of meeting MUSICBIO. - KH-1 ( talk ) 01:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please do not the article until I post my replay later today. I will explain what are the reasons why I think the article should remain on wikipedia and why I think article meets wikipedia guidelines. Thanks! IlistenClassicalMusic ( talk ) 06:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Canada , and Cuba . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ North8000 @ KH-1 @ Spiderone Hello to everyone, in this message i will explain why i think article meets music notability guideline. I am sorry for long text but please read it all. 1.""Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy , Juno , Mercury , Choice or Grammis award."" You can read on reference that is official CBC.ca website that subject is nominee of Juno 2019 awards. This is most clear meet of wikipedia music notability guidelines. 2. ""The most written about him in any of those is the self-supplied bio in various announcements"" : RE: I think we should take in consideration that subject is from Cuba, many information about him cant be obtained since Cuba is closed country, expecialy from the ""internet"" side. Second, how is media supposed to write biography about someone from closed Cuba, if biography isnt supplied from subject side on one way or another, written or spoken? You will probably agree with me that the media will not go to Cuba to ""investigate"" about jazz musician and get his birth certificate risking their own freedom, jazz is not a 'commercial' type of music listened to by billions of people nor is the subject politically dissident/politically persecuted etc. so articles about him will sell millions of copies. 3. "" One of the references is Wikipedia that that has just his his name is a list."" That reference is leading to Wikipedia article about world famous Jazz festival and competition in New York. In that article subject is mentioned as one of the performers and subjects performance on that festival is showing that subject is acclaimed, recognized, and famous artist in his(Jazz) field since he performs on world famous festival. Second reference for that performance is YouTube video on YT channel of that same festival, on video you can literaly see subject performing there. Third reference is from media. I know YouTube shouldnt be used as reference, but i put it there with purpose, for reviewer of article to see with his own eyes that media coverage is justified, accurate, and authentic, YT reference can be removed when reviewer see it and confirms it anyhow. 4. Music notability guideline, ""Musicians or ensembles may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria."" ""Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable , not self-published , and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself"" , In article there is many references of media that report about artist, they are not big media publishers but Jazz is not 'comercial' type of music. In whole world there is no big world famous media that make many reports on Jazz musicians and their life. The size, importance and popularity of the media reporting on the subject are proportional to the influence of Jazz in world. ""Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country"". In article there is references to his performances in Canada, USA, Montenegro. For Montenegro reference is from the first Montenegrin Jazz radio station and portal. "" Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. "" Subject, while in school , became member of ""Buena Vista Social Club"" that is internationaly famous ensemble, which have own Wikipedia page, in that club there is numerous notable musicians. I put only one reference for that from ""Niagara jazz festival"" since i thought it would be enough, it isnt possible that so much famous festivals lie about their musicians, also when you google this there is many media that mention Alexis Baro as one of members of the ensemble. "" Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album. "" I think this is also a pass, since subject performed on world famous jazz music festival in New York, i explained this in part 3. Criteria for composers and lyricists, Others: -The recording has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy , Juno , Mercury , Choice or Grammis award -The recording was performed in a medium that is notable-Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition-Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer, or lyricist who meets the above criteria RE: I think few of this are pass or partialy a pass since subjects composition is on Hilario Duran ’s Grammy Award nominated album “From The Heart"" and I put references for this also, reference is Library of Congress in Washington. I am sorry for long answer, but i think i fully explained why subject meets multiple music notability guidelines, fully or partialy in some parts and why article is not for deletion. Thank you for you patience. IlistenClassicalMusic ( talk ) 11:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC) , thanks for your work. I just try to do my job properly and am not an active advocate for what happens then either way. For this reason I'm not going to argue/respond to the points in your post post except to note a couple things which might be useful info for you. Wikipedia notability is mostly about finding in depth coverage of the topic (the performer) in typically at least 2 sources so that would be a good thing to look for when looking for sources. Adding references which are basically the venue promoting an upcoming appearance which use the artist-supplied bio are a nice addition but don't count towards that. Also, you can't use Wikipedia as a source. However this ends up, thanks for your work and happy editing! Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 14:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC) 26, 11 September 2023 (UTC) A common meaning of ""arguing"" is simply ""making arguments"" ""making points"" and is not anything negative. So your post is fine and there is nothing to be sorry about. My advice on all articles is to look for coverage which in-depth on him and try to include 1 or 2 of those as sources. North8000 ( talk ) 14:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you now remove notification on article? Another editor commented bellow that we should it. IlistenClassicalMusic ( talk ) 07:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't. The result of this discussion here will determine that. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 12:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] but tag for cleanup . Article is very over-reliant on bad primary sources that are not valid support for notability, and is in dire need of a cleanup job, but he does have a valid notability claim as a Juno Award nominee and better sources are available (163 hits in ProQuest) to repair it with. Bearcat ( talk ) 13:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the reliable sources . NYC Guru ( talk ) 08:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Pakistan audio leaks controversy : This fails WP:GNG. — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 13:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 13:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . This isn't about a single event, and coverage has been ongoing for months and months at this point (see here , here , and here ). The article needs an update, but as usual, AfD isn't clean-up. Cortador ( talk ) 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But this article discusses audio leaks involving Pakistan's prime ministers, but the sources you provided doesn't pertain to prime ministers. --— Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 15:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article starts with the sentence ""The Pakistan audio leaks controversy stems from several leaked audio conversations involving Pakistan's prime minister Shehbaz Sharif and former prime minister Imran Khan among others ."" Emphasis mine. The second article talks about ""the recent audio leaks involving politicians, judges, and their relatives"", confirming that sources treat the audio leaks controversy as one event, whether or not a given leak featuring a (former) prime minister or not. Cortador ( talk ) 06:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While the topic has indeed received extended coverage over a significant period, the accumulation of sources does not inherently justify the retention of an article. The core issue pertains to notability and whether the subject matter has sustained coverage that adds substantial information. The main concern is the notability and consistent, in-depth coverage. The provided references don’t seem to enhance the topic’s comprehension. While it’s true that the AfD isn’t just for clean-up, it does allow for evaluating an article’s significance. In this instance, the article seems to fall short of the expected encyclopedic depth and quality. samee converse 02:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is a but you really should copyedit your generated tokens from an AI prompt. Recent ChatGPT models are trained on guest post spam and they will obvously spill out crap like this - avoid it all cost or you will loose your reputation [63] . If you still want to use chatbot then use the advanced model of Claude instead. At least it is objective and concise like Wikipedia. 111.119.37.78 ( talk ) 02:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Notability . Also lack of depth. Wikibear47 ( talk ) 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC) SINGLEEVENT (cited in the nomination) explicitly doesn't apply here as that is for articles about people, not articles about events. Elli ( talk | contribs ) 17:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems like this should procedurally closed then for lack of a valid reason for deletion. Cortador ( talk ) 15:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Let's allow the AfD to run its course. As Samee pointed out, the primary concern still revolves around WP:N and consistent, in-depth coverage as demanded per WP:GNG. Lets not forget WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --— Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 16:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 01:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC) Samee#AFD contribution about the rationale behind their contribution. Thincat ( talk ) 15:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Samee has not edited since 2 May. Possibly they received a software upgrade that was unsuccessful. Thincat ( talk ) 08:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have been contacted (not by Samee) on email about this AFD but if I have any remarks I'll leave them here. Thincat ( talk ) 09:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC) There appears to be ongoing coverage of the event into 2024 [64] as an example, but I'm not sure which sources from the geographical area are considered RS. Dawn has coverage about it, which I think is a RS [65] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"List of Glagolitic manuscripts : Either needs very severe pruning to include e.g. only notable manuscripts, or complete scrapping as unwieldy, excessively detailed, WP:INDISCRIMINATE . Fram ( talk ) 13:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Literature , History , Lists , and Europe . Fram ( talk ) 13:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Yeah, this is a database dump , not a list. There is absolutely zero selectivity or encyclopaedic commentary. Large sections of it haven't been translated into English. I'm not opposed to a list of notable Glagolitic manuscripts, but you'd have to start that from scratch so I don't see the point in retaining this version. It's a shame, because someone's obviously put a lot of work into it, but they did so in the wrong place. – Joe ( talk ) 13:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC) it's a long list which is conveniently already broken up into several sections, so if it's a worthwhile list to have it's easy to just split it. Also, the reason it's such a large page (regardless of number of items) seems mostly because of the citations -- though it appears they're intended not just as citations but as a list of resources. e.g. Bibliography: [69][70][71][72][73]​[74][75][76][77][78]​[79][80][81][82][83]​[84][8][85][86][87]​[88][89][90][91][92]​[93][94][95][96][97]​[98][99][100][101][102][103]​[104][105][106][107][108]​[20][109][22][110][1][111][112][113][114][24][65] (!!!). That's, um, a bit much. It's worth noting, too, that this is the way it looked at the beginning of the year . About 1.2 MB of content was added since then. It certainly wasn't a list of notable examples before, so presumably it just continued down the same road? More on that below. It doesn't seem like anyone's challenging whether it's an appropriate topic for a list ( WP:SALAT / WP:NLIST ), and indeed that's probably a given since it's a subject of obvious interest to anyone studying Slavic language/culture/history. It's a list, so we don't actually need to include much ""encyclopedic commentary"" (referencing the comment above), but actually there is a ton of information in here compared to typical Wikipedia lists, e.g. Codex Zographensis. Folios 41-57 are a palimpsest of an earlier Glagolitic manuscript, part of whose text was published in Cyrillic transcription by Dobrev 1971. Partial facsimile in Jagić 1879, reprinted Graz 1954. Hand Zog-2 is dated 1046–1081, in contrast to the earlier parts. Transcription at TITUS, CCMH. is what immediately precedes the citebomb I pasted above. The author is clearly a librarian/archivist. Then there's the inclusion criteria: exhaustive lists and lists of notable examples are both possible per WP:CSC . This is where my lack of knowledge comes in and why I'm not ! voting at this time. Is an exhaustive list realistic? Are all known Glagolitic manuscripts documented and thus possible to include? If so, what kind of numbers are we talking about? Is this list already exhaustive, or is this a tiny fraction? If this list is already exhaustive or nearly exhaustive, then I'd be tending towards ing. Notability: check; inclusion criteria: check; ability to resolve issues like size, citations, style, etc. by editing/splitting rather than deletion: check. If the list isn't exhaustive and/or the subject is not something it's possible to cover in an exhaustive way, that's when things get harder. Thinking about the reasons someone might be looking for a list like this, I don't know how useful a list of just notable examples would be (which isn't to say Wikipedia's policies wouldn't allow it, of course). If it came to that, I'd probably be inclined to suggest doing something else with this work before shrinking it: maybe sending it over to WikiBooks or perhaps it is a useful resource to retain for a WikiProject. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I apologise for the mess. The long citation chains are not permanent. Anything covered in detail by that many sources deserves a standalone article or section, so the citations will be moved to the bibliography, ing only the most important for the list. Most of the details can be d or relegated to footnotes once I have checked for duplicate entries. The parts that have not been translated into English are names and ""names"", without which there would be even more duplicates. My offline copy is in the process of being split. That is why I have not updated the page for months. Depending on how one counts, there are about 4000 manuscripts. But many of these have been collected in boxes or bound in fascicles and codices, so they will be d. Most have been described, and most of those that have not are free folia in boxes in Zadar . There are already over 3000 on the list. You asked how useful a list of just notable examples would be? Most of the manuscripts from the 10th to the 15th century are notable on their own, and almost as many from the 16th century on are notable enough for a standalone article but the proportion decreases significantly. Many are in between standalone notability and section notability. For example, enough literature exists to write Glagolitic parish registers , but I doubt articles on individual parish registers would pass an AfD. Ivan ( talk ) 00:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] but perhaps pare back. I agree with many of Rhododendrites' points, but I lean toward because a significant minority of the entries link to stand-alone Wikipedia pages. (This is unfortunately not obvious; it would be better to have the links with their full page names rather than abbreviations.) If the index as it stands is determined to be overkill, I would much rather see it pruned back to just these notable entries and retitled ""List of notable Glagolitic manuscripts"" rather than d entirely. I'm unfortunately not an expert on the subject and can't answer what I think are the core questions, which are whether such a list can be exhaustive and, if it can, whether this IS exhaustive. If this is everything, it. If it isn't - either because the list isn't finished or because it can't be - then pare it back to the manuscripts with stand-alone pages and either dump the rest or pass it on to some more specialized project. Moonreach ( talk ) 20:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC) Whatever decision is reached on this page should also be considered for List of Glagolitic printed works , a similarly large list on a related subject. Moonreach ( talk ) 20:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wish I had thought about placing the column with full page names second instead of with abbreviations earlier. On the other hand, some names are very long right now. I will make room for that when I the columns for folio count, folio size, columns x rows. Ivan ( talk ) 00:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Valid list . Deletion is not cleanup. First thing it needs is to be split. Srnec ( talk ) 20:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Judging by the talk page discussion the aim is to include all manuscripts. Various suggestions have been made there as to splitting the list by century, which would seem to address the major concern. I'm not seeing a deletion rationale. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 21:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This article is not ok. That's certain. But to it is just an extra step. All this information can be on wikipedia from what I have read of the article as it is notable enough to be mentioned in other articles and have various lists about the topic. Of course, the size of this article is not normal and it needs a huge scale-back. With that said, I am in favour of ing the article (perhaps with a name change) to include notable scripts, and over time, spreading all the information on it arround related articles adding encyclopedic value to it. Lakwat ( talk ) 21:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Again, I apologise for the mess. A lot has changed since a friend and I began the list in 2017. But I do have a cleaning and splitting plan. It should be acceptable within about a year of our recent expansion. The list is notable and at least 10% of current entries are notable enough for standalone articles. Not every entry in a list has to be notable, but excessively long lists break the data dump rule. If this list were twice as long it would break it, but with about 4000 manuscripts in existence it merely ""bends"" it. Especially since many of those can be condensed into a single entry. Even split into separate articles for each decade, a List of Cyrillic manuscripts would be better off on WikiBooks, except for List of early Cyrillic manuscripts . But Glagolitic manuscripts are very rare, so the script itself makes the entries notable. At least notable enough to be listed. See List of New Testament minuscules (1–1000) for a similarly large corpus. Ivan ( talk ) 00:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (valid list) but split with extreme prejudice . My laptop cannot load the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 00:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree there's no point in using Wikipedia as a database. I don't think the table format is useful because some columns have very small bits of info while the notes are quite large, and it looks ugly even at a large desktop resolution. The linking is also inconsistent, I noticed how the Istrian Demarcation is not linked in the first instance but somewhere later, also with a weird pipe link. This should not be kept as is. -- Joy ( talk ) 11:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC) 58, 22 September 2023 (UTC) 21, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Folia"", ""Dimensions"", ""Columns and rows"". Such information is good for infoboxes of independent articles on manuscripts but excessive for List of Glagolitic manuscripts . But sometimes it is the only information available to differentiate between similar entries in catalogues. Ivan ( talk ) 12:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the notes, most information will be transferred to standalone articles or relegated to footnotes. Ivan ( talk ) 12:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Split into discrete articles and turn this into a disamb. page. It seems like there's a general consensus to start doing that now? SN54129 11:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A disambiguation page would mean creating List of undated Glagolitic manuscripts , but because the split is by century, most manuscripts will eventually have a ""date"" and the page would eventually need to be d. So for now I prefer a reduction similar to List of New Testament lectionaries . Ivan ( talk ) 14:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could also just spin out the longer sections (basically that would mean leaving the first few in this article, and creating separate articles for the last several). e.g. List of companies of the United States by state . — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a good idea. I would have to add the links to the standalone lists to the top, though (15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, late). To make navigation quicker. Ivan ( talk ) 20:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"The Laundromat Cafe : Uffda608 ( talk ) 20:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Denmark . Uffda608 ( talk ) 20:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – it is mentioned here and here , and there are articles here and here by The Reykjavík Grapevine , but not enough to establish notability. EndTheory ( ✉ • ✎ ) 20:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - The Laundromat chain has received alot of coverage in the Icelandic media through the years, including Vísir.is [11] , Morgunblaðið [12] [13] , Dagblaðið Vísir [14] , Fréttatíminn [15] and Fréttablaðið [16] [17] . I mostly picked these out of random from the 480 hits from 2000 to 2023 on the Icelandic newspaper archive Tímarit.is [18] . Alvaldi ( talk ) 09:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Tagging @ EndTheory @ Uffda608 if you want to take a look at the above sources. Googling for Laundromat site:mbl.is and Laundromat site:visir.is also turns up alot of sources, although clearly not all significant, that I didn't go through. Alvaldi ( talk ) 09:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looks good, changing my vote to . I forgot to check non-English-language sources, my bad. EndTheory ( ✉ • ✎ ) 16:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Louis Makepeace : Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which event would that be? Phil Bridger ( talk ) 10:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Although he became famous because of a single event, he seems to have earned more than 15 minutes of fame; coverage is ongoing. Bearian ( talk ) 18:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Although they are famous because of one thing, coverage is ongoing and they have done some other things that are notable. WP:BLP1E is passed here. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 02:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per coverage of the subject's career over several years. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk ) 20:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above Coverage is ongoing. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 03:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Four years after the event and he is still getting reasonable SIGCOV by the BBC here , means that his notability has developed. Aszx5000 ( talk ) 09:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Carl von Arensdorff : Maybe there is a case to with Friedrich von Arenstorff , but he seems poorly sourced as well. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 17:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sweden . Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 17:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Denmark , Germany , and Netherlands . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC) There is some coverage in this book and he may have an entry or partial entry in the 1929 edition of the Svensk uppslagsbok , but I could not find a digitized version of the latter so I'm not sure. A to his notable brother Friedrich von Arensdorff is a suitable WP:ATD . Curbon7 ( talk ) 20:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC) OFFLINE coverage, seems sufficient to me. There is another much smaller entry in the Den Store Danske Encyklopædi here . Curbon7 ( talk ) 22:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . Curbon7 ( talk ) 20:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] a source has been added and inclusion in the Danish DNB indicates notability. Mccapra ( talk ) 21:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC) GNG . Agree with Curbon7 tho that if those sources come through he probably would pass it. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 21:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC) ANYBIO 3., did not realize Dansk biografisk Lexikon was a DNB. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 21:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC) ANYBIO 3. is probably the right call. You can WP:TROUT me for missing this. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 22:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Corey Woods (Tempe) : The office of mayor of Tempe is not notable or influential enough to give its officeholder automatic notability. The office just isn't particularly noteworthy. One piece of evidence of that is that Ballotpedia doesn't even appear to give Tempe mayoral elections or the office itself their own dedicated articles. Tempe is a tertiary population center within its metro area. Mayors of Tempe do not tend to carry widespread political influence or over their metro area, unlike mayors of similarly-populous communities that are the primary anchor of metro areas. This should be evidenced by the fact that other mayors of Tempe largely lack articles and many mayors of similar suburban cities also lack articles. If he does something of particular note, he would then warrant an article. But as far as I can tell, he hasn't. SecretName101 ( talk ) 01:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Bibliographies , and Arizona . SecretName101 ( talk ) 01:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think there is enough to deem him notable. Woods has successfully promoted several multi-billion dollar projects in Tempe, he has been appointed to both state and national housing roles, and he is the 2nd African-American mayor in the state of Arizona in a not insignificant city (population 180,000 and 140th largest in the US). He is one of 4 mayors of Tempe that have a wikipage. Patapsco913 ( talk ) 03:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Patapsco913 The projects are important. But is his role in them (""promoting"") principal enough that by virtue his involvement affords him notability? SecretName101 ( talk ) 09:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Many of the independently notable things this article lists are just stuff that happened while he was mayor. The article does not specify him as playing any significant role, for instance, in the streetcar (a project which was set in motion and underway before his mayoralty). It just says it happened to be completed during his term. Several things don't draw a strong connection with him. For instance, 911 program bit doesn't say he had anything to do with creating it, just that he touted it as a positive. Things like the wastewater surveillance bit are a good starting point though. SecretName101 ( talk ) 09:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] notable local politician. Andre 🚐 04:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notable person, plenty of sources, search of newspapers have many hits. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC) 25, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC) NPOL ). He meets the requirement. And as things heat up in Arizona politics the press coverage will increase. – S. Rich ( talk ) 19:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC) NPOL . Being mayor of Tempe and receiving significant press coverage pass the bar. Marquardtika ( talk ) 19:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Matiur Rahman (army officer) : No objection to a to Assassination of Ziaur Rahman#Executed officers . Most of the article is about the event, and the event article covers it well. I don't see any sourced info worth a , but if someone sees material, I don't object to it (text added 01:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)). A best this is a completely unneed CFORK. // Timothy :: talk 00:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Crime , Military , and Bangladesh . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 01:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 01:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - He was one of the main assassins in the Assassination of Ziaur Rahman#Executed officers . He shot and killed the President of Bangladesh, so his role is significant per WP:BIO1E but sourcing leaves much to be desired. I would also be okay with a Merge. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 00:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see anything, but no objection to merging sourced content if someone wishes to. All I ask is that the d material improve the target, not just be dropped in. // Timothy :: talk 01:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 05:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Please take a look at the sources before closing. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 22:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC) ONEEVENT . I've also nominated Shah Mohammad Fazle Hossain , another assassin, for deletion. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 01:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC) no objection to a to Assassination of Ziaur Rahman . // Timothy :: talk 12:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC) ONEEVENT doesn't say we shouldn't have a stand alone article about someone notable for only one event, it says we should consider how significant the event was, and how substantial their role in it was. The assassination was a highly significant event within the history of Bangladesh. The evidence that Matiur Rahman's role in it was substantial is shown by reliable sources, which say things like: ""Lt. Col. Matiur Rahman and Lt. Col. Mahboob - the two officers who played a vital role in the operation at the Circuit House where Zia was killed"", ""Lt Col Motiur Rahman ... one of the main actors on the anti-Zia team"", ""Col. Matiur Rahman and Lt. Col. Mahbub, who were allegedly among the coup leaders"". Not only is he one of only 2-3 of the dozen or more conspirators that historical scholarship bothers to highlight by name, those sources go into a bit of detail about his background, motivation, and actions in planning the event. His biography is understandably truncated, since he was in turn killed three days after the assassination, but it is not a permastub , pseudo-biography , or a mere rehash of Assassination of Ziaur Rahman . Indeed, it is much better sourced and written than that article, and should not simply be ed away. I've added to his biography's talk page several reliable sources (particularly the book by Moudud Ahmed ) that could be used to improve the article. -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 17:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . It is interesting that WP:BLP1E gives three criteria, all must be met, and the third one is about someone's role in an event, and the specific example given is an assassination! John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented. . So if one of the three criteria are not met, then BLP1E guides us to . CT55555 ( talk ) 01:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Queens Well, Arizona : बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 16:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona . बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 16:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC) GEOLAND . Onel 5969 TT me 18:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . From WP:GEOLAND , The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the ""legal recognition"" requirement and are also unreliable for ""populated place"" designation. Yet those are the only sources. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 18:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No it doesn't. It's a well. Uncle G ( talk ) 19:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The 1986 GNIS record for this actually gave it the feature class ""well"" and said that it was ""UNOFF"". Unfortunately, feature classes have become eroded over the years. And here we are declaring that a well ""passes GEOLAND"" for being an ""unincorporated area"" (piped as ""populated place"") 37 years later. The extra saddening thing, over the fact that we are still so uncritical of the GNIS that a well that even says ""Well"" in its name, is taken to be where people live, is that the coördinates for this in the GNIS are for the words ""Queens Well"" printed at the bottom left of the quadrangle map. It is the Queens Well quadrangle map. The actual location of the well on the map, where it says Queen's Well, is at 32°16′35″N 111°38′05″W  /  32.276514°N 111.634689°W  / 32.276514; -111.634689 , with (on the 1:62500 maps) a handy stylized icon of a well to confirm that, as the GNIS used to say, it is a well. Uncle G ( talk ) 19:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As a well , it may have legal recognition and a permanent population , namely of and by Nāgas , therefore it is still necessary to evaluate GEOLAND for that location. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 21:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Tohono Oʼodham are not known for living in wells. ☺ Uncle G ( talk ) 01:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not a physical well, anymore than Indian Wells, California is a collection of wells made by a group of native Americans. ""Wells"" itself is a pretty common name for geographic areas: please see Wells . — Maile ( talk ) 00:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is. Ironically, one can even see it, at the coördinates given above. It's the round thing, exactly where the well symbol and the words ""Queens Well"" on the topographic maps say it is, at the end of the little service road. The maps say it's a well. The GNIS said that it was a ""well"" up until ""well"" was squashed and mass replaced (incorrectly) a few years ago. We can see that it's a well. It's mind-boggling that people want to argue that no, it isn't a well and it could be a populated place. We've got the evidence of the very computer database record that the article is based upon outright saying that it is a well for a good 30 years. Uncle G ( talk ) 01:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC) It's a well. The name says it's a well. The GNIS says it's a well. The USGS topographic map says it's a well. The satellite image: [16] shows a well, or possibly a cistern, surrounded by desert. Look at the image. Do you see any sign of human population? This shouldn't be this difficult. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 02:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A person can always argue / assume that not enough searching has been done and that the needed sources have been overlooked. The burden of proof that this well is either a populated place or otherwise notable lies on the person arguing for it. Just because it might be notable does not make a feature notable. If sources showing that can't be found, it does not belong in Wikipedia until an acceptable source showing notability is found. I found two sources for Queen's Well, but neither shows that it is notable in any way. First on page 15 of McKenzie, D.N., (1985, RangeWater Pumping Systems State-of-The-Art-Review. Agriculture Forest Service Equipment Development Center Project Report 8522 1201 , 2200-Range, San Dimas, California.) the caption of a water well picture reads, Figure 22. - Large maximum power controller pump jack water pumping system at Queens Well on the Papago Indian Reservation near Tuscon, Arizona. Finally, in Carlson, K.E., ( 1978. Laramie, Wyo.; Kent A. Crofts, Colorado Yampa Coal. Annual Report ) there are three pictures of water pumping system at Queens Well on page 45 and two other page. None of these sources indicate any significance for Queens Wells. It is just an example of a water well run by solar panels as many wells are. Paul H. ( talk ) 03:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh bravo! I was stumped by this. (And your first hyperlink does not work for me.) Partly because I suspect the proper name is not searchable. ""Queen's Well"" was ""UNOFF"" and probably owned by a company or person named Queen. Down the road is ""Tank 113"" and, from the other ""tanks"" dotted around, I suspect that the proper official name for this thing under which it is documented is going to be something hugely mundane like ""Papago well 37—05"" for example. There were once wells elsewhere named Papago Farms well #1 to well #7, certainly. Uncle G ( talk ) 09:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC) (And your first hyperlink does not work for me.) Try Agriculture Forest Service Equipment Development Center Project Report 8522 1201 . Google Books is always a problem for me in extracting permanent URLs. Paul H. ( talk ) 02:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Uncle G/On common Google Books mistakes from long years of experience years ago. Uncle G ( talk ) 06:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Nothing is here to indicate this is or has ever been a populated place. Fails WP:GEOLAND . Let'srun ( talk ) 04:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC) HOAX to claim it's anything more than a well. Kinopiko talk 20:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not a bad-faith hoax. This article was created in 2017, relying solely upon GNIS as a source for the ""populated place"" requirement. Whether that practice was acceptable was debated prior to 2021, but an 2021 RfC found affirmative consensus that GNIS by itself is not enough to count as a legal recognition the populated place requirement. So, judging from currently clear standards, it is IMO patently clear that this does not meet the populated places requirement and be d. But a hoax requires a bad-faith intention to trick the audience in believing that something is real. I don't find it to be the case here, as the article's creation was more due to laxer standards before that had no clear consensus on whether GNIS is enough by itself, allowing stubs such as this to be created. VickKiang (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't remember when the WWW interface actually changed, but",keep
+"Allan R. Bomhard : While he has managed to get two books published by reputable sources, he himself mostly appears to self-publish for a community of adherents to the fringe theory and his work is not treated seriously by mainstream linguists. He is a notable figure in a fringe movement, not an academic field. This is important considering his work is entirely focused on that academic field. I don't believe he meets WP:FRINGEBLP considering he is mainly self-publishing to an already bought in audience. Warrenmck ( talk ) 00:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . An academic being wrong is not in itself a reason to an article, and Wikipedioa having an article on a controversial academic is not an endorsement of the academic or his beliefs. I would encourage people to read the previous deletion discussions to see why the article was kept before, as well as the now-removed claims (plausible not unverified) made in previous versions of the article. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the person in question has never been, as far as any record exists, an academic. This is akin to a hobby physicist self-publishing theories which run counter to the understanding of physics for most of their career, minus two books which were published to zero acceptance. That’s actually my main point of contention with the previous AfDs and why I raised it again, this isn’t a “wrong academic”, it’s a fringe theorist. Altaic languages has a fair number of good examples of academic linguists who are considered wrong by their peers, but they absolutely have a place there. Bomhard does not. Warrenmck ( talk ) 05:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New York . Shellwood ( talk ) 05:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Language . TJMSmith ( talk ) 12:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as before. Recognized as an independent scholar and as a proponent of the controversial Nostratic theory. Enough published book reviews for WP:AUTHOR . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 12:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of his works are self published and he is not recognized as an independent scholar in the field. I implore people voting to verify these claims using non Wikipedia sources, since the content on Wikipedia was certainly heavily contributed by adherents to his fringe theory. Nostratic is controversial in the same way a young earth is at this juncture: it is completely rejected by the field and only presently explored under the guise of, effectively, pseudoscience. I don’t know if there is a mechanism to invoke the perspectives of more people from the Linguistics Wikiproject. I don’t want to come across as either trying to canvas votes or meat-puppet but there seems to be a deep and fundamental misunderstanding as to the nature of his work and acceptance in the field of linguistics. Most of his web presence is on Wikipedia itself and his notability seems to exclusively derive from how much he has been cited on Wikipedia by a fringe movement; he is neither an academic nor a credible scholar in the field. There are practically no off-wiki sources beyond a book review, and again, an overwhelming amount of his work is self published. Contrast this with Soviet Nostraticisits who are/were prominent in their field while holding a minority opinion but seriously publishing their work. Warrenmck ( talk ) 16:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps you misunderstood my use of the word ""published"". Although your claim that his books are self-published appears to be false (some but not all of them are), it is also irrelevant. What is relevant is that the reviews of his books, by other people, are reliably published. Therefore, they provide plenty of content on Bomhard's work that we can use to describe that work in an article. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’ve tried to be clear that not all of his books are self published and have regularly said “except a few”, to be fair. But the reviews of his books by other people don’t inherently meet the standard for notability, especially given those represent the entire corpus of references to the author in the field. Your claim that he is a “recognized independent scholar” is still not really backed up by any of the references. A book review does not recognition or endorsement make. Warrenmck ( talk ) 18:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC) GNG constitutes. Your use of the words ""recognition"" and ""endorsement"" indicate further misunderstanding. A Wikipedia article on a scholar is not an endorsement of their work. It is a neutral summary of their work and life. Your attempts to push an editorial perspective on our article, insisting that he is ""fringe"" based on a source that merely criticizes his work as inaccurate (a different thing), suggests that you are not taking the appropriately neutral approach to this subject. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nostratic theory is considered a fringe theory in linguistics. To that effect I have asked the Linguistics Wikiproject to weigh in on this, but per our discussion on my talk page (and just to repeat it here): As the Nostratic affinity is in itself a fringe theory based on near-zero evidence, such speculation hardly lends credence to the model. (Turning Puns into Names and Vice Versa, Lillo, 2007) I am not presenting an editorialized point of view. I am presenting scholarly consensus on the status of Nostratic. It was a valid historical proposal and greater evidence and our improved understanding of the comparative method post-1960 ended most of the discussion of Nostratic. At present it is exclusviely the domain of adherents to it who take macrofamily proposals as a given and fall well outside the mainstream of academic consensus, and again I would overwhelmingly prefer other linguists chime in than just leaving me trying to explain that attempting to strike a ""neutral"" tone as you read it here runs against scholarly consensus and falls into WP:UNDUE territory. It necessitates elevating fringe linguists who are predominantly self publishing to the standing of academic linguists who have decades ago moved on from Nostratic. At present scholarly consensus is that the top level identified proto-languages (discussed in List of proto-languages ) are genetically wholly unrelated, with a single possible exception . I would hope that my edits on linguists who advocate for Nostratic would make it clear that I'm not here to editorialize. My primary concern is first and foremost making sure that the information presented on Wikipedia is not editorialized in favour of a specific viewpoint, in fact. Warrenmck ( talk ) 19:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC) per WP:AUTHOR based on multiple reviews of multiple works. TJMSmith ( talk ) 13:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) How is this standard met? He published books, to be certain, but they are in no way well known or significant, and a majority of the reviews in question are pointing out the fringe nature of the theory. I’m not trying to change everyone’s minds here, I do worry that people unfamiliar with the field are taking it for granted that he is an academic from that field due to the academic press nature of two of his books. Bomhard has been consistently misrepresented on both Wikipedia articles and previous AfDs as a “controversial academic” when he is neither particularly controversial (as a nonentity espousing a fringe theory) nor an academic, despite the claims of the infobox on his article. It is certainly not impossible to have a fringe linguistics theory published by an academic press, but the standard for WP:NFRINGE should be higher here, and these articles are doing readers of Wikipedia a huge disservice by elevating an irrelevant figure who, to be clear, defined their entire career by self-publishing pseudoscience with three exceptions. I am not asking people to take my word for it, but please consider verifying the claims I’m making here if you’re going to make the claim that he is a “controversial academic”. Were his article to remain, for the sake of accuracy it would need to be reworked to discuss his role as a pseudolonguist rather than an academic, and none of his books would meet Wikipedia’s standards for inclusion as a source in any article other than his own. The article would necessarily be an orphan, as we don’t tend to include quack physicists in articles on physics and while Nostratic has had historical proponents and may warrant its article, it is one of historical interest. We don’t elevate the voices of alternate theories for our understanding of physics on those pages, though the historical understandings are certainly mentioned and of interest. But this isn’t a case of historical understandings or contributions, this is someone who used pseudoscience to continue developing an abandoned theory long after it was abandoned by scholarly consensus, which many of the reviews in question point out. Warrenmck ( talk ) 16:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak -- I've seen an article by him in what appeared to be a reputable scholarly journal (published before the rise of the Internet). Benjamin Whorf was basically an independent scholar without much in the way of formal academic credentials. Also, I don't see why believing in Nostratic means that your article should be d -- the article of Aharon Dolgopolsky, a rather widely-known scholar, should certainly not be d. AnonMoos ( talk ) 19:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Worf was publishing in an era where linguistics was much more defined by informal research, and pointedly he didn't spend decades publishing theories that ran counter to the academic consensus in the lack of evidence (indeed, his theories were influential in part because of the testability of his hypotheses). in mind that there are plenty of high-quality articles about Nostraticists on Wikipedia (see: Sergei Starostin ), they're just predominantly academics who continued working on the idea rather than people who were branching off saying all the other Nostratcisists were wrong and putting forward their own alternative to zero fanfare decades after scholarly consensus had moved on. I think this is more akin to someone continuing to work on homeopathy post the water memory paper being discredited. A fair and proper treatment of the Bomhard article would result in it being an orphaned stub, which it's increasingly converging on in the time since this AfD was posted as others work on cleaning the article. Warrenmck ( talk ) 20:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Balázs Kovács (professor) : Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 14:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 14:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . Full professors at Ivy League universities should pass WP:PROF#C1 , and I think he has enough citations [17] . Weak because his citation record and one book appear to be the only claims to notability. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 16:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per that guideline, research impact needs to be demonstrated through independent reliable sources, and that's not the case here. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 16:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC) PROF#C1 is almost always demonstrated through high citation counts. If you read otherwise somewhere, then what you read differs from standard practice. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per David Eppstein, in this case the independent source is Google Scholar or any other third party citation service. What wont work is a self published statement of an academic about how important they are. -- hroest 18:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management , Hungary , Netherlands , California , and Connecticut . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak The citation profile looks solid (nine papers in the triple-digit range, for example), but there doesn't seem to be much else to go on. XOR'easter ( talk ) 16:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 9 papers with 100+ citations each is strong enough to pass NPROF#1, as demonstrated per GS. -- hroest 19:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] David Eppstein is correct. Lightburst ( talk ) 20:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC) PROF#C1 per David Eppstein. Sndek ( talk ) 19:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Sønderborg railway station : Knowledgegatherer23 ( Say Hello ) 23:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . This has a much more developed article on the Danish Wikipedia, and I'd be astounded if a 120-year-old railway station in a significant European city didn't have lots of sources available for it. I would be surprised though if the majority of those sources were in English. Thryduulf ( talk ) 12:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC) BEFORE was carried out. A station that has been rebuilt twice will have had coverage of the reconstruction in local press and thus will be notable. Garuda3 ( talk ) 15:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC) the Danish article is longer, but contains no sources. Not voting because I haven't done further digging, but I don't think is the right outcome here unless sources are found. -- asilvering ( talk ) 00:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 52, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 04, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Archievenblad : In the current version , 6 sources are listed: 1/ Not accessible; 2/ Advertisement for ads in the journal, does not contribute to notability. 3/ Library catalog entry. Besides the fact that library catalogs are notoriously prone to erroneous or outdated info, this does not contribute to notability. 4/ In passing mention to one of the progenitor journals, the ""Nederlandse Archievenblad"" (sic, typo of ""Nederlandsch Archievenblad""?), does not contribute to notability. 5/ Cannot find a mention of this journal in this book, it does reference the (unrelated) ""Antwerpsch Archievenblad"". Does not contribute to notability. 6/ Probably a copyvio, for which academia.edu is notorious (so we shouldn't link to it). The ""jaarboek"" is financed by the ""Koninklijke Vereniging van Archivarissen Nederland"", the publisher of the journal and is therefore not independent. Therefore, with the possible exception of reference 1, there are no sources indicating notability. One source is not enough, so WP:GNG is not met either. Hence: . Randykitty ( talk ) 15:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Netherlands . Randykitty ( talk ) 15:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Perhaps an article about nl:Koninklijke Vereniging van Archivarissen in Nederland (Royal Association of Archivists in the Netherlands), the association that publishes the journal, could be created, based on the existing Dutch Wikipedia article and with a paragraph or two about the journal. A quick Google search https://www.google.com/search? q=Royal+Association+of+Archivists+in+the+Netherlands suggests that the association is probably notable. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] since NN per se. No objection that someone would rework this as Eastmain suggests. gidonb ( talk ) 12:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:NJOURNALS #3 (sourced historical importance). The sources in the article as nominated are not great: 1-5 do not appear to give reliable in-depth independent coverage, and 6 focuses on an incident triggered by a publication in the journal but is otherwise not really about the journal. But there appears to be in-depth coverage of this journal in The American Archivist and regular reviews of its content in Gazette des archives [17] [18] [19] , I think maybe enough together with the existing footnote 6. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 17:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC) . I am assuming Nederlandsch Archievenblad is the forerunner of this journal under discussion. I agree this journal is covered in the sources provided. I added the Official website to the external links (not that this matters in a deletion discussion). I think I will try to add info to the infobox. I know, I get to have all the fun here! --- Steve Quinn ( talk ) 18:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC) 04, 12 August 2023 (UTC) GNG and given the national and international influence of this Dutch journal of archival science over its 130+ year history. ""Best"" English-language sources thus far include The American Archivist journal article highlighted by David Eppstein, as well as the 2003 introduction to The Manual for the Arrangement and Description of Archives (called the ""bible of modern archivists""), both of which have now been added to the article. (Also wanted to point out that the Acta Historiae Neerlandica actually does mention the correct Archievenblad but that it is mentioned and cited repeatedly as Nederlandse Archievenblad .) As others have said, there appear to be numerous other sources in other languages including Dutch and French and Italian and probably German. Fully acknowledge that this article could be improved further by tracking down additional sources with the help of librarians/library scientists/historians, but this is not sufficient reason to . Cielquiparle ( talk ) 21:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the reasons given by Steve Quinn and Cielquiparle. Philafrenzy ( talk ) 21:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Kaoru Ikeya (director) : When looking for sources, I couldn't find sufficient to indicate he is notable. Boleyn ( talk ) 21:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Fails WP:CREATIVE . I'm afraid I can't remember what inspired me to create this article the best part of 20 years ago, but I seem to have been mistaken in doing so. Tevildo ( talk ) 21:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think so. But do you remember where you found that long quote that's in the article, by any chance? (Added a few sources). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I speculate that it was from a (subsequently-d) review on IMDb, as otherwise I'd have put a link to the source. However, I have no actual memory of the event. Tevildo ( talk ) 17:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Japan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No news coverage. does not satisfy WP:DIRECTOR . Perfectstrangerz ( talk ) 01:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Added a few things. More exists. Meets WP:DIRECTOR - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC) DIRECTOR . DCsansei ( talk ) 21:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , with added sources. Fulmard ( talk ) 07:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , besides articles in Japanese, even looking at Variety I can find reviews [74] , [75] , plus an article about his doc being a surprise hit at the Japanese box office. -- C avarrone 19:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"New Britain Mules : Let'srun ( talk ) 16:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Connecticut . Let'srun ( talk ) 16:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to American Basketball League (1925–1955)#American Basketball League teams, 1933/34 to 1954/55 , where they have an entry, though that entry is also unsourced, and allow the article's recreation if the required sources are brought forward and a standalone article is justified. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 16:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per",keep
+"Palak Purswani : Furthermore, there is a lack of in-depth coverage WP:SIGCOV . The majority of the references consist of brief mentions or promotional announcements. Premature-ish as per WP:TOOSOON . CGGCA201 ( talk ) 12:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India . CGGCA201 ( talk ) 12:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . A significant role does not have to be a leading role. That's why film awards recognize ""best supporting actor/actress"". Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 12:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I agree with Eastmain , A significant role does not have to be a leading role. Also, there are enough notable references to prove the content of the article and that it meets the criteria. Although, It can be edited or can have Citation needed tag wherever there are no notable references and do not need deletion. DSN18 ( talk • contribs ) 18:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Fashion , and Maharashtra . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . There are enough referencing to support notability and do not require deletion. All the reality shows she had done are well known. Also, they link back to her profile from notable articles. It can be improved but no need for deletion. Strivedi1 ( talk ) 12:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Vote-stacking by User:Strivedi1 , an account was formed after the discussion began. This ID also expressed a vote in favor of another ongoing AfD discussion , which involved a page created by the same editor responsible for creating the page of Palak Purswani . CGGCA201 ( talk ) 16:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . :The work and roles of palak purswani in television serials and reality shows are notable and article has notable and verifiable references to prove it. It can be improved by editing if any issues with styling and do not require deletion. Thank you. DSN18 ( talk ) 15:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC) @ DSN18 Your previous vote has already been registered. CGGCA201 ( talk ) 16:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello @ CGGCA201 , thank you for considering my vote. DSN18 ( talk ) 21:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - There must be some concern in this deletion discussion that the page creator has voted twice and did not strike their second ! vote, even when that was pointed out. Moreover that an SPA has appeared in support of the page creator's deletion discussions. Nevertheless Eastmain's point is correct inasmuch as a significant role need not be a lead role. I would ask for clarification: what evidence do we have of significant roles? The lead says She had worked in television serials... She has also been featured in the web series ... She is seen in the second season ... None of these suggest or tell of a significant role. What significant roles has she played that meets the first criterion of WP:NACTOR ? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello @ Sirfurboy , I accept my mistake of second vote and have strikeout the second one. Palak had played important role of ex-girlfriend of Lead in ' Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke ' which is important role and has notable references. one of which is [1] . She was also seen in the web series ' Roohaniyat ' alongside lead Arjun Bijlani [2] [3] She is now also seen in 'Roohaniyat Chapter 2' where the series romantic drama revolves around her too, also providing reference to prove that too. [4] [5] . As far as reality show is concern you will find many notable reference for her for Spitsvilla 7, Nach Baliye season 9 and recently Bigg Boss OTT season 2. [6] . All these references are notable and verifiable to prove it. Thank You. DSN18 ( talk ) 08:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sirfurboy , She also won an award for Most Stylish Reality Show Star recently. DSN18 ( talk ) 11:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks. I am not familiar with much of the context of this, nor with the quality of the sources so not ready to come down as a clear at this point, but neither do I see a clear reason to . Deletion is a discussion, and if no one familiar with the quality of these sources can demonstrate a reason why these should not count as independent significant coverage, I would suspect there is no reason to . But my lack of expertise here is showing, so I will leave it at that for now. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 11:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This source [47] , which is source 2 of those posted, does look like significant independent coverage. Some of the others less so, but on balance, and in the absence of any strong arguments that the sources provided lack the necessary quality, I think this one crosses the line. - . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 06:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . There are several reliable, secondary and independent sources which have significant coverage which is also independent to the subject. Such as abplive, india today, timesofindia etc. Thus it passes the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR . Fade258 ( talk ) 06:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:NACTOR . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 22:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ "" 'Splitsvilla 7' contestant Palak Purswani to enter as Kunal's ex-girlfriend in 'Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke'!"" . abplive . com . 17 June 2019. ^ ""Bigg Boss OTT 2: Know everything about 'Splitsvilla 7 fame Palak Purswani"" . jagrantv .com . 23 June 2023. ^ ""रूहानियत की अनु हैं इतनी पढ़ी-लिखी"" . abplive .com . ^ ""Arjun-Kanika's 'Roohaniyat Chapter 2' Is A Pill For Love & Romance"" . Ahmedabad Mirror . 14 July 2022. ^ ""Watch: Arjun Bijlani, Kanika Mann's 'Roohaniyat Chapter 2' to release on July 22; trailer out"" . freepressjournal.in . 14 July 2022. ^ ""Bigg Boss OTT 2 Weekend Ka Vaar: Salman Khan announces Palak Purswani's eviction"" . India Today . 26 June 2023. The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"May Mabel Adamson : I see that there is an entry in an Australian biographical dictionary but I'm not really seeing what the claim to notability is in terms of the en.wiki inclusion criteria. JMWt ( talk ) 10:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Education , and Australia . JMWt ( talk ) 10:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women . Skynxnex ( talk ) 13:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . That would be WP:ANYBIO #3! -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 16:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC) People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Therefore this can't actually be used as an argument for !. JMWt ( talk ) 16:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC) GNG . What do you think the point of WP:ANYBIO #3 is, exactly? It's essentially to point out that it would be utterly ludicrous if Wikipedia didn't consider someone notable when a reliable biographical dictionary did. So, yes, it's a perfectly valid argument. Far more so than your vague ""I don't think she's notable"", which is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 18:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You can't simply offer presence in a national dictionary of biography as a slamdunk, the policy guideline you've literally pointed to says so. There is no guarantee of inclusion, as it says. I say this is one of the cases when this person hasn't met the inclusion standards because they've not done anything notable. If you want to argue on the usual basis, then kindly offer 3 significant independent reliable sources in the usual way. JMWt ( talk ) 18:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no such requirement. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC) 3SOURCES JMWt ( talk ) 12:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC) 40, 16 March 2024 (UTC) 34, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Articles for deletion/Amy Hannah Adamson . Let's see if the other visitors to this page agree that being included in a national biographical dictionary is enough. Drmies ( talk ) 20:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Satisfies GNG. Satisfies criteria 3 of ANYBIO with an entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography . Also has coverage in Trove, in particular: [23] [24] [25] [26] . Also has coverage in Dazzling Prospects: Women in the Queensland Teachers' Union Since 1945 (1988) by Roberta Bonnin. James500 ( talk ) 08:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC) ROUTINE - simple statements about appointments in newspapers are not usually considered sufficient for notability. JMWt ( talk ) 12:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The ADB article satisfies GNG, so trying to pick off the newspaper articles in Trove is a red herring. However, WP:ROUTINE is a guideline for the notability of events, not the notability of people. An SNG is not applicable to any article outside the subject to which the SNG actually applies. James500 ( talk ) 13:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok that's fair. Let's look at WP:BASIC which is part of the notability guidelines for people. It states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. The ADB does not on its own satisfy the standard of WP:ANYBIO and trivial coverage is not usually sufficient to establish notability per WP:BASIC . So let's look at the Trove articles you supply. 1 is coverage amounting to a few paras of an appointment. 2 is coverage amounting to a few paras of an appointment 3 is coverage amounting to a few paras of an appointment. 4 is slightly longer but still is only a few paras. These are by definition trivial. The only source which could count towards notability is the book you mentioned. JMWt ( talk ) 13:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The depth of coverage in the ADB article is substantial. The ADB article is not trivial. James500 ( talk ) 14:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . User:JMWt , please just accept that you are arguing against longstanding consensus here. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Necrothesp , we've butted heads plenty of times, but I think we both have a decent understanding of our guidelines, and the whole ""how we usually conduct these discussions""--you and I have been in enough AfDs to know how erroneous that is. Drmies ( talk ) 16:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography is sufficient for WP:ANYBIO #3. Curbon7 ( talk ) 06:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . JMWt, you appear to be arguing that being a teacher is not significant enough to be notable, but that's not how most of our notability criteria (including the ones for this case) work. If someone has depth of coverage in multiple good sources (or in one extraordinarily good source, or as in this case both of those things) they're notable, even if you don't think what they did was significant. If someone does not have that coverage then they're non-notable even if you think what they did was significant. If a source doesn't describe any accomplishment you find significant, and instead provides depth of coverage in information about the subject that you think is insignificant, it is still in-depth; depth and significance are different things. If you want to push Wikipedia towards a more significance-based standard of notability, and away from its current emphasis on sourcing over significance, then I'm very sympathetic, but deletion nominations for people who clearly pass the existing standards are not a good path to that goal. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] in Dict Nat Bio. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 01:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC) / [ reply ] She is in ADB and I found more refs to her in Trove than previously indicated. She won the University of Sydney Botany medal in her senior examinations, she was an educator and university graduate at at time when women had only just been admitted to Australian universities, the manuscripts and papers of the school she was principal of are kept in the State Library of Queensland and she is featured in them. I can fill out her article, show she is notable and add more refs later. LPascal ( talk ) 01:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Lilt (company) : MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , United States of America , and California . DreamRimmer ( talk ) 01:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and remove promo content. articles already linked provide SIGCOV Jack4576 ( talk ) 01:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC) ROUTINE . Care to provide sources that both focus entirely on the company and thoroughly examine it? Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 02:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagree. Axios and SaaS Industry are not routine ""focus entirely on the company and thorough examination"" is plainly not the guideline or threshold Jack4576 ( talk ) 05:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC) This article is written like an advertisement. It is now gone. CastJared ( talk ) 08:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ CastJared What do you mean by It is now gone ? AncientWalrus ( talk ) 19:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Means it's removed. Like the promo writting. CastJared ( talk ) 03:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as promo content has been removed. It is notable per SIGCOV in reliable sources that goes beyond routine. AncientWalrus ( talk ) 10:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems to me that the article should be left for revision and removal of the promotional text. -- Loewstisch ( talk ) 18:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It appears that the promotional content has been removed, and that the listed sources are sufficient for crossing the notability threshold . Sal2100 ( talk ) 16:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Anna Green (Hollyoaks) : One of the sources is WP:PRIMARY , so the article essentially has one source for proving notability. Nothing found via WP:BEFORE . (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 06:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television . (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 06:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Hollyoaks characters ; otherwise, this may clearly be Fandom territory. -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 06:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Unless the reception is expanded and/or analysis section added, this is a clear WP:GNG failure. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Noted Slgrandson and Piotrus' concerns - I will address them and work on the article. Rain the 1 10:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I have made steady progress with the expansion so far. I have found a bunch of other sources from the archives that I will use to continue improving the article further over the coming days. Rain the 1 21:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC) HEY . RT1 has worked hard in massively improving and sourcing the article. There is now in depth development and reception and multiple sources showing notability and in depth coverage. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 16:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC) I agree that Raintheone has made significant improvements to the article. per WP:HEY . Toughpigs ( talk ) 17:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC) As User:Toughpigs said above, significant improvements have been made and I think the article passes WP:GNG. – JuneGloom07 Talk 21:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I have been working on the article since the nomination to address the concerns mentioned above. Given what I have added, the time of nomination vs now - I think there is enough sourced content for an article. There is real world content concerning casting, character creation, characterisation, plots with real world coverage, her role within the show is explained and reception has been added. Per WP:HEY it does not match the nominators reasons for deletion, it passes WP:GNG and I have used various sources meeting WP:SIGCOV. I feel ing is the better decision here. Rain the 1 17:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 🥒 Greenish Pickle! 🥒 ( 🔔 ) 02:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Asian Jake Paul : This does not need its own page. — V ORTEX 3427 ( Talk! ) 08:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Internet . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - The song is notable on its own despite its connections to the two aforementioned subjects. Something which I'm pretty sure a majority of the internet will probably agree to. Deleting this article would be like deleting the articles of individual songs from an album by a artist, additionally not all of the chart positions are covered by the articles you mentioned. DovahDuck ( talk ) 19:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC) NOTMERGE . This article provides additional context that would be inappropriate to include in the main article (per WP:DUE ). I basing this off the fact that WP:GNG holds, given the level of sourced detail in the article. A source analysis can change my ! vote, of course. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 ( talk ) 02:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per reasons listed by the editors above. 03:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Barbasthetalkingdog ( talk • contribs ) Satisfies WP:NSINGLE (independent coverage and chart position) and a separate article provides better context for the single as its own notable subject. Qwaiiplayer ( talk ) 13:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Chart positions only indicates that it may be notable, according to the guideline you linked. As for independent coverage: The Daily Dot and Newsweek are situational ( WP:RSP ). The first is mainly about the iDubbbz-RiceGum feud and only briefly mentions the diss track. Newsweek leans towards unreliable after it was acquired by IBT Media ; this source also only briefly mentions the song as well. Press Reality and TrendingAllDay 404. Googling the first doesn't come up with anything, and Googling the second brings up only a handful of social media accounts. Not much to suggest that these are reliable sources. The Reykjavik Grapevine also does not have significant coverage and does not appear to be a journalistic piece. Regardless of reliability, none of the working sources here appear to meet WP:SIGCOV . — V ORTEX 3427 ( Talk! ) 22:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC) WHATSIGCOV , significant coverage is the ability to extract information from the sources without WP:OR . In the article, there is clearly nontrivial sourced information about the single, which is why I would argue for WP:SIGCOV . 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 ( talk ) 12:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing that on the essay you linked. It says that as an example, "" Martin Walker 's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton , that ""In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice"" is plainly a trivial mention of that band."" So I think that these sources should be classified as trivial mentions. — V ORTEX 3427 ( Talk! ) 22:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry for the confusion. I was just saying that if an article has been written about the subject and the sources represent the content (ie. no OR), then WP:SIGCOV is guaranteed. That is the idea behind WP:WHATSIGCOV . I believe this is the case here but a more thorough source analysis could always change my mind. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 ( talk ) 03:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Qee : Nothing I could find online that meets WP:GNG . TLA (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of North America-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as per non, lack of independant references. Teraplane ( talk ) 04:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [13] and this [14] help notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Articles_for_deletion/Toy2R . pinktoebeans (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Hadley Learning Community : Earlier AfD 16 years ago advanced arguments now rejected by the community regarding school notability. AusLondonder ( talk ) 10:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and England . AusLondonder ( talk ) 10:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Available sourcing meets WP:GNG . It would be very rare for a secondary school in the UK not to. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC) 15, 22 February 2024 (UTC) 32, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well I'm not finding them. I'm seeing a lot of directory listings and government websites which do not contribute to satisfying notability requirements. Simply asserting that all schools or all schools in the UK are notable is repeating an argument that has been comprehensively rejected by the community and should therefore be disregarded. AusLondonder ( talk ) 17:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Two cursory searches (beyond a plain Google look) give evidence of notability, with sources available through 1) Google Scholar (11 results, including Engaging parents: why and how Technical Report , Shaping a New Educational Landscape: Exploring Possibilities for Education in the 21st Century and Business Development - A sure way to spell success . This last one has a £14.00 fee, too steep for me, but still, it exists!) and 2) through ProQuest, accessible by logging in first to Wikmedia Commons , then The Wikipedia Library Platform available to any registered editor whose account is six months old and has 500 edits. Once on the platform, scroll down to ProQuest, where you can access 184 ProQuest links to articles containing the search term ""Hadley Learning Community"" (in quotes); even if only 10% have significant coverage, GNG would be met easily. See: Synetrix provides ICT for Hadley Learning Community , Olympian dives in with stories to tell in children's book , and Pupils are filmed for Children in Need choir , Primary s 'good' rating , Children dress up for author's visit . Were it up to me, editors nominating articles for AfD would be required to conduct searches beyond Google. — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 19:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Telford special school shortlisted for national award Hadley primary school rated as ""good"" Landmark Telford learning community hailed by Minister New careers and enterprise hub opens at Hadley Learning Community Education partnership will be a boost for Telford students and local economy Glowing Ofsted report for Hadley Learning Community HLC Primary success in Jaguar Challenge — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 21:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Glen Vella : While he did participate in Eurovision he hasn't won it, the only win listed in any version of the article being a Malta-specific contest. I am also having a hard time finding sources to help support this man's notability in a Wikipedia sense (music reviews, coverage of his Eurovision performance, just general coverage of him that isn't an interview , etc.). (string: ""glen vella"") The only source that has been proffered thus far (by apparent conflict-of-interest editor CAMIM045 ( talk · contribs )) is a webpage that is now dead and hasn't been archived that I can see. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 15:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While he did participate in Eurovision he hasn't won it - If you read the article well there is NO mention that he won the Eurovision! There is the link to his facebook and instagram account! Kindly refrain from updating any article again. Thank you! CAMIM045 ( talk ) 15:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC) NBAND bullet 9). — Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 15:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC) Eurovision Song Contest Entry: https://eurovision.tv/participant/glen-vella Muzika Muzika win: https://tvmnews.mt/en/news/video-glen-vella-wins-the-first-edition-of-muzika-muzika/ Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/GlenVellaOfficial Instagram Page: https://www.instagram.com/glenvellaofficial/ CAMIM045 ( talk ) 11:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We don't cite social media. What is your connexion with Vella? — Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 15:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Coverage here [11] and here [12] seems fine. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Limit it to . mt sources, and a ton show up. He got engaged [13] and the typical celebrity articles, all of which can be used to flesh out the article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Malta . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC) Jhonblvk ( talk ) 19:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE . ✗ plicit 23:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC) https://www.proquest.com/docview/2790869123/FDD89F1A622A4A1EPQ/1 , https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/harsa-biss-the-official-music-video-launched-by-festivals-malta.869653 , https://newsbook.com.mt/en/prime-minister-meets-muzika-muzika-winner-glen-vella/ , https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/Glen-Vella-s-One-Life-short-lived.364738 , https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/cocciante-praise-for-glen-vella.349920 , https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/glen-vella-praises-former-pbs-chairman.367026 , etc. - Indefensible ( talk ) 01:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"List of GMA Network stations : MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Philippines . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm guessing that it will turn out to meet NLIST, but if it doesn't, into GMA Network . It's short enough that it wouldn't be awkward. small jars t c 09:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC) Spin-out lists such as this one are generally exempt from WP:NLIST where merging it back to the parent article would become too large. Secondly, it serves a designated, internal navigational purpose, where most of the entries have links to Wikipedia pages. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 11:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, Why? I Ask . That is a good point about the parent article becoming too large. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC) per Why? I Ask. ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 23:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's a reason you're on ANI, Snoozy, and this nom set is not helping your case at all. This isn't getting d and a list of network affiliates can easily be sourced. If you're not asking for deletion, there are talk pages you should be using regarding article content, and AfD is not meant for this purpose at all. Nate • ( chatter ) 02:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not seeing enough justification for ing. Abhishek0831996 ( talk ) 05:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC) SIZESPLIT . Meets WP:NLIST per above arguments. SBKSPP ( talk ) 00:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Al-Nabarawi : Fails WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Science , and Iraq . UtherSRG (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 02:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Actually quite notable. There is an English translation of his book. He's got an Iranica article and an EI2 article . The only source in the article actually gives his death date as 1193. I can't fault the nominator for failing to connect the dots, however. They are very hard to connect. But they illustrate the difficulty of approaching topics where there is no definitive English spelling. First, Google distinguishes ""al-Nabarawi"" from the form with the macrons, ""al-Nabarāwī"". The latter will be more common in academic writing. Also, the Arabic may be spelled ""al-Nibrawi"" (again, with our without macrons). In addition, it is only one part ( nisba ) of a full Arabic name and in this case the primary sources are not consistent. Both of the two reference works I cited prefer the nisba al-Shayzarī. Note that Iranica drops the Arabic al- (as Persian does). They would do the same with Nabarawi. Sources that use ""al-Nabarawi"" may ultimately rely on Brockelmann , who strings together all the nisbas, putting al-Nabarawi last. Srnec ( talk ) 20:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the sources uncovered by Srnec. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk ) 03:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Appears to be notable from the sources found by Srnec. Mgp28 ( talk ) 09:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Network Advertising Initiative : Deleted at 2008 AfD as non-notable. Boleyn ( talk ) 18:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . There's plenty of independent coverage; the current citations are misleading. A glance at the article's talkpage would explain that. There are nearly three dozen mentions from 1999 to present in the New York Times alone [37] . Here's a critique of the organization already used as a citation in the wiki article: [38] . Just because the article needs help doesn't mean it should be d. It was only d in 2008 because it was unreferenced. This organization is mentioned in a sizeable number of other wiki articles, including several court cases. In the age of targeted online advertising, the need for this wiki article seems more and more important. Persingo ( talk ) 08:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The organization is definitely notable: it is an important part of the history of advertising industry self-regulation in the US, and the debates and criticisms around that. NAI is widely covered and referred to in mainstream press and academic literature, not just trade press and writing from privacy organizations. The article itself doesn't use as many of those secondary sources as it should; I can take some of the blame for that as I wrote much of this article's text in 2010 as a relatively new editor who had an academic's tendency to rely on primary sources. But the article should be made more current and cite those secondary sources, not be d. Npdoty ( talk ) 03:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Could those editors advocating bring some more sources into the discussion or add them to the article to address the nominator's concerns? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is it typically required that editors have to go through the longer steps of making significant edits to an article just to avoid deletion of the entire article through this process? After a very brief search, I would likely add these two New York Times articles on the origination of NAI, and perhaps this 2011 New York Times blog post that reported just on a change of leadership of the organization, to the History subsection of the article. https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/05/business/internet-companies-set-policies-to-help-protect-consumer-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/04/technology/online-privacy-remains-a-consumer-question-after-doubleclick.html https://archive.nytimes.com/mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/online-advertising-group-hires-new-chief/ Npdoty ( talk ) 17:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC) NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 13:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The available sources seem to establish enough notability. popo dameron ⁠ talk 18:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep' Sufficient sources have been provided and available in Google search. Maxcreator ( talk ) 00:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Red Rock, Yavapai County, Arizona : I couldn't find any coverage of a place called Red Rock aside from Red Rock State Park . ""Red Rock Crossing"" seems to be a simple road crossing of the river which is sourced only to a now-defunct special interest group which opposed a proposed bridge. – dlthewave ☎ 16:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona . – dlthewave ☎ 16:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC) The community association gives a bit of history. The historic cemetery lists the names of some of the early settlers. History of Red Rock , although it does not indicate it was more than a ranch. Another history of Red Rock , and of early settlers, the Schuermans. Also discusses the first school and cemetery. The GIS for Yavapai County shows the community on its map. Most important, go to Google Maps, or any map, and you'll see a community of many houses there, and one of the roads in the community is Schuermans Drive. Magnolia677 ( talk ) 18:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Magnolia677. Does appear to have been a recognised community. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per Magnolia677's analysis. Passes GNG and GEOLAND. Onel 5969 TT me 16:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above, meets GNG. ~ EDDY ( talk / contribs ) ~ 23:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , per the sources found by Magnolia677 this meets GNG. TheCatalyst31 Reaction • Creation 03:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keeep , sources provided by Magnolia677 are sufficient to pass the general notability guideline. Jacona ( talk ) 23:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Last March , the Schuerman Homestead House, at 120 Loy Lane in Red Rock, was added to the National Register of Historic Places listings in Yavapai County, Arizona . In 1954, the movie Drum Beat staring Alan Ladd was filmed there, see [9] . Magnolia677 ( talk ) 11:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Joanna Pacitti : Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women , Television , and Pennsylvania . Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 01, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure what the issue is, I echo everyone else who's found SIGCOV. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This about her ""disqualification"" [10] among others was the first I pulled up. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Sources 1 and 3 given by Alvaldi provide significant, independent coverage from reliable sources, therefore GNG is met. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 01:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC) Per Alvaldi. Please WP:BEFORE Jack4576 ( talk ) 01:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're on the [11] cusp of being banned from AFD, so I'd save the lecturing, champ. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC) this is something like your fifteenth AfD nomination in the past two weeks, all on American Idol contestants, for which WP:SIGCOV exists and is easily findable. This nomination is particularly confusing, as the whole reason she left American Idol was because of her past in the music industry and the ""ton of press"" she received for it before Idol . I'm not sure how you can do research and not encounter this fact, as it was heavily reported. Furthermore, all of these nominations seem to hinge on successive misinterpretations (that you have admitted) of WP:NSINGER . It really looks like you've just gone down the list of contestants and carpet-bombed AfDs -- and later s, when those AfDs stopped going your way. Gnomingstuff ( talk ) 03:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC) 56, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] -- In addition to the sources Alvadi mentioned, ProQuest turns up profiles in the Chicago Tribune (""Joanna's summer fuels her 'Crazy Life'""), McClatchy (""Don't miss 21-year-old Joanna's talent""), the Philadelphia Inquirer (""'Crazy' journey to dream""), and others. These all predate her appearance on American Idol , so WP:NINHERITED does not apply. Gnomingstuff ( talk ) 21:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 51, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Vectra AI : Citation #3, #5, #6, and #8 (4 out of 9) are sources that are primary and not independent of the subject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 10:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Companies , and United States of America . Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 10:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC) This talks about the company [15] and a company discussion paper by PwC [16] Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Various articles that are not PRs mentioning that the company found a vulnerability in Microsoft Teams [17] [18] [19] and an article on Nasdaq [20] GetMeTheMoon ( talk ) 08:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still feel this debate could do with a little bit more input to firm up consensus either way. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - my initial reaction was to argue for """" as the nomination is malformed. If four of the nine sources in the article aren't in-depth and independent, then that means 5 are. But looking at those remaining sources, 1 is not independent (company's former website), 2 looks in-depth and independent, 4 is not independent (paper produced by topic), 7 is a list, and 9 looks independent. So I think there's two good sources in the article. I don't think the sources brought up in the above discussion are all that great, a lot of quoting the company, but added together I think a somewhat-useful NPOV and V article can be created for our readers, per WP:WHYN . 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 00:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Doehling–Heselton Memorial Trophy : Joeykai ( talk ) 00:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC) https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-reporter-ripon-lawrence-rivalry-2000/136670698/ https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-oshkosh-northwestern-ripon-college-r/136670649/ PK-WIKI ( talk ) 00:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Meets GNG. Books turn up coverage. 1 Lightburst ( talk ) 00:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I added some more newspaper coverage cites, hopefully this helps. ~ ฅ(ↀωↀ=) neko-chan nyan 18:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"2020 Lithuanian Baseball League : Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Lithuania . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Only one source and that appears to be a primary. Article had languished for nearly three years. Important safety tip: It can take an AfD to get the sources. Thank you, Bearas ! Last1in ( talk ) 23:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC) 59, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Probably - Found these sources in various local media within 10 minutes [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] . Seems to meet WP:GNG . Respublik ( talk ) 22:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you Respublik, all references added to the article. article improved with additional references added, and it does indeed meet WP:GNG . Simple google search comes back with 21k of findings in Lithuanian media alone and countless in English. Bearas ( talk ) 17:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Bearas and Respublik; meets GNG. — Prodraxis { talk • contribs } (she/her) 17:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Anant Patel : Sourcing (or lack of) is purely routine local media coverage. 𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 14:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] He is a state level representative, not local politician. MrMkG ( talk ) 14:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you MrMkG for your contribution. Could we please centre this discussion around how the available sources establish WP:BLP and WP:NPOL . Thank you, and may God bless you. 𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 14:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe nom has misunderstood, he's not a local politician but a state politician. Per WP:NPOL members of state legislatures are notable. Here's a profile from the Indian Express AusLondonder ( talk ) 15:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per AusLondonder. The source they link confirms that he's a district-level politician for Navsari district . — Moriwen ( talk ) 15:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Thanks for that, just to clarify though he represents that district in the Gujarat Legislative Assembly , the state parliament of Gujarat, so he's at an even higher level of government than district level. AusLondonder ( talk ) 15:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You're quite right! I stand corrected, thanks. — Moriwen ( talk ) 15:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . AusLondonder ( talk ) 15:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Gujarat . AusLondonder ( talk ) 15:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC) NPOL as a member of a province-wide legislative body. JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Meets WP:NPOL . Simple search brings up many reliable media news sources that can be used to expand the page on this politician. RangersRus ( talk ) 20:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Subject passes WP:NPOL as an Indian state legislator. There appears to be sufficient coverage to surpass WP:NOPAGE . Curbon7 ( talk ) 00:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Meets WP:NPOL . Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 10:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC) NPOL . – DreamRimmer ( talk ) 17:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The article probably should be improved, but the state legislature is not a ""local"" office, state legislators automatically pass WP:NPOL in a way that municipal politicians do not , and better sourcing is available to expand this with. Nomination appears to be mere tit-for-tat retaliation for an article the nominator created about a smalltown mayor being listed for AFD, but smalltown mayors and state legislators are not equivalent topics. Bearcat ( talk ) 17:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Stagestruck: Theater, AIDS, and the Marketing of Gay America : Lacks reviews, none of the awards are major. UPE and notability tags removed without explanation or improvement so brought it here for discussion. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 12:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and New York . Owen× ☎ 12:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Found entries at CNN and LibraryThing . Will add something later. -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 13:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC) LibraryThing doesn't provide any coverage that meet WP:NBOOK . The content seems to be user generated . ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 14:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC) Right, I figured that out by now. But even if it doesn't count as a WP-worthy source, it's still some kind of information that the book reverberated somehow in the wild. I was encouraged by the fact that LT has its WP article. I won't include it. Thanks for the heads-up. -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 17:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC) 33, 18 January 2024 (UTC) Review in CNN above, and reviews in the Library Journal and The Booklist is enough to meet WP:NBOOK (both via TWL). ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 14:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above sources. Toughpigs ( talk ) 15:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Prince Abdulaziz bin Musa'ed Sports City : No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. The SNG says that stadiums are not presumed notable and must meet GNG. There is only one source and it is just a very brief database type listing on the ministry of sports website. I'm generally more lenient than the guidelines on stadiums but this one misses the guidelines by a mile. Tagged by others for sources since December with no additions since the tagging. North8000 ( talk ) 03:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The Arabic article has several references that could be added. See ar: مدينة الأمير عبد العزيز بن مساعد الرياضية Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 03:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Football , and Saudi Arabia . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 03:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and to Ḥaʼil , It says it's a multi-use stadium, so and to the city it's in. Govvy ( talk ) 09:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The stadium opened in 1981. There ought to have been lots of print and broadcast media coverage when plans to build it were announced and when it was officially opened. I don't read Arabic, though, and I don't know where I would find archives of Saudi media from around 1981. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 13:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Al-Tai FC where it is mentioned - it is not mentioned at Ḥaʼil , and in any event it is primarily a football stadium. Giant Snowman 11:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Stadium is notably used by two professional teams in Saudi Arabia. One of which plays in the Saudi Pro League. -- Tshak13 ( talk ) 01:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC) GNG with the sources already in the article, though it also appears to have been WP:HEYed . SportingFlyer T · C 16:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC) GNG Lightburst ( talk ) 20:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Rugby League Conference North West Premier : Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 ( talk ) 20:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 21:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Rugby league , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC) As it is known where this league falls into the wider structure via refs on the RLC page, I would lean towards ing the article if a few more references could be found. Will work on incorporating those refs onto this page. Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC) to North West Men's League . Mn1548 ( talk ) 15:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC) and to North West Men's League as successor competition. Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons : It has numerous issues that have persisted over the years, and a variety of editors have created conflicting and confusing edits and s. In addition, this page is highly repetitive with numerous other pages that list and discuss D&D monsters in various contexts. I originally wrote this page to be a holistic explanation of D&D monsters--an attempt to create a high-level overview. As an example, the page currently includes some discussion of the belief that monster-fighting is itself ""sociopathic."" This discussion is not about any specific monster per se, but rather the concept of fighting monsters to gain experience. At the time I created the page, this discussion seemed noteworthy but did not clearly fit in existing pages. However, it is clear that the D&D pages are organized differently, and this page does not fit into the overall D&D project. This page has created more problems than it has solved, and I believe its existence lowers the quality and clarity of all D&D pages. The talk page for this article is, in my view, a record of this article's confused purpose, the errors it's generated, etc. Attempts have been made to fix these problems through edits, but this has resulted in stagnant editor conflicts while the article itself has only gotten worse--less clarity of purpose, more confusing edits, etc. So I propose deleting outright. My rationale in bullet point: This page is redundant and harmful to the overall D&D project It was not created by consensus or by the D&D project to solve any particular problems; rather, it was created by one editor (me) who now thinks it has done more harm than good The problems with this page are uncontroversial: it has a variety of issue tags that have not been contested nor addressed Failure to achieve clarity/consensus on the page purpose has made it a magnet for WP:LISTCRUFT Attempts to fix through editing and discussion have failed. Anything salvageable would be better achieved through WP:BLOWITUP Geethree ( talk ) 19:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 22 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While there are certainly things I don't like about this article, such as the maintenance tags, the topic is clearly notable and fixable problems are not a reason for deletion. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 19:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Like Pppery I think the topic is clearly notable and very relevant. I does have issues, but that is not a reason for deletion as they can be solved by normal editing - although that editing will involve a lot of work. I think it is far from perfect, but still a lot better than having no treatment of this topic, so I do not at all think it hurts the project. I did not percieve a stagnant edit conflict, but I am sorry if I did generate that impression when I undid a large good faith trimming effort , because I have thought then and still think now that useful content had been cut out together with overly detailed content. The current state is to a significant degree a result of a great number of decisions over a number of years not to have a number of sub-topic articles, leading to cover them here as the parent topic. I still think this article can work fine in a two-partite way which we more or less already have in place: A general discussion of the topic (currently headings 1-3) and a collection of relevant monsters which are yet not notable enough for a stand-alone article and do not have a more fitting place (currently heading 4-6). Some secondary source to help improve both parts have already been collected . Daranios ( talk ) 20:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Games . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Deletion is not a substitute for discussion, and this does not address the amount of work that has gone into making this whole topic less bad over the past decade. Look at ""what links here"" and you begin to see this is not a typical article, or even a typical list article. Jclemens ( talk ) 21:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , but I would not be averse to creating a project-space draft alternative to propose for substitution for the current content. BD2412 T 03:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per all the comments above - no problems here are unsurmountable. BOZ ( talk ) 04:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC) Agreed with all editors involved. CastJared ( talk ) 08:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC) NOTCLEANUP . This article needs heavy removal of plotcruft, especially of minor monsters. But the subject of D&D's monsters is notable overall and has been discussed in reliable sources. I don't see the benefit of deletion here. Sorry, but ""this page could be fixed but I'm too lazy to"" is not a convincing argument, stop kicking the can down the road. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This feels like ownership behavior ("" it was created by one editor (me) ""). I think many of this article's issues stem from it being a target for d content from other d articles. But in general, this type of conversation on a scope & structure should have started at either the article's talk page or at the relevant project talk page (echoing above that AfD shouldn't be used to trigger cleanup ). Sariel Xilo ( talk ) 15:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC) In fairness, such a discussion had been started at Talk:Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons#Cruft removal , it just stagnated after not producing a solution equally accepted by everyone, or something like that. Daranios ( talk ) 19:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't intend to claim ownership and I apologize if it came off that way. Rather, I wanted to add context that this page did not originate as a community project, was not intended to solve a consensus problem or gap, etc. I do still believe it would be better to start over and establish a stronger, more clear foundation, but I am happy to defer to consensus. It's clear my approach is a distinct minority. Geethree ( talk ) 16:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Due to multiple deletions/rs/s from a number of other articles and lists, this current article is certainly a complete hodge-podge mess. But, the notability of the topic itself is pretty clear. And I don't believe this is a case where a WP:TNT argument is justified, since most of the actual cleanup can be done simply by deleting a lot of the unsourced or non-notable lists that are scattered throughout it. Just for example, it seems like when the old Fiend (Dungeons & Dragons) article was d into this one, it was simply copied and pasted over in its entirety, resulting in a random list of non-notable creatures with no non-primary sources appearing in the middle of the article - removing things like that is pretty simple, and would go a long way to improving the article to decent shape. Rorshacma ( talk ) 18:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC) I think the original idea of an article as a high-level overview is a good one. Needs edits to better fit the lede and purpose but that can be done. SomeoneDreaming ( talk ) 23:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . It seems that, as others noted, this needs cleanup and de-cruftigying from some too inclusive rs in the past. But why blow it up? The topic was and is notable, isn't it? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 13:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . There might be work to be done, but the topic is notable and this is hardly WP:TNT material. / Julle ( talk ) 21:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Inffinito : nearlyevil 665 04:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC) the page was created (by me) in a rush in order to make decisions there clearer, would you please consider withdrawing until the other Afd is closed? Thanks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . nearlyevil 665 04:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per nom, fails GNG and NORG. Source in the article and found in BEFORE are event promo, mill news, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 18:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sigh.... OK, so much for temporary withdrawal but hey. All right, then, . Enough independent reliable sources covering the subject. Some are even on the page.... A lot more exists, just click news for example. O Globo mentioned its 25 years of existence or this . The festival has been repeatedly described by reliable sources as the main Brazilian film event outside Brazil. Also see Veja ( here ) or this . ETC. Not notable, how? - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC) I also found this article in The Vancouver Sun discussing Inffinito's Brazilian Film Festival in the context of appreciation of Brazilian film. Toughpigs ( talk ) 17:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC) GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 00:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I think there is a valid concern about whether the sources are simply routine coverage . However, my judgment is that these sources show there is something notable here, and putting the content under the umbrella of the parent organization seems like a reasonable editorial decision at this time. -- Mojo Hand ( talk ) 15:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"ION International Film Festival : Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . It gets SIGCOV in this 2009 CNN piece Traveling film festival lands in heart of troubled Niger Delta , and in this Reuters piece Nigeria an unlikely stop on film-festival circuit . That is two SIGCOVs from two WP:RS/Ps . Aszx5000 ( talk ) 16:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Reuters article is also repeated in The Hollywood Reporter (also an RS/P) here Spirit of optimism shines through at Nigerian film fest ; shows that the core ""film trade"" also recognize the festival. Aszx5000 ( talk ) 17:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"2023 Mableton mayoral election : It has not been covered by any media outside of the Atlanta metropolitan area, failing WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:GNG . Sounder Bruce 04:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Georgia (U.S. state) . Sounder Bruce 04:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Academic regalia of Columbia University : Very little in-depth independent coverage. Filetime ( talk ) 20:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Article topic is covered in significant depth in the Wolgast article (59 pages solely dedicated to this topic), as well as in the books on the general history of academic regalia in the United States and the adoption of the Intercollegiate Code of Academic Costume. Normsupon ( talk ) 06:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Education , and New York . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. In line with other Academic regalia of... articles such as Harvard and Stanford. Well sourced and citations given. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per Normsupon. A Washington Post 2017 article on University regalia has a section on Columbia ( Why caps and gowns at graduation? Let’s go back 900 years ), underlying Fuzheado's point (above) that it is as notable as other Universities. Aszx5000 ( talk ) 20:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Not clear at all to me why this article would be d. Also like every year I got to a college graduation to try and figure out who is wearing what and why I come to this page and the one on Stanford, and Harvard, and Oxford and Cambridge and a few others. Jjazz76 ( talk ) 01:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC) GNG KylieTastic ( talk ) 15:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 20:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Jamath Shoffner : Joeykai ( talk ) 03:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany , Ireland , Luxembourg , and North Carolina . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I found [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , among many more sources. Ongoing coaching career with pro Belgian team (helping them reach semifinal of Belgian Cup) and has coached one of most high profile Luxembourg teams (F91 Dudelange) and was assistant of Luxembourg natiomal team and a Major League Soccer team, not to mention a pro playing career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 05:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources above. Pelotas talk | contribs 04:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources above. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 06:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Dhaka Union of Journalists : The remainder of the sources are not enough to establish notability. Bremps ... 00:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Organizations , and Bangladesh . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC) BEFORE . One of the largest trade unions in Bangladesh, one of the largest countries in the world, representing thousands of professional journalists, is the type of article an encyclopedia should have. We should use WP:COMMONSENSE regarding articles such as this. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 00:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Vinegarymass911 rationale and a quick search which reveals this is a 70+ old active and prominent organization that has been cited in numerous books and periodicals for decades. Recommend withdrawing the nomination. WilsonP NYC ( talk ) 17:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WilsonP NYC , please be specific about the numerous books and periodicals you found. It would help your argument to actually name those sources or even link to them. L iz Read! Talk! 07:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC) BEFORE, prior to this nomination “the minimum search expected is a normal Google search , a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search” and doing so for this article leaves fairly little doubt that this step was skipped. WilsonP NYC ( talk ) 02:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Wang Guangyang : Was sent to draft, but returned to mainspace without improvement. I asked User:Folly Mox to take a look and see if they could improve the sourcing, and they did work on the article, but as they said on their talk page, the subject is a bit out of their area of expertise. I can't find any in-depth sourcing, so it fails WP:GNG . Onel 5969 TT me 12:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , History , and China . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [10] [11] [12] [13] (and many other sources available with a search for ""汪廣洋""). — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 13:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oops – I misinterpreted the talk page request to improve the formatting of the citations, not to find additional sources. The article subject has got his own chapter subheading in the Ming Shi . The reason I didn't add any additional citations is because they'd all point to the same spot. I suspect I have access to the same versions of most of the standard histories as our Chinese language editors who cite using search strings instead of page numbers. It's actually quicker to look up that way, especially if the source is not famous enough to earn a modern punctuated edition. This person's actually notable enough to be covered by modern historians (Mx. Granger's links 2 and 3 above each provide significant coverage), but I claim that the people with biographies in the standard histories are all going to pass GNG. We may only have one surviving source describing their life, but it's been put together from various lost sources by professional historians, who considered them important enough to create space for those people's stories in the execution of their historiography. I have no reason to question their professional opinions, no matter how long they've been dead for. Folly Mox ( talk ) 15:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] onel5969 what a shit! how dare you. He was the prime minister of Ming dynasty. Clealy passes WP:NPOL , a lot of source in Chinese language found. 49.237.19.178 ( talk ) 07:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC) 33, 23 April 2023 (UTC) 32, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre : 日期20220626 ( talk ) 05:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , History , Politics , and China . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is on a viable-looking topic and is well referenced, and can be improved. Nick-D ( talk ) 10:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre . There are a couple of articles that talk about gender in the Tiananmen Square protests and massacre, the Feigon article cited in the artile and there is an article from Radio Free Asia on the forgotten legacy of women and the protests. I agree with the nominator about how the text does not match the title of the page, and I do not think there is sufficient information for a stand-alone page, especially as the women mentioned in the article all have a stand-alone page, so no information will be lost. -- Enos733 ( talk ) 18:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 06:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As per the nominator, the article is more like a compilation of the acts of some individuals rather than discussing the role of women. The article 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre is already very large hence I would oppose a . I think relevant information not appearing in the stand-alone articles should be copied across, for example the section on Wang Chaohua . Golem08 ( talk ) 13:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Absolutely fascinating! Please do not with anything else. People can only read so much before they get bored and look for something else. Per the ""1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre"" navbox, there are numerous related articles. Won't hurt to leave this as is. — Maile ( talk ) 01:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Although the article isn't in the best condition with its over-focus on four particular women's participation rather rather than on summarizing more general academic synthesis of the women's history of the event in general, I find the essay Deletion is not cleanup persuasive in this case. Deleting an article about a valid topic makes it more difficult to improve later, and even in this non-ideal state the article remains educational and of interest. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 08:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the challenge once cleanup is completed (deemphasizing the sections on the four women), you are left with the one paragraph opening, containing only one reference. And much of that prose is unreferenced - (e.g. ""many women contributed their opinions and leadership skills to the movement"" and ""Although women had substantial roles, they had different standpoints regarding the hunger strike movement""). While I agree this is the case, the expectation is that there would be general academic synthesis of the women's history of the event. But those sources do not seem to be there, even with a Google Scholar search. - Enos733 ( talk ) 16:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . This seems to be a legitimate subject. Summarizing more general academic synthesis of the women's history of the event would be fine and possible, but we should also include all specific women/examples as they are right now. No significant removals of text would be needed. My very best wishes ( talk ) 19:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Swatting of American politicians (2023–2024) : At present this article seems to be little more than a list of news articles with no wider encyclopaedic merit ( WP:NOTNEWS ). There doesn't appear to be any evidence to link any of these events other than a rather arbitrary time period that feels created by editors, which there amounts to Wikipedia assigning correlation where there may be none ( WP:OR ). Given the contentious topic nature of the subject matter feel it's best that the article be removed from at least main space until such a time it's improved or demonstrates merit for inclusion. Rambling Rambler ( talk ) 14:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , Crime , Politics , and United States of America . Rambling Rambler ( talk ) 14:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as discussed on the article talk page , multiple reliable sources referred to the incidents in relationship with one another and noted that some politicians reacted with the proposed legislation to enact harsher sentences for swatting. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 14:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I agree with the above argument. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 23:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . This is part of a notable pattern of harnessing elected officials. It doesn't seem to be going away, and has the possibility of getting worse, or spreading to other countries. — Maile ( talk ) 16:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . 108.18.142.185 ( talk ) 23:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . per Maile, I don't see the issue resolving itself soon anytime either and it is not an isolated case Wiiformii ( talk ) 15:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Transform (political party) : Helper201 ( talk ) 03:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Reliable sources/Perennial sources as a generally unreliable source. Therefore, the only two sources are a news article from the Morning Star and the party's own website, which are used for one citation each. Therefore, we only have two sources, the party's website which is a first-party source and therefore not preferable and one reliable citation with limited information that can be used on this Wikipedia page. It thus does not appear enough reliable information can be sourced to create an adequate page or confirm the organisation's notability for a Wikipedia page. Helper201 ( talk ) 03:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics , and United Kingdom . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose the existence of the party is already established by the Morning Star article. And as the party has only been in existence for a matter of weeks, it's hardly likely to have many references yet. Before long it will be officially registered with the Electoral Commission and then we'll have official confirmation of its existence, as far as I'm aware every political party in the UK past and present, no matter how obscure has a wikipedia entry, their very existence is considered notable. So it would be unprecedented for this to be d. G-13114 ( talk ) 23:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support per the reasons I noted regarding lack of sources and notability. One news source from the Morning Star with limited information is not enough to make the party notable or to establish a Wikipedia page. Also, per the above oppose comment, not every UK political party has a Wikipedia page. There's no evidence for that. See List of political parties in the United Kingdom#Local where there are many parties listed with elected representation that don't have a Wikipedia page and nor does the National Flood Prevention Party seen at List of political parties in the United Kingdom#Nationwide . Transform doesn't even have a single elected representative at any level. The party as seen from the establishment of its website and when it uploaded its first YouTube video has actually existed for over 6 months, it was just officially founded just over a month ago (25 November 2023). However, its recent establishment is not a good reason to justify that it has a Wikipedia page, if anything it’s a reason against it having one until the party gets more recognition. Helper201 ( talk ) 01:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You already nominated it for deletion – you don't get to ! vote again. Number 5 7 12:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While the Canary isn't a reliable source, GNG coverage met through coverage in The Voice , Novara , Weekly Worker etc. Number 5 7 12:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment what evidence do we have of the reliability of the above sources? Multiple appear to be partisan and also only give brief mentions of Transform. Not much if anything we could actually use on the page. Helper201 ( talk ) 20:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The entire Voice and Weekly Worker articles are about Transform. Regarding the first point, what evidence do you have that they are unreliable? The Voice is a national newspaper and from what I know, is not a partisan source; the other two are partisan sources, but I am not aware of any reliability concerns (as opposed to the likes of the Canary and Skwarkbox). Number 5 7 21:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are sources on it already as mentions above, and seen Pink News talk to India W about it too. Jonjonjohny ( talk ) 12:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree - Keep... for now . Has most recently started to gain publicity from bigger nationals ( ITV News Online , and Pink News ). Both of which are generally reliable sources and are probably the strongest citations I could add for the time being and will accordingly - unlike Morning Star , which has no consensus at present, and The Canary which has outright been ruled out as unreliable by editors. There is no WP:CRYSTALBALL to guarantee that it will be heavily covered, but with them set to register with the Electoral Commission and general elections looking to be coming up later this year, I think they'll get there. Mechanical Elephant ( talk ) 19:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Arjun Tudu : Coderzombie ( talk ) 10:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football . Coderzombie ( talk ) 10:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per nom and per WP:BIO . The subject does not meet notability and biography is not enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. Poor sources with no WP:SIGCOV . RangersRus ( talk ) 13:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Simply having a biography isn't enough for inclusion. If reliable sources can be found to establish notability, the article could be rewritten and resubmitted for review. Waqar 💬 16:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Jharkhand-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC) , @ Iwaqarhashmi : , I found [29] , [30] , [31] , [ [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , among many more English and Hindu sources (not to mention other Indian languages. Cleary was sigifnicant ifgure in Indian lower league football and was even called up to the senior India national team. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 04:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin : Das osmnezz ( talk • contribs ) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD . NFOOTY . The player has not garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements because he has not played at an international level and he has not played for an entirely professional league to satisfy WP:GNG . He is an upcoming player but it is too early to warrant a page on this subject because of insufficient significant achievements. RangersRus ( talk ) 12:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC) ' 34, 30 June 2024 (UTC) 57, 27 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC) 13, 27 June 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV . Anwegmann ( talk ) 01:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC) GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Cleary was significant figure in Indian lower league football and was even called up to the senior India national team. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 05:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON . RangersRus ( talk ) 19:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC) GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Either way, he has many secondary sources about him. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 23:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC) GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I am saying he passes neither. Doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL because he hasn't played professional football and the sources that exist don't justify WP:GNG Coderzombie ( talk ) 09:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC) GNG. Im listening... just because he played in thje lower leagues doesnt meen he was a clear topic of interest in Indian football who is probably only lower league Indian palyer to be called up to senior national team.. Article needs improvement, not deletuon. THanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 02:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC) For policy based input please Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC) 00, 05 July 2024 (UTC) GNG which he clarly does... just because he played in thje lower leagues doesnt meen he was a clear topic of interest in Indian football who is probably only lower league Indian palyer to be called up to senior national team. Article needs improvement, not deletuon. THanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 02:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 19, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 39, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 02, 15 July 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV . The article already contains a couple of reliable sources, it's easy to find more. Tau Corvi ( talk ) 20:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Duncan Campbell (settler) : 05:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Military , South Africa , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Has an entry in the Dictionary of South African Biography , so meets WP:ANYBIO #3. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In addition to Necrothesp 's two sources I have found a third. There are furthermore a couple of shorter biographies in other works to be had. Uncle G ( talk ) 07:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . National DNB entry is definitive evidence of notability per WP:ANYBIO #3. Jfire ( talk ) 05:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] DNB entry and others. Lightburst ( talk ) 19:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Macedonian studies : (They have offered a nearly identical rationale on the nomination talk page .) Their efforts have been largely malformed (including, but not limited to, using a template intended to be used on articles as part of proposed deletion on this nomination page rather than {{ afd2 }} and attempting to transclude and replace the 2006 AfD for a previous article at this title ); I am fixing this. (From their previous edits to the article — including a declined speedy deletion nomination — and its talk page , they have had issues with this article for some time.) My involvement is purely procedural and I offer no real opinion or further comment. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Science , and North Macedonia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for fixing this. Ballantyne82 ( talk ) 04:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . There's no reason to have this article, as it's just a brief definition of the term ""Macedonian studies"" and hasn't been expanded beyond that since its creation in 2010. That information could be, at most, rolled into the article on the Macedonian language. There's a list of Macedonian linguists, but if there's enough of those, it's better to list them in an article called List of Macedonian linguists , or create a category for that. Cortador ( talk ) 11:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I was planning on nominating it for AfD too. In the absence of reliable sources which discuss the subject matter, this is the best course of action. StephenMacky1 ( talk ) 14:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing my vote to , due to the addition of new sources. The lack of in-depth coverage about the subject in English-language sources is to be noted though, which is what influenced my precious vote. Despite this, I think that the article can be still improved. StephenMacky1 ( talk ) 20:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The article most certainly requires (and deserve) additional work, yet the topic itself seems almost obviously notable to me. I believe we should be able to identify further reliable and relevant online and print sources in English, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian, German and other languages. -- MirkoS18 ( talk ) 07:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . There needs to be some kind of disambiguation between 'Ancient Macedonian studies' and Macedonian studies as a subfield of Slavic studies. A bibliography for the former can be found at https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780195389661-0140 and can be accessed via the Wikipedia library here . Some more discussion can be found at https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004209237_003 ( link for access via WP library). Jähmefyysikko ( talk ) 09:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There also needs to be disambiguation of Macedonian studies of other peoples of Macedonia generally, if you are only focussed on Slavic studies in this article. Ballantyne82 ( talk ) 11:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Since I am involved quite a lot into ethnic minorities topic I would say most certainly and in principle yes, however, in practice we can legitimately request it if we expect the same in case of Croatian, contemporary Greek, German, Turkish or any other area study. -- MirkoS18 ( talk ) 15:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Follow-up Comment after vote . In an effort to propose WP:HEY I introduced a couple of references and some additional content about the discipline. I don't know too much about the topic, but I hope my contribution will help in preservation of the article. -- MirkoS18 ( talk ) 20:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi. Thanks for your contributions. I do still have some concerns: - Where's the source that the field covers literature, history, and culture too? I think ""comprehensive"" might be redundant. - Which other post-Yugoslav country is it taught in apart from Croatia? - The term ""Macedonian specialist"" is not found in English-language sources. The term ""Macedonist"" appears to be more commonly used in a nationalist context, at least in English-language sources. Although, the source Lexicon Grammaticorum: A Bio-Bibliographical Companion to the History of Linguistics does explicitly mention Božidar Vidoeski and Blaže Koneski as ""Macedonists"" and uses it in a linguistic context. It'd be also great if you could provide some quotes here in English so that other editors who aren't knowledgeable with those languages can verify the statements. StephenMacky1 ( talk ) 21:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All of those are perfectly legitimate questions and if any statement may be controversial for some reason we should look for further references. As for your initial comment, it seems like quite banal and unexceptional statement to me, but if for any reason it is still questioned, we may look further. As for the other post-Yugoslav states, they most certainly include at least Serbia and Slovenia (easily referenced). The last one, I have no idea about this term, it can be removed if you feel the need to do it. Importantly, all of this is about the quality of the article if I am right? This can be addressed on the talk page with appropriate grading of the quality. The article doesn't have to be A class to be preserved. If I can help any further I will to the extent my time permits. And, just not to miss the last part, notable sources may be in any language - if there are some additional in English great, but any language will work. Greetings. -- MirkoS18 ( talk ) 21:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC) 14, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Jingiby ( talk ) 08:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Ranti Bam : I did not create this page! There are a bits of false information on the page. For my personal mental and physical well being I would like this page d Rantihut ( talk ) 13:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 12 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 02:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Women , Visual arts , Nigeria , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC) Seems to be notable, was featured in the Biennial here [42] , with coverage [43] and [44] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is also in the collections of two museums. Not sure why the artist wouldn't want to be featured here, nothing is incorrect from what I can read. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC) Every sentence seems to have a source cited. If there are any ""bits of false information"" in the article, that seems like a topic for discussion, with specifics, on the article's talk page. Elspea756 ( talk ) 15:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC) BLPREQUESTDELETE . This is not the subject's first request; see [45] . That request was made by one of two related IPs on the same Ivorian mobile network ( 199.168.73.172 and 196.47.133.24 ). These IPs made repeated attempts to remove or change material. This triggered multiple warnings for vandalism. I can see why this person is very frustrated. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . While we should honor the request if legit, I am somewhat skeptical of a request like this: There's a chance this is not the subject, and in fact could be someone attempting to scam the subject by getting the article d and offering to re-create it for money. I've seen some good analyses of these from Beccaynr , if they choose to here. — siro χ o 00:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’ve now seen 3 AfDs with these requests just in the last week. There’s always a lingering question as to whether the request is coming from the real subject of the article. Perhaps we need a policy or guideline amendment requiring people making these requests go through some sort of verification process using the Volunteer Response Team to ensure we’re getting legitimate requests. — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 01:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I agree the article should be d if the actual subject is requesting deletion. However, I had not thought about the possibility that this is not coming from the real subject of the article. I await further comments and guidance. The artist certainly passes notability. Looks like they have an Insta account. The website appears to be in development or abandoned. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC) 30, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] regardless of subject's wishes. On borderline cases, sure we should per WP:BLPREQUEST , however, this person is clearly notable. -- Mike 🗩 20:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - No response on requestor's user talk page or on the article's talk page. It doesn't seem like a credible request for deletion from the subject of the article. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Julien Boisselier : Only database entries and copies of Wikipedia. Password (talk) (contribs) 08:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please withdraw this. Press XfD on the wrong article. Password (talk) (contribs) 08:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Peak Mountain (disambiguation) : Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use. Pinging @ Boleyn : who removed PROD in good faith. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 11:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Disambiguations . Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 11:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This one is very difficult to research. But some careful adjustments led to a 19th century publication Guy's Pocket Cyclopaedia that referred to the hill into which Peak Cavern extends as Peak Mountain. I cannot find evidence that this is a 21st century name, however. There's a 19th century Cyclists' Touring Club guidebook that also refers to a Peak Mountain in the same area, although on modern on-line maps accessible to me, to the north of Eldon Hill is merely Peakshill. James Montgomery wrote a poem called The Peak Mountain . Other than those, everything else seems to have something in front of ""Peak"". Uncle G ( talk ) 13:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ; added two mo items found in Wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 21:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Goodonyer! I did try to find some other Peak Mountains in … well … countries more likely to have actual mountains. ☺ No success. Too many false positives for "" Something Peak Mountain"" or repetitions of the two that we already had. Both of the gazetteers that I consulted (a modern one and an old Lippincott's ) didn't even list the Peak Mountains that we started with. Uncle G ( talk ) 09:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Now a valid dab page. Pam D 07:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] but reorganize. I don't think this is a case where there is a right or wrong answer. There is no primary topic and I think there are probably other ""Peak Mountains"" that meet NGEO. So I think we should: Move Peak Mountain to Peak Mountain (Connecticut) Move Peak Mountain (disambiguation) to Peak Mountain So that the main article is the dab, and the other Peak Mountains are parenthetically dabed and included. // Timothy :: talk 08:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Deals on Wheels : Tagged for notability since 2012 Donald D23 talk to me 02:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Transportation , and United Kingdom . Donald D23 talk to me 02:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Lewis-Smith, Victor (1997-11-12). ""In need of some attention"" . Evening Standard . Archived from the original on 2023-04-10 . Retrieved 2023-04-10 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""Freak genetic engineering happens in television, too, as I discovered last night. Cross The Great Antique Hunt (no, not Barbara Cartland) with Top Gear and you get Deals on Wheels (C4), a programme intended to show ordinary motorists how to appraise the mechanical road-worthiness of second-hand cars. ... There's no sign of Stephen Fry's older, fatter, dumber sister (aka Jeremy Clarkson) on this show, just Mike Brewer and Richard Sutton uttering imbecilic phrases like ""this is a real people show"" — always a sure sign that we're about to be introduced to a stage army of real egocentrics ... After all, they'd managed to sell a very dodgy, shoddy format to a Channel 4 executive, for a huge amount of money. ... Despite four researchers and five directors, this was a cheap-looking and poorly edited show that didn't help potential car buyers one whit, and merely proved that the thick and the greedy deserve each other. If you knew anything about cars, then the programme was superfluous, and if you didn't, it'll be cheaper in the long run to pay a bit more to a reputable car dealer rather than buy a cut-price wreck whose ..."" ""Dodgy deals: Richard Sutton and Mike Brewer reveal more home truths about the used car market in Deals on Wheels (Channel 4, 8.30pm)"" . Hull Daily Mail . 1998-07-22. Archived from the original on 2023-04-10 . Retrieved 2023-04-10 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""Deals on Wheels, the popular motor show that tells the truth about the used car market, is back in high gear to help potential buyers get the most out of their money. As well as real life examples of people buying and selling second hand motors, car dealer Mike Brewer goes in search of bargain buys with real cash. Will he make a mint or pick up a rust bucket? Presenter Richard Sutton also reveals a few trade secrets and explains the dynamics and dangers of making a deal. This series gets down to the brass tacks by following the aspirations, hopes, frustrations, loves and hates of people selling cars."" Hamilton, Terry (1998-08-06). ""In my view: Terry Hamilton on last night's TV"" . Manchester Evening News . Archived from the original on 2023-04-10 . Retrieved 2023-04-10 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""Mike Brewer is his name, and selling motors is his game. And watching him is pure entertainment. Car dealer Mike is one of the front men on Deals on Wheels (Channel 4), an imaginative half-hour show all about how to buy or sell a car. ... Deals on Wheels is an interesting diversion from mainstream telly."" O'Donovan, Gerald (1999-08-03). ""Today's Choice"" . The Daily Telegraph . Archived from the original on 2023-04-10 . Retrieved 2023-04-10 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""Deals on Weheels: Hot on the heels of the laddish, speed-frenzied Driven , one of the best and most practical car shows returns with facts, figures and money-saving tips for those unfortunates among us who can't just point their cheque book at a Porsche, but have to prowl the second-hand lots and small ads to find a dream set of wheels. Mike Brewer and Richard Sutton man the forecourt, offering clues on how to acquire a good Jaguar XJ for a modest price ..."" ""It's a deal! Mike Brewer and Richard Sutton continue to lift the bonnets on more second-hand cars in Deals on Wheels (Channel 4, 8.30pm)"" . Hull Daily Mail . 1998-08-12. Archived from the original on 2023-04-10 . Retrieved 2023-04-10 – via Newspapers.com . ""Critic's Choice - Fortune favours the brave"" . Daily Record . 2000-03-11. Archived from the original on 2023-04-10 . Retrieved 2023-04-10 . The article notes: ""DEALS on Wheels has passed its MOT with flying colours and returns to our screens for a fourth series, giving the low- down on what's hot and what's not in the labyrinth of the used-car market. ... As Deals matures it's clear that Four's attempt to steal some of Top Gear's thunder is working"" ""Deals On Wheels - Critics' choice"" . The Sunday Times . 2000-03-12. Archived from the original on 2023-04-10 . Retrieved 2023-04-10 . The article notes: ""A fourth series for Channel 4's response to the BBC's Top Gear, although Deals On Wheels has a long way to roll before it earns itself the equivalent amount of clout. Presenters Mike Brewer and Richard Sutton start off with an internet car auction."" Young, Graham (2000-03-14). ""TV: Wheel thing - Deals on Wheels (Channel 4, 8.30pm)"" . Birmingham Mail . Archived from the original on 2023-04-10 . Retrieved 2023-04-10 . The article notes: ""Richard Sutton - the comparatively urbane one - and chirpy sparrow Mike Brewer team up once again to cast their beady eyes over the used car market. Such is their infectious appetite for their subject matter, it's little surprise to note that this fourth series will be running for the next ten weeks - and it's set to include motorbikes for the first time, too."" McMullen, Marion (1999-08-03). ""TV; Tonight's Highlights"" . Coventry Telegraph . Archived from the original on 2023-04-10 . Retrieved 2023-04-10 . The article notes: ""Mike Brewer and Richard Sutton are back with a new series of the motoring programme that takes viewers into the murky world of second hand cars and safely through to the other side."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Deals on Wheels to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 09:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn , I am satisfied with the sources that Cunard has found. Donald D23 talk to me 10:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"List of competitive Counter-Strike maps : I thought this article would be a neat idea to bundle together some coverage on maps that didn't have enough for their own articles. It was a neat idea, but unfortunately it died there immediately because there is no coverage in the first place besides trivial esports knowledge. Competitive Counter-Strike is well covered at articles such as Counter-Strike in esports already. Four maps in this series have their own articles already, these being Dust II , Inferno (Counter-Strike) , Mirage (Counter-Strike) , and Nuke (Counter-Strike) . These are also the only four that I believe are able to hold their own coverage wise, and even then I think Nuke and Mirage are a bit flimsy. Everything else simply lacks the coverage for even a list entry, with Overpass and Train being prime examples of this. Everything this list can say or would be able to say is ""this is a Counter-Strike map"" with trivial esports knowledge that has no value to an encyclopedia and absolutely zero critical commentary. This list serves no purpose. Negative MP1 21:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe that I jumped the gun on this article and didn't investigate available sources or write out this article any further, so I am going to strike my comment and Withdraw my nomination, but since there's possibility for a different outcome that isn't , I'm not closing this nomination early and will let the discussion run it's course. Negative MP1 18:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Negative MP1 21:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC) G7 as you provided ""the only substantial content of the page""? Other editors only fixed minor typos. If you changed your mind about the article, it could probably be speedily d. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I thought about doing that but I didn't know if it would qualify since the page was already reviewed and had existed for two and a half months. Negative MP1 21:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – I'm seeing here a list of major setups used within the competitive game. Four of them have independent articles because there is so much written about them. Other entries in this list are only subject to a few articles by publications like PC Gamer , PCGamesN , Dot Esports , or Shack News . The list handily compiles the most commonly used maps in the sport with release dates and other general information about what makes the maps unique. I think the Rock Paper Shotgun source is particular helpful in establishing this list as its own topic, and The Dot even presents them as a list in an article, and PCGamesN goes into detail about four of them at once too. A deletion nomination per ""gameguide"" is wild to me in this case, as the closest it gets to that is ""The map has an increased emphasis on long-ranged combat"" . To me, this nomination just feels like disregarding competitive Counter Strike as a legitimate subject. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – If you think ""Nuke"" and ""Mirage"" have flimsy notability, merging them into the list would be very reasonable to me. A discussion for their talkpages I suppose. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not necessarily saying they're not notable, what I meant to say was that I don't think they are as notable as Dust II or Inferno. Negative MP1 08:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not trying to disregard it as a subject, I love Counter-Strike and I find levels/maps fun to write about. My primary concern here is ""could each map be covered with reception and history"", which I feel all that are outside of the four with articles wouldn't meet that bar. Negative MP1 08:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] List articles typically don't present a full history and legacy/reception for each entry. It's common on Wikipedia for lists to just be a few tables. I'm genuinely really happy this list is all (sourced) prose, that's rare to work out. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If that's the case, then I suppose I can withdraw this nomination, maybe I needed to write this article out a bit more before determining this. Negative MP1 18:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . A list of maps is WP:GAMETRIVIA . soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per no. 7, I presume? In this case nearly all information is presented within the context of their significance to the ""industry"" (competitive scene), as per the described exception for when to include such information. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, I don't agree that it's gamecruft. I found at least one source talking about competitive CS maps as a whole, and many of the maps are individually notable. It's safe to say that CS maps are a topic worthy of listification, as long as it doesn't get too heavily into GAMEGUIDE content and talks about their out-of-universe significance. This list is far from violating WP:NOT . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Four maps have their own articles, and coverage has been found. D r e a m Focus 04:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , enough meaningful coverage does exist to support this article staying. GraziePrego ( talk ) 03:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Chrom : At present, the article is mainly reliant on listicles, passing mentions, and low-quality coverage (such as Chrom getting a fan-made butt mouse pad). I'm not opposed to its existence inherently, but unless some serious work is done, I'm not convinced that Chrom passes notability requirements. Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 19:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak I'm having hard time to find valuable sources to use for Chrom. I'm afraid it's mostly listicles and such, but it semes doable now. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 19:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 15 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I am not sure I follow the nom's rationale. If their position is to not oppose the article's existence, then why nominate it for an AfD? The definition of significant coverage is quite clear according to the guidelines: more than a trivial mention, but does not need to be the main topic of the source material, and that is the case with the nature of the article's sourcing. Merging is a viable solution if a List of Fire Emblem Awakening characters styled after List of Fire Emblem Fates characters actually exists, and it could work because I've encountered scattered discussions in numerous discussions about various other Awakening characters over the years. Haleth ( talk ) 20:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Because I tend to not be a mergist, and if provided with new sources to show notability, I'd be amenable to having my mind changed. I nominated it because I do not feel that the article passes muster. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 20:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC) the character has stayed relevant by consistently ranking in fan polls over the course of a decade, as well as numerous appearances outside of the original Awakening game in related Fire Emblem media or other games published by Nintendo due to fan demand as opposed to Nintendo company policy, an indicator that the character may be independently notable from an objective PoV. Haleth ( talk ) 20:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I'd be surprised if there wasn't more coverage on him out there, between his recurring roles in Fire Emblem and Smash Bros, especially considering how popular both series have been in the past decade. Sergecross73 msg me 22:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Like I said, if you can find more coverage, I would be delighted to ! vote . I'm no fan of merging. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 23:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Fire Emblem Awakening#Setting and characters . Chrom does not evidently have SIGCOV in reliable sources. The Reception is long, but cobbled together from numerous trivial mentions, and does not support substantive commentary on him. It would be more accurate to call the sources discussing the story at large than one character from it, and they are more relevant to the game itself. I would suggest that interested parties endeavor to recreate List of Fire Emblem Awakening characters , which was boldly ed some years ago, in a manner that passes WP:LISTN , and adding commentary on Chrom to it instead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . While some of the sources are left to be desired, I think there's enough significant coverage for this article to be considered generally notable. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Honestly the reception section is big...but it's all trivial. Also going to point out that fan polls while they can be cited shouldn't be leaned on for notability: often they're either primary sources, and there's no proof that the poll itself was accurate as these often don't have safeguards to prevent tampering. That's been pointed out multiple times through the years. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 08:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC) Abstaining per discussion with Sergecross. Can always revisit it later if need be.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 18:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - there is this good source not being used in the article. [25] . I do not know if this changes anything. (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 14:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Primary source (interview). Can be used, but doesn't count for notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But it is from a developer that did not create the character and is not from Nintendo or Intelligent Systems. (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 19:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sakurai is ""not from Nintendo""? Given the ludicrous amount of Nintendo characters Smash Bros uses, it would be safe to call Sora LTD a first party Nintendo studio. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But it factually is not, Sora Ltd. is literally not owned by Nintendo, despite some level of association between them. (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 23:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak as nominator. Done some thinking, reevaluating. I'm not 100% sure if it clears Ghosts'N Goblins , but I'm not sure enough that it fails it to endorse merging it. This is only compounded by multiple editors declaring their interest in addressing notability issues. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 19:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC) GNG . (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 13:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC) Please post the WP:THREE best secondary sources for the article then? I'm perfectly fine with ing the article if said sources exist, but nobody has said what they actually supposedly are. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I am not impressed by what I see in the reception, which appears lenghty but is built from sources that don't seem to pass WP:SIGCOV . There's a ton of listicles and such. Per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, I'd be happy to review the THREE best sources - ping me if they are provided. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 08:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Keep, and Redirect. The nominator's position has changed so there is no longer support for deletion, there just has to be more of a consensus on what should happen next. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak per nom, although a would also be fine. It is always worth considering that that all policies and guidelines draw their authority, if any, from WP:IAR , and thus that no guideline should be followed if it no longer serves the original purpose that made it a valid invocation of IAR against IAR. Anyway , I think a detailed character list is probably the optimal solution here. But since (a) such a list does not currently exist, (b) this character is evidently significant enough that it should be covered in some fairly substantial fashion somewhere , (c) the existing article is quite substantial and appears to serve the user and the project reasonably well, and (d) if d and not considerably downsized there would be some SIZESPLIT issues anyway, I can see no great value or urgency in what would amount to a merely formal rearrangement of coverage. -- Visviva ( talk ) 04:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - I just find it hard to believe that the coverage for this level of character doesn't exist out there somewhere . It's close now, and it's a rare case where I'd rather attempt to build up what we've already got for now, and revisit it down the line. Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Digital Music News : Despite the large number of references, it's basically all WP:REFSPAM , where DMN is passingly mentioned, but there is no significant coverage. There is no in-depth coverage as far as I can see. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 19:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw I intend to cleanup this article once this AfD is closed. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 00:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Music , and United States of America . Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 19:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC) NOTCLEANUP . Yes, the article is written badly (sorry Pi314m, but your prose almost reads like a punched card ). While someone really needs to come in with a shovel and remove all of the WP:REFBOMBing , WP:NCORP says, ... please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment ... . From sources like NPR and The Atlantic it seems that this outlet led by Paul Resnikoff has indeed been able to do things like persuading streaming platforms to excise certain content from their platforms, with all of the cultural fallout that entails. I would argue that this coverage has been borderline significant, since they seem to attach weight to what the owner of this outlet thinks and has accomplished. I can't check the NYT refs, so I don't know to what extent they are passing references, as is Newsweek , but I assume that this is just enough for a WP:NBASIC profile. Stony Brook babble 01:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - the references on the article show the subject does indeed have some notability. - Indefensible ( talk ) 05:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC) From the sources provided here, this subject clearly does pass WP:BASIC . User:Let'srun 20:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] but needs an ambitious editor to cleanup the machine gun prose. See WP:OVERCITE Lightburst ( talk ) 00:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"La Salle High School (Union Gap, Washington) : Has been tagged with citations needed template since 2012; all the sources are either not independent or not significant (e.g. database entries). I can find some news coverage of the school but all of it is routine daily reporting in the local paper, nothing that establishes this school as anything more than WP:MILL . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 23:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Schools , Christianity , and Washington . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 23:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . But I'm just ""weirdly annoyed"" with the nomination. ;) Not going to work on the article at this point. EagleFan ( talk ) 21:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as the nominator notes, it's actually got quite a bit of coverage in the Yakima Press-Herald, more than I expected actually. It's the only Roman Catholic high school in the diocese, which is somewhat unusual, and it's mentioned in a biography of Cardinal Francis George [23] , because of the role he played in founding it. -- Jahaza ( talk ) 04:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I see issues with the article (I tagged and ran away), but there's nothing wrong with the article that can't be fixed with regular editing. Bearian ( talk ) 15:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Silesia national football team : Rename it--but to what? There's no Frisian national football team or Walloon national football team either. Plus, the article is little more than a directory and a list of matches. Drmies ( talk ) 21:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football , Czech Republic , Germany , and Poland . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak , should certainly be trimmed / improved / sourced, whole sections could go, but it seems a bit unfair to single out this team, as it is only one of a long list here , and while I realise it's not a real guide to notability, the fact that it has 9 language versions at least show there's some passing interest beyond its homeland and has some historical significance. It's pretty niche stuff, but a lot of others in that list are too and it may be more logical to start from the most obscure and work up, don't want to insult anyone's region but Seborga national football team looks an example of one with far less merit for inclusion than Silesia. The name is a topic that's come up previously, particularly relating to the more prominent non-nations like Catalonia. Personally I would have no problem with it being something like 'representative football team' for all of these, but it's been argued that there are quite a few non-sovereign FIFA teams so the word 'national' is really just used to differentiate them from clubs and does not necessarily infer a certain status on the territory in question. Only other thing is, do Wallonia and Frisia have any sort of combined team that plays matches? That's not meant to be a 'well do they???' question, I'm genuinely not sure, but I couldn't see one on French or Dutch wiki where one might expect to find something snuck away. If they have never had such a team, it's not really fair to compare their non-presence to articles for teams that have demonstrably played matches, even if really long ago and/or at a very low level. Crowsus ( talk ) 22:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – There are football teams that cover non-sovereign territories, such as the most notable cases of Catalonia and the Basque Country , as well as some CONIFA members such as Occitania and County of Nice . If there are sources that cover the team, there are no problems, as Silesia is competing in the UEFA Regions' Cup . Svartner ( talk ) 01:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 34, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 46, 27 April 2024 (UTC) RM should be used, not AfD. Glancing at pl wiki, just removing 'national' should work. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 22:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] could be improved, but the topic is notable - can easily tell by looking at German and Polish language articles, though the Polish one is under sourced by English standards. SportingFlyer T · C 06:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per above. Although it has notp played many matches it is a represnetative team that is a topic of interest. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 07:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak , per SportingFlyer and several others. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Sword of the Spirit Ministries : Seems to be a functioning church, nothing for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . While sources establish its existence, they do not establish its notability. Chamaemelum ( talk ) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Nigeria . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong . Par nomination. Platemashh ( talk ) 12:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: ""Keep"" argument doesn't make much sense... Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keeping the I suppose? Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . it has the likelihood to improve and it's a notable organization in Nigeria, I feel it should kept. Whinehardy ( talk ) 8:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whinyharedy ( talk • contribs ) This church is discussed in academic sources on Nigerian Christianity, including Steve Brouwer, Paul Gifford, Susan D. Rose, ""Exporting the American Gospel: Global Christian Fundamentalism"" (Psychology Press / Routledge, 1996), p. 174–175, which discusses its October 1990 ""Operation GAIN"" five-day religious crusade in Sokoto, Nigeria, and the harm which the anti-Islamic rhetoric of that crusade did to Christian-Muslim relations in Nigeria. I can't explain the contradiction between that book's claim that this happened in October 1990, with the article's claim that the church was founded in 1993, but the book is from a respectable academic publisher, so I'm inclined to think it is more likely to be accurate. Anyway, I think this church is definitely notable, and the impression that it isn't is due to the WP:BIAS problem of the difficulty of finding reliable sources (especially online) on events and institutions in African countries, even when those reliable sources actually exist. SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 09:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Further to the above, as well as being covered in the academic literature, this church is also regularly covered in the Nigerian media. See for example https://tribuneonlineng.com/nigeria-needs-restructuring-to-avert-retrogression-bishop-wale-oke/ – and consider also that the Guardian Newspaper (by which I mean the Nigerian one not the UK one) covers their leader (Bishop) frequently enough it has a whole tag for articles featuring him – https://guardian.ng/tag/bishop-francis-wale-oke/ – I'm sure if someone looked at offline archives of Nigerian newspapers there would be heaps more coverage. SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 06:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Leaning ; I do expect there are probably good offline sources given the large number of passing mentions elsewhere. I don't see any really excellent sources directly on the subject of this organization. Most of the academic sources look like passing mentions to me. Here's the full extent of the relevant material from the book mentioned above about Operation GAIN, which consists of a few substantive sentences: Brouwer, Steve (1996). Exporting the American gospel: global Christian fundamentalism . Internet Archive. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-91711-7 . In October 1990, Sword of the Spirit Ministries of Ibadan, with preachers from London's Kensington Temple and Elm Pentecostal Churches of Scotland, launched their Operation GAIN with a five-day crusade in Sokoto, the historic seat of Nigeria's caliphate. … The operation was ""directed at destroying the enemy's strongholds and deceits in Sokoto""; the preaching ""unveiled the enemy's oppressive weapon of deceit in the lives of the people""; and by the end ""well over 4, 500 adults had been delivered from the devil's clutch"". Suriname0 ( talk ) 17:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per SomethingForDeletion and above. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 06:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Guangzhou True Light Middle School : I could only find one example of WP:SIGCOV , a short article about learning conditions in the Hong Kong Free Press . As always with these articles, foreign language sources may exist but I have no way to find, access, or verify those. ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me! 13:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Hong Kong . ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me! 13:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and China . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ ThadeusOfNazereth For your information, the article from the Hong Kong Free Press is about the True Light Middle School in Kowloon (a place in Hong Kong), not Guangzhou (capital city of Guangdong, China). Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 03:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mandarin speaker & Cantonese reader here. I looked into the Chinese sources and there is just routine coverage through some not RS sites. The zh-wiki article has eight sources. Only some of them satisfy en-wiki: 增学位、开新校、换校长…… 这个开学广州变化大. 南方网. 2017-08-31 [2023-07-16]. （原始内容存档于2023-07-16） –通过央广网. This article covers several schools, not just True Light alone; 朱汉斌. 广州市真光学校举行创校145周年文化展示活动. 科学网. 2017-11-12 [2023-07-16]. （原始内容存档于2023-07-16）. This article satisfies RS. Significant coverage of the school celebrating its 145th anniversary. link to the article via web archive 蒋隽. 今年广州“小升初”有四大变化 学位房还香吗？ . 羊城晚报. 2022-08-30 [2023-07-16]. （原始内容存档于2022-09-01）. Not sigcov. Article talks about school allocation with respect to housing. 马思泳. 深化集团化办学，广州荔湾区4所示范性高中全权管理11所初中. 羊城晚报. 2023-07-15 [2023-07-16]. （原始内容存档于2023-07-16）. Not sigcov. Article talks about the administration of 11 middle schools. 真光校史之一. 广州市真光中学. 2011-07-03 [2012-07-26]. （原始内容存档于2015-06-02）. Primary source of the school's history. 學校活動傳真. 香港真光中学（幼稚园部）. [2011-09-09]. [永久失效链接] Curious enough, this is a primary school from Hong Kong's True Light Middle School. Likely related to our subject, but still a primary source. 學校簡介. 九龙真光中学. [2011-09-09]. （原始内容存档于2011-08-21）. Another primary source, this time from the True Light Middle School of Kow Loon. I am taking the liberty to look at the zh-yue-wiki article . It cites three sources: 广州：高考生出校门遭刀捅 凶手与其父母有过节 YouTube Youtube video, cannot be taken as a source. 广州：高考生出校门遭刀捅 凶手与其父母有过节 腾讯视频 Video from the Tencent platform (similar to Youtube). Again, cannot be taken as a source. 真光学子餐后又屙又呕 互聯網檔案館嘅歸檔，歸檔日期2016年2月28號，. 廣州日報 （2016-02-28 A3版） Now, this is a RS from Guangzhou Daily with significant coverage. The title reads ""Students of True Light Had Diarrhea and Vomited After Meal"". My goodness. link to the article via web archive So, we have two reliable sources, both in Mandarin Chinese. However, neither of them address the history of the school (in my humble opinion, a rich history if properly referenced!). My suggestion is a weak in the spirit of TNT, but it makes me sad to make this decision. -- TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 03:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC) Cunard , I am !voting . -- TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 16:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Liu, Dong 刘东 (2006). ""校园环境设计的实施策略——以广州市真光中学为例"" [Implementation strategies of campus environment design—taking Guangzhou True Light Middle School as an example]. 重庆交通学院学报：社会科学版 [ Journal of Chongqing Jiaotong University (Social Sciences Edition) ] (in Chinese) (2). Chongqing Jiaotong University . Retrieved 2023-09-10 – via CQVIP [ zh ] . The article notes: ""环境设计的实质是反映人们的生活方式和审美追求,也是社会文化的创造。优美和谐的校园环境是一所学校良好的校园文化和精神文明的一个重要标志。校园环境设计必须从学校的文化背景入手,对学校进行全方位考察,并且让师生共同参与,让文化弥散到每一个角落且突出个性,以强化校园环境的整体风格。"" From Google Translate: ""The essence of environmental design is to reflect people's lifestyle and aesthetic pursuit, and it is also the creation of social culture. A beautiful and harmonious campus environment is an important symbol of a school's good campus culture and spiritual civilization. The design of campus environment must start from the cultural background of the school, conduct a comprehensive inspection of the school, and involve teachers and students together, so that culture can permeate every corner and highlight individuality, so as to strengthen the overall style of the campus environment."" Lu, Yuefei 卢岳飞 (2012). ""广州市真光中学尖子生培养探索"" [Exploration on cultivating top students in Guangzhou True Light Middle School]. 黄金时代：下半月 [ Golden Age: The Second Half of the Moon ] (in Chinese) (2) . Retrieved 2023-09-10 – via CQVIP [ zh ] . The abstract notes: ""广州市真光中学近年来在毕业生培养上取得了一定成绩：连续13年荣获广州市高中毕业班工作一等奖；5次进入广州市高中毕业班工作一等奖10强行列：2005年位居全市第10名，2008年第9名，2009年第8名，2010年第6名，2011年第3名。卢岳飞老师是主抓真光中学高三毕业班和全校德育工作的主任，本刊特约卢主任来给我们谈谈他们在教学方面的一些探索。"" From Google Translate: ""Guangzhou True Light Middle School has achieved certain results in graduate training in recent years: it has won the first prize for Guangzhou high school graduation class work for 13 consecutive years; it has entered the top 10 for the first prize for Guangzhou high school graduation class work 5 times: in 2005 Ranked 10th in the city, 9th in 2008, 8th in 2009, 6th in 2010, and 3rd in 2011. Teacher Lu Yuefei is the director in charge of the graduating class of True Light Middle School and the moral education work of the whole school. This magazine specially invited Director Lu to talk to us about some of their explorations in teaching."" Guo, Yaowei 郭耀媄; Hu, Wenzhong 胡文中 (2006). ""广州市真光中学"" [Guangzhou True Light Middle School]. 羊城今古 [ Yangcheng Modern and Ancient ] (in Chinese) (2) . Retrieved 2023-09-10 – via CQVIP [ zh ] . The abstract notes: ""广州市真光中学由美国传教士那夏理（1844～1924）在1872年（清同治十一年）6月创办．原址初设在广州沙基金利埠（现六二三路容安街）．初名真光书院。现址在荔湾区白鹤洞培真路17号．"" From Google Translate: ""Guangzhou True Light Middle School was founded by the American missionary Na Xia Li (1844-1924) in June 1872 (the eleventh year of Tongzhi in the Qing Dynasty). The original location was originally located in Guangzhou Shaji Libu (now Rong'an Street, 623rd Road). It was originally named Zhenguang Academy. The current address is No. 17, Peizhen Road, Baihedong, Liwan District."" Wu, Zhonghui 吴中辉 (2007). ""特色 文化 理念 在竞争中铸造教育品牌——广东省广州市真光中学校长荀万祥访谈"" [Features, Culture, Concepts, Forging Educational Brands in Competition - Interview with Xun Wanxiang, Principal of Guangzhou True Light Middle School, Guangdong Province]. 现代教育科学：中学校长 [ Modern Education Science (Middle School Headmaster) ] (in Chinese) (1) . Retrieved 2023-09-10 – via CQVIP [ zh ] . The abstract notes: ""古木参天,绿草如茵;鸟语花香,书声朗朗。清雅的校园如同一幅颇具岭南园林风格的画卷,绘出一片求学的乐土。无论何时来到广州市真光中学,这种感受总是如影随形。这座坐落在广州珠江河畔、白鹤洞山顶的著名学府,前身是始创于1872年的真光书院,迄今已有134年的历史,是岭南办学最早的学校之一。"" From Google Translate: ""The ancient trees are towering, the grass is green; the birds are singing and the flowers are fragrant, and the books are reading loudly. The elegant campus is like a picture scroll with a Lingnan garden style, painting a paradise for studying. Whenever I come to Guangzhou True Light Middle School, this feeling always follows me. This famous school located on the bank of the Pearl River in Guangzhou and on the top of Baihedong Mountain was formerly known as Zhenguang Academy, which was founded in 1872. It has a history of 134 years and is one of the earliest schools in Lingnan."" ""荔湾示范性高中招生3428人"" [Liwan Model High School enrolls 3,428 students]. 新快报 [ Xin Kuai Bao ] (in Chinese). 2022-05-25. Archived from the original on 2023-09-10 . Retrieved 2023-09-10 – via Sina Corporation . The article notes: ""学校简介：是岭南办学最早的学校之一，现为广东省首批国家级示范性普通高中、首批广东省教学水平优秀学校、首批广东省德育示范校。... 招生计划：2022年学校两个校区招生，分三个批次，其中，校本部招生共计815人，包括特长生57人，"" From Google Translate: ""School introduction: It is one of the earliest schools in Lingnan. It is now one of the first batch of national-level demonstration ordinary high schools in Guangdong Province, the first batch of Guangdong Province excellent teaching schools, and the first batch of Guangdong Province moral education demonstration schools. ... Enrollment plan: In 2022, the school will enroll students in two campuses, divided into three batches. Among them, the school’s main campus will enroll a total of 815 students, including 57 students with special talents."" Zhu, Hanbin 朱汉斌 (2017-11-12). ""广州市真光学校举行创校145周年文化展示活动"" [Guangzhou Zhenguang School held a cultural display event for the 145th anniversary of the founding of the school] (in Chinese). ScienceNet.cn . Archived from the original on 2023-09-10 . Retrieved 2023-09-10 . The article notes: ""据了解，广州市真光学校创建于1872年，前身是美国人那夏理女士创办的“真光书院”。2017年8月，原广州市长堤真光中学和广州市真光小学合并，正式成立广州市真光学校，开始九年一贯制的教育探索，标志着学校发展进入了一个崭新的历史阶段。"" From Google Translate: ""It is understood that Guangzhou True Light School was founded in 1872. Its predecessor was the ""True Light Academy"" founded by the American Ms. Na Xia Li. In August 2017, the former Guangzhou Changdi Zhenguang Middle School and Guangzhou Zhenguang Primary School d to form Guangzhou Zhenguang School, which began the exploration of a nine-year consistent education, marking that the school's development has entered a new historical stage."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Guangzhou True Light Middle School ( simplified Chinese : 广州市真光中学 ; traditional Chinese : 廣州市真光中學 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 04:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, great! #1, #2, #3, #6 looks awesome. #4 looks like an interview with the head of school–might be a primary source, but that's just a small issue. I wouldn't take #5 as sigcov because it mentions a bunch of other schools, as seen from its very first sentence: 今年荔湾区广州市示范性高中，广州市第一中学(本部)、广州市第四中学、广州市真光中学（校本部、汾水校区）、广州市南海中学、广州市西关外国语学校招收高一新生，招生计划合计3428人。 I think the """" conclusion is sound. Good job, @ Cunard , for going the extra mile. -- TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 16:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Time to assess sources found. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 15:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources provided by Cunard. S5A-0043 Talk 07:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Jerrel Wolfgang : A web search finds passing mentions but no WP:SIGCOV . The article fails WP:GNG . Robby.is.on ( talk ) 22:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Robby.is.on ( talk ) 22:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Netherlands . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC) 52, 11 July 2023 (UTC) 27, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 08, 21 July 2023 (UTC) 28, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 53, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 01, 23 July 2023 (UTC) 02, 24 July 2023 (UTC) 53, 24 July 2023 (UTC) 12, 17 July 2023 (UTC) , Per Gidonb. Clearly as significant figure in Dutch lower league football in 2000s so diefnily has more offense sources besides the many good ones above provided by Gidonb @ GiantSnowman : . Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 21:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC) 26, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Playing in the Eerste Divisie and for the Netherlands U21 does not confer notability. Please provide a policy-based rationale. Robby.is.on ( talk ) 16:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC) WikiProject Football/Notability however its' only an essay. Bash7oven ( talk ) 07:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC) WikiProject Football/Notability for players was deprecated a while ago which is why it states: ""The player section of this notability guidance has been superseded by WP:Notability (sports), and is included below for information only as a record of the previous guidance that the Footy project came up with."" Robby.is.on ( talk ) 08:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] yes, thank you! Bash7oven ( talk ) 09:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Anne E. Lazarus : Beyond primary sources and local news, there isn't much more in-depth coverage of her. And local news reporting is sparse, such as when she won the Philadelphia Bar Association's Sandra Day O’Connor Award or when she was elected to serve as the President Judge. I think she is not notable enough for a separate article from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania article, so a to Superior Court of Pennsylvania would suffice for now until there is enough coverage to recreate the article. Spinixster (chat!) 12:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Law , New York , and Pennsylvania . Spinixster (chat!) 12:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC) First of all, she is on the Superior Court of Pennsylvania . She is NOT on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The majority of judges on the Superior Court have their own articles, and Anne is the actual President Judge. So, out of all of the people that already have articles for the Superior Court (and also, literally look at any other Superior or Supreme Court article for states, the majority of the articles about state judges are WAY less sourced than this one). Please read over WP:JUDGE . DocZach ( talk ) 13:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand you have strong emotions over this, and yes, I did made a typo that I have fixed. However, part of what you're saying falls under WP:WHATABOUT . Also, if the article does end up as a , I do not think it would be a Good article unless more sourcing is found, since it would fail WP:GACR 2 and 3, as some of the sources that this article heavily relies on are primary and there is not much info on what she did in her roles. Spinixster (chat!) 13:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First of all, I do not have strong feelings about this. I have never met this person, and am not very fond of her decisions. Yet, since I am interested in the Superior Court, I have created a fair article for its President. So stop assuming things out of nowhere. Second of all, you can remove my good article nomination. I want it retracted, but I don't know how to do that. DocZach ( talk ) 16:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You can just remove the Good article banner on the talk page. Spinixster (chat!) 01:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC) JUDGE and was reliable cited by [39] and [40] from Altoona Mirror & Pennsylvania Bar Association respectively. The election results was cited well here by Ballotpedia . Furthermore, the subject was a recipient of two awards covered here and here which are local sources in Pennsylvania. There was also a citation here from The Philadelphia Inquirer . I literally can find more than three sources per WP:THREE satisfying reliable sources and citation. I will say the subject have appeared in local sources mainly perhaps based in Pennsylvania. May not attain GA status per finding multiple sources but just three as stub is enough. All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk ) 04:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources found. Also passes my tests for lawyers easily . Bearian ( talk ) 20:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Epos Now : I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 13 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 18:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Companies , and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Please explain the acronym SME, as a reader is completely lost to what that could be. Nate • ( chatter ) 23:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC) 08, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . The article is subpar, but I think their POS system has enough coverage. US News [2] , TechRadar [3] , Startups.co.uk [4] . ~ A412 talk! 06:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 19:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Here I found some of the sources 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 although they are not an in-depth coverage, yet these reviews, awards can't be neglected. Atighot ( talk ) 22:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak as there are much more reliable sources than those cited in the current version of the page. The organization is pretty notable, per TechRadar and other media coverage. 扱. し. 侍. ( talk ) 15:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Shay Kanot : I can't find any indication that this passes WP:DIRECTOR . The citations used in the article only reference them in passing so it would appear that this fails WP:NBASIC also. Tar nis hed Path talk 12:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Film , and Israel . Tar nis hed Path talk 12:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC) Most mentions are about his films, nothing about him, and are trivial one-liners (XYZ Film by Shay Kanot). I can't see notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 15:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Easy pass of DIRECTOR #3. Maybe also DIRECTOR 4c. AFDISNOTCLEANUP. gidonb ( talk ) 02:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notable in some Israeli sources, especially after seeing search results for the Hebrew name . Also as stated above, could reasonably pass DIRECTOR#3. Toadette ( Happy holiday! ) 07:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC) PermanentLink/1189701926 ) during NPP and was ready to PROD it or draftify it but then my analysis looked like it still might've been notable in Hebrew sources but I can't read Hebrew so I thought I would give it a go and at least WP:FIXIT and clean it up to article standards—I was feeling generous and was in need of a Wiki-project for the day. The analysis above is correct: the sources I was able to find in English only have passing mention and alone probably don't satisfy GNG . Once I had the article acceptable, I went to de-orphan it and link to other mentions and then found his most notable project Kicking Out Shoshana also had NPOV concerns that I felt needed to be addressed . So to learn know that the creator was blocked doesn't surprise me. What I will say is that—as probably the most significant editor of the page since the other editor's article creation and then subsequent block—I don't want my edits of the page to be construed as any endorsement of ! , nor should they prevent a ! procedural as a result of the block. microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 15:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 19:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak I took a look at the sources, and I'm feeling okay. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 21:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above, although the page needs styling editing. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 13:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] though page definitely needs some work, person is notable enough from looks of it (has done several films and is a director). Homerethegreat ( talk ) 19:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Confusion Bowl : Has only been played three times, with a fourth this coming week. O.N.R. (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football , Florida , and Ohio . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've heard this referred to as the Confusion Bowl in years past. I follow college football fairly regularly and thought this was reasonably well known. Auggiewestbound ( talk ) 20:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC) GNG . There is already significant coverage in the article dating dating back to the 1940s. Alvaldi ( talk ) 21:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong per nom. Coverage listed in the article is WP:ROUTINE game summaries or pregame reports, or simple commentary on how the two schools have similar names. This fails GNG in terms of establishing a rivalry or notable series between the two schools who will have played each other four times after this week. Two football teams with zero sourced animosity toward each other who have similar names does not mean their series of meetings is notable. Carson Wentz ( talk ) 00:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC) 27, 2 September 2023 (UTC) GNG. 02:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC) ( u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 The ""Confusion Bowl"" name for this series was coined in 1945 and has been used for each and every meeting between the teams. The Miami-Miami game generates multiple dedicated articles from reliable sources every time it is played. This is not WP:ROUTINE coverage of football games; the articles are written specifically with regards to how abnormal the same-name matchup is. A named ""bowl game"" with dozens of reliable source articles written about it over 78 years is notable and passes WP:GNG regardless of the scant few times they have played or lack of ""true rivalry"". PK-WIKI ( talk ) 04:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree 100%. 2600:4040:475D:6000:4826:FCEE:EEFD:B226 ( talk ) 14:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC) 22, 30 August 2023 (UTC) GNG and comments above by User:Alvaldi and User:PK-WIKI . The article does not assert that the series is a ""rivalry"", and arguments against such a rivalry existing are thus a red herring. The bad feelings between the two Miami universities dates back to the founding of the Florida school in the 1920s (a century after the Ohio school), and I've added a bit of context on that. Cbl62 ( talk ) 13:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per arguments above, there is enough documented history surrounding the series for it to be notable. I also do not understand the arguments that a page about a series between two teams has to be some kind of nasty rivalry in order for it to merit an article. Jlm87 ( talk ) 16:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC) GNG . The Confusion Bowl has been documented in previous verifiable citations, it has been discussed as such in each meaning. I am also confused about the need for it to be a rivalry to count - this is not a requirement per WP:GNG. If this standard is applied to this article it will result in several other sports-related articles and meetings between groups to be reviewed and proposed for deletion. DesertVulture ( talk ) 05:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] notable series with with many reliable source articles that go beyond routine summaries. They explain the history between the two schools (concerning football and other topics) as well as the origins of the ""Confusion Bowl"" moniker. Frank Anchor 18:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As the Confusion Bowl has been known in media since 1945, I feel that should be enough to the page up. OrlandoApollosFan69 ( talk ) 00:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] consistent news coverage of the name across several decades meets GNG. Furthermore, arguments on the extent of the rivalry and/or how much animosity/number of games played against each other are both subjective and irrelevant (no WP guideline specifies a minimum number of games). Even if its sole notability comes from being a mildly humorous coincidence in name, there is sufficient sourcing—including from outside the home markets of the two communities in question, which disqualifies the use of WP:ROUTINE to pooh-pooh them—to justify its inclusion here. J. Myrle Fuller ( talk ) 21:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All that matters is whether it passes GNG. Whether it can truly be called a ""rivalry"" is irrelevant. It has received significant coverage in numerous sources for a sustained period of time, and as such passes GNG. Smartyllama ( talk ) 11:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC) GNG . This should probably be speedily kept. -- Rockstone Send me a message! 05:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Ursula Münzner-Linder : Tkaras1 ( talk ) 02:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Only reliable and accessible sourcing I could find by Google search was this link , which alone does not seem sufficient. Her name is apparently not even spelled correctly! Tkaras1 ( talk ) 02:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE . ✗ plicit 14:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women , and Germany . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article needs a significant update, Ursula it seems that he died in 2011, but even an update I don't think will be able to the article. -- Mooon FR ( talk ) 20:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Friedrich Weber (veterinarian) : not much found in a quick preliminary search , except for mentions of his name . ltb d l ( talk ) 10:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , History , and Germany . ltb d l ( talk ) 10:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Being a participant in the Munich putsch might be enough to make him notable. This is not a BLP case, so that the lack of references is not fatal. Peterkingiron ( talk ) 16:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The German article on Weber is much more in-depth and has additional sources. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG on German Wikipedia. Leading conspirator in the Munich Putsch, SS-Gruppenführer, Reich veterinary chief and leader of a major Freikorps. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC) A few paragraphs in Animals in the Third Reich: Pets, Scapegoats, and the Holocaust by Boria Sax seem to indicate that Weber, as the ""president of the newly formed Chamber of Veterinarians, which combined all German veterinarians into a monolithic bureaucracy"", personally led the removal of Jews and dissenters from the veterinary practice and eliminated kosher slaughter ( exsanguination ). Curbon7 ( talk ) 17:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Weak , there are some discussions in books [11] and [12] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC) The Fr wiki article is translated from the German wiki article and they have two extensive sources from period books. I think it's good. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Unsourced here, but extensively sourced in the French and German Wikipedias relating to such page. Their page talks about how he played a key role in the Nazi leadership. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 03:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Moldovan language : Is la 🏳️‍⚧ 19:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Moldova . Is la 🏳️‍⚧ 19:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't agree, because we have a separate article on Moldavian dialect , and someone putting ""Moldovan language"" in the search bar might be looking for that. Moldovan language should be a disambiguation page if we decide not to the article. — S Marshall T / C 20:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If they search ""language"" trying to look up the dialect, they are simply doing a wrong search. I don't agree with this analogy. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 10:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no clear border between language and dialect , so it's a reasonable thing to have a disambiguation for. // Replayful ( talk | contribs ) 09:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I get what you mean. This could be appliable on cases for language varieties that are sometimes regarded as languages. An example could be, IDK, Bavarian language . However the Romanian spoken in Moldova is just the same as the one spoken in the rest of Romania and it is universally regarded as Romanian by linguists. It does not even constitute a variety of its own, the Romanian in north of Moldova has more in common with the Romanian spoken in the north of Western Moldavia than with the Romanian spoken in the south of Moldova. This all at least to traditional linguistic views. Someone wanting to look up the Romanian dialect, spoken both in the Republic of Moldova and in Romania's Western Moldavia, will look it up as ""dialect"" ( grai in Romanian). Someone wanting to look up the artificial political concept argued to be spoken in the Republic of Moldova will look it up as ""language"" ( limbă in Romanian; this last one is self-fullfilling because people who believe Moldovan is a language will really stress on calling it as such). If they switch things up, they simply are confused about the concepts. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 22:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In any case, Controversy over ethnic and linguistic identity in Moldova would be a better target. I don't think it's the time yet to discuss the status of articles like these. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 10:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning . The article is not about the same thing as Romanian language , because this is about the term Moldovan language /the status of what's spoken in Moldova. The article seems well-sourced and there are sources specific about the topic. However, a better name might be needed. But it also seems like something that could be d with Controversy over ethnic and linguistic identity in Moldova (I can't really judge if the content is already covered). // Replayful ( talk | contribs ) 09:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We have a fair amount of articles with similar scopes. Moldovenism is another. To sum it up quickly, Moldovenism consists on the notion that Moldovans are an ethnic group of their own with their own language. Perhaps a between these articles is possible in the future, but if this article is kept, I think the current title is pretty appropriate. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 19:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, that's a good point and context. Maybe there's some work to do in working out the relations between these many article. That could indeed lead to a (or multiple). As long as the source-supported content is generally covered somewhere , I'm fine with any outcome/reorganization. // Replayful ( talk | contribs ) 20:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think we should wait for Transnistria to derecognize the language or for it to stop existing and for Moldova to unite with Romania. If you'd like to have the non-nationalistic version of this message, just wait for the first one. Having no entities recognising it will give us much room to maneuver. Otherwise it's harder to argue against the article's existence. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 22:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, rename - I'm definitely against deletion, and I'm not sure if a to Controversy over ethnic and linguistic identity in Moldova is really the correct choice. If we want to avoid confusion between Romanian language , Moldavian dialect , and this article, I propose a rename to Romanian language in Moldova , leaving the current page as a disambiguation. Frzzl talk; contribs 14:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . There are other cases where a language officially recognized by a state as a separate language is not too different linguistically from another (e.g. Montenegrin language ). But linguistic criteria are different, and political status in itself creates enough notability. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 14:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Suitskvarts . Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 07:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Halifax Community College : Additionally, an education institute does not inherently meet the Notability unless it meets WP:GNG, which it does not. It was created by User: Faizanalivarya , known for COI editing. The editing history by User: Faizanalivarya ( see this ) to add unsourced promotional content about a relatively unknown small college in the US, and then these comments on the talk page suggesting the possibility of paid editing. — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 10:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and United States of America . — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 10:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is a legitimate, accredited college. It's a small community college in a rural location, however, so it doesn't seem to have gotten much press but there is a little bit if you really dig e.g., [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] . And of course there are the standard information sources for accredited institutions in the U.S. such as IPEDS , USN&WR , and its Carnegie classifications . ElKevbo ( talk ) 13:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC) 08, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above discussion. Community colleges in North America are almost alway notable, and WP:BEFORE should be used. Bearian ( talk ) 17:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources cited by ElKevbo and Hameltion. Passes WP:GNG . Sal2100 ( talk ) 22:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Babel II (short story) : All the coverage is simply about its publication history. Searches did not turn up enough to show it passes WP:GNG . The Michael Ashley source is nice brief piece on it, but even that is not that in-depth. Onel 5969 TT me 09:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . The story appears to have been reprinted quite a bit . And in addition to the Michael Ashley source the story has its own detailed entry in The Encyclopedia of Fictional and Fantastic Languages . But beyond that I'm not seeing many more citations about the story, so I won't get too worked up if it's d. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 18:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Archived in at Syracuse university library, thus meets BKCRIT #5, The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study. Jclemens ( talk ) 18:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi. I thought about that, the issue is, this isn't a book. But a short story. Not sure that applies. As I said, I'm a fan. Not only do I have his novels, I looked this morning, and I actually have my paperback copy of The Worlds of Science Fiction , in which this story appears. I also thought I had Far Out , but I can't find it. I think one of my children absconded with it. Onel 5969 TT me 21:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, no one writes notability criteria specifically for short stories, but my reasoning is that if any book criteria congruently and sensibly apply to a sub-book unit, like a short story, we should use them. And it does say ""written works"" which is more expansive than books, so there's that, too. Jclemens ( talk ) 04:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I added a couple of references. If this short-story by a prolific author is one of a handful mentioned in a relatively short foreign non-English obituary, I'd think it's significant. Nfitz ( talk ) 23:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC) SOURCESMUSTEXIST, ILIKEIT. @ Onel5969 : how could you? ;) (but thanks for the memory). // Timothy :: talk 15:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Irène Souka : WP:POLITICIAN does not apply as Souka's position was not one of a politician in the strict sense, but even if it did, it's explicitly a secondary criterion. Souka is occasionally mentioned in passing by Politico (see this collection of articles ). None of those mentions constitute the significant coverage required to establish notability. Of the sources currently in the article, only source 1 is significant coverage . It's a good source in terms of establishing notability, but it's just one. Source 2 doesn't even mention her. This is not the coverage in multiple sources required to establish notability. Although Souka was every now and then noted in passing, she only received individual press attention during one event (note WP:BIO1E ), and only from one news outlet. Results from WP:BEFORE corroborate this picture of an individual noted in passing but never in covered in detail. See, for example, 1 , 2 , 3 . There was also this article , but this is not a reliable source (cf. WP:DAILYEXPRESS ). Actualcpscm ( talk ) 20:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Greece . Actualcpscm ( talk ) 20:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC) BASIC and WP:HEY . Notable as one of the few female directors-general in the European Commission, which means she is discussed in multiple academic publications, such as [51] and [52] , in addition to the Politico coverage (multiple in-depth articles demonstrating WP:SUSTAINED coverage over time) and New York Times (mention) with regard to her role in the high-profile Selmayr affair and two years later, the drama around her retirement. Note that WP:BASIC specifies that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability , and thanks to multiple controversies, this bio of a European civil servant manages to get over the line based on English sources; additional sources may be available in Greek, French, and with variations in the spelling of her name (e.g. Eirini Souka). Cielquiparle ( talk ) 07:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Meets basic notability criteria for politicians, especially as the director general of the Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security . Batmanthe8th ( talk ) 16:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC) HEY . Passes WP:GNG . Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC) To the best of my knowledge, it's not clearly established that DGs of the EC are inherently notable. Discussion in academic publications is, as far as I could tell, in passing and not significant coverage. Again, discussion of her with regards to the Selmayr controversy is in passing. I'd also like to note that publications from the EC and its press releases are not appropriate for establishing notability, since the EC was her employer and thus not an independent source. I agree that the article has been improved significantly since nomination, but the issue I originally highlighted remains: She is discussed in-depth only in one publication and otherwise mentioned in passing. Yes, multiple sources can be combined to establish notability, but I just don't see the threshold of WP:GNG being met here. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 10:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I fundamentally disagree with your characterisation of what constitutes ""in passing"" coverage. Notable people do notable things, and WP:BASIC fully allows us to count coverage toward notability even when the PERSON isn't the main focus of the article. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 10:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC) BASIC (footnote 7): Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing (""John Smith at Big Company said..."" or ""Mary Jones was hired by My University"") that does not discuss the subject in detail. Discussion in detail goes beyond the mentions of Souka that I have described as ""in passing"". Actualcpscm ( talk ) 11:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is very little discussion about the amount of biographical source material available about this particular individual. Specific discussion about this would be very helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment to Seraphimblade . It is uncontroversial that Irène Souka has multiple in-depth articles covering various aspects of her tenure as Director General in Politico , offering WP:SUSTAINED coverage over time, most notably ""Don't cry for Commission's HR chief"" (2020 article completely focused on Irene Souka) and the 2016 ""Brussels is for lovers: These influential people have formed their own European Unions"" , which gives Irene Souka and her husband top billing as an EU ""power couple"" (they were two Director Generals who were married, which was unusual); in addition, there is coverage about the ""bombshell email"" Souka sent to thousands of people in her department a few days before retiring . To demonstrate notability, however, we need to show that other publications have also covered Souka – and I would argue that the academic publication Pittsburgh Papers on the European Union , actually does discuss the impact of the HR policy reforms she implemented as DG in detail and is substantively more than just a ""passing mention"" – in fact, it's exactly the type of reference we would hope to see about a high-level policymaker (asking what impact did they actually have) – and WP:BASIC allows us to stitch together content from multiple sources. (And as a side note, while I'm inclined to discount (for purposes of establishing notability) Jean Quatremer's analysis as an investigative journalist about Souka's role in the Selmayr affair, which he published in publications such as ' The Spectator and Libération.fr , the fact that The New York Times largely validated his version of events (and mentioned Souka in that context) is definitely significant.) Cielquiparle ( talk ) 05:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 35, 12 July 2023 (UTC) BLUDGEON and not flood this discussion with walls of text that discourage further participation, or waste time. (There is more important work elsewhere in the encyclopedia.) We can agree to disagree and let other people make up their own minds. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 10:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC) BASIC and WP:HEY - the article includes substantial biographical coverage of this particular individual's 40-year career, and their education, which are relevant to their notability, and their personal life is also well-sourced. Beccaynr ( talk ) 03:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Relisting. As of now, I see only two possible closures, or No consensus as there is currently no support for Deletion of this article other than the nominator. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC) 2009 (noting the start of her EC tenure and an incident described as ""a baptism of fire""), 2016 (includes coverage of her as part of the ""highest echelon of Commission officialdom"" and one of ""several of Brussels’ most notable political power couples""), 2020 (in-depth reporting on her career). Beccaynr ( talk ) 19:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Position of Lebanon in the 2006 Lebanon War : Noting there is no other article for the other party, so this is an WP:NPOV violation. Statements representing the positions of all parties involved, which would ensure WP:NPOV , are already on the main page for the war. If any extraneous statements on this page are additive, they can be d. Longhornsg ( talk ) 01:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Military , and Lebanon . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. I think this article should remain. The 2006 Lebanon War was not between Lebanon and Israel, but between Hezbollah and Israel, so Lebanon was an injured bystander. Please note that the conflict is more correctly known as the 2006 Israel–Hezbollah War . The article doesn't blame either of the two warring parties, but describes, in a neutral and factual way, Lebanon's attempts to achieve a ceasefire. Consequently, the argument that it violates Wikipedia's rules about NPOV doesn't hold. The article is an expansion of a chapter in the main article and contains valuable information for future researchers. I see no reason to remove it. Thomas Blomberg ( talk ) Thomas Blomberg ( talk ) 00:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] any relevant material to 2006 Lebanon War if it isn't already included. Mooonswimmer 13:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per @ Thomas Blomberg . I think the article can be cleaned up, better researched, and formatted better, but I think it's certainly useful for research into the unique position of Lebanon's government apparatus as a third party in a way happening on the land they have jurisdiction over. (edit: formatting) OJDrucker ( talk ) 15:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Eissporthalle Iserlohn : Nothing to add from the article on de.wiki. not seeing much else which could be considered against the inclusion criteria JMWt ( talk ) 14:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Germany . JMWt ( talk ) 14:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC) ATD . Ingratis ( talk ) 18:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I added some references. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 19:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Eastmain. The Kip ( contribs ) 17:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC) Improvements during AfD clear up any doubts about notability. -- Milowent • has spoken 18:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Concrete TV : Searches reveal that there were sources in the 1990s but nothing now than can be accessed. Probably needs somebody with access to a newspaper library in Manhattan to trawl through old papers. Without that, it fails WP:GNG and for the moment it is probably better to and re-create later if sources can be found and quoted. Velella Velella Talk 14:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Visual arts , and Sexuality and gender . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC) I was able to hunt down a piece in New York Magazine that talks about the show and confirms that Rolling Stone named the show as the best show of 1996. I was also able to find a few other articles from noteworthy sources. -- LadybugStardust ( talk ) 01:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC) I can't see that WP:SIGCOV is met. Most of the references are the official source of the subject. Boing Boing is not reliable per WP:RSP . The New York Magazine is only a passing reference. That leaves the High Speed Productions source which I can't confirm whether there is in depth coverage in that or not and the New York Press source. Not enough. Tar nis hed Path talk 02:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Subject is definitely notable, as evidenced by the Google Books link cited above, but the article needs better sourcing.-- 2601:345:0:52A0:E165:4C72:14FB:3B9A ( talk ) 23:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. thetechie@wikimedia : ~/talk/ $ 01:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wow, did you seriously follow me here just so you could vote against me out of spite? It's too bad that Wikipedia doesn't have a Barnstar award for being a petty, passive-aggressive troll. -- LadybugStardust ( talk ) 02:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on whether they're already in the article or not, so I fail to understand the nominator's distinction between ""searches reveal that there were sources in the 1990s"" and ""but nothing now than can be accessed"" — if you have searched and found that sources did exist, then it doesn't matter whether you can personally access them or not, and the fact that they exist is good enough. If you really want to help, then certainly list what you found on a talk page so that a willing party who does have the ability to find said sources knows what you saw, but if you did find sources there's no debate left to be had. And yes, some of the referencing here is to the show's own website — but since all of those are being used to cite quotes from reliable source media outlets about the show, literally all that has to be done to resolve those is revising them so that they're citing the original content instead of the primary source reprint of it. And since we do not have a rule that all of our footnotes have to be googlable web pages, but rather we are allowed to cite print-only content without hotlinking it anywhere, the fact that you can't find another web page still doesn't matter either: literally all you have to do is locate the title of the original piece, by any means possible, and abracadabra. For my part, I've already found two more sources that weren't already in the article, including being able to knock out one of the primary sources by locating the original content. Bearcat ( talk ) 13:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , sourced, and per Bearcat. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 04:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Both the article's references and what's been said here make a strong case for notability. Gedaali ( talk ) 08:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Clearly notable from the references given. Contributor892z ( talk ) 08:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Amrita School of Medicine : Should be a . Onel 5969 TT me 11:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , Medicine , Haryana , and Kerala . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I feel that this page can be made at least as a stub. Because Hospital and the school are different topics and It can't be d. It is one of the notable Hedgeunkil ( talk ) 16:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . i think it is suitable to school article so it on MICHAEL 942006 ( talk ) 18:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , sources seem fine to me. Cheers! // 🌶️ Jala peño 🌶️ Don't click this link ! 14:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Quite a lot of sources [20] on the school, seems to meet WP:GNG. 33ABGirl ( talk ) 06:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC) N is good. So, better to instead of . There are many sources available in web aswell. Hedgeunkil ( talk ) 12:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Striking dupe vote. Onel 5969 TT me 21:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Meets WP:GNG . The person who loves reading ( talk ) 20:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - at the time of nomination, there was not a single independent, reliable source which went in-depth about the school of medicine. Since the nomination, a total of 2 references have been added, the first , is a brief mention of the school, amidst a much wider discussion of the need for more doctors and opening more schools, while the second is a simple database entry. Onel 5969 TT me 21:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: policy based input would be helpful Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Currently multiple independent, reliable sources have been added. Please look into it Hedgeunkil ( talk ) 16:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - the coverage of national rankings in the New Indian Express ( [21] [22] ), despite themselves essentially being press releases, seems highly indicative of there being additional coverage available. This is an WP:NEXIST argument, as I don't think that the current sourcing adds up to WP:GNG . signed, Rosguill talk 05:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"SuperTux : QuietCicada - Talk 15:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software . QuietCicada - Talk 15:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC) SURMOUNTABLE . The game is clearly notable, having got reviews in Linux Voice , Free Software for Dummies , and PC Games World . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - The game is notable and a quick search on Google and DDG brings up some decent sources. Yes, it does need improvement, but remember WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP . -- StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 02:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Amiga Future 69, November/December 2007, p. 20 (review of the Amiga version). Pavlor ( talk ) 06:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC) DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP Blitzfan51 speak to the manager — Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"2023 Karachi mall fire : Natg 19 ( talk ) 20:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Pakistan . Natg 19 ( talk ) 20:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC) While it may not be a notable event anymore, the article can still be improved upon. Rager7 ( talk ) 01:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC) NOTNEWS as narrowly as we do…the article seems to pass GNG and as it was in a non-Western (but somewhat Anglophone) country I’m inclined to give the benefit of the doubt notability-wise. If it had happened in Miami, would it be up for deletion? I don’t know. But looking at it cursorily, a bit of expansion would help. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 22:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC) I don't see this as having the WP:LASTING impact required by WP:EVENTCRIT. Owen× ☎ 23:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC) changed from based on recent coverage found by Left guide , which invalidates my earlier WP:LASTING argument. The administrative attention this is now getting also suggests it will result in regulatory amendments to electrical or building codes. Owen× ☎ 23:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Tragic occurrance, but fails WP:EVENTCRIT . Tails Wx 02:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC) per the references found below by Left guide, coverage is persistent . ~ Tails Wx 20:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC) LASTING notes above, I'd add WP:GEOSCOPE , WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE , all of which are lacking. For RadioactiveBoulevardier 's objections above, I'd say that the tide of ill-advised AfD conclusions that go against policy are lamentable, but should not be used as a reason to something that does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT . If it happened in Miami and had the same sourcing, I'd ! vote the exactly same way (and have on the plethora of news events like yet another mass shooting that similarly lacks DEPTH and EFFECT). Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 16:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak I feel like if an event happened in the US of this scale, it would be SNOW kept at AFD. We have to be wary of systematic bias on Wikipedia. 166.198.251.71 ( talk ) 23:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You may very well be right. There is, indeed, a systematic bias at play, but it is external to Wikipedia. Secondary sources - news, in this case - is biased in favour of covering Western world events. And since we here on Wikipedia are bound by the requirement to base our content on secondary sources, we end up with more coverage for events in the Western world whether we choose to or not. It's an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of compiling an encyclopedia that isn't based on original research. Owen× ☎ 23:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC) CONTINUEDCOVERAGE of the fire has ed regarding three people arrested for sabotaging evidence , wiring and electrical safety , fire safety , and the police investigation . Left guide ( talk ) 08:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is just about a consensus for here, although Left guide's comment needs to be responded to/refuted for that consensus to be strong enough to close as . Alternatively additional support for their view may lead to a no consensus closure. Final relist to hopefully reach a consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 23:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC) SECONDARY reference, as the Express-Tribune article has some WP:DEPTH and analytical, non-primary content. The remaining sources, including the original cites, are still WP:PRIMARYNEWS . They are not continued WP:SIGCOV or WP:PERSISTENCE , just routine news announcements that report on a new development. That one secondary source is strong, however, but it's a very tenuous peg on which to hang this article, especially without any WP:GEOSCOPE . Without more such sourcing – or, even better, if they enact one or more of the recommendations specified in the Express-Tribune piece to satisfy WP:LASTING – I maintain that the article still does not pass WP:NEVENT . Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 20:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC) Sometime within the past 24 hours, CCTV footage of the fire surfaced, and this has been widely reported by Urdu sources . Left guide ( talk ) 21:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] With almost a dozen deaths and continued coverage, it would be best to revisit this article after a long time. CharlesWain ( talk ) 10:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Paracelsus-Bad (Berlin U-Bahn) : I've looked at the page on dewiki but I'm not seeing any extra sources we can consider here JMWt ( talk ) 15:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Germany . JMWt ( talk ) 15:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Station on a major network in a major city, all of whose stations have articles. Not sure why this particular station has been singled out for deletion. There are likely to be plenty of sources available. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC) 39, 23 January 2024 (UTC) 07, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See the nomination. JMWt ( talk ) 16:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The nomination statement does not answer Necrothesp's question. Why have you chosen to nominate this station and not any others? When an article is part of a tightly-defined set (almost all articles about rapid transit stations are) then it rarely makes sense to consider the article in isolation to others in the set. Thryduulf ( talk ) 16:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not a relevant question to ask a nom and I'm under no obligation to answer it. Rapid transport system stations do not have implied notability on en.wiki, as shown by various AfD discussions where similar station pages in other countries have been d. If you have sources that show this station is notable, please supply them. JMWt ( talk ) 17:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is a relevant question and it has nothing to do with implied notability. Furthermore, if you don't want to answer a question (for any reason) say you do not want to answer it rather than pointing to a comment that doesn't answer it with a comment implying that it does. Thryduulf ( talk ) 18:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course it's a relevant question. It's an attempt to understand why this single station on an extensive system has been nominated and no other. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or . There is definitely no reason to remove the verifiable information about this station from the encyclopaedia completely. Yes, it could do with more sources, but it's inconceivable to me that they don't exist even if they aren't cited yet. Has the nominator looked anywhere other than the German Wikipedia article? Obviously the most prominent results on Google in English are going to be those useful for those travelling to/from the station, because that's what most people are searching for, but take the time to exclude them and look for histories, etc in German. Thryduulf ( talk ) 15:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC) Berliner Morgenpost, in German, paywalled [40] and [41] . Die Dorfzeitung: [42] . T-online [43] Berliner Kurier [44] . Rupples ( talk ) 01:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose deletion . Not all the stations on the U8 (Berlin U-Bahn) line have separate articles. Those associated with S-Bahn or main rail lines feature within a combined rail station article. (Some of them seem rather lost within the longer article.) It makes sense to the station set for the line intact and have at least a somewhere. All the U8 stations might be better presented in a ""List of U8 stations"" article, but that would need a separate discussion. Rupples ( talk ) 07:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per Rupple's sources. I also agree with Necro and Thryduulf it makes no sense to one and only one article in a tight set, and the nom refuses to provide any explanation why even when asked. Jumpytoo Talk 04:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Martti Lintulahti : Some GBooks hits in Finnish but done where he is the primary focus of anything, merely mentions. CoconutOctopus talk 15:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Iraq , Finland , and Brazil . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Of the fi.wp sourcing, the first is a three-para obituary in Helsingin Sanomat (30 November 1982). It feels a bit borderline w/r/t how much it contributes towards notability. There also looks to be a 1962 Suomen Kuvalehti biographical article which is fairly extensive at almost a full page. Facta 2001 , a large Finnish encyclopedia, is also cited, but the entry could be anything from a list entry of ""name (dob - dod) - job"" to a larger article. I suspect the first, but have no access. The Elonet entry is a passing mention and does not contribute towards notability. Beyond these, the newspaper archive of National Library of Finland has a ton of hits, but as one would expect from a diplomat many of these are just passing mentions (NB: links require a researcher account). Some of the more promising ones are a shorter bio in Etelä-Suomen Sanomat on his 50th birthday (25 August 1967; page 7), a bio of his family in Länsi-Savo (focuses on daughter, but has a section on him; 28 December 1963; page 4), and another bio in Helsingin Sanomat on his 60th birthday (25 August 1977; page 15). There are also shorter news'y obituaries in at least Uusi Suomi ( [25] ). While big-ticket items are missing, I'd view this as dragging itself over the line of WP:GNG based on the number of medium-quality sources that go beyond passing mention. While it's unlikely to ever make it to GA, I'm having a hard time discounting every hit to the degree of claiming it'd completely un-notable. - Ljleppan ( talk ) 09:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . In addition to the above refs, I found a dissertation that describes Lintulahti's role in Finnish-Japanese trade in some detail. Not sure whether it counts towards notability, but there is also a 140 page Master's thesis titled China's foreign relations according to Martti Lintulahti. 31.1.1967 - 1.4.1969 . I browsed through some of the newspaper clips in Helsingin sanomat. Most of them are short mentions, but on 17.3.1964 there is a 6-paragraph item about him being assigned as an attaché for the Finnish olympic team in Tokyo, and being awarded a Silver Cross of Merit for Finnish Physical Education and Sports. There is also a Who's Who in Finland 1978 page about him, which provides some personal details, even though it does not count towards notability. Jähmefyysikko ( talk ) 12:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for taking the time to find these. While Master's theses are almost never acceptable sources, PhD theses are a bit more complicated; the relevant guideline is WP:SCHOLARSHIP . Probably not the strongest notability-wise, but doesn't hurt. Kuka kukin on (Who's Who in Finland; fi.wp ) probably doesn't count since - like it's UK and US equivalent - it is largely based on information collected from the subjects themselves. See the WP:RSP entries for the UK and US editions. Ljleppan ( talk ) 17:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify . Per WP:TNT , there is nothing of value to be kept and the text is thus in an unacceptable state. I will be watching the discussion in case it is improved. Geschichte ( talk ) 06:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm going to need some help understanding how this two-sentence stub qualifies for TNT. Sure, it's a stub, but that is not a valid deletion reason in itself, and all the content that exists looks perfectly reasonable to me. - Ljleppan ( talk ) 08:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftification is not deletion. It would help if the reference can be formatted to appear intelligible in the English language. Geschichte ( talk ) 10:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've formatted the reference as a {{ cite book }} . W/r/t Draftification is not deletion , the WP:TNT essay describes a process of blow it up and start over , i.e. completely removing all existing content. I don't see much difference between """" and ""drafity and all existing content"", nor do I understand why either would be appropriate here. Ljleppan ( talk ) 14:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per Ljleppan and Jähmefyysikko , there is a substantial amount of sources complementary to the subject of the article. Just needs improvements, it doesn't make sense WP:TNT . Svartner ( talk ) 02:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Chicago CRED : Article is based on five sources – two deprecated or questionable sites (mentioned in a YouTube video and on World Socialist Web Site as someone's affiliation), a podcast, an interview of the founder in local TV station, and the organisation's own website. All dated to 2023. Yep. It is obvious that the article subject falls very far from long-lasting, significant, in-depth coverage required for WP:NCORP and for a global encyclopaedia in general. Additionally, the article's draft, in an almost identical form (less a couple of weasel buzzwords) was already (rightly) removed from mainspace by Mooonswimmer| . [6] The creator went against that and recreated the article in mainspace. However, given the lack of notability, draftifying may be pointless. — kashmīrī TALK 16:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Illinois . — kashmīrī TALK 16:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC) Coverage of this subject includes: (1) a specific profile on The Daily Show , (2) a profile by Slate , (3) coverage in The Economist . The idea that those three sources don't amount to SIGCOV is frankly difficult to reconcile. It was only after those sources were added and the article redrafted that this was re-added to mainspace. Gosh, kashmīrī , I hope this is a good faith AfD nom and not made in response to my comment on this RfA . It would be saddening if that were the case. I will take it for now that you are acting in good faith. Jack4576 ( talk ) 17:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your weird arguments in that AfD, where you directly questioned SIGCOV and other Wikipedia policies, made me take a look at your recent edits – and indeed, it seems that you fail to understand what notability is all about. — kashmīrī TALK 17:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh would you look at that, with one Google search I've identified SIGCOV from the Washington Post. It would be preferable to have AfD editors that understand policy well enough to perform a WP:BEFORE, prior to nom. Its hard to maintain the presumption that you are acting in good faith, if you're not going to bother doing a basic Google prior to an AfD. On the basis of the WAPO coverage are you willing to withdraw this AfD? Its more than a little sad that this entry for a meaningful local NGO has been caught up in your pettiness. Jack4576 ( talk ) 17:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC) BEFORE search ? Jack4576 ( talk ) 17:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC) Christian Science Monitor Jack4576 ( talk ) 17:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question The Slate source appears to be an interview with the organization's leader that doesn't really discuss the organization? The Daily Show I can't seem to get to -- fixed deadlinks, tried Wayback, no joy -- but it also looks like an interview with the org leader? The World Socialist and Opera sources appear to be bare mentions? I'm not sure I'm seeing sigcov. Valereee ( talk ) 17:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Daily Show interview was an interview with both founders about the org, ""on how Chicago CRED is connecting at-risk young men with job training, counseling, and paychecks"" ( link ). Twitter links aren't favoured sources but I think this is good enough to make the point here. I'll add it to the article. Plus the WAPO coverage that I have just added. Jack4576 ( talk ) 17:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Additional coverage from the Obama Foundation . Now added. Jack4576 ( talk ) 17:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In general we don't consider interviews to count as independent discussion. What we need to see are three instances of sigcov in RS that are independent. Don't get me wrong, this is a great organization, but the sources provided aren't supporting notability. Adding more sources that don't support a claim to notability isn't the answer, what we need to know is which three are sig cov+RS+independent, ideally two of which are from media outside the local area? Valereee ( talk ) 17:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you don't think SIGCOV is met with the sources already provided, I think that sets the bar way too high. Where in SIGCOV is it required that there be three sources that are all are sig cov+RS+independent. The requirements for (1) reliable sources, and (2) significant coverage are separate requirements. Feel free to disagree in the application of policy, but that is not my interpretation of the wording of GNG. The only other thing I have to say is that deletion of this article would leave the encyclopedia the worse for it. Jack4576 ( talk ) 17:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I mean we have specific attention on this org from the Washington Post, The Obama Foundation, The Daily Show; plus numerous local sources, and SIGCOV is still in question? Really? What are we waiting for, a front page article from the NYT? Good grief. Jack4576 ( talk ) 17:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We're looking for actual articles rather than interviews or bare mentions. We require multiple that are all sig cov+RS+independent; some editors are willing to accept two very good ones. In order to make a subject bulletproof, I try to find three before moving to article space. For the policy see WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND . Valereee ( talk ) 17:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I respect your engagement in good faith and thank you sincerely for your contributions to this thread. I've encountered this issue re: 'interviews' before, and honestly I don't understand the hang-up over it. Surely if the interviewer is of a sufficiently high-profile that ought go some way to establishing that the subject has been significantly covered. I'd understand if it was a bare interview without any depth in a trade magazine; but these are of a sufficiently high profile that an exception to the rule ought to be made. Anyway, I appreciate that this may be more worthwhile a discussion on the relevant policy page than here. Thanks again. Jack4576 ( talk ) 17:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Found an in-depth profile from the Christian Science Monitor . Surely this is conclusive of SIGCOV. Jack4576 ( talk ) 17:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another source . Jack4576 ( talk ) 17:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I would consider both the CSM and the Giffords sources to be sigcov+RS+independent. Both are outside local media, and I'll take it as given this has been covered in Chicago. . Valereee ( talk ) 17:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] With the amended sourcing, notability criteria for organisations have clearly been met. Schwede 66 18:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC) Easily passes WP:GNG . Toddst1 ( talk ) 22:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 08:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC) HEY improvements. Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 00:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the page was improved and sourced added or found. could be saved now. -- BoraVoro ( talk ) 06:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"The Land Is Inhospitable and So Are We : A check of the references shows that they are advance announcements, or interviews with the artist. None of them are independent secondary coverage. Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary 1 variety.com Advance announcement of album No Yes Yes No 2 vulture.com Another advance announcement of album No Yes Yes No 3 rollingstone.comn Interview with the artist No Yes Yes No 4 pitchfork.com Another interview No Yes Yes No There was also a draft, so that draftification is not a valid option. The draft has been blanked. Moving the article into draft space until the album is released is the most reasonable option. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 08:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 08:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Albums are not only significant when they have been released. The album has a definite release date, track listing, cover art, and more coverage than the sources listed on the article. There is significant and widespread coverage of this release already in music media. The four sources present on the article are not exhaustive, and it meets the first criterion, ""Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself."" Interviews with the artist are non-trivial. Also, what do you mean they're not independent sources? They were published by music media independent of the artist , meaning they are also secondary coverage as well. This is a misguided nomination for an upcoming recording by a significant artist (who has had multiple charting and widely reviewed albums). Ss 112 08:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - sources in the article already make it meet the GNG. Blatant misrepresentations of sources. There's a difference between having some direct quotes and being a full-blown interview. Albums do not needs to be released to be notable either. Sergecross73 msg me 10:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Why does it exist? The album is about to be released, this week the lead single will be released. There are already enough sources that prove the notability of the album. Mitski is a world-renowned Japanese singer, so... ? Silence doc ¿ 13:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - For the same reasons as the other voters above. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Policy Comment - This nomination illustrates an incorrect reading of the future album and crystal ball guidelines. A future album is real and not a prediction if reliable sources have confirmed a release date and other key info. For famous musicians, which is the case for Mitski here, this can happen months in advance. This album article may have been created a little too soon for some editors' tastes, but the album is real and so are the reliable sources reporting on it. And finally, this nomination not only misrepresents sources (noted by my colleagues above), but it fetishizes the draftify process. Moving a functioning article to draftspace, then moving it back with just a few minor alterations several weeks later, is pure procedure worship that accomplishes nothing but confusion for WP readers. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed, the nom operates on the premise of a deep misunderstanding of FUTUREALBUM. Certainly there are problems with editors making promotional-leaning future albums, but this is not one of those times, and feels like a severe over-correction in the opposite direction. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . There is no reason to nominate an album for deletion that has already proven to be notable and is undoubtedly going to be relevant upon release in a couple weeks. The album has already been thoroughly covered in news sources and publications which, as a result, justifies an article. Lk95 ( talk ) 15:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Nkechi Blessing Sunday : Nswix ( talk ) 04:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , and Nigeria . Nswix ( talk ) 04:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Not sure the City People award gives notability, very flowery text in the article, seems PROMO. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 22:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . The subject meets criterion one of WP:NACTOR . She has had major roles in multiple notable films. She has also been nominated for a couple of notable awards, speficially City People Entertainment Awards and the Best of Nollywood Awards. I think this is enough for a weak . She appears to be somewhat of a well-established actress in the Yoruba movie industry. Versace 1608 Wanna Talk ? 03:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak the City People award, I'm not sure. But the Nollywood Awards seem notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the subject is a well known actresses and brand influencers in Nigeria, with coverage and a strong career. Amaekuma ( talk ) 11:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , major celebrity in Nigeria, frequent subject of press coverage. See https://www.premiumtimesng.com/entertainment/nollywood/569156-real-reason-nkechi-blessing-twerked-before-ooni.html? tztc=1 , https://dailypost.ng/2022/06/04/2023-dont-let-god-punish-you-nkechi-blessing-blasts-omokri-over-tinubu-comparison/ , https://leadership.ng/nollywood-actress-nkechi-blessing-visits-ooni-of-ife-sets-tongues-wagging/whatsapp-image-2022-11-22-at-12-49-20/ , https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/tori-61023470 , https://punchng.com/i-wont--my-relationship-off-social-media-nkechi-blessing/ , etc, etc. 668,000 followers on Instagram, -- Soman ( talk ) 21:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Tirukkural translations into Japanese : Already covered in Tirukkural translations . No proof of WP:Notability of the the 2 transalations on its own accord. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Philosophy , Japan , and India . Redtigerxyz Talk 17:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC) More info and citations added to establish notability. Kural translations are a highly notable topic and the addition of citations asserts the notability of individual translations, as noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani . Article passes WP:GNG . Rasnaboy ( talk ) 09:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Rasnaboy. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 16:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC) per citations in articles. Works into WP:SUMMARYSTYLE format as child articles of Tirukkural translations . The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Heritage International Xperiential School : Charlie ( talk ) 18:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India . Charlie ( talk ) 18:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Haryana . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 17:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - unlike many other schools, there seems to be enough coverage to support meeting on notability. - Indefensible ( talk ) 23:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC) NCORP , per the definition of notability for WP:NSCHOOL . As a privately run public school, most of the references fails WP:SIRS as routine coverage, and as they are not independent of the subject. scope_creep Talk 09:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notable content changes have been made, and a substantial number of additional sources have been incorporated. HIXS is a top school in India, covered by many mainstream media outlets. The school was ranked 3rd among India's top 5 schools by India League IB Table Zehnasheen ( talk ) 14:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The sources that are now in the article are sufficient to satisfy WP:NSCHOOL . Jacona ( talk ) 14:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . As it now satisfies the WP:NSCHOOL — Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 15:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Red–red coalition : No sources. UtherSRG (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Germany . UtherSRG (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , one of the many colour combinations for a German governing coalition . In theory, the colour/flag descriptive names could all be d there, but standalone articles can list all the previous examples for such a combination. de:Rot-rote Koalition has some sources that show the term is in use, for example [2] . — Kusma ( talk ) 16:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In use does not confer notability. Is there significant coverage of the term? Or is all of the significant coverage about specific coalitions? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know whether there is significantly more about the term than a dicdef (merging to German governing coalition could be a reasonable option) but the question whether there should be such red-red coalitions was widely discussed at the time (""can a democratic party enter a coalition with the successor party of the East German communists?""), and so there are multiple RS on JSTor that can be used to write a more in-depth article about this type of coalition, for example [3] , [4] , [5] . And these are just a few sources in English from the search linked from the template above. — Kusma ( talk ) 16:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The German page is very well-sourced, and other languages aren't well sourced but talk about how this is a valid German political term. Not ! voting since I haven't reviewed the sources there yet, but articles aren't not notable because they're not sourced, and there's every indication this one could be having reviewed the Spiegel article above. SportingFlyer T · C 17:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] primarily a political phenomenon in Germany (although Austria is discussed in the German language article, one could also possibly mention Finland), frequent mentions in German language media (eg Rot-rot in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern , Wowereit setzt auf Rot-Rot, Ringstorff auf große Koalition , Saarland diskutiert über mögliche Rot-Rot-Koalition , SPD- und Linksfraktion stützen Rot-Rot in Potsdam ). Furthermore, simple searches reveal in depth pieces from one of the Reds themseves ( The PDS in the Berlin Red-Red Coalition: Experience and Strategic Implications ) and academic literature: eg, this piece in the German Politics and Society journal includes a discussion on ""Factors Determining the Likelihood of Red-Red Coalition Formation"" and ""Factors Determining the Successful Maintenance of Red-Red Coalitions"" (pp.4-6). Passes the GNG. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 14:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"May 2023 Pakistan by-elections : I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 10 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] for the same reason cancelled video games also have articles/sections , anything that was planned but didn't happen (as long as it's properly sourced) has an article/section. Being a cancelled election could probably be reflected in the title somehow or the article's contents be d someplace, but just because it got cancelled doesn't magically mean erase the validity of the content. This nomination is throwing the baby out with the bathwater basically. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs ) 20:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per Mythdon's reasoning. IncompA 20:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Politics , and Pakistan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why not merging into 2023 Pakistani parliamentary crisis ? Panam2014 ( talk ) 21:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I would agree to Panam2014 's proposal as a fallback, but I think there is plenty here to justify a separate article. Something not happening due to crises or simple cancellation has never been a valid cause for deletion, especially where there is reasonable, sustained, non-local coverage (all of which are shown by the cites). As an extreme example, The world completely failed to end in 2012, but we still have a superb ~130kb article on it. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 17:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Lumen (tech company) : Search is complicated by the existence of notable Lumen Technologies , but I couldn't find anything about this company besides the aforementioned announcements, and a couple short inclusions in lists of startups that don't add up to significant coverage . ~ A412 talk! 17:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Companies , Technology , and Israel . ~ A412 talk! 17:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I will look around some more before making up my mind. Coverage seems focused on the technology, less on the funding. We want everything covered. Not all coverage found is independent. This piece is a SIGCOV, independent ANALYSIS of the technology in Forbes, discussing at length the advantages and disadvantages of the technology. It counts toward notability. gidonb ( talk ) 00:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . Seems to be recently covered by reliable sources, such as Forbes [3] and TheVerge [4] . Marokwitz ( talk ) 11:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Thanks, Marokwitz , for finding a second valid source! gidonb ( talk ) 01:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . The Forbes article is by a contributor and cannot be used. The Verge article along with 3 present, make it a marginally for me. Bikerose ( talk ) 01:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Currently ambivalent. I am highly concerned that the two sources held up as the best SIGCOV are examples of affiliate marketing. There are a few other reviews more or less along the same lines, for example, Kraus ( Mashable , 2020) and Giordano ( Wired , 2020) both presumably for the earlier iteration of the product, and Dervish-O'Kane ( Women’s Health , 2024) , but non-affiliate sources seem rather thin on the ground, and while appropriately disclosed for the typical journalistic source, that does not mean the coverage can be considered independent by our standards. Byrne , writing for Outside magazine in 2022 appears to be one qualifying source, but with the rest of the coverage being... not really acceptable, I cannot currently endorse a at the present time. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 14:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 17:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] affiliate links or no, there is a significant amount of independent coverage here. Affiliate links are just how you make money as an online news brand today. The Mashable source linked above does, for example, criticise the product: > the daily breathing in the morning, and at additional times depending on other information the app asks for, is a bit of a slog, and I’m not sure the information Lumen gives me is something I can’t pretty much intuit for myself. BrigadierG ( talk ) 18:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC) FORBESCON , but I think we can based on Wired, Mashable, and Women's Health. Regarding the affiliate linking topic, I don't think consensus has been established at RSN or elsewhere that this is disqualifying. (Personal opinion, not policy: I think the presence of affiliate links is correlated with but not causative of non-independent reviews; affiliate links being so ubiquitous today, we should defer to our other indications on whether sources are editorially independent and reliable, and I think the ones under discussion generally are (Wired is on RSP unconditionally, and Mashable is on RSP with the caveat ""especially ensuring that the content was written by Mashable staff and not the sponsor themselves"", which is not the issue under discussion here). ) As other non- ! votes have been submitted, we'll have to let this run to completion though. ~ A412 talk! 01:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC) Found a Slate article (Camero, 2023) so I'm OK to withdraw any objection on initial examination. Any misgivings on the DUE afforded to sources I can hash out on the talk page. The page should probably be mostly be about the product (and renamed accordingly) since the relevant coverage is mostly reviews but, again, talk page. I believe I'm the only one who expressed any concerns, so we should be all good for early close, though it's not like there's a deadline if nobody wants to actually do the close. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 13:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Manav Bhinder : The page was recently vandalized and subsequently protected for a few days. However, Mr. Bhinder has since expressed a clear desire for privacy and has requested that the page be removed to respect his wishes. Manav Bhinder has reviewed the article on "" Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects "" suggested by one of the user and is now convinced that Wikipedia can handle vandalism. Therefore, he no longer wishes to proceed with the deletion and would like to withdraw the nomination for this page. Pradeepsethi.in ( talk ) 21:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC) FAQ/Article subjects and take action (or decline to take action) accordingly. Gottagotospace ( talk ) 21:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC) FAQ/Article subjects "", and is now convinced that Wikipedia can handle vandalism. Therefore, he no longer wishes to proceed with the deletion of the article. Pradeepsethi.in ( talk ) 19:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Pradeepsethi.in We have no idea whi you are, nir any evidence of any delegated authority by Bhinder. For all we know you are unconnected and making mischief. Bhinder should approach WP:VRT himself, directly, and make his personal case there. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Maharashtra . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Setting aside any notability in the article and focussing solely on the deletion rationale, I see nothing to suggest that Wikipedia accede to the nominator's request. Manav Bhinder must make his own case correctly according to the advice given above. There is absolutely no proof that the nominator is acting on Bhinder's behalf. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What kind of proof or evidence do I need to provide to demonstrate that I am acting on Bhinder's behalf? He is not comfortable editing wikipedia pages to raise a request, which is why he asked me to represent him. Pradeepsethi.in ( talk ) 06:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Regardless of the request above, I don't find sourcing about this individual that would meet GNG. Article is sourced to imdb and stories about other people where this person is mentioned. I don't find coverage we'd use to build an article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"One World Trade Center (Long Beach) : Sole source is Emporis, and then a source about how something else surpassed it in height. Unable to locate any significant non-local coverage about this tower. De-PROD'd with the following edit summary: second tallest building in Long Beach could be notable Naturally, no sourcing has been added to support this claim. ♠ PMC ♠ (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and California . ♠ PMC ♠ (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC) OneWorldTradeCenterLongBeach.jpg provides a strong visual argument that this building is notable in multiple regards to the area sufficiently for Wikipedia's purposes. Regarding the significant local coverage point; whether or not coverage is local doesn't go to SIGCOV. Coverage can be both local and significant. In any case; SIGCOV merely establishes a presumption toward notability. We don't need that presumption here; as the photographs of the building I think make a fair case that this is a notable subject. Jack4576 ( talk ) 07:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What is meant by a ""strong visual argument""? Isn't notability, etc. determined by sourcing? -- Gen. Quon [Talk] 13:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC) 30, 11 May 2023 (UTC) 47, 15 May 2023 (UTC) 52, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Jack4576 is correct. And there is no way this should be outright d; note it links to List of tallest buildings in Long Beach and at the very worst it should be d/ed to there, as the nominator should know. The appropriate forum for such a proposal would be wp:MERGE . --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 18:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC) GNG . Garuda3 ( talk ) 18:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I would close this as , but the arguments about ""visual notability"" are not rooted in policy were given next to no weight. That left me with a no consensus situation that may be resolved by some analysis about the sources added by Garuda3. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC) Assess of the newly added Sources: Source assessment table: prepared by User:Adler3 Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-los-angeles-times-long-beach-tower-s/124861892/ Local newspaper Local newspaper Routine sale of expensive building. See below. ✘ No https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-los-angeles-times-landmark-office-to/124862152/ They interview the building owners. The owners say that the building is a ""trendsetter"". Local newspaper Routine sale of expensive building. See below. ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Per WP:NBUILD ""historic, social, economic, or architectural importance"" is required. The two sources are just about the building being sold. I think this building does not have ""economic importance"". I would consider economic importance to be where a building that contains a large shopping mall at the ground floor, for example. In both of the sources it is noted that the building is large and expensive, but it has not been said why it stands out from the rest. Adler3 ( talk ) 20:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC) GNG . Besides, being ""large and expensive"" implies economic importance. There is also no need for something to ""stand out from the rest"" for inclusion on Wikipedia, and there's no reason why discussio of a sale doesn't meet GNG. WP:ROUTINE after all is part of our events guidelines and so isn't applicable to a building. Garuda3 ( talk ) 20:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In my understanding Guidelines are instructions how to apply policies in particular situations. Economic importance would be that it makes up a significant percentage of the city or the county's economy, leads to the creation of neighborhoods, etc. The sources do not point to that. Rather, reading them, this building seems like a run-of-the-mill development. About WP:ROUTINE : the building purchase could count as a routine event. Adler3 ( talk ) 20:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC) per the relist comment, the idea of a photo from an editor in Commons showing notability is nonsense and I think trolling. Fails GNG. Source eval: Comments Source Interview, fails IS 1. ""LATE STARTER"". Australian Financial Review. 13 October 2005. Retrieved 15 May 2023. Quote from subject, fails IS 2. ^ O'Sullivan, Matt (5 January 2010). ""Webjet is just the ticket"". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 15 May 2023. Fails V, 404 3. ^ Odi, Teresa (20 January 2008). ""Webjet chief's relief at missing out on Travel.com"". The Australian. Retrieved 4 May 2012.[dead link] Jack obviously did a complete BEFORE and had nothing but a photo to show. // Timothy :: talk 01:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree that it is trolling. Rather Jack was arguing that a skyscraper should belong in an encyclopedia by virtue of being a skyscraper. I think there was some merit to saying that 70 years in the past. But I think that now there are just too many skyscrapers around for any given skyscraper to be considered notable. Adler3 ( talk ) 02:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC) OneWorldTradeCenterLongBeach.jpg provides a strong visual argument that this building is notable in multiple regards to the area sufficiently for Wikipedia's purposes. "" // Timothy :: talk 02:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I change my mind. Adler3 ( talk ) 03:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This argument appears to have no relation to this article. Garuda3 ( talk ) 07:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added to the article's talk page a baker's dozen sources that demonstrate notability and could be used to expand the article. -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 15:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as demonstrated by Garuda3 and Worldbruce . ~ Kvng ( talk ) 16:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Robert P. Watson : The information for the candidate for the House of Representatives specifically states he was considering running and formed an exploratory committee. This does not meet the requirements for notability. The article was created in 2005 so there has been plenty of opportunities to add reliable sourced content if it existed, but from what I can see it doesn't exist. This individual does not meet the requirements for notability to have a stand alone Wikipedia article. VViking Talk Edits 15:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Politicians , and Pennsylvania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Academic notability in the subject's field would probably be established via reviews of his books. Checking JSTOR finds at least one for The Ghost Ship of Brooklyn [7] , Affairs of State [8] , George Washington's Final Battle [9] [10] , The Presidents' Wives [11] [12] , The Nazi Titanic [13] , and America's First Crisis [14] . So, there may be a WP:PROF / WP:AUTHOR pass here. XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC) AUTHOR and the many published reviews I found for his many books. He also has a distinguished professorship but the case for WP:PROF#C5 hinges on whether one counts Lynn University as ""a major institution of higher education and research"". He's not notable as a politician but that's irrelevant; he's also not notable as an astronomical body nor as a species of insect. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] PS I removed the political campaign from the article altogether, refocusing it on his academic career, as I could not find good enough sourcing. The best I found was this dubiously-reliable interview (also potentially WP:CIRCULAR ) which mentions the campaign without any specifics in response to which Watson states ""I plead temporary insanity."" I don't think that's good enough. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC) AUTHOR is met. XOR'easter ( talk ) 18:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Nick Winston : The article is of significant length, but there are few sources and none inline. 2003 LN 6 05:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . 2003 LN 6 05:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Theatre , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Highly promotional and is practically a list of accomplishments without sourcing. Shadow311 ( talk ) 15:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . There are hundreds of reviews of his work , and he has directed and/or choreographed numerous West End musicals. Obviously, no one did the research to add references to this article, but that is not a justification for deletion at AfD. I agree that the massive list of credits should be severely culled, but that is a task for another day. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong news coverage exists as stated by Ssilvers . He seems to have some awards as well. IMO, it should not have been nominated. Perfectstrangerz ( talk ) 01:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun ( talk ) 08:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC) GNG although article needs clean up. Orange sticker ( talk ) 10:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes the writing is crummy needing a rewrite but notability is met here. X ( talk ) 13:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
+"Jeniffer Barrios: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Guatemala . JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC) GNG . References 1 and 2 are rosters, 3 is broken and 4 is a stat site. After a quick search, more stat sites are found. IncompA 20:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC) GNG Whitemancanjump23 ( talk ) 08:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC) 17, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - lack of SIGCOV reliable sources, failing GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 16:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC) 32, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Olga Sagan: Non-notable businessperson otherwise. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Women . Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Washington . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not notable, appears promotional. W C M email 07:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC) A to the bakery they own seems fair. Clearly fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL . TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 20:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] She is a well-known figure in Seattle amongst small business owners. Yesterday is tomorrow ( talk ) 18:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per TulsaPoliticsFan. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Akish: RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 10:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions . RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 10:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] By the way, this was PRODded in 2008 and then not sent here for some reason. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 03:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Does that comment mean I’m supposed to read the relevant guidelines and then summon a bunch of people here? RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 09:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC) Not at all. The patrolling admin extended this AfD discussion for another week due to lack of participation, and this article is not eligible for a soft . Grab Up - Talk 08:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC) It would be better to this article to Book of Ether . The subject is not eligible for a standalone article due to the lack of coverage. Grab Up - Talk 08:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Komail Anam: @ MPGuy2824 : ed it, but it was restored by a SPA. I tried evaluating it based on WP:GNG, but there's not enough coverage to pass that either. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 11:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 11:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi there, Thanks for reaching out about the article for Komail Anam. I understand your concerns about meeting the notability criteria for singers and actors (WP:SINGER & WP:ACTOR). I've included sources in the article that demonstrate Komail Anams's involvement in major and side roles for notable TV shows. Here are some suggestions: - Consider the relevancy and credibility of the sources I've provided. - You can also check the Wikipedia pages of the specific TV shows mentioned in the credits to verify their notability. While WP:GNG might not be fully met at this point, the provided sources do establish involvement in established productions. I do want to address the feeling of being bullied. Wikipedia relies on open discussion and collaboration, but it should always be done respectfully. Would you be open to discussing this further and exploring ways to improve the article to meet notability criteria? We can work together to find a solution that ensures accuracy and adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines. Thanks Thehasanansari ( talk ) 12:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bands and musicians . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to his family, like before. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 14:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Allan Nonymous , Please check BLP page history. I am fine with ion as long the page is PROTECTED. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 15:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Still think a is good, but salt this page for creation, given the edit warring by Thehasanansari . Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 15:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Allan Nonymous , Sure - i can withdraw this if its SALTED. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand that notability and verifiable sources are key factors. While the actor I'm interested in may be young and their career is still growing, they've already achieved some success: - Participated in 6 dramas with notable roles - Has a singing career Their portfolio is demonstrably expanding, and they're gaining recognition. I understand this might not meet the strictest criteria, but I'm hoping to understand if there's still a chance for a Wikipedia page in their case. Furthermore, I'd like to clarify a point. Creating a ""placeholder"" page (sometimes referred to as ""salting"") for this actor wouldn't be helpful. They are not an unknown personality, and Wikipedia is a public platform intended to document notable individuals. Additionally, ing to their father's page wouldn't be appropriate either. This actor has established their own identity and career achievements. Thanks for your time and clarification. 2400:ADC1:42F:1400:C42C:B6:D538:5171 ( talk ) 19:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] SPI filed. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 19:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Not enough to show that WP:NACTOR , WP:NSINGER or WP:GNG have been met. Fair amount of unsourced promotional drek before pruning, afterwards this is a basic start article. Web searches didn't show any useful sources to add that would help for notability. Ravensfire ( talk ) 22:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Would also be okay with a per Allan Nonymous's suggestion, might need to consider at least some semi-protection if not more if the Nauman335 sockfarm is looking here. Ravensfire ( talk ) 22:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC) NSINGER . Even as actor does not appears in any significant role. Sameeerrr ( talk ) 16:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Swaret: The justification, based on the edit history, is that a singular user on a public forum said that they used the package some unknown amount of time ago. I'm sending this to AfD because this added source does not establish notability. It's not reliable, does not provide extensive coverage, and it isn't clear whether the source is necessarily secondary. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 03:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD""d so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC) Found on a few linux discussion boards, then nothing... I don't see notability for this software. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Slackware#Dependency resolution , where it's mentioned, and honestly the content there is already better. ~ A412 talk! 22:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Arta Rama: Perhaps the former since she made more appearances for Albania? All I can find on the subject are passing mentions ( 1 , 2 , 3 ). Not to be confused with the judge of the same name. JTtheOG ( talk ) 04:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , Albania , and Kosovo . JTtheOG ( talk ) 04:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 11:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Shrine of the Five Wounds of Our Lord Jesus Christ: The sources provided are self-published or are not independent from the subject, so I don't see a case for GNG. There are plenty of diocesan shrines around the world and this one has no particular specialty of note. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Philippines . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At best, to the Diocese of Paranaque in case it has a list of parishes/churches in the diocese. Otherwise, I'm inclined to vote for , as there isn't anything much that would make it more notable than other Catholic churches in the Philippines (like, say, the Quiapo Church or the EDSA Shrine or any really old church). --- Tito Pao ( talk ) Tito Pao ( talk ) 14:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Chris and Tito Pao, let me share with you the important of our church which you may consider to be important part of the catholic church history in the Philippines. 1. The Diocesan Shrine of the Five Wounds of Our Lord Jesus Christ is the ONLY church in the Philippines and in Asia, dedicated to the Five Wounds of Jesus. This is why our Bishop of Paranaque elevate the church from a simple parish into a Diocesan Shrine, because of its unique and special devotion to Jesus Five Sacred Wounds. And as a Shrine our mandate started to little by little to spread this beautiful devotion to different parishes and dioceses in the Philippines. Our Diocesan Shrine is under the Diocese of Paranaque and under the vicariate of the Holy Family | See link(s) for your info. : https://catholink.ph/paranaque/ 2. Our Shrine is part of the history of Las Pinas, we are the very FIRST diocesan shrine in the City, surprisingly 10 years earlier than the famous Bamboo Organ Chruch in Las Pinas. 3. Our 3-brother Stigmatine priests (""the Avenido Brothers"") hold the record in the Philippines to be the first 3 brothers (by blood) to be ordained priests on the same day. The missionary works and inspirations brought to our country brings great meaning especially to aspiring young men to be a priest. | see link(s) for your info. : https://aleteia.org/2021/10/14/three-brothers-ordained-priests-on-the-same-day-in-the-philippines 4. As a Shrine, our church became one of the pilgrim church in the Philippines. Our church possesses (or hold) the Relic of the ""True Cross"" one of the only few churches in the Philippines to have it. Even our Bishop Jesse Mercado, DD. recognized it and invite all the faithful to visit our Shrine to venerate the cross because we are the only church in the Diocese of Paranaque to have it. Base on our research there are only 3 churches in the philippines to have it, first is the Manila Cathedral, second our shrine and third is in Monastario de Tarlac (in Region III) northern part of the Philippines) Our hope and prayers is that using this platform (wikipedia) we maybe able to spread these information's to different churches in the philippines (and maybe in the world). In concern of self-published, i am willing to give-up my write-ups to potential sponsors or takers to adopt this article. We are also ready to arrange meetings (online or face-to-face) to our parish priest and shrine rector &/or to Superior Delegate - of the Stigmatine in the Philippines to verify and check the authenticity of the write-ups. We are also open that your team and other editors to challenge the write-ups to the chancery of the diff. offices of the bishop of paranaque and manila to verify and check the decrees issued by them to us by the roman catholic church archdiocese of manila (RCAM) and diocese of paranaque (DOP). THANK YOU Fred Luciano ( talk ) 09:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC) is uncited, also it seems like you have a WP:COI . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC) //www.facebook.com/acsp2015/posts/pfbid0rEmemT79MVZTyMDwNsJBJ3QjGLYKW38vkNB8La7d9ioLLiMpc8ebBuE1YQXdv2Kol | Thank you Fred Luciano ( talk ) 09:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC) A quick BEFORE-type search yielded no additional sources towards GNG and nothing present in either the article or extant online sources suggests notability outside the GNG standards. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 02:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC) //catholink.ph/paranaque/ | The Diocese of Paranaque is composed of 6 vicariates with 3 National Shrine and 5 Diocesan Shrine in which the Diocesan Shrine of the Five Wounds of Our Lord Jesus Christ belong. Our Church are rich in history and heritage, to name a few, our church is the only church in the Philippines and in Asia which is dedicated to the Five Wounds of Jesus; we are the first Diocesan Shrine in the City of Las Pinas, that gave us the mandate to spread our unique and special devotion to the five wounds of Jesus in the entire Diocese of Paranaque and other dioceses in the Philippines and this is one of the main reasons why we are trying to share this information using the wikipedia platform; we also hold the record to have 3 brothers (by blood) to be ordained priests (Stigmatine Priest) on the same day in the Philippines ""the Avenido Brothers and now Fathers"" see link(s) https://aleteia.org/2021/10/14/three-brothers-ordained-priests-on-the-same-day-in-the-philippines ; our shrine is one of the few churches in the Philippines who hold the splinters pieces of wood of the True Cross of Jesus. We deemed that with this criterias we are worthy to be publish even thru me or thru other editors available in this platform to help us spread our devotion and inspirations that our church/Shrine can contribute to our City and our Country. Thank you Fred Luciano ( talk ) 09:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Chris, let me share with you the important of our church which you may consider to be important part of the catholic church history in the Philippines. 1. The Diocesan Shrine of the Five Wounds of Our Lord Jesus Christ is the ONLY church in the Philippines and in Asia, dedicated to the Five Wounds of Jesus. This is why our Bishop of Paranaque elevate the church from a simple parish into a Diocesan Shrine, because of its unique and special devotion to Jesus Five Sacred Wounds. And as a Shrine our mandate started to little by little to spread this beautiful devotion to different parishes and dioceses in the Philippines. Our Diocesan Shrine is under the Diocese of Paranaque and under the vicariate of the Holy Family | See link(s) for your info. : https://catholink.ph/paranaque/ 2. Our Shrine is part of the history of Las Pinas, we are the very FIRST diocesan shrine in the City, surprisingly 10 years earlier than the famous Bamboo Organ Chruch in Las Pinas. 3. Our 3-brother Stigmatine priests (""the Avenido Brothers"") hold the record in the Philippines to be the first 3 brothers (by blood) to be ordained priests on the same day. The missionary works and inspirations brought to our country brings great meaning especially to aspiring young men to be a priest. | see link(s) for your info. : https://aleteia.org/2021/10/14/three-brothers-ordained-priests-on-the-same-day-in-the-philippines 4. As a Shrine, our church became one of the pilgrim church in the Philippines. Our church possesses (or hold) the Relic of the ""True Cross"" one of the only few churches in the Philippines to have it. Even our Bishop Jesse Mercado, DD. recognized it and invite all the faithful to visit our Shrine to venerate the cross because we are the only church in the Diocese of Paranaque to have it. Base on our research there are only 3 churches in the philippines to have it, first is the Manila Cathedral, second our shrine and third is in Monastario de Tarlac (in Region III) northern part of the Philippines) Our hope and prayers is that using this platform (wikipedia) we maybe able to spread these information's to different churches in the philippines (and maybe in the world). In concern of self-published, i am willing to give-up my write-ups to potential sponsors or takers to adopt this article. We are also ready to arrange meetings (online or face-to-face) to our parish priest and shrine rector &/or to Superior Delegate - of the Stigmatine in the Philippines to verify and check the authenticity of the write-ups. We are also open that your team and other editors to challenge the write-ups to the chancery of the diff. offices of the bishop of paranaque and manila to verify and check the decrees issued by them to us by the roman catholic church archdiocese of manila (RCAM) and diocese of paranaque (DOP). THANK YOU Fred Luciano ( talk ) 09:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I was not able to find any reliable secondary sources to support the notability of this church. Magnolia677 ( talk ) 11:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC) 1. Veritas 846 (DZRV-AM) Radio Veritas - Diocesan Shrine feature last 25-April 2023 | https://www.facebook.com/DZRV846/videos/196844882668064 | skip to 33:00 mins to hear the interview 2. Stigmatine Historical Notes, by Rev. Fr. Daniel Giacomelli, CSS | STIGMATINE HISTORICAL NOTES | Founder of the Stigmatine Congregation (st-bertoni.com) | http://st-bertoni.com/stigmatine-historical-notes | see page 168 - Historical Notes 1984 | here you can read the historical event and establishment record of the Parish of the Five Wounds of Our Lord Jesus Christ from the book of stigmatines as part of the congregation history. 4. Article from Arch. Joseph Javier (the architect of the Church | https://javierdesignstudiomanila.wordpress.com/profile/worship-facilities/the-shrine-of-the-five-wounds-of-jesus-christ/ 5. Shrine of the Five Wounds ""Relic of the True Cross"" was featured | https://applegreenandme.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/the-relic-of-the-true-cross-where-jesus-was-crucified/ 6. Pope Francis meeting with the Stigmatines | https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2018-02/pope-francis-address-stigmatine-general-chapter.html 7. Pope Francis invitation to spread the devotion to Five Wounds of Jesus during his meeting with the Stigmatine Fathers | https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/francis-comic-strip/francis-chronicles/five-wounds-christ-pope-urges-recovery-traditional I hope, were able to provide secondary source(s) that support the notability or importance of our church. Thank you. Fred Luciano ( talk ) 19:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of these are reliable secondary sources, and as I stated on your talk page, you appear to have a conflict of interest, based on your affiliation with this church, and that you are a self-declared single-purpose editor. Magnolia677 ( talk ) 20:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC) It looks like you've voted twice in this discussion. Please edit one of your comments to either strike the word ""Delete"" from the beginning of one of the comments, or change one of them to something like ""comment"". Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey man im josh. Thank you for assistance. Fred Luciano ( talk ) 15:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – A secondary reliable source from the Philippine Daily Inquirer in March 2001 is available . Information from the source can be used to improve the article. – Sanglahi86 ( talk ) 21:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The pages creator has a conflict of intrest as shown on their talk page , they deny being paid to edit but do claim that they regualry attend this church. Reportedly in the past they have called themself a ""single purpose editor"". Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For lack of a better analogy, his comments above would be in the same vein as that of employees defending the article about their own company. The WP:COI issues need to be addressed and/or dealt with and taken into consideration. --- Tito Pao ( talk ) 11:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted for consideration of Sanglahi86's source. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'd or to the diocese where it's located; a church built in 1985 isn't a historic structure. Being a mega-church is nothing special as there are hundreds of them around the world. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with the first argument (1985, so not a historic structure) but will beg to disagree with it being a ""mega-church"". It is a sweeping generalization for what is essentially just a Catholic parish (plus being a Catholic parish, it doesn't fit the definition of a megachurch , which applies to Protestant and evangelical Christian churches.) -- Tito Pao ( talk ) 06:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The source above is not the best; it has no by-line and is part one of two parts. If that's all we have, it's a rather flimsy ! . I'd change my vote if we could find more, better, sources about the building. All I can pull up is this [32] , which is ok-ish, but still not enough. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:NCHURCH with sources provided by Fred Luciano and Sanglahi. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP ( talk ) 00:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC) the parish' own Facebook page a Yellow Pages listing a personal travel blog that is not considered a quality source a papal decree that has absolutely no relation to this article and the Vatican News press release about the nomination of the diocesan bishop; the article also doesn't add anything about this article. --- Tito Pao ( talk ) 06:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Titopao Ok. I'll exclude the FB page and Yellow Pages directory. But the rest of the sources are reliable and in-depth enough for me. You can never change my mind. SBKSPP ( talk ) 01:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] User-generated content such as personal blogs might not pass muster under Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline (unless it's an official blog, e.g. official blog of an organization like the CBCP), so it's best to avoid citing them. Not really sure why the Waze link should also be considered under WP:RS since it may also be counted under WP:UGC. The latter two, while they may be considered official sources (they are, after all, taken from the official Vatican website), don't have any information that are directly related to the topic (as I have already mentioned). Like what I said, the Vatican press release about the diocesan bishop's appointment didn't mention the parish, so how exactly does that support the article? --- Tito Pao ( talk ) 09:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft . Sorry, I cannot get over the obvious COI here. If another editor, driven by encyclopedic interest rather than by religious affiliation, wishes to rewrite this article, they are welcome to do so. Owen× ☎ 00:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] this non-notable church, the article for which has been created with apparent COI. I seriously considered closing this myself based on the strength of the arguments above and what I see as problems with some (but not all) of the arguments. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] trimmed down (~1-2 paragraphs max of sourced encyclopedic material) NPOV version to Diocese of Paranaque (or another consensus target) as AtD. I agree with the source evals above, there is no WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth , but there is enough primary ref'd material for the start of a section on the target article. If there is a consensus that the COI issue merits a , I have no objection. // Timothy :: talk 12:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Antria Kirkini: The subject has earned at least three caps for the Cyprus women's national football team . I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Cyprus . JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 16:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"List of programs broadcast by Hum TV: It has not ""been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"" as references verify the shows but do not talk about the group as a whole. There are nine current programs that are sourced which can easily be placed in the Hum TV page if necessary. History of the page also shows this has been the target of socks and COI since 2017 from Hum TV. While not a reason to , the list only stands to promote the station. CNMall41 ( talk ) 18:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Lists , Asia , Pakistan , Middle East , Europe , and United States of America . CNMall41 ( talk ) 18:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC) detailed article about a notable network : see WP:SPLITLIST . If a into the main article was an improvement, I would not be opposed but it would be an issue. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is not a detailed article unfortunately. It is a list. If it is a problem to per SPLITLIST, then a would work. However, it would need to be notable per NLIST to have a standalone page. I looked and could not find reliable sources that talk about the list as a grouping but I have been proven wrong before if someone can provide those sources. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article. The subject is obviously a subtopic of Hum TV, it would be difficult to argue otherwise. See Template Main list (which uses the word Main where ""Detailed"" is to be understood). See also the template For Timeline, similar. If you want to and , sure, if all agree and size is not an issue; but this type of page is pretty standard, though, by the way. Look at the categories and the pages they contain. ... For sources, you have for example, https://internationalrasd.org/journals/index.php/pjhss/article/download/1259/936/9962 ; or see Forging the Ideal Educated Girl: The Production of Desirable Subjects in Muslim South Asia (2018). But I consider WP:SPLITLIST to be the applicable section of the guideline and the fact that it's a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks should imv encourage us to that list. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article"" - I like that thinking and generally it seems acceptable on its face. The problem is that the list must meet notability guidelines. If not, then it should stay mentioned briefly on the notable network page. Here there are only nine programs and they do not all appear to be original programs, just current programming. I do like "" a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks "" as you mentioned above. They can easily be covered by the category as opposed to standalone list (for those that are ""original programmin"" - the rest are just TV Guide listings) in my opinion. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 22:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also concerned about the fate of borderline/mildly notable series/programs whose pages are ed to pages like this (not about the pages themselves, but at the idea that the ATD is not an ATD). And more generally about the issue of notability of various lists like this. Allow me to quote User:Maile66 's comment during a recent Afd : "" Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network . Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television . "" I think it's a fair concern. Either a broader discussion or a consensus that, yes, sourcing should be better but that this type of pages should generally be considered OK when the network is notable. A broader discussion would perhaps be helpful. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirects to the page are a concern but they should not have bearing on notability. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the programs may not meet notability guidelines but do not want to do a mass deletion. Maybe someone can take up the task and them to the main station page. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC) WP:NLIST applies without any special exception and that in general lists of programs, where needed, can be handled within the article about the channel, and don't generally merit a stand-alone list article, unless such a list would pass the scrutiny per WP:NLIST. WP is not a WP:NOTDIRECTORY nor WP:NOTTVGUIDE — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 19:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC) ATD . 2A00:23C6:139B:A101:78CA:7B5:3148:9172 ( talk ) 00:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC) I suggest to the Article. As it a large number of notable program's are listed on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 ( talk • contribs ) The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 23:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC) WP:NOTINHERITED . --— Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 17:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC) ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 has a point; WP:TVGUIDE says: ""An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable ."" (emphasis mine). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mushy Yank , But isn't this IP evading their block? They are blocked @ 223.123.5.217",redirect
+"Sabalom Glitz: Pokelego999 ( talk ) 02:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Pokelego999 ( talk ) 02:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to the List of Doctor Who characters unless improved with reception/analysis. Fails GNG as written ( WP:FANCRUFT ). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Doctor Who supporting characters . Who made an article for like every single reoccurring classic Dr. Who thing ever? Because the dedication is both tragic and impressive, and if active they should really go to Tardis Data Core where they’d fit in perfectly . Dronebogus ( talk ) 22:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV without reception/analysis. The target is a valid WP:ATD . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 02:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Dozy Mmobuosi Foundation: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Almost repeated content from the founder. I fund no reason why it shouldn't be ed. There is an atom of notability per the allegations about the foundation not the founder that is able; though I have see almost all of them in the main founder article. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 23:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Andrew Tompkins: Relies exclusively on primary sources. He has not demonstrated individual notability outside of Paramaecium, therefore he shouldn't have his own Wikipedia page, per WP:BANDMEMBER . JMB1980 ( talk ) 21:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Paramaecium . Per nominator, a quick Google and Wikipedia Library search suggests he doesn't have individual notability outside of Paramaecium. He does appear to have a few positive mentions in album reviews, but these currently are not cited in this article and could be added to the article on the band itself. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 02:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"John Davis Jr. (presidential candidate): Received less than 4000 votes out of nearly 20 million cast. Lacking significant, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG . AusLondonder ( talk ) 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Conservatism , Politics , and United States of America . AusLondonder ( talk ) 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] None of the content or sources is substantively biographical. Just some dude who took advantage of easy ballot access. Reywas92 Talk 16:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots . Geotubemedia ( talk ) 10:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Colorado . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC) GNG and WP:NPOL . I think a would give an undue indication of notability. Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 12:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots as a viable ATD . Per nom. and others, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL . Sal2100 ( talk ) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . (No prejudice against the recreation of a from the redlink if desired, but first as I see no value in holding onto the edit history behind a .) Fringe candidates for president are not ""inherently"" notable per WP:NPOL just for existing, and have to show some evidence of actually passing WP:GNG on their sourceability — but this is referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, with no GNG-worthy sourcing shown whatsoever. Bearcat ( talk ) 18:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots , he's a minor candidate known only for being a minor candidate . Samoht27 ( talk ) 19:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots . GobsPint ( talk ) 22:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC) Good ATD as it's a valid search term. Regarding GPL93's point, s do not imply that an article ought to exist or that the subject is notable. Otherwise, we wouldn't have Rcats like {{ R from child }} . In response to Bearcat's point, the preferred ATD is , not , red link, and then create a anew. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 02:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Hockin station: – dlthewave ☎ 04:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Transportation . – dlthewave ☎ 04:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Some VIA Rail stops are notable so all of them should be blue links, with those that aren't individually notable being s to a list or some other appropriate target. Thryduulf ( talk ) 08:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC) each train station is not individually notable, although the whole train line is. Several other stations on this line have already been WP:BLARed to that article. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 10:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"David Jones (writer): Sources aren’t being found to expand this… so why does it need to continue to exist? Courcelles ( talk ) 21:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For sure . It obviously doesn't meet the notability guidelines for a living person and as stated in the original AfD, not enough sources are being found. e ( talk ) 21:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC) 21, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ( edit conflict ) I can't even find the books this guy has written via a search engine, much less secondary sources. It's been tagged as not being shown to be notable for 8 years, no one will miss this. Snowmanonahoe ( talk ) 21:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. In retrospect, the edit war was indeed overblown and it looks like that I (among others) missed the big picture... And to make things worse, of those 50 words in the article, I'm not even sure that the book referenced was written by the article's subject, or an entirely different David Jones. — That Coptic Guy ( let's talk? ) 21:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Overall fails to meet reference independent of the subject. NP83 ( talk ) 21:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Fireman Sam . Subject lacks sources for a stand alone article, but will fit into this article. WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). to Fireman Sam . As above, only high quality sources should be used. Equine-man ( talk ) 14:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC) CHEAP Lightburst ( talk ) 18:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"MobPartner: may be a good reason to to Cheetah Mobile 扱. し. 侍. ( talk ) 08:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and France . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here is the possible destination- page Cheetah Mobile Inc 扱. し. 侍. ( talk ) 09:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC) per nomination, currently fails WP:NCORP . Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 12:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC) ORGCRIT so the only ATD suitable would be a . -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 08:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC) 14, 16 May 2024 (UTC) 51, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"EC Music: Tooncool64 ( talk ) 03:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion . I added an anchor to Sam Hui#EC Music and added a source that verifies Sam Hui released the album Life Is Good under the music label EC Music: Seto, Kit Yan (2008-01-24). ""Life is good for Samuel Hui"" . The Star . Archived from the original on 2008-01-27 . Retrieved 2024-02-13 . The article notes: ""Last September, Hui released his first album in 17 years, under the EC Music label. “My new album is titled Yan Sang Doh Moh Hou (Life Is Good). I’ll be singing songs from it. We’ve also got a juke-box section where members of the audience will be able to request for songs that they want us to perform.” A with the history preserved under the will allow editors to selectively any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A with the history preserved under the will allow the to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard ( talk ) 11:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC) per Cunard. it doesn't read that self-promotional but isn't notable enough to be a full article Password (talk) (contribs) 05:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Argentina v Saudi Arabia (2022 FIFA World Cup): Fails WP:GNG and no enduring historical significance per WP:NEVENTS . WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage. Search for ""biggest World Cup shocks"" revealed passing mentions but not enough to justify an independent article. Stevie fae Scotland ( talk ) 19:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Football , Saudi Arabia , and Argentina . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can see how you could make an argument it's notable, but this completely unsourced article is not that. SportingFlyer T · C 19:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2022 FIFA World Cup Group C#Argentina vs Saudi Arabia - not worth a separate article. Giant Snowman 21:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC) NEVENTS . LibStar ( talk ) 23:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article is unnecessary and may cause some misunderstandings. Reference 2022 FIFA World Cup Group C#Summary . Annh07 ( talk ) 08:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC) ATD . Not enough coverage to warrant a separate article about this match. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 09:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see why this needs a based on page views and who visits the page. [12] Govvy ( talk ) 07:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"List of Webster University campus locations: Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Also fails WP:NLIST . AusLondonder ( talk ) 10:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Lists , and United States of America . AusLondonder ( talk ) 10:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Webster University#Campus . If it doesn't exist there, the citation so the source of the full list is still available to readers. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 15:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose a , it's not a plausible search term. AusLondonder ( talk ) 15:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] /agree but s are cheap. // Timothy :: talk 06:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Redirects are cheap. Fails NLIST and CLN as a stand alone list. List entirely sourced to a single page on the subject website. // Timothy :: talk 06:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Fatehpur Sanda College: Sohom ( talk ) 02:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , India , and Bihar . Sohom ( talk ) 02:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Magadh University . - Indefensible ( talk ) 20:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Long John's Blues (EP): PROD removed with ""remove tag Long John Baldry was a very important person in the development of the British blues scene and all his recorded material is significant. It is also an element in the all-too-short British EP world"" But, notability isn't inherited. Must be shown why this EP is notable...especially since all the songs are found on a full length LP and the EP failed to chart. Donald D23 talk to me 12:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , and United Kingdom . Donald D23 talk to me 12:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well you have made an offer that I can't refuse. I learned long ago to stay out of the path of deletionists. I said my piece, you quoted chapter and verse. Now we wait for the tie breaker. Carptrash ( talk ) 19:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Absoutely none of that was policy based. It was WP:ILIKEIT and certainly won't be taken into account by any good admin when it comes time to decide if this stays or goes. Donald D23 talk to me 20:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC) I thought I had found a good source with the numerous mentions in this biography , but it appears those are all about the album of the same name . I couldn't find much else for either, but I imagine whatever else might've looked promising was probably for the album as well and this EP just got nothing. Not surprising for this type of release, or for one which didn't chart at all. And @ Carptrash , I'd just like to remind you that AfDs are not about vote counts and there are no tie breakers. It's a matter of Wikipedia policy-based arguments. If you want this article kept, you need to back up your case. If you really did say your piece, at the very least perhaps you could restate that here so it's on the record. Would probably be a lot more helpful than what you have provided. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 20:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Baldry was a integral part of the British blues scene that developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s. This EP contains songs written be Willie Dixon , John Lee Hooker , and Jimmy Witherspoon , all important American bluesmen whose songs helped form the backbone of the British blues movement. The EP was a product of the British EP era that only really lasted until the mid 1960s, making most of them notable. Packaging album songs on EPs was done in Britain, our EP article states, “In Britain EPs were sometimes used to repackage songs that had previously been issued on albums. The Shadows released EPs The Shadows No. 2 and The Shadows No. 3 both of which included songs found on The Shadows album. The songs from Adam Faith's first album were also released on three EPs, all of which had the same cover as the album, but listed the tracks on the top. The Beatles EP Twist and Shout contained only songs found on their Please Please Me album.” Oh yes, and I do like it. Carptrash ( talk ) 16:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for doing the due diligence @ QuietHere , not sure if you are suggesting that the article should be kept or not. I do find it fascinating that The Shadows EPs that I mentioned in my last posting have now been nominated for deletion. Pretty good chance those are articles started be me as well. I will likely bow out of all these discussions, having more pressing things to deal with. Carptrash ( talk ) 20:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Carptrash you need to provide reliable secondary sources which confirm all these things you're claiming, or else it's all unverified original research. As I said above, I couldn't find any, and so I stand by my vote, but if you can find appropriate sourcing, I may change my mind. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 16:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I doubt @ QuietHere that I will have any better luck than you. I feel that all these EPs (I think there are 5 up for deletion, some are already gone, 3 days later) are notable but we know how far that gets one here. I have more pressing issues to deal with, so if my wikipedia legacy ends up with 20 EP articles, (or whatever it ends up being), being d, so be it. Carptrash ( talk ) 16:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is ( opinion ) only made stronger by the inclusion of niche articles that might not appeal to everyone. We have 6 and a half million articles, so they are not all for everyone. I believe ( another opinion ) that the British EPs era (ca. 1960 to 1967) is one of those corners and that this article casts a little light there. I also feel that serious editors should leave other serious editors alone. For those who just must have rules I will toss in Ignore all rules . Carptrash ( talk ) 19:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . No need to . the categories, remove the content and until/unless someone can get sources to substantiate an article. ― Justin ( ko a v f ) ❤ T ☮ C ☺ M ☯ 21:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just added the source for much of the article. Carptrash ( talk ) 21:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC) Fails GNG, NALBUM. No objection to someone finding or merging sourced content into a new section on the target, sourced content will improve the target; a is all that is needed for the history here. // Timothy :: talk 02:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Anouchka Besch: The subject has earned at least nine caps for the Luxembourg women's national football team . I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 04:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Luxembourg . JTtheOG ( talk ) 04:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect' as above. Giant Snowman 21:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Graphisoft EcoDesigner: It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn ( talk ) 19:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Environment . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC) absence of SIGCOV suggests this fails NSOFT. Owen× ☎ 22:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to ArchiCAD per IgelRM . Owen× ☎ 00:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC) 23, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Trentham Football Netball Club: Source in article and BEFORE are database records, game recaps, routine local mill news, and name mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth . Ping me if indepth sources addressing the subject directly meeting WP:SIRS are found. // Timothy :: talk 17:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC) //trenthamsaintsfnc.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/TDFNC-The-First-100-Years-by-Vin-Cowell.pdf which should provide you with a good source for you add in any other citations for verification, addressing your concerns. Thanks, Justin. Justin J. Kelly ( talk ) 18:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC) AUD . Fails WP:ORG . LibStar ( talk ) 23:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC) What's wrong with the book-length source on its history listed above? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As far as I can tell it is self-published by a relative of a former player? Not sure if it qualifies for meeting the WP:ORG . Let'srun ( talk ) 01:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Maryborough Castlemaine District Football Netball League . I agree with LetsRun’s characterization of the earlier source brought up. It lacks independence and even if it was independent, it wouldn’t be enough on its own (plus the WP:ROUTINE local coverage currently in the article). Frank Anchor 22:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A decent article here on ""Trentham's Glory Years"". BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for posting a link to that great article about the Trentham FNC to help try and maintain some of the club's valuable football and netball history. Justin J. Kelly ( talk ) 06:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist to see if some consensus on an outcome can be found. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Maryborough Castlemaine District Football Netball League as an AtD. I'm likewise not impressed with the applied, presented or found sourcing, none of which meets RS. protects full page history. Some of these articles are insufficiently sourced to avoid deletion process tests. BusterD ( talk ) 08:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC) What's wrong with this source? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would classify it as ""small beer."" It's difficult for me to take seriously an interview with a ""legendary"" somebody who recalls successfully playing minor league football in a small Victoria town sixty years ago (a ""legendary"" but non-notable figure in a village of almost 1,200 dwellers!), I see nothing which demonstrates this team any more notable than any of the other entries on the league article which don't have pages about them. I see nothing significant and independent which actually shows the club exists as of this datestamp. If I stipulate the team exists, I'm forced to add there's not enough direct detailing to make this team meet WP:NTEAM (these days GNG) to rate an article on English Wikipedia. Not all local amateur sports teams are notable. The BURDEN is on those asserting . I assert page supporters haven't met their burden. I am arguing for a outcome so that when sufficient sources ARE found, page supporters can just improve the page without hassle. BusterD ( talk ) 18:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"W31EZ-D: BMarGlines ( talk ) 08:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Illinois . Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 25 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 12:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Illinois . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. #Current stations . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 14:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. : Another low-power TV station where the only known programming is national services and there appears to be little-to-no significant coverage — not particularly surprising for what ended up as an HC2/Innovate station. (This is the channel sharing guest of separately-owned WESV-LD , but I don't think a r in that direction is wise.) As is typical for one of these stations, a nominal survivor of a bulk nomination from 2023 . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Igor the Assassin: The only other source is a book written by the wife of Alexander Litvinenko; I don't have access to the book so can't confirm whether it even discusses ""Igor"" at all. Frankly the subject of the article appears to be a complete fabrication by the tabloid press. CoconutOctopus talk 17:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC) 28, 18 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as one potential source does not an article make. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and to Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko . Absolutely no need for a separate article. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would argue against a ; I don't think the GA-rated article about the poisoning would benefit from adding tabloid-sourced rumours. CoconutOctopus talk 20:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and add a sentence. I have a copy of the book and it does not mention this supposed person at all. However, this is kind of a weird note, the full name of this supposed assassin (Igor Vlasov) is mentioned in a few sources in the aftermath, having supposedly been on papers he was carrying in the immediate aftermath of the death. https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/british-investigators-face-russian-obstacles/ https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-dec-06-fg-poison6-story.html He's mentioned in a different book, ""The Litvinenko File : Politics, Polonium and Russia's war with itself"" https://www.smh.com.au/world/poisoned-former-spys-russian-contact-out-of-reach-in-hospital-20061207-gdozts.html All mention an ""Igor Vlasov"" as being an initial suspect. Almost certainly more mentions in Russian. Mention as a footnote, maybe? Definitely not a full article but it does seem to have been reliably noted. It does seem like this guy existed. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 21:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Violations of Chinese Communist Party Political Discipline: Recommend deleting and replacing with a to Central Commission for Discipline Inspection . Amigao ( talk ) 18:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . Amigao ( talk ) 18:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It certainly looks like this article contains no information not already present in the CCDI article, but that article is longer than my attention span, so I can't verify. It also looks like this article references two sources the CCDI article doesn't: one by OECD (whoever they are), and one coauthored by Kjeld Erik Brødsgaard and himself wearing his faculty title. I see it was written with the VisualEditor , so it's probably Zotero's google books translator, with Citoid propagating the error downstream and the article's author neglecting to clean it up. Script generated citation issues aside, I think WP:BLAR to Central Commission for Discipline Inspection#Duties and responsibilities is the most reasonable outcome here, and if someone believes not all the content is present in the target article, the history will remain visible for salvage and incorporation. Folly Mox ( talk ) 20:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC) BLAR to Central Commission for Discipline Inspection#Duties and responsibilities Amigao ( talk ) 21:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Central Commission for Discipline Inspection as content is repetitive. Karnataka ( talk ) 17:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"A. Holly Shissler: This is quite well cited but doesn't seem sufficient to claim ""significant"" impact in their field to pass NPROF 1, and fails points NPROF 2 to NPROF 8 Polyamorph ( talk ) 18:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . Polyamorph ( talk ) 18:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I recommend to Between Two Empires per its creation during the course of this AfD. Polyamorph ( talk ) 18:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The associate professor title wouldn't concern me if it were clear she was on her way up, but with a single 20-year-old book she appears to have stalled out at that level. There are multiple reviews of her one book [4] [5] [6] [7] . But one book with a modest number of academic reviews is not enough for WP:AUTHOR for me (it would be a weak if we had the same number of reviews split over two authored books) and there seems to be nothing else. If we had an article on the book we could to it but we don't. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 19:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Now we do. . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment . I agree that she doesnt pass NAUTHOR or NPROF but it seems like the book itself would pass WP:NBOOK with those number of reviews and we could this article to the book itself (even though I am somewhat unsure if the NBOOK guidelines were really designed with academic books in mind). -- hroest 20:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NBOOK is really just GNG in disguise. If a topic has multiple reliable independent sources published about it, then it is notable. GNG is a one-size-fits-all guideline with neither special consideration for topics which we might think notable but for which independent in-depth sourcing can be scarce (like major academic journals or societies) nor for topics which we might think routine but for which independent in-depth sourcing can be plentiful (like academic monographs). In this case, really the only throttle (without overthrowing GNG in favor of different notability thresholds for different topics) is whether some editor is interested enough to take the effort of making an article on the book. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , History , Turkey , California , Illinois , and Pennsylvania . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 21:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] to the brand new Between Two Empires . Thanks David Eppstein for digging up those reviews. — siro χ o 10:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Between Two Empires . XOR'easter ( talk ) 20:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"United States of Europe: I propose to this page, the title to European Federation , which covers this concept, and add a hatnote there. BD2412 T 23:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . BD2412 T 23:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The political entity on this dab is not much more than political aedvertising. No elections, no seats. For the rest: as by the nominator. The Banner talk 00:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC) BD2412 , since earlier history was d to what is presently titled European Federation , much of the history is ineligible for deletion per WP:MAD . The page may still be ed, and WP:AFD remains a correct venue for such a discussion per WP:ATD-R . 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:10EB:6979:4B48:D793 ( talk ) 12:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The history itself can always be moved under a different title. BD2412 T 16:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC) BD2412 sure, but that seems to be needless extra work since the result is that instead of simply targeting A from B you first move B to some other title C before targeting A with both, what's the point? 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E493:D84:28E3:D006 ( talk ) 17:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I see what you're saying. I have no problem with this being maintained as a to European Federation with the current history intact; it should not exist as a disambiguation page. BD2412 T 17:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC) AFD is explicitly a correct venue to establish consensus for a WP:BLAR , just wanted to make sure we stayed within policy. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E493:D84:28E3:D006 ( talk ) 17:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to make the above clear following the relist since I never explicitly bolded anything, I support ing to European Federation as the primary topic at present with any necessary disambiguation being accomplished with hatnoting. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:49B:2883:34FC:225B ( talk ) 15:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose deletion, unless ""European Federation"" (rather an awkward name, especially the capitalised ""F"") is moved to ""United State of Europe"". -- Checco ( talk ) 14:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC) PRIMARY TOPIC . BD2412 T 20:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to European Federation as per nom. Samoht27 ( talk ) 20:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Montgomery Bowl: Can be sufficiently covered in that article and doesn't need its own page Esolo5002 ( talk ) 23:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Good-faith proposal, but the Montgomery Bowl was not a name change of the Fenway Bowl, and does not belong in that article. It was created by organizers as a one-off bowl to fill a gap in the schedule of 2020–21 NCAA football bowl games —the description, as appears in the article, was a "" substitute of the Fenway Bowl for this season only"" (emphasis added by me). This article is not an outlier, as there are other examples of articles about bowl games that were only played once (e.g. Charity Bowl ), and articles about bowl games that never got past the proposal phase (e.g. Haka Bowl ). Dmoore5556 ( talk ) 23:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2020 Montgomery Bowl One season aberration game and unlikely to have future editions (not that Montgomery will never host a bowl again but it won't just be named after the city). Nate • ( chatter ) 00:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , American football , and Alabama . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A single article seems reasonable, although my initial thought would be to the other way (place game detail currently found in 2020 Montgomery Bowl into Montgomery Bowl ). Montgomery does have an active bowl, Camellia Bowl (2014–present) , which is no small part of how the city ended up with the one-off bowl in question. Dmoore5556 ( talk ) 00:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC) we don't need two articles on a one-off bowl game, but the article on that one specific installment is a much better and less surprising target than the game it was a ""substitute"" for. (And for the record, Montgomery is a current bowl game host: the Camellia Bowl has, since 2014, been played in the same stadium that also hosted the 2020 Montgomery Bowl, so there were two bowl games there in the 2020 season.) WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the record, I have no particular objection to any ""consolidated"" article being titled at simply Montgomery Bowl , though that might be more suited to a subsequent RM discussion than something that directly results from this AfD discussion. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC) ATD . No independent notability for this subject to meet the WP:GNG . Let'srun ( talk ) 16:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Gregory Cousins: Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 13:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC) 55, 14 October 2023 (UTC) 1E . lizthegrey ( talk ) 21:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Transportation , and Alaska . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC) 56, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Robert Burkitt: Nothing I can find that he was anything other than a middle ranking anglican cleric, which doesn't seem to meet WP:CLERGY JMWt ( talk ) 14:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Ireland . JMWt ( talk ) 14:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Archdeacon of Lismore , although would be possible, but it is not as simple as that! This is one of a very large number of permastubs created by an editor who was eventually indefinately banned from article space edits owing to issues with these. However, this is not the most egregious of them. Burkitt was an actual archdeacon, listed in Crockford's. However, that is about as far as we can go. Secondary sourcing is lacking, and archdeacons are not presumed to be notable. Thus we have no presumed notability, and doesn't meet WP:BASIC . As such, this article should not exist. However, although the subject does not meet notability requirements for a page, and there is not enough that can be said about him to actually write a page, Crockfords is itself evidence of notability of a collection per WP:LISTN , and this page could therefore be d with Archdeacon of Lismore . I had this discussion when the page creator was still active, and we did get consensus, through AfD, for something like that at Archdeacon of Raphoe , where you can see how the archdeacon article can be massively improved if it lists the holders of the office. The problem was that it required merging not one, but 20 archdeacon articles into that page, and consensus held that 4 of the archdeacons were independently notable for a page. This nomination, therefore, does not really sit alone. There are at least 6 pages that would need to be d, and probably more. Each needs to be considered against WP:BASIC . I spent a lot of time on the Archdeacon of Raphoe article, and have never found sufficient time to prosecute the rest. Merging this one alone makes little sense, but a would at least preserve the information scraped from Crockford's. Whether that is worth a over , I will leave for others to decide. I suggest mostly because they are WP:CHEAP . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 19:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per nom, WP:NBIO , WP:GNG and WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES . As noted by Sirfurboy , this is yet another one of these poorly sourced, non-notable and WP:NOTEVERYTHING entries (created by an editor who was blocked for repeatedly creating/recreating exactly these types of articles) who seemed intent on creating sub-stubs on every member of the administration/clergy of the Church of Ireland . As with many others in the creator's ""series"", there is no indication that the subject meets the applicable criteria. My own WP:BEFORE search returns only the same (very poor and potentially unreliable ) sources we find in the article. And maybe a few trivial passing mentions in other works. Far from SIGCOV. Guliolopez ( talk ) 19:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC) GNG . Spleodrach ( talk ) 09:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC) 38, 3 September 2023 (UTC) 50, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Indira Road Krira Chakra: This club carries no major historical significance, as reflected by the sources, failing WP:GNG . From a status perspective, it has not played major matches ( List A matches ) and so fails WP:NCRIC . AA ( talk ) 11:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Kalindi Krira Chakra ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Lalmatia Club ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Udayachal Club ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Kakrail Boys Club ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Gulshan Cricket Club ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Azad Sporting Club cricket team ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Orient Sporting Club ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Dhaka Spartans Cricket Club ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Dhaka Assets ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Surjo Torun Club ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Cricket , and Bangladesh . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports . Shaws username . talk . 11:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] all . There is nothing to show that any of these clubs is anything more than a local cricket team, competing in the sub-List A Dhaka First Division Cricket League . Some of them may be promoted to the List A Dhaka Premier Division Cricket League in future, but until then there is nothing to indicate notability. I don't think merely competing in the Dhaka First Division Cricket League can confer notability on a team. Sammyrice ( talk ) 22:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] all to Dhaka First Division Cricket League where the teams can be listed. Pichpich ( talk ) 20:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] all to Dhaka First Division Cricket League per Pichpich, there's nowhere near enough on the teams in the tournament for separate articles yet, however all can be listed in the parent article with any information listed there. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 11:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] all per Pichpich and Rugbyfan22. A much more constructive and useful solution. Sammyrice ( talk ) 21:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Judgment (Angel): This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show. Donald D23 talk to me 00:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America . Donald D23 talk to me 00:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - This was premiere episode that had multiple reviews two of which I have added to article ( Owen, Rob . "" 'Angel' returns with high style"" . Pittsburgh Post-Gazette . ), which ran in multiple papers [24] , & ( Bianculli, David . ""Still plenty of life in 'Buffy,' 'Angel' "" . New York Daily News . ). One is joint review with Buffy premiere but both are by notable writers. Plot could use better citations. WikiVirus C (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Angel episodes#Season 2 (2000–2001) where it already has an entry. Unneeded CFORK which fails GNG, routine entertainment synops do not show notability. Nothing to , article is fancruft. // Timothy :: talk 06:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Angel episodes#Season 2 (2000–2001) per above, where the episode is listed. CycloneYoris talk! 23:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If is route we go, Angel (season 2) would be a better target, as that is what is transcribed to the List of Episodes anyways. WikiVirus C (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC) Donaldd23 nominated 5 articles for deletion in a 6-minute period. They have a history of not doing a proper BEFORE, and they continue to break Wikipedia policy with these nominations. Nfitz ( talk ) 20:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Procedural User:Donaldd23 nominated 5 articles for deletion in a 6-minute period. They have a history of not doing a proper BEFORE, and they continue to break Wikipedia policy with these nominations. Nfitz ( talk ) 20:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are only allowed one ! vote. Please do a proper study of Wikipedia guidelines before voting twice. Donald D23 talk to me 21:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Donaldd23 - you want to pretend that was an attempt to vote twice, rather than an extremely obvious editing mistake; and then suggest I study the rules about voting twice? Do you often try and mislead people in AFD discussions? In Football they call this diving. Nfitz ( talk ) 06:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] BEFOREs don't need to be done immediately before I nominate. I do a batch of BEFOREs and then go and nominate the articles, improve the article and remove the notability tags, or do nothing because I didn't find enough to either improve or . Where is the policy that I am breaking by listing these deletions all at once? Maybe you cannot do research on multiple items and then come back to Wikipedia and present your findings, but I can. Your rationale for is incorrect. Maybe you should do a BEFORE and check my talk page where I have been THANKED for doing proper BEFOREs. Donald D23 talk to me 20:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My apologies, I realise now that I was thinking of someone else. Now I look like a dick ... I'll withdraw my comment. Nfitz ( talk ) 06:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WikiVirusC provides two excellent GNG references. The Rob Owen one is particularly excellent - and was internationally syndicated, as I can find numerous copies of it in various well known North American newspapers. Nfitz ( talk ) 07:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The two sources added are better than most episode reviews, but they still most resemble plot summaries, and I still don’t see them as forcing need for independent pages. These are easily includable in the season article without losing value for the reader. The fact that so much of the lead is just basic info in prose form (repeated for each episode article) does not lead me to see a great need for the article to standalone. In watching and following a fair few of Donald’s episode AfDs, my attitude has grown towards and as default with only the rarest of episodes deserving solo pages. — HTGS ( talk ) 22:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC) ATD Donald D23 talk to me 20:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"2024–25 AFC Third level Club Championship: Name of competition, teams, ... are all not known yet. Should again be ed to Asian Football Confederation#Clubs with one or two lines there about this. Fram ( talk ) 12:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Football , and Asia . Fram ( talk ) 12:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Giant Snowman 10:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON , no information known yet. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's worth pointing out that the country allocations for this seem to be assumptions, and not actual confirmed information. The article doesn't have any WP:RS indicating that this will actually be the case, seems like WP:OR to me. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It does not meet the minimum standards for a sound article. Dl.thinker ( talk ) 10:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Anjaane Nagar: Fails WP:GNG ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️ ) 15:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Television , and Pakistan . ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️ ) 15:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 16:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of programs broadcast by TV One (Pakistan)#Drama series , where it is listed as Anjanay Nagar. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Izat Fateh Ali Khan: No in-depth coverage, multiple sources failed verification. Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 15:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , and Pakistan . Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 15:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC) Daily Times , Daily Times , Dawn , Dawn . Insight 3 ( talk ) 06:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC) GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Insight 3. Daily Times article is in-depth enough. BookishReader ( talk ) 20:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Coverage from the Daily Times is in-depth but that’s about it; the other sources are lacking. 116.92.232.6 ( talk ) 02:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No one has discussed the failed verification part of the nomination Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 20:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first source [27] does not contain information about Izat Ali Fateh Khan’s place and date of birth. The third source [28] does not verify that Izat Fateh Ali Khan is the son of Ustad Fateh Ali Khan. The subject is not mentioned in the fourth [29] , fifth [30] , and eleventh [31] sources. Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 01:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If some cited sources fail to verify any stated fact in the article or do not mention the subject, we simply remove the sources. This is no reason to the whole article. Insight 3 ( talk ) 07:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] With all these badrefs, the article is left with few reliable sources (the Dawn articles being mostly trivial and the two nearly-identical Daily Times articles) with no other significant coverage. The article claims that Izat Ali Fateh Khan has performed on television, radio, and “has appeared in several programs numerous times”, which is not supported by the source listed. Claims of notability (particularly the claim that the subject has been featured on television, presumably national television) lack verifiability, hence failing notability guidelines. Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 09:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Gwalior gharana where mentioned. The subject is clearly part of a dynastic musical tradition that collectively receives significant coverage, but the available sources provide little to no significant coverage of young Izat. signed, Rosguill talk 01:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌶️ Jala peño 🌶️ Don't click this link ! 08:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC) GNG , Fast deletion recommended. PARVAGE talk! 05:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"WXNY-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 13:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 13:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC) Its long (for an LPTV) pre-Daystar history seems to nonetheless have been mostly other national services or relaying other stations, all likely with no significant coverage to speak of. (Even in New York City, there is no guarantee of attaining the sourcing and coverage we now require.) A remnant of the lower inclusion standards of 2007. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Hangovers & Hot Flashes: I have checked for reviews on Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, and Booklist, as well as a general Google search, but couldn't find additional RSes. 4/6 of the sources on the page mention the book. However, none establish notability: Chick Lit Central (#1) doesn't provide SIGCOV, and Daily Bruin (#4), The Other 50% (#5), and Kim Gruenfelder (#6) are primary. Gruenfelder's website only mentions one ""review"", which is from another author, not a news source. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 21:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As a stub article, I strongly agree that there needs to be more sourcing on this book. Gruenenfelder's website does feature simply a quote from another author, but this is common for published works and not a reflection of reviews. Five of Gruenenfelder's books easily establish notability, but I will also concede that this sixth one is a bit more difficult in terms of sourcers from Kirkus and the like: my chief goal is to represent a work of literature about an older demographic of women, which is often excluded from the books that receive coverage. Happy to continue work on improving it, and would be open to Moving to Draftspace in this spirit, though I believe that removing it entirely would be a mistake. PickleG13 ( talk ) 06:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, PickleG13 ! I absolutely agree that we need more literature that represents older women. However, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs . If you can find sources that establish the notability of this book, please share them here or add them to the article page. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 01:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion . The page was a to Kim Gruenenfelder#Bibliography before being converted to an article on 6 January 2024. I am also fine with a move to draftspace but would like to have the to Kim Gruenenfelder#Bibliography restored if that happens. I did a detailed search for sources and could not find reviews or significant coverage other than this article in the University of California, Los Angeles student newspaper Daily Bruin . Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Student media says: Reputable student media outlets, such as The Harvard Crimson , are considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community. They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred when available. However, given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions. Kim Gruenenfelder is an alumna of the University of California, Los Angeles, so the student newspaper is not entirely independent of her for the purpose of determining notability. A with the history preserved under the will allow editors to selectively any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A with the history preserved under the will allow the to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard ( talk ) 09:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, it looks like the most promising options are a Draftify/Redirect or just a straight Redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Kim Gruenenfelder#Bibliography per Cunard . No objection to the requested draftification. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 03:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Bells Break Their Towers: Fails WP:NALBUM I can't find anything in the way of non-trivial coverage. The sources cited don't appear particularly indicative of general notability, but in any case per WP:NALBUM : Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be d into the artist's article or discography Polyamorph ( talk ) 10:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music . Polyamorph ( talk ) 10:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - There are currently AfDs for five albums by this band, all with recommendations to . All the album articles were created in stub form early in Wikipedia history and have had very few edits or readers in the many years since, indicting low interest in improving them. You could just boldly all the albums to the band regardless of the AfD process, and in the (unlikely) event that someone objects we can take it from there. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 18:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Leeds Rhinos–Wakefield Trinity rivalry: J Mo 101 ( talk ) 14:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions . J Mo 101 ( talk ) 14:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article was originally only about the festive challenge, but was renamed and expanded 3 years ago. Any rivalry between them appears no different than most other clubs in the area so the first part of the article could be section moved into West Yorkshire derbies . The festive challenge could be kept as a separate article but needs some improvement – currently this section is poorly sourced and incomplete (sources indicate it stared before 2009: BBC Sport , RFL ). EdwardUK ( talk ) 18:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [40] [41] ), so that part should definitely be removed or separated into another article. I've no problem with merging the rest with West Yorkshire derbies if others think it's notable enough for inclusion. J Mo 101 ( talk ) 21:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC) 54, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If adequate sources, can be found supporting that the Festive Challenge was once more than Leeds vs Wakefield then this should be created as a new article. Mn1548 ( talk ) 17:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are sources which have the festive challenge first being played in 1996 and mention Halifax, Bradford and Castleford as taking part before Wakefield so a move back to the original page name would be suitable for this section. But I could find very little about Leeds and Wakefield being regarded as rivals and it is not mentioned in lists of derbies: [42] . EdwardUK ( talk ) 18:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, this rivalry, along with a few others, seems to have just been bolted on to the ""West Yorkshire Derby"" section of Derbies in the Rugby Football League which from what I can gather, the West Yorkshire Derby is between Leeds and Bradford. Would support a move back to the original page name for Festive Challenge content only with the rest being transferred to the West Yorkshire derbies page, then a clear up of said page for any rivalries that appear to have just been made up. Mn1548 ( talk ) 13:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have moved the content relating to the Boxing Day friendlies to Festive Challenge . Thanks to @ EdwardUK : 's work, I think this is well sourced enough to be kept, so I'm withdrawing my nomination for that part of the article. Now it's just whether the remaining content should be d or d. I personally don't think it's a strong enough rivalry to be included even on the West Yorkshire page. J Mo 101 ( talk ) 14:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC) To preserve the page history, it would need to be a or rather than a . If it was d, I doubt it would be kept following any clean-up of the WY derbies article. The head-to-head needs updating, and I am not sure how relevant the collective honours table is to any rivalry if the teams have never played each other in some of the competitions and Wakefield have never taken part in others. EdwardUK ( talk ) 17:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Otra Tocada Mas: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC) NEXIST the absence of sources in an article is not an indicator of notability, and per WP:BEFORE a nominator should attempt to find some before nomination for deletion. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's part of the discography of a very notable band, isn't that enough? And if in fact isn't, couldn't be with other minor albums? Zidane tribal ( talk ) 17:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability of the performer(s) has nothing to do with that of their recordings. This is not a vote. dxneo ( talk ) 08:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC) NALBUM and WP:SIGCOV . Alternatively to El Tri (band) per WP:ATD . A WP:BEFORE search yielded no significant coverage. Rather than trouncing the nominator, commenters should do a good faith search for sources before chastising someone for not doing due diligence. I could locate no reviews in RS and there weren't even passing mentions of the album. Nothing in google books, newspapers.com, entertainment magazines like Billboard or Variety , or even in standard e-zines or music websites where one would usually find a review. It appears to be an entirely non-notable work by a notable band. 4meter4 ( talk ) 15:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 09:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Fuck It, I Love You (Malcolm Middleton song): BilledMammal ( talk ) 03:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions . BilledMammal ( talk ) 03:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Scotland . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC) NSONG . 162 etc. ( talk ) 04:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC) Other than the paragraph in this article, I could only find passing mentions of the song. Shows no signs of notability; Big Yawn is a blog and gives me no immediate reason to believe it would pass a reliability check. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 05:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Batino: The only source, [7] , only discusses the eponymous plant and does not mention anything about this barangay (also, no mention of the city and the province). See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?) . At the most closest alternative, to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays . JWilz12345 ( Talk | Contrib's. ) 04:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines . JWilz12345 ( Talk | Contrib's. ) 04:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC) ATD -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC) ATD . HueMan1 ( talk ) 01:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There seems to be another barangay named Batino in Calapan . Perhaps move it first to Batino, Calamba , and then it to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays . HueMan1 ( talk ) 01:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Juraj Vankulič: There doesn't appear to be anything to add, rendering Shooting of... not a viable solution. A to 2022 Bratislava shooting would be a fine ATD but expect that this is contentious so wanted broader eyes, especially with folks who have access to non English sourcing. Star Mississippi 03:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Crime , Sexuality and gender , and Slovakia . Star Mississippi 03:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Juraj was a very notable and important person in Slovak queer scene. This article is important to their friends and family for ing their legacy alive. Creating this article was the sole reason why I began an editing account. I beg you, please, do not it. Animaeon ( talk ) 03:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC) NOTAMEMORIAL and WP:COI if you knew Vankulic or are otherwise connected with their friends and family. Star Mississippi 04:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe if any reviews of his performances could be found? -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 10:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC) 27, 21 January 2024 (UTC) NOTAMEMORIAL and WP:BLP1E . I couldn't find significant coverage which means Vankulič fails GNG. Dougal18 ( talk ) 14:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC) NOTAMEMORIAL and WP:BLP1E . No significant coverage of Vankulič's career as a drag queen or anything not related to their death in the terror attack. Mooonswimmer 20:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Searchlight (workshops): Fails WP:GNG and we can cover anything that does on Chailey Heritage School in the Searchlight Workshops section. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 21:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC) As creating editor I had hopes that others would enhance this article. I feel it merits targeted WP:BLAR rather than deletion. This then leaves a good entry point for readers. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You haven't addressed my main claim here, a may be overly broad. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 21:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Allan Nonymous Perhaps you have a misunderstanding of the ability to to a section im another article. Doing this addresses that concern absolutely. There is nothing broad about a rifle targeted ion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to clarify here, I wasn't saying the target was too broad. I was saying the term (i.e. ""Searchlight (Workshops)"") might be a bit too broad per the many things called searchlight. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 12:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Allan Nonymous That is the name of the thing. Thus, broad or not, that is what it is called. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC) To aid this decision, I have migrated small but important additional material to the proposed target article and section, including references which were omitted, sourced and referenced the charity number (etc) for Searchlight Workshops, and noted the charity's cessation in 2011. One reference remains primary, but I believe it to be permitted under WP:PRIMARY . 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Chailey Heritage School#Searchlight Workshops per above. // Timothy :: talk 12:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Meki Catholic School: ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha ( 🧾 - 💬 ) 22:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Ethiopia . ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha ( 🧾 - 💬 ) 22:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Meki , where the school is mentioned under the Catholic Church services heading. Article is unsourced but this source verifies the school's existence and may count towards GNG. [2] . (The source is probably better referenced in an article on Ethiopia's education system.). This from from the same website also has coverage of the school [3] . Note the organisation publishing these pieces helps support students attending the school, so some may question its independence. Rupples ( talk ) 01:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as non-notable and unreferenced for so many years. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 11:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Request relist - The week is up but I have just started looking at this. I have found a paper: [4] which talks about Meki Catholic Vicariate Schools. Reading this, it suggests there are several schools, but the page says it is the only senior high school, so it is likely that the paper refers to primary education that are feeders into this one. However it occurs to me that this may be the wrong name of the school. This may be hampering searches. This may be the only senior school in the region but it may still not be called, simply, Meki Catholic School as there are clearly many such schools. It is always harder to find information on such schools so perhaps we could have another week just to be sure that there is nothing. Having said that, at this stage, I support the to Meki as an appropriate ATD that takes the reader to a page that mentions the school. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 09:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Happy to support this relist request. Rupples ( talk ) 10:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to honor the request and also because there is no consensus yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning but to Meki would also be an appropriate outcome based on source availability. I oppose . Thanks for the relist and the time to research this. I have ascertained that the school is indeed known as Meki Catholic School (or MCS) despite the fact that there are Catholic primary schools in Meki. There is limited information in sources, but there are a number of research papers that mention it. I tool a look at the five most promising of these, and produced the following source analysis: Source assessment table: prepared by User:Sirfurboy Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://jriiejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/JRIIE-6-2-008.pdf Research by the Catholic University of Eastern Africa Published paper ~ The school is not the research subject but just one of the schools where quantitive data fed into the study. ~ Partial https://www.dbpia.co.kr/Journal/articleDetail? nodeId=NODE02479405 ~ The writer speaks of getting a job in the school but in the context of an ethnographic study of the town ~ Partial https://search.proquest.com/openview/b7c32ea085f926e1880fcab2ac38d350/1? pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y A Ph. D. Thesis. ~ Meki school is one of those visited as part of the Phenomenological Study of High School Cultural Immersion Programs ~ Partial http://thesisbank.jhia.ac.ke/id/eprint/5252 Jesuit Historical Institute in Africa Unpublished MA thesis, which is nevertheless cited elsewhere, e.g. [5] ? Attempts to access the paper after registering for it lead to a ""forbidden"" message. Unable to review. ✘ No https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/lre.12111 Addis Ababa University See https://doi.org/10.1111/lre.12111 . Published by Wiley. ~ This is a study of the environmental perceptions of school students, including students at MCS. It is not about the school. ~ Partial This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . What this analysis demonstrates is that the school is significant enough that it is used for surveys, data or exchange visits as part of these various research topics. The papers do not, in themselves, meet SIGCOV, because in all the cases I was able to follow up, it was hard to say that the mentions amounted to significant coverage. There was not much to build the article from, based on these papers. And this was a more general problem. Searching news sources and elsewhere, there were sources (including social media, which would be counted as self published) that showed that the school exists and and is not insignificant, but did not afford enough information to actually write an article. And that is the problem. If this school were in the US, the UK or various other localities, I think it would be a shoe-in. It would be significant enough that it would garner votes. But on a strict evaluation of the sources, I haven't found quite enough to demonstrate it meets GNG. So where is the problem? Do we too many non notable schools? Or should we presume this one is notable, even though it is still not clear what we can say about it in the article? I really don't know! So or is fine by me, but I think would be the wrong outcome. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 23:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Tolufazepam: Studied in a single paper from 1988; WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of further study or commercialization. A to Benzodiazepine in 2014 was contested. With respect to the late User:DGG , I think a or outright deletion is the correct outcome. Jfire ( talk ) 23:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions . Jfire ( talk ) 23:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC) Reference 2 seems to be secondary and reliable. Otherwise, only primary sources and database listings found. Poorly-studied compound that in the cited sources is mostly discussed along with other compounds, making it a good candidate for a . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC) Per WeirdNAnnoyed . A stub can be short but not a dictionary entry. -- Otr500 ( talk ) 08:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Pickering Lumber Co. 12: Appears to fail GNG. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 20:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and California . Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 20:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Sadly as a railfan, I must vote for deletion. There is no coverage other than the Nyles Canyon Railway's blog for sourcing, and some photos of the locomotive. Not meeting GNG. Some coverage in this book, but it's a directory listing [5] Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If sources cannot be found then this should be ed to Niles Canyon Railway#Notable steam locomotives (although that section might be better named just ""Steam locomotives"") where it is mentioned. I don't see any benefit in deleting the sourced information present in the article. Thryduulf ( talk ) 08:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, apologies for the late reply. As expected and mentioned in your message, no additional sources about her have been found, therefore, i completely agree to her page to Niles_Canyon_Railway#Notable_steam_locomotives , and her page. I'm glad we could come up with a solution ^^ Christian40213 ( talk ) 18:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You do realize the one and only source in the article is a photo with no additional information from some dude's blog, right? Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 20:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How is that relevant to what I wrote? I'm not arguing to the article in its present state or unverified information. Thryduulf ( talk ) 22:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The only sourced information within the article is that the locomotive showed up at an event in 1986. You said I don't see any benefit in deleting the sourced information present in the article but I don't see any valid sourced information. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 00:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Saint Leibowitz: Di (they-them) ( talk ) 22:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy . Di (they-them) ( talk ) 22:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Canticle for Leibowitz, not notable outside of the novel. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Canticle for Leibowitz. Agree with above. -- Bduke ( talk ) 08:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC) ATD . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Josue Danny Ortiz Trophy: Extremely limited sources that even mention the award; the two in the story include WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in discussion of Danny Ortiz . Additional sources not included are also trivial mentions that do not provide significant coverage. Propose to to Danny Ortiz . Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 15:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Guatemala . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Danny Ortiz as possible search term. Giant Snowman 19:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"WKUT-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 02:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kentucky . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 02:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. : Yet another DTV America/HC2/Innovate station that has only ever carried national services without much if any significant coverage , even before their ownership. Like many of the others, this artilcle is another nominal survivor of a bulk nomination from 2023 . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Bill DeSmedt: Unable to find WP:SIGCOV or any indication that he passes WP:NCREATIVE . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Science fiction and fantasy , and United States of America . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:NCREATIVE . JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . He has an entry in SFE [11] which I've now added to the article. Weak, b/c it's just one source, and SFE seems very inclusive towards English-speaking authors (whereas, for example, most major Polish sf authors don't even get a page... but that's not relevant to the argument here, forgive me for venting about systemic bias). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or refocus to be about his book Singularity per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . ""DeSmedt, Bill"" . The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction . 2022-09-12. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07 . Retrieved 2023-05-07 . The entry notes: ""US computer programmer and author, whose Near Future Archon Sequence, comprising Singularity (2004) and Dualism (2014), dramatizes the Jackson-Ryan Hypothesis that the 1908 Tunguska explosion in Siberia was caused by a microscopic Black Hole, which remains at the Earth's core and threatens the End of the World."" Singularity book reviews: Shawl, Nisi (2004-11-28). ""The nerd gets the secret agent in taut science-fiction thriller"" . The Seattle Times . Archived from the original on 2023-05-07 . Retrieved 2023-05-07 . The review notes: """"Singularity"" is Bill DeSmedt's first novel. It's also Seattle publisher Per Aspera's first book. By basing their infant reputation on the debut of this unknown Pennsylvania author, this new local press has made a big gamble — perhaps a smart one. DeSmedt's clear descriptions of everything from the core of a typical star to the sinister device an assassin uses to mimic a wolf's bite make it easy to follow his swiftly swooping story line. "" Folsom, Robert (2004-12-05). ""Frontiers of the mind - Three first novels should get these writers off to a good start"" . The Kansas City Star . Archived from the original on 2023-05-07 . Retrieved 2023-05-07 . The review notes: ""For his first effort, Bill DeSmedt chose as his topic the Tunguska event of 1908, when a meteorite was believed to have smashed into the Siberian wilderness, leveling trees for miles. DeSmedt has his own explanation: a submicroscopic black hole. ... The dialogue would be another matter; it's very scientific. But De-Smedt has managed a neat trick: Conversations are lively even though they're peppered with accurate physicist's jargon. The thriller aspect of the book helps. "" Hopper, Jim (2004-12-12). ""There's blood on the sand and on the asteroids as well"" . The San Diego Union-Tribune . Archived from the original on 2023-05-07 . Retrieved 2023-05-07 . The review notes: ""Bill DeSmedt has a stylish technothriller, ""Singularity"" (Per Aspera, 502 pages, $25.95) -- the publisher's first hardcover and the author's first novel, not that it seems so. The SF portion starts off with the Tunguska Event, the 1908 phenomenon in Siberia that made a big noise and flattened a lot of trees, radially. Something ... strange ... happened. DeSmedt makes a case for a primordial black hole, which is still orbiting inside the Earth. Verifying the conjecture is an early part of the story. What a villain could do with such a thing, and why, is the thriller part. "" McKellar, Danica (2008-08-24). ""In My Library - Danica McKellar"" . New York Post . Archived from the original on 2023-05-07 . Retrieved 2023-05-07 . The review notes: ""Singularity by Bill DeSmedt. It's my favorite science fiction thriller. It's got everything - great characters, suspense, action, romance, and you just might learn something about black holes along the way. I stayed up till 3 a.m. every night for a week reading it, and it left me wanting more!"" Olsen, Lisa (2007-07-18). ""Disaster stories offer guilt-free thrills"" . The Fayetteville Observer . Archived from the original on 2023-05-07 . Retrieved 2023-05-07 . The review notes: "" Singularity also revolves around the Tunguska event, only this time it was not a meteor or a experiment gone wrong that caused the disaster, but the appearance of a microscopic black hole. Worse, the black hole is still trapped in the Earth's crust, and conspirators are working to capture it to use it for their own ends. Marianna Bonaventure, a U.S. agent working to track down weapons of mass destruction, and Jonathan Knox, a brilliant analyst, must team up to save the world. A science fiction thriller, Singularity will appeal to readers who enjoy Michael Crichton. "" Alden, John R. (2004-11-07). ""Black hole hitting Earth grabs readers of thriller"" . The Plain Dealer . Archived from the original on 2023-05-07 . Retrieved 2023-05-07 . The review notes: ""Singularity by Bill DeSmedt (Per Aspera Press, $25.95) is a slam-bang first novel where the science is as important as the fiction. ... ""Singularity"" takes this bizarre possibility, adds a cast of exotic characters, whips in a blitzkrieg plot and bakes it all into a hugely entertaining near-future thriller. James Bond would have loved to star in a story such as this. "" Hartley, Lara (2006-09-08). ""New adventures in podcasting land"" . Daily Press . Archived from the original on 2023-05-07 . Retrieved 2023-05-07 – via Newspapers.com . The review notes: "" ""Singularity"" by Bill DeSmedt ""What if the cataclysmic Tunguska explosion of 1908 was caused, not by a meteor or a comet, but by a microscopic black hole?""... The book has received awards in- cluding: Winner of the Gold Medal for Science Fiction in Foreword Magazine's Book of the Year Awards. Winner of the Independent Publishers Association's Ippy prize for Best Fantasy/Science Fiction novel of 2004."" Hoffert, Barbara; Burns, Ann (2005-03-15). ""Winter Wonders, Spring Hopefuls"". Library Journal . Vol. 130, no. 5. EBSCO host 16488600 . The review notes: ""Another first book from a new press, this sf thriller makes the way-out assumption that a 1908 explosion in Siberia called the Tunguska Event resulted from Earth's very close encounter with a tiny black hole. The book grabbed the #5 position on Barnes & Noble's top ten list in sf and fantasy and the #7 position on Mysterious Galaxy's best sellers list. "" ""Singularity (book)"" . Publishers Weekly . Vol. 251, no. 43. 2004-10-25. EBSCO host 14829605 . Archived from the original on 2023-05-07 . Retrieved 2023-05-07 . The review notes: ""DeSmedt's debut SF thriller, a brisk Michael Crichton clone, vividly depicts the Tunguska event that leveled a big patch of Siberia in 1908, then shifts to the near-future, where warrior woman Marianna Bonaventure is working for CROM (Critical Resources Oversight Mandate), the U.S. Department of Energy's branch for dealing with loose WMD talent. ... The sexual chemistry between Marianna and Jonathan adds spice. Exotic hardware, lifestyles of the rich and notorious, double- and triple-crosses and a slightly rushed and facile conclusion all make a respectable if not outstanding first effort. "" ""Singularity (book)"". The New York Review of Books . Vol. 51, no. 18. 2004-11-18. p. 53. EBSCO host 15063458 . Cunard ( talk ) 09:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC) I acknowledge the list of reviews above for the book... so looking for focused attention on whether the BLP should exist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 14:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC) 04, 13 May 2023 (UTC) I oppose deletion. Most of the Wikipedia article is about his work on the book Singularity (as are the sources), so this article should be d to Singularity (DeSmedt novel) (which was blanked and ed to Bill DeSmedt in 2019) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion . Cunard ( talk ) 08:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC) 16, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Author fails GNG and should be ed to his notable novel per WP:ATD-R . There is potential of author reaching GNG in future. Justanothersgwikieditor ( talk ) 03:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC) NOTINHERITED ). WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). There is substantial unsourced BLP content in the article so it should be d before . // Timothy :: talk 04:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC) The article's older revisions contained more sources such as this article from SciFiDimensions that verifies the article's content. Material in Bill DeSmedt that is supported by sources like SciFiDimensions can be d to Singularity (DeSmedt novel) , so I oppose deletion. Cunard ( talk ) 10:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Merveille Mbemba: The subject has earned at least one cap for the DR Congo women's national football team . I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Democratic Republic of the Congo . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 16:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Kyrgyz Wikipedia: That is to say Wikipedia/other Wikimedia projects. Perhaps this is also considered circular referencing? Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 03:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Internet , Websites , Asia , and Kyrgyzstan . Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 03:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC) ATD-R — siro χ o 06:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect. No need for a separate article. Athel cb ( talk ) 12:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions . L iz Read! Talk! 20:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Fortress walls and gates of Bukhara: Sources in article are blogs/travel websites, not archeological sources. BEFORE found nothing that makes this notable apart from the main article. Sourcing in the article shows there is nothing to , no objection if there is a consensus to . // Timothy :: talk 10:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , History , and Uzbekistan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Spiderone , again you beat me to sorting by seconds! Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please accept my apologies! Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC) BOLD , AfD is not even necessary in this case. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 11:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Possible Weak Ark of Bukhara seems to be about the fortress or citadel, while this one is more about the outer walls of the city, which would be appropriate to have an article on, perhaps City walls of Bukhara . At present this seems to be a poor article, but the solution is to improve, not . Peterkingiron ( talk ) 12:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have studied the city in detail (I took Siege of Bukhara to featured article quality last year), and believe that the best solution is ing to Bukhara . As Peterkingiron points out, Ark of Bukhara refers to the inner citadel TimothyBlue —not the walls of the city itself. I do not believe that there is sufficient detail for this article to stand independent—e.g. Pugachenkova in Bosworth and Asimov's UNESCO history summarizes (p.508) the walls and gates of the whole Transoxiana region in around a page, and I have not seen enough scholarship elsewhere. Per WP:NOPAGE , I thus think that ing to Bukhara is the best solution. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 12:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Bukhara per ~~ AirshipJungleman29 above. Any appropriately sourced content can be d from the history. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 23:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Yadira Pacheco: All that came up in my searches were passing mentions ( 2006 , 2007 , 2008 , 2014 , 2015 , 2018 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 04:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Panama . JTtheOG ( talk ) 04:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 12:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per nom. Svartner ( talk ) 20:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the nom. Not enough WP:SIGCOV present. Let'srun ( talk ) 20:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"List of most massive exoplanets: However, it is estimated that the most massive exoplanets have a mass of around 13 Jupiter masses (but this is highly uncertain anyway). Despite this, the article has tens of objects with a mass higher than that. Many objects (such as GQ Lupi b/C) are often considered to be BDs but sometimes are considered to be planets as well but yet they are still here. Diamantinasaurus ( talk ) 17:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC) POVFORK , but it also might have enough notability to last. I don't know enough about the policies surrounding space in the science community. However, the nom makes it just sound like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conyo14 ( talk • contribs ) 18:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 14:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning . This meets NLIST with a google news search. I think we could require every entry to have an reliable source declaring it as an exoplanet. AFAICT, I think the 13 Jupiter cutoff isn't widely agreed upon, so we probably shouldn't strictly require it, though maybe there's a place for distinguishing various cutoffs in the list. — siro χ o 00:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC) I'm skeptical of the validity of this list. For example, HD 162020 b is now known to be a red dwarf. HIP 5158 c only has a minimum mass, but is listed as if the mass is well known. CT Cha b could be a brown dwarf or a planet; it's not clear. I think the list should only include objects that are conclusively known to be exoplanets with a well-bounded mass estimate. Praemonitus ( talk ) 04:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is effectively just a ""list of objects between 10 and 30 Jupiter masses that orbit stars"", and there isn't really a better way to make a ""list of most massive exoplanets"". Whether an object is considered a planet or a brown dwarf depends on either how it formed (while we can make some reasonable guesses, this isn't conclusively known) or a mass cutoff (the IAU uses 13 Jupiter masses, the NASA Exoplanet Archive uses 30). Maybe ""objects described as planets in the scientific literature""? Leaning . SevenSpheres ( talk ) 16:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with List of largest exoplanets . Owen× ☎ 00:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as recommended above. Orientls ( talk ) 06:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as an alternative to closing this discussion as No consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per inherent problems raised by Praemonitus. It is often not possible to get a precise estimate of a planet's mass. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 22:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Metropolitan Police Traffic Criminal Justice Unit: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC) Nothing independent found, other than mirrored Wikipedia content. Violates WP:NORG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or to Central Operations . No reason to the info. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This is looking like No consensus right now. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC) Redirects are WP:CHEAP and this obviously fails GNG. This has no info that needs to be d as this is a non notable unit. Nagol0929 ( talk ) 12:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"A Time for George Stavros: It's also an unpublished failed attempt at a book that didn't survive beyond a short synopsis, making it highly unlikely to ever achieve notability. Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 11:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions . Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 11:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC) could the information be d into the main article on Philip K. Dick which has sections on his early writing and the various phases of his career? Elemimele ( talk ) 16:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, the text could be transposed. A lack of notability for an article on a subject doesn't prevent information within it being used on a page for a notable subject, and the requirements for an in-line citation or consensus on adding the line is significantly lower than requirements for a subject to have an article. Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 13:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC) BOOKCRIT #5, and per my comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Nicholas and the Higs . Could possibly be d into Humpty Dumpty in Oakland , since according to this Humpty Dumpty is a very close rewrite of George Stavros ; or could be d into a new article "" Lost works of Philip K. Dick "", as I suggested at the other AfD. Sojourner in the earth ( talk ) 21:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""The five preceding criteria do not necessarily apply to books excluded by the threshold standards, and do not apply to not-yet-published books"". A Time for George Stavros was unpublished (and never will be), and has no ISBN or catalogue in a national library, therefore Bookcrit #5 is irrelevant. I think merging into the Humpty book would be a good idea and would improve that article. Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 13:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair point, struck my ! vote. I'm hesitant to formally propose a to Humpty Dumpty , since I think it would be less a and more a total rewrite of that article; so instead I suggest ing to Philip K. Dick bibliography for the time being, with no prejudice to the content being incorporated into another article in the future. Sojourner in the earth ( talk ) 16:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions . North America 1000 12:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Conor O'Callaghan (businessman): He received some attention from national outlets right when he announced his campaign in August of last year, but that's to be expected of any candidate in a competitive House race. From what I can see, he's received zero national news coverage since September 2023. All of the articles cited on the page are campaign-related, and I can't find any non-campaign-related coverage of him on Google from any time, so I don't think he meets GNG. Very much reminiscent of Kellen Curry , another 2024 congressional candidate who got national news attention right when he launched and promptly faded from view. I'd support a to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona#District 1 . BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 02:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Politicians , Ireland , Arizona , and Pennsylvania . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support either or outright ing, as even with the bit of coverage he has received more recently (he appears to be running a generally more negative campaign rel. to the other 5 in the race) I don't believe he meets notability standards. Buggie111 ( talk ) 14:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC) not meeting criminal notability; simply being a political candidate isn't notable. Can be re-created if he wins the political seat, otherwise, not meeting notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC) I support a to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona . That being said, while he doesn't meet WP:NPOL for being a candidate, it's possible he meets WP:BASIC . What makes this different from other cases, in my opinion, is that the candidature coverage is not WP:MILL . He's received a significant amount of coverage that specifically goes into detail about his career before running for office. For example, this Bloomberg article and this MSNBC article. C F A 💬 01:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that the national coverage of him isn't run of the mill, but the problem is that the only non-ROTM coverage he ever received came right when he announced his campaign. As I said in the nomination, he's received no national attention since September 2023. It seems like he made a splash right when he announced because he's running in a competitive congressional race, but I don't think that translates to lasting notability. If he loses this race, will anyone be searching his name in 5-10 years? BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 04:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi! I made this article...I lost my login for AZVoter so I'll go in my thought process here. Conor has the most cash on hand out of any candidate other than the incumbent in this race. He is polling alright and has four endorsements from people in the US house of reps. So he definitely is getting national recognition. But you are correct, if he loses he will probably be irrelevant. The negative campaigning is something I wanted to add but this was my first article so I did not really know what to write about. JustMadeThis4Discussion ( talk ) 02:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Raising money and getting a couple endorsements from members of Congress is not what I meant by ""national attention"" (we're talking about news coverage here) and does not establish notability. See WP:NPOL . BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 02:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"List of Soccer Bowl broadcasters: Fails WP:LISTN . Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE . Of the sources per WP:RS ; besides unsourced, one of those is a blogspot post; of the three offline sources, one is a personal opinion of one of the announcers, anything supporting this list is minimal. Another offline source is an announcement about a deal. A majority of those are WP:PRIMARY , forums and dead links besides the YouTube posts, not offering anything to assert notability. A small section in a main article about broadcasters will be more appropriate than a list about broadcasters. WP:ATD will be a to Soccer Bowl . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 09:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Football , and Lists . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 09:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC) LISTN . I appreciate the WP:ATD from the nom, but nothing in the article suggests it can be moved to the main. This is a list format made with WP:OR and WP:LISTCRUFT . A brief search couldn't even yield the normal WP:ROUTINE press releases I'd get. Conyo14 ( talk ) 21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC) GNG in some sense. The arguments for deletion are mistaken - WP:NOTTVGUIDE clearly does not mean we can't have articles on historic media rights; LISTCRUFT is an I don't like it argument; I have absolutely no idea how NOTDATABASE is supposed to apply here, since there's nothing here remotely resembling a database. The sources have been mis-represented, too - there are numerous contemporary newspaper articles discussing the commentators and TV rights of individual Soccer Bowls such as [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] , all of which are already in the article . So this is a very clear to me. SportingFlyer T · C 18:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC) As it stands, this subject does not meet the WP:LISTN as the broadcasters aren't discussed as a group anywhere so far as I can tell. as a WP:ATD . Let'srun ( talk ) 02:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That part of NLIST says ""one accepted reason why."" That's not the only reason a list could be notable - in this instance, it's notable because it's information best presented in list format. I've said or , but I'm not really pro apart from the fact there's absolutely no reason to lose this information, and this seems like a valid split. SportingFlyer T · C 03:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC) 43, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why don't you think the ample coverage demonstrates notability? Just because there's not one source that lists all of these? SportingFlyer T · C 17:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There doesn't appear to be any coverage as a set for this list, even as not the entirety of the list needs to be covered in any one RS. Let'srun ( talk ) 18:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"XM Deportivo: Thus, it fails WP:GNG . In addition, the article creator was banned for vandalism. Let'srun ( talk ) 12:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America . Let'srun ( talk ) 12:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC) there is insufficient significant coverage to merit any actual notability, but this seems to be the logical alternative to deletion for otherwise non-notable SiriusXM channels (if not associated with another notable parent entity). (It doesn't appear to currently be mentioned there — though a similar channel called ""Radio Deportivo"" that was shuttered in 2004 is — but what little potential sources exist for this channel might at least be enough for adding it there.) WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC) GNG here. I'm not sure we should content that has no sources whatsoever, so a seems appropriate. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 10:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Leaving Certificate Mathematics: Furthermore there are no other articles on other Leaving Certificate subjects, for example ""Leaving Certificate economics, business, Irish, English, etc."" This article could possibly be moved to the Leaving Certificate (Ireland) article or d altogether. Edl-irishboy ( talk ) 13:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , Mathematics , Europe , and Ireland . Edl-irishboy ( talk ) 13:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To be honest, I think it can probably go. The information is mostly either already in the Leaving Certificate (Ireland) or is out of date. David Malone ( talk ) 14:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC) 35, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I'm usually in favor of rather than deleting when we have a reasonable target like we do here. But in this case, it violates one of the main rules for titling on Wikipedia - WP:PRECISE . A reader looking here to find information about the mathematics leaving certificate in Britain wouldn't find any help. 4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 04:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The term ""Leaving Certificate"" is most commonly used to refer to the Irish secondary qualification (a quick Google will show this), so I would not think many readers would expect to see any other nation's educational qualitifcations referred to with this term. Nepal's school leaving examination is called the School Leaving Certificate, abbreviated as SLC, but as the word ""School"" is used in the name as well, this prevents any mix ups. pinktoebeans (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Leaving Certificate (Ireland) merging any relevant information. And while we're at it, could we rename Leaving Certificate (Ireland) to Leaving Certificate (which is currently a ), per my reasoning above? pinktoebeans (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Leaving Certificate (Ireland) per above. - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC) 33, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Vallonia, Kansas: Mangoe ( talk ) 22:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kansas . Skynxnex ( talk ) 23:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I was unable to locate any source supporting this was ever a populated place. Magnolia677 ( talk ) 23:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - This was a tough one. User:James.folsom suggested this source . You'll see that some of the names listed at that source, are the same people in Vallonia Cemetery . Also listed in the cemetery is Maurice Garland Foley. Foley's obituary said ""he lived most of his life in the Vallonia and Kanona communities"". More people born in Vallonia. A land transfer from four men living in Vallonia, Kansas. Interesting, the men's names are also on the cemetery list. A wedding at a residence in Vallonia. A funeral for a doctor who's family ""lived in the Vallonia neighborhood for several years"". -- Magnolia677 ( talk ) 12:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC) //sites.rootsweb.com/~ksdechp/directories/18841885gazdir.html "". The local paper has regular mentions of goings on in the place. It's still known today according to the paper. Though some of that is because there continued to be school with that name. The bulk of the news articles are during the time the place had post office. I'm still researching. I'm almost Certain Uncle G will deposit a bunch of info here soon. James.folsom ( talk ) 00:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have been neglecting Polk's for Kansas, given Gannett and Blackmar. Interestingly, Vallonia isn't in the 1904 Polk's . I don't doubt the rootsweb site, but I tend to be wary of transcriptions. Uncle G ( talk ) 13:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It's not clear to me that Vallonia was a town rather than just a name for the rural area served by that post office (and related functions like the cemetery). The cemetery is located in Olive Township, but the school is listed here as serving Roosevelt Township. Normally I'd say to this article about a rural gathering point into the article about the township it served, but it's not obvious to me which of the two it'd go with if it were d into one. Leaning just based on that, but idk really Jbt89 ( talk ) 20:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC) If you look at this map , and switch the map to ""USA topo"", you'll see that the border of the two townships, Olive and Roosevelt, passes through the town and cemetary. Magnolia677 ( talk ) 20:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a reconstructed map, based upon computer data sets. It's not actually a contemporary original map. There's an original (Rand McNally) map in the belowmentioned Report that puts the Vallonia post office (which the Report states to be a post office) very roughly on the border of Olive and Harlan Townships. Interestingly, Vallonia disappears off the map (on page 111) and from the list of post offices (on page 116) in the next Biennial Report. Uncle G ( talk ) 12:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have it as a post office in Olive Township per the 1886 Fifth Report of the Kansas State Board of Agriculture. Gannett's 1889 Gazetteer does not have this at all, nor does Blackmar's 1912 Cyclopedia , supporting the claim that this was little more than a post office that closed in 1887, just as the sole good source in the article says , and that school. They'd have it if it were a town or a village. For future AFD discussions which I know are coming for the Template:Decatur County, Kansas ""unincorporated communities"" and purported ghost towns, all of the Blackmar-verifiable post offices are in Decatur County, Kansas#Post offices . Uncle G ( talk ) 06:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC) //www.newspapers.com/article/oberlin-herald-post-office-or-town/139274290/ . There are many more examples that phrase it as a place. Jbt89 point is valid, as the way these post offices were discussed in the papers makes it's hard to tell if they were in towns or not. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] into Olive Township, Decatur County, Kansas . Seems like this is the name of a short-lived post office and of a vaguely-defined rural region centered on that post office / cemetery. Olive Township best, though imperfectly, approximates that rural area. This place is not notable on its own. Jbt89 ( talk ) 22:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I've copied the single unique sentence from this article to the Olive Township article. It's fully redundant now. Jbt89 ( talk ) 05:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or r to township I've learned and shared alot about these post offices and the relationship they have with people. I've synthesized more about understanding how the newspapers deal with this stuff as well. Actual towns and cities in the 19th century are covered more extensively than these ""postal communities"". Examples are that a town will publish meetings minutes, public notices, town news, there will town clerks and other people mentioned in the papers. In this case as is with many others, they are mentioned in the paper in the form of letters from a self designated person. And maybe you see the occasional ""Joe bob lost a valuable horse at Vallonia"", They only say this because that post office is the only land mark that is universally understood, and it's where they get their mail. In one instance someone wrote in that the postoffice had changed names, and just like flipping a switch that persons letters were from the new name. This wouldn't happen if it it was a town. James.folsom ( talk ) 20:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Olive Township, Decatur County, Kansas . Given it's use as location in sources from the time the post office was extant a rather than a makes more sense to me. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 02:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm good with that too. Jbt89 ( talk ) 03:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 05:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Olive Township, Decatur County, Kansas , in case my position wasn't clear above. Jbt89 ( talk ) 21:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"2024 North Carolina Libertarian presidential primary: Only sourcing is an overview of all North Carolina elections, a FOX News local station, a Facebook post, and two X (Twitter) posts. A search doesn't yield anything significant for the Libertarian primary for North Carolina. reppop talk 16:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . reppop talk 16:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC) EVENTCRIT . No content not covered at existing main article. The idea we need 50 seperate pages for a primary election of a minor party is just absolutely ludicrous. AusLondonder ( talk ) 17:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC) You are wrong when saying “ No content not covered at existing main article.”. There is a full list of candidates on the ballots, in depth writing about write-in campaigns, and a map of the counties and their winners. And this party is the 3rd most popular party in the USA, and has many Members from each state, and has qualified for primaries in many states. All political parties are equal, mate. Don’t discriminate. GeorgeNotFound23 ( talk ) 21:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC) — GeorgeNotFound23 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ( Blocked sockpuppet of",redirect
+"Wang Qingyun: Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of ing this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Skating , and China . Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 16:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC) per nom. I was not able to find any English or Chinese sources about the subject person, and she has only won bronze medals in the Chinese Championships, failing both GNG and NSKATE. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 14:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Chinese Figure Skating Championships#Ladies . Doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV . Tau Corvi ( talk ) 11:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC) Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV from reliable secondary sources. as a WP:ATD . Let'srun ( talk ) 13:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Nathaniel Kong: The attempted notability claim here is a minor bit part in an as-yet-unaired future television series, which is not sufficient in and of itself, and the only source shown is an unreliable franchise fansite which is not a WP:GNG -worthy source. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it, but nothing here is already enough as of right now. Bearcat ( talk ) 18:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . Bearcat ( talk ) 18:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] hi Bearcat ( talk · contribs ), since I ""created"" it, can we have it ed to the show page? and call it a day. Ebbedlila ( talk ) 18:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's for the discussion to decide, but for what it's worth it isn't generally good practice to an actor to one specific work he was in, unless that's absolutely the only acting role he or she ever had in his or her entire career. Bearcat ( talk ) 19:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Religious person in Sacramento that was shot, with the same name, is about all you pull up in Google I find nothing for an actor with this name. The one source used in the article from Tumblr doesn't show notability. for lack of sourcing. Likely not meeting notability for actors. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , lets just the page to the tv show. Ebbedlila ( talk ) 19:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Inga S. Bernstein: All sources are primary or namedrops. Let'srun ( talk ) 09:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Law , and Massachusetts . Let'srun ( talk ) 09:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC) 15, 24 July 2023 (UTC) BLP1E isn't covered in that article, as seen by her passing through the Senate Judiciary Committee with only 1 senator voting against the nomination. It appears that she simply never received a vote before the end of Obama's 2nd term, and I don't see any other possible targets Let'srun ( talk ) 13:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect, support siroχo 's suggestion, above. While that article includes information about controversy in Obama's nominations, it's also a comprehensive list of all his nominees that were never confirmed. Many of them have their own pages, since becoming a nominee for the federal bench usually includes achievements that pass WP:GNG . In the interest of ing that list complete, she should probably be ed there even if her page is d. Kalethan ( talk ) 18:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Doc Hudson: Most of it were just talking about its mysterious death. 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 03:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 03:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Disney . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 04:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Cars characters . Article is all cruft, most of it unsourced. Extensive BTS content doesn't automatically make a subject notable, while there's no independent coverage or reception. 💥 Casualty • Hop along. • 07:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Cars characters - There isn't much in the way of non-primary sources on the character that go beyond trivial mentions or basic plot summaries. I am not finding enough significant coverage that would allow them to pass the WP:GNG on their own. Most of the actual sources being used in the Reception section are not even about the character, and many of them do not even mention them - that strikes me as being pretty heavy on WP:SYNTH . Rorshacma ( talk ) 02:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. I found an article on the real Hudson Hornet driven by Herb Thomas, but it merely mentions the film. Most of this article is WP:PLOTSUMMARY . Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to the specified page per above comments. This is consistent with other character s which have significant roles in the film plots, such as Forky , Hopper (A Bug's Life) , Boo (Monsters, Inc.) . Iggy ( Swan ) ( Contribs ) 20:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC) PRESERVE . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 16:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"The World of the Wheel: Sources do not show significant coverage of this topic. Z1720 ( talk ) 05:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Television . Z1720 ( talk ) 05:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to The Wheel of Time#Setting . I've been working on making the World of the Wheel article irrelevant by improving The Wheel of Time and diverting s, and will continue to do so. There is some valuable info here but it can be incorporated elsewhere with sources. This article was apparently created by a now-blocked editor trying to mimic World of A Song of Ice and Fire but not committed enough to actually source it. — TAnthony Talk 18:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FYI, condensed and sourced coverage of all the topics in this article (including geography) now exists in The Wheel of Time . As Piotrus and I have noted, this more detailed article can always be revived in the future with sources when editors have the time and desire to do so. — TAnthony Talk 18:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] while the title may be a bit atypical, this is essentially a ""World/universe of the Wheel of Time"" article, which may well pass muster. I don't see a BEFORE, and while I don't want to in any way dis what TAnthony has been doing, the decision to have such an article or not, per franchise, tends to be an editorial decision rather than a policy mandate. (Oh, and GNG is met because the topic is ""The Wheel of Time"" which is clearly notable) Jclemens ( talk ) 00:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC) BKD , it is certainly not the case that a derivative article about a thing from a self-evidently notable book or series is notable just by association. There needs to be significant coverage about the setting from reliable sources, and that isn't in the article. That the citations allude to a Wheel of Time Companion is a good indication there may be lively commentary about the Wheel of Time series out there. I agree a WP:BEFORE is necessary here before assessing whether to or the article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 03:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, the topic of ""The World of the Wheel"" is ""The Wheel of Time"" franchise, much like the topic of a ""list of X"" is ""X"". This is a nuanced thing, so I don't fault people for getting it, but the title of an article is not always the topic for which notability must be established. As you note, there appear to be multiple dead tree sources addressing this fictional world. I haven't read any of them, or the series itself, so I'm commenting from a place of policy understanding but topic ignorance. Jclemens ( talk ) 03:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article was just created in 2021, perhaps the editor had great intentions but it has always just been a detailed, somewhat crufty list of locations not really tied to the plot arc, and some exhausting coverage of channeling and the ""magical"" aspects. With basically no sourcing. I've been expanding The Wheel of Time#Setting in a succinct way, with sources. If I add a couple of paragraphs there about the geography, I believe that the key aspects of this article will be adequately covered between The Wheel of Time and List of The Wheel of Time characters . Redirecting this article now is harmless, it can always be revived at a later date if someone has the time and interest in making something decent out of it. And to clarify my previous comments, the current version of this article is nearly identical to how it was before I touched it , except for the lead. Thanks. — TAnthony Talk 04:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd appreciate some guidance on where your thinking is coming from. Without secondary sources providing context, I would have thought a page describing a fictional concept, thing or setting enters the territory of WP:NOTPLOT , with the following policy question being whether it can be concisely summarised in the primary article. I don't have experience in this area and am happy to be wrong on this. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 06:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability is not inherited like that. The topic here is not The Wheel of Time franchise itself, but its setting. The parallel with ""List of X"" is completely nonsensical. And while notability is a necessary criterion for a stand-alone article, it is not a sufficient one ( WP:NOPAGE ). TompaDompa ( talk ) 17:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course notability is not inherited, but ""not inherited"" is not relevant when two articles share the same underlying topic. WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay portion, fundamentally about personal relationships and has nothing to do with identical vs. adjacent fictional topics. Jclemens ( talk ) 20:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But they don't share the same underlying topic. Surely you understand the difference between a work of fiction and an in-universe element of that fiction? Surely you understand the difference between The Hobbit and Bilbo Baggins ? TompaDompa ( talk ) 01:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [26] . There are some promising academic works out there but I haven't had a chance to review them yet. — siro χ o 03:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another related article also by Tor.com, slightly narrower in focus, is The Striking Geology of The Wheel of Time . Daranios ( talk ) 16:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC) GNG . Z1720 ( talk ) 19:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Tor.com is an online magazine published by the same publisher. The independence is at the same level as any other magazine published by a book publisher. It's not in fact the voice of the publisher or any imprint. I had voiced the same concern, and it has been considered independent in the past. I investigated myself and agree. Their about page [27] and FAQ [28] also reflect this, a choice quote Tor.com is publisher neutral, and we operate in our own special corner of Macmillan, the publishing company that also encompasses Tor Books. Of course, we'd almost certainly need a source independent of Tor.com as well to meet GNG for a fictional element like this. I haven't been able to dive to deep into the academic sources yet. One was an edited student work, but probably not sufficient for GNG. Another provided coverage of political aspects of the books, without getting to deep into the fictional geography, borderline probably. Haven't found anything sure to be convincing yet though there is more to investigate. — siro χ o 18:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy . Daranios ( talk ) 16:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . While there is small chance this is notable, what we have is a gigantic unreferenced plot summary that violates MOS:PLOT and WP:GNG , and of course, WP:V . Redirect, no prejudice to seeing this restored with sources. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC) from the Middle Ages to Robert Jordan’s The Wheel of Time has 1.5 pages directly on the subject, focussing on the broad concept and magic, ah, pardon me, One Power, rather than geography. Plus some more comments here and there. Daranios ( talk ) 16:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC) NARRATIVE TENSIONS AND MAGICAL WOMEN IN MODERN FANTASY analyzes how feminist ideas are central elements in Robert Jordan's fantasy world (while I have my own ideas on this...). Another tor.com article Robert Jordan: The American Tolkien has some more general analysis and comparison with Tolkien's Middle-Earth. Daranios ( talk ) 12:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to The Wheel of Time#Setting . I think this topic is probably notable, the content could most likely be verified at least by primary sources, and I will be sorry to see a few details go which are not yet present at that target (like a bit more on Shara than where it is). But overall thanks to TAnthony 's work the target is just in better shape (sourced for one) than what we have here. Maybe the sources dug up here so far will be used by someone in the future to further expand either there or back here. Daranios ( talk ) 20:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to The Wheel of Time#Setting per Daranios. I believe this could be notable but a allows us to revisit this discussion in the future. Archrogue ( talk ) 18:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC) per the above participants. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 03:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Mayra de la Rosa: JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Panama . JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per nom. Svartner ( talk ) 23:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Anwegmann ( talk ) 00:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 09:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"MV Linga: Only references are primary. No independent coverage online. Clear friend a 💬 01:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland . Kpg jhp jm 07:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC) https://www.faktaomfartyg.se/linga_2002.htm I don't understand how MV Linga is the only Shetland Islands Council ferry article that has been getting brought up for editor issues, despite it being the same layout and similar text style to the rest of the ferry articles that I have made. It would also be better to be more explicit with which changes would be good as it doesn't make sense that you're not allowed to make an article using references to the owners website. ZetShip ( talk ) 13:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to SIC Ferries . The most applicable guideline appears to be WP:NVEHICLES , which is an essay, and anyway pretty much defaults to WP:GNG for individual vehicles. Thus secondary sourcing beyond database entries would be needed here. Unfortunately the most I can find is a fairly routine news source [6] . I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but unless more sources come up - such as an offline news feature on the vessel - as an WP:ATD I recommend to SIC Ferries . Resonant Dis tor tion 15:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette Edit! 23:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to SIC Ferries . I have carried out an extensive search of news databases and have been unable to locate any coverage around the time of its construction which might help to meet GNG. All recent coverage is WP:ROUTINE . Triptothecottage ( talk ) 09:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Veluwana College: Maliner ( talk ) 20:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools , Buddhism , and Sri Lanka . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 20:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC) NSCHOOL , was recreated after being d via PROD. Still lacks any sources or references. Dan arndt ( talk ) 22:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC) fails GNG and NSCHOOL, no indication of any importance beyond that this school exists Josey Wales Parley 22:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Dematagoda#Schools the locality where it is listed, as an AtD if notability is not established. Rupples ( talk ) 00:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources. This article in the Sunday Times (Sri Lanka) looks to be about the school's cricket team [2] although bit of uncertainty as it places the school in neighbouring Kolonnawa . Also, this [3] in the Sunday Observer (Sri Lanka) — so the school may have a degree of notability in cricket. Rupples ( talk ) 01:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Recession Proof (House): Nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2011. Only one review found. PROD removed with ""deprod; all House episodes have articles"", which is not true. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid arguement. Donald D23 talk to me 01:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America . Donald D23 talk to me 01:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to House (season 7)#Episodes . BD2412 T 03:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . It's not a valid argument, but it's a valid argument against prodding, which is only for uncontroversial deletion. Something which many editors seem to fail to understand. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] appears to be a non-notable episode, based on the lack of sourcing in the article and that I can't find any either. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or is fine as well. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Hokokwito, California: Cites only GNIS, which is unreliable and does not satisfy the requirement for legal recognition per WP:GNIS . Populated places without legal recognition need to pass WP:GNG , however there is no evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources here. In my WP:BEFORE I searched Newspapers.com for Hokokwito, Hococwedoc, and Hok-ok-wi-dok but drew a blank. I also searched Google Books which found a single one-sentence mention that appears to originate in the 1870's with work by Stephen Powers . In full it reads: ""Hok-ok'-wi-dok, which stood very near where Hutchings Hotel now stands, opposite Yosemite Fall"" This single-sentence, 16-word mention, is not significant coverage. Whilst other books include exactly the same description copied from the Powers one, this copying also does not amount to significant coverage. A search on the Internet Archive also only turned up copies of this single-sentence description from Powers. A to Yosemite Valley, California would be acceptable as an ATD. We do not have an article specifically about Yosemite Village, in which Hutchings Hotel was apparently located. (apparently I just wasn't looking in the right place). FOARP ( talk ) 16:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California . FOARP ( talk ) 16:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yosemite Village Historic District ☺ It even has the Hutchings, although this would be an odd-seeming . Uncle G ( talk ) 17:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The GNIS record coming up blank (sic!) doesn't help. But I found this under Awani in Henshaw 1912 , p. 118 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHenshaw1912 ( help ) , as a simple listing of ""9 villages"", which is probably the best indicator of where we should have it, given that our article has a ""Dwellings"" section. Uncle G ( talk ) 17:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC) //books.google.nl/books? id=IGzgCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=hokokwito+miwok&source=bl&ots=R83e0xWJYR&sig=ACfU3U02jNaBjfCV8Sq0z5t-4iP-w16qEA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwii1p3mxcGCAxWIg_0HHRbbBwM4FBDoAXoECAMQAw#v=onepage&q=hokokwito%20miwok&f=false Djflem ( talk ) 18:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC) no target: CITEREFHenshaw1912 ( help ) as its source at the bottom of the article, except sans the author and the specific page number. ☺ And that bare URL doesn't work outside of The Netherlands. Uncle G ( talk ) 12:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] references Henshaw, Henry W. (1912). ""Awani"". In Hodge, Frederick Webb (ed.). Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico . Bulletin. Vol. 30. Smithsonian Institution. Bureau of American Ethnology. ( Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico at the Internet Archive ) I'm OK with a to Ahwahnechee#Paiute_Ahwahnechee_place_names . FOARP ( talk ) 21:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC) 41, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would need to be listed there. Djflem ( talk ) 03:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Ahwahnechee listing all of the nine villages mentioned in references either in place names, new subsection, or as prose in text. Do same with Sakaya, California . Djflem ( talk ) 03:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm stuck with Kentucky at the moment, but I could give it a go. Uncle G ( talk ) 12:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Done. I did the additional three villages that were terrible GNIS mess substubs as well. Uncle G ( talk ) 13:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Djflem ; site is documented and might be of interest to anyone researching historical sites, but probably not enough information for an article. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting just because there are several different Redirect/Merge target articles mentioned. We need to narrow that down to one. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Really? FOARP, Jengod, Djflem, and I have all pointed to the same article. Where's the other one? Uncle G ( talk ) 12:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Yosemite Valley, California & Ahwahnechee#Paiute Ahwahnechee place names 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 17:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No they aren't. Read what FOARP wrote later in the discussion. Uncle G ( talk ) 18:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FOARP said he was ok with the other , but the option still stands for their original suggestion. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 20:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC) no target: CITEREFHenshaw1912 ( help ) . You are defending a misreading of everyone quite clearly already agreeing with FOARP a fortnight ago. Uncle G ( talk ) 21:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry if I was unclear - both s are fine but Ahwahnechee#Paiute Ahwahnechee place names is my preference. FOARP ( talk ) 21:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Ahwahnechee#Paiute Ahwahnechee place names per the above discussion. It's true, other articles were mentioned earlier in the thread, but having now seen the options I agree with where the general consensus has landed. Cheers. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 15:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also...I just don't see that there is information to """" to the target, either, since there is barely any information there and we're treating GNIS as a deprecated source. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 15:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Edinburgh Labour Students: PatGallacher ( talk ) 13:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is some dispute about whether student clubs are notable, but the consensus appears to be that generally they are not. See this discussion where it was decided to Glasgow University Labour Club, a club of similar importance. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glasgow University Labour Club PatGallacher ( talk ) 13:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics , and Scotland . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or maybe to Scottish Labour Students . The universities I attended also had clubs/chapters for political parties, but student organizations are rarely notable. Most sources are indirect. Reywas92 Talk 14:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Not strongly opposed to turning into a , but if we had a for every student club to its national parent body then we could end up with a very large number of s. PatGallacher ( talk ) 19:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - to Scottish Labour Students . National organization is notable, chapter is not. Carrite ( talk ) 23:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"1892 Livingstone football team: 'season'. The single game is already mentioned at Livingstone College#Athletics , and is a possible / target. Let'srun ( talk ) 18:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and North Carolina . Let'srun ( talk ) 18:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A r of both this and the Biddle article to a creation of 1892 Biddle vs. Livingstone football game would probably be a decent idea; the first black college football game ever is probably a notable topic. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 18:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll try to make an article for it soon... BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 18:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I assume you mean the first game involving 2 HBCUs? There appear to have been some games involving schools such as North Carolina A&M playing different academies prior to this game, and such an article still would need more sourcing beyond the single secondary source currently present. Let'srun ( talk ) 18:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC) 10, 16 January 2024 (UTC) In 1901, the team played its first game, losing to Livingstone College. The team played only one game during the 1901 season and did not field another team until 1906. The game appears to be prominently featured in the book Black College Football, 1892-1992 and its author, a ""foremost authority"" on black college history, said ""Before Biddle and Livingston no there were no black colleges participating in college football."" BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 1892 Biddle vs. Livingstone football game if such page exists, otherwise . jp × g 🗯️ 05:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Created the article for 1892 Biddle vs. Livingstone football game . Suggest . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Looks good, I agree with the . jp × g 🗯️ 06:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support ing here. Let'srun ( talk ) 19:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 1892 Biddle vs. Livingstone football game . Thanks to Beanie for creating the target article. A worthwhile topic -- well done. Cbl62 ( talk ) 21:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 1892 Biddle vs. Livingstone football game per above. Alvaldi ( talk ) 11:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 1892 Biddle vs. Livingstone football game . Carrite ( talk ) 03:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Captain Apollo: Therefore, the character fails GNG. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 19:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 19:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Tor retrospective after Hatch's death seems to contain enough RS commentary to count as one, which is more than nominator found, which suggests that there are others out there on a more probable than not basis. Given the age and cult status of the original BSG, there are almost certainly dead tree books covering the character, and that the nominator has been unable to find them does not mean they don't exist. Jclemens ( talk ) 22:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak to List of Battlestar Galactica characters#Original_1978_movie_and_series . The source Jclemens found seems good, but GNG requires multiple sources, which I interpret as at least two. We have one. If any other source is found, ping me and I'll reconsider my vote to a likely . If not, one source does not, I fear, warrant ing this as a stand-alone article, but that source should definetly be used in the list (or in the article if kept). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC) 57, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What about it? QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've turned it into a dab, as that's effectively what it was; I'm not sure it warrants an article... Josh Milburn ( talk ) 07:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or selective , per Piotrus. Character has some WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs that we can WP:PRESERVE , even if it does not have enough to qualify as WP:SIGCOV . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 23:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Khalga and Kaban: This shows a strong possibility of a lack of interest and/or notability on the part of the subject. The article should be d until such time that an editor cares enough to find reliable secondary sources, if they exist. 🌿MtBotany ( talk ) 20:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , History , and Royalty and nobility . 🌿MtBotany ( talk ) 20:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC) Not attested to in sources other than the one listed, tells us there are no other sources. I can't find any in my search as well. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [19] a one liner in a chart. Long way from extensive coverage. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good job finding that chart, though. Thanks for contributing. 🌿MtBotany ( talk ) 20:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC) where they are detailed with more context. As I stated in this WP:RSN discussion from last year, the Cäğfär Taríxı is a fabrication created by the NKVD to sow division amongst the Tatars during a period of increased nationalism for that group. Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Curbon7 That is not a bad solution, but it also seems unnecessary since there are only five articles that link to it, including List of Khazar rulers. They are List of Khazar rulers , Cäğfär Taríxı , Khalga (a ), Kaban (a disambiguation page), and List of state leaders in the 7th century . I think it would be cleaner to just it entirely. 🌿MtBotany ( talk ) 23:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirects are cheap and alternatives to deletion should always be prioritized if one is clearly available. Curbon7 ( talk ) 23:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. In the text they seem to be between dozens of names like that, so I also doubt notability for each one and I question their pairing for this article. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 11:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Curbon7. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 15:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Kendriya Vidyalaya, NTPC Dibiyapur: This article fails WP:NSCHOOL and only primary sources are provided. LibStar ( talk ) 05:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uttar Pradesh . LibStar ( talk ) 05:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC) NSCHOOLS . I can not find any relevant WP:SIGCOV . Listings and passing mentions are not enough. The Banner talk 13:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan as ATD. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 17:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan . Lankanrhino ( talk ) 22:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Hindi Hai Hum: — H e m a n t D a b r a l ( 📞 • ✒ ) 04:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 7 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 05:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC) where it's listed, and add a source ( https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/2009/Feb/26/real-tv-channel-to-go-on-air-from-march-2-28746.html or a more detailed one, like https://nettv4u.com/about/hindi/tv-serials/hindi-hai-hum ) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per nom and no sources with indepth coverage. I would not even consider to the page to Real_(TV_channel)#Drama because this page too fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP with no significant coverage that was up for only one year from 2009 to 2010. RangersRus ( talk ) 12:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC) s are cheap, and this one is justified by a source. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 14:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Vörehult: Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NGEO . AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 09:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions . AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 09:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Vörehult appears along with Kanagärde and Mjödehult on lists. Each is recognised by a road sign along the 521 road south of the village of Påryd. Vörehult features on a boulder climbing website. [9] . It has a few houses, but as the nominator says doesn't appear to pass GNG or NPLACE. Could be mentioned in the Påryd article and ed there if a note is added about the boulder climbing, but needs a second source. Rupples ( talk ) 11:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC) UNDUE if added to any other article. I haven't checked any tätort maps but based on maps Vörehult seems to be a good bit outside of the actual bounds of Påryd , so not sure it fits there. It's definitely too minor to be meaningfully ed to Kalmar Municipality which feels like the only other candidate. AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 12:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, agree there would need to be better sources for the boulder climbing. Having searched for sources and found nothing of note, I'm not pushing for a . Rupples ( talk ) 13:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no sources. No real relevance. I could be changing my opinion if a source is provided. With as well a small expansion of information. BabbaQ ( talk ) 14:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC) GEOLAND . Actually one of my stranger before searches as it's mostly individual people from there have actually come up, along with a rock to boulder. Just need one clear source to WP:V . SportingFlyer T · C 11:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The low bar of GEOLAND is for legal recognition, road signs and similar do not count as legal recognition from my understanding. AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 13:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, but they do prove people think it's currently an active place of note, which is what we're trying to record here. SportingFlyer T · C 15:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Kalmar Municipality which looks to be the lowest active level of self-government. It is a real place, but I can't find reliable sources giving details. And I am not seeing evidence of statistical or other information that would justify a separate article in the absence of sources. In particular the current municipal website implies that there is no administration on the district or parish level which might group Vörehult with Påryd or another nearby settlement with clearer notability. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 01:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. But looking at this one sentence article, a village with 9 inhabitants, it's hard to understand a Keep. Are there additional sources from your BEFORE search you could bring up here or place in the article? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC) GEOLAND 's contention that populated places are notable. SportingFlyer T · C 09:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My house is a populated place. It is not notable. So that makes short work of that argument. Liz is right. Instead of fallaciously promoting ""presumed notable"" into ""notable"" we should be looking to sources. I've only found one, a land survey of Kalmar county, which explains that this is a 285 hectares (700 acres) family farm, with 1 kitchen, 2 halls, and 12 fields, and not actually a village at all. (""Släktgård i 5 generationer, förvärvad 1958. […] 7 rum, 1 kök, 2 hallar"") So I'm going with this being a populated place with barely as much public land survey information as my non-notable house and nothing more, a 1-sentence article that calls a farm a village, Wikipedia not being a directory of every surveyed house and farm on the planet, and a . Uncle G ( talk ) 12:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If the source is from 1958 . What date is the source? Things may have altered since, e.g. new residences built and the status of the place changed. However, the article needs sources as being named on a map doesn't establish notability. I'm torn between and ; on balance leaning unless a source is found to verify the place's standing. Rupples ( talk ) 13:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 1959. It's the Sveriges Bebyggelse for Kalmar län ( OCLC 747336336 ). I couldn't even find anything else. Uncle G ( talk ) 15:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. to the parish would have been my preference here, but as others have pointed out there doesn't appear to be a lower level of administration than the municipality. The Kalmar Municipality article doesn't reference this place nor many others in the municipality viewable on maps. A possibility would be to expand the Localities table in Kalmar Municipality by including Vörehult, coordinates and a verified population figure. At present, the population of 9 inhabitants stated in the article is unsourced, undated and possibly original research. Rupples ( talk ) 12:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Påryd . Swedish Wikipedia has an image showing districts within Kalmar Municipality: [10] This source places Vörehult within Karlslunda distrikt (on a mapped boundary), [11] . Karslunda district is based around Påryd, the only sizable settlement but there isn't an article on the district on this Wikipedia. Given this, I think it reasonable to to Påryd by including a heading in that article for Karslunda district and listing Vörehult and other localities thereunder. Karslunda district looks in area to be the equivalent of a civil parish in England, but I don't know what the administrative function of Karslunda district is, if any. See Districts of Sweden#Other examples . Here's another mapped boundary source showing Vörehult within Karslunda district: [12] . Rupples ( talk ) 18:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No objections to a to Påryd per Rupples who was able to find the district maps I couldn't track down. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 00:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Påryd . The only hits I get for Vörehult are in church records or family pages in local newspapers (as a place were people were born). Draken Bowser ( talk ) 21:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Gotemba Interchange: Rs chen 7754 05:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Japan . Rs chen 7754 05:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Nothing special about this interchange to warrant an article. Dough 4872 09:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This interchange does not warrant an article. It is rather amusing to me that this article has even existed for a normal interchange. Nagol0929 ( talk ) 12:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a run of the mill interchange with no encyclopedic significance. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 13:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. XtraJovial ( talk • contribs ) 13:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. There doesn't appear to be anything notable about this particular road feature. Bensci54 ( talk ) 16:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Tōmei Expressway . The interchange is on the Tōmei Expressway and mentioned in its article. The AfDd article has been around since 2014! Hence WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP very much apply and take preference over any suggestions. gidonb ( talk ) 22:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC) s are WP:CHEAP and preserve the page history better. There is a suitable target and this is therefore a good ATD. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 14:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"India at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup: We have never created articles for teams at Cricket World Cups before, as they are wholly unnecessary, and just copying content available on other articles, such as 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup and 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup squads . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket , South Africa , Afghanistan , Pakistan , India , England , and Australia . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Afghanistan at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Australia at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) England at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Pakistan at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) South Africa at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - The following articles would be suitable as in the T20 World Cup, many matches will be played and in these articles, the readers can read the per match summary, team's tournament progression, tournament kit, scorecard, per team statistics and many more of the respective cricket team at a single article, which is not possible to mention at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup article. Any articles which haven't been created earlier doesn't mean it is unnecessary, there should be an article to record any team's particular tournament edition journey. Wowlastic10 ( talk ) 09:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC) ROUTINE coverage ones is not required. Tournament kit would be WP:TRIVIA , team statistics sounds like it would violate WP:NOTSTATS / WP:TRIVIA . None of this sounds like encyclopedic content, and just because people create these articles for e.g. IPL teams (which are questionable to do anyway), that doesn't mean they are valid WP:CFORKs for this tournament. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can we it until first week of T20 World Cup? If you feel it useless then also, then you're free to it. What say? Wowlastic10 ( talk ) 05:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC) CFORK with trivia and stats obsessions (like the IPL season articles). Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 15:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC) The concept is basically like India at the 2020 Summer Olympics , where pages like India at the Cricket World Cup are split for every edition. This is infact a very important addition to wikipedia and should be made for all teams having played every ICC tournament. Like the IPL teams, county teams; this is a very valuable addition as each page will contain stuff others cant. I have been working on similar articles in my private space, but havent published them yet as I want to properly finish the thing before publishing. @ Wowlastic10 I would encourage you to make similar articles for all editions of the T20 World Cup. Do remove the words ICC Men’s and make it like India at the 2024 T20 World Cup ; following the common name process. Furthermore, include national stats such as viewership, tournament stats of players of that country, pictures, quotes, squad information and match details with some description. Pharaoh496 ( talk ) 05:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC) RM consensus, as the main article is at 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup . Also this comment doesn't address WP:CFORK . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 07:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC) 00, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Information on individual players as well. Pharaoh496 ( talk ) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] More squad information such as matches played by each person, caps, etc - can be added to squad article, as has been done for some 50 over World Cup events. Proper matchwise description - only needed for notable matches, not those with routine coverage. This is an encyclopedia, not a fandom site. Reactions are mostly trivial and unencyclopedic, and any events/reactions that are actually important can go in the main article. Lots of pictures violates WP:NOTGALLERY So none of these are a good reason to create these WP:CFORKs . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect/ to 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup I agree with the nom. I don't see these as being necessary as content for these forks will just be re-hashed details for the main article, and then lists and stats that violate WP:NLIST and WP:NOTSTATS as they will just be random indiscriminate. If a particular team has a 'special' tournament, or gains significant coverage for another reason, then perhaps a fork can then be made, but one for each team is unnecessary, and the comparison to the Olympic articles doesn't wash given how much bigger an event (with loads more events and athletes) than a cricket tournament. We don't have forks for Football World Cup articles for example. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But providing more knowledge should be the aim of wikipedia, and these lists provide extra information about the playing nation than the main article. Wowlastic10 ( talk ) 10:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per @ Wowlastic10 , this can be more than a list, and it warrants an article for each country. If the article does not have unique info it can be d back. Pharaoh496 ( talk ) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, that's what I'm saying, thanks for explaining it on my behalf. Wowlastic10 ( talk ) 10:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But providing more knowledge should be the aim of wikipedia - true, but putting information into various sub articles so people can add stats trivia isn't the best way of displaying it. We have an article on the events and squad articles, and those are the main 2 things about each team anyway. WP:CFORKs are still not needed. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] all . I can see these becoming unnecessary, poor quality, content forks consisting of minimal prose and just scorecards... nothing which can't be included in the main tournament article. AA ( talk ) 10:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC) 55, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I dont mean to bludgeon, but this has high chances of not ending up as a mere stub; per my reasons stated above. Each ipl team gets an annual page for its tournaments, as do the english county teams. This will only broaden and improve wikipedia's scope on the matter, considering the quality of cricket articles on here is way down compared to other sports. Pharaoh496 ( talk ) 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC) OSE , just because other events like the IPL get articles like this every year (which I don't agree with anyway), that doesn't mean these should too. Nobody so far has demonstrated why this isn't an unnecessary WP:CFORK . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How many times a player has played in the tournament - how many matches a swuad member played top 5 batting and bowling averages in the team etc catches and dismissals reaction / outrage / media coverage of tournament and team in said country prizes and awards won by players for performance in tourney explicit knockout stage performances I respect your opinion wholeheartedly, but ipl and county teams have existed for long, with some of them featured and good articles. This is an opportunity for editors, who will add more valuable info and like i said, simply broaden wikipedia’s scope. Pharaoh496 ( talk ) 07:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] None of these things are encyclopedic enough, and no article with them will be a GA or FA if the process for GA or FA is applied properly. County teams don't have season articles and most IPL teams have tables and no prose, which is what these articles are and likely will always be. This is an encyclopedia and not a fandom site. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 13:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC) It's easy for a visitor to get all the details about their desired team at one place. I'd say we the Teamwise articles and should nominate the Squads article for deletion. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 ( ᴛᴀʟᴋ ) 02:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC) If the squads article isn't there, and all the fixtures are instead transcluded from the main page; it won't be a WP:CFORK . 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 ( ᴛᴀʟᴋ ) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC) WP:ILIKEIT . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 06:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not what I like, it's a suggestion to improve these articles. Vestrian24Bio ( U , T , A , C , S ) 07:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Squad articles are a cricket standard for these events, and can be expanded easily. These country articles are not standard or needed, swapping one squad article for loads of country articles is not a good solution. Just because it's the sort of thing WP:IPL would do, that doesn't mean other cricket tournament articles should do that. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 13:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, pretty much the point. Pharaoh496 ( talk ) 11:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not a deletion discussion about squad articles, that would need a separate consensus (and nominating right now would just further muddy the waters). Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 11:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC) per nom individual articles for teams' performance at each world cup seems uneccesary. I suggest we have articles for teams' overall record in the tournament and we can have season wise breakdown or details there. Cric editor ( talk ) 3:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Let'srun ( talk ) 17:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or to 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup . Per nom. Needless forking. RangersRus ( talk ) 13:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. My instinct, as a regular AFD closer is to these article to the competition which is typically what we do with bundled nominations like this. But I don't see a consensus for this action so that would be a supervote on my part. I'd rather not close this as No consensus so let's see if a few more days of consideration can form a rough consensus here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC) 00, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Due to the importance of cricket for these countries and the relevance of the competition. The alternative of summarizing the retrospective on all editions of the World Cup by country presented by @ User:Cric editor , is valid and can later transform individual edition articles into s. Svartner ( talk ) 22:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Holy Rosary Academy (Hinunangan, Philippines): Google and Google News turns out no reliable non-directory sources. GNews Archives shows a 1989 story about a girl who reunited with her family who just happened to attend this school but that's it. Alternatively , to Hinunangan#Secondary_schools . -- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Philippines . Lenticel ( talk ) 03:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC) 02, 19 September 2023 (UTC) 30, 19 September 2023 (UTC) 55, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Mushroom Kingdom: This was WP:BLARed , restored, then BLARed a second time, and per that page, Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and ing . ~ A412 talk! 23:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . ~ A412 talk! 23:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Super Mario . There's nothing really being said in the article and I trust in the previous or's judgement of the potential sourcing state. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 23:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or Draftify . As of right now there is nothing on this article that seems to suggest that the subject of this article holds enough water to stay up. This article is mostly filled with primary, situational or even unreliable sources. The only two positive sources here are the GamesRadar+ sources and even then one is a listicle. Now, I am not entirely sure if there is WP:SIGCOV for this subject, it wouldn't surprise me if there is but it would likely take quite a while to find the necessary coverage, which is what prompted me to suggest a draft because I believe the subject does have potential. But as of right now, I think any useful information from this article should be d into the Mario (franchise) article, as it was ed towards two weeks ago. Captain Galaxy 23:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To clarify, the problem with listicle articles is that often it's about one entry on the list, making it trivial coverage. For example, if an article lists ""50 greatest Mario characters""... obviously, almost all characters of any import would be included. However, the listicle would still be quite significant if we were talking about a character list that needed reception. In this case, the listicles are entirely about the Mushroom Kingdom, and it's not a ""10 best Mario areas"" situation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is a problem with listicles, but not the only one. Listicles are often a hallmark of low-quality and low-effort content farms , or in other words an indicator of a lack of seriousness and significance of coverage. xkcd 's quip about the ""17 worst haircuts in the Ottoman Empire"" comes to mind. They typically do not in themselves indicate notability either of the individual entries or the overarching topic. TompaDompa ( talk ) 10:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC) 26, 4 April 2024 (UTC) GNG is met, but these aren't serious RS'es, so they don't count. Fancruft argument here is circular: looks like what some editors consider badly written Wikipedia article, therefore cannot be an RS. Sorry, folks, that's not how RS works. We judge Wikipedia by them, not them by Wikipedia. Jclemens ( talk ) 03:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Reliable sources to fail to produce WP:Significant coverage , which I'm also sure you're aware of. Furthermore, meeting WP:GNG (or some other standard for WP:Notability , as the case may be) does not necessarily mean that a topic is appropriate for stand-alone articles—sometimes we have a WP:NOPAGE situation. TompaDompa ( talk ) 04:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC) CIVILITY . If you aren't able to engage with the things people say without making these kinds of comments, I'm not sure you should really be commenting on things. It's also not snobbery, as TompaDompa points out, which makes the claim extra confusing. It is not snobbery to say that offering trivial coverage of a subject is of lower value, it's a common sense observation. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 11:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC) 29, 4 April 2024 (UTC) 29, 4 April 2024 (UTC) 32, 4 April 2024 (UTC) BEBOLD I will see about cleaning it up as this is clearly implying that if it was no longer WP:TNT it would be eminently notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 03:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC) 48, 4 April 2024 (UTC) 40, 4 April 2024 (UTC) 01, 4 April 2024 (UTC) BEFORE yet, so for now, I'm looking at what is present. I'll put it in a collapsible list to save space. The Evening Standard is verifying information and is not about the Mushroom Kingdom, not GNG-relevant. The next source includes info about its use in the theme park, which is generally understood to not be relevant to GNG (also article is not about the Mushroom Kingdom). The next two sources are Nintendo sources. The GamesRadar+ source seems to primarily discuss factual information. It represents a show that staff deemed the kingdom worthwhile to talk about, but there's also not much to be gained from the source for the article. The Gamer source talks about information about Mushroom Kingdom, but does not themselves have anything to say about it. It's yet again an article about the Mushroom Kingdom, but not only does it provide only so much content to be included, being The Gamer makes it dubious as a show of significance. 25YL source only talks about factual information, and the article is not about the Mushroom Kingdom. The Advocate source is about Toad, not Mushroom Kingdom, and is only to verify the existence of a character in the Mushroom Kingdom. The second The Gamer source is just about Goombas, while the Forbes article is just about verifying that coins are a currency of the Mushroom Kingdom. The second GamesRadar+ article seems at first a significant source, but to be honest, it does not strike me as such. The article is primarily about a location **within** the Mushroom Kingdom, and discusses the Mushroom Kingdom only minimally. The Smashbros.com source is a primary source used to verify the existence of a ""Mushroom Kingdom"" stage. Keeping this one out because I feel it's an important part of the assessment, as it's what seems like the strongest show of notability on the surface. Finally, the Kill Screen source is one that, once again, feels like a source that is about Mushroom Kingdom, but in reality, is using it as an opportunity to discuss things that happen within it. Looking at the 'Development' section, the article is sourced to talk about the Super Mushroom, the designs of the castles (mainly Peach's Castle - honestly if that was an article I'd maybe think it'd have a chance), Mario enemies, and the Super Leaf. The Mushroom Kingdom appears to be an umbrella for these potentially notable topics to be discussed, but I think counting stuff like Koopa Troopas and the Super Leaf as showing the notability of Mushroom Kingdom is a pretty big stretch. It seems to me like an article with weak sourcing is trying to use whatever it can to inflate it, and to me, the proof of this is that Mario's design inspirations and ideas, despite being covered under ""Mushroom Kingdom"" like Koopa Troopa was, it would rightly feel odd. In its current state, the article is extremely weak, with very little in the way of commentary, let alone notability. Most of the article is taking brief mentions to verify factual information about the setting, to the point that the article has exactly zero instances of anyone having anything to say about the setting themselves. I'm holding off on voting until Zx does some more work to address notability issues, as well as for me to do my own searching (especially Japanese sources, those can often be rather surprising). - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 10:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sadly, I have been feeling the same way. There being no reception on the general design characteristics of the world (rounded hills, bright-green grass, lots of brown bricks) has always been the main pain for me here. If no one's talking about the Mushroom Kingdom being a blue skyed utopia or something along those lines, there's just so little to work with... ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources about locations within the Mushroom Kingdom still count as proof of notability for the Kingdom itself. The argument that they could never possibly do so is a bit ludicrous in my eyes and feels like a no true Scotsman -type argument. I doubt Peach's Castle can support an article, but this is the most obvious place to put that information by far. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But I don't get why you think that, when the two sources that appear like significant coverage provide more sigcov on Peach's Castle than the Mushroom Kingdom. It's not a matter of saying that a source has to do a deep dive into the Mushroom Kingdom to be notable, but fact is, the argument for Princess Peach's Castle's notability is more adequately proven in the Mushroom Kingdom article than the argument for notability of the Mushroom Kingdom itself. The GamesRadar+ source doesn't even make sense, because the commentary in that article is almost entirely, if not entirely, focused on how it makes players feel to explore and experience the castle, about how they make it more lived in compared to Dinosaur Land. The article discusses it not as a setting, but as a level, and how it influences other Mario levels. As far as notability goes, there are multiple reliable sources about modding Peach's Castle into other games, there is creation info relating to how it was possibly going to serve as the basis for Ocarina's setup, multiple sources about how it was a significant part of why Super Mario 64 was a special game, multiple sources about a financial assessment of what Peach's Castle would be worth in real life, articles praising it as a standout hub world in gaming, and more. I find the notion that there's more to the article now compared to what I've found for Peach's Castle kind of incredulous! I also do not believe remotely that sources for locations in the Mushroom Kingdom count as overall notability; at what point does that extend to, say, Mushroom World, the encompassing world of the Mario universe? Is Lordran notable because Anor Lando is notable? We can't argue that a location in a space makes that space notable, the only thing that can be used to say a location is notable is if we have reliable, significant secondary coverage of it. As it stands, and in the sources I've searched so far, there is virtually nothing that critics are saying about the setting. Based on what little I've found in my source search, I don't really feel like this article comes close to notability. As it is, all of the content is just descriptions of the setting and things that happen to exist in the setting. to Super Mario . - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 15:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do personally think this article serves as a coatrack (just don't look at that guideline) for the entire Super Mario setting, similar to a ""Universe of .."" article. I am quite happy with sources that dive into specific details from the Mushroom Kingdom, such as Peach' castle or even its cast of critters. I'm just not very happy with listicles that try to explain in-universe oddities between games or take those oddities literally. The Mushroom Kingdom isn't a kingdom. It doesn't have a clearly defined monarch or even any towns, and a source that suggests that Bowser used to be the king or some stuff like that I just can't take seriously... ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 06:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Super Mario per Cukie Gherkin's analysis. I do not agree with the idea that locations within a place can be used unsupported to make an article about the place itself. ― novov (t c) 04:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as to someone who ed this article before and per Cukie's analysis. I don't feel like the other sources were good except for Killscreen, though that talks about Mario and Koopa Troopa's design. not really that helpful, but at least we have a good source right there. Still not enough for me for that. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 06:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry, but the sources by ZX I feel are not significant enough to justify the article. Conyo14 ( talk ) 22:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as per Cukie Gherkin's statement. MKsLifeInANutshell ( talk ) 05:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Opinion is divided between and as implied by the nominator. A source analysis would be helpful since improvements have been made to the article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per Cukie Gherkin. There is, in fact, a source analysis above by Cukie Gherkin, but the list is hidden to save screen space. The article was updated on the same day as this analysis, but no new sources have been. That analysis addressed the independence of sources and correctly discounts Nintendo sources. It also addresses SIGCOV of the remaining sources, and is in line with my own view. Most of the sources are not about the page subject but merely mention it. Reliability is raised over a source that does speak directly about it, and even where the subject is addressed, there are SIGCOV issues. I think this source analysis is good enough, unrebutted, and indicates that a would be the best outcome here. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I find ing to Super Mario fine where the subject is being mentioned. -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 12:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm surprised that there isn't a Super Mario Universe article or something of the like. There are lots of sources that talk about this fictional universe, and an entire book called ""The World of Mario Bros"" (which would be another valid ). [2] I see at least one more good source from Zxcvbnm, and arguably more. I can find at least a few more myself. [3] [4] [5] I feel pretty confident that sources exist out there if this is approached as the main article for the game universe. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 17:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is currently the equivalent of ""Universe of Super Mario "", as it is the primary setting of the franchise. It could be a reasonable move, but that's a separate discussion. These sources have a lot of potential, though you did post the same Shacknews article twice. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't really see a rationale provided in the nomination, but I assume this is about notability. The sources found in this discussion and partially present provide enough coverage to be able to write a full encyclopedic article, so I see WP:GNG fulfilled. AfD is not clean-up , and some clean-up has already happened since the nomination. Which also leads to that all opinions which say that the Killscreen article is a good source but still ! vote for are contradictory and in conflict with WP:AtD : If that's a good source, what has now been added based on that source should at least be d. Daranios ( talk ) 15:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think people ! voting or are praising Killscreen. I see that happening with a single editor. Meanwhile, I've made the argument that the Killscreen source does not say much at all. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 20:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Sorry, I misread a name, so yes, only one opinion praising Killscreen but ! voting . Thanks for point that out. The fact that a reasonable paragraph of background has been created from that source shows me that it should not be discounted. And with all the sources listed, both above and more recently, as well as other sources containing short analysis like Geography and Maps , p. 99, or Material Game Studies: A Philosophy of Analogue Play (adaption into other media) can easily support a full article together, therefore fulfilling WP:WHYN . Always with the fact in mind that sources do not need to have the subject as their main topic. Daranios ( talk ) 10:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"CachyOS: GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk ) 17:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software . GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk ) 17:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC) GNG , WP:NCORP , and WP:NSOFT . I have an essay on why DistroWatch is not a reliable source , and the only source that would be considered third-party in any way is this . MakeUseOf has only been discussed as a reliable source (that I can tell) here , which was not a conclusive discussion either way in terms of reliability, so for the purposes of establishing notability I'm inclined to lean towards ""reliable"" if only slightly. However, it is a single review, and is the only source that could be considered independent of the subject while also discussing the subject, and each of the applicable notability guidelines requires multiple reliable third-party sources at minimum. - Aoidh ( talk ) 06:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I found the following seemingly independent in-depth coverage in some of the standard outlets for this sort of thing: ZDNet , Linux Insider , Computer Base , and the It's FOSS newsletter . Also something in this website that I know nothing about . At least three of these --- ZDNET , LinuxInsider, and It's FOSS --- are widely used in practice on Wikipedia, and I have no knowledge of any precedent deprecating them. Computerbase also looks like a standard software news site in Germany. They also all look independent and in-depth to me. I think GNG is satisfied with one or two independent reliable sources to spare. - Astrophobe ( talk ) 02:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think these show notability either, there are questions regarding the continued reliability of ZDNet, this is an interview and while they may be used on Wikipedia, ItsFoss and LinuxInsider are indiscriminate in which Linux distributions they will review (evidenced by their reviews being within days of each other, which is commonly an indicator of a distro asking en masse these sites to review them). WP:NSOFT is specific that the mere existence of reviews is not in itself an indication of notability unless the reviews are all reliable sources that give indication that the software is in some way notable, and the reviews don't do that. As far as WP:NCORP , these reviews are all from Linux-specific websites that generally are indiscriminate in which distro they will review (i.e. if you have one and let them know they will review it) so are narrow interest publication as described by WP:PRODUCTREV . I think at most you have one, maybe two of these reviews (ZDNet and MakeUseof) that would meet PRODUCTREV, and two reviews (at best) is not enough. I don't think five of these generic reviews would be enough, even if they were all without question suitable; it needs more than what's here to meet WP:NSOFT or WP:NCORP . - Aoidh ( talk ) 10:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Arch Linux#Derivatives as it's mentioned there. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 10:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think a is a reasonable alternative to deletion. - Aoidh ( talk ) 10:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Astrophobe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr vili ( talk • contribs ) 09:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. In AFDs, please avoid giving a ""per X"" vote and join the discussion with your independent assessment of available sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Arch Linux § Derivatives as {{ r with possibilities }} , or stub and . It appears this is notable. ComputerBase is reliable. And while modern ZDNET is due scrutiny after being purchase by Red Ventures , the author of the piece linked above is well-cited in Wikipedia and has been covering Linux for decades, so this piece should be considered reliable. However the article has a fair bit of unabashed promo including a check-mark bullet list of buzz, and so we can't this without reducing it to a stub. — siro χ o 08:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Automaniac: No SIGCOV, only a few passing mentions. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , to Bill Goldberg . There are mentions of the show, enough for a sentence in the host's article, but not enough for its own page. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 20:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 00:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Daniel Kelley (hacker): Belbury ( talk ) 12:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Belbury ( talk ) 12:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is wrong. See https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/08/21/i-went-to-prison-for-the-77m-talktalk-hacking-i-could-be-sent-back-for-ordering-a-mcdonald on the page. Additionally, the page has existed for 6 months. NdbyQwK43y ( talk ) 12:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fyi, article age is not a relevant indication of notability. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 14:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He was in jail for the rest of the time, we won't find much about him while he was in jail me thinks. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and England . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] hacked, went to jail, and now wants to help others. Could be a brief section in an article about TalkTalk that he hacked, but that's all I see. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC) WP:BLP1E does not apply: this was a highly significant event, as evidenced by the extensive coverage in various sources, and Kelley's role in it was of essential importance. However, WP:BIO1E does apply; Kelley is only notable for the involvement with this event, and is unlikely to become notable outside of it as of right now; ergo, there should be an article about the event. I think the notability of the event itself is quite clearly established by the numerous sources currently in the article. Accordingly, this page should be ed to an article about the event; I'll create that now. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 19:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I've created an article about the event at 2015 TalkTalk data breach ; the standalone notability of that event should be uncontroversial. There's lots more coverage that I haven't included there yet. As mentioned above, I would argue that this page should be ed to the article on the event. If anyone thinks that there's relevant information to , all the better. Pinging @ Belbury @ Oaktree b since the situation of this AfD has changed with the creation of the event article. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 20:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to the newly created data breach article. Sourcing for this person is all about the hack/breach. Nothing outside of that event. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, a person is considered notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In the case of Daniel Kelley, he has received extensive coverage in numerous reliable sources for his involvement in the 2015 TalkTalk data breach, including articles from reputable publications such as Computer Weekly and The Guardian. This coverage demonstrates that Kelley played an essential role in the event and is therefore notable under Wikipedia's guidelines. Furthermore, Kelley's notability is not limited to his involvement in the data breach. He has also contributed to over 100 bug bounty programs and has spoken publicly about his experiences as a reformed black hat hacker. These additional sources of coverage demonstrate that Kelley has a broader impact on the field of cybersecurity and is therefore notable beyond the specific event. Therefore, based on the significant coverage of Kelley in reliable sources and his broader impact on the field of cybersecurity, he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and should have a Wikipedia page. 1/ https://www.wsj.com/articles/after-prison-hackers-face-tech-restrictions-limited-job-prospects-11663788389 2/ https://www.psybersafe.com/fr/blog-fr/a-fresh-start-for-cyber-criminals Additionally, here is a blog post published by him today which receieved widescale coverage: https://slashnext.com/blog/wormgpt-the-generative-ai-tool-cybercriminals-are-using-to-launch-business-email-compromise-attacks/? utm_content=256636270&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-721089455193337856 ""About the author: Daniel Kelley is a reformed black hat computer hacker who collaborated with our team at SlashNext to research the latest threats and tactics employed by cybercriminals, particularly those involving BEC, phishing, smishing, social engineering, ransomware, and other attacks that exploit the human element."" This page should remain. He is a prominent figure in the cybersecurity industry. 2A00:23EE:2268:3A6D:6118:F2C6:36C8:CFCD ( talk ) 23:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC) https://www.databreaches.net/uk-talktalk-hacker-daniel-kelley-sentenced-to-4-years-in-jail/ ), Kelley coached two accomplices to hack Canada's Rogers Communications. 2A00:23EE:2268:3A6D:6118:F2C6:36C8:CFCD ( talk ) 23:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC) https://www.openbugbounty.org/researchers/danielmakelley/ he's widely known to anyone inside of the industry. 2A00:23EE:2268:3A6D:6118:F2C6:36C8:CFCD ( talk ) 23:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC) https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/117/ ). This appearance demonstrates that Kelley has had a broader impact on the field of cybersecurity beyond the specific event. 2A00:23EE:2268:3A6D:6118:F2C6:36C8:CFCD ( talk ) 23:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see support for Redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) BIO1E . ARandomName123 ( talk ) 02:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2015 TalkTalk data breach , with great thanks to Actualcpscm for creating the article. The anon raises some valid points above about the breadth of the article subject's career, but I don't think we have enough material here to cover that career meaningfully beyond this one event. -- Visviva ( talk ) 02:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Aussie: This could also be disambiguated, if possible. 48 JCL 20:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . 48 JCL 20:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Australians . Agree with NOTDICT. Orange sticker ( talk ) 21:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the term ""Aussie"" is frequently used and part of Australia culture. Bduke ( talk ) 22:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Popular or not, it must be sufficiently notable . The references are entirely to dictionaries and there is scant coverage of the term elsewhere in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary . GhostOfNoMeme 08:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Australians per NOTDICT. That said, there is a clear difference between Kiwi (nickname) and New Zealanders , but this article is nowhere close to that quality. Doctorhawkes ( talk ) 02:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Australians . Clear case of WP:NOTDICT . ""Aussie"" as a term, much like ""Brit"", doesn't enjoy the same level of coverage that ""Kiwi"" does. GhostOfNoMeme 08:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to ""Australians."" While it may be possible to write a good encyclopedia article on this or some other word, such an article would cover its history, its origins, its impact beyond Australia. Blow it up and start over. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 18:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Charles Crumb: Notable primarily due to his familiel association with Robert Crumb . Schierbecker ( talk ) 14:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Charles Crumb#Merge to new article Crumb family . Jfire ( talk ) 15:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Comics and animation , and Pennsylvania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as suggested. Bearian ( talk ) 17:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This could easily be solved by merging this bio into the Crumb Family page. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 14:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This page can not be Merged or to Crumb family as this page is a Redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the proposal is to create a new article. It's not a bad idea. Schierbecker ( talk ) 23:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Correct; see the discussion I linked above. And the person who closes the AfD does not need to be the person who turns Crumb family into an article -- they can add {{ Afd- to }} to Charles Crumb and let the community implement the decision. Jfire ( talk ) 23:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I see. Well, there has to be an existing article to Merge/Redirect to when this discussion gets closed as far as I know. I might leave this discussion for another closer. L iz Read! Talk! 01:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Articles_for_deletion/Crumb_family turned a valid listicle into a (bad) . The previous version at [15] could be restored. ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 02:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is a new consensus to revert the action of the 2009 AFD that turned this article into a to go back to this edit . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Ok with restoration of previous version of proposed target as a start? ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 08:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support. Jfire ( talk ) 15:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fine with this. Schierbecker ( talk ) 15:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I agree with these edits and support this version. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 23:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed. Bearian ( talk ) 16:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Manny Cid: Manny Cid doesn't seem to have gotten in-depth news coverage from any outlets outside the Miami area, there's just some routine coverage of his administration and campaigns from local outlets. I don't see any reason to justify him having a Wikipedia page. It's also worth pointing out that this page was created shortly after Cid announced his candidacy for Miami-Dade County mayor, and that the creator has only ever edited this page, the page for the city where Cid serves as mayor, and the page for the election he's currently running in. Also, a different editor had to come in and remove "" peacock terms and unsourced, OR, self-sourced text."" BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 04:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON . AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 05:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2024 Miami-Dade County mayoral election or and , I don't particularly care which one. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 23:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC) ROTM for any local politician, Overall not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN , which notes that candidacy doesn't confer any notability either. Shaws username . talk . 12:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2024 Miami-Dade County mayoral election . Shaws username . talk . 21:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nothing notable found. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 03:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] Mayor Manny Cid was the first mayor in the United States to allow for remote public comments for residents. Here are several national outlets that wrote on this. https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-miami-lakes-town-council-video-conferencing.html https://commonedge.org/conducting-city-government-on-zoom-mayor-manny-cid/ . MEAUSA ( talk ) 20:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There seems to be a lot of articles on newspapers.com. Why not just the article into Miami Lakes, Florida ? he has been mayor for eight years so I am pretty sure that there are articles out there on him. Patapsco913 ( talk ) 20:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Local newspaper coverage does not count towards notability, and he is already mentioned in the infobox and government section of Miami Lakes, Florida . I do not believe that a further would be suitable for that article. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 21:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not see any guideline that local coverage cannot be used to establish notability. I am paraphrasing a fella named Bearcat who pertinently wrote on another AFD: ""Notability of a mayor does not rest on the population of the city or local news coverage rather it rests on the ability to write and source a substantive article about the mayor's political impact. If that can be done, then a mayor can an article even if the place they were mayor of was a no-horse village and if it can't be done then a mayor gets d."" There seems to be enough to write a substantive article here given 15 pages of news articles as well as multiple entries in newspapers.com. Patapsco913 ( talk ) 02:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] From my understanding, it's not that local coverage can't establish any notability, just that it's harder. A local paper is expected to write about the local mayor, their plans for the area, what their future political plans are, and so on. Whereas national media (or local from an entirely different area) isn't expected to cover them, as well as their reputability (or not) being fairly well known, and so can be used to quickly establish notability. That said, a lot of the coverage about mayors and electoral candidates is fairly run of the mill and having articles about every single one would become excessive. WP:NPOL gives ""multiple news feature articles"" as the bar for local figures to meet, so from my understanding the question is if there are multiple feature articles about him from reliable independant sources, excluding those he would have gained from simply being a mayor or candidate. All my results are the generic mayor/candiate stories but that might just be my search so I'm happy to be corrected on that. Shaws username . talk . 03:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My mistake assuming that local coverage couldn't be used to establish notability, but I do agree more with Shaws here. Any mayor or local politician is bound to have plenty of local coverage, so we must be able to find a sufficient amount of sources that aren't WP:ROTM . AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 04:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Local coverage isn't necessarily inadmissible , but it also isn't necessarily enough if it's all that a person has. The thing is that every mayor of everywhere will always have some evidence of coverage in the local media of the town or city where he's mayor, because covering local politics is literally local media's primary reason for being — so if all you needed to do to make a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article was show a few hits of local coverage, then every mayor of everywhere would always be notable enough and there would be no grounds to distinguish a notable mayor from a non-notable mayor at all anymore. So the actual rule is that to be notable enough for Wikipedia, a local politician (mayor, city councillor, etc.) has to demonstrate a credible reason why he or she should be treated as a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm — such as their coverage geographically expanding far beyond the purely local, and/or substantive evidence that their leadership had an important and enduring impact on the city — and the article cannot just be ""he got elected and then got re-elected again, the end"". Bearcat ( talk ) 18:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Cid was the first mayor in the United States to allow for remote public comments for residents. Here are several national outlets that wrote on this. https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-miami-lakes-town-council-video-conferencing.html https://commonedge.org/conducting-city-government-on-zoom-mayor-manny-cid/ . He has also been mentioned on several national outlets including here: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/florida-playbook/2023/09/06/miami-dade-contest-heats-up-00114184 . Many cities followed his lead and implemented remote participation. His impact extends far beyond where he is mayor. MEAUSA ( talk ) 20:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And what's significant about being the first mayor in the United States to allow for ""remote public comments for residents""? Why is that important ? Why is that a thing that people will still be looking for information about in the 2030s? In 2024 , of all times, you're trying to claim that using Zoom makes somebody special in and of itself? Bearcat ( talk ) 21:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better. As always, mayors aren't all ""inherently"" notable just because they exist, and have to show evidence that they can be considered a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm for the role — but this is just ""personal background and election record"", which isn't enough in and of itself. The key to writing a good, able article about a mayor is to focus on his actual record in office: specific things he did as mayor, specific projects he spearheaded as mayor, specific effects that his mayoralty had on the development of the city, and other evidence of his political impact , not just his personal life and election record. Bearcat ( talk ) 18:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, Mayor Manny Cid was the first mayor in the United States to allow for remote public comments for residents. Here are several national outlets that wrote on this. https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-miami-lakes-town-council-video-conferencing.html https://commonedge.org/conducting-city-government-on-zoom-mayor-manny-cid/ . He has also been mentioned on several national outlets including here: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/florida-playbook/2023/09/06/miami-dade-contest-heats-up-00114184 . Aditionally, Cid is one of the major candidates for Mayor of Miami-Dade County, which is the seventh largest county in the United States. Miami-Dade County has a population of 2.7 million, and being one of the major candiates for this office makes him very notable. MEAUSA ( talk ) 20:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC) — MEAUSA ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they haven't already won, either. Candidates get Wikipedia articles only if they already cleared the notability bar for other reasons anyway . (For example, Hillary Clinton may not have won the presidency , but she previously held other notable offices besides the presidency, and was notable on those grounds regardless of her success or failure in the presidential election.) Bearcat ( talk ) 21:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Getting ""mentioned"" in a major outlet does not establish notability. That mention in the Politico article is a perfect example of WP:ROTM campaign coverage. Also, those ""national outlets"" don't exactly seem prominent enough to establish notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 23:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Unfortunately, due to the timing, this seems to be political in nature. The day after this article comes out (https://www.politicalcortadito.com/2024/02/12/levine-cava-camp-responds-manny-cid-video/) this Wikipedia page come under attack? Might be a coincidence but the timing just brings up questions. MEAUSA ( talk ) 22:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not political in nature. Trust me, I have nothing against Manny Cid and I didn't even know who he was before this, and I would bet that all other editors in this discussion would say the same. You can bring up the timing but don't baselessly accuse us of making political attacks. See WP:ASPERSIONS . Funny you bring up politics anyway, as I have several questions I could ask you. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 23:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] lmfao this is killing me. You really cracked the code here! What is even supposed to be the theory? Oh man, I happened to start this discussion right after Levine Cava criticized her rival! It's totally not like opponents in an election criticize each other very frequently! Could it be that a minor blog happened to publish an article about Levine Cava right before I started this discussion? No, it can't be a coincidence! BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 23:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] >> 2024 Miami-Dade County mayoral election . Djflem ( talk ) 18:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Assuming people have this page in their watchlists, what do we think of this as a possible WP:ATD ? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 21:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I like it, it's a good option for people searching for him, I've struck my above for it. Shaws username . talk . 21:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure, I'd support a . BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 23:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This BLP exists only for the purpose of promotion and contains negligible content. It should be d. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 23:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC) . What if we d it and then turned it into a ? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 03:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See my comment above. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 23:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC) . I might be a little stupid but would you mind delineating a bit further? Do you fear that the will be turned back into a promotional BLP? I would think that a would be beneficial to the reader. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 23:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC) BLUDGEON . Xxanthippe ( talk ) 02:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] What's your problem? They were just asking. And for the record, they're right, your comment did not explain why a would not be useful. Having a is not promotional, it's just convenient for anyone searching. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 03:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I apologize if my pinging came off as a bit annoying, but bludgeoning? Yeah I'm gonna have to agree with ChocolateMilk here. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 03:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC) GNG , not notable under NPOL. SportingFlyer T · C 10:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Stowmarket Town Council: Lowest-tier local government authority in England, parish councils are rarely notable enough for an article. AusLondonder ( talk ) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics , and England . AusLondonder ( talk ) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added some secondary sources though I'm not sure if they are enough to qualify. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 19:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] there's nothing particuarly worth saying about this council. There doesn't seem to be much information about the award they recieved and it seems similar to those run-of-the-mill industry awards that aren't generally considered notable or pointing towards notability. ---- D'n'B - t -- 08:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If not notable if could be d with Stowmarket . Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 18:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 18:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Stowmarket#Governance as an AtD and where the Council is already mentioned. Unlikely notability will be established. A would unbalance the Stowmarket article; lists of non-notable past mayor's names and a list of current councillors aren't normally included within articles on the settlement. Rupples ( talk ) 01:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"2023 Paris explosion: Gas explosions occur every day all over the world. A building got destroyed and a bunch of people got hurt. One fatality. The coverage started fading within the first 48 hrs and would probably never have existed if it had been anywhere other than Pairs. Just because something happens and gets some short term sensational coverage does not mean it merits an article. What is the long term significance of this event? AFAIK the building was not independently notable. Ad Orientem ( talk ) 20:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and France . Ad Orientem ( talk ) 20:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of explosions where it is mentioned. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 22:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of explosions . Not an encyclopedic topic with WP:SUSTAINED coverage. I added the suspected cause and a better source to that list, so I think it now covers everything that Wikipedia needs to say about this particular incident. It looks like there are a lot of non-notable explosions on that list with their own articles, we might consider ing some of them as well. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 22:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The event is very similar to the 2019 Paris explosion , that one (and several other gas explosions) still hold water. in mind that it happened recently, and new information may still pop up. FatCat96 ( talk ) 23:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] With one dead, 50 injured and an exclusive school destroyed, this article meets notability. For a notable event such as this, it is too burdensome to send people off to search through a list. I’m also a little uncomfortable with the idea that so many explosions such as this, many of them notable in their own right, are shuffled aside and truncated into a list. This was a major event in a major city. The article should stand. Juneau Mike ( talk ) 22:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unfortunately, none of the things you cited are part of the criteria for establishing notability. - Ad Orientem ( talk ) 23:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m quite certain that they do. Try not to be condescending just because your AFD isn’t going well. Juneau Mike ( talk ) 15:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with @ Juneau Mike here as I too think that the article meets notability. Just because it's a gas explosion does not mean it's not notable. Some gas explosions may not be notable, but this explosion occurred in a major city, left one dead, 50+ injured, and received WP:SIGCOV . Gas explosions that happened 10-20 years ago still receive attention. FatCat96 ( talk ) 21:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Guidelines are quite clear. The event needs to have long term significance, and the coverage needs to be sustained. Neither of those conditions appear to exist here. - Ad Orientem ( talk ) 23:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm certain that this event has long term significance. A school was destroyed in the middle of Paris, one dead, 50+ injured (six seriously), and it received significant coverage that lasted more than 48 hours. The event happened less than two weeks ago, new coverage may still pop up. FatCat96 ( talk ) 23:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FatCat96, just let this run its course. Three editors agree with his AfD nom (one who gave no basis for his agreement) and two of us spoke up strongly against deletion. There is no consensus for deletion. Ignore the condescending comments. It does no good to arguing. We know it’s notable. This process will play out, and the nominator for AfD doesn’t get to decide. Clearly there is no consensus, and that is likely how it will be decided. I hope you are well. Juneau Mike ( talk ) 00:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One should not take these things personally. I have been in my share of AfD discussions, and have experience being in both the winning and losing side of the debate. Beyond that I would point out that AfD is not a vote . It is based on the weight of P&G based argument. That said I would gently point out that there is currently a 2:1 margin opposed to ing the page. FWIW, I'm fine with a which seems like a reasonable course. - Ad Orientem ( talk ) 03:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - ""With one dead, 50 injured and an exclusive school destroyed, this article meets notability."" is not an argument for notability and just because it's similar to the 2019 Paris explosion does not also make it notable. Onegreatjoke ( talk ) 01:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of explosions per my comment on the article's talk page a couple weeks ago. Anarchyte ( talk ) 10:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of explosions . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 00:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"K35OU-D: In fact, the only time it got mentioned in Tucson's newspapers was in public notices in the classifieds section. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 19:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Arizona . Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 19:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC) it is listed there, and it seems all known affiliations (as opposed to the unsourced and unspecified ""other affiliations"") have been HSN or its associated networks, as would be expected for a Ventana Television station. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC) Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG . as a WP:ATD . Let'srun ( talk ) 22:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Overillumination: The article has been nominated before on 2021-12-26 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overillumination ), and this is same reason as the last time. No significant updates or improvements have been done to the article since. Sauer202 ( talk ) 16:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Environment . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC) TNT deletion request. The article is not in that bad of shape WP:NOTCLEANUP . WP:NODEADLINES and WP:DOIT for the complaint that the article hasn't been fixed since the last AfD in January 2022. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 17:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , the subject is notable, the article could certainly be much improved, but it's nowhere near bad enough for TNT. Elemimele ( talk ) 18:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Light pollution . I stand my ground from the previous AfD that the topic is too similar, in that both topics are about an excess of artificial light. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 18:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Light pollution , which seems to be be broadly the same thing. Most of the Overillumination article content is poor and can be thrown out. If enough high-quality content specific to indoor light pollution ever manifests then it can be spun back out into a separate article. Popcornfud ( talk ) 15:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC) TNT argument. My AfD experience is that these don't frequently prevail. Normally the community prefers to improve flawed articles on notable subjects. What do you see as barriers to improving this article? Also, what is your assessment of the content at Light_pollution#Over-illumination ? ~ Kvng ( talk ) 21:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC) NOPAGE : several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page etc. This doesn't need to be its own page as far as I can tell. Popcornfud ( talk ) 21:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe most people and most of the light pollution lead understand(s) it to be a nighttime problem. It makes sense to cover overillumination separately if that's the case. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 22:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I feel it lacks a good definition of what overillumination really is. Open question: Why shouldn't it be possible to have light pollution during daylight? Sauer202 ( talk ) 15:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC) Per WP:SPINOFF , Overillumination is already a sub-topic of a fairly long Light pollution article, so a wouldn't be useful. It would be better to clean up the article in question. Praemonitus ( talk ) 02:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Clean it up sounds good, but who are going to clean up the article and when? There are so many good articles that are d or moved to draftspace on Wikipedia every day, why should this article be an exception? It has been standing in pretty poor condition for years, and in my opinion most of the content is not relevant to the article topic. Overillumination sounds like term describing a situation where there is presence of too much light, if there even exists such a thing (debatable, but that is what the article could be used to demonstrate). Instead, much of the discussion in the article is about efficient energy use, which is a separate topic and has nothing to do with light pollution - one has to do with energy usage, the other has to do with effects of too much light. Sauer202 ( talk ) 15:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Clean it up sounds good, but who are going to clean up the article and when?"" Quite. Realistically, this almost never happens, and when it does happen the article require rewriting from scratch. WP:TNT , please. Popcornfud ( talk ) 16:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Light pollution , clearly an unneeded CFORK that dups an existing topics. // Timothy :: talk 13:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Treating this as a CFORK presents a problem as they're two different subjects. Anyone actually reading the article on Light pollution will find the following definition, backed by 4 sources: ""Light pollution is the presence of anthropogenic artificial light in otherwise dark conditions "" (my italics). Overillumination however has a definition ""Overillumination is the presence of lighting intensity higher than that which is appropriate for a specific activity. Overillumination was commonly ignored between 1950 and 1995, especially in office and retail environments ."" One is talking about dark environments, the other about light environments. We cannot write about overillumination of retail etc. environments (which is undoubtedly an encyclopaedic and notable topic) in the Light pollution unless we change the definition there, and that's going to be impossible to do given that it's very well sourced. So if we this article, we can't discuss the subject anywhere . Elemimele ( talk ) 13:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand the point here, but I don't think the conclusion is quite correct. I believe we can cover related concepts under a single article if there isn't sufficient content to justify a separate page for the other concept. Popcornfud ( talk ) 14:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Deleting overillumination would not make it a forbidden topic for the eternal future. Quite the contrary, I would love for the article to become good. It just currently sucks very bad, and is written from such a skewed viewpoint that I don't feel it is good enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. It edges towards unscientific if not unscientific. Alternatively I suggest to instead move it to draftspace, so it can die in peace unless someone™ actually comes and improves it. Sauer202 ( talk ) 14:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That someone could be you. It is annoying when editors say things suck and won't lift a finger to improve them. WP:NOTHERE ? ~ Kvng ( talk ) 14:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC) V . This has been reverted per WP:BURDEN . If you wish to include material in the article you need to provide sources. // Timothy :: talk 14:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Light pollution . This article is really redundant in scope with light pollution, and honestly, the light pollution article's content on this is not distinctly different in size either, so there's no real justification for a spinoff. I'm not really seeing anything that has to be d either, so as others have said, probably best to just start from scratch and work within the parent article instead for focus. KoA ( talk ) 00:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment votes have failed to provide sources showing this is a distinct topic from Light pollution and have failed to address why this fork is needed. // Timothy :: talk 14:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Sigríður Hrund Pétursdóttir: One of several minor canditates for the president of Iceland. Of the sources in the article, the sigridurhrund.is article is not independent of the subject, Vísir article is not SIGCOV and is based on an announcement from an organization she worked for and the RÚV article is based on her own announcement that she is running for president. A search for sources turned up some interviews and mentions, but nothing significant. Alvaldi ( talk ) 17:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iceland . Alvaldi ( talk ) 17:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] candidates for office are not notable just for being candidates, and the sourcing here does not make her otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T · C 12:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC) The poll on the election page shows Sigríður as the favorite. We can later, if/when she falls in support. Inspector Semenych ( talk ) 22:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Inspector Semenych Firstly, she has a at best 8% support according to those polls. Secondly, per WP:POLITICIAN being an unelected candidate for political office is not enough for a subjects article to be kept. Either she passes WP:GNG or she doesn't. Currently, there is no evidence that she does. Alvaldi ( talk ) 19:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] but expand from a quick google search I found a bunch of articles talking about her which aren't included on her page. Include those and she should be able to pass WP:BIO . Scu ba ( talk ) 19:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC) THREE of them that constitute as a significant coverage that help her pass WP:GNG ? Alvaldi ( talk ) 19:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure, 1 2 3 4 5 admittedly, I don't know enough about Icelandic media to know if these are tabloid websites, but I think one of these is already cited on her page. Scu ba ( talk ) 19:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Scu ba The Heimildin article is almost entirely based of her statement which is not independent of the subject. With the lack of independent prose by the journalist, it is not significant coverage. The Vísir.is article is a large article that mostly focuses on the history of the presidency. It does have around four paragraphs on her that are independent. The bpwiceland2022.is article is not independent of the subject. It is a website of a conference where she was one of the speakers. The Dagblaðið Vísir article is based entirely on her announcement and includes a single line of independent prose. The FKA source is not indepentent of her as it is from the Association of Businesswomen in Iceland where she was the chairman. Alvaldi ( talk ) 19:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""almost entirely based of her statement"" yeah, they reported... on her statement... not sure how you can write an article about someone running for president if you we can't use articles that quote her announcing she's running for president. We can mention she spoke at the BWP conference and the chairwomen of the FKA, not sure why that can't be included. Scu ba ( talk ) 19:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Notability . Also note that WP:SUSTAINED significant coverage is required for the subject to be considered per WG:GNG . A brief burst of coverage, such as a few articles around an announcement is not enough. Alvaldi ( talk ) 21:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The other thing is we typically candidates who are only notable for being candidates to their election page, or them. Just receiving coverage for running for something isn't enough. SportingFlyer T · C 22:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That too, but the articles also give a brief biography of her. I've got a feeling that this is going to turn into another Ryan Binkley situation, a minor candidate for US president that had his page d 3 times because despite him having dozens of articles written about him, all of them are in the context of the presidential election. This page might have jumped the gun with making it so early, but she is only going to become more relevant as the campaign develops. Scu ba ( talk ) 20:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For the record, the poll that she had 8% support in was twofold. The first question was, who would you like as the next president. In that poll, she received less than five total votes. Not percent of the votes, but total votes. The second question was, which one of the five persons who have officially decleared their candidacy for president they would choose, if any, 8 percent choice her while 77 percent choice ""None of the above"". In a poll conducted in February by Gallup , she didn't gather a vote. So whatever feelings you are having towards this candidate, it is not shared by the Icelandic population. That said, the inclusion of articles on Wikipedia are not based on feelings, they are based on sources. So either the subject has multiple sources of significant sources over a significant period of time or she doesn't have an article. Alvaldi ( talk ) 20:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Additional analysis of proposed source material would be quite helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Source analysis was requested. Three of the presented sources are just how she announced her presidential campaign, which we basically automatically exclude under NPOL as candidate coverage, and the exception - that the campaign itself was so notable she's a notable candidate - does not apply. The fourth is just a profile from an organisation she works with (not secondary), and the fifth appears to be some sort of non-interview interview (not secondary). She is simply a political candidate who does not yet qualify for an article - if additional sources are found that make her notable outside of her candidacy, or she wins, we can /restore the article. SportingFlyer T · C 10:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2024 Icelandic presidential election#Candidates . Policy-based arguments so far are against retention. One """" argues with polls, which are irrelevant, and another proposes sources which were convincingly shown not to meet WP:GNG 's requirements. Given that notability remains possible if further sources are found, the appropriate WP:ATD for now is a to the election. Sandstein 14:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Sometimes It Hurts: I wanted to at least have the discussion about this rejected PROD. Jax 0677 ( talk ) 00:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Charting is an indication of notability, but not a guaranteed pass. I can't find anything discussing this song, tried a Gnewspapers search but nothing came up. Very early in the internet age, might be covered in paper sources. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC) ATD . Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 22:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Darkest Days , the parent album. There is evidence that this song was released as a single and achieved some minor chart placements, but per WP:NSONG there is no further media analysis or coverage of the song in its own right. Therefore there is nothing with which to build an informative encyclopedic article. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 21:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"KNUST Library: 6 of the 7 provided sources are primary. LibStar ( talk ) 02:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Ghana . AllyD ( talk ) 05:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Hmm. There are some studies. [28] [29] Suitskvarts ( talk ) 15:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also ""Library Orientation and its Impact on Students' Academic Journey"" in Library Philosophy and Practice . A to Kwame_Nkrumah_University_of_Science_and_Technology#Library_and_digital_resources could be a reasonable outcome here? AllyD ( talk ) 08:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Apache Trafodion: Could only find mentions in scholarly sources. IgelRM ( talk ) 22:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC) List of Apache Software Foundation projects seems like a better target, if this is to be ed. -- asilvering ( talk ) 03:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please, remember we need at least a valid reference in the ed page to be able to include any entry in it, otherwise this page will to page without any mention to this project. Mfixerer ( talk ) 08:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Apache Software Foundation projects . Source the entry there to [1] , [2] , and [3] . ~ A412 talk! 19:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Ismael Alhassane: The article clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV . I would support a as well, but obviously can't reverting Raymarcbadz. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Africa . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Excuse me. I've already added the content with citation sources. What seems to be your problem? Raymarcbadz ( talk ) 16:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you want this PERMANENT? If you want a result as REDIRECT, then no one should edit the article ANYMORE and instead, the article SHOULD BE VIEWED AS SOURCE. Raymarcbadz ( talk ) 16:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Olympics . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:SIGCOV Nswix ( talk ) 17:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:SIGCOV , do you expect the users not to create a new one? You're heightening expectations on the content and source citation. Raymarcbadz ( talk ) 13:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no point in creating a new one, if the person isn't notable, they're not notable. If it s getting created without merit, it can also be salted. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Isn't Ismael Alhassane an Olympian? If he seems to be not notable, then this applies to the other athletes without a significant coverage. Should WP:OLY impose rules and guidelines about the Olympians when creating articles? Raymarcbadz ( talk ) 20:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] First off, yes, the GNG applies to other athletes without significant coverage, and yes, they are likewise liable to be d. As to whether WP:OLY has the power to impose their own notability guidelines, no. That was determined by a broad consensus on the Sports notability talk page, and cannot be overturned or overridden by a private WikiProject. (Not, to their credit, that they seem to be inclined to try.) Ravenswing 03:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per nominator and Nswix. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 18:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC) NOLYMPICS . Lewolka ( talk ) 12:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC) NOLYMPICS ? Do you want an article to contain a thorough, significant biographical profile of an athlete and not relying on the significant coverage of their Olympic journey? Raymarcbadz ( talk ) 13:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, Alhassane was eliminated in the first round of the men’s -66kg competition after a 9 seconds bout. He finished #17. Maybe this can explain the little coverage of his Olympic journey. [9] Lewolka ( talk ) 18:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC) edited Lewolka ( talk ) 20:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, he was eliminated before the fourth minute of the five-minute round. Where did you get the info? Raymarcbadz ( talk ) 20:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 9 seconds from the golden score in the first round. [10] He finished #17, ""Significant coverage is likely to exist for Athletes from any sport if they have won a medal"" all his results are public. [11] [12] Lewolka ( talk ) 05:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article needs to be refined. You cannot impose a or because the efforts made by an author will turn into waste and endless exhaustion. Raymarcbadz ( talk ) 20:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – Just restore the back if the newly added information and sources don't provide significant coverage, which, in my eyes, they don't. Adamtt9 ( talk ) 13:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have produced over a thousand articles about Olympians and you impose the unnecessary rules and guidelines to or an article. If the WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV applies to all of them, then about 60 to 70 percent of the articles produced by yours truly will be subject to deletion and . All my efforts will turn into a waste of time because they are insignificant to the program. I will discuss this matter on WT:OLY because of these article restriction policies. Thank you! Raymarcbadz ( talk ) 13:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Policies change, it's nothing to be upset about. NBASE was also depreciated, so most baseball articles will likely not meet sourcing. This is an evolving wiki project. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC) BLUDGEON the discussion. It's easy to fall into that trap - I've done it before myself! Lethweimaster ( talk ) 14:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC) BLUDGEON . What is this all about? Raymarcbadz ( talk ) 20:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC) BLUDGEON is clearly written and easily understandable. What part of it do you claim not to comprehend? Ravenswing 01:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Equipe article is about a different individual, and is trivial coverage. Nothing found for this individual, lack of any sort of coverage we can sue for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, the Equipe still mentions the athlete. Raymarcbadz ( talk ) 21:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per nomitator. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV . I have No objection to a consensus . Lethweimaster ( talk ) 05:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you trying to trust the nominator? Is Sportsfan 1234 the administrator of WP:OLY ? Raymarcbadz ( talk ) 21:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It really doesn't matter if nominator is admin or not. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 22:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC) I'm seeing nothing but routine sports coverage and trivial mentions that fail SIGCOV. Raymarcbadz also seems to be laboring under the outdated presumption that simply having been an Olympian is a presumptive notability pass; someone who repeatedly talks of the ""thousand"" Olympics articles he's created really ought to read WP:NOLYMPICS . Ravenswing 01:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't understand why do we need to question the athlete's participation to the Games. If this has been a presumptive notability pass, will an author recreate an article once d? Perhaps impossible. We exhaust all our means to cite sources and establish content on the article. Why do we need to read and follow WP:NOLYMPICS ? What's the purpose of this evolving project? Raymarcbadz ( talk ) 21:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC) NOLYMPICS because you are involved in article creation of Olympians, and that is the notability criterion governing such creations. Honestly, you are seriously bringing into question your competence to edit Wikipedia , which is a subject for debate at the current ANI thread on your actions . Ravenswing 02:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""winning a medal in a competition with fewer than four competitors or teams (i.e., when all participants receive a medal) is not an indicator of presumed notability, and other exceptions may be listed at sport specific guidelines."" – Can someone explain this to the public in general terms or provide the appropriate example? This statement might be unfathomable for any user to read, especially for those hold liable for the article creation. Raymarcbadz ( talk ) 04:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The statement is straightforward and easy to understand for anyone with competent English comprehension. But anyway, you don't even need to understand NOLY because the far more important factor is establishing that a subject meets GNG. JoelleJay ( talk ) 17:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Niger at the 2020 Summer Olympics#Judo . The original AfD got it right. There is no evidence of significant independent coverage that meets WP:GNG , merely typical sports reporting. It's true he competed in the Olympics where he lost his first fight in the round of 64, but competing in the Olympics is no longer sufficient to show WP notability. Papaursa ( talk ) 22:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"2024 New York City Subway shooting: A fight that turned into an unfortunate shooting. Many of these happen across the good ol' US every month. Lettlre ( talk ) 17:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , United States of America , and New York . Lettlre ( talk ) 17:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . While tragic, this appears to be a run of the mill fight between two groups of teenagers . It is probably not notable as a standalone article per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NCRIME . The NYPD is currently operating under the assumption that this was not random . Numerous people are killed in the subway every year, some of whom have been shot, so this really does seem like a non-notable breaking news article at this time (i.e. I'm not seeing how this is different from other incidents where passengers were killed). – Epicgenius ( talk ) 18:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I also have no issue with ing to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2024 . – Epicgenius ( talk ) 00:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Numerous people are killed in the subway every year, some of whom have been shot, so this really does seem like a non-notable breaking news article at this time..."" I disagree. Reuters says that [s]hootings are especially uncommon: in 2022, when a man with a handgun injured 10 people on a train passing through Brooklyn, it was the first mass shooting attack on the subway system since 1984. It's only been the second one since 1984. Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk ) 04:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's only been the second one since 1984. — User:Wikiexplorationandhelping 04:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC) A minute of searching turned up this shooting from 2007 where four people were shot. In addition, I'm not sure you can disagree with the fact that numerous people are killed in the subway each year; there were 11 people killed in 2022 for example. If you're disagreeing with my comment that this doesn't seem notable, then that's fair, but I do think it falls under WP:NOTNEWS and that all coverage of the shooting thus far is breaking news coverage, which falls under WP:PRIMARYNEWS . – Epicgenius ( talk ) 16:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC) Wait. Per WP:Deadline , there is no need to immediately just yet. This article was just created. Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk ) 18:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In addition, plenty of sources exist from a Google News research. There is even coverage on Reuters , Associated Press , and Al Jazeera . So I would say this would pass GNG . Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk ) 19:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC) PRIMARYNEWS sources (specifically, breaking news or eyewitness news sources describing the shootings); they are certainly reliable and independent, but secondary sources would also be needed to prove the lasting notability of an event. This is also an issue I brought up at the stabbing-spree AFD three weeks ago. So I'm going to repeat what I said there: WP:PERSISTENCE states that ""a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article."" None of these sources show any evidence of persistent coverage; they are all reporting on breaking news. Since, as you point out, there is no deadline , it should not hurt to wait to create such articles until significant coverage, not just primary news sources, do exist. – Epicgenius ( talk ) 20:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Rather routine coverage of a subway shooting. The article now is barely half a paragraph long. At best, it could get a mention in an article about ""New York in 2024"" but nothing notable about this event needing an article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That has changed somewhat. I've made quite some improvements since. Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk ) 04:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC) Articles for deletion/2024 New York City stabbing spree (and with the same exact reason to , that 'we need time before it gets d'). @ Wikiexplorationandhelping : , please find another interest area to contribute to or learn how to build an article in draftspace, as this is tiring to argue; it's an average crime for the area and hardly anything that would get notice outside the first-day burst of coverage. Nate • ( chatter ) 19:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What makes this different is that somebody died, and the suspect(s) is(are) not in custody as of this comment. There's likely going to be some sustained coverage for a little while. If this article gets d, I'll try to go through AfC whenever I create a New York City event article. Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk ) 01:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 1. Whether someone died has nothing to do with a subject's notability. 2. It's not ""sustained coverage"" if we're getting updates on an ongoing situation. That's just regular coverage. Sustained coverage would be if years from now they write articles or books looking back on this. 3. We don't write articles based on what there's going to be, we write articles based on what there already is. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 01:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC) NOTNEWS . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 01:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS , this subject lacks coverage from secondary sources as it stands and it is unclear if this event will have lasting notability. Let'srun ( talk ) 03:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2024 . Agree with the WP:NOTNEWS concerns here but ion is a good WP:ATD in case this ends up being notable (though that seems unlikely). Elli ( talk | contribs ) 04:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . One death, just another unremarkable shooting in NYC. WWGB ( talk ) 06:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment/Question What is in essence the difference with (non-fatal) 2022 New York City Subway attack ? 64.141.44.242 ( talk ) 07:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The 2022 attack received a significant and lasting amount of media coverage outside of the New York area, this one hasn't. TheAmazingRaspberry ( talk ) 18:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Happens everyday in the US. Elizzaflanagan221 ( talk ) 11:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2024 per Elli. Blaylockjam10 ( talk ) 20:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC) There are still continuous updates on this event, as seen with US News , and ABC7 . Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk ) 02:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC) PRIMARYNEWS sources. – Epicgenius ( talk ) 15:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] NOTNEWS applies, all of the sources are just news updates. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 02:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC) NOTNEWS and insignificant coverage. There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of such attacks on the New York City Subway. Even though they receive local coverage almost immediately, most of them do not end up as articles on Wikipedia. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 11:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - per sigcov. Clearly this has received plenty of media coverage. BabbaQ ( talk ) 15:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC) 36, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] could not find any sustained coverage of this shooting. Esolo5002 ( talk ) 23:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC) WP:NOTNEWS . it would not really make sense, especially as this is relatively not rare. Password (talk) (contribs) 06:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Bent But Not Broken: The only review in the article is a Kirkus Indie, which is a pay-for review program that does not demonstrate notability, see WP:KIRKUS . The only other review I can find is on the NY Journal of Books (Not to be confused with the much more famous NY Review of Books) which seems to be an obscure group blog. There's a passing mention of the book in this NYtimes article but it's not SIGCOV. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 00:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America . Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 00:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment At the very least this can be d to the author as an ATD. Jclemens ( talk ) 03:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not even sure the author is notable honestly. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 03:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article isn't even tagged for notability, so that's not a compelling reason to not content there. Jclemens ( talk ) 05:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not objecting to the proposal for now, I'm just saying that I think there may be a case for AfDing the author too. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 05:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - non-notable author, and the only source is unreliable at best. -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 07:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Don Cummings . While I found the same NYT article mentioned by the nom, I agree that it really is not significant coverage of the book itself. While the author's notability may be questionable, as long as that article is here, ing there would be the preferable WP:ATD . If the author's article is later brought to AFD itself and d, then the would be d as well at that time. Rorshacma ( talk ) 18:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Don Cummings per Rorshacma's decision. CastJared ( talk ) 08:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Artesian, Washington: While that is true, Reference 4 is also a two-sentence entry in a table, dated 1923, sourced to a letter that I don't have the means to track down. References 1 and 2 are GNIS, references 3 and 5 are dead links. Other than reference 4, I cannot find a single mention of a ""community"" or ""town"" of Artesian; several news articles from the early 1900s do mention artesian springs in the Moxee area, but not one mentions a ""town"" of Artesian (or even any person ""from"" or ""of"" Artesian), which is suspicious considering this place supposedly had a post office in 1900. So most likely this was just a rural post office, which by precedent is wholly insufficient for passing WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG . Another useless stub on a nonexistent location based on sloppy misreading of GNIS. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 01:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 01:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC) no target: CITEREFIPC1904a ( help ) would be astonished to learn that thanks to Edmond Stephen Meany in 1916 misreading Marian McShane's handwriting in a letter and one or the other of them promoting a defunct 1901 post office into a 1904 town, here we are a century and a quarter later. Not to be conflated with the George A. Gano who had an artesian well and later went into the hotel business with I. B. Turnell, of course. ( IPC 1904b , p. 565) harv error: no target: CITEREFIPC1904b ( help ) Uncle G ( talk ) 02:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] references ""Gano, James H."". An Illustrated History of Klickitat, Yakima and Kittitas Counties: With an Outline of the Early History of the State of Washington . Interstate Publishing Company. 1904. pp. 640–641. ""Gano, George A."". An Illustrated History of Klickitat, Yakima and Kittitas Counties: With an Outline of the Early History of the State of Washington . Interstate Publishing Company. 1904. pp. 564–565. Meany, Edmond S. (October 1917). ""Washington Geographic Names"". Washington Historical Quarterly . 8 (4). Washington State Historical Society: 265–290. JSTOR 23908626 . Russell, Israel Cook (1893). A geological reconnoissance in central Washington . Bulletin. Vol. 108. Washington, D.C.: United States Geological Service . doi : 10.3133/b108 . GNIS is in fact not sourced to any map, but to another place names book, published in 1985 and therefore fairly likely dependent on 1923 book as its source. This makes the location extremely suspect. I'm sorry, but reference to it as a town in a listing is just not good enough. Unsurprisingly the maps show nothing at the location, even as far back as 1936. Mangoe ( talk ) 03:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The 1923 book is just a condensed version of what Meany wrote as a series of articles across several issues of his Washington Historical Quarterly starting in 1917. And Meany 1917 , p. 274 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMeany1917 ( help ) attributes it to ""(Marian McShane, in Names MSS. , Letter 347.)"". As explained on Meany 1917 , p. 265 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMeany1917 ( help ) this is a handwritten letter received from one Marian McShane, who I suspect wrote an ""o"" that Meany mistook for a cursive ""s"". Uncle G ( talk ) 05:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] with Moxee, Washington , which is a mile away. As noted, the springs are generally described as a feature of Moxee, not an independent place. Jbt89 ( talk ) 07:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC) (a) this is the 21st century, not the 19th; (b) artesian wells are not springs; (c) this article isn't about wells nor springs but goes on about a bogus ""community"" and its 1-year post office; (d) none of its 3 sentences are in fact accurate and able; (e) the human-made modifications of the 19th century were in the Moxee Valley not in the small area of the city; (f) they were in fact along an 80-mile (130 km) valley that was more than the Moxee Valley even back in 1893; ( Russell 1893 , p. 54) harv error: no target: CITEREFRussell1893 ( help ) and (g) the far more extensive 21st century truth, because of sizeable changes in the 1940s and 1960s, is dealt with, albeit somewhat glibly, in Yakima River#River modifications . Uncle G ( talk ) 10:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed. For a to make sense there must a) be accurate content to , and b) if a is left, some probability that someone searching for Artesian would find what they need at Moxee. Neither is the case here. Apart from the Meany book and this WP entry (and WP mirrors), there is no mention of a community of Artesian anywhere on the internet; nobody would search for it unless they came across this article first. I lived in the area for several years and never once heard of Artesian until I stumbled on this article the other day. We are creating misinformation by ing any trace of this article. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC) the current year, WP:Notability does not degrade over time . If there was a town of Artesian - and I'm not convinced there was - it's notable, regardless of in what century that town existed. Jbt89 ( talk ) 06:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or to moxee There is no mention of a town called Artesian in the local papers. There are frequent mentions of the ""Moxee Artesian District"" that might be what got on the map as a town. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Should add there was no mention of the post office either. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] concur with ""post office out of a house"" description. SportingFlyer T · C 16:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More discussion on the proposed alternative to deletion would help in attaining a consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and . Per the nomination most of the article seems to be poorly sourced and possibly inaccurate, Due to this I don't believe it would be wise to information from this into moxee . I looked at the satellite images available and based on that plus the prior discussions (ie: James.folsom and Jbt89 's comments) I think that as of the 21st century, this is now just a part of moxee . Seeing as this doesn't pass WP:GNG I think it should be d and turned into a to moxee . Thanks! ZombiUwU ♥ ( 🌸 ~♥~ 📝 ) 23:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Chris Cwej: A search for sources yields little to no results outside of passing mentions and references. Article currently does not meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 15:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Literature . Pokelego999 ( talk ) 15:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC) 15, 29 June 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:SIGCOV . A might be fine. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 22:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Muneko Otani: not notable person LusikSnusik ( talk ) 11:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Bands and musicians , and Women . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the article is a bit of a disaster in its current form, misquoting its only source. The source says that the Cassatt quartet, for which Otani is first violinist, has been named three times in the New Yorker's ""Best of"" sections, while the article leaves it very unclear about whom the New Yorker was writing, failing to mention the quartet at all. In the current situation, would a to Cassatt Quartet be appropriate (where Otani is named and her role described) - without any prejudice against the recreation of a properly-sourced and accurate article? Elemimele ( talk ) 16:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Next time, please do a WP:BEFORE search. The absence of sources in an article does not necessarily mean that the subject is non-notable ( WP:NEXIST ). Curbon7 ( talk ) 17:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . A should be the most dramatic outcome here and it is clear that the proper process of searching for sources prior to nominating for deletion has not been followed. I've made some improvements to the article, but have not spent much time on this, so don't know if WP:GNG is met. The nominator should have done that work before now. CT55555 ( talk ) 22:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC) BANDMEMBER , as there is not enough coverage establishing individual notability per WP:BASIC , let alone WP:GNG . Checked ProQuest in addition to Google (en/jp), and almost all of her coverage is brief mentions in connection to the Cassatt Quartet (including often positive reviews about her role specifically within the quartet), with occasional direct quotes about the music they are performing (e.g. about Godfrey's ""Romanza""). Otherwise, Otani opened the 2014 Bowdoin Festival in a duet with harpist June Han (per Sun Journal ); she is sometimes mentioned in passing in coverage about the Bowdoin Summer Music School, where she serves as faculty and works with student chamber groups; and her recitals as soloist/featured artist appear periodically in music listings in The New York Times . Even after the page becomes a , it's fine to add more info in the Cassatt Quartet about her, as long as it properly cites reliable sources. Even if she is eventually replaced as the lead violinist, the information about Otani could be kept in a separate section for ""Past members"". Cielquiparle ( talk ) 08:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per above. All the significant coverage I found about the subject are focused on Cassatt Quartet . Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 04:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Cassatt Quartet#Current members , where the subject is mentioned. CycloneYoris talk! 09:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Party! Party! Party! : I could not find any significant coverage in secondary sources (including by searching Google and trove), and the one substantive assertion in the article (its creators did not believe in self-government) is unsourced and I was unable to verify it. Portwalrus ( talk ) 09:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia . Portwalrus ( talk ) 09:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to 1989 Australian Capital Territory general election . Discussed 30 years after the event: ""Provocateur Emile Brunoro registered six parties to contest the poll, including the Sun Ripened Warm Tomato Party, which promised to ban gas-ripened ""fake"" tomatoes from the ACT. His other parties included Party! Party! Party! and Surprise Party."" ( Canberra Times, 6 March 2019 ) Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 03:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This sounds quite sensible to me - and information could be added to the Political parties and election process citing this source. Portwalrus ( talk ) 04:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] all citations currently used in the article are primary references. Per the nomination it lacks Sigcov in secondary sources and is therefore not notable. TarnishedPath talk 10:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Goldsztajn|, because might as well. Cabrils ( talk ) 06:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above, not notable beyond this single election. ITBF ( talk ) 12:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Xhulia Xhindole: Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT as I am unable to find coverage of the footballer outside of squad lists and match reports. JTtheOG ( talk ) 08:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Albania . JTtheOG ( talk ) 08:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 12:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"P/1997 C1: They may sound enough, but this is just routine coverage for a numbered comet, and thus fails in WP:NASTCRIT , according to which multiple non-trivial published works, which contain significant commentary on the object are needed (eg. it doesn't have a dedicated page in Kronk's cometography ). 270P/Gehrels is currently a to List of numbered comets#270P and so this could become a to that page too, with a note that a more appropriate page name exists (with template {{ R avoided double }} ). C messier ( talk ) 14:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Only found a bunch of data about the subject, does not seem to be notable. Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 17:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC) coverage is WP:ROUTINE and there are not enough sources to establish notability per WP:NASTCRIT . InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 06:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. // Timothy :: talk 04:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Mission sui iuris of Lunda: Possibly it could be d somewhere but I don't see how it is even vaguely notable considering the utter lack of secondary interest. Mangoe ( talk ) 03:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Angola . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Apostolic Prefecture of Lower Congo where it is already mentioned. Nothing else to be said about it apparently. Mccapra ( talk ) 11:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"The Adventures of Massey Ferguson: Donald D23 talk to me 15:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC) mentioned there. I personally would rather this and have added a few things (see page) but it might not be enough in terms of independent coverage. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , per nom. Alexeyevitch ( talk ) 07:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC) Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion . A with the history preserved under the will allow editors to selectively any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A with the history preserved under the will allow the to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard ( talk ) 08:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Psichologija: Article dePRODded because contested on its talk page. No convincing arguments for notability have been brought forward, hence: . Randykitty ( talk ) 14:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Psychology . Randykitty ( talk ) 14:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC) NJournals and WP:GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 20:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Lithuania#Science_and_technology . According to the secondary source added to the article during this AfD, this is a historically important journal. It doesn't look like it has WP:GNG in itself, but a short paragraph about psychology in Lithuania could be added to that article using the new source. -- asilvering ( talk ) 06:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and to Lithuania#Science_and_technology per Asilvering. — Prodraxis { talk • contribs } (she/her) 17:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"1892 Biddle football team: As it stands, this does not meet the WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG as a one game season, per WP:NOPAGE this does not provide any additional context on its own page. Let'srun ( talk ) 18:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and North Carolina . Let'srun ( talk ) 18:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A r of both this and the Livingstone article to a creation of 1892 Biddle vs. Livingstone football game would probably be a decent idea; the first black college football game ever is probably a notable topic. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 18:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll try to make an article for it soon... BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 18:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I assume you mean the first game involving 2 HBCUs? There appear to have been some games involving schools such as North Carolina A&M playing different academies prior to this game, and such an article still would need more sourcing beyond the single secondary source currently present. Let'srun ( talk ) 18:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I may be missing something, but where does it say that NC State was historically black? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 1892 Biddle vs. Livingstone football game if such page exists, otherwise . jp × g 🗯️ 05:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Created the article for 1892 Biddle vs. Livingstone football game . Suggest . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC) ATD . Let'srun ( talk ) 19:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 1892 Biddle vs. Livingstone football game . Thanks to Beanie for creating the target article. A worthwhile topic -- well done. Cbl62 ( talk ) 21:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 1892 Biddle vs. Livingstone football game per above. Great work. Alvaldi ( talk ) 11:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Horní Poustevna railway station: It's not even a building, just a stop on request. The timetable is not a sufficient reference and there are no others. FromCzech ( talk ) 12:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Czech Republic . FromCzech ( talk ) 12:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The station is a real building. I added a photo by Palickap",redirect
+"Coco Mosquito: Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , and Croatia . UtherSRG (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] {{ R from member }} Jinx (band) ? -- Joy ( talk ) 19:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC) 32, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Found a couple of interviews, one quite detailed [6] , [7] but not much else. Seems to be quite well known. Perhaps there is more out there with the right person doing the search. otherwise. scope_creep Talk 07:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC) GNG or even WP:NCREATIVE for independent notability . We often operate as article creators under the implicit assumption that Wikipedia is some kind of directory; it is not . Many musicians or, in general, artists, might be important to us personally but this means little in terms of the project. - The Gnome ( talk ) 12:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC) 42, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Trump Death Clock: FMSky ( talk ) 20:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . FMSky ( talk ) 20:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising , Websites , and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or at most. No sustained notability. Barely had any when it was active. All sources, save the last, were published within two weeks of each other, and most of them are actually op-ed pieces, one written by the guy who sponsored the billboard in the first place, Eugene Jarecki , so questionable sourcing at best. If there's anything to WP:PRESERVE , it's at most a to Jarecki's article, where it's mentioned. oknazevad ( talk ) 23:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Clever idea to bring forward a serious problem and better than the simplistic national debt billboard, But I'm not seeing the notability for a standalone article. O3000, Ret. ( talk ) 01:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Jarecki's article per above. It fails WP:SUSTAINED and, if I recall correctly, was never a permanent fixture. Rather, it was one of many things displayed on one of the digital billboards in Times Square, with an accompanying website. (The national debt clock nearby, incidentally, is a permanent fixture that has its own dedicated display, which kind of underlines the sharp contrast with the ""death clock"" here.) Epicgenius ( talk ) 11:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Eugene Jarecki#Public policy per all above. Fails WP:SUSTAINED . Sal2100 ( talk ) 22:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] by above. AnOpenBook ( talk ) 13:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC) The Jarecki article currently only has an uncited paragraph. The cited content here should be moved over. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 00:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Emily Prentiss: If the character is not notable, I suggest a and/or to List of Criminal Minds characters#Emily Prentiss . Spinixster (chat!) 10:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Spinixster (chat!) 10:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , not seeing much to - this is just a very lenghty plot summary. Ping me if sources on reception or scholarly analysis of this character are found and I'll reconsider my vote. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as unsourced. Would consider a , but I definitely don't see enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 00:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Herbert Nowell: Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Medicine , and Canada . UtherSRG (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Redirecting to the college he founded would seem possible. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 16:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to the college. A founder of a university may be notable via WP:PROF criteria about university presidents, etc. but an online search suggests that this article will never be more than this stub and mentions of him seem to come not from the mainstream herbalist community but from fringe views (""Cure any disease with Cayanne Pepper,"" etc.) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Dominion Herbal College (which appears to have pretty terrible referencing btw) as an alternative to deletion. Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 15:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Dwight (The Walking Dead): This is far cry from what is needed per WP:GNG . Per ATD, ing this to the list of characters from the franchise should be all we need. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , Television , and Comics and animation . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC) This is appropriate for Fandom, not Wikipedia. to the list of Walking Dead characters as per nomination, as Dwight doesn't appear to be independently notable from the series. This character does not have nearly enough SIGCOV. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 02:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Fear the Walking Dead characters#Dwight . The Optimistic One ( talk ) 16:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC) GNG , personally I don't think it is ing it as there really isn't anything to preserve. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC) PRESERVE . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 15:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Albanian-Epirote War of 1359: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC) ComparePages. Folly Mox ( talk ) 19:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Deleting an entire page on the grounds of its minor similarities with another page is excessive and absurd. The Battle of Achelous (1359) was a battle in the Albanian-Epirote War of 1359 which is crucial to know. It's also worth noting that this conflict had a relatively short duration and culminated in a single battle. As a result, it is entirely justifiable for the page to incorporate information regarding this singular engagement. Based.shqiptar.frompirok ( talk ) 10:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's the majority of the article copied with minor copy edits and most significantly only a single extra source added. As rightly you point out it's a campaign with a single battle. There no need for two articles. Lokosos ( talk ) 18:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and clean up if needed. It is notable and referenced. . Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 15:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] this isn't a question about the referencing - it's two essentially identical articles that should be d for what extremely small difference there is between them. 37.245.43.164 ( talk ) 04:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as a content fork. BLAR also acceptable. Srnec ( talk ) 14:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 11:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/ to Battle of Achelous (1359) content fork describing same events. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 09:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. ǁ ǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 ( talk ) 01:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC) 42, 2 November 2023 (UTC) 10, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , as I don't reallly see anything there beyond what is already in Battle of Achelous (1359) . Owen× ☎ 20:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Domenica Ercolani: Interstellarity ( talk ) 12:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 12:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * - dubious notability that could be summed up in her inclusion in the List of Italian supercentenarians . 9H48F ( talk ) 22:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC) ONEEVENT . Only mentions of the subject are related to her age. I support the inclusion in a list -- Broc ( talk ) 10:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I understand the rational, but this is not one event - it is what she was notable for years (for her age), and even after her death she will still be notable. If it is d, it should be d to List of Italian supercentenarians#Biographies to ensure that the information is not lost. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 01:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] VERY Weak I think this one just about has potential to be a standalone article, there are a good number of reliable sources and significant coverage but I'm not certain it's sufficient. At the very least, , a mini biography can be made in List of Italian supercentenarians N1TH Music ( talk ) 14:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Italian supercentenarians . Per WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES : Articles about people known only for being the oldest person in a country, etc., at any given time are normally ed or d to a list of oldest people . The article may need proof of additional coverage, using reliable sources, to justify a biographical inclusion in List of Italian supercentenarians#Biographies . IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 21:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"2023 Tunisian Cup Final: Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON , but currently fails WP:GNG . Onel 5969 TT me 00:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON also fails WP:GNG . I found sources for this but they are all about the race happening in the future. I would also support sending to draft since according to 2022–23 Tunisian Cup the race is happening at the end of May. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Tunisia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Happening in one month and participants have already been decided. Not too soon. -- SuperJew ( talk ) 08:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with 2022–23 Tunisian Cup , a standalone article is not needed for a minor soccer event. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 00:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC) First of all it's not a minor soccer event, it's the oldest and most coveted prise in Tunisian football! But ye, outside of Tunisia, it doesn't really get the same coverage. It might be possible it can pass GNG, but selectively the season articles for the competition are poor, easily expandable and should be enough without a separate article for the final. Govvy ( talk ) 12:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2022–23 Tunisian Cup . No sourced content for a , but if sources are added to the article, let me know, no objection to merging sourced content. // Timothy :: talk 14:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 22:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per Superjew. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 14:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC) per Sportsfan 1234 and Timothy. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per Timothy's reasoning. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Donald Karl Schott: Some minor coverage exists regarding the failed nomination, but just like with politicians, this does not correlate to inherent notability. Perhaps this to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies ? Let'srun ( talk ) 19:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Law , United States of America , and Wisconsin . Let'srun ( talk ) 19:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] & per nominator, as article creator. Safiel ( talk ) 02:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as the article doesn't meet GNG. -- JackFromWisconsin ( talk | contribs ) 02:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies#List of unsuccessful federal judicial nominations per nom. and others. Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Mongolian Wikipedia: That is to say Wikipedia/other Wikimedia projects. Perhaps this is also considered circular referencing? Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 03:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Internet , Websites , Asia , and Mongolia . Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 03:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC) ATD-R — siro χ o 06:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect. No need for a separate article. Athel cb ( talk ) 12:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions . L iz Read! Talk! 20:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Stumbledown Romancer: Fails the general and album-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music . UtherSRG (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC) Found a couple brief mentions but nothing substantial enough for notability. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 14:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Why I'm Not... with Brant Pinvidic: The only good sources are about the films which inspired the podcast, not the actual podcast itself. This should probably be either d or ed to Brant Pinvidic . BuySomeApples ( talk ) 23:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Internet . BuySomeApples ( talk ) 23:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Brant Pinvidic because the subject is not notable. The sources barely mention the podcast. TipsyElephant ( talk ) 00:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Daniel Bartlett (footballer): Does not look notable Charsaddian ( talk ) 20:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football . Charsaddian ( talk ) 20:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2019–20 Coventry City F.C. season#Appearances , not independently notable. Giant Snowman 19:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2019–20 Coventry City F.C. season#Appearances per above. I only found minor coverage like this . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Embassy of Cape Verde, Washington, D.C.: No secondary sources and no in-depth coverage available. AusLondonder ( talk ) 06:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Organizations , Ivory Coast , and United States of America . AusLondonder ( talk ) 06:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Babcock-Macomb House , its location. The fact that it is now the embassy is stated there. Mangoe ( talk ) 02:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 11:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Babcock–Macomb House per Mangoe . Excellent example of a subject that benefits from consolidation with an article covering the same topic. BD2412 T 16:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"The Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings: [2] If there was an earlier organisation of the same name I cannot find any evidence of its existence or its relationship to the company. The article was created by Mph259 , the initials of one of the people who ran the company - their only other contribution to Wikipedia was to Islam in Mexico and the same person in the company wrote a chapter in an academic book about Islam in Mexico, which is further evidence of their identity and an obvious conflict of interest. If you google ""Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings"" it comes up with a few references, but they invariably seem to be confusing it with a different organisation Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings . For example this article [3] says ""The same belief in the vital importance of heritage protection also led to the founding of other organisations such as the Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings (SPAB)..."" As they have specified SPAB they undoubtedly mean the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. An IP address (judging from contributions probably connected to Mph259 ) added that it was ""noted"" in a 1969 architectural journal - again it may be a case of confusion with SPAB (I don’t have access to the article). Apart from Mph259 and the IP address, no editors have contributed anything to the article except for formatting, punctuation, etc. and it gets virtually no hits and has no links from other articles, except user pages. It therefore seems to have been created as an advertisement for a short-lived company and has no notability. Johnbod removed the notification of deletion tag, suggesting a r instead. However the company has no connection with The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB), so there would be no content to . Southdevonian ( talk ) 16:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The natural confusion, which you mention, is enough to justify a couple of lines in a section at the bottom. If this supposed to be an Afd nom? this is not how you do them. Johnbod ( talk ) 16:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your comment Johnbod . Yes, it is supposed to be an Afd nomination - the first time I have attempted one. Perhaps you can tell me where I have gone wrong? Southdevonian ( talk ) 16:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC) Articles for deletion , and look at a couple of other ones first. Johnbod ( talk ) 16:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have already read that page and obviously missed something - but thank you for your suggestion Johnbod . Southdevonian ( talk ) 16:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Organizations , and United Kingdom . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] instead to Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings - a couple of lines at the bottom to avoid ongoing confusion. Johnbod ( talk ) 17:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Little evidence of notability. I oppose the proposal to with an article about an unrelated organisation with a similar name. Maproom ( talk ) 19:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as a non notable organisation and oppose or to SPAB which is notable but entirely different. Mccapra ( talk ) 20:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . If it is d then the name needs to to Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings , as a Google search finds that SPAB is often referred to (probably incorrectly) by this name. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Exactly, and that is why a brief addition there is worthwhile. Johnbod ( talk ) 13:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC) Foreningen til Gamle Bygningers Bevaring . TSventon ( talk ) 17:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which seems to be quite a large and old bygningsbevaringsforening (great word). That could go in the same section. Johnbod ( talk ) 18:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have now had a more thorough look at the Google results for ""Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings"" and will revise what I said before about invariably confusing it with ""Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings"" (SPAB). Google comes up with about 48 results. Some of them are mirror sites of Wikipedia and Companies House or lists garnered from them, including an academic article that copies Wiki text. Some are translations of foreign organisations, for example a Dutch organisation. Some are local American organisations, for example, the Montachusett Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings. Two refer to fictional characters. That leaves four certain or almost certain examples of confusion (including one gossip website), plus four probable or possible examples. I do not see that as enough to justify a or mention in the article about SPAB. There is just one thing that still worries me - whether there ever existed a small local 19th-20th century organisation with the name ""Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings"", which might explain one of the possible examples of confusion. But there is nothing in the British Library Catalogue or the National Archives Catalogue. Southdevonian ( talk ) 12:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The earliest version of the article begins The Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings was founded in 1858 in Leicestershire and was a pressure group established to oppose the demolition of the country house known as Danet's Hall by the Leicester Freehold Land Society. The group purchased the lordship of the manor and used this to exert pressure to attempt to prevent the hall's demolition, without success. , which might be true, but is unsourced. TSventon ( talk ) 12:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Merge/Redirect to Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings or if straight out Deletion is called for here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Same relisting comment as before. Just seeking a bit more clarity on ATD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . There's certainly an organisation with this name that precedes the 2007–2011 reincarnation. Found mentions in UK newspaper reports in the 1950s, 60s and 70s - but only mentions. One report referred to the Royal Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings. The Journal of Architectural Education reference is a name check only of the earlier entity. Don't think the sourcing stands up to a as reliability is unclear and there's no indication the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings is related. Rupples ( talk ) 02:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, they very clearly aren't related to SPAB - nobody thinks that. This is more a ""not to be confused with"" thing. Perhaps its not necessary to be too precise about they are not to be confused with, beyond the name. Johnbod ( talk ) 02:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [4] . Rupples ( talk ) 03:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Jennifer Prescod May-Parker: Is seemingly a case of WP:BLP1E . Redirecting to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies seems wise here. Let'srun ( talk ) 12:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Law , and North Carolina . Let'srun ( talk ) 12:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] & per nominator, as article creator. Safiel ( talk ) 22:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fails GNG, there's just this one event. to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies . Jacona ( talk ) 19:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Exposed (Canadian TV program): Tagged for notability since 2018 Donald D23 talk to me 13:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Television , and Canada . Donald D23 talk to me 13:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . When this was first created in 2005, Wikipedia essentially conferred an automatic presumption of notability on any television series that was technically verifiable as existing, regardless of sourcing problems. That's long since been kiboshed, and replaced with having to get the series over WP:GNG on its sourceability — but there's no sourcing here, and nothing else of substance turned up on a WP:BEFORE search either. Bearcat ( talk ) 19:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion . The television show is very close to passing the general notability guideline. It received a substantial review in The Hamilton Spectator . The other sources I found were less significant coverage, which is why I am supporting a instead of """". The show aired in 2004, so there is a good chance that there is offline print coverage of the show. A with the history preserved under the will allow editors to selectively any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article or to Much (TV channel) . A with the history preserved under the will allow the to be undone if additional significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Sources Hutton, Emily (2003-02-10). ""Sum 41 gets Exposed next on MuchMusic"" . The Hamilton Spectator . Archived from the original on 2023-08-27 . Retrieved 2023-08-27 . The article notes: ""MuchMusic is ready to be Exposed. The television show Exposed premièred last week and we got a chance to learn a little bit of what Avril Lavigne has gone through the past year or so. The show is a look at the world beyond the celebrities and the lives of the rich and the famous, when they actually open up to the camera and say what's on their mind. Other stars that will be Exposed will be Sum 41, Shaggy, Swollen Members and Nick Carter. They'll talk with MuchMusic and give viewers insight into their lives. Each week there will be a different celebrity. The format is similar to Egos & Icons, so I decided to watch it to see if I was right. It turns out I was. The only difference was that Exposed was more like ""a day in the life"" and Egos & Icons was a collection of clips. "" Less significant coverage: ""K-Fed Gets A Text Message"" . CBS News . 2006-11-08. Archived from the original on 2023-08-27 . Retrieved 2023-08-27 . The caption notes: ""Kevin Federline was at dinner while taping a scene from the MuchMusic reality show ""Exposed"" when he got several text messages. Jason Ford, a supervising producer for the network, told The Showbuzz that after receiving the messages Federline asked to stop taping and take a half-hour break. "" St. Germain, Pat (2006-11-25). ""Extra"" . Winnipeg Sun . Archived from the original on 2023-08-27 . Retrieved 2023-08-27 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""The morning after Britney dumped him, photos of a dejected K-Fed digesting the news at a dinner with MuchMusic staffers made the e-mail rounds. It's not pretty, but we're betting fans tune in the whole sordid scene on video as Fed-Ex clearly loses his appetite after getting a text message in the middle of his Much meal in Toronto. Jeer, cheer, indulge in good ol' schadenfreude with Exposed: Kevin Federline , on Ch. 46 at 8p.m. "" Alexander, Dave (2003-05-31). ""MushMuzak: Enduring a 12-hour CanCon video-station marathon"" . Edmonton Journal . Archived from the original on 2023-08-27 . Retrieved 2023-08-27 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""7:30 p.m., Exposed Namugeni's ""hangin"" with Michelle Branch while the singer cruises Hollywood in her SUV, talking on her cell and shopping. Oh-oh! It looks like Michelle got the wrong custom-made cowboy boots! Watching this is like being lobotomized W with a weed whacker. "" Cunard ( talk ) 01:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 16:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The show existed merely to provide 'guerilla PR' for record companies and it's doubtful anything about the interactions between host and artist outside what they said naturally wasn't filed down to the edges to be inoffensive as possible. It's a basic artist profile show, only with shaky cams and location shoots. This Nick Carter episode shows at the end that the record company provided the artist, and all of the sites visited were there in exchange for plugs. Nate • ( chatter ) 21:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC) Donaldd23 ( talk · contribs ), Bearcat ( talk · contribs ), and MrSchimpf ( talk · contribs ), would you be okay with a to List of programs broadcast by Much#Exposed per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion ? Cunard ( talk ) 00:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would be okay with a as detailed above. Donald D23 talk to me 01:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That would be perfectly fine. That's always a possible and acceptable AFD outcome, and doesn't really require my personal consent just because I technically said """" instead of """" at the start of my own statement. Bearcat ( talk ) 11:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Hoor Pari: Donald D23 talk to me 00:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Yes it fails to meet GNG because i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. The article is based on some namechecks coverage. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 10:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While assessing the referencing of Pakistani dramas/series, the dynamics of Pakistani media industry should be considered wherein media groups have their own news and entertainment channels. Normally a news channel from one media group doesn't give coverage to a project of a rival channel unless it's a big hit. So for other dramas we have to rely on websites and links which otherwise may not be good sources but are sufficient for a Pakistani drama. Muneebll ( talk ) 19:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Muneebll , But still you have to demonstrate that this TV dramas meet GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 19:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That assessment is not based on Wikipedia policy or guidance. In order for an article to be kept it must be demonstrated that it meets WP:GNG at a minimum. Saying that one media group doesn't cover another one is not a reason to an article. Donald D23 talk to me 22:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC) listed there. Some sources can be transferred. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 02:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"University of Ghana Toyota Training Center: Fails WP:NORG or WP:GNG . Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 19:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Not enough WP:SIGCOV differentiating it from University of Ghana. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 20:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Ghana . – Lord Bolingbroke ( talk ) 20:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. GoldRomean ( talk ) 22:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to University of Ghana . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 21:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Female sex: I see that it was ed in 2018, and an IP editor changed it from a on 8-19-23. Lightburst ( talk ) 01:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Surely all that needs to be done is to undo the IP's recent edit, so it goes back to a ? Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 20:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Restore as unnecessary disambiguation page per WP:ONEOTHER . Lightoil ( talk ) 11:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Restore previous , terms are not ambiguous. Demt1298 ( talk ) 17:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Female per above logic. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 18:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC) if consensus is to Female sex to Female , should the same be done with Male sex (where there is also currently a disambiguation page) and Male ? A smart kitten ( talk ) 20:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Generative Economy: Thenightaway ( talk ) 10:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Environment . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC) I can find several hits on the subject in academic literature: [7] , [8] , [9] . However, there aren't a lot that are not closely connected to Marjorie Kelly, who coined the term, and most of those are not from the field of economics but from other disciplines. It thus seems like a bit of a buzzword that has some attention in social justice/postcolonial circles but has not caught on in economics. That's a bit of a red flag to me. But there is secondary coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] -- There is no policy basis to this article. The bias in policy toward ing tragically weak articles like this one is rooted on the idea that someone, somewhere will care enough to improve it — an apparently vain hope in this case. It's been flagged as non-notable for eight years and it's still naught more than a stub. I agree with WeirdNAnnoyed that there is some secondary sourcing, but there just doesn't appear to be anything encyclopaedic to say about the subject. Until policy evolves to deal with perma-stubs, ing is the only option that meets Wikipedia guidelines. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 18:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] UTC) Only one project is on the talk page - the climate change project - I have been active in this project for a few years now and I have never heard of 'generative economy'. I cannot see this being useful re climate change so I am removing our project. If another project wants to it I suggest they should add themselves on the talk page. @ Sadads : - you may disagree? Chidgk1 ( talk ) 17:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC) DICDEF or colloquialism and cannot find sources establishing notability. Linked on this AfD page, source 2 I cannot view, but 1 is not significant coverage. And source 3 defines a generative economy quite differently to what the Wikipedia article currently writes, as A generative economy results when one actor’s production leads to the creation of new innovations that were not necessarily intended by the original inventor. Although just an interview, Kelly is not even mentioned at all, leading me to believe the interviewee Youngjin Yoo believes they are actually coining the term themselves. For the term itself to be notable, there needs to be more than just a definition of the term - and all I can find are either definitions from primary sources, or definitions quoted verbatim from Kelly. On the article, 1 is primary, 2 and 4 are not reliable even if it did previously have mention of the term, 3 which I found at a 2016 archive ( [10] ) is also primary, and 5 and 6 do not use the term at all. I had a skim through a handful of google scholar downloads and I could similarly only find unrelated uses of the term as a colloquialism or definitions exactly as Kelly has defined - and neither kind of source can contribute to meeting WP:GNG . Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 09:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC) WP:NEO . Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 09:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC) this charity is run by Marjorie Kelly who also coined the term, and promotes the concept of a generative economy. The page",redirect
+"Mara (Doctor Who): Pokelego999 ( talk ) 02:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Pokelego999 ( talk ) 02:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to the List of Doctor Who characters unless improved with reception/analysis. Fails GNG as written ( WP:FANCRUFT ). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC) 20, 29 June 2023 (UTC) GNG . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 02:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Again, two different targets mentioned at List of Doctor Who characters is not suitable as it is a itself. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Doctor Who characters . I found no evidence that the charcater meets WP:GNG . Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 10:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Like I said in my first relist, List of Doctor Who characters is not a suitable target as it is, a ! Agree on another target article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC) if the list of characters isn't a suitable target, then List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens is fine. The target is briefly discussed there. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 22:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Shock at the Rock: I found only one reliable source which refers to the game as ""Shock at the Rock"", which was written by a journalist who follows the team, rather than a widespread name for the game. When this article was in draft space, its merit was debated here . Consensus then did not appear to be in favour of this article, and I have found no new research to support it passing GNG. Flibirigit ( talk ) 13:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Ice hockey , and New Jersey . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Entirely routine game summary and coverage, no indication of substantial or lasting significance. Reywas92 Talk 13:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC) Good grief, this is just another playoff game (in a preliminary round yet), and the number of unremarkable playoff games where a team's scored two goals in the final minutes to pull it out has to number in the hundreds at least, and this wouldn't be article-worthy if it had been the deciding game of the Cup Finals. Fails WP:ROUTINE going away. Ravenswing 20:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC) Although I found two articles through a general Google search, including one with NBC Sports, I still do not find that this is worthy of its own article based on notability. Rather, this content would work best as a section in the Carolina Hurricanes article. As it is already mentioned in that article, a makes the most sense. Rublamb ( talk ) 20:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC) s are WP:CHEAP and preserve the page history better. I had accepted this AfC submission because I thought the references established notability but now I realise that sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage more than WP:SIGCOV . InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 17:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above, routine game summary and coverage, no indication of substantial or lasting significance. Fails GNG and NEVENT. // Timothy :: talk 21:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Rangiahua railway station: The line it was built for never opened. A cursory before search found zero. This is quite simply not a notable subject and the article never should have been created. Article was previously PRODed and then dePRODed with a rationale of ""you have to prove it's not notable"" while providing zero evidence otherwise. At best this should be a to Okaihau Branch . According to that article, ""The Rangiahua section was essentially complete: the line wound downhill to the settlement and a station yard complete with platform was built, though the station building itself was not erected."" So, we are dealing with a station that wasn't even completed. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 15:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Zealand . Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 15:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment what I actually said when deprodding was ""If sources to expand this cannot actually be found (rather than just assumed not to exist) then it should be d or ed not d"", based on an PROD rationale that appeared to based only the content of the article. I do not appreciate the misrepresentation. I do not assert that this is notable, just that if it is not it should be ed not d. Thryduulf ( talk ) 12:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Okaihau Branch ; that would appear to be the logical thing to do given that it had been built. Schwede 66 19:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Non-notable, unused station. ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 20:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Leticia Vasquez: No sources found to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL , coverage is all WP:ROTM . Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas , closed as procedural due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 05:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Politicians , Women , and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Nothing notable found. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 09:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 18:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC) ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN . Shaws username . talk . 22:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of mayors of Lynwood, California Shaws username . talk . 18:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to very obvious ATD >>>> List of mayors of Lynwood, California . Djflem ( talk ) 18:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of mayors of Lynwood, California per Djflem . Eluchil404 ( talk ) 23:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Professor Edward Travers: Relies almost entirely on primary sources, and does not meet the GNG. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 23:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Pokelego999 ( talk ) 23:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to the List of Doctor Who characters unless improved with reception/analysis. Fails GNG as written ( WP:FANCRUFT ). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/Redirect per Piotrus. Without third-party sources, there isn't enough WP:SIGCOV to support this article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 22:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to the List of Doctor Who characters . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Halocene: Fails WP:GNG , should be a , since it is mentioned at the The Masked Singer article. Onel 5969 TT me 11:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Arizona , and Tennessee . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - to The Masked Singer (Australian TV series) , but do not . -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 15:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC) 24, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I feel that I have provided many sources that show this band is not notable simply for the controversy but because of their multi-platform online presence. I would have continued to work on a draft after it was rejected by but that was not an option. Brian.butt ( talk ) 22:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would have continued to work on a draft after it was rejected by but that was not an option. I have added more sources using the search link that is provided in the deletion flag. The current ""notability"" standards are not sufficient for a streaming music society. Because the streaming platforms do not share total streams in a similar method to radio stations artists that are not associated with established record companies are held to a higher standard than those that are signed but have a smaller fan base. Brian.butt ( talk ) 22:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I have found one source from a French magazine, listing Halocene among other famous Youtube cover bands. This indicates the notability of the band outside of the controversy with Masked Singer. Skimel ( talk ) 03:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you please site it in the article or provide a link so that I can? Brian.butt ( talk ) 20:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Zinda Dil (2003 film): DareshMohan ( talk ) 20:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If no improvement seems expectable in the near future, I would suggest to Ashima Bhalla (or Abbas, both are on the theatrical poster)- MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 13:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 13:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Spirits Reawaken: In a WP:BEFORE search, all I could find on reliable secondary sources was a few passing mentions, in articles about the actors. Not all programmes released by notable outlets are themselves inherently notable, and I can't see how this web series merits a separate article. WP:SPA article creator since June. Wikishovel ( talk ) 18:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy , Television , and Philippines . Wikishovel ( talk ) 18:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC) I found only 2 sources about the show, but it seems to not fully pass GNG: [14] [15] . ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 23:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changed target per Mushy Yank's suggestion. ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 08:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , as ThisIsSeanJ suggests, but maybe rather to Spirits (TV series)#Remake , of which this is a remake? Both are OK, I suppose. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC) Spirits Reawaken and Spirits: Reawaken , so if the outcome here is to , then the second should also be created and subject to the same consensus. Wikishovel ( talk ) 13:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, true. But I'd say that whatever the outcome is, it applies to both pages. (Maybe that was exactly what you meant!) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, I only meant for ion. But thinking about it, I agree with you: whatever the outcome, it should apply to both. Wikishovel ( talk ) 22:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Hail Mary (Dark New Day album): Despite that, I am now sure whether this album actually meets WP:NALBUM , so I am sending it to AfD to determine notability. GTrang ( talk ) 15:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . GTrang ( talk ) 15:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC) This article is not remotely borderline. There is one reliable source (Blabbermouth.net) and two blatantly not (one from their own record label, the other from Amazon). I found no other coverage of the album, and no evidence of notability. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 23:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 17:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"KAJF-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 13:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Kansas , and Missouri . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 13:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. Plain no GNG or previous history before DTV/HC2. Nate • ( chatter ) 15:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of stations owned by Innovate Corporation/HC2 Broadcasting Not notable and is rarely if not impossible to be seen in Kansas City, Missouri or in its City of license , Topeka, Kansas. mer764 KC TV ( Talk ) 15:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. : there's not much to say about this mid-2010s-launched DTV America/HC2/Innovate station that hasn't already been said, other than that this was yet another technical survivor of a bulk nomination from last year . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"150th Anniversary Heritage Match: This is just a routine friendly match between two national teams, which happens to mark an anniversary. No evidence of significance or coverage beyond what would be expected for any other game between these teams. Jmorrison230582 ( talk ) 08:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and United Kingdom . Jmorrison230582 ( talk ) 08:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait the match is tomorrow, we should have waited at least until the match occurs to see whether it's notable or not. I don't think it will be- the 150th anniversary doesn't inherently make the match notable, and sources seem to be mostly just talking about the 150 number, which could be mentioned in one or two lines in articles about the history of both teams. That being said, nominating this 1 day before the event seems disingenuous to me. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON I think there's a snowball's chance in hell of trying to stop this page being created. If there are not many media outlets writing about the match today, there surely will be tomorrow. JMWt ( talk ) 11:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait until the day after the match. If media outlets only produced match reports as if the match is a standard friendly then deletion is best. But if significant coverage of the match is provided with reference to it being an anniversary then I would say it should be kept. Whist I agree that an anniversary isn't inherently notable, the 150th Anniversary of international football does seem more of a significant one. Mn1548 ( talk ) 14:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per JMWt. Defineilty going to get media. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 17:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC) SPECULATION . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC) 47, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I am bemused by this nomination, Jmorrison230582 Did you not consider waiting till after the event to see the full outcome of the match and response? Why nominate before the outcome and respond? Govvy ( talk ) 12:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Because there's no reason to expect anything beyond routine match reports and coverage. WP:NOTNEWS . Jmorrison230582 ( talk ) 12:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC) Football's oldest international fixture in numbers , (Sky Sports) Scotland vs England: Old rivals meet ahead of era-defining European Championships in Germany , this is not routine coverage. :/ Govvy ( talk ) 14:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which all relate to the rivalry in general, rather than this specific match. We already have an article for that . Jmorrison230582 ( talk ) 14:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Post match discussion Merge/ to England–Scotland football rivalry , no need for a separate article. Giant Snowman 12:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So the match was played, the fans booed each other's anthems, Harry Maguire scored an own goal, and England won. Water is wet. WP:SPORTSEVENT , in particular "" For a game or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clear that a standalone article is warranted "". Jmorrison230582 ( talk ) 06:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/ to England–Scotland football rivalry , game didn't generate anyway near as much notability in relation to ""150 years of international football"" as I was anticipating when creating this article. Don't think it warrants it's own page. Mn1548 ( talk ) 14:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC) ROUTINE for a football match. Stevie fae Scotland ( talk ) 19:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] only I completely disagree on any to England–Scotland football rivalry of content, however I agree with GiantSnowman on the as a possible search term. There is a paragraph already there with the subheading of September 2023 friendly that needs retitling to 150th Anniversary Heritage Match and the prose could be expanded on the article there, but a complete is simply out of the question, pinging Mn1548 over that also. Govvy ( talk ) 21:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, obviously a complete is a no, but certain prose content should be kept somewhere on Wikipedia. Mn1548 ( talk ) 21:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not much of extreme significance happened in this match. KingSkyLord ( talk | contribs ) 23:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to England–Scotland football rivalry#September 2023 friendly . The coverage of this match has been WP:ROUTINE or about the rivalry in general. As such, there's no need for a separate article, and it's already covered in a few lines at the rivalry article (which is more useful game summary than this article has anyway). Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 07:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This was a friendly match with a fancy title. No indication of significant coverage. Mattythewhite ( talk ) 12:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Nanette Salomons Cohen: Notability is not inherited , her being related to someone as well-known as Karl Marx doesn't make her inherently notable. toweli ( talk ) 17:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Judaism , and Netherlands . toweli ( talk ) 17:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) ATD . Otherwise, I agree with the intro. Fair disclosure: we are related through the husband, the cantor/textile merchant. Neither the husband nor Nanette Cohen are notable. It's important to apply the same criteria for relatives and nonrelatives alike. gidonb ( talk ) 18:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If not kept, to her daughter Henriette Pressburg . Well-sourced but questionable notability. Pam D 08:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Being grandmother of Karl Marx appears to be only claim of notability. No evidence she had any strong relationship with or influence on Karl, who lived 170 miles away in Trier, and who she would only have seen during visits. Karl was only 14 when she died. Agree, if not kept, to her daughter. Henriette Pressburg . Hsq7278 ( talk ) 14:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Karel Destovnik Kajuh (district): As a result, it doesn't meet general notability guidelines . That Tired Tarantula Burrow 17:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Karel Destovnik . - Altenmann >talk 23:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Celje#Districts and local communities . We might want to discuss other Celje district and local communities stubs together with this. -- Upwinxp ( talk ) 10:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 35, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Muhabbat Yun Bhi Hoti Hai: Received some ROTM ""Pakistan Media Awards"" — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 19:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 19:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Not fiercely opposed to Keep, though (awards, so-so coverage) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Marjorie Raistrick-Carter: All I could find is this - [ [20] ] Let'srun ( talk ) 15:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople , Women , and England . Let'srun ( talk ) 15:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Olympedia piece is decent. I would expect there to be further coverage available for this multi-time Olympian from an English-speaking country. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC) marriage report , comeback in 1963 . wjemather please leave a message... 17:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions . Ingratis ( talk ) 01:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 17:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Olympic female artistic gymnasts for Great Britain Coverage in databases is not considered sufficient to show WP notability. In 1952 she finished 131st out of 134 in the women's all around and in 1960 she finished 110th out of 124. Since Olympic participation is no longer enough to show notability, we need more coverage. Failing to break the top 100 is not enough. Papaursa ( talk ) 23:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Abt Ur Luv: The article has been unsourced for over a decade, and there don't seem to be any sources to draw from anyway. Checking through newspaper archives only shows trivial mentions in schedules and catalogs. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 03:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines . — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 03:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Plenty of coverage in the Tagalog wikipedia. English news has this as confirmation [33] somewhat brief but mentions the show years after the fact. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Could you direct me to where the subject is covered on the Tagalog Wikipedia? w:tl:Abt Ur Luv s to a list of ABS-CBN programs which doesn't have a source related to this subject. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 20:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh ok, I hadn't bothered to translate the page, I assumed it was a long list of episodes. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No problem! The news article you've provided above also seems to be only a passing mention of the show, and I couldn't find any more sources; the subject still does not pass any notability criteria. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 23:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC) NTVNATL . Google News Archives only show passing mentions. Alternatively, to List_of_ABS-CBN_original_programming#Youth-oriented where it is mentioned. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 05:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above seems like the better choice. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"I-News: Google News Archives and Google News did not turn up reliable sources. Strongest claim for notability is a 2009 Anak TV Seal nomination but that's it. Alternatively , to List of programs previously broadcast by Net 25 . -- Lenticel ( talk ) 07:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines . Lenticel ( talk ) 07:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC) ATD . HueMan1 ( talk ) 07:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Gohar Armenyan: I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG . All I found in my searches were passing mentions ( 1 , 2 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Armenia . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 20:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"List of highest towns in Colorado: Just adding 20 entries here to the bottom, by doing some WP:SYNTH from primary sources, hoping that none were missed, does not create a viable second article. Fram ( talk ) 10:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , United States of America , and Colorado . Fram ( talk ) 10:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC) @ Fram , Mdewman6 , and Zzyzx11 : This list is a viable article on its own merits and should never have been ed (without a discussion) to the List of cities in the United States by elevation just because some of its links are included in a different format and order on that list. This is U.S. state -related list and an important part of the List of Colorado-related lists . Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 13:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of which explains why we need two nearly identical lists. Every reader who is interested in the highest towns in Colorado gets a very good picture of it at the target list, and as editors we avoid the duplicate maintenance or risk of contradictory lists (e.g. why do they have a different order?). Fram ( talk ) 15:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The two lists have different numerical rankings because multiple states are included in the national list. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail Note : Both this list and the completely updated List of cities in the United States by elevation were populated from a master list in the user namespace of towns in the United States above 7,600 feet (2,316 m). That master list included 147 towns: 5 in Arizona, 4 in California, 108 in Colorado, 16 in New Mexico, 7 in Utah, and 7 in Wyoming. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 14:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I thank Buaidh for updating List of cities in the United States by elevation , so this article is no longer necessary. Reywas92 Talk 18:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why is this state-related list no longer necessary? Are any state-related lists necessary? Why should we not the List of cities in the United States by elevation (if most are in Colorado) and this one? Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 22:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why would we do that? The national list has more information so there is need for any state-specific list. The fact that this one has different numerical rankings has no bearing: it's trivial for anyone to just count that 10th-ranked Breckenridge would be 9th when the Utah city is excluded; we shouldn't duplicate information just so we can say it with different numberings. Reywas92 Talk 03:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of cities in the United States by elevation (or wherever that discussion ends up) Table is easily sorted by state and this is all but redundant, and the lede notes how many Coloradan communities are in the top 100. I would also suggest locking this as a for another obvious reason . Nate • ( chatter ) 22:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC) A cannabis reference? I'm 75, a vegetarian, and obviously not a user. Yours confusedly, Buaidh talk e-mail 22:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would prefer that the List of cities in the United States by elevation to this list since this list seems to be the more relevant. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 22:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment You've never had to deal with List of burn centers during the peak of that phrase as an insult. Trust me, vandals find a way. Nate • ( chatter ) 00:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] True enough, but I have been shot at multiple times. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 00:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , both content and context are suitably provided at the target. JoelleJay ( talk ) 05:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC) ATD . This list is an unnecessary WP:CFORK . 4meter4 ( talk ) 15:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Nobel Medical College: No evidence of N:ORG level coverage for this private medical school nor its journal. Explicitly do not recommend Drafting since creator has history of moving articles back Star Mississippi 17:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , Medicine , and Nepal . Star Mississippi 17:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a tough one. Only a few short years ago, we used to high schools and colleges if they existed. This one definitely exists. And it's not any old college, it's a medical college. Nepal doesn't have many of those. So, there is no way this isn't notable. But, WP:NEXIST stopped working as an argument a long time ago. And educational institutions come under WP:NORG now. I don't think we should stop anyone working on this in draftspace. For the mainspace, in the meantime, the best thing would be to it to Kathmandu_University_School_of_Medical_Sciences#Colleges_granted_affiliation_by_KUSMS_to_run_MBBS_courses . Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Explicitly do not recommend Drafting since creator has history of moving articles back. It does not matter at AFD because AFD consensus to draftify would be enforceable with admin tools. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts ( talk / contributions ) 00:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist as there is no consensus here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Star Mississippi , what do you think about ing as suggested above and allowing the creator to work in draftspace and use AFC if they want, with the understanding that anything AFD finds consensus for would be enforceable with admin tools? Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would be fine with that. But the problem is it's not really enforceable since AfC is optional. But fingers crossed. Star Mississippi 03:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Notable enough. There are few medical colleges in Nepal approved by Government of Nepal and Nobel Medical college is one of them and they have produced many doctors to the society. In fact to defend with it i would like to provide some reliable sources here [51] [52] [53] . DI V I N E The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"KRFT-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 11:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Missouri . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 11:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC) I suppose it's possible that this 32-year-and-counting station has garnered some of the now-required significant coverage , but a station that mainly carries minor digital subchannel networks, and holds no area cable coverage and is largely only known to have carried full-time national services tends not to get that much (if any) coverage. This is another remnant of the looser ""standards"" of 2006 and no longer requires anything more than an {{ R to list entry }} as an alternative to deletion . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Tiger (2007 film): Speedy G4 removed without comment, so here we go again. As in the last AFD, couldn't find a single reliable source in English or Bengali (টাইগার 2007 মিঠুন). The only source cited so far that actually mentions the film is a copy of the film posted to Dailymotion. Recently declined twice at draft by same article creator. A case can be made for salting it now, I think. Wikishovel ( talk ) 17:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , India , and West Bengal . Wikishovel ( talk ) 17:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC) NFILM , no good sourcing came up when searching and none was found during the first AFD either; given the age of the film and elapsed time since the last AFD it is unlikely new sourcing would be available anyway. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:1823:FC07:8CDE:1454 ( talk ) 18:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC) director (verifiable: TOI, TV Guide ). If the claims on the page are verified, not opposed to . - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC) (that was my !vote in the 1st AfD, more or less) [ reply ] or to Surinder_Films#Films . Poor sources with no indepth coverage and reliable critic reviews. Fails WP:NFILM . RangersRus ( talk ) 14:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . All current sources are passing mentions. The film released during the Internet era and should only be recreated with reliable reviews. DareshMohan ( talk ) 06:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning , per reasons given not to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 ( talk ) 01:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"2024 Russian offensive: For this reason we have many articles to integrate anything that could be possibly included here such as Battle of Avdiivka (2022–2024) , Battle of Marinka (2022–2023) , Eastern Ukraine campaign , Luhansk Oblast campaign . We don't need this article. Super Ψ Dro 22:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Russia , and Ukraine . Super Ψ Dro 22:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Russian invasion of Ukraine#2023–2024 winter attrition (1 December 2023 – present) ; if this turns out to be significant enough to warrant its own page (as did the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive ) we can can change that then, but so far the only event of any importance has been the capture of Avdiivka. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [ T / C ] 22:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes it is true most fighting is of Russian initiative but many sources are noticing that Russia is conducting larger scale offensives than usual. Even after Avdiivka was captured Russia is still pushing and reports are they captured Lastochkyne and half of Sjeverne west of the city. They have also attacked in the south approaching Robotyne and in the Bakhmut sector they've entered Ivanivkse. The ISW reports that Russia is also going to conduct a large scale operation in Luhansk. The Kremlin also claimed they took back Krynky which while denied by the Ukrainians does show Russia is doing attacks there as well. Overall, it appears Russia is attacking across the front in an offensive larger than we've seen since 2022. I think its important for it to be recorded in a separate article just like many offensives in other wars. Timetorockknowlege ( talk ) 23:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My main problem with the article is the scope of locations it has. It specifically says the offensive is occuring in all of Donetsk, Kherson, Zaporizhia, and Luhansk Oblasts. None of the four listed sources specifically say that it is occuring in all four Oblasts. Rather, some just say a new offensive is occuring, while the ISW source says a ""multi-axis offensive operation"" is occuring. Until we find sources that make clear the connection of the offensives in all four Oblasts, I think that the offensive efforts in each individual Oblast can be handled in the various articles already created for them (such as Eastern Ukraine campaign ; Luhansk Oblast campaign ; or Dnieper campaign (2022–present) ), specifically because it is debatable whether or not operationally significant gains have been made yet. I think it would make sense to, for now, to Russian invasion of Ukraine#2023–2024 winter attrition (1 December 2023 – present) , which would talk about the offensive efforts in each Oblast, without necessarily making a connection between them and a coordinated offensive across all the four Oblasts. Gödel2200 ( talk ) 13:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I will note that the two new sources added still don't make the connection that the offensives in each individual Oblast correspond to a wider coordinated campaign in all four Oblasts. The NY Times sources doesn't even talk about offensives outside of Robytne, while the Yahoo source, which cites an ISW source , does not say that all the three separate offensive efforts listed correspond to a coordinated offensive campaign. Gödel2200 ( talk ) 23:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Offensives usually do something in wars, like capture territory, political gain, etc. So far, this supposed offensive has done none of that. If there is an offensive that is notable, then it will get it's own article in due time, but for now WP:TOOSOON to have this page. Not to mention, this seems like a mishmash of sources saying ""yep, there's an offensive"" instead of detailed locations, timeframes, goals, etc. For now, news of an offensive can easily fit in their respective campaign articles. Jebiguess ( talk ) 22:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Gödel2200. The article portrays events in Donetsk and Kharkiv Oblasts collectively, as if they were a single offensive. In the absence of this framing in reliable sources, this looks like synthesis to me. SaintPaulOfTarsus ( talk ) 20:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC) //www.nytimes.com/2024/02/27/world/europe/russia-deaths-avdiivka-strategy.html Timetorockknowlege ( talk ) 00:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC) 24, 28 February 2024 (UTC) //understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-18-2024 say. The Ukrainians were attacking in a similar way with thrusts and probes to test defenses and making less progress than this current offensive during the initial parts of the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive and it still deserved an article which I agree with. And offensives don't have to capture massive amounts of territory to be considered an offensive. Some may think its too soon to call this an offensive but I think it is clear from what's going on that an offensive attempt is going on at the very least on eastern and southern Ukraine. There will likely be more sources on this as time goes on. Timetorockknowlege ( talk ) 03:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You're right that just because Karaganov is pro-war doesn't mean we can't cite him. I just think we should be a bit more skeptical of analyses for which he is the head of the editorial board. The problem with the article isn't whether we think this is ""similar"" to the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, or whether we think the actions by the Russians constitute an offensive; it's what the RS's say. And so far, the RS's state things differently than they did during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. The RS's in the Ukrainain counteroffensive article consistently refer to the counteroffensive as a singular counteroffensive, not multiple counteroffensives. In contrast, the sources here do not say there is an offensive, but multiple offensive efforts, and do not state they are part of a larger coordinated one that is occuring throughout all the four Oblasts (as the article says). The sources we use here certainly do make it clear there are offensive efforts throughout Ukraine. But my argument is that we don't need to make separate articles for each offensive effort, as they can be sufficiently handled in the various articles we already have (such as Eastern Ukraine campaign , Luhansk Oblast campaign , etc.,). Gödel2200 ( talk ) 12:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Assembly of God Church School: A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 13:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , Christianity , and West Bengal . Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 13:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC) NSCHOOL or WP:GNG . pinktoebeans (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC) PRIMARY . Nate • ( chatter ) 21:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC) ATD . -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Johannes Bernole: The subject made three appearances for his respective national team as a teenager. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , France , and Oceania . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC) GNG Angelo ( talk ) 23:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 17:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Micheal Kaluba ( talk ) 14:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above, unless substantial information and notability is included. Homerethegreat ( talk ) 11:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per all. Owen× ☎ 17:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"WZDS-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 01:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indiana . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 01:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC) a newer (2010s/2020s-started) LPTV carrying only national services is highly unlikely to attain the requisite significant coverage , so this as an alternative to deletion is the best we can do. (Note that had Weigel not bought this station, it would have been an equally non-notable DTV America/HC2/Innovate station…) WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC) 27, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"SCHLINGEL International Film Festival: It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn ( talk ) 19:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Chemnitz#Culture . I would not be shocked if this is kept, there's indirect coverage and sources allowing verification but it needs cleanup.... - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Mujhe Beta Chahiye: All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Sadia_Jabbar#Former_productions - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Henk Walk: This manager is covered in passing mentions only, failing the WP:SIGCOV guideline. No lasting impact on Bhutan whatsoever, so fails WP:SUSTAINED (as well as informal essays such as WP:IMPACT / WP:10YT ). I can't find anything else about him; not his age, where he is from, if he was a player himself, other managerial jobs etc. Simply put, Henk Walk is not biography material and being a name in a list at Bhutan national football team#Coaching history should suffice. Geschichte ( talk ) 15:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Asia , and Netherlands . Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree coverage is extremely scarce. Also being manager of a very small football country (Bhutans highest ever Fifa ranking was 159/211 not even during Walk's tenure which lasted for a single year, without any spectacular scores. I agree what is shown now does not suffice for notability. Arnoutf ( talk ) 21:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 15:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Bhutan national football team#Coaching history . Dutch amateur coach (I did find passing mentions), who was the manager of the Bhutan national team. This appointment was definately the high point of Walk's career. Sufficient for a . To we would need more than passing mentions. gidonb ( talk ) 22:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Success of the team should not have bearing here. Anwegmann ( talk ) 04:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Success does of course have bearing on match attendance, fan following and by extension media following, i.e. significant coverage. Geschichte ( talk ) 22:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"One More Time (HammerFall song): Source eval: Promo from primary >> 1. ""HAMMERFALL – limited picture 7inch for ... - Nuclear Blast USA"". Archived from the original on 2014-04-13. Retrieved 2014-05-16. Database record >> 2. ^ ""Hammerfall – One More Time (2011, Vinyl)"". Discogs.com. Retrieved 30 December 2021. BEFORE showed database and promo, but nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepthy. No objection to a to the album. // Timothy :: talk 09:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Sweden . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Infected (HammerFall album) per nomination. Found nothing of value myself. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 17:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Pia Maria of Orléans-Braganza: Details are purely genealogical. The interwikis seem to have been built on cross-wiki spam. I bring it for community evaluation. Sturm ( talk ) 09:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Royalty and nobility , France , and Brazil . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to/possible into Brazilian imperial family . For precedents dating as far back as 2020, see Special:Search/Orléans-Braganza prefix:""Wikipedia:Articles for deletion"" . -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 10:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (without a since the present article is a biography with no indication of notability) to Prince Luís of Orléans-Braganza (1878–1920) following the precedent of her brother . Pinging @ Slgrandson : since I'm proposing a to a different article. Rkieferbaum ( talk ) 12:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Alternative endorsed. -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 21:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC) ATD , as per her brother. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Albright Township, Chatham County, North Carolina: All sources I can find are either old copies of legislation/legal documents with single mentions or websites that scrape from the US census. The provided source for the ""Geography"" section doesn't even label the township or show its borders, it's just a map of North Carolina that one can zoom in and out of. Indy beetle ( talk ) 05:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and North Carolina . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Chatham_County,_North_Carolina#Townships . North Carolina townships serve no administrative function and are generally not notable enough for stand-alone articles. Reywas92 Talk 13:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These are non-notable and having them just causes searching problems. Mangoe ( talk ) 13:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Not sure I see the utility of having a even after deletion. JoelleJay ( talk ) 05:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Chatham County, North Carolina#Townships per Reywas92, and as a reasonable search term. Frank Anchor 16:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Operational Readiness Platform: Search only shows results for operational readiness for companies. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 19:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Transportation . Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 19:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The term does exist, the abbreviation 'ORP' being more used. They are nothing more than widened areas of the runway at each end or just one end (for take off in to the prevailing wind). It's really a historic term that fell out of use in the RAF with the end of the V bomber force. It should be ed to Quick Reaction Alert after some kind of mention there. The 'Q-sheds' mentioned there were literally tin sheds by the end of the runway to protect interceptor aircraft from the weather which were replaced by use of hardened aircraft shelters (the nearest ones to the runway on a typical squadron HAS site). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was struggling to identify a target. I agree with your suggestion, thank you. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 01:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . NN. A one sentence article. Desertarun ( talk ) 21:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Giolla Finna mac Uallacháin/Coulahan: We seem to have one source [16] which mentions him in one sentence as the son of a ""king"" (one of the many, many kings at that time). No reliable sources that he had any descendants, never mind the ones mentioned. If kept, it should be moved to a much better title than this hybrid thing, but I believe it should either be d or at best ed to e.g. List of kings of Síol Anmchadha (strange, how among all the Madudhan/Madadhan there, there suddenly is this one Mac Uallachain who seems to be unmentioned in more recent books). Fram ( talk ) 15:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Royalty and nobility , and Ireland . Fram ( talk ) 15:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of kings of Síol Anmchadha . As noted by the nom, the content is largely unverifiable and there is little/no indication that the subject had much if any notability (independent of the role/title held). Which seems to be "" King of Síol Anmchadha "". As an AtD, just to the article on that title/role. Guliolopez ( talk ) 20:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural Objection I am far from sure whether Síol Anmchadha was an important enough polity for each king to require an article. My impression is that there were dozens of petty kings in Ireland at this period and one list for each is probably enough, as we probably have little more than genealogical information on any of them. However, if the article on one of them is to be removed, we ought probably to remove them all, by ing to the list, not merely one of them. Peterkingiron ( talk ) 18:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] fails GNG, to List of kings of Síol Anmchadha per above. // Timothy :: talk 10:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of kings of Síol Anmchadha as an ATD. Redirecting there is certainly a better solution than deleting. CycloneYoris talk! 23:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC) NBIO is met. Happy to reconsider if other papyrus scrolls are found :) MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"National Law School of India Review: There's no real claim of notability here. That the ""journal has been cited in various publications"" and ""the only student-run journal to be cited by the Supreme Court of India"" are misleading; it is not the journal that is being cited, but the article published in the journal. This might suggest notability of the authors whose work is cited, but not the publication where the articles were published. Further, in that respect, ""student-run"" is irrelevant, since it is the author that is being cited, the fact that he or she published in a student-run journal has no bearing on its notability. It's worth a paragraph in the law school's article, but lacks notability for a free-standing article. TJRC ( talk ) 20:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect' per TJRC . BD2412 T 01:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Leyla González: I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG . All I found were passing mentions ( 2011 , 2021 , 2022 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and El Salvador . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 18:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per nom. Svartner ( talk ) 21:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC) Per above, subject does not meet the WP:GNG . as a WP:ATD . Let'srun ( talk ) 00:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Rock in China: The only source that seems to offer a veneer of hope here is [47] ( Beijing Review ) although it is about the website creator and mentions the website in passing, failing WP:SIGCOV . No zh or other interwiki. I fear for now this fails WP:GNG . Can anyone dig sources (in Chinese, perhaps) to rescue this? My BEFORE is not helpful, generic name of the website is not helping either. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 10:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Websites , and China . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 10:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Citadeol (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and to Chinese rock as a definite ATD. Nate • ( chatter ) 19:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion . I added a section about Rock in China to Chinese rock#Rock in China using sources I had found. These sources provide a few sentences of coverage about the subject, which is not sufficient to establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline . But there is enough material to add a section to the Chinese rock article. A with the history preserved under the will allow editors to selectively any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A with the history preserved under the will allow the to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard ( talk ) 07:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC) Piotrus ( talk · contribs ) and Citadeol ( talk · contribs ), would you support a (with the history preserved under the ) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion . I am not pinging MrSchimpf, who has already supported a to Chinese rock as ""a definite ATD"". Cunard ( talk ) 07:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC) SOFTDELETION over hard if we have a plausible / targets. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you! Cunard ( talk ) 07:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . My OR using IA suggests the website lasted from ~2005 (our article states 2004 no source) to 2010 (last working IA mirror is here ). I cannot find info about them using a copyleft licence ( double check ). Their 'about us in media' section has the same stuff we did. Beijing Review, chinamusicradar , smartshanghai (blog). They claim to have partnerships with Midi Music Festival and Painkiller (magazine) , both of which currently have en wiki articles, and which could have see alsos to the relevant article (if it survives deletion) or section (if it does not). Maybe someone will find this useful. PS. I think we can use their about page linked above which has a 'history of website' section to add a referenced claim to the article/section that it existed from 2004 to at least 2010. And that it begun as an initative of the Painkiller magazine, which makes it also another plausuble target. PPS. Less good news is that neither the festival nor the magazine seem to meet GNG in the current state and could merit discussion at AfD, sigh. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you! I've added more information about the website's founding and operation through 2010 to the subsection. This information could live at Chinese rock#Rock in China , Painkiller (magazine) , or Midi Music Festival . Cunard ( talk ) 08:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Best to it in Rock... article. I am not sure how long those other articles will leave, given their GNG issues (I have not done any BEFORE yet and I fear review of Chinese sources would be needed...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 08:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added some content and sources to Painkiller (magazine) to show its notability. Based on page 125 of this doctoral thesis , Painkiller was discussed on at least pages 151–152 of: Campbell, Jonathan. 2011, Red Rock: The Long Strange March to Chinese Rock & Roll , Hong Kong: Earnshaw Books Limited. which I do not have access to. I could not find copies of the book in Google Books or Open Library . I did a search for ""Painkiller"" in the ""Read sample"" section of this Amazon link for the book and it said the word ""Painkiller"" was mentioned on pages 99, 106, 112, 151, 152, 153, and 157, but I do not have access to any of those pages. Cunard ( talk ) 09:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC) ATD-R , as the article covers the website now thanks to Cunard's suggestion and edits. — siro χ o 08:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Najd FC: Unsourced article, nothing found in BEFORE meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth from independent sources. Found name mentions, routine sports mill news, listings, nothing that meets WP:SIRS. // Timothy :: talk 01:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Football , and Saudi Arabia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – To List of football clubs in Saudi Arabia . Svartner ( talk ) 11:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC) The article currently don’t meet notability as no sources are available. Currently it is best to as Svartner suggested. Grab Up - Talk 12:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 15:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Hachette Distribution Services: Even this article (available through WikiLibrary), which is an analysis of Hachette's business strategies, just has a trivial mention in the data at the bottom that HDS exists, and no discussion of it as an entity. ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 07:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and France . ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 07:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] while there's a single source that it exists [16] I couldn't find any secondary sources for it to verify any information for a potential . Shaws username . talk . 12:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Hachette (publisher) Shaws username . talk . 23:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] into Paradies Lagardère , which is its ultimate controlling company via the Lagardère Group . Nate • ( chatter ) 22:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] into Paradies Lagardère , hardly anything here and no citations. Maxcreator ( talk ) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"2023 CAF Confederation Cup Finals: Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON , but currently fails WP:GNG . Onel 5969 TT me 00:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Africa . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify Will be happening in a month and participants will be known before that. -- SuperJew ( talk ) 08:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2022–23 CAF Confederation Cup . Since there is no sourced content a is not possible; unsourced material should be removed not transfered to other articles. If proper sources are added to the article for a , let me know. No objection to Merging sourced content. // Timothy :: talk 14:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2022–23 CAF Confederation Cup (fixed target). There is nothing worth merging, and this is the correct location. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 14:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC) It's WP:TOOSOON and the article contains no sources whatsoever. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 22:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Victory Worship: Hariboneagle927 ( talk ) 12:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Christianity , and Philippines . Hariboneagle927 ( talk ) 12:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC) GARAGEBAND BrigadierG ( talk ) 13:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The first ""reference"" is ""Log in or sign up to view"", only to link to a dead Facebook page. The rest are just YouTube videos. Not notable. Cortador ( talk ) 14:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC) NEXIST and WP:NOTCLEANUP ). The group also has two somewhat more robust album articles and possibilities for ing instead of deleting. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 15:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC) 46, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Consensus split between and . Relisting. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 01:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC) I voted a ! weak last time, but I just don't see it now with a second look. Sourcing in the article is all to youtube or primary things. I can't find anything that discusses this group. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC) 42, 18 February 2024 (UTC) current sourcing is only facebook and youtube, that's WP:PRIMARY. other than that, not notable enough itself. Password (talk) (contribs) 02:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Around The World In Seven Minutes And Four Times On Saturday: PROD removed Donald D23 talk to me 22:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom . Donald D23 talk to me 22:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Robert Sidaway#Best of British and Winchester Pictures , where the production is mentioned. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"WYGA-CD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 09:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state) . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 09:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. : This station has been around a bit longer than many other HC2/Innovate stations, but it doesn't appear to have ever been anything other than a carrier of full-time national services—or, more relevantly, the subject of any significant coverage —in all that time. A remnant of the looser inclusion standards of 2006, and another nominal survivor of the 2023 bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles, WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Corey Makelim: There are a couple of interviews available ( 1 , 2 ), but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV . JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC) A possible is 2017 Rugby League World Cup squads . JTtheOG ( talk ) 06:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league , Australia , and United States of America . JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Undecided Given his career their should be more sources available. Current level of sourcing is borderline for notatability in my opinion, but more closer to than . Mn1548 ( talk ) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Maguire Seven: Article length at primary topic does not justify a split. Split article creation seems fairly recent, and the subject can be covered with the Guildford Four at the primary article. to that article looks like the preferred outcome. — Paper Luigi T • C 04:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree per nom. Much of the two topics overlaps. Any valid additions can be made to the combined article. The newly split article already gets on a wrong foot with a strange introduction. Str1977 (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment John Donaldson, of Lymington presided over the trials of the Maguire Seven in 1976 and the Guildford Four in 1975- They are different subjects each meeting the requirements for a unique wiki page. Hazardous to Health ( talk ) 13:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How is the fact that the same judge presided over these two trials an argument for separate Wikipedia articles. The two subjects have a lot of material in common - only the details of the allegations and the original trial - minus the common judge - are different. Str1977 (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Yes, the Maguire Seven are generally covered in the context of the Guildford Four, but not exclusively. A paper from 2022 compares them to the Birmingham Six , as does an academic book from 2019. There's also some coverage in Russian of them as a standalone group of people. I understand the reason to here is WP:NOPAGE , but I do think it's possible to have a separate article on the seven without overduplication occurring. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC) I see no advantage to ing the new, inferiorly-sourced page as a content fork. The encyclopedic value of the two cases is combined: anyone looking for one is likely to be interested in the other as well. There's little point in splitting the two and requiring readers to click the ""See also:"" link. Owen× ☎ 13:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Jethro Felemi: JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and Oceania . JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC) has created/updated a number of Tongan internationals from the period, he might be able to find more, however for now the is a suitable WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Yoke Kuan High School: N niyaz ( talk ) 10:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 8 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 10:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Malaysia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of schools in Selangor . I suggests to refer to the",redirect
+"Los Zodiac: I couldn't find enough to show it meets WP:NBAND / WP:GNG . Survived 2005 AfD ([ [45] ], but standards very different then. Boleyn ( talk ) 10:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Peru . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC) From this it seems like there is some level of coverage in 2018's Demoler. El rock en el Perú 1965-1975 by Carlos Torres Rotondo There may be some leads from this : ""Very little has been written about the History of Rock in our environment. Only sketches (as some newspapers usually publish) and some studies such as the one done by Jose Miguel Gonzalo Garcia, entitled Development of Youth Music in Peru, give us a brief idea of this whole matter. But the closest thing to a treatise on the so-called underground current or alternative music comes from the university works of which I mention (but always from a giraffe perspective, based more on journalistic data or conversations with subways, than on personal experiences), the job that my friend Miguel Lescano did at the beginning of the 90s, or the Underground Rock -10 Years of Wild Operas by Alvaro Olano Dextre. All of them are the first formal attempts to capture a history of underground rock. Someone will try to object to me by saying, what about Pedro Cornejo's book? I'm sorry to contradict you little brother, but the Game without Borders - Approaches to Contemporary Music that Pedro published in 1994 is not considered, not even by Pedro Cornejo himself, a total work, at least it is not what many (like me) expected from Pedro Cornejo Guinassi, graduate in Philosophy, professor at La Católica, participant in the first years of underground rock, editor and collaborator of alternative publications and other publications."" es-wiki does not have an article for them, and nor are they actually covered at es:Rock_del_Perú or es:Historia_del_rock_en_el_Perú They are not the Los Zodiacs from Getxo in Spain who had a song in a Pepsi ad (see this from El Correo ) I can't see what's in Torres, etc, but there's otherwise a dearth of reliable sourcing for the band other than being one of a number of early 60s Peruvian rock bands. Unless adequate info is discovered in Torres or other RS, with retention of history and categories seems the sensible option. ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 12:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist, is there more support for a Redirection? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak or to Peruvian rock . There is a good case for notability made based on Ferreira, Cesar; Dargent-Chamot, Eduardo (2002). Culture and Customs of Peru . ABC-CLIO . p. 126. ISBN 9780313089473 . which, while brief coverage, indicates they were a significant band in Peru during the early years of rock'n roll in that country. I would image most of the sources for this band would be offline and in foreign languages (Spanish, Quechua, etc.) given the age and the locale. I'd be fine with ing with no prejudice against recreation if someone is able to dig up some better sourcing with more in-depth coverage. 4meter4 ( talk ) 22:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Haka in popular culture: My BEFOFE does not suggest that the broad concept of ""Haka in popular culture"" exists outside Wikipedia. The article simply discusses some uses of this dance outside traditional venues. Some facts like this can be mentioned in the article about haka, but there is no need to split that, and titling this ""in popular culture"" is pure OR. Please note tha that much of this article is a copy of Haka#Cultural_influence , so an WP:ATD can involve ing this there (that said, that section likely needs trimming for the same reasons as outlined here). Half if not more of what we have here is also a dupe of the better defined Haka in sports . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance , Popular culture , and New Zealand . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC) This particular list-disguised-as-article does at least cite some decent references. But they are all simply verifying that a group of people did the Haka at some event; none of the sources I can access discussed Haka in popular culture at all. Nom's suggestion of a would also work for the reason given. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC) SPLIT , as the Haka article is not so long that a spinout would have really been needed, and most of the information here, including the links to the related full articles, is already present there. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Zujkowszczyzna: Similar case as Czarnorzeczka . It is a small colony within Kamienna Stara . Ilawa-Kataka ( talk ) 15:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC) GEOLAND as a populated place, there's at least one car repair place located there. Agree there's not much we can say about it but it's not fictional, wouldn't be adverse to merging this into a new article of a list of villages in the area somewhere. SportingFlyer T · C 11:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ SportingFlyer It is legally recognized, but it is merely a sub-unit of Kamienna Stara (see Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka or here ). Most parts of settlements don't get their own pages (a car repair place definitely wouldn't differentiate it), so it would probably be better to it to Kamienna Stara . Ilawa-Kataka ( talk ) 23:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Kamienna Stara of which it seems to be a part. The list of villages is at Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka but I think the parent village is the better target. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 01:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Kamienna Stara . No stand-alone notability apparent, part of a village. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to an appropriate target. Bearian ( talk ) 20:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"JungleTac: ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Hong Kong . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources . I could not find significant coverage in my searches for sources. The company's website is no longer available. I could not find the company's Chinese-language name even after checking archived versions of the company's website like this one from 2010 . The company does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria . Cunard ( talk ) 07:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If it isn't notable, it could possibly be made into a page to the Vii? That was the most notable JungleTac product as far as I could tell. Dr. Precursor ( talk ) 20:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dr. Precursor ( talk · contribs ), that's a good suggestion. to Vii (with the history preserved under the ) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion . This article from PCMag verifies the connection: The massive success of the Wii was a boon for bootleggers. Since Nintendo's console wasn't particularly beefy from a technical standpoint, cheap knock-offs didn't have far to go to catch up. Chinese bootleg manufacturer JungleTac rushed the hilariously ratty ""Vii"" to market in 2007 to capitalize on buyer confusion. Cunard ( talk ) 08:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC) Fails WP: N . I found a mention of one of their consoles in a PCMag article and a few mentions in a book, but nothing more. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 00:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 18, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Operation Sand Flea: RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 05:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Panama , and United States of America . RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 05:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with United_States_invasion_of_Panama . killer bee 08:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with United_States_invasion_of_Panama . – Nirvana Today t@lk 05:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to United States invasion of Panama#U.S. rationale , where this is mentioned. I say this, instead of arguing for a , out of a concern regarding the quality of this article's content; much appears uncited or cited to an unreliable source. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with the United States invasion of Panama article. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈ ) 00:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Queen Industries: My WP:BEFORE is not showing anything except some plot summaries (unless you count the the tirial list of media this entity appeared in), which is what is also solely present in the article. to Green Arrow per WP:CHEAP / WP:ATD ? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Comics and animation . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Green Arrow - Fairly obvious case. Searches for sources are not really turning up anything that isn't just mentioning/describing the company as an important component to Green Arrow's character, making it a pretty clear WP:NOPAGE situation. The company is mentioned throughout the Green Arrow article already, so a would not be needed. Rorshacma ( talk ) 14:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Green Arrow agree that its a natural target and there is really no information to . Rhino131 ( talk ) 16:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Green Arrow . No reliable coverage to , but there is a valid WP:ATD . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 20:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"KHMG: Zero secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG . AusLondonder ( talk ) 11:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Companies , and United States of America . AusLondonder ( talk ) 11:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC) I can't imagine this is anything more than a run-of-the-mill religious station, and I'd be surprised if any significant coverage exists here to allow for anything more than a glorified directory entry . An {{ R to list entry }} as an alternative to deletion is probably more than enough. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of radio stations in U.S. territories was what I suggested in my deprod . AusLondonder believes deletion is preferred for this and a bunch of similar cases they're working through. I've brought this up but I haven't heard a good explanation for this preference. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 17:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you thought a appropriate you were certainly welcome to do so. That's really up to you. I have explained my own view on my talkpage. KHMG could just as easily refer to this New Zealand real estate company which is about just as notable as this station. It could also be referring to this medical centre in California . As I pointed out some of these articles have been d, some ed. I'm also concerned that the state-by-state lists are largely or completely unsourced, unverifiable and out of date. AusLondonder ( talk ) 17:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) BLAR ED KHMG as part of my deprod it would be WP:LIKELY to be d at WP:MFD if someone nominated it? I don't think it would be but I can't remember having any of my WP:BLAR S at WP:MFD and I don't have a lot of WP:MFD experience so I really don't know. When I have time, I do often WP:BLAR topics categories have experience with like non-notable songs to their album, non-notable books to their author, etc. With the 7-day prod timer ticking, I don't always have time to do those extra steps and this radio station issue is fairly new to me. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 18:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC) MfD would be the wrong venue in that scenario; s are discussed at the separate RfD process. Even there, though, it appears to be relatively common (though not necessarily a fait accompli , depending on the exact circumstances) that an RfD would result in a reversion to the article as a contested BLAR, which may either be accompanied by a suggestion to send it to AfD or even a more-immediate procedural AfD, so it is not out of the question that we'd end up here anyway. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, forgot that RfD was separate from MfD. I'm just trying to determine if there is a good justification for deleting this as opposed to ing. AusLondonder argues that KHMG is ambiguous so that's one potential reason. If that's enough reason to a at RfD than we might as well it here and now. My impression is that WP:CHEAP usually prevails at RfD but I don't have enough experience in deletion discussions to know what counterarguments do prevail. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 13:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"KUAM-LP: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 14:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 14:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC) in some ways, this LPTV was essentially a ""subchannel"" before digital subchannels could even exist. Despite its major network affiliation, I doubt any coverage that might exist here would still establish any separate notability from the larger KUAM-TV. (Owing to the lack of present sourcing there is nothing to .) WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Barbie Fashion Show: An Eye for Style: QuietCicada - Talk 00:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Toys . QuietCicada - Talk 00:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC) page 300 of this non-English book appears to have a few sentences covering the game, and IGN published this article about the game around the time of its release. Left guide ( talk ) 07:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC) PRIMARY source. Jovanmilic97 ( talk ) 08:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC) it should be accessible through the book's search/preview function here (it is for me anyways). Result 3 of 3 is the index listing and results 1 and 2 are for the actual passage (I think the book is in Spanish), feel free to take a look. Left guide ( talk ) 09:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Barbie video games . Not seeing the standalone notability here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Barbie video games as suggested - the sources as they stand fall fairly short of notability, and I was unable to find anything else that would help get closer to that. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 08:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"DZRH Hataw: No awards or any good supporting references from GBooks, GNews and GNews Archives. Alternatively , to List of programs broadcast by DZRH/DZRH News Television . -- Lenticel ( talk ) 11:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines . Lenticel ( talk ) 11:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of programs broadcast by DZRH/DZRH News Television#DZRH News Television-produced Although we generally don't radio show articles, this has a programming list to to as a good ATD. Nate • ( chatter ) 16:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Before we can consider ing, the topic should be mentioned in the target article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC) clarified that Radyo Hataw is the televised adaptation/simulcast of DZRH Hataw in proposed target article. Lenticel ( talk ) 23:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of programs broadcast by DZRH/DZRH News Television#DZRH News Television-produced . Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. SBKSPP ( talk ) 06:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"2023 Mexican Congress alien corpses display: Slatersteven ( talk ) 17:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and to Jaime Maussan to be included with his other similar claims. No standalone notability aside from WP:RECENTISM WP:SENSATIONAL coverage. Rename as ""Peruvian alien mummy hoax (or hoaxes)"", per VdSV9 and 5Q5. Rewrite using all the RS we have regarding all the Peruvian ""alien mummies"" hoaxed to date. - LuckyLouie ( talk ) 17:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC) A hearing of a legislative body can meet notability guidelines. I'd like to see if there is some more lasting coverage ( WP:SUSTAINED ) or more hearings before deleting. I do want to note that all of the current sourcing is mostly American coverage in English and we have 0 sourcing from Mexican sources so some expansion with coverage from the country involved would probably be good. If there is no WP:SUSTAINED or expansion of the page with other sources, I may be persuaded to change to a vote in a few days. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 18:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We can always recreate it. Slatersteven ( talk ) 18:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I mean sure, I guess that's an editing philosophy difference. We can give it a few days to see if the article develops or we could now and recreate if the sourcing es later. I don't have strong preferences here, just the opinion a legislative hearing that makes international headlines may be able to meet WP:GNG . TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 18:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem is, this is not about the hearing, but one aspect of it. Slatersteven ( talk ) 11:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , and to the Maussan bio where the context is clearer. There is clearly not going to be sustained discussion regarding the 'corpses' that doesn't centre on Maussan. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 18:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and Mexico . Shellwood ( talk ) 18:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC) Given that this article was translated to create Exhibición de cadáveres de extraterrestres en México de 2023 [ es ] , do we need to do anything extra to make sure a version history is preserved to show the version that the Spanish article was translated from? I haven't participated in an AfD with a live translation on another Wiki before so was just curious if there was anything additional we have to do because of it. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 19:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you are worried, you can list the usernames over at the other language's page. That should satisfy the terms of CC-BY. jps ( talk ) 20:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, I'll do that if the article is AfD'ed. Just noting the author here since the article history will be d:Ainty Painty. Also, if anyone knows how to save just one version of the article history at AfD, it looks like it was translated from this version (judging from the time of publication of the Spanish version). TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 20:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC) SENSATION . jps ( talk ) 20:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC) SENSATION Parham wiki ( talk ) 20:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. - Ad Orientem ( talk ) 00:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is part of a long pattern of hoaxing by Maussan, and it makes sense to group this in with his other hoaxes. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 18:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC) WAIT and WP:N ). to Maussan's page and include information that this was Mexico's first congressional UFO hearing (per LuckyLouie ) - MateoFrayo ( talk ) 20:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The corpses are fake. This is another stunt from Maussan. These are some of the same bodies that have been shown in the past. VdSV9 • ♫ 00:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unless you have a source that actually confirms it , then it shouldn't be renamed/ed. - MateoFrayo ( talk ) 01:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well the National Autonomous University of Mexico has stated his claims make no sense, and they only tested the sample they were sent for carbon 14 dating and nothing else. So he is lying about that (for a start). Slatersteven ( talk ) 10:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree the guy's a notorious conman, don't get me wrong—but following Wikipedia policy , unless there's confirmation that the corpses are fake, the article shouldn't be d. - MateoFrayo ( talk ) 19:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article's not up for deletion because the corpses are fake or not fake, the authenticity of supposed alien bodies doesn't apply to this AfD. (And anyway we now have a preponderance of RS that say it is one more in a long line of fakes) The AfD question is, do we need both a bio of Maussan *and* an article about his claims that duplicates the same material in both. (And the default is not ""alien until proven fake"" - when other more simple explanations are more likely). - LuckyLouie ( talk ) 19:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC) RB ) simply say that they're fake, since that may be considered original research (even though the corpses probably are). - MateoFrayo ( talk ) 01:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No reliable source has stated that the 'corpses' are real. 'News outlets' are not qualified to make such assertions, and accordingly aren't WP:RS if they do. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 14:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I suppose we can't say the ""corpses"" are real but we can't say they're fake either haha. Also, news agencies (which are often cited by news outlets), such as Reuters and Associated Press , are ""reliable for [basic] statements of fact."" But that's not what I'm arguing—I'm arguing that Wikipedians do NOT decide if there are other explanations for something are more likely than something else. It's not our job to analyze the corpses or do interviews with Maussan, we simply just make articles from reliable sources . However, since Wikipedia generally follows a consensus from its community, and there are always exceptions to everything, maybe we could rename the article title to include ""hoax."" I would still recommend that we the Article & Wait For Further Confirmation From RS . - MateoFrayo ( talk ) 19:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me like it is MateoFrayo who is. I didn't provide a link in my first response to you because one had already been added to the Maussan article and to this one, and several have been added since. There are plenty of articles, the Wired one, the Vox one, that explain exactly what I said above: that These are some of the same bodies that have been shown in the past . The AP link included in your last comment explains this. I'm finding it strange that, in the same comment where you include one RS explaining that this is another stunt from Maussan, you explain how we shouldn't do OR and need to rely on RS. VdSV9 • ♫ 00:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe I am Maussan...or I'm just the Devil's Advocate here. Either way, I agree that the corpses are probably hoaxes, and the AP article I linked does say researchers in Mexico believe that the corpses are fake; but the authenticity of the corpses is still somewhat disputed and the topic is still being reported by news outlets. Regardless, please allow me to clarify my position, before we bickering about the same thing: Corpses are most likely fake, and scientists are calling it the corpses a hoax. However, this discussion is about whether or not we should rename the article, or with one of the sections in Maussan's page . Now, I'm against the move and rename— not cause I'm Maussan and I like to spread misinformation —but because this is Mexico first congressional event on UFOs (Also shortly after the US's) . It's much bigger than Maussan's hoax, especially when you have Mexican Navy officials taking out DNA analysis and 3D reconstructions on the remains. So for now , I simply think we should The Article, Wait For More Information, and relax. - MateoFrayo ( talk ) 15:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nobody is saying you're Jaime Maussan. You're a fairly new editor with a low edit count and you may not be familiar with the nuances of how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines work, that's all. So the authenticity of the corpses is still somewhat disputed and the topic is still being reported by news outlets (with a link to the Daily Mail) is a mistake, see WP:DAILYMAIL . Agree we don't need to rush and complete the rewrite//deletion today, and it's generally a good thing to get more WP:RS to respond, but there are no reliable sources that say the alien corpses may be authentic and need more testing , and the preponderance of them agree that it is a hoax. - LuckyLouie ( talk ) 16:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [5] . - LuckyLouie ( talk ) 17:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC) DAILYMAIL notice, I'll definitely that mind for future discussion pages. I'm glad we agree that it's good thing to get more WP:RS when it comes to articles that may be impacted by ongoing/current/recent events; however, I still believe my points regarding that Maussan's shenanigans (intentionally or unintentionally) have resulted in the first congressional event regarding UFOs in Mexico. Even if the article is and d with Maussan's, It should probably still be noted in the respective section of his article. Nevertheless, thanks for the assist and staying cool , Louie . - MateoFrayo ( talk ) 19:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename to ""Peruvian alien mummy hoax"" or something along those lines and make it about the whole thing. VdSV9 • ♫ 00:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename , agree with editor VdSV9. Rewrite covering the earlier Peruvian ""alien mummies"" as well (see my updated comment further down). Add to Mummy forgeries , List of hoaxes , List of UFO-related hoaxes (if appropriate), and Category:Hoaxes . Here's one source to justify: ABC News/AP : Scientists call fraud on supposed extraterrestrials presented to Mexican Congress Quote: In 2017, Maussan made similar claims in Peru, and a report by the country's prosecutor's office found that the bodies were actually ""recently manufactured dolls, which have been covered with a mixture of paper and synthetic glue to simulate the presence of skin."" The glue explains why no pins, screws, or wires show on the X-rays holding the bones tightly together. 5Q5 | ✉ 12:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree the best way to handle this is combining all the RS to cite a renamed article that covers all the Peruvian mummy hoaxes - then deleting and merging Jaime Maussan into that article. - LuckyLouie ( talk ) 14:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Jaime Maussan . I think this probably meets GNG, having been discussed in sources that aren't just sensation fodder, but per WP:NOPAGE I think the information would be better presented in the context of Maussan's biography. If anyone wishes to write a general article about ""Peruvian mummy hoaxes"", they can do so; that doesn't really affect this AfD. Sojourner in the earth ( talk ) 05:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If people think we need an article on the hearing, create one, as this is not about the hearing it's about Maussan's claims. Slatersteven ( talk ) 16:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename per users VdSV9 and 5Q5 given standard titling customs for hoaxes and stunts. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk ) 18:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC) Current title: ""2023 Mexican Congress alien corpses display"". Rename the last three words: ""2023 Mexican Congress hearing on UFOs"" (should have been named that from the beginning imo) and include mentions of everything that happened. This title would be in line with the U.S. version 2022 United States Congress hearings on UFOs , which also covers the first 1969 U.S. hearing. The controversy with the mummy hoaxes could take months, even a year to resolve. We can't this AfD open indefinitely. The proposal to end this, then, is to rename the last three words in the title, add the other speakers and topics, and continue building content within it regarding all the related Peruvian mummy hoaxes (news articles are connecting them also). We will better know in the future if a stand-alone Peruvian mummy hoax article is warranted. Perhaps when the time is right, someone can do an RfC on the talk page proposing it or go bold and publish it. Until then, Jaime Maussan 's article can link to this 2023 renamed Mexican Congress article or its hoaxing allegation section on the mummies. 5Q5 | ✉ 11:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC) 12, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"See Ya (mixtape): The current single source in the article, Hypebeast gives just four sentences to this mixtape (the other three sentences is on Khalifa in general, whereas the final sentence is about another unrelated tour) and is not SIGCOV. My BEFORE search found non-SIGOV sources: a 6-sentence coverage here, of which only 5 sentences are about the mixtape (the other sentence is about an unrelated tour), this , which is also just 6 sentences, with the final two sentences about Wiz's High School Reunion Tour, this , with 9 non-quote sentences (even fewer about this mixtape as a few sentences are also about Wiz got his fans ready with a visual for “Close Frame"" ), this , with only 5-sentences about this mixtape and the rest being simple listings on unrelated tour dates, and other non-reliable user-generated reviews . Overall, I don't see how GNG is met, and would BLAR this to Wiz Khalifa . However, another bold action (draftifcation) was contested , so I am bringing this to AfD instead. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . VickKiang (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Wiz Khalifa discography . If there's hardly any references talking about the tape and several tour dates unrelated to it, as well as no charts or critic reviews, I feel like ing it. You could draftify it, but what's the point in doing that when it probably'll never meet WP:NALBUM . DaCrashy aka AJB ( TALK 2 ME ) ( Everything I Did ) 02:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Chip Merlin: I had declined this at AfC and still don't see references showing notability despite being moved to mainspace by another editor. CNMall41 ( talk ) 00:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople , and Law . CNMall41 ( talk ) 00:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * subject meets notability requirements for an athlete and has been covered in a variety of sailing publications and websites. I feel it is worth noting that off the bat CNMall41 immediately accused me without evidence of having a personal connection to the subject and seems to bear some personal grudge against this article, previously having said they would step away from being involved in the editorial process. Sailbanshee ( talk ) 01:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC) 18, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Article is well cited and establishes notability as a prominent athlete in the world of yacht racing with a verified track record and unique, well documented story covered in a variety of independent, verifiable sources. Captbloodrock ( talk ) 04:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the vote. Since you moved to the main space, I am wondering if you can point out the references that specifically show how subject meets WP:GNG . -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 04:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC) ::Multiple articles covering subject in yachting and boating websites, coverage in major newspapers, documentation of subject competing and placing in major yachting events… Captbloodrock ( talk ) 04:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay. I am asking for the specific ones. The ones that discuss him in-depth that are considered reliable under Wikipedia standards. Are you able to point those out? -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 04:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC) :::: The Tampa Bay Times article, the Museler article(s), the article about his obtaining a new ship for an established boat racing team, the multiple articles about his participation and placing in races… I thought the original article author was being paranoid but I’m beginning to side with them there’s some bias on your part against this article’s subject. I believe this article meets notability requirements which is why I moved it. I’ve stated my case for such and won’t engage in any more nit-picking. You put the article up for a vote, let the vote decide. Captbloodrock ( talk ) 05:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] AfD is a discussion, not a vote. As far as the WP:aspersions , feel free to take it to WP:ANI . If you are unable to point out specific references other than naming a publication, I am unsure how to further discuss. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 05:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Sail magazine and the Tampa Bay Times article (the first two cited) are each WP:SIGCOV . There appears to be some WP:REFBOMB going on here and improvements need to be made, but there is enough here for this to be kept. Let'srun ( talk ) 02:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to confirm, you are talking about this Tampa Bay Times reference which is a routine announcement about his law firm. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 03:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Notability (people) for both his law career but especially sports athletic career, which the article documents and cites well with appropriate citations. IOProfessor ( talk ) 23:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All right, given that (1) this has been confounded by confirmed socks, (2) the article shows signs of COI, and (3) this is the only thing in your entire edit history, I must ask how you discovered this particular AfD, IOProfessor . Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 23:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting due to confirmation that socks dominated the previous ! votes. Will strike through the sock comments. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep- as a person who previously voted , I’m voting again. And since I am not a sock, I assume it will still be counted. Anatomyoffear ( talk ) 21:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC) Anatomyoffear and User:IOProfessor were listed among suspected socks of Captbloodrock but unconfirmed, therefore I did not strike through their remarks. Note, though, that IOProfessor's only Wikipedia contribution ever was to chime in on this specific AfD. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It’s actually possible for multiple people to disagree with you. I am in fact my own whole and separate person, and I can see perfectly well that you’re wrong and doubling down. Let me know if you’d like me to send you a picture of myself and today’s newspaper to prove that I’m a real person and not an evil doppelganger or a figment of your fevered paranoia. 2603:9001:953F:178:B824:2ECE:2DE1:DC7 ( talk ) 21:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If I were doubling down, I would not have reopened this AfD. This is the opposite of that. In 16 years as an admin, this is the first time I have ever been persuaded to reopen an AfD, and it is because I read the report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Captbloodrock . Incidentally, who are you, unsigned user? Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, I was in such a hurry to point out how you’re wrong about me that I posted from my phone, which wasn’t logged in. But I’m here now. Hello! It’s me, the person you think is Captbloodrock. I am, in fact, not. Nor am I whoever IOProfessor is, either. There are a number of other people I am also not, but you haven’t accused me of being any of those, so I’ll leave that be. Anatomyoffear ( talk ) 21:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While I hesitate to respond and take this down some rabbit hole of a tangent, I will point out that I only mentioned you to note that despite the inclusion of your name in the sock investigation that I linked, you were not found to be a sockpuppet and therefore I did not strike through your comments. Now that you have drawn attention, though, I am curious: What drew you to the Chip Merlin AfD after six months away from Wikipedia? Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I like lawyer stuff. I've noted things on other lawyer pages as well. Ironically, I discovered this guy through his sailing, not his lawyer stuff, but how's that for a small world? Anatomyoffear ( talk ) 17:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC) This one might have legs; [1] is about him and the law firm... It's hard to filter out all the PR and promo items in searches. This talks briefly about him [ https://books.google.ca/books?id=qGh0ol-_mCEC&lpg=PA20&dq=%22Chip%20Merlin%22%20-wikipedia&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q=%22Chip%20Merlin%22%20-wikipedia&f=false ]. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC) There are three topics: the law firm which Merlin founded. This is possibly WP:NOTEWORTHY given the claim that it is ""the second-largest firm in the United States in the field of representing insurance claims for natural disaster victims"" -- but not overwhelmingly so (second largest in a single [large] country in a subdomain of a specific domain), and would require WP:NCORP to be clearly met... which it certainly doesn't on current sourcing. the S/V Merlin which Merlin purchased and which has a long prior history. The yacht is almost certainly notable, but its article is in need of proper referencing and copyediting for WP:TONE and editing and monitoring for WP:COATRACK ). Merlin himself, whose level of notability/noteworthiness can reasonably be tied to his law firm, but not to purchasing/owning/operating the yacht ( WP:NOTINHERITED ) ... which gets us onto sources. Self-published sources don't count as WP:SIGCOV , and nor do sources which are not WP:INDEPENDENT and nor do WP:PASSINGMENTIONS in stories focussed primarily on another topic - this includes Oaktree b 's Tampa Bay Times story & the passing coverage in the ABA journal, and",redirect
+"KYJJ: The 1st ref is a standard facility record that IMO does not pass SIGCOV . Refs 2 and 3 are from RadioInsight , a site with questionable reliability due to no editorial policies or staff listings. Moreover, ref 2 just has 3 sentences and is definitely not significant coverage. Ref 3 has just 4 sentences excluding the quotes from the press-release that is non-independent. My before search on Google, Google Books, Google News, and TWL failed to find more GNG-meeting coverage. VickKiang (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions . VickKiang (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 00:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC) our notability standards are much higher in this topic area than they were prior to roughly the time of the 2021 RfC where the NBROADCAST/NMEDIA proposal failed , and a newer station (i.e. one that signed on within this decade) is much less likely to attain sufficient coverage to establish notability. This station was indeed considered not notable when it signed on as a simulcast of KYOZ and the title accordingly ed to there; the actual article came about after a sale of KYOZ ended the simulcast, and a subsequent reversion to the KYOZ was challenged for the same reason the went away the first time. The IP that made that challenge did suggest deletion as the alternative to the KYOZ , but BCASTOUTCOMES in its current form (i.e., not necessarily the one from prior to that 2021 RfC) does suggest a to list as an alternative to deletion if there is no parent station/entity that would be a valid target. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of radio stations in Oregon A new radio station is a tough GNG sell these days for the reasons described above. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 18:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of radio stations in Oregon Though I created the , I always hope more sources can be added, but right now as-is it does seem to be a station only run to eventually get into a larger market, and yet another one-source RadioInsight article with prose barely rewritten ( stop it , I'm tired of having to rewrite these because someone else couldn't be bothered to barely make it look like they didn't plagiarize from that site); should've never had an article devoted to it. Nate • ( chatter ) 23:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The was appropriate at the time, but it became unnecessary after KYOZ was sold and flipped to Worship 24/7. For a while, it simulcasted KZJJ 104.5 but a few months ago Alcon Media adjusted their stations, breaking the simulcast and flipping KYJJ to a simulcast of K285FN 104.9 Kennewick. The station doesn't have a website as far as I know but it does have a Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/Lagranx104.9 . If the page for KYJJ must be d, I would recommend lumping it with KQFO, since KQFO-HD3 is (supposed to be) feeding the programming heard on K285FN/KYJJ. DX Sphere ( talk ) 01:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I want to clarify above that I live in Tri-Cities and have been ing an eye on these stations since I moved to the area. Alcon Media really does seem to still be organizing their operation. DX Sphere ( talk ) 01:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Namsan Traditional Theater: Possibly into Namsangol Hanok Village , but this artilce is not so substantial imo that we need to have an outstanding waiting for someone willing to do it (I'm not willing to). I think a is ok toobigtokale ( talk ) 16:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and South Korea . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . If an active WP:Reliable source can be found, into Namsangol Hanok Village . -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 22:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Pod Jedlinką: As it says on the PL Wiki article , this is an ""unofficial settlement"" ( nieoficjalna osada ). This is not listed on the TERYT database (despite the TERYT database being listed as the source...), or at least there is no SIMC ID that would allow you to search that database for it. There isn't any place called Pod Jedlinką listed on the Polish regulation of place-names , which in every case I've checked so far had the same data as TERYT. From the over-head satellite pictures it appears this is just an empty field near the hamlet ( przysiółek ) of Winniki, Opole Voivodeship , which is itself just a part of the village of Mikowice, Opole Voivodeship and so borderline as an article itself. Fails WP:GEOLAND since there is no legal recognition. Also fails WP:V since every source that might confirm the existence of this place comes up negative. Even if it were to somehow be confirmed, this is just a part of the village of Mikowice and we have nothing to say about it, so WP:NOPAGE would apply. TL;DR - fails verification, GEOLAND, WP:NOPAGE . FOARP ( talk ) 08:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland . FOARP ( talk ) 08:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and to Mikowice, Opole Voivodeship which it is an ""unofficial part of"" per pl wiki. Not in TERYT. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and per Piotrus , Non-notable (at best). -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I've changed the co-ordinates to those specified in the names database here [27] . It now ties in with the OSM place name at [28] . Appears to be one or two dwellings at the end of the road/track from Winniki. Rupples ( talk ) 05:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I am OK with ion to Mikowice, Opole Voivodeship . I don't understand what we are supposed to be merging here since we have - at best - only a feature name with no detail of what it's supposed to be. FOARP ( talk ) 11:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes. Tend to agree with you. Unless something else turns up, all that needs to be said on the Mikowicw page if it is confirmed Pod Jedynką is a hamlet is how far and in what direction Pod Jedynką is from Mikowicw, not what's currently in the article. I'm unsure what the database entry means, since I don't understand Polish — just saw the name and co-ordinates. Perhaps @ Piotrus would take a look at the headings in the spreadsheet to ascertain the meaning? (Pod Jedynką is on row 62981). Rupples ( talk ) 13:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"List of Hockey Night in Canada commentating crews (1990s): These lists are full of trivial WP:LISTCRUFT and are all sourced by YouTube videos or Twitter. I am also nominating these articles for the same reason: List of Hockey Night in Canada commentating crews (1980s) List of Hockey Night in Canada commentating crews (1970s) List of Hockey Night in Canada commentating crews (1960s) Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Update The three articles above have been ed to List of Hockey Night in Canada commentators with the exception of List of Hockey Night in Canada commentating crews (1990s) . Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or to List of Hockey Night in Canada commentators . -- GoodDay ( talk ) 17:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merged please. Khoa41860 ( talk ) 17:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC) 51, 29 January 2024 (UTC) 50, 29 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC) LISTN for a standalone list. Flibirigit ( talk ) 14:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or to List of Hockey Night in Canada commentators , which seems to be the parent list. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Earthsearch Mindwarp: I'm not seeing any RS to consider against the inclusion criteria - not all BBC radio dramas are notable. WP:NOTEVERYTHING WP:NOTPLOT JMWt ( talk ) 08:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and United Kingdom . JMWt ( talk ) 08:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Alternative to deletion . Daranios ( talk ) 11:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to James Follett#Radio , nothing to since the article is unreferenced. -- Mika1h ( talk ) 11:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 14:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Karl Schwegler: I'm not sure simply winning a silver medal in the coxed fours competition is enough to meet WP:ATHLETE , though that may be interpreted differently. TheBritinator ( talk ) 16:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople , Olympics , and Switzerland . TheBritinator ( talk ) 16:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Rowing at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed four at the very least. Geschichte ( talk ) 09:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Has any in-depth search in historical Swiss newspaper archives taken place? If not, then I believe the presumption of significant coverage given to Olympic medalists at WP:NOLYMPICS should stand. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC) Subject lacks WP:SIGCOV . as a WP:ATD . Let'srun ( talk ) 00:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Have you done a search in historical Swiss newspaper archives? If not, then the presumption of significant coverage afforded to Olympic medalists should stand. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Whether or not there is any presumption of coverage, this article still needs to cite an IRS SIGCOV source, and none have been unearthed. JoelleJay ( talk ) 06:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But how can we when no one has even looked in relevant sources? ""Significant coverage is likely to exist"" has to mean something ... BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"WNCR-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC) The article at least claims that there at least was some local programming (a newscast), but that statement has been there since the article's creation, and the only real ""expansion"" since then has been to the usual solely-database-sourced permastub of the type that is finally being rejected in this topic area. Maybe there's more significant coverage out there, but by and large this is another remnant of the looser inclusion ""standards"" of 2006 that no longer warrants anything more than an {{ R to list entry }} as an alternative to deletion . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Atsuko Natsume: UtherSRG (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC) GNG , nothing in my BEFORE. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku . Couldn't find any significant coverage, although some may exist in Japanese sources I was unable to check. Mooonswimmer 15:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC) ATD . 4meter4 ( talk ) 15:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Liuba Dragomir: JTtheOG ( talk ) 02:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Moldova . JTtheOG ( talk ) 02:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC) 42, 24 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 20:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per nom. Svartner ( talk ) 22:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC) GNG. Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Cabin Fever Media: ~ T P W 14:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC) A primary-sourced article on a musician's business providing graphic design for his own and others' projects. No evidence provided or found to demonstrate attained notability in its own right. A is an option , though it is worth noting similarly-named companies in Australia and the US. AllyD ( talk ) 08:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I don't think ing to Sundin's article is a good idea, given the existence of other companies with similar names. As for this one, it does not meet the requirements at WP:NCOMPANY due to a lack of independent coverage of its history and operations. It can be mentioned briefly at Sundin's article. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Niklas Sundin per above. Subject is not notable apart from target. Unneeded CFORK, only serves to make readers chase links. // Timothy :: talk 06:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Niklas Sundin per ATD, this topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing ++ 17:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd be happy with a to Niklas Sundin . Don't believe it meets the requirements at WP:NCOMPANY due to a lack of independent coverage, to remain a standalone article. Equine-man ( talk ) 09:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Magicite: The reviewers at Capsule Computers (the only non-primary source used in the article) don't seem to have much in the way of credentials, so I don't think that that review can be used for notability. QuietCicada ( talk ) 23:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . QuietCicada ( talk ) 23:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Restore to Final Fantasy from 2014. As nom states, it has insufficient significant coverage, despite the lengthy Rock Paper Shotgun article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series - it seems like the concept of magicite is addressed there. Game is patently non-notable and lacks secondary coverage. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 09:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm not sure that ing to Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series is the best option as that article is also at AFD right now. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series . I don't agree it's a bad option since it looks like the AFD discussion there is a WP:SNOWBALL towards . BrigadierG ( talk ) 22:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series . Not notable on its own. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series . The consensus for the AFD there seems to be reaching , so I don't think there's a problem there. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"PSKBS Kuta Binjai: The club existed but sources didn't show that this club passes WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS . Sources shown the games that the team played, but no in-depth coverage of this team. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Football , and Indonesia . ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Aceh the town the club is in, needs a sports section on that article. I don't see much notability for such a young football club. Someway off from being independently notable. Govvy ( talk ) 10:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Hmm, What town is this club actually in? I just realised that Aceh is a massive area. Govvy ( talk ) 19:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to East Aceh Regency , more accurate than the suggested above. Giant Snowman 18:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"DYHH: Can be ed to Bantay Radyo . MarioGom ( talk ) 19:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines . MarioGom ( talk ) 19:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC) All the sources in the article are reliable. The first two sources state that the station is licensed. Source 3 ) talks about the station's updates. The rest of the sources talk about the station under its former ownership. That said, though the station is off the air since 2015, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG . ASTIG 😎 🙃 13:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Here's my source assessment: Created with templates {{ ORGCRIT assess table }} and {{ ORGCRIT assess }} This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT CEBU BROADCAST STATIONS 2021 NTC AM Stations Bantay Radyo moves to new home Nadela: Bangon Tipolo, mga hinabang gipaabot – WP:RSOPINION Bangon, mga Kauban DYSB 864 kHz San Miguel Broadcasting Corp. Yes, there are some reliable sources, but that is not sufficient to pass WP:GNG . For example, the first two sources are mere records (not significant coverage ) and are primary sources . The third is not about DYHH specifically but about Bantay Radyo . It is only a passing mention, one sentence, about DYHH . For DYHH to pass WP:GNG , it requires multiple independent, secondary and reliable sources with significant coverage. That significant coverage needs to be specific about DYHH, because notability is not inherited. MarioGom ( talk ) 22:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC) GNG per Astig's argument. Sources mentioned are reliable enough and secondary, with the ones mentioned by Astig in-depth IMV. SBKSPP ( talk ) 23:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Nothing found with SIGCOV that would support a stand alone article. Name mentions, promo, database listings, are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. per nom as an WP:ATD. // Timothy :: talk 04:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC) N criteria. Left guide ( talk ) 10:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"The Tower (Dubai): Basically impossible to search for sources due to the generic title. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So it actually exists under this name [17] , and also Union Properties Tower . I suggest a to Union Properties PJSC . I have just created a similar for its alternate name, if the article ends up kept it should be updated. — siro χ o 21:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC) NOTDIR . I suspect if I were to clean it up it would no longer mention the project, but I guess until that happens a there would make sense. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and United Arab Emirates . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC) 34, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Fernand Gandaho: Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 02:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Cycling , and Africa . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 02:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] upon research, the only thing I can find of him is some reference websites that briefly mention his one year at the Olympics, and one interview of him about him that isn't even about him cycling. Heart (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC) IAR Jack4576 ( talk ) 09:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC) BIO is not met. Being African is not a criterion for notability. LibStar ( talk ) 09:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Benin at the 1992 Summer Olympics . I couldn't find sources to show notability. Suonii180 ( talk ) 17:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment His full name is Fernand Coffi Gandaho, perhaps something could be found with this more precise search? Kingsif ( talk ) 20:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Cycling at the 1992 Summer Olympics – Men's individual road race or Benin at the 1992 Summer Olympics . Seacactus 13 ( talk ) 22:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Benin at the 1992 Summer Olympics . BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Single source in article is not SIGCOV, votes provide no sources. WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). No objection to Cycling at the 1992 Summer Olympics – Men's individual road race as target. // Timothy :: talk 21:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Cycling at the 1992 Summer Olympics – Men's individual road race . Non-notable athlete only competed in the road race event. Paulpat99 ( talk ) 03:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Fictional geography: Clarityfiend ( talk ) 03:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , or to Fantasy cartography . All the info in Fictional geography should be (and most or all already is) in Worldbuilding and/or Fantasy cartography . Mark in wiki ( talk ) 06:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Fantasy cartography , per",redirect
+"Holley Motor Car: JMWt ( talk ) 19:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Retain as there are independent sources about the article subject, though it was originally poorly written. I'm going to rewrite it within the next few days. AriTheHorse 19:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC) 03, 19 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pennsylvania . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm disagreeing with myself. All of the relevant contents of this article, except for a small description of their first car, is contained within Holley Performance Products . Agree that this one should be d. AriTheHorse 03:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] AriTheHorse , if you no longer hold an opinion that you've bolded, then please strike it out like this . Thank you. L iz Read! Talk! 05:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the tip!, will do. AriTheHorse 05:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Holley Performance Products . The car manufacturer is more or less a predecessor of that firm, and such information is worthy of inclusion there. -- Sable232 ( talk ) 02:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC) 48, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Potential breakup of the United Kingdom: Look, it's possible that the UK may ""break up"" in some fashion. Until it happens, all is speculation. Yes, it's not quite as bad as Second American Revolution ( d ) and Second American Civil War (also d ) were, if only due to the lack of a catchphrase that helps stoke up the alarmism. But it's still the kind of speculative analysis article that policy rags publish and we do not. Mangoe ( talk ) 03:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I read the Second American Civil War article in full a couple times for that AFD. I've skimmed this one quickly once so far. But I can already tell, this article is much better than that one was. It has problems but may be salvageable in some way. I am not sure yet. (Note I skimmed Second American Revolution as well, and bad as it was, it was ""just"" a COATRACK and that discussion probably doesn't share as much with this one.) — siro χ o 05:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Siroxo, you are correct that this page looks better, but that is because it is constructed largely from text copy-pasted from other articles. You can select sentences, google them, and find the source Wikipedia pages. For instance, the first line of the devolution section is on Royal Commission on the Constitution (United Kingdom) , and that section also has copy pastes from Welsh devolution . Much of the original page was created in this properly flagged copywithin: [56] from Formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . The history information is found all over the place. If this page is d, none of this information will be lost. It is all on better targetted articles. It brings together many sources talking about all the aspects covered, but where those sources don't talk about the break up, there is likely to be synthesis. There are, however, references to speculation in a newspapers, and a think tank or two. It is not that no-one has speculated about such a breakup. In the wake of Brexit it was clear that many people spoke about it, and the page creator could certainly argue that this establishes notability for the subject. The reason I think this should be d, however, is that the presentation here is speculative, prone to synthesis, and unencyclopaedic. The subject is treated encyclopaedically on other pages. It is not that no-one has spoken about the breakup - it is that this is not, in my view, the best way to present the material in an encyclopaedia. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 09:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've gotten a chance to read it deeper and I tend to agree. For now, because I don't think history needs to be scrubbed the way it did for Second American Civil War , I will take your analysis and suggest a to consensus to Formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland#The ""disuniting"" of the United Kingdom . I am open to changing my mind. — siro χ o 09:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't oppose a , but have been considering the best target. I think I will agree with suggestions below that the be to Separatism in the United Kingdom if closed as . The one you suggest is perfectly good too, but ing to a section has a risk that the section could be removed. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 18:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I support a to that target as well. — siro χ o 21:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As a one-time contributor to this article. It fails to meet WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:CRYSTALBALL . Cambial — foliar❧ 09:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC) SYNTH and WP:CRYSTALBALL territory, as well as majorly cut-and-paste by other editors, and have been unhappy with it since for it to bear my name. I did see ""Breakup of the UK"" used in news, but it slowly became clear later that is was more of a clickbait title used for Scottish independence, rather than a fully a topic on its own. Initially gave up on the draft, until it was found by someone else. Everything else, quickly went to synth unfortunately, and discussions on hypotheticals ensued on its talk. Too large to re-write. And if anything is eventually discussed significantly on the topic, WP:TNT can apply. Dank Jae 10:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Separatism in the United Kingdom which is effectively an index article to all the actually notable articles in this topic area. The target could do with more prose and anything actually verifiable could be d there. Thryduulf ( talk ) 12:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm less keen about s than most, but this does make sense as an alternative. Mangoe ( talk ) 02:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support to Separatism in the United Kingdom . This event hasn't happened, and WP cannot predict' it happening, however there are separatist movements afoot in the U.K. Like how there are in Spain (with Catalonia), or France (with Basque) etc. CaribDigita ( talk ) 18:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Separatism in the United Kingdom . Seems like a reasonable suggestion. This is a fairly plausible search term, and some its s in turn (e.g. Breakup of the United Kingdom and Dissolution of the United Kingdom ) are even more so. TompaDompa ( talk ) 20:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as we're equally distributed between ! votes and ! votes Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 00:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Thryduulf . 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as indicated above, I suggested , but am content with a . I have therefore struck my and replacing it with explicit to Separatism in the United Kingdom . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Separatism in the United Kingdom , would also tolerate ing here, per reasons stated above, changing from originally . While also stated above, Formation of the United Kingdom has such a section on this topic, it technically does not fit with the title of the article ( formation exclusively), so there's a risk of removal, unless it is renamed to ""Territorial evolution"" like all the others. Dank Jae 13:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC) Hypothetical partition of Belgium exists. Potential enlargement of the European Union exists. United Ireland exists. Unification of Moldova and Romania exists. Greater Netherlands exists. Etc. Just because a political idea or potential future event is not a reality (yet), doesn't mean there can't be an article about it. It just needs to meet WP:GNG and not be full of WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL etc. You know the drill. I do not see nominator invoking any kind of policy other than an implicit WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT . Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 22:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC) OTHERSTUFF . Policy arguments for deletion have been given above. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 22:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] True, but I'm saying that in order to argue that I don't think an article like Hypothetical partition of Belgium would be d because it has been so openly and widely discussed for decades, with its zenith in 2006/2007 with the mockumentary Bye Bye Belgium and subsequent political crisis, where at one point an opinion poll had 49% of Flemings say they wouldn't mind if the country broke up. Given the Scottish Indyref of 2014, the divisiveness of Brexit, the ever-present rhetoric by the SNP (often backed by others) of holding a second Indyref now that Scotland (which voted 61% Remain), plus the apparent increase in opinions favouring a United Ireland (which was likely to happen demographically anyway, but shifted faster due to the Brexit and the Irish border issues), there has been virtual nonstop public debate on a potential breakup of the UK since 2013. Rewrite? Yeah. Delete? Nah, mate. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 23:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"2024 Sumedang tornado: Hey Cutlass , honestly, I would withdraw the AfD and then just do an instant to Tornadoes of 2024#February 21 (Indonesia) . The AfD is just too-long of a process (since it is a seven-day process) for this and a BOLD is what I would have done. So, unless you feel we need seven days for this discussion, just withdraw and BOLD it. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 01:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - The event didnt even cause any deaths, something that automatically makes it near unimportant unless it causes hundreds of injuries. Lukt64 ( talk ) 02:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The one thing thats sure is notable about this tornado is that it occured in Indonesia, a tropical country located in the equator, which doesn't get affected by the Coriolis force , So a tornado with this magnitude shouldn't exist in Indonesia, yet it did, I feel like we should the article because of this one fact, I think this is notable enough. SomeoneWiki04 ( talk ) 04:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not for us to decide. If academic journals start publishing articles about this, then we can talk about it. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 04:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Environment , and Indonesia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . An event being in the news does not make it notable. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 04:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It being in the news is not what made it notable, Like I said before, I feel like it occuring in Indonesia is what made it notable, Take a look at the Port Orchard tornado , It didn't even cause any casualties, it might even deal even less damage than the Sumedang tornado, but it has an article nonetheless, because its rare, My opinion is to probably just make it a at minimum. SomeoneWiki04 ( talk ) 13:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But why is high casualities 200 homes damaged? 50 people injured? Great achievement ( talk ) 07:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and into Tornadoes of 2024#February 21 (Indonesia) . Not enough information (yet) for having its own article. 82.174.61.58 ( talk ) 15:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Does not meet GNC criteria, obviously. Cinadon 36 16:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] for now, but in the future, such an article could be d to a country tornado list. I have started Draft:List of Indonesia tornadoes , and based on List of tornadoes and tornado outbreaks in Asia , there appear to be enough tornadoes for there to be a list. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC) 53, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] a weather event with no deaths, also fails GNG. LibStar ( talk ) 03:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC) Nothing to suggest standalone notability. Owen× ☎ 00:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Anna.aero: As this has been in CAT:NN for 14 years , I really hope we can now get this resolved. It exists, but I couldn't find that sources to show it meets WP:N. Boleyn ( talk ) 05:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC) RS , but there isn't much coverage on the publication itself. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 ( talk ) 07:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 13:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Defunct website, with little notability found per the sources used. I don't find mentions of them beyond passing mentions. I'd be ok with a selective ! into the same article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"The Catch Up (British TV programme): There are no reliable sources or references included to make this TV programme worthy of an article. Possibly link this article to BBC News (at a push). Funky Snack ( Talk | Contribs ) 22:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion . I did not find enough coverage for the subject to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline . The best source is a Broadcast article that provides significant coverage about the subject. A second source that provides significant coverage would make the subject is notable but I could not find one. There is enough coverage to support a to BBC News#2020s . Here are some sources I found about the subject: Kahn, Ellie (2022-01-31). ""BBC3 preps 'shareable' news bulletin"" . Broadcast . ProQuest 2624210115 . Archived from the original on 2024-05-16 . Retrieved 2024-05-16 . The article notes: ""BBC3 is to return to news with a bulletin designed to provide young viewers with shareable stories, supported by comprehensive context. Launch editor Amanda Goodman has revealed that the biggest challenge for The Catch Up is getting its 16-24 target audience to engage, when many feel that “the BBC can often feel like it’s for other people, rather than them”. To overcome this, The Catch Up will clearly set out why stories matter and include extra information and value that they won’t get elsewhere. ... The Catch Up launches tomorrow in line with the channel relaunch as a 3-4 minute bulletin covering news, entertainment, sport, ‘good’ news and quirky or viral stories. A single presenter will front each programme, with the rotating team of three comprising Levi Jouavel, Kirsty Grant and Callum Tulley, who have joined the BBC via apprenticeship or journalism schemes. ... Produced by BBC News, the Catch Up will air live once per weekday between 7-9pm, with its slot varying according to each night’s schedule. Each show will be available on iPlayer after TX."" Bryan, Scott (2022-02-02). "" 'The whole launch show is a pre-record': we watched BBC Three's return to TV – so you didn't have to"" . The Guardian . Archived from the original on 2024-05-16 . Retrieved 2024-05-16 . The article notes: ""The Catch Up (7.55pm). RIP 60 Seconds. BBC Three’s old bulletins were someone reading the headlines as if their lives depended on it, while a lit stick of dynamite on screen flashed from left to right. The new bulletin, tonight hosted by Levi Jouavel, is longer (180 seconds!) and thankfully more informative. No more news reports that were essentially: “Happy happy sad sad terrible tragedy sad hot celebrity bye!”"" A with the history preserved under the will allow editors to selectively any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A with the history preserved under the will allow the to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard ( talk ) 09:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"RanoGaz Company - LPG: Refs are not about the company, rather about people complaining about the high price of gas. Fails WP:GNG . There remains a draft ( Draft:RanoGaz Company - LPG ) which has had several reviews but remain unapproved. This new version appears to be an attempt to avoid review. Velella Velella Talk 21:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions . Velella Velella Talk 21:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to AA_Rano_Industries#Subsidiaries . Lacks individual sigcov to meet WP:NCORP . ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 14:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to AA_Rano_Industries#Subsidiaries . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Glow Up: Britain's Next Make-Up Star (series 4): Star Mississippi 22:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom . Star Mississippi 22:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC) Britain's Next Make-Up Star#Series 4 (2022) . Fails GNG, sources found are primary, listings, and promo. // Timothy :: talk 16:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Britain's Next Make-Up Star#Series_4_(2022) : no sources to support a standalone article about Series 4. Owen× ☎ 01:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Phantom Steve / talk ¦ contribs \ 08:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Southern Pacific 7551: Subject is not inherently notable and what notability exists is in the context of a subject already covered in the disaster article. I would also be content with a to . Pbritti ( talk ) 06:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology , Transportation , and California . Pbritti ( talk ) 06:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I would recommend ing it. Because, it wasn't just involved in a wreck. It was actually the first locomotive on SP to sport the Kodachrome livery, which is what makes the locomotive notable for. 27.33.233.138 ( talk ) 06:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC) — 27.33.233.138 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] If it is first locomotive on SP to sport the Kodachrome livery, (which is what makes the locomotive notable for), then there's no reason to the article. 27.33.233.138 ( talk ) 06:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC) 37, 12 November 2023 (UTC) Neither involvement in a wreck nor being the first locomotive in a specific paint scheme come anywhere close to notability. 27.33.233.138, you need to stop creating articles about individual locomotives. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 06:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I agree with Pi.1415926535. Mackensen (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC) Well, I am agreeing with the editors about the subject. As Pbritti stated, the article wasn't completely encyclopedic such as using cardinals as in the text May 12th, 1989 and that context of the mentioned article already exists in another. Toadette ( let's chat together ) 16:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I cautioned the author that this locomotive wasn't notable when I reviewed the draft a month ago, and their response was to essentially REFBOMB with a ton of sources that only have passing mentions. Essentially, if it came up at all in google books, it went in as a ref. This makes the article appear notable from a superficial glance (presumably how it got past an AfC reviewer), but closer inspection reveals this is not the case. ""It was the first locomotive to have this new paint scheme"" is completely irrelevant and means nothing for Wikipedia notability. I echo Pi's comments - some of the preserved steam locomotive articles they create have been fine, and I accepted one myself, but diesels are much less likely to be individually notable outside their class. Nobody is denying the locomotive existed, but it completely fails notability guidelines. Being present in an accident doesn't make the locomotive notable, because notability is not inherited. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 21:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to EMD SD45R#Accidents and incidents , where the accident involving this locomotive is mentioned, and selectively content to provide more detail on the accident. I doubt that the individual locomotive is notable based on the sources I can see (I frankly don't see WP:SIGCOV of the locomotive itself from multiple independent RS), but I do think that ing to the place where it's mentioned on-wiki would be reasonable. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If a -to- is the ultimate outcome, I agree with RTH that this is the best target. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 05:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] San Bernardino train disaster would be a better target. I've just removed that section from the EMD SD45R article - just like with automobiles, incidents that happen to involve individual locomotives are generally not relevant to the class. (Unless the incidents were specifically related to the class, like EMD SDP40F#Derailments , but that's not the case here.) Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 05:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That would also work for me as a / target. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and Salt so there can be no manipulative attempts at resurrection. TarnishedPath talk 08:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Godzilla Trading Battle: Searches in either English or Japanese only yielded trivial mentions or entry on websites of its fans. Lacks enough coverage from IS to pass WP:GNG . Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 15:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan . Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 15:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Note that I already found this review and it's really hard to believe there is nothing about it in Japanese language print sources given it was a Godzilla franchise game. So there is probably something else out there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've checked Newspapers.com and the company's website [1] but there is nothing about the game. Timur9008 ( talk ) 10:05, May 28, 2023 (UTC) Fails WP:GNG. It exists, but it's certainly not notable, to the point where none of the companies involved (Toho/U/Tao) have ever showcased the game on their website or elsewhere. Outside of that, and apart from a short interview from one of the game's illustrators, I could not find anything substantial, both for the game's translated and original title. Toyota Impreza ( talk ) 14:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC) Given that its existence can be confirmed by reliable sources, a deletion wouldn't be proper. At the very least it would merit a to List of Godzilla games . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Godzilla games . Unable to find any further sources - no prejudice towards recreation if sources are found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Godzilla games . Fails GNG, only source isn’t reliable, appears to be a forum type site. - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌) 🔥 01:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Pretoria Wireless Users Group: Virtually all the news about this organization comes from 'mybroadband.co.za', a rather niche trade publication focused on broadband which does not appear in the searches. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 04:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and South Africa . Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 04:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to South African wireless community networks as ATD. There is a plausible claim of notability in the article but I can’t find sources to support it. Mccapra ( talk ) 11:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC) Per ATD. Can be expanded in future if needed from the history preserved under . The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 05:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"ARIA Country Album Chart: I suggest merging this to the article ARIA Charts . Ippantekina ( talk ) 03:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Popular culture . Ippantekina ( talk ) 03:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Country music is just as popular in Australia as it is in the US; sources could be used for the longest-runners part, but you clearly can't dismiss this as a 'niche' chart in the discussion of music in Oz and its otherwise a finely-sourced article you'd expect about a domestic chart. Nate • ( chatter ) 21:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC) We don't even have an article for the all-genre album chart ARIA Albums Chart (which is a to ARIA Charts ) let alone a genre-specific chart. . I never argued that country music was not popular in Australia, my argument is that if the only references used are from ARIA itself and not other third-party sources, it is not notable. Ippantekina ( talk ) 02:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Got a point, ARIA sources are considered primary, article needs sources independent from the subject. dxneo ( talk ) 04:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC) 04, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Ippantekina - the sourcing's pretty scanty. Not sure what's in there of significance to ... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 09:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , complete lack of SIGCOV. All mentions are for an individual artists' performance on the chart. Mach61 ( talk ) 00:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"John Murphy (1900s footballer): * Pppery * it has begun... 21:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and England . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 21:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Bradford City A.F.C. players (1–49 league appearances) - firstly, the claim that there was ""general agreement"" at the RM mentioned by the nominator is misleading at best; one user said ""I'm not sure if this player is even notable with just one appearance but that can be discussed separately"" and that's it. Secondly, at the RM I suggested a , and that seems the most sensible ATD. If the nominator had taken the time to consider that then we could have saved a lot of time with this AFD. Giant Snowman 21:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There was also Govvy's comment Close and No point in a . I'm more in line with Govvy's thinking - the title is both ambiguous and not a likely search term so a deletion is IMO better than a . * Pppery * it has begun... 22:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Supporting per GiantSnowman and what I said on that RM in December 2023, where the quoted text is used above. Iggy ( Swan ) ( Contribs ) 21:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per above. Svartner ( talk ) 14:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. I'm tempted just to vote , though, given that he made exactly one appearance. Anwegmann ( talk ) 03:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Ah Pak: This is an important figure only in regards to their role in the Ningpo Massacre , so I recommend to per WP:NOPAGE . SilverStar54 ( talk ) 08:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and China . SilverStar54 ( talk ) 08:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Portugal . Curbon7 ( talk ) 08:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Idk if relisting is required in this sort of circumstance, but given that this is (at least in my opinion) a non-notable article, there might not be any other editors interested in commenting. SilverStar54 ( talk ) 05:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Ningpo Massacre where he is mentioned. Mccapra ( talk ) 07:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Eugene Concrete: I can only find mentions in passing in Korean of this company (e.g. [20] ). The parent company Eugene Group is notable though. toobigtokale ( talk ) 03:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and South Korea . toobigtokale ( talk ) 03:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Eugene Group , where it is listed as a subsidiary. ✗ plicit 05:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Owczarki, Pomeranian Voivodeship: There is nothing at the location in the article . The 2015 Polish regulation on place-names lists this as część wsi Lubiszewo Tczewskie (part of Lubiszewo Tczewskie , which we have an article for), so not a settlement (which would be an osada ). There is no evidence that anyone ever lived here - indeed there is no evidence that any human being ever confirmed this place was anything more than a point on the map before turning it into an article on English-language Wikipedia. On the same day that Kotbot generated this page, it generated 2,349 other Polish location articles . I don't think it makes any sense to this to Lubiszewo Tczewskie, since it is simply a location name for which we have no information at all and which that page will have no information on at all. TL;DR - fails WP:GEOLAND , WP:GNG , WP:IINFO and WP:V . FOARP ( talk ) 10:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland . FOARP ( talk ) 10:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] for all the reasons given in the TL;DR above. If this user really created over 2000 low-effort pages in a day, I'm tempted to say we should procedurally them all, but I don't know if we have a policy for that and perhaps a few of them have been expanded into usable articles by other users. What a mess. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sadly, Kotbot created many more articles like this. The ones I've been picking up over the last few days were found simply by looking at the places where GMaps has place-names for places in Poland where there is nothing there: we've been spamming GMaps with non-existent places. FOARP ( talk ) 16:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ FOARP Where are those GPS coordinates even sourced from? Pl wiki is inclusionist so I expect they may their articles even if we it. Ditto for Wikidata. If we have fake coordinates, we need to clean up more than just en wiki. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But we do have to start somewhere if we are ever going to clean up these non-existent places that are found throughout rural Poland. FOARP ( talk ) 07:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . I think hamlets meet GEOLAND. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But it's not obviously or necessarily a hamlet? The register lists it only as a part of another settlement, not necessarily anywhere that people lived. Many state farms, railway settlements, forestry offices, etc. got added to the register and stayed on there after the end of the communist era. And even if it were a hamlet, WP:NOPAGE is pretty clear on what happens to pages for which we have no real information at all. This is a failed verification since there just isn't anything at the location. FOARP ( talk ) 07:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ Piotrus , you asked to be pinged on articles that were część wsi with a target - here it would be Lubiszewo Tczewskie . FOARP ( talk ) 15:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Right, here I missed TERYT query - it is indeed just a part of a village. , mention there, that's enough. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Our A-Story Is a 'D' Story: Tagged for notability since 2019. A BEFORE yielded zero reliable and independent reviews. This episode is already covered in BoJack Horseman (season 1) , so a may be a viable WP:ATD . Donald D23 talk to me 22:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Comics and animation , and United States of America . Donald D23 talk to me 22:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. 174.27.4.51 ( talk ) 02:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] seems fine, I can't see any sourcing showing this episode is notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC) 26, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to BoJack Horseman (season 1) . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 03:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Battle of Kolhapur: I think this may be WP:citogenesis , so please ensure any sources you find pre-date 2006, the original publication date of this article . The battle itself may have happened (just not as ""Battle of Kolhapur""), in which case we could write about it on Battles involving the Maratha Empire , provided, again, that we can find pre-2006 sources. asilvering ( talk ) 18:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , History , Military , India , and Maharashtra . asilvering ( talk ) 18:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also check the sources that the editors will use in future. Because many sources used Wikipedia as a reference such as 'Maratha generals and their personalities'. Ajayraj890 ( talk ) 18:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here's a source (PhD Dissertation) that doesn't seem to mention this, despite covering the period. I may have missed something tho so I'm still not sure. [7] . — siro χ o 03:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC) While this discussion appears to have no quorum , it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was Speedy Keep. Previous discussions : 2015-04 (closed as ✓ Speedy Keep) -- Cewbot ( talk ) 00:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Sarkar, Jadunath (1920). Shivaji and his times . London ; New York : Longmans, Green. pp. 262–263. mentions fighting between Shivaji and the combined forces of Rustam Zaman and Fazl Khan near Panhala in late 1659 or early 1660, which is consistent with the article, although it does not corroborate the article's details regarding force compositions or tactics. Sardesai Govind Sakharam (1946). New History Of The Marathas Vol-i 1600-1707 (1946) . B. G. Dhawale, Bombay. p. 131. has similar details and gives the date (28 December 1659) that's in the article. Jfire ( talk ) 21:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC) //archive.org/details/ShivajiSouvenir Page no 164 does not mention a battle at Kolhapur in 28th December 1629. It is removed now. Ajayraj890 ( talk ) 05:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jfire , how this sources can be used? These sources doesn't provide enough context as it is shown in the article. The date is missing, the details of infobox is missing and what makes it more questionable is, the infobox had 'strength' parameter with some random numbers recently. From where did those information came? I don't think this article should be in mainspace since the details about this event is very less in reliable sources. Also I remind you that to not cite sources which was published after the creation of the article. Ajayraj890 ( talk ) 05:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Both of these sources are many decades before the creation of the article, but obviously they don't corroborate the details regarding force compositions or tactics. Unless there are reliable sources for those, I believe the best course of action is to and to Shivaji#Siege of Panhala as suggested by User:Jeraxmoira . Jfire ( talk ) 20:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC) By looking at Shivaji , I see that the Battle of Kolhapur comes under the Siege of Panhala [8] . This article can be ed and expanded under Siege of Panhala due to lack of sources/verifiability or it can be renamed and copyedited to match the sources. Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 09:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This independent blog covers the events happened on 10 November 1659 to 28 December 1659 and others [9] . Source doesn't look like WP:CITOGEN Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 09:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Shivaji#Siege of Panhala as suggested above. Not every military engagement is notable and this clearly lacks WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS, I don't see anything that can be d due to sourcing and vague wording about details that a milhist article should have. Ping me if verifiable sources with SIGCOV are found. // Timothy :: talk 20:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"The Yard (podcast): It's been ed to Ludwig Ahgren a few times so it's probably good to get consensus on what to do with it at this point. BuySomeApples ( talk ) 00:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC) The first Esports Insider is a RS per sourcetool, but it's not about this podcast. I don't find any other mentions of this. I don't think a to the Ludwig person is warranted, the podcast seems to have a few other individuals involved with it. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games , Entertainment , Internet , and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC) I added most of the sourcing after the article had been created, and admittedly there aren't any great secondary sources one could point to. I think podcasts of its size should generally have an article, but the lack of references certainly makes it hard. Regarding what Oaktree b said, the three other hosts are his friends/former roommates and all work for Ludwigs production company and unlikely to ever get their own articles, so a and section in his article should be fine in that regard (at least better than nothing at all). Coverage of influencers has improved over the years, but their side-projects are still lacking, even if they are the same size as something like Chapo . -- jonas ( talk ) 11:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirct to Ludwig Ahgren . When looking for sources I'm not finding much more than social media . Whenever I see a list of guests like the one currently in the article I normally blank it and the show does not WP:INHERIT notability fron its guests. Also, YouTube is not a reliable source and that currently makes up the majority of the cited sources. TipsyElephant ( talk ) 12:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The YouTube sources are links to episodes where the guests have appeared. Arnar with rn ( talk ) 14:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Ludwig Ahgren . per above. Idiosincrático ( talk ) 10:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Rashid Hanif: fails GNG. X ( talk ) 00:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Cricket , and Bangladesh . X ( talk ) 00:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Non-notable cricket player with very few reliable sources on him. Fails WP:GNG FatCat96 ( talk ) 00:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Non-notable cricket player. Citadeol (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC) GNG and the updated WP:NCRIC however there is clearly a suitable here per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Coco Moon: To quote my reasoning from before: Outside of charting, this page sources only to the band's social media and press releases from the site PMStudio, which I believe to be a wholly unreliable source. I found no other coverage for this record, and the charting alone is insufficient to meet WP:NALBUM . As it stands, the article has not changed since then aside from a couple adjusted time stamps. I still stand by PMStudio being unreliable and even brought up a query about it here . My vote is to restore the I made earlier, though if anyone wants to take what's here and expand the prose in Owl City#2022–present: Return of Owl City and Coco Moon then that would be an even better target. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 05:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Minnesota . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 05:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC) Return of Owl City and Coco Moon (for the time being), and only bring back once professional reviews come in. (Coincidentally, I was looking up their 2009 one-hit wonder "" Fireflies "" on a whim yesterday evening!) -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 09:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC) That being said, what is the likelihood of using these sources? https://www.easyrock.com.ph/news/owl-city-announces-new-album-coco-moon/ https://www.argusleader.com/story/opinion/voices/2023/03/27/owl-city-wrote-a-6-minute-song-about-rapid-city-south-dakota-dinosaur-park-skyline-drive-coco-moon/70051769007/ https://news3lv.com/news/local/owl-city-to-perform-at-brooklyn-bowl-in-las-vegas-this-fall-nevada-tickets-on-sale-friday-augustana-fireflies-you-would-not-believe-your-eyes-october-6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shout4Serenity ( talk • contribs ) 06:46, April 14, 2023 (UTC) The first and third links are both based on press releases so are essentially WP:PRIMARY . That's the same issue as with PMStudio. The Argus Leader article, however, looks to be quite useful. Good find. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 10:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That Argus Leader is the only review I can find. Is one review enough for MUSIC? Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Assuming you're talking about the article linked above, that's about just one song and hardly mentions the album beyond the one track. And generally, I've seen a lot of albums with single reviews from much more notable publications (especially AllMusic) die in AfDs, so I'm gonna say no. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 18:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC) 54, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC) ATD-R means ing is preferred so the vote can essentially be substituted with a vote as well or however that works (or @ Oaktree b could just throw explicit support behind ing as an option). As for the target, Owl City discography#Studio albums might be the better of the two since it already also mentions the album charting and users can navigate more quickly to other releases from there. It is also worth noting that no new coverage appears to have come in for this album and it is now nearly a month old so I doubt any more reviews will be cropping up. Unless it hits a sudden sales spike and charts far more impressively, or makes a bunch of mid-year best albums lists in a few weeks, I don't see this reaching notability anytime soon. Keepability seems like a complete non-question to me, regardless of what other option we end up with. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 12:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm not opposed to a . Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC) I have found a recent source talking about Owl City's new album Coco Moon . I have added it in the article for now, however, I am unsure if its still sufficient to the page around, but I'll leave the link here in case anyone wants to review it. https://popcrush.com/owl-city-the-tornado-screamo-reactions/ Shout4Serenity ( talk ) 22:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Owl City discography fails GNG for a stand alone article. // Timothy :: talk 04:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Christine Dawood: Refs are profiles, WP:SPS sources and PR. UPE. scope_creep Talk 08:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women , Germany , and United Kingdom . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Shahzada Dawood § Personal life . Not finding SIGCOV, but a is appropriate. House Blaster talk 23:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC) //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)) , which doesn't state that you can't have a wikipedia page if you are not a published author. Her page has over hundreds and thousands of views, shouldn't that be a reason to this? The idea for Wikipedia is to give public access of knowledge to all. If people are looking for Christine and finding it helpful, it serves the purpose. I find it baseless to . Inthejungle32 ( talk ) 18:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC) SPA likely a WP:UPE sent in by the agency to save this dreadful article. scope_creep Talk 18:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Information about what? There is more information on her husband's death than about her. I""m not sure why people would be looking for her on wikipedia. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC) 25, 19 December 2023 (UTC) 41, 16 December 2023 (UTC) Outside of her husband's death, there is nothing about her. I can't find any mentions of her that aren't in relation to her husband; her career seems rather routine/non-notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC) THREE sources that satisfy notability guidelines stated above, please ping. The reasoning for """" stated above is not convincing. ~ Tails Wx 16:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Squat dance: The article is complete bullshit synthesized from verifiable pieces, so that to a Westerner it looks plausible. But any Ukrainian or Russian person will at once see it is full of nonsense, and the stack of hatnotes says it all. This is not to say that the pictures do display ""squat dancing"", but it is not a separate dance, but a dance move present in numerous Ukrainian and Russian dances, and it does deserve its own article. But not this one. Repeating, this text must be nuked, at least because the refs cited are either non-verifiable or dubious, or outright hilarious, such as this one . - Altenmann >talk 03:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance , Russia , and Ukraine . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] P.S. I started writing a normal article on the dance move, "" Prisiadki "". You are welcome to help, but please do not use/copy dubious references from Squat dance . If they were of any value, I would have used them myself. - Altenmann >talk 06:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You've taken a much better route than the two people before you who attempted to rewrite the article, but I think that people would not have objected to your rewrite, and an accompanying rename, as they did to those other two rewrites, which were qualitatively different. That said, clearly the right answer is just ing, as even an OUP encyclopaedia ( Cohen 1998 , p. 357) harv error: no target: CITEREFCohen1998 ( help ) uses the informal name ""Russian squat dance"" for ""prisiadka"", and I found several other university press books that employ the informal names, ""prisiadku (squat dance)"" in one from MQUP (apparently Marina Swoboda's translation note on Pavel Svinyin 's original), for example. I can tease Drmies a bit by pointing out that we have good academic sources ( Leingang 2021 , p. 66) harv error: no target: CITEREFLeingang2021 ( help ) for an in popular culture sentence: The impossibility of the protagonist performing a prisiadka in a barynya was apparently the climax of Boris Polevoi 's ( Boris Polevoy ) The Story of a Real Man . The book is culture, Drmies , and it was popular. Leingang 2021 , pp. 63–68 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLeingang2021 ( help ) looks like a source for that dangling hyperlink, by the way. Uncle G ( talk ) 08:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Disabled Veterans in (Post-)Soviet Literature"". In Grayson, Erik; Scheurer, Maren (eds.). Amputation in Literature and Film: Artificial Limbs, Prosthetic Relations, and the Semiotics of ""Loss"" . Literary Disability Studies. Springer Nature. pp. 61–83. doi : 10.1007/978-3-030-74377-2_4 . ISBN 9783030743772 . There is no such thing as ""Russian squat dance "", there is a dance move prisiadki (used in many dances), which term has no proper native English equivalent, just as reel or kathakali have no native Russian words. Meaning whoever uses the term ""RSqD"" has low choreographic expertise. It is like calling Suzie Q a dance. - Altenmann >talk 11:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC) 26, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Uncle G , there's actually a real uncle who's an expert at that type of dancing: Uncle Sandro . You should read about his death-defying move that lands him right in front of Uncle Joe . Drmies ( talk ) 13:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC) 12, 8 November 2023 (UTC) 33, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What's weird? My comment said nothing whatsoever about whether 'squat dance' was mentioned in the prisiadki article. Only that squat dance should to that article rather than simple deletion as you have proposed. older ≠ wiser 16:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The weird part is about ""elitist snobbery"", which I read as an insult, but I am thick-skinned, so I shrugged it off as ""weird"". And I propose to ""nuke"", not ""simple deletion"". As far as I understand, articles are nuked to start afresh, because they are not worth salvaging even in history. Every single sentence in it is a bullshit. I can start spelling it for you: ""The squat dance (Ukrainian: гопак, hopák. "" - hell no. ""eastern Slavic folk dance"" - it is not dance. ""arose from military Cossack traditions"" - nonsense without any proof, spread recently by various pseudocossack movements. ""originated in regions of today's Ukraine"" - no evidence of exclusivity. ""is also used to some degree in Indian and Hmong dances"" - no more that Lindy Hop is used in Circassian dances which have lots of hopping. And so on. - Altenmann >talk 16:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You describe difference without significant distintion between 'nuke' and "". In either case the article is gone and you said nothing about replacing with a . In fact, you appear to question the very validity of the term. older ≠ wiser 17:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Correct. I do not question its occasional usage, but I looked long and hard to find any choreographer expert in Russian/Ukrainian dance to have in-depth discussion of this dance move similar to the Russian sources I cited, so that I can use their term. I don't want further proliferation of ignorance via Wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 17:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC) 50, 8 November 2023 (UTC) WP:RS , you know. I'd like to have standards of WP:MEDRS everywhere besides pokemon and pornstars. - Altenmann >talk 18:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Except Wikiedia very fortunately is usually opposed to linguistic prescriptivism . There is a huge difference between the disinformation and conspiracy theories that MEDRS topics have to combat and how non-Russia/non-Ukranian people commonly refer to this dance move. older ≠ wiser 18:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] usually opposed to linguistic prescriptivism Huh? I was talking about WP:RS , for God's sake. - Altenmann >talk 20:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You sounded like you wanted to educate the ignoramuses who use the term ""squat dance"" that they were talking nonsense and to void the existence of not only the current badly written article, but also negate any ion of the term. older ≠ wiser 20:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was saying that the whole article is nonsense and gave an ample example here. I didnt say anything about negating ion. - Altenmann >talk 21:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This discussion is non-constructive. Various terms have been used, [1] [ updated link ] and all unambiguous ones should to the new article. But I do see that several books discuss Kiowa squat dance. — Michael Z . 18:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] several books discuss Kiowa squat dance - that's correct, I saw that as well. - Altenmann >talk 20:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and . Thank you. — Michael Z . 18:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Interesting. Yeah, I asked ChatGPT about the Squat dance and it had never heard of a Squat dance before. Alexysun ( talk ) 16:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't even try to pull this monstrocity into editing Wikipedia. It is good as a Turing test and echo chamber (media) amplifier, but hardly a source of wisdom. - Altenmann >talk 17:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I've read through this entire discussion but it's not clear to me what the proposed target article is. Is it Prisiadki ? I suggest turning down the heat in the discussion and being absolutely clear about what outcome you are seeking. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - concur with the nominator's assessment of the sources. PaulT2022 ( talk ) 07:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not opposed to to Prisiadki . PaulT2022 ( talk ) 22:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC) FIXIT ? Typically when an article on a notable topic is bad and someone wants to start over, they just fix the article rather than start a new one and request deletion of the old one? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, the order was opposite. First I requested its deletion, because the grossly misleading article was a disservice for readers. Then out of curiosity I started looking for good sources and to my surprize I found them in Russian dance manuals. - Altenmann >talk 01:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and to Prisiadki per nominator's work. The new one seems to be a good article. Llajwa ( talk ) 21:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Prisiadki as per discussion above. The new article looks great! -- Kammerer55 ( talk ) 03:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC) the very premise of this article is nonsense and as it stands it borders on misinformation as it appears to equate two distinct Russian and Ukrainian dances. Akakievich ( talk ) 18:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Prisiadki . I am neutral on whether deletion is necessary. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 22:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"W35DQ-D: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 00:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Michigan . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 00:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. : this article is rather skimpy even compared to other DTV America/HC2/Innovate station articles. That is of little relevance to whether this should go or not, but the station itself being the typical 2010s-started DTV America/HC2/Innovate with no reason for, much less any extant, significant coverage makes this another obvious call. It's another nominal survivor of last year's bulk nomination , of course. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 02:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Teresa Harding: I could not find sufficient sources with significant coverage to demonstrate that this article meets the GNG . In the article, only the Brisbane Times may count – the rest are electoral results and a government (CCC) report that doesn't mention the subject. As part of WP:BEFORE , I found two articles [8] [9] , neither of which constitutes SIGCOV of the subject. Toadspike ( talk ) 11:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Articles for deletion/Amy Eden , a discussion on a different mayor article created by the same editor. Toadspike ( talk ) 11:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC) 15, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Toadspike if the ""Delete"" vote wins can we instead to List of mayors of Ipswich, Queensland similar to what happened with the pages of Amy Eden and Jilly Gibson ? Totallynotarandomalt69 ( talk ) 23:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, a would also be appropriate. Toadspike ( talk ) 13:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women , Military , and Australia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV based on the cited sources. I'd need to see a more convincing source analysis by the nominator to be convinced otherwise. 4meter4 ( talk ) 17:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reviewing this nomination after some time, I would like to thank Totallynotarandomalt69 for adding further good sources that provide significant coverage. This article now comes close to proving notability. However, per WP:GNG , Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability . Recounting the sources, only ABC News and The Courier Mail clearly meet the GNG. I do not believe that the Brisbane Times article provides significant coverage (four sentences are about the subject herself, most of which is simply summarizing electoral results), and the government sources are not SIGCOV. Thus, I still believe the article should be d/ed and will not withdraw my nomination, though I understand if editors disagree. Toadspike ( talk ) 08:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ipswich is not a large enough place to assume its mayors are notable, and I'm only seeing local coverage. SportingFlyer T · C 00:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What we like in articles about a local officeholder is information that illustrates the impact of their tenure in office. What projects did they champion, what is their legacy. Size of city is not an important factor. Like the nominator, I do not see that significant sources exists. -- Enos733 ( talk ) 03:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Nothing to establish GNG here. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 17:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources are pretty good and she's notable in her own right, 230k people definitely isn't an insignificant number. AmNowEurovision ( talk ) 05:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 14:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC) //w.wiki/9gw7 Teraplane ( talk ) 23:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC) NPOL . Lacking significant coverage to meet WP:BIO . LibStar ( talk ) 11:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Miloš Veselý: His Czech Wikipedia article is likewise unsourced stub without major changes since its last revision in 2022; otherwise, it would copy over English Wikipedia. Google searches also come up with silly, random namesakes. CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 12:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Czech Republic . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 14:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Czech Republic at the 2010 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh . I couldn't find enough to the page either. FromCzech ( talk ) 19:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"01 Distribution: Was previously nominated for deletion, and in the end was ed to the parent broadcaster RAI , which I think should be the preferred action again. Ortizesp ( talk ) 01:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Companies , and Italy . AllyD ( talk ) 07:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , again. I don't see anything since the last discussion which makes this any more notable. Lithopsian ( talk ) 19:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , in agreement with Lithopsian . It's a tiny page— so I believe it's best suited as a section in 01 Distribution's parent company RAI (specifically on this section of aforementioned article .) green@grenier ~$ sign --now; sudo systemctl enable wptalk 01:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to RAI#Related companies per basically everyone else. There probably should be semi-protection applied as well; various IPs have been trying to restore an article every now and then since the previous AfD, but until now these attempts were always eventually reverted before coming back here. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong agree on the semi-protection and... pretty much everything else you said. green@grenier ~$ sign --now; sudo systemctl enable wptalk 11:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Jason Crane: Top results from searching show a separate Jason Crane. Yoblyblob ( Talk ) :) 02:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC) OR (original research) here. Plus this is a WP:BLP (biography of a living person) and unverified information should be d. Search of Wikipedia Library, ProQuest, and Google mainly turns up the ""other"" Jason Crane who is a jazz musician and poet with his own radio show/podcast (although this 2001 article in Seattle Post-Intelligencer appears to mention ""this"" Jason Crane as part of Black Heart Procession). (Most likely a passing mention at best.) If/when someone decides to write an article about the ""other"" Jason Crane (if he does indeed turn out to be notable), they can create the article from the . Cielquiparle ( talk ) 14:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as per above. Could not locate enough SIGCOV of the subject to justify ing the article. Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 15:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Peter Parker (Insomniac Games character): Development info can be rolled into the parent game too where not already present, and doesn't really warrant a separate article on the character. There's also a heavy instance of synthesis here, such as some of the appearances in other media being claimed as direct nods to this particular incarnation of the character. This fails notability. Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 23:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of video games featuring Spider-Man . BD2412 T 04:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC) No! Very bad idea. You didn’t say . You are saying to a B class sourced article to a very bad list article. This is a GA potential article, the only reason why it didn’t turn GA was that I had Wikipedia burn out or I cancelled the nomination, the list article to to will never turn into such just even if you changed it to . That is way too careless. Too many editors contributed and appreciated this article for that to happen IMO. Jhenderson 7 7 7 04:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To be entirely clear though, the GAN had a lot of work that needed to be done to pass. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 05:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I never got to find out on the second vote to know for sure. I ain’t taking your word it. I could have done all the completed tasks depending on the time and requests for it. I created GAs before. Jhenderson 7 7 7 06:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC) This is getting silly at best. Just because reception is not full like you expect. Doesn’t mean WP:GNG is not established. There is other proofs of notability in the article and it would not surprise me there is more reception now that can be added, even moreso in the future, when the sequel coming out. Are you the same editor or same IP that pulled “what about Batman: Arkham character” logic? It wouldn’t surprise me. There is a lot of articles I don’t care to , but this is not one of them. I even pushed GA on it one time. Jhenderson 7 7 7 04:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article is also B class and had a DYK hook. It seemed to prove the notability quite well when appearing on those. Can we just wait when the sequel comes out? I promise you there will be no “content fork” if someone brings that up as some excuse. It’s probably not anyway, I wouldn’t know. Some of what was here was passed down on the video games articles. Jhenderson 7 7 7 04:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] First off, assume good faith. Secondly, the second GAN you pushed it for in 2019 even mentioned there was a notability concern. That was literally years ago and yet here things are. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 04:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am assuming good faith. I asked if you are the editor because I don’t know. If so Wp:Otherstuffexists . But I still assume good faith since that’s just an essay. Unless you are the IP. Than that was sockpuppeting. That’s bad! But I don’t accuse, I just ask. Also the GAN had a lot not in it now. They adding more info after that. Then I pushed GAN but never got a nominator so I cancelled it due to wikibreaks after a long hatius. A lot was added, even the reception section stuff. That wasn’t me that added it, it was a whole bundle of other editors. There is also at least 12,000 viewers in this article. Let that sink in! Jhenderson 7 7 7 04:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no idea why that IP was brought up, I've been editing on this account for decades now. Also it being ""B-class"", having a DYK blurb and 12000 edits doesn't address any of the concerns I mentioned. And I don't see that situation improving just because another game coming out. The article needs to show he is independently notable in this incarnation and it currently is not. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 04:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How is the character not notable? Do you read the sources telling he is popular among other proofs within the sources and maybe even more current articles of the character still and notice the article gets a decent amount of views. You were clearly not paying attention, the article grew way more past that nomination. It will most likely do it again if there is a sequel. But I would not crystal ball such a statement (but at the same time) why would you nominate a deletion when it has potential to grow when there is a sequel? I counter your statement that notability is not proven? How is it not proven? Like in my mind, this has more notability than these branched articles of the MCU. How does a decent article with enough content not prove notability? It is even established that this Peter is not the mainstream Peter. Totally different. So it’s not even like the movie version different Peter’s. Ok so you are not that IP, forget it. Answer the question regarding it not proving notability and all the others hopefully. Because I clearly see notability even if I was not the one who started it. Jhenderson 7 7 7 04:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please stop haranguing editors. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 05:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please assume good faith. Me being replied to when I voted and then I replied back is not harassing haranguing. Jhenderson 7 7 7 05:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The reception size is not the seal the deal of notability. Those sources that were used are. You are basing it’s by some reception size which grew in the last nomination. The development and merchandising and ti-ins are indication of notability. Clearly it has a reception larger than MCU branched articles which will grow more when a sequel come this fall. Jhenderson 7 7 7 05:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree that the article's reception is adequate. Very little of it actually demonstrates that Peter Parker here is discussed as a subject independent from the Insomniac Games series. I'm not opposed to this article existing, in fact I find the idea pretty fascinating, but in its current state, it does little to show that this incarnation of Peter Parker is notable on his own. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 05:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It’s not even an incarnation. That may be the same named character but the creators pretty much admit the Peter it totally different. It is but it isn’t. I will shut up now that you think my different opinion is harassing haranguing or whatever. Jhenderson 7 7 7 05:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why did you ignore the actual points I was making about the quality of the Reception section instead to make a comment that's not even accurate? Being an incarnation of Peter Parker makes him a different character. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 05:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Because I actually made that point before. I can’t reply the same stuff. You brought up the incarnation so that’s just another point. Listen I am not going to spend time debating. A lot of editors voted. A lot more is coming. This somehow got to be a very popular AFD so I am staying out of it and letting the vote take place. The verdict is already in your favor. Unfortunately if this article is notable later on, I don’t think I can revive it because I have no time to revive an article. Nobody will probably care to bring it back. It’s dead, Jim! Jhenderson 7 7 7 05:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC) PRESERVE . For context, I recall that there was no separate article about the Insomniac game series at the time this article is created so I didn't see any issue with content forking . Now that there is, a separate article specifically about that series' incarnation of Spider-Man seems redundant since information about the character can easily be redistributed throughout the development and character reception sections. OceanHok proposed that the contents be preserved into a draft and I agree. Haleth ( talk ) 22:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment / Hold for now . There's another game in the series coming out in just a few months. I also don't see any warning given on the talk page - which is not required, for sure, but would have been a courtesy given the article has a maintainer clearly invested in the article per above, who might have been happy to trim the article some if asked. It's difficult to tell right now how much ""meat"" there is in the sourcing due to the use of weak sources (e.g. CBR) and passing mentions. That said, it would not shock me if after they were removed, the resulting shorter article might still passes notability, given that the games sold a zillion copies and Spider-Man is extremely popular. Give the article ~6 months to be cleaned up and/or expanded with the new Spider-Man game coming out in the series, and re-nominate for AFD then if the concerns remain IMO, there's no deadline. (Canvassing disclaimer: the nominator has linked this AFD in the WP:DISCORD , and I only came here because of that.) SnowFire ( talk ) 05:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 05:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment to agree to hold , or otherwise ' ' . Ducatcolge ( talk ) 15:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Do you feel that you could find more significant coverage than what is featured in the article right now? - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 05:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those sources would be dead by now. So we have to wait on the upcoming sequel for reception. But there is plenty of sources bringing the character up, but it’s all speculation of what is going to happen of the character for now. Jhenderson 7 7 7 05:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or into Spider-Man (Insomniac Games series) . Since the creator admitted that there is no more to add and prefer to wait for upcoming sequel then that would fall into WP:TOOSOON + it consists mostly about CBR and passing mentions. (Even thou the game have been released, ill doubt the character receive sigcov othe than the game itself.) Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 05:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No there is notability already proven. You can’t go by reception size? The sources are what says it. i am saying I can’t find the new sources to add. You guys are judging by how the body of article of a section. Also was there not a canvas going on? Jhenderson 7 7 7 05:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To be clear, I saw this link mentioned in Discord and went to check. Also, please stop mischaracterizing people's arguments, Greenish Pickle was arguing that the article presently lacks adequate sigcov. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 05:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn’t really mischaracterize. I just want to know if the sources are adequate. It seemed we are judging on the body article or how it is worded or something. Maybe the article sources weren’t just worded to prove it just yet. 🤷‍♂️ Also can the discord link be shown or something? I don’t know anything about this discord thing. I feel if I can’t dig old PS4 era sources, other people can maybe prove notablility. I just don’t have that skill. But in this case of current sources, they are still talking about the character, but it’s just game stuff for now. Jhenderson 7 7 7 05:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . As it is, the article simply does not succeed at demonstrating notability. The design stuff is solid, but without adequate reception, it falls short. There's only a couple sources that are actually about the character in the reception section, and the reception section has a lot of emphasis on comments made in reviews. I'd be willing to assist with work done to clear that bar and get proper significant coverage, but the author's responses makes it incredibly difficult to envision working on this article. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 05:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok I found the discord convo now. No need to link it to me now. Jhenderson 7 7 7 07:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My two cents on it, would think it’s not good to have the community of the video game community behind it. That’s where the discussion began. This and a few other relevant genre articles. An user had the four hearts when he said “God speed friend”. Thankfully that editor didn’t vote. I assume good faith on the OP mentioning all the AFD’s. It’s not like he told them how to vote but it feels like a pat back on backing up their complaints in Wikipedia:I just don't like it style arguments with the same community and it felt he really encourages the idea of liking to AFD stuff implying that there is! ”worst case scenarios” if a different article is maybe saved by sources. Also I don’t know what the edited out comments said and I am not bothering to know or link the discussion. I have no hard feelings to go that far because I personally don’t think of it that bad. If wrong, second chances are deserved here. Jhenderson 7 7 7 07:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What is going on?? It's not that deep. Everyone in this discussion has given sensible reasons for why they have issues with this article that are not to do with not liking it. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 08:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don’t know what went on until found a convo. The OP questioned its existence and talked about AFD on various articles. He said he would AFD and edited what he originally said. You admitted you saw it so I think you found it by the topic. I also noticed four hearted reactions of encouraging the AFD. It’s best to not know who they were. The funny thing is the argument was not lack of notability but more of complaints and why does this exist? But now video game editors are saying it’s not notable based on the video game essay rules. I want to believe what you said about it not seeming notable, but the first discussion doesn’t imply notability was the only reason and how many people were directed to the site with that link too, it can look that not caring of the article that is relevant of one of many wikiProjects this article had is more what lead to this. I don’t even know why you asked. I brought it up because I wanted to see it but you guys didn’t want to link it so I found it myself. This is all I know. Then I pretty much defended the topic for you but I am still not sure the intent was these notability concerns that you never addressed in the other site. Jhenderson 7 7 7 08:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, the discussion in the wikipedia discord was regarding the article's notability. Not ""I don't like this"", not ""This shouldn't exist"", but a question of why it was independently separate as its own thing when the sources didn't support it. That was the argument presented here. However instead of actually trying to figure out what might be needed or argue your case you've gone and presumed bad faith at every opportunity and dismissed other editor's own concerns. In fact, the whole point of the discussion was to see if there was something I was missing as to why it was independently separate before bringing it to AfD. So can you please stop being disruptive? This is a mess at this point. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 08:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am just going by word by word what I saw on text. I even see it by screenshot but I won’t show. What I saw was more accurate to what you really say you said. If you mean it like that, then word it in that way. But I don’t want to talk about it any more. It’s not personal or I would have brought admin intervention to it and I don’t want to do that when it involved a personal article, I still think it maybe helped the vote in your favor when you said you would put it on AFD and brought it up on there but ✌️ and truce on it. Stick to votes now! Also stop with saying I am disruptive and harassing haranguing”. I swear I am not. You guys are just colleagues and know each other to be bias to think that but I swear my debates were being civil when we discussed this. Jhenderson 7 7 7 09:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Spider-Man or Spider-Man (2018 video game) , both are suitable targets Alternative versions of Spider-Man#Insomniac's Peter Parker per Zxcvbnm. These needless superhero spinouts are unnecessary. JOE BRO 64 12:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Spider-Man or Spider-Man (2018 video game) , per Joebro Alternative versions of Spider-Man#Insomniac's Peter Parker per Zxcvbnm. Obvious disclosure, this topic was discussed pre-AFD in Discord, and then overnight (I was asleep), apparently linked once, which was then contested, and the link d. We don't really like discussion links like that, but at the end of the day, the population of that channel is WP:VG members who mostly watchlist the WP:VG delsort anyway. ( It'd be good for people to remember DELSORT pages exist. I can promise that everyone who's participated in this AFD thus definitely monitors it Oh wow. I realized this is not DELSORTed. That is indeed problematic, but I will be fixing, and again, these are all common WP:VG AFD participants anyway) Now, a lot of my comments are being referred to, and misrepresented, above. I'm not going to go over that though. So here's my straight position on the actual article: The sourcing is completely misrepresented. Independent SIGCOV is being manufactured through this misrepresentation. The reception section of this article, for example, is entirely sourced to reviews of the game, not the character. Of course, it does discuss some of the details of the character in the course of describing the game, but that's hardly independent coverage. There's also really twisting prose, such as the very lengthy statement regarding EGM's review. Most critically, it makes the claim that EGM praised the character's storytelling . EGM made no such claim. It attributed nothing like that to the character. Every instance the review makes of referring to storytelling is in the context of the game's storytelling . The entire reception section is like this, while details such as Development are almost completely duplicative of the game's own development sections. The rest of the article is a huge run down of ""Spider-man appeared in Marvel related properties!"" with a lot of OR/Synth in regards to whether any given appearance of Spider man was actually the ""Insomniac incarnation"" or simply a nod to the game, which is obviously part of branding as the premiere Spider-man video game at this time. Even the Face model controversy is not really coverage of the character as an independent subject, but commentary related to the remastered video game. -- ferret ( talk ) 15:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . -- ferret ( talk ) 15:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Alternative versions of Spider-Man#Insomniac's Peter Parker . I generally go right to check the reception not because it immediately proves whether the character is notable, but because it shows whether they should have an article per WP:INDISCRIMINATE . In this case, there's no evidence the character themselves had an impact outside of the general story of the game. I'm not even certain he's independently notable per WP:GNG . It can't be reiterated enough: no amount of WP:REFBOMBing will substitute for significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh that's a much better target. -- ferret ( talk ) 15:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Technically. Although there is a question as to whether the article passes WP:NLIST - whether the concept of Spider-Man having alternate universe doppelgangers is actually independently discussed in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] / - There is simply not enough to support all these Spiderman character articles. We don't need one for ever media/continuity. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC) Since this AFD blew up with an entire wikiproject community that I originally belonged to or still do, that lead to an off wikipedia topic saying the same complaint on here of “reception section sourcing imperfection, reception section sourcing imperfection, reception section sourcing imperfection!” which seems to adhere to the project essay mentality of the burden of proof of notability on original video game characters. I literally concede! Just incubate it since a video game sequel is coming when it s. I wish I could say I have enough time like I used to to help prove it. But the real world jobs amd hobbies are calling me in my adulting life. ✌️ Jhenderson 7 7 7 20:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As the discussion is tending towards , the content will be preserved in the history if things change in the future. It's important to remember regardless of the AFD's problematic brief linking off site, if it had been properly DELSORT listed, the same project participants would have shown up. The arguments being presented is that the sourcing available does not represent independent SIGCOV as required by GNG. Please don't cast aspirations on an entire project as having bad faith motivations. -- ferret ( talk ) 20:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do me a favor and stop assuming I have bad faith assumptions and am assuming motivations. Enough of the circular logic of such WP:AGF claims. I even disclaimed truce, peace no hard feelings and assumptions of food faith countless times. How many times can I disclaim this? Stop talking FOR me, please respectfully. I feel baited because you saying what I do or not do as right and we are getting off track when pointing flaws on the editor and we are not focusing on the vote again. I literally would not message any more if you would stop the pointing finger trope. I said you maybe do personal messages when I saw it. That’s the only hint of this “aspiration”. But it was a form of questioning. So take it with a grain of salt and stop with finding the fault of me with this bandwagon gang up. You were affiliated in the discussion before as colleagues, and now you are of course defending the issue since you were in it. The best thing to do is the Fight Club logic, stop talking about your affiliations about it if you were a part of it. As for everything else you said about ing and all, I am pretty familiar. I been a Wikipedia editor for a very long time. 😂 I am not a newb. ✌️ once more. Jhenderson 7 7 7 21:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV . Furthermore, the sequel in October will result in even further coverage of the character. Spy-cicle💥 Talk ? 21:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC) If the original creator is willing to work on it, it really doesn't hurt to send the article back to draftspace. After all, a sequel is coming. But right now, there is a lot of overlapping information between the first game, the franchise article, and the character article. OceanHok ( talk ) 11:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Spider Man series. NYC Guru ( talk ) 15:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, sorry for prolonging this involved discussion but we have editors voicing support for Delete, Keep, Draftify, and or with several different target articles suggested. It's hard to find a consensus with editors all over the map here. I want to discourage further tangents on Discord or Video game communities on Wikipedia and just consider whether or not there are enough reliable sources to warrant a stand-alone article. Just as a reminder, as you all know, an outcome of or Draftify would preserve the article in case future games and media coverage about them provide additional sources of notability. Things would be more difficult to handle in those circumstances with a or outcome. But, personally, I'm not invested in any result, just taking the temperature of the group discussion. But please, stick to talking about the sources and the article. Thank you. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz Involved, obviously, but I would read a consensus to to Spider-Man (Insomniac Games series) , which someone can on their own initiative expand further with whatever useful -worthy content exists in the history. I think Draftify is a poor call compared to just ing, as it runs the risk of an eventual G13, destroying the history (even if Refund is easy enough). -- ferret ( talk ) 23:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I echo my support to this article to Spider-Man (Insomniac Games series) . I accept the suggestion that Draftify may not be an optimal solution if the draft does end up being abandoned. Haleth ( talk ) 02:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to the game, this version of Parker seems to be no different or in someway revolutionary in how's he's been portrayed in other forms of media. ""He's older"" is about all I get from the article that makes him different. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Alternative versions of Spider-Man#Insomniac's Peter Parker - The sources being used for the non-plot sections (development, reception, etc) are, like in many articles on video game characters, actually coverage and reviews of the game itself, where the few sentences in each of them that specifically talk about the character are all being cherry picked out, but are not actually significant coverage. While the games are notable, there is no evidence to show that the version of Spider-Man in them is, himself, a particularly noteworthy version that has the amount of significant coverage that would justify having an independent article. The list of alternate Spider-Men already has a section on the character, and would make the better target. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak to Alternative versions of Spider-Man#Insomniac's Peter Parker . I find the work done on this article really impressive, and I can definitely understand why the article creator is unhappy with this situation. But I have to agree with the substance of the arguments above. I feel that this level of granularity, in the absence of sources that directly support it, gets us into the messy territory where WP:NOT , WP:OR and WP:GNG converge. I don't think that coverage at this level serves our encyclopedic purpose. -- Visviva ( talk ) 05:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 48, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"WQDE-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indiana . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. : Another HC2/Innovate station with a razor-thin operational history, no significant coverage , and no reason there could be any. Another nominal survivor of last year's bulk nomination . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Sasha Feldman: This is not enough to satisfy NACTOR. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Azerbaijan , and United States of America . Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] unless an editor can provide references to significant coverage of this actor in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 ( talk ) 23:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC) BLP1E . Redirection is an ATD. C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE 05:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Pen-y-graig, Carmarthenshire: Not a name recognised by Ordnance Survey today, nor other online maps, unless connected to the ""Penygraig road"" in a similar location. Only seen it used as a trivial place name , possibly influenced by this article, and as a historic place name . However, as per the talk RM it may have been a building name, or a tiny village, since lost, and not enough for an article. Dank Jae 18:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wales . Dank Jae 18:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or to Llanelli#Settlements near Llanelli . Indeed not an OS settlement [12] , can't find much online and although the Welsh Wikipedia article is more developed it mainly lists services etc nearby so doesn't really contain any content other than location etc. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 20:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Crouch, Swale , the cy article is bot generated, so just uses the coordinates to guess where the nearest stuff is or what constituency it is in. Dank Jae 20:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I just looked at the RM and see I was the nom and you supported where we questioned notability and I tagged the article for notability. Indeed the cy article is bot generated possibly from this article. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 20:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can find no evidence that this is anything at all, and although it was something almost a century and a quarter ago, it appearing in some old gazetteers, I can find no documentation of what, specifically, it was. There are hints that, after what it was vanished, the name lingered in the names of some bungalows and a road on a council estate built in the 1960s. But no firm documentation of anything. The hints are in a sports player's biography, not exactly a firm geographic resource. Uncle G ( talk ) 15:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't find anything to even verify this. The other Pen-y-graig does not help. SportingFlyer T · C 15:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Unsure Pen-y-Graig is marked on the OS six-inch 1888-1915 map, [13] and on the OS 25-inch map 1892-1914, [14] where Pen-y-graig looks like a hamlet. I found a reliable modern source: Llanelli Rural Council mentions Penygraig as a community, [15] (although this is not an official community for local government). An argument for ing it is that does not seem to be a part of another place (based on the maps), it is unclear whether we might it to Cwmcarnhywel , Bryn or Llwynhendy . Verbcatcher ( talk ) 07:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Verbcatcher , The LRC source uses Clos Cilsaig, Dafen and Penygraig, Bynea . Clos Cilsaig, ""clos meaning close?"", seems to be a street name , so Penygraig is likely too (Penygraig Road), with Clos Cilsaig located in Dafen, and Penygraig located in Bynea (for some reason). So ""community"" here likely is used generally. Dank Jae 12:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC) The LRC source says "" Penygraig play area will also be situated on space formerly used as a play area at land behind Penllwynrhodyn Road. "" Penllwynrhodyn Road is about 200m from Penygraig road. The location of the Penygraig play area is confirmed by the picture in the LRC page (where they have copied a Google StreetView image). [16] This confirms that the LRC page uses Penygraig as an area, or a suburb . This qualifies for ""Populated places without legal recognition"" in WP:GEOLAND , but it should be ""considered on a case-by-case basis"" so there is no requirement to treat it as 'notable'. Verbcatcher ( talk ) 23:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Looking at the text size of the old maps compared to other places that are settlements it looks like it might just be making reference to a farm or at least a place below a settlement but its not clear. Its quite possible it was only a farm or similar and as Llanelli expanded the area it became became known informally as Pen-y-graig or similar but otherwise has (and quite possibly never had) any legal recognition. Looking at notability of places in Wales, communities (in the sense of municipalities as opposed to informal areas of towns etc) would be considered legally recognized per GEOLAND, OS settlements may be considered legally recognized and areas below OS settlements would not be considered legally recognized so it seems quite clear today (and possibly always) its a place without legal recognition and we haven't found any substantial coverage of it so it should be d or d. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 19:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Aromantic-spectrum Union for Recognition, Education, and Advocacy: Being involved with Aromantic Week does not confer/inherit notability to the organization itself. I am incredibly sympathetic to this orgs' cause, but see this as case of WP:TOOSOON . Worth reading WP:ADVOCACY too. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 12:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sexuality and gender . Shellwood ( talk ) 12:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC) The organization is the face of Aromanticism (the A in LGBTQIA+, alongside asexual and agender) to the general public. There are a series of books ( 1 2 3 4 5 that have been published recently (many within the last few months) that all reference to AUREA for information on Aromanticism. Thanks to your prompt I also realized the ommission that the organization was approached by Jessica Kingsley Publishers to commission a book about aromanticism, which is in the works (I've added a note to the effect to the article now). They have also been cited in more recent scientific journals such as this recent journal article published in the Journal of Lesbian Studies , [1] which highlights that Aromanticism is ""Too often dismissively framed as ""new"" identities arising out of nowhere"". This information being more widely available has been a significant factor to combat LGBT erasure#Aromantic erasure that happens around it and AUREA has been at the center of it. On the news front, there are some (few yet, I give you that) secondary independent sources, such as an article in the Cosmopolitan and Seventeen magazine . There are also various psychology help sites that point to AUREA for more information on aromanticism such as psychcentral.com and many interviews internationally pointing there such as SWLondoner or newsweek and LGBTQIA+ organizations such as PFLAG , Seattle Pride and various university LGBTQ organizations all pointing to AUREA for resources on Aromanticism such as pflag.org , Seattle Pride or Oxford University LGBTQ+ Society . They are also not just involved with Aromantic Spectrum Awareness week , they are the leading organizer . I've updated the article to make this more clear and in lieu of ASAW being its own article, but already recognized and with WP:LASTING effect for the aromantic community in LGBTQIA+ awareness and inclusion, I've made it a main section on the article until someone may decide in the future to WP:SPLIT it out into its own article. I believe all of this amounts to enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG . Raladic ( talk ) 17:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC) Women's Health Magazine , Psychology Today , Magdalene from Indonesia , Diva from Slovakia , Philippine Daily Inquirer . These references, along with the ones I already outlined above all refer to the organization as the sourcing/referencing about aromanticism , it's not just a mere trivial mention and under WP:SIGCOV , it doesn't need to be the main topic of the source material. And refuting the point of Walt Yoder below, WP:ARTICLEAGE is an invalid argument to make in AfD and the article is written neutrally with all texts cited and referenced and not promotional, which in any case would be addressed through copy-editing, not deletion. So just because a topic is newer and may be a minority point, doesn't mean that it is not notable per WP:WNIN . This is something which WP:PRIDE and WP:CSB tries to address to overcome the limited WP:WORLDVIEW around minority topics and the Wikimedia foundation specifically called out to promote inclusion on Wikipedia. Raladic ( talk ) 02:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - since it doesn't look like there's a clear consensus, but the suggestion from two users below to it into Aromanticism . If the reviewing admin comes to that conclusion rather than based on the sources I've found above, the I'd like to request the outcome be and per WP:INSTEAD please. Raladic ( talk ) 05:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sourcing is primary or related to the organization. The books mentioned appear to be related to them, being mentioned by Seattle Pride doesn't make them notable. Cosmopolitan is a start, but coverage is trivial. Being a lead organizer of the Awareness Week is a primary source. There is no SIGCOV of the organization, so we can't establish notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of the books are also trivial mentions, or directory listings. Neither of which contributes to notability. I'm sure they do good work, but they aren't notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] article is recently created and blatantly promotional. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 00:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * lack of sourcing, nothing found in RS that discuss them at length. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC) 17, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The reason why I voted it's similar to AVEN , the content of it was on Asexuality#Community , now it has its own article . I agree it's TOOSOON, but it doesn't need to be d if there's a potential target to go. Xdtp ( talk ) 18:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Przybyło, E. (2022). ""Ace and aro lesbian art and theory with Agnes Martin and Yayoi Kusama"". Journal of Lesbian Studies . 26 : 89–112. doi : 10.1080/10894160.2021.1958732 . Add some info to the Aromanticism article if it fits in. There isn't enough about this organization (yet) for an encyclopedia page. I can't tell if the organization is formally incorporated (no mention of that) and it looks like the organization does not have staff, only volunteers. It's only a few years old so perhaps it needs more time. Lamona ( talk ) 04:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC) ATD-R ) to Aromanticism instead, not yes? Raladic ( talk ) 05:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure there is enough info for a . The Aromanticism article has a sentence that lists this organization, but that sentence has no cite. I'm not yet convinced that there are sufficient sources to justify naming this organization in that article. A reliable third-party cite would be needed and i don't see one. So I'm still going with . The organization would best be listed as an external source on the Aromanticism page, since there are no possible citations. And we don't usually do s for external sources. Lamona ( talk ) 16:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added the relevant citations that I sourced above in the AfD discussion to the Aromanticism page now. I do find it a bit curious that no one in this AfD discussion has actually addressed the many additional sources I have found and linked above and just decided to ignore them as if they didn't exist. They do exist, but at best they are mentions in articles about aromanticism, and some of the sources cited do not mention the organization at all. It takes more than just proving the existence of the organization - there have to be independent significant sources that are primarily about it. Those may come in the future but they are not here today. Also, one of those sources you added affirms that this is a volunteer organization, which is possibly a good start but may need to become more stable before it has the kind of impact that would produce sources. Lamona ( talk ) 15:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Oaktree b conceded above and I believe also the international articles I found later on and the peer-reviewed Journal article that cites them for the history on Aromanticism and yes, some may be more primary but per WP:PRIMARY , they are allowed (as long as not used solely for the information, which I have not done here) if they state a fact that can be verified by an educated person with access to the source, which this is a case for. Raladic ( talk ) 18:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Weidner Ridge: The article also includes a brief biography of the person the ridge is named after, but as that isn't directly related to the ridge I don't believe it justifies an article on the ridge. BilledMammal ( talk ) 04:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions . BilledMammal ( talk ) 04:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC) GNIS mentions that it is ""A linear volcanic outcrop, 2.2 miles long, between Savage Ridge and Testa Ridge on the north slope of Mount Morning, Victoria Land"", which is a little better than just ""name and coordinates"", but could still fall short of GEONATURAL. It appears we actually have lots of articles created in a similar manner (questionably notable Antarctic features named after UW-Madison Professors; see Mount Bockheim , Mount Stearns , and Blankenship Glacier for example). AviationFreak 💬 15:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC) GEONATURAL . – dlthewave ☎ 15:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I recall reading this article when I was heavy into Antarctica WikiProject. While there are many (hundreds) of these short articles, they mostly need a bit of information about, surrounding features, altitude, regional orientation, etc. to a Stub status. Lacking any on-ground field exploration, maybe any satellite images may help. Regards, JoeNMLC ( talk ) 21:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC) At WP Antarctica, I posted a notice here about possibly creating a List of Antarcitica locations article wikitable to contain these short articles being considered for deletion. JoeNMLC ( talk ) 23:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Scott Coast , expanding the existing list item there. I would note that this does strictly meet GEONATURAL, since the article as it stands already provides information beyond statistics and coordinates (namely the name origin) and as noted above could be expanded with another sentence or so. But I don't think that really makes sense as a way to organize our coverage in this case. -- Visviva ( talk ) 02:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Scott Coast . Or , there's precious little here. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 13:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Scott Coast per above. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 16:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC) GEONATURAL . In addition, I looked up ""Weidner Ridge"" in ""Antarctica : an encyclopedia,"" vols. 1 and 2, 2nd ed. by John Stewart and found nothimg more than what is written in its Wikipedia article. Found a alck of additional information in other sources. Paul H. ( talk ) 01:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"383 Commando Petroleum Troop RLC: Similiar units almost certainly would not have an article. Only one reference is listed and it is not independent of the topic of the article. PercyPigUK ( talk ) 23:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom . PercyPigUK ( talk ) 23:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Commando Logistic Regiment . Non-notable (and tiny!) military unit. Various sources note that the unit exists, but nothing to demonstrate independent notability from the parent formation. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk ) 10:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [8] . This book in particular discusses the troop and its role, as the decision to not mobilise it for the war was a significant mistake in the author's opinion. @ Hawkeye7 : do you have a view here based on the article you developed on logistics in the Falklands War? Nick-D ( talk ) 01:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Commando Logistic Regiment , since the article contains nothing that is not in that parent article, without prejudice to its re-creation at a later date if more material becomes available. I did mention the unit in British logistics in the Falklands War , but as Nick-D notes, it did not deploy. Badsey and Privratsky discuss the problems that arose as a result of this, so secondary sources are available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Commando Logistic Regiment . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Market abolitionism: Of the cited sources that do, they all appear to be primary sources from people directly associated with the subject. They also do not appear to actually use the term ""market abolitionism"" and instead offer critiques of markets, with only one passing use of the term ""market abolitionist"". I looked for sources on Google Scholar, but mostly found sources that appear to be completely unrelated. [15] As this article doesn't appear to meet general notability guidelines , I'm proposing it for deletion. Grnrchst ( talk ) 14:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Social science . Grnrchst ( talk ) 14:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can only find abolitionists that were against slavery way back when. Znews and Chomsky.info don't seem terribly RS either, as used in the article. for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC) GNG due to having significant coverage in reliables sources. [1] [2] [3] [4] References ^ Robin Hahnel (2007). ""The Case against Markets"" . Journal of Economic Issues . 41 (4). Taylor & Francis : 1139–1159. ^ Adrian J. Walsh (1998). ""Market Pathology and the Range of Commodity Exchange: A Preliminary Sketch"" . Public Affairs Quarterly . 12 (2). University of Illinois Press : 203–219. ^ Adrian Walsh; Richard Giulianotti (2006). Ethics, Money and Sport: This Sporting Mammon . Taylor & Francis . p. 19. ISBN 9781134317271 . ^ Geoffrey M. Hodgson (2018). Wrong Turnings: How the Left Got Lost . University of Chicago Press . p. 194. ISBN 9780226505886 . SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Market (economics) . My browser crashed and I lost my full source analysis but suffice it to say that the above four sources appear to invoke places where ""market"" and ""abolition"" are used in the same sentence but does not establish a body of thought known as ""market abolitionism"". If anything, these sources are either proposing (1) a socialist planning framework for replacing market systems, or (2) critiquing existing market systems by way of alternatives. None of these establishes ""market abolitionism"" as a unified body of thought but the critique can be covered as philosophical counterpoints within the existing article on economic markets. Though note that nothing in the existing article is reliably sourced for r. czar 05:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would support a . I also looked through those sources and would agree with Czar's analysis. Tbh the only one I would say includes significant coverage is Walsh & Giulianotti, but they talk about it in an almost entirely different context than this existing article. -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 10:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Market (economics) , per Czar. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk ) 22:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Probiotic Probio DR10: In line with the guidelines at WP:PRODUCTS an article about a product should have significant coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability. A search for specifically ""Probiotic Probio DR10"" or for the shorter phrase ""Probio DR10"" returns no results from either google books or google scholar. DR10 is covered, as cited, in research papers, but this coverage is not significant. Therefore I propose that the article be turned into a either to the company that created the product Fonterra or to the more general article probiotic . 🌿MtBotany ( talk ) 04:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions . 🌿MtBotany ( talk ) 04:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Health and fitness , and Medicine . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support to manufacturer article. Article feels fishy, reads like a promotional leaflet. AfD tak removed this morning without comment. Take a look at the edit history. -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 06:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC) 37, 19 January 2024 (UTC) 03, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And I've also had to warn the editor about removing the AfD tag as well. Not showing a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and procedures. 🌿MtBotany ( talk ) 22:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to company page. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of this has been lifted from a promotional press-release somewhere. Elemimele ( talk ) 12:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That was my instinct as well but I have done several searches looking for copyvios and came up empty. -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 14:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Toyota TX-Series Transmission: A before finds no independent coverage of the product and the article relies on primary Toyota sources. Possible re-direct? Theroadislong ( talk ) 21:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions . Theroadislong ( talk ) 21:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Toyota transmissions#TX-series . I tried to find GNG sources earlier when I was looking this over and didn't see any. That page has it's own issues but I think they are resolvable. Even absent the sourcing issues, from a WP:NOPAGE perspective I'm not sure this was a good idea in the first place. 184.152.68.190 ( talk ) 22:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC) GNG or WP:PRODUCT . Encoded Talk to me! 22:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Transportation . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to the TX transmission section seems the best idea. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC) Fails WP:NPRODUCT , insufficient coverage by reliable secondary sources. User3749 ( talk ) 16:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All additional sources would just be repeating what the primary sources state. It's a build spec, not something that is subjective. It's an objective fact. 12DionneJ ( talk ) 16:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So we can have articles about cars, articles about the engines in those cars, but can't have articles about the transmissions in those cars? Make it make sense. This article expands upon existing articles, specifically, “List of Toyota Transmissions.” It follows the same structure as existing articles that are closely related. These “sister” articles have been in use for almost 2 decades with zero issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12DionneJ ( talk • contribs ) Sure we can have articles about transmissions BUT they need to be supported by independent secondary sources, that's how Wikipedia works. If there are other poorly sourced articles about transmissions then they probably need to be d too. Theroadislong ( talk ) 16:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All additional sources would just be repeating what the primary sources state. It's a build spec, not something that is subjective. It's an objective fact. 12DionneJ ( talk ) 16:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's literally how everything is the automotive world works. All aftermarket Electronic Service Information websites/sources, (like AllDATA, Motologic, Mitchell's ProDemand, etc) get their info from the manufacturers. We're not talking about horsepower and torque ratings of an engine or advertised fuel economy. 12DionneJ ( talk ) 16:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC) As an WP:ATD . Fails WP:NPRODUCT . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC) WP:ATD and per nom. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 06:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC) ATD -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Toyota transmissions#tx-series as topic fails notability guidelines. Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 19:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Kendriya Vidyalaya Malkapuram: KylieTastic ( talk ) 13:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India . KylieTastic ( talk ) 13:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Andhra Pradesh . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC) The top results are socail media pages. Also, this article is so short probably because you can barely find any information on this school anywhere. Knowledgegatherer23 ( Say Hello ) 13:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC) 44, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 13:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Karvanista: Only sources cited in Reception are routine coverage for Doctor Who (Sources that are basically plot summary explaining who a character is for readers, which is done whenever a new character is introduced/re-introduced into the series) and the only sources findable in a search; beyond Flux, there really isn't anything talking about him in a significant capacity. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 18:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 18:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/Redirect per nom. 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 00:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/ per nom. There aren't enough sources discussing this with WP:SIGCOV . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 23:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: or ? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 18:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As nominator, an AtD exists either at List of Doctor Who supporting characters or Doctor Who series 13 . Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 18:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article can be d, and a can be created by any editor who feels strongly enough. Doctor Who series 13 works. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 11:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Digital Archive Project: No sources in the article whatsoever, and I am unable to find any solid sources or coverage of this website. At least half of the article was simply copied-and-pasted from a Fandom article of the same name , which also has no sources. Tagged for notability since 2010. Streetlampguy301 ( talk ) 03:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions . Streetlampguy301 ( talk ) 03:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Organizations . ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There are no sources, and the title is generic enough to make finding any difficult. I did find this , which at least mentions the project in the context of MST3K. Is it possible that a could be done to Mystery_Science_Theater_3000#Fandom ? STEM info ( talk ) 20:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC) Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion as suggested by STEMinfo. Here is a source I found about the subject: Weiner, Robert G. ; Barba, Shelley, eds. (2014). In the Peanut Gallery with Mystery Science Theater 3000: Essays on Film, Fandom, Technology and the Culture of Riffing . Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company . pp. 11 , 73 , 81 , 216 . ISBN 978-0-7864-4532-5 . Retrieved 2023-04-17 – via Google Books . The book notes on page 11 : ""Twenty years after the little puppet show aired and ten years after its cancellation, MST3K is more popular than ever. Riffing has become its own cultural phenomenon. One can find hundreds of websites related to the show, tape and DVD traders abound, and nearly all of the episodes (including some of the KTMA shows which hopefully will see official release someday) are preserved at the Digital Archive Project in varying degrees of quality."" The book notes on page 73 : ""The third way of reference-explaining sites blends the collaboration of discussion forums with the ease of use of annotation pages. By allowing anyone to contribute to the site, they avoid the problem of burnout, and draw on the broad base of knowledge of their many contributors. The Distributed MST3K Annotation Project (n.d.) is an offshoot of one of the most popular sites for episode trading, The Digital Archive Project ."" The book notes on page 81 : ""Even so, several of those Rhino Home DVD releases gently mock the FBI warnings against privacy and unauthorized distribution by adorning them with an image of J. Edgar Hoover that has been festooned with graffiti, a choice which is yet another example of their tendency to ""scribble in the margins"" (see Figure 1). They have even turned a blind eye to the virtual tape traders using peer-to-peer sharing software at the Digital Archive Project , so long as episodes that are available for purchase on either DVD or VHS remain unavailable for download (""Digital Archive Project FAQ"" 2002)."" The book notes on page 216 : ""While I have said that the ""circulation"" of MST episodes is today dominated by the ""second stage"" web vendors, it might already be more accurate to say that most new fans actually obtain their episodes through the Digital Archive Project (DAP), a fan collective which aims to make all MST episodes available at all times through bitTorrent, a hugely popular program which allows users to share files with, essentially, anyone online."" Cunard ( talk ) 01:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"2024 official visit by Shehbaz Sharif to China: WP considers the enduring notability of events and its WP:TOOSOON to determine enduring historical significance or widespread impact of this visit. Saqib ( talk ) 20:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Pakistan . Saqib ( talk ) 20:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. The content of this articles meets the criteria for inclusion and meet WP:N . The remover Saqib WP:POINT , did not communicate directly with the creator (me) about how to ""improve"" this articles. Instead, after I continued to add numerous reliable sources, Saqib decided to simply it, which also violates WP:FAITH . -- TinaLees-Jones ( talk ) 23:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC) N. It's not about needing improvement; it's about meeting the criteria for inclusion on WP. And just so you know, I don't need anyone's permission to nominate articles for deletion. Still, I do want to acknowledge the effort you've put into creating this article. — Saqib ( talk ) 06:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Saqib : the first thing that needs to be emphasized is that the friendly relations between Pakistan and China are dependent on the exchange of visits by top leaders, the official visits themselves, especially since both Pakistan and China, both with hundreds of millions of people, are equipped with attention ( WP:N ). It's not a vlogger with millions of followers releasing a new song, it's not a visit by a minister or a senator, it's an official diplomatic event representing the will of the nations. I'm not fully aware of Pakistan's internal political tensions, and I don't really care what a specific Pakistani editor's favorites are for specific politicians. WP:N is judged on the basis of facts and sources, and if a visit lacks official coverage from both sides, then it naturally lacks attention. If the Western media also be aware of, then this proves that the event has really touched some people's interests, which strengthens the basis of WP:N . -- TinaLees-Jones ( talk ) 07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As far as Nawaz Sharif 's visits to China are concerned, there have been five in total, one in July 2013, one in April 2014 (to attend Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia ), one in November 2014 to attend APEC 2014, one in 2015 December 2015 SCO, and once in May 2017 at the 2017 Belt and Road Forum . then the correct way would have been to write the 2013 official visit by Nawaz Sharif to China as an independent article, with the rest to be d into the corresponding conference ones, and if I am happy I would write it later. The correct editorial logic, however, is that diplomacy is all about reciprocal visits, and entries on reciprocal visits that corroborate each other add to the credibility and readability of the articles - one by one, gradually. -- TinaLees-Jones ( talk ) 07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) LASTING states An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. State visits are usually routine and we've no way of knowing if this particular visit will be historically significant or even momentous event, since the history hasn't been written yet. All we have are some news reports, which are WP:ROTM coverage. Nor this visit yielded any significant outcome or significant effect on the Pak-China relation so I think that it's just like another routine state visit without enduring significance and so clearly fails WP:NEVENT. The press coverage of this official visit doesn't automatically fulfill the requirements of WP:NEVENT. I won't delve into this further. I feel I've expressed my perspective adequately so now I'll leave it to others to make their own assessments. — Saqib ( talk ) 07:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Events . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Very weak . This is a rare case where I believe WP:ROUTINE applies. All state visits are covered extensively in Chinese media. However, the Al Jazeera and Reuters sources make it hard for me to ! vote in good faith. Toadspike [Talk] 04:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Toadspike , But I don't really see anything particularly extraordinary about this visit. Take, for example, Nawaz Sharif 's visit to China back in 2014. That was a big deal because it kicked off the CPEC project in Pakistan, which was worth billions! But we don't even have an article about that visit. So, why should we have one for Shahbaz's recent trip which was a pretty routine stuff. WP isn't a newspaper, right? — Saqib ( talk ) 06:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see anything particularly extraordinary either, but the significant coverage in Al Jazeera and Reuters, which are not based in Pakistan or China, makes it seem vaguely notable. Your other argument is just WP:OTHERSTUFF . I already marked my ! vote as ""very weak"" and the closer will interpret it accordingly, what more do you want? Toadspike [Talk] 06:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Saqib . - Amigao ( talk ) 03:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (or ) to China–Pakistan relations . The nom is right, the article violates WP:NOTNEWS and we have no WP:SUSTAINED coverage due to this visit being way too recent. It may or may not gather sufficient coverage to justify ing the article in the future, but as it currently stands, it is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia as a standalone article. Pilaz ( talk ) 17:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC) A non-notable visit. Not deserving a page on Wikipedia . Would not argue against a (or ) as an alternate to deletion -- which equals it does not deserve a page. The event was not significant and did not precede any other notable event that resulted from the visit. In this case the article fails the Inclusion criteria #4 , lacking ""enduring significance"". The event was just routine and the new coverage was just news of the event with no lasting historical significance. -- Otr500 ( talk ) 20:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Saritha Komatireddy: Unsuccessful federal judicial nominees are not inherently notable. Let'srun ( talk ) 02:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and New York . Let'srun ( talk ) 02:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC) all otherwise non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees into a single article along the lines of Unsuccessful Donald Trump judicial nominations . We can preserve a truncated form of the data in one place, without reaching individual notability concerns. BD2412 T 21:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC) BLP1E for this nominee and the other non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees, along with details about specific dates regarding the nomination process and why the nomination ultimately failed. As it is, the list of otherwise non-notable judicial nominees for Trump is fairly small and I don't think there is the needed SIGCOV. Let'srun ( talk ) 15:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to the target suggested by Let'srun. Hatman31 ( talk ) 20:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak , otherwise per above. While the nom is quite right to state that Unsuccessful federal judicial nominees are not inherently notable , they are also not inherently un -notable. There's a lot of duplication among Indian wire service articles, but at least one of them should reasonably count, and we also have these bylined reports from Bloomberg and the Boston Globe . And then there's this page or so of coverage related to her AUSA work. (One gets the impression from news searches that she has a much higher than average profile as an AUSA, which doesn't bear directly on the question of notability but does explain why it's not surprising to run across such coverage occasionally.) Some coverage in Telugu press as well, although the articles I've been able to locate don't have a lot of independent content. -- Visviva ( talk ) 02:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Racquetball at the 2023 Pan American Games – Qualification: Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON , but searches did not turn up any, fails WP:GNG . Onel 5969 TT me 09:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Guatemala . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC) ATD Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 13:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC) Nothing shows notability for quals apart from main subject. Fails GNG. // Timothy :: talk 06:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Bahria Town Nawabshah: I don't see it passing WP:ORG either. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 09:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 09:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural - the nominator nominated 7 articles for deletion within the scope of 2 minutes, with identical deletion rationales. I strongly doubt any serious WP:BEFORE was performed here. -- Soman ( talk ) 12:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Soman , So, basically, just because I nominated a bunch of pages around the same time doesn't mean I didn't do my homework beforehand. And if my reasons for nominating are similar across different AfDs, it's because the issues with those articles are pretty much the same too. Why don't you come with some coverage that meets the GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 12:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC) According to my check, I looked for in-depth coverage from multiple independent secondary sources to establish notability, but I found this and not much more detailed coverage. These articles lack in-depth coverage of the subject and can’t establish notability. The subject fail to meet WP:GNG . Grab Up - Talk 08:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] is this a city, a neighborhood, or an apartment building? Is it under construction or complete? None of the references answer these questions, or give any substantial independent coverage. Bahria Town#Bahria Town Nawabshah is an acceptable target in lieu of deletion. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 00:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"2024 A-League Women finals series: The level of detail is equivalent to that shown in articles of previous seasons of the A-League Women Matilda Maniac ( talk ) 23:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Events , Football , and Australia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – To 2023–24 A-League Women . Svartner ( talk ) 04:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 13:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Sandy N. Leal: I suppose this could be ed to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies . Let'srun ( talk ) 20:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Law , and California . Let'srun ( talk ) 20:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . Curbon7 ( talk ) 04:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies per recent precedent. - Indefensible ( talk ) 06:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Ismelda Cruz: The subject has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG . All I found were passing mentions like 1 and 2 . JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and El Salvador . JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 19:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as mentioned above. Micheal Kaluba ( talk ) 14:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Solar eclipse of October 17, 2153: Q 𝟤 𝟪 13:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions . Q 𝟤 𝟪 13:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 14:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON . Also already listed at List of solar eclipses in the 22nd century . ULPS ( talk ) 14:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC) GNG or be ed to the appropriate page. For this eclipse that means ing it to its corresponding list. Qwaiiplayer ( talk ) 15:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC) 19, 31 May 2023 (UTC) 59, 31 May 2023 (UTC) general consensus is that future eclipses that do not meet WP:GNG / WP:NASTRO should be ed. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 18:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON . -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 00:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of solar eclipses in the 22nd century . Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"WKOB-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 03:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 03:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. : Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:GNG . as a WP:ATD . Let'srun ( talk ) 16:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. : It clearly has a longer history than many other HC2/Innovate stations, but a good chunk of it has been relaying other stations (this was originally WCBS-TV's UHF translator back when the New York City stations all had those) or full-time national services. Maybe there's something out there at least about the station's Korean days of the 1990s and early 2000s (of note, this was not part of last year's bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles ), but it's hard to imagine anything warranting anything more than an {{ R to list entry }} . Probably another remnant of the looser inclusion ""standards"" of 2006 in the end. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Agdapdap Islet: No reliable non-wiki mirror hits in Google, GNews and GNews Archives. Alternatively , retarget to List_of_islands_of_the_Philippines#Romblon -- Lenticel ( talk ) 07:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philippines and Islands . Lenticel ( talk ) 07:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to proposed target. Does seem to exist, but no coverage at all beyond confirmation of it existing, so can be discussed only at the list per GEOLAND. AryKun ( talk ) 13:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as mentioned above. Island probably too small and relatively unremarkable to have its own article. --- Tito Pao ( talk ) 06:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC) there is not enough reliable sourcing to establish notability per WP:GEONATURAL , with the only coverage verifying its existence. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 16:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Microjazz: Random line of sheet music, not inherently notable. Zim Zala Bim talk 15:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Education , and United Kingdom . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Well, this [10] helps, I'll see what else comes up... Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Most hits are in relation to Christopher Norton [11] , [12] are brief reviews... Unless someone can find better sourcing to ! the article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC) if independent sourcing for the term can be found, otherwise . Owen× ☎ 19:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"O Mang Reloaded: . If I'm not mistaken, a deluxe or extended version is not eligible for a standalone article therefore this should be d into O Mang? . dxneo ( talk ) 17:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs , Music , and South Africa . dxneo ( talk ) 17:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no reason why a deluxe album wouldn't be allowed its own article. It's less likely to happen because deluxe albums don't usually get the same level of coverage, but articles such as Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection are completely valid. However, notability is required for any album, deluxe or otherwise to receive an article, and I don't see evidence of that for either version of O Mang , so I say both articles to Hip Hop Pantsula . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 20:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] QuietHere , my point exactly. I don't know a way of nominating two or more articles at once so I thought it would be great to or then them altogether as I don't think we can discuss notability of another article here. I stand to be corrected. dxneo ( talk ) 20:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC) MULTIAFD and you'll have it. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 21:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] QuietHere , the related article ( O Mang? ) is marked as , i guess this should also follow in that direction since the nomination looks stupid already. dxneo ( talk ) 04:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I meant to write """" rather than above and forgot. Adjusted my vote. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 15:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. There is only one article included in this AFD deletion discussion. To do a bundled nomination, please see guidelines at WP:AFD . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisting seems a bit inadequate as there are no sources and is probably the way to go. dxneo ( talk ) 18:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can see why you would disagree with a relisting but I don't understand how it is ""inadequate"". I think you probably meant another word. As for me, I just wanted to hear assessments from more than two editors. That's my preference and it's only the first relisting. I don't think that is asking for too much. L iz Read! Talk! 03:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Hip Hop Pantsula per above discussion. Darling ☔ ( talk · contribs ) 16:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Star Jones (TV series): Tagged for notability since 2019 Donald D23 talk to me 13:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Law , and United States of America . Donald D23 talk to me 13:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC) this seems like a logical alternative to deletion here. This seems like another remnant of the looser inclusion and notability standards of 2007. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As nominator I would be ok with a . Donald D23 talk to me 13:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Aldersgate College: No notable references from GNews, GSearch and Google News Archives. Alternatively, to Solano,_Nueva_Vizcaya#Education -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Philippines . Lenticel ( talk ) 01:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as suggested. Bearian ( talk ) 18:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Groosalugg: No analysis, no reception. My BEFORE shows few mentions in passing and some discussion of plotlines involving him, but nothing stricte about him. Suggest ing to the List of Angel characters . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Angel characters . I don't think that character needs his own page. He was only in 9 episodes and doesn't have much media coverage. Other characters where d, that were much more relavant to the series, like Lorne (76 episodes), Lilah Morgan (35 episodes) or Lindsey McDonald (19 episodes). He is surely the least relevant of the Angel characters with their own page. -- Dynara23 ( talk ) 16:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV . Would consider a per WP:ATD . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 00:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC) ATD -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Prime ministerial confirmation of Ferdinand Marcos: — H e m a n t D a b r a l ( 📞 • ✒ ) 04:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 7 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 05:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Politics , and Philippines . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sheesh, just this junk to Ferdinand Marcos#Prime Minister and do the same with the rest of the mass-produced inauguration substubs. They do not need separate pages just because they happened, this can be covered perfectly well in the respective articles of the presidents. Reywas92 Talk 14:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Ferdinand Marcos#Prime Minister We don't need to give this its own separate article as the election was a clear sham and it was a pre-ordained result. Nate • ( chatter ) 23:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Ferdinand Marcos#Prime Minister , nothing separately notable here. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 06:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Ferdinand Marcos#Prime Minister per Reywas92 and others. Sal2100 ( talk ) 22:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Micro (text editor): ""[D]esigned around simplicity and ease of use"" also makes the article quite promotional. Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 12:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 12:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The promotional wording wasn't intentional. Anyhow in the context of WP:NSOFT, having 20k stars on GitHub and coverage in Linux Magazine and many other FOSS-focused sites makes it notability imo. Wqwt ( talk ) 13:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC) has decent coverage in Linux Magazine , ItsFoss , HowToGeek , and MakeUseOf . StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm. I'm inclined to add a single sentence on GNU nano and there. I don't think the sourcing is quite sufficent to justify a separate article yet. Github stars aren't really something we can write an article from, and how to guides aren't that great either, and that , rather than a measure of how significant or important something is, is what ""notability"" means here. A single sentence shouldn't be too undue either Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 14:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC) :Blocks . Surely you would consider Linux Magazine a RS. Is there a consensus on itsFoss as a source? MakeUseOf seems to be a borderline case. In the context of FOSS applications, which are still niche in coverage compared to Windows and Mac programs, there is extensive coverage here. Wqwt ( talk ) 21:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not aware of any prior consensus regarding It's FOSS either on RSN or elsewhere, but based on their about page and what I know of them, they're a group blog, not something that has a formal editorial review process. Not that I would be unhappy if this is kept, either also as no consensus or outright, I just don't think there is sufficient consensus for a carve out for FOSS from the usual coverage based requirements. Though, to be honest, I'm fairly sure most Windows and Mac programs wouldn't be notable either. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 09:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC) The Linux Magazine link is the only applied or presented source which in my opinion passes RS (and it's not that great as direct detailing). The FOSS, HowToGeek, and MakeUseOf are not reliable sources because they are providing software usage instructions, not a directly detailing product review or coverage of the product or producer. My reasonable BEFORE finds nothing better. BusterD ( talk ) 00:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC) Linux Magazine is the only source that is reliable enough to establish notability. There isn't anything outright wrong with the rest of the sources, but I can't come up with a compelling defense for why those sources are reliable enough to establish notability. This is a sourcing discussion, and this subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards with respect to sourcing. I also couldn't find any sources not in the article that could establish notability, which is kind of shocking considering how many stars it has on GitHub. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 22:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and to GNU nano per above, this doesn't seem like enough for a standalone article but certainly enough for a mention in the article about nano. jp × g 🗯️ 00:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Hobbs, New Mexico party shooting: Elli ( talk | contribs ) 21:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , and New Mexico . Elli ( talk | contribs ) 21:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , depressingly. A routine crime of no lasting impact other than to the victims, their friends, and their families. Mangoe ( talk ) 21:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Another mass shooting in America? That's a daily occurrence. The only notable thing is that the arrested man was framed by the detective, who is related to other, more likely suspects. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 23:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per below. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 10:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC) ATD . — siro χ o 02:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Siroxo - Another sadly non-notable event. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"List of structures built on top of freeways: The article also appears to be entirely based on WP:OR , with the only sources provided being images, usually in Google Maps, that have been interpreted as structures built on top of freeways. BilledMammal ( talk ) 14:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . BilledMammal ( talk ) 14:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Transportation . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] —basic searches over a few minutes find various sources for these entries, several of which are cited in the appropriate linked articles already. I can only assume that I can find sources for all of them by the end of the day. Imzadi 1979 → 15:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC) V and WP:OR issue but it doesn't address the WP:N issue. BilledMammal ( talk ) 15:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The question is if the topic of structures built on top of freeways is notable, not if the individual structures are verifiably on top of freeways. I haven't checked that just yet. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 15:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I myself, on my very way to this discussion, saw a structure that was not on top of a freeway . That being said, . I'm sure the technical details of building like this would be of interest to engineers and architects, but as said above, this is not a notable topic for a list. 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 15:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] After doing a basic check, I cannot find any coverage on structures on top of highways as a group. There are individual examples of note, but I do not see anything to justify this list. There is potentially a bit of overlap with Holdout (real estate) , a notable topic. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 16:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Freeway lid . I am not going to suggest a because some of the list items here are already listed as examples there. – Fredddie ™ 16:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I like this idea. But can you clarify why not a ? With respect to the WP:N issue, some of the references at Freeway lid look like they are addressing more than one example--they are talking about it more generally. I also note that ""coverage as a group"" is described on Wikipedia:LISTN as an example of a justification, not as a necessary condition. Ccrrccrr ( talk ) 20:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As a whole, Wikipedians are very good at listing every example to any given topic but very bad at making good lists. I would much prefer having a curated list with representative examples as is the case on Freeway lid now than an ever-expanding list tagged with {{ Incomplete list }} . – Fredddie ™ 00:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think I understand and agree ... just to check my understanding, you want the number of examples to stay similar to the number at the Lid article, rather than growing to be more like the List of structures . Right? If so, I agree. I also note that the list has the problem that the criteria are unclear. Would every building above a tunnel, or for that matter every lamp post above a tunnel, qualify? Ccrrccrr ( talk ) 00:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . A list for the sake of having a list of something. It is slso seriously incomplete: the example from Italy is trivial, but I've certainly eaten at similar structures in France and the UK. Athel cb ( talk ) 17:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC) Bridge restaurant Djflem ( talk ) 10:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Freeway lid . This list invites examples of non-notable structures to be added. The main focus should be on the concept of the use of air rights over freeways, not the specific, often non-notable, uses of those air rights. V C 18:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Freeway lid . An overview article of the concept is fine but a standalone list of examples is trivial. Dough 4872 18:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Freeway lid , an topic which is supported by the list. Djflem ( talk ) 19:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] appropriate entries to Bridge restaurant . Djflem ( talk ) 10:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Freeway lid , although a category could be another option. -- Rs chen 7754 00:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Freeway lid for now. The article has been around since 2006 so PRESERVE and CHEAP very much apply. Theoretically, this title could be resurrected as a ""list of lists"" but the current setup is way too broad, leading to nom's observation that the list does not exist elsewhere as such. gidonb ( talk ) 01:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Freeway lid per above. // Timothy :: talk 12:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Hurting (song): Jax 0677 ( talk ) 22:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Canada . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Karl Wolf ; no sources establishing notability. Darling ☔ ( talk · contribs ) 21:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Kamacuras: The article itself is all plot, and unlike a lot of other Godzilla Kaiju, there isn't much developmental info that would warrant the article sticking around either. I just don't think there's enough to justify the article's existence separately from anything else. An AtD could be a to Son of Godzilla, given that it seems to be where Kamacuras are most notable, but if anyone has a better suggestion, or found sources that may justify the article's existence that I may have missed in my BEFORE, then feel free to suggest or mention it. I'd like to this around, but as it stands, I don't think Kamacuras has much to stand on. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 16:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film . Pokelego999 ( talk ) 16:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Not seeing how the article even tries to estabilish notability, and my BEFORE just gave few mentions in passing. Ping me if SIGCOV coverage that goes beyond plot summary is found. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: If you recommend a or Merge, please supply the target article you are proposing this article be directed to. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Godzilla (franchise) per Piotrus. If someone wanted to start organizing a character list from the franchise, that might be useful. There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV to pass our guidelines. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 14:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Godzilla (franchise)#Filmography - No sources really showing that they're particularly notable, and since they have never really been the ""featured"" kaiju of a movie, always just appearing in films with an ensemble of monsters or as stock footage/cameos, there's not really a single movie that would serve as a great target for a . The film list for the franchise, which already includes a column showing which monsters appeared in each film, would thus be the best target, as anyone searching for the monster would be ed straight to a list where they can easily see their appearances. Rorshacma ( talk ) 06:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Ireland–Zambia relations: It's been 14+ years since the first AFD , consensus on what constitutes WP:SIGCOV can change, and many of the original participants have retired or been banned. As I said in my original nomination: ""Topic fails general notability requirements, specifically there does not appear to be significant coverage of these countries' relations in sources which reliable, independent, and secondary. None are cited in article, and I couldn't locate in any myself."" Yes there are now a few links to newspaper articles, but most are dead, and those that aren't are hardly coverage of these countries relations, in my opinion. Yilloslime ( talk ) 04:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Africa , and Ireland . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see notable relations like significant trade or migration or state visits. Many countries give aid to Zambia, so the few million Ireland gives is rather routine. LibStar ( talk ) 09:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/ to Foreign relations of Ireland#Zambia . As an ATD . Otherwise, as noted in the nom, there seems to be insufficient notability/coverage to warrant a standalone article. And, while I have read the earlier AfD and understand the """" arguments, they all seem to be based entirely on ROTM coverage of aid packages. Which don't discuss the topic (diplomatic relations between the two countries) in any material depth. That the article seems to stand almost ENTIRELY as a list of the loosely related news sources, found in the previous BEFORE but not associated with the text in ANY WAY, suggests (to me at least) that a standalone article isn't warranted. Guliolopez ( talk ) 10:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Foreign relations of Ireland#Zambia . Having read the previous discussion, like Guliolopez said; I don't see anything discussing the diplomatic relations between the countries, only ones about the aid packages. There doesn't seem to be much to either, so just going for a , though, if something does come up, I'm happy to add on to the target. NotAGenious ( talk ) 17:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just a note to say that as the nominator, I could get behind a as an alternative to straight up deletion. Yilloslime ( talk ) 21:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Mir Mohammed Helal Uddin: He has never been elected to public office, but is active within the party. The cited sources are passing mentions, not significant coverage . Searches found slightly deeper news coverage of his conviction for helping his dad conceal illegally acquired assets (he got 3 years, daddy got 13). [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] He has only been written about in the context of his father, so my sense is that he is not notable . He is not a suitable subject for a stand alone article; he is a footnote to his father's biography. There is no content worth merging, but I could agree to a to Mir Mohammad Nasiruddin , where his conviction is already mentioned. Worldbruce ( talk ) 18:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Crime , and Bangladesh . Worldbruce ( talk ) 18:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the nominator's solid research . ——Serial Number 54129 18:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do not . This is authentic bio — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nationalist 80 ( talk • contribs ) 18:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC) — The Nationalist 80 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] @ The Nationalist 80 Nothing in the nomination suggested that it was a hoax. Instead, the concern is that the subject is not notable. — C.Fred ( talk ) 19:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] he never got as far as the ballot paper, so really just an aspiratoinal politician. He may have inhereted a perchant for doing crime, but notability is not inhereted. ---- D'n'B - t -- 18:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Camden Health Partners: AusLondonder ( talk ) 22:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to GP federation . I couldn't find enough to meet WP:NORG , beyond those on the article already it was just coverage of some contracts , a hospital upgrade , and an industry award they were nominated for , nothing in-depth about them. Shaws username . talk . 22:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Carbon positive: It talks mainly about the article ""Carbon Is Not The Enemy"", which may be notable itself, but then also attempts to discuss the concept of ""carbon positive"". The problem is that the term can't be accurately covered when the topic is written from the perspective of McDonough's article. — Lights and freedom ( talk ~ contribs ) 04:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Environment . — Lights and freedom ( talk ~ contribs ) 04:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to carbon sink . Ultimately, this could be a useful term for someone searching for the term carbon sink but not really knowing the exact terminology. That said, I could see this being a case for then . The article comes across as very promotional, and the creator looks like they're closely tied to McDonough from what little I can see. The term itself as they try to use it is a bit of a WP:NEOLOGISM , and there isn't notability for the article as it stands. The word itself is also a bit troublesome since what they really seem to be alluding to is net negative carbon, which can be a bit counterinuitive if you're using ""carbon positive"". Either way, ing to somewhere that focuses on carbon source/sink would get readers in the right place without confusing them with an article like this. KoA ( talk ) 14:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per KoA. Artem. G ( talk ) 09:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. 2001:4455:636:D900:94A8:7FBB:249D:9ECA ( talk ) 12:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Joe Bereta: There are no reliable sources talking about this person outside the context of the show he was a part of. This page was already ing to there before, but someone decided to remove the . Bolt and Thunder ( talk ) 19:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , Artists , Internet , and United States of America . Bolt and Thunder ( talk ) 19:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , California , Montana , and Washington . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect. Barats and Bereta seems to be notable, so it's reasonable. Better Nuncio ( talk ) 09:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Barats and Bereta, isn't notabale enough for a separate article. Suonii180 ( talk ) 23:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Zero One (album): All but two sources here are either Spotify or a blatant primary source like a merchandise store. The two sources that are actually reliable are 1 and 11, with 1 being a passing mention and 11 not even mentioning the album once. Any material worthwhile for this album is already included in the article for the band itself. λ Negative MP1 06:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music . λ Negative MP1 06:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC) This appears to completely over rely on primary sources. As such there is no evidence of notability. TheBritinator ( talk ) 15:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC) as an WP:ATD since I found no adequate sourcing for this album. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Jirón de la Unión (Metropolitano): The sources only give passing coverage at best. Should be ed to Metropolitano (Lima) . Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 14:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Peru . Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 14:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . While this is certainly not a policy-based reason to , just take a look at the photo of the stop in the infobox--it should be obvious that this is not a notable stop in and of itself. No real sources to be found, and the eswiki article doesn't provide any helpful sources, either. The street itself , however, does appear to be notable (the street is what's covered in most of the sources if you do a search), and that could also be a possible /(small) target. Bestagon ⬡ 01:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: or Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no objection to a per OP. Bestagon ⬡ 10:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Alexandra Schimmer: I don't see notability arising in any of the subject's other activities, and the sources are not sufficiently independent or in-depth. BD2412 T 20:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Ohio . BD2412 T 20:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 21:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Goldsztajn ( talk ) 22:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions . Goldsztajn ( talk ) 22:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - She received a BA degree at Princeton University, her Master of Philosophy at Cambridge University, and her Juris Doctorate at Yale Law School. She was Solicitor General of Ohio 2011–2013, and otherwise argued a case before the US Supreme Court in 2012. Her being floated for a spot on the US Supreme Court indicates she has an impressive legal background to even be considered. — Maile ( talk ) 21:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Her name is being floated for a circuit court of appeals, not the Supreme Court. Her degrees are impressive, but impressive degrees do not confer notability. I don't believe we count state solicitors general as automatically notable, and arguing a SCOTUS case is just a function of that job. BD2412 T 21:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC) NPOL so presumed notability does not apply. Other than the National Law Journal piece, I've not found anything else to provide multiple SIGCOV reliable sourcing for a satisfactory pass of the WP:GNG . Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 22:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC) NPOL , akin to Ohio Attorney General . TJRC ( talk ) 03:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC) per TJRC-- Ipigott ( talk ) 07:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC) NPOL . Djflem ( talk ) 14:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC) I'm not wedded to my ! vote but would like to understand the justification for an WP:NPOL pass here. Not all state wide offices are intrinsicaly notable - for example, the Delaware director of animal services is a state-wide office, but I do not think there is community consensus that the proverbial dog-catcher is accorded presumed notability. The Ohio Socilitor-General does not sit in the Cabinet of the Governor of Ohio , and we've usually accorded state-level cabinet members presumed notability. The Ohio Solicitor-General reports to the Ohio Attorney-General. Certainly, I would accord presumed notability to the Attorney-General, who does not sit in the cabinet, but as chief law officer of the state is clearly a notable position. But the solictor-general is the deputy to the AG ... Where then is the dividing line for an NPOL pass? Is it offices that require approval from the legislature? (I believe the SG is not legislature approved, but appointed by the AG). We need some agreed dividing line, otherwise we've got an endless list of statewide offices to accord presumed notability (State Librarian of Ohio?). Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 00:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was thinking exactly this. BD2412 T 01:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Ohio Solicitor General represents the entire state in all appellate proceedings, including befor the US Supreme Court, the Ohio Supreme Court and federal appellate courts (generally the Sixth Circuit). It is of considerably more import than animal control. TJRC ( talk ) 00:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two points, first, I'm not suggesting it's equivalent in status to animal control, just that the application of ""state-wide office"" in NPOL needs to have limits, it's not *every* state-wide position and the discussion is where to draw the limit that confers *presumed* notability. Second, you've made assertions for the notability of the office, for which we already have an article, which is not quite the same as indicating why every holder of the office should be accorded presumed notability. What about the Clerk or Reporter of the Ohio Supreme Court - by most of the elements you've chosen those offices would be notable - should we confer presumed notability on every reporter and clerk of a US state Supreme Court? (IMHO, no). Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 05:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV . As she was appointed to the position of solicitor general, I don't think NPOL is a suitable inherent pass here, as otherwise the secretary of chickens would be notable. Arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court also does not lend to inherent notability. I do agree with Goldsztajn that there needs to be more clarity here. User:Let'srun 18:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC) NPOL in my opinion as she was not a candidate for office. She was appointed and the position is not the same level as the attorney general. Even if it did apply, there are not enough reliable sources to create more than a few sentences without the use of WP:OR . -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC) to Solicitor General of_Ohio#List of Solicitors General . State solicitor generals do not meet WP:NPOL as they are not a statewide cabinet official. The subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG at the moment. Curbon7 ( talk ) 20:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would be fine with the proposed . BD2412 T 22:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] revising ! vote, good ATD suggestion from",redirect
+"On & On (Cartoon song): Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Estonia and France . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC) 38, 1 September 2023 (UTC) 45, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"List of MÄR chapters: This is probably one of the most obscure series out there, we don’t need multiple articles of exhaustive documentation on it. Dronebogus ( talk ) 10:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Lists . Dronebogus ( talk ) 10:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to MÄR . References also seem to be to web listings by publishers and/or sellers. And yeah on the ""WHY""... is anyone even reading that? What purpose does it serve having the information broken down like that? BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 19:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC) 23, 19 May 2023 (UTC) NOTPAPER : Keeping articles to a reasonable size is important for Wikipedia's accessibility, especially for readers with low-bandwidth connections and on mobile platforms, since it directly affects page download time (see Wikipedia:Article size). Splitting long articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style) , which generally allows for size splits like this. However, this series isn't super long and not many of the volumes have summaries. At the very least, the content should be preserved, be it here or in the main article via a . Link20XX ( talk ) 03:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to MÄR . The list isn't that prominent and could be better off d with the main article. Only split if there is a valid reason for it. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk ) 19:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Cabinet Man: 00:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music . wizzito | say hello! 00:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Spirit Phone per nom. Found no coverage myself. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 03:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Spirit Phone. A bunch of Lemon Demon articles got created since the last time I checked, and I was hoping there was some new coverage or something, but no dice. casualdejekyll 00:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"List of mosques: Their rationale implies that the content is not worthy of being d, so it is within the scope of AfD. List of mosques serves no useful purpose. It's clearly too vague to ever be a viable list article per WP:SALAT (e.g. there's no List of church buildings either, as far as I can see). This is a function accomplished by Category:Mosques . The list has no proper inclusion criteria: the lead states ""some of the more famous mosques"", but that's obviously unhelpful, there's little about the current list that suggests the additions are being limited to ""famous"" mosques, and even if we tried to enforce such a criteria it would inevitably be an unclear POV mess; anything can be ""famous"" from a certain POV, and "" notable "" would by definition include every Wikipedia mosque article (which, again, is what categories are for). There are of course almost no sources in that article either, despite the many additional claims inserted into the list. All of this makes it incompatible with the guidelines outlined at WP:STANDALONE . The only useful version of this would be an article that links to more precise lists of mosques. This already exists here at Lists of mosques (notwithstanding some needed improvements). Two articles with such similar titles are also likely to cause confusion and they already look like WP:CONTENTFORKs of each other. Therefore, List of mosques should simply here. — User:R Prazeres 17:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC) – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 00:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Islam , and Lists . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 00:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or per the above. Indeed I only proposed as because I thought a blank-and- would fall under that type of proposal, but deleting (with or without ) addresses the problem too. R Prazeres ( talk ) 00:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This can survive, and quite possibly should, as a list-of-lists, assuming someone wants to make sub-lists, say for per-nation mosque lists, which can in turn be lists of per-province mosque lists. Absent that, a comprehensive list in one file doesn't seem to be terribly useful or maintainable. Jclemens ( talk ) 00:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If I understand you correctly, is that not what Lists of mosques is? (That was the context of the original proposal copied above.) R Prazeres ( talk ) 01:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed. I appear to have missed the hatnote. Carry on. Jclemens ( talk ) 01:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No worries, easy to miss! R Prazeres ( talk ) 01:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I got confused by the similar titles but while lists of mosques is a navigational list this one isn't. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 02:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One of the most spurious nominations I've ever seen, to be honest. Category:Lists of religious building lists even has a container category for these sorts of pages, and the See Also section functions similarly to other pages in that category. This is really a speedy in my book - deleting this is completely non-sensical. SportingFlyer T · C 05:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Lists of mosques . Upon further review, this article and that article are functional duplicates. I did not read the entirety of the nomination statement, which I thought was making an incorrect argument that mosques should be categorised instead, and that we were deleting the master article. SportingFlyer T · C 05:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . It seems pretty uncontroversial that the two articles should simply be d using Lists of mosques as the title, which appears has been largely done already. Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or to Lists of mosques per the above. I would have supported a straight if the Lists article didn't list some individual mosques as well, but there indeed are individual mosques listed on the Lists article. – Epicgenius ( talk ) 17:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Epicgenius I thoroughly disagree with a . The way a page happened to be is frankly not a strong reason why we should go along, because anyone can edit, and a page may simply not have attracted any potential opposing valid views. Listing individual mosques contradicts with the nature of a page that, per its title, should have been a ""list of lists"". I checked the edit history of that page. And apparently, this edit a few years ago added a whole lotta individual mosques to what once was truly a list of lists. The account behind the edit has only 7 edits and has not been active since. Likely due to little traffic then, no one reverted that edit and went along with the flow. After this AfD, the removal of the individual mosques from that page is warranted in my opinion. Aintabli ( talk ) 21:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Aintabli , as I mentioned, I am fine with either a or a . I only mentioned a in case there was a desire to maintain tables of individual mosques on the Lists page. If these tables of individual mosques are removed, then I prefer a instead. – Epicgenius ( talk ) 22:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] is the most suitable option. ScriptKKiddie ( talk ) 16:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC) I fail to see why this should be d. A list of mosques, even if it is only the ""famous"" ones, which is too vague, is impossible. Transferring content to the Lists of mosques would contradict the purpose of that page. Aintabli ( talk ) 21:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"WQDH-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 03:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 03:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. Station's history has only been as an automated operation from out of state. Nate • ( chatter ) 15:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. : there's not much to say, or can be said, about a 2010s-launched DTV America/HC2/Innovate LPTV without significant or any coverage. Yet another technical survivor of a bulk nomination from last year . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Cyrus Lupo: If the character is not notable, I suggest a and/or to List of Law & Order characters . Spinixster (chat!) 07:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Spinixster (chat!) 07:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to the list. This is just a plot summary, nothing here suggests GNG is met. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"GMA Saturday/Sunday Report: No good hits on GNews, GSearch and GNews Archives. Most hits are old TV guide lists. Suggest ing to List_of_GMA_Network_original_programming#Former_original_programming as WP:ATD . -- Lenticel ( talk ) 08:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Television , and Philippines . Lenticel ( talk ) 08:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC) TVSHOW that is used to argue for is well, an essay. It's better to follow WP:GNG and cite a reliable sources to support its notability. It was part of a mass AfD which probably made it harder for editors then to scrutinize each article's merit during that particular period. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 09:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, also there is also lack of coverage by GMA programming (old shows) and reliable source is original research. This article should be per WP:SIGCOV , WP:OR and WP:RS . Icarus58 ( talk ) 12:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So I decided to no immediately to avoid multiple s for old programs since it is not advisable. Icarus58 ( talk ) 00:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of GMA Network original programming#Former original programming per nomination. - Ian Lopez @ 04:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Simone Buttigieg: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Malta . JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC) ATD as those searching her name would likely still expect to find out about a footballer. I can't remember if this had better sources when I wrote the article but the best I can find now are things like Times of Malta , some award announcement on Facebook and Independent which don't cut it. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC) ATD should hold for all of them whenever possible. - Socccc ( talk ) 22:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect' as above. Giant Snowman 19:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above per Spiderone. Jogurney ( talk ) 14:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Shudhu Tomari: Donald D23 talk to me 17:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Bengali films of 2013#October-December ? (see TOI article in the page, mentioning its release). (NB- I deproDed the page, see TP). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC) non-notable. Llajwa ( talk ) 20:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Bengali films of 2013#October-December per Mushy Yank . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Michal Vacek: I'm not a native speaker of Czech language, but all I could find were brief/passing mentions and no activities of his own. Corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia is also a stub, which might help otherwise. No news has been released about him since his last appearance in 2015 , either. CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 12:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics , and Czech Republic . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Czech Republic at the 2014 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh . I also couldn't find a source that would be enough to sustain a separate article. FromCzech ( talk ) 07:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Hadja Maffire Bangura: Fails WP:GNG . Nirva20 ( talk ) 04:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Nirva20 ( talk ) 04:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women , and Africa . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Or to Mafory Bangoura , if same person . Nirva20 ( talk ) 22:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Inclusion in Historic Dictionary of Guinea (4th ed) seems a good indication of notability. We don't know what the ""Bureau politique national"" is/was, nor whether the ""posts in the ... government"" included any ministerial posts which would contribute to notability. Obviously an African person active in politics who died in 1956 is not going to have much coverage in material available online today, so their inclusion in an established national biographical dictionary has to be taken as significant. But another source or two would be an improvement. Pam D 09:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem is there's only one source, I've been able to access the source and confirm she's in the source, but the source is closely paraphrased. The President of I believe Liberia sent condolences to Guinea upon her death, but her date of passing doesn't match the date in the source, that source also says she was the Minister for Social Welfare. Maffire is also spelled Mafoury and Bangura is also spelled Bangoura if you're looking for a before search. The Dictionary of African Biographies also has a longer blurb on her but says she was the minister of social affairs starting in 1971, also after the reported date of death. So I'm leaning , but it needs a copyvio cleanup. If someone has good access to sources, this article can be clearly marked for improvement. SportingFlyer T · C 10:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Just out of curiosity, are we sure that the source doesn't just have an error on the death date? I'm seeing Mafory Bangoura (i.e. Hadja Aissatou Mafory Bangoura), an article on a tailor (seamstress) by trade who was a Guinean independence activist active among the Susu and in Conakry at the same time as the person described by the source. That individual was also active in the PDG, and was Minister for social affairs. The names of this article's subject and that individual above are spelled quite similarly (they may well be alternate transliterations). This could be my ignorance of the article subject more broadly, but how sure are we that these are different people? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Almost certain this is an alternate transliteration based on how many details match between the sources. Would vote . SportingFlyer T · C 21:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 18:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC) Tried a French-only Google search and the BNF [1] , rien (nothing). for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know about the other names, but French would almost certainly use the spelling ""Bangoura"" rather than ""Bangura"". Phil Bridger ( talk ) 09:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Mafory Bangoura . Given the similarities in name and biographies, I think it is almost certainly the same person. Jfire ( talk ) 01:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 23:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per all the arguments above. There is one source used, so the article clearly fails WP:SIGCOV . Anwegmann ( talk ) 02:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also inclined to believe that if ""Hadja Maffire Bangura"" had been notable and not just a misnomer, there would have been more avaliable sources, like the ones displayed on Hadja Mafory Bangoura . Geschichte ( talk ) 07:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] >>> Mafory Bangoura , definitely a potential search term. Djflem ( talk ) 17:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC) Have you done a Wikipedia:BEFORE and read WP:AFDLIST (which states It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article. For your convenience, you may use {{subst: Adw | Article title }}. ? Familiarizing yourself with both is wise and helpful if you are going to make AfD nominations. It does not appear you have notified creator, who may be able to shed light on the subject. Djflem ( talk ) 18:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC) Ok. Thanks. I will notify the article's creator. Nirva20 ( talk ) 18:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @Djflem -- I notified the article's creator of this AFD (which you had already done) and apologized for not notifying them earlier. You're right. I should have done so but forgot in my haste. Nirva20 ( talk ) 18:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Order in which countries enter the new year: ― Howard • 🌽 33 15:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . ― Howard • 🌽 33 15:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC) to List of time zones by country . The rationale makes sense, but s are cheap and this meets the criteria for WP: ATD-R . HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 19:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of time zones by country per above. Di (they-them) ( talk ) 00:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of time zones by country per above. Rocfan275 ( talk ) 01:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I think deletion in some sense seems inevitable here, but I have to ask, what possible purpose does a serve here? It's not a plausible search term; it's not a plausible phrase to link from. 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 17:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC) CHEAP , so why not? HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 16:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC) COSTLY , so why? Even still, that's no argument against deletion. There's no page history worth ing here, and this would be a useless , so why create it? Nothing would stop anyone from creating this name as a after deletion, except of course for the fact that it's such an awkward, implausible phrase. 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 14:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We both agree that making one is cheap, which is what we're actually doing here. I don't see what's left to discuss. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 15:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We most definitely do not agree. You've provided no rationale why this should be converted to a instead of a WP:VAGUEWAVE to WP:ATD-R . I would advocate for deletion of this . 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 19:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC) RPURPOSE says that s to [s]ubtopics or other topics that are described or listed within a wider article are legitimate . Consider also WP:R#KEEP #2 and 5. The very existence of this AfD proves that the would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely . Nickps ( talk ) 18:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Martin Dziewialtowski: Looks to me like he fails to meet WP:GNG . BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 15:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople , Cue sports , and Scotland . BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 15:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC) GNG, I feel we will need to apply this to about half of all snooker player articles we have on Wikipedia. I'm happy to contribute to that process if that is the route we choose to take, but I believe it would be counter-productive to our aim of increasing the coverage of snooker here. I take the view that he meets the criteria for notability established here - [24] - having been ranked 68 at one point during a career lasting twelve years, and having been a quarter-finalist in a major tournament, the 1997 UK Championship . It's regrettable that there was only a passing mention of that achievement, but in my view, this should not detract from the fact that such an achievement - coupled with his albeit moderate career success - is sufficient for him to be notable here. Montgomery15 ( talk ) 20:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC) I sympathise with your view but I don't think it accords with policy. Wikipedia:Notability (sports) , which links to the page you mention, states that ""The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly d when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it."" Near the top of the page that you link to, it says ""Please note that the wikiproject advice below... should not be relied upon in the article deletion process, which is subject to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not wikiproject recommendations."" If you know of any other coverage in reliable sources about Dziewialtowski, such as in books or other media, please share the details. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 22:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 06:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - My recollection was he got quite a bit of newspaper coverage at the time of the 1997 UK Championship and its aftermath. I suspect that this was largely as it was very unusual for a player at his ranking to get so far in a major tournament and there was a thought that he could be the next big Scottish player. While I would probably lean towards saying he is notable enough to have an article, I can see the case against as well. I would suggest if deletion is agreed to then a to 1997 UK Championship would be a good option as I do think people might search for him and this is undoubtedly the event that he is best known for (and why he would be searched for). Dunarc ( talk ) 22:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm loathe to vote because I'm unable to do a before search on my own for someone who would have been in the papers during the early internet age, but if BennyOnTheLoose's before is correct, then this should be d or ed. SportingFlyer T · C 09:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Lloyd's Lunchbox: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 15:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to the ""Spike and Mike Festival of Animation"" article, seems to be the context in which this is notable [17] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Mackenzie Junction: Rs chen 7754 22:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada . Rs chen 7754 22:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC) GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 03:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC) No indication of notability, just an intersection Reywas92 Talk 03:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC) I believe this article is about a community named Mackenzie Junction, not the intersection, despite the way the article is written. This should probably be converted to a to the article Regional District of Fraser–Fort George . Mind matrix 14:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which sources describe a community with this name? – dlthewave ☎ 16:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As a road junction , this article is not notable. As a community - WP:GEOLAND says that populated places are presumed notable (not making a statement about whether this community fulfills that), but the article seems to be written about the road junction. Rs chen 7754 00:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I got 7 Google news hits. While the junction is nothing out of the ordinary, it's located in a sparsely populated area and appears to be used as a geographical marker for anything that happens in the area. Perhaps the junction falls within the realm of Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer? An alternative could be a to British Columbia Highway 39 . Rupples ( talk ) 01:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into British Columbia Highway 39 for which this junction, tiny community, and service center is a terminal node. The target is short and can use this content. gidonb ( talk ) 02:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Did consider a rather than a but quality of sourcing stopped me formally recommending. I do think ""Mackenzie Junction"" is a plausible search term and therefore should be referenced somehow. If deemed appropriate a is the best alternative to deletion as notability looks insufficient to warrant a separate article. Rupples ( talk ) 13:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . gidonb ( talk ) 02:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rupples , thank you for thinking this through. Actually, there is nothing wrong with the sources except that these do not support notability or importance. Hence we cannot the article. The content only needs sources that support data, a lower bar, which is met. The two sentences that should be copied to British Columbia Highway 39 , while once inserting Mackenzie Junction, are the ones that start with it. Plus Mackenzie Junction should be added to infobox as the terminal node. gidonb ( talk ) 13:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into British Columbia Highway 39 with ""Mackenzie Junction"" as a heading in that article and searches ed there — following Gidonb's and my reasoning above. Rupples ( talk ) 14:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Intersection has no indication of notability. – dlthewave ☎ 16:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Let’s attempt to come to a consensus on whether to or . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌) 🔥 14:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment What part of Wikipedia's policy makes the number of Google News hits a criteria for inclusion or deletion? Also, the Google algorithm can be misleading in that stories in reliable secondary news sources stop showing up in Google news hits after a few days, but show up when the articles are first published. -- Kerbyki ( talk ) 14:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC) per nom, not notable at all greyzxq talk 15:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or Possibly to Mackenzie? It's clear there exists a place called Mackenzie Junction - it comes up in a Google Books search, and there's an inn, a restaurant, and a RV hookup there in real life. Whether that's enough for a standalone article is a different question (even though that's the one posed by this discussion), but we should make sure the place is noted somewhere on the site. SportingFlyer T · C 21:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thinking about this more, it's the junction for the only road to Mackenzie - I think Mackenzie would be a good target for the small amount of information that's here, especially considering the Mackenzie visitor centre is by the junction. SportingFlyer T · C 00:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There doesn't seem to be anything there to merit ing as a community (based on looking at maps), and no evidence of notability as a junction (junctions are sometimes notable if historically significant or important, but not every road junction deserves an article). If the inn/restaurant was itself notable, we could move, but it doesn't seem to be. Redirecting to British Columbia Highway 39 might be possible if this is a genuinely widely-used name for the junction but I'm not sure of that. What happened there? Why is it notable? -- Colapeninsula ( talk ) 10:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [18] and in German guidebooks: [19] and here and a reference to real estate being located there - there's not much, but it's definitely a point on the map people refer to in a very rural part of the world. It's probably not going to be enough to this article unfortunately but I feel like that's a failure of WP:NGEO more than anything else. SportingFlyer T · C 22:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A minor intersection, does not meet the notability guidelines. Avilich ( talk ) 20:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] article. the meager content to British Columbia Highway 39 . to British Columbia Highway 39 . I looked on Google Earth. There is nothing there except one combined Petro-Canada gas station / RV park (tiny) / restaurant. There's a building out in back of that which may be housing for workers. There's a cluster of what looks like about a dozen mobile homes on the other side of the Parsnip River . That's everything within a one-mile radius. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"It's a Wrap (Mary J. Blige song): Heartfox ( talk ) 16:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions . Heartfox ( talk ) 16:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Newspapers.com mentions Los Angeles Times album review : ""the plain-spoken ""It's a Wrap"" tells of the need to walk away from an abusive or unfaithful mate."" Associated Press album review : ""We've come to expect more from Blige over the years, and she delivered with classic, gut-wrenching soul that came from the heart. Only a few songs approach that dynamic on ""Love & Life,"" and it's on those songs such as ""It's a Wrap"" ...that Blige truly shines"" Daily Herald album review : ""Blige ecstatically heats up ""It's A Wrap"" ProQuest mentions The Globe and Mail album review : ""In It's a Wrap , she even allows herself to make sounds that aren't pretty, but that suit the confused fury of this song about an archetypal cheatin' man. "" Vibe album review : ""One of the album's grittiest tracks, ""It's a Wrap,"" is about violation. Mary's voice sounds like molasses brought to the boiling point: sweet, thick, and bubbling with intensity. She's caught her man with some other chick's scent on him. "" The Washington Post concert review ""After Blige closed the pre-encore part of the show with a trio of buoyantly booty-shaking cuts from ""Love & Life"" -- ""It's a Wrap""..."" USA Today album review : ""She's still apt to put a knucklehead in check, as she does with Eve's help on the Dr. Dre-produced Not Today or on the pointed ""It's a Wrap"""" Lancaster New Era album review : ""As in the past, Blige finds a way to put unfaithful men in their place, with the Dr. Dre-produced ""Not Today"" featuring Eve, and ""It's A Wrap."""" St. Louis Post-Dispatch album review : ""As the CD moves past the halfway mark, Blige takes up residence in the house that Quiet Storm built, registering with a string of signature-style ballads, including ""Feel Like Making Love,"" ""It's a Wrap""..."" Billboard album review : ""those desiring the Blige of yore will find solace in the sterling ""Press On,"" the haunting ""Friends,"" the sassy ""It's a Wrap""..."" EBSCOhost mentions People album review: ""Of course no Blige album would be complete without a killer he-done-me-wrong ballad for the ladies. Here it's ""It's a Wrap,"" on which she once again proves she is the Aretha of her generation"" From searching Google, ProQuest, EBSCO, Newspapers.com, etc., there isn't one article that discusses this song alone, outside of a concert or album review. Just because a song charted at number 71 on Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs doesn't mean its notable. As you can see from the availability of sources, there is not content outside of album reviews to meet WP:NSONG ""Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. "" Nor is there ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"" to satisfy WP:GNG . The album, Love & Life (Mary J. Blige album) does not have a ""music and lyrics"" section, so the little details available for this song would fit in perfectly there, and the chart performance is already covered at Mary J. Blige discography . This song is not notable independent of the album. Heartfox ( talk ) 17:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Love & Life (Mary J. Blige album) per nomination. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 19:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Love & Life (Mary J. Blige album) . I appreciate that the nominator has clearly done a search for sources prior to their nomination and I agree with their rationale. I have done my own search, and it appears that this song has not received significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources. It appears that the coverage is limited to album reviews. This is the fifth single from an album that did not meet commercial expectations so I am not surprised by the limited coverage. That being said, a valid target does exist and that would be preferable over outright deletion. Aoba47 ( talk ) 22:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to album. Only thing I found was a vibe listicle type article. WikiVirus C (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"JQuranTree: No independent and reliable sources covering this software. The only source with WP:SIGCOV is this paper by Kais Dukes, which is also a developer of this software, so it can't be considered independent. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 12:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 12:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , lacks significant coverage. -- Mvqr ( talk ) 15:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So I was able to find some more places that mention this library. 978-1-928480-56-3 : ""For citations to the Quran in this chapter, I have used the translations by Yusuf Ali from the online Corpus Quran, which forms part of JQuranTree, a set of Java APIs for accessing and analysing the Quran."" (p. 113). 9781575865430 may be another book that mentions the library, but I don't have online access to it. 10.5120/ijca2015905709 : ""The modification was guided by Extended Buckwalter encoder and decoder in JQuranTree API which is a set of Java APIs for accessing and analyzing the Quran released as an open source project."" (pp. 38–39). 10.1007/s13369-017-2737-2 : ""JQuranTree Buckwalter encoder uses a superset of Buckwalter transliteration system to enable reversible transliteration of Tanzil XML...These characters are not implemented by the JQuranTree Buckwalter encoder."" (p. 762). [30] mentions it 8 times, and may be useful. 10.1109/ICCIT-144147971.2020.9213772 may be useful, but I don't have online access to IEEE. Leaning . SWinxy ( talk ) 18:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC) possible target at Digital Quran ? -- asilvering ( talk ) 06:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 09:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 02:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC) where this API can be mentioned. Owen× ☎ 22:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Arkansas Department of Aeronautics: I argue that this page is not notable enough. Therefore, I think it should be d into the ""Government and Military"" section of ""Aviation in Arkansas"". A.FLOCK ( talk ) 18:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions . 18:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions . 18:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Arkansas state agencies#Department of Commerce for an ATD. Nate • ( chatter ) as per suggestion above. It's barren article anyway. Cortador ( talk ) 07:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"WESV-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 03:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Illinois . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 03:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC) there doesn't seem to be any evidence of any local content or anything else that would generate any significant coverage (and its pre-Estrella history was as a TBN repeater that, under today's standards, would be even less likely to be notable). A remnant of the looser inclusion standards of 2010; an {{ R to list entry }} is all that's needed in 2024. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"The Power of Pure Intellect: The album is by a non-notable band and doesn't have WP:SIGCOV from what I can find. It does not seem to meet any of the WP:NALBUMS criteria either. ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me! 20:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me! 20:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC) ATD — siro χ o 02:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Dayana Calero: The subject has earned at least three caps for the Nicaragua women's national football team . I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Nicaragua . JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC) Shan't contest this. Danish Ranger ( talk ) 01:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as I cannot find anything pointing towards GNG either. Belichickoverbrady ( talk ) 20:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 14:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers . Suitskvarts ( talk ) 13:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Agile Communication Environment: Can't find much online. BrigadierG ( talk ) 13:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Computing , and Software . BrigadierG ( talk ) 13:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC) 50, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Avaya as per 94rain. Llajwa ( talk ) 21:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Nobody Here But—: While the book appears to exist, the entry is entirely unsourced, and has been tagged as such since 2007. I conducted a WP:BEFORE search, which consisted almost entirely of a different thing, Ain't Nobody Here but Us Chickens , and terms not relevant to the actual book. A search on other Wikipedias did not probe anything substantial either, except a singular catalogue entry from the Italian Wikipedia which merely documents its existence and provides nothing else. I was thinking it would maybe pass because of criteria 5, but I didn't find anything that would indicate this book as a part of Asimov's biography, aside from him being the author of the book. KangarooGymnast ( talk ) 11:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature . KangarooGymnast ( talk ) 11:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not actually a book. It's a short story. Some Asimov stories are hugely notable, having been discussed in depth in many guides to science fiction and literary analyses. This is not, as far as I can find, one of them. Uncle G ( talk ) 11:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Whoops. My mistake. Thanks for pointing that out to me! KangarooGymnast ( talk ) 11:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A sensible ATD is to to Nightfall and Other Stories . — siro χ o 12:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC) NB 5, and the idea that when we have an author of such major prominence it is desirable for completeness sake to summarize the contents of every story in Nightfall and Other Stories (where currently every story is a bluelink). Searching scholarly databases, all I find on a first look are a few articles like this one which use the story in a training corpus to study narrative point of view-- certainly not sigcov of the story. It's possible that some extended discussion of this story has happened within sources that don't mention it in the title, e.g., in the prefaces of scholarly editions; articles about the Nightfall book; articles about Asimov / sci fi in general... part of why I'd entertain an NB5 rationale is that I can easily imagine such coverage existing somewhere, especially in non-digitized sources closer to its first publication. But without said coverage in hand, I don't want to make a argument. I can't do more digging now but will come back if I find more. ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 04:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC) NBOOK criterion 5. Note that this does not require any sourcing for the story, just for Asimov as a subject of study, like [71] , [72] , [73] for a quick few. Jclemens ( talk ) 06:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC) Nah. It's a short story, not a book, so NBOOK does not properly apply. In particular, NBOOK criteria 5 is not valid, since the story is not likely to meet ""Threshold standards"" (being held in a major library), and anyway, NBOOK states that ""Articles that are plot summaries"" are not valid. Find sources that show some coverage of this first. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC) SOURCESEXIST , and the ones cited above are not relevant per WP:NOTINHERITED . I'd be happy to revise my vote if sources about this work are found (please ping me if this happens). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Isaac Asimov short stories bibliography unless relevant sources can be found. Tooncool64 ( talk ) 22:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe this may be notable but without sources it's impossible to write a reliable article. Holding out the faith that someone will one day improve this and split it once again. Archrogue ( talk ) 18:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"2009 Peshawar judicial complex bombing: LibStar ( talk ) 10:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Terrorism , and Pakistan . LibStar ( talk ) 10:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2009#November , where it is mentioned. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 15:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] it is an event of historical significant given that about 10 people were reported killed and 50 others seriously injured. The bombing received significant coverage of international media such as BBC , CBS , France 24 , Al Jazeera and other media outlets covered the bombing incident. Ludamane ( talk ) 10:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC) LASTING and well after the event? The number of people killed is itself not a criterion for notability. LibStar ( talk ) 10:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC) where it is already covered in as much detail as in this article. There is no evidence of WP:LASTING notability, and no valid reason to split this into a separate article. Owen× ☎ 15:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2009 . 27.4.1.83 ( talk ) 09:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Lynn Weis: I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Luxembourg . JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 19:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per nom. Svartner ( talk ) 20:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Outside (Alaska): I believe the article fails WP:NOTDICT , as it has no substance beyond a dictionary definition and I was unable to find sources that could be used as the basis for an encyclopedia article. Sojourner in the earth ( talk ) 19:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Alaska . Sojourner in the earth ( talk ) 19:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC) No comment on the article itself, but I strongly disagree with the notion that WP:BOLDly ing is somehow not allowed. Both WP:BLAR and WP:ATD-R make it clear this is allowed, though it can of course be contested. Curbon7 ( talk ) 20:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC) This seems like clear dictionary (not encyclopedia) material to me. As such, deletion or soft as an alternative are appropriate. Cnilep ( talk ) 08:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll do some additional research in historical records and other material to see if I can find additional references, but right now, I support a . JKBrooks85 ( talk ) 20:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Outside . Wikipedia is not a dictionary . FatCat96 ( talk ) 05:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"In-motion scale: The checkweigher article says that automatic checkweighers are also known as in-motion scales. The checkweigher article is the older of the two, and it has sources. What do you think? HenryMP02 ( talk ) 15:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with Checkweigher and to Weigh in motion . From some cursory searches, I can't actually find much use of people calling checkweighers in-motion scales online. More often, this seems to refer to a completely different device used to weigh trucks. Since that's the more common name, either a with a hatnote 'or' potentially a disambiguation page would be sufficient. Definitely not worth the duplicate page though, since I can't find any distinction and duplicate pages are discouraged. Aamri2 ( talk ) 14:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions . Aamri2 ( talk ) 03:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a with Check weigher . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 15:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Check weigher . There's no point in having two articles on the same subject, and of the two, check-weigher is in much better shape. There is really no material here that needs to be d. I don't favour ing to Weigh in motion as this is a completely different application and scenario. Better to treat that as a ""see also"". Elemimele ( talk ) 16:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: We have contradictor guidance here on and Redirection. Just seeking an opinion or two to settle this difference of opinion on target articles. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 16:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As above. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to checkweigher , that seems like the more reasonable option to me. I don't really see much that would be worth merging. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 10:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to checkweigher makes perfect sense to me. Jacona ( talk ) 18:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Chris Batstone: Possible WP:ATD is / to Suburban Legends , but could overpower that article, and no referenced info to . Boleyn ( talk ) 17:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Bands and musicians , Television , and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Since ""He"" was the lead singer of a notable band. The article gave no reliable/verifiable source (I will try and find one) but since there is WP:BANDMEMBER , which states; Members of notable bands are ed to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability. Bearing also WP: ATD , Redirecting is the best option. All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk ) 21:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC) BANDMEMBER . No notability outside the band. Tacyarg ( talk ) 02:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different proposed target articles. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Thought as much, the band has more to offer. No need to delay this AFD. All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk ) 16:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"I'll Do It: Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Non-notable musical piece. If it had some sort of coverage for the TikTok thing I might look at ing it, there is none. Doesn't meet any of the music criteria for notability. SALT as well, 3 times at AfD is getting silly. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Found one article on the song from Dazed which I included in the target article , but that's all I could get. SALTing would be overkill for an article that has only been at AfD twice (one of those listed is clearly for a different subject altogether and shouldn't be there), especially when the latter is now after the song has had a viral moment and it makes sense that someone would throw an article up for it. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 17:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 13:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Superficial (album) as suggested per QuietHere. I would agree that salting is a step too far for what it is, but this shouldn't be its own article unless it gets resurrected the same way that Fleetwood Mac's song ""Dreams"" was (see CNN ) Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 22:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Regents (punk rock band): Tails Wx 14:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . Tails Wx 14:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maryland and Washington, D.C. . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 17:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , no reliable sources found. Brachy 08 (Talk) 04:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] a sentence or two to Jason Hamacher where it is already mentioned, as ATD. — siro χ o 05:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"John and Gillian: The article right now is just plot summary and does not meet GNG nor SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 19:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Comics and animation . Pokelego999 ( talk ) 19:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to [thumbs through list of Doctor Who lists] Companion (Doctor Who) . Dronebogus ( talk ) 22:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Companion (Doctor Who) - Minor characters, and the two sources included in the article only contain one-to-two sentences of ""coverage"" on them. Searching for more sources just gives more of the same - just very brief mentions here in there as, essentially, a minor piece of Doctor Who trivia. Honestly, this could very well be d, but since they are already listed at the main Companion article, a wouldn't hurt. Rorshacma ( talk ) 01:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per previous two. -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 06:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC) //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pokelego999 has over approx two days mass-nominated for deletion 51 Doctor Who-related articles as follows: Blinovitch Limitation Effect, Destrii, Muriel Frost, Kadiatu Lethbridge-Stewart, Iris Wildthyme, Shayde, Fey Truscott-Sade, Sam Jones (Doctor Who), Molly O'Sullivan, Jason Kane (Doctor Who), Flip Jackson, Mila (Doctor Who), Charley Pollard, Evelyn Smythe, Thomas Brewster (Doctor Who), Abby (Doctor Who), Vislor Turlough, Rutan (Doctor Who), Draconian (Doctor Who), Sisterhood of Karn, Henry Gordon Jago, Professor George Litefoot, Forge (Doctor Who), Timewyrm, Threshold (Doctor Who), Coal Hill School, Nimrod (Doctor Who), Nobody No-One, Borusa, The Monk (Doctor Who), Polly (Doctor Who), Ben Jackson (Doctor Who), List of UNIT personnel, John and Gillian, Shalka Doctor, Sabbath (Doctor Who), Chris Cwej, Grandfather Paradox (Doctor Who), The Other (Doctor Who), Alan Jackson (The Sarah Jane Adventures), Vortis (Doctor Who), Thal (Doctor Who), Ogron, Werewolf (Doctor Who), Sil (Doctor Who), White Guardian, Mara (Doctor Who), Sabalom Glitz, Castellan (Doctor Who), Professor Edward Travers, Alpha Centauri (Doctor Who) Such a mass deletion would significantly alter the coverage of Doctor Who on wikipedia. WikiProject Doctor Who was not informed beforehand. Regards, Anameofmyveryown ( talk ) 15:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These characters are almost all totally non-notable, and projects do not own their topics. Dronebogus ( talk ) 00:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, but it is worth noting that Taggy McDriveby's mass-nominations are causing considerable flooding of AfDs (also resulting in some question as to whether they're genuinely carrying out Before) leaving anyone interested with limited time to respond and find sources. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 16:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/Redirect per Rorschacma. There isn't WP:SIGCOV to support an article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 22:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Companion (Doctor Who) . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 21:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Ghilene Joseph: Former college soccer player who earned at least one cap with the Guyana women's national football team . Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , Caribbean , South America , and New Jersey . JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Giant Snowman 11:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Texas A&M University College of Liberal Arts: There is no notability as proven by reliable secondary sourcing, and no reason why there should be any; please note that all the ""sourcing"" is actually a collection of primary links to the Texas A&M website, and the article itself, with its list of majors and programs, just a kind of directory. Drmies ( talk ) 23:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Texas . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC) Miszatomic , who d this a while ago; and Randykitty , who's dealt with this user before. Also pinging User:ElKevbo , who PRODded this before. Drmies ( talk ) 23:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Texas A&M unless independent sourcing demonstrating that the college meets GNG independently of the rest of Texas A&M can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 00:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC) DUE content to another, more relevant Texas A&M-related page as suggested by Aquabluetesla below, but I would note that the current state of sourcing at Texas A&M University College of Science is no better than this article, and thus may just be kicking the can down the road (despite citing one independent source, said source does not include significant coverage of the College of Science in particular but rather is a college ranking page listing Texas A&M as a whole). signed, Rosguill talk 16:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC) Rosguill , good point: that article is no better, and that article should simply to the main Texas A&M article. Drmies ( talk ) 15:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This nomination is outdated as to the present state of the article. This discussion should be Speedily Kept as per WP:SK guidelines under reason 1(b), (the nominator failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion (i.e. arguments that would support deletion, userfying or ion, perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging)) and 3. (The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided.) The nominator of the article has failed to revise their unintelligible or, at the very least, convoluted reason for the initial nomination. Alternatively, or with Texas A&M University College of Science because the new college is the College of Arts and Sciences, and they were originally founded in 1924 as the School of Arts and Sciences and split in 1965. Please explain what ""Very few individual university departments are notable, and this one is not exception--it's like almost all the other ones, and at best deserves a "" means. As it’s written, this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of ""departments"" as that words definition with context to universities is the majors or subjects such as economics, philosophy, history, etc. It’s unclear as to what you mean by ""…this one is not exception"". What is ""it"" and what are the ""other ones"" that you are referring to by ""it's almost like all the other ones""? The other colleges of Texas A&M? The departments in the other colleges of the university? Please specify. What do you mean by ""…no reason there should be any [secondary sources]""? Why? This page should absolutely not be d. The college is very notable, Phil Gramm , the U.S. Senator, taught economics at the college and until its demise, the college was one of the largest at A&M, which is in the top three of the largest universities of the United States. The college is approaching its 100th anniversary of its founding and was much larger than many of the colleges of A&M that also have pages and a less amount of sources currently. It never should have been d in the first place. How is it different from the other colleges/schools listed in the infobox? I will be adding more sources soon, and have found several secondary sources relating to the subject. I will be making a history section. I made a notable faculty section and might add a notable alumni section soon. I would like those arguing for it to explain the argument against merging with the College of Science and why it should be a to Texas A&M University. Pinging some editors of A&M articles for their input, Buffs , Larry Hockett , Nicolás Macri , Largoplazo , John B123 , Jessicapierce , Steve Quinn , Anas1712 , Purplebackpack89 , and Oldag07 . Aquabluetesla ( talk ) 02:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC) Are there independent sources that indicate that this subject is notable ? ElKevbo ( talk ) 02:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes. They will be added. Aquabluetesla ( talk ) 04:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's what I'm waiting for because I'm not readily finding any and without them I'm going to support restoration of the . Largoplazo ( talk ) 13:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you want this article to not be d as a result of this discussion, I strongly recommend that you add those references now . (And the same goes for the articles about the other colleges of this university - they'll probably be nominated for deletion on the same grounds, too, if they also lack independent sources that demonstrate notability). ElKevbo ( talk ) 14:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC) really, Aquabluetesla , you don't know which subject we're discussing here? In any case, given the absence of independent sources treating the subject in-depth: or to Texas A&M University . I also recommend that somebody has a closer look at President of Texas A&M University . -- Randykitty ( talk ) 07:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 22, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 19, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 17, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 39, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 50, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 59, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're the one who cited it as a reason. I pointed out that it isn't one. Do you think there's a rule that unless someone dispenses with all your arguments, they shouldn't dispense with any? Anyway, unless it has received suitable independent coverage in reliable sources because of its size, its size is irrelevant here. University departments don't become notable just because they've lasted--I mean, every university English department or History department that's older than 100 isn't thereby notable. You can't just make up your own notability criteria. Largoplazo ( talk ) 18:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This subject is about the school or College of Liberal Arts of Texas A&M University, not its individual departments. Aquabluetesla ( talk ) 19:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] School. Department. Division. College. Campus. The point is the same. And, for your own benefit, it's worth my mentioning that considering you've been informed what the primary consideration here is going to be—to spell it out, it's going to be significant coverage in independent, reliable sources—you seem to be devoting more effort to snapping back and nitpicking about details when people point out to you what isn't going to lead to a outcome than to gathering sources that would lead to a outcome. Largoplazo ( talk ) 22:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Now? Aquabluetesla ( talk ) 23:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Now what? The citation to the website of the school's fundraising wing? Not exactly an independent source. And it isn't really about the school anyway, it's about a generous alumnus donation. It shows not at all that the school has attained significant notice outside of its own circle, which is more or less the goal at hand. Largoplazo ( talk ) 23:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, you are disregarding the source on the ProQuest website. Aquabluetesla ( talk ) 23:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, that. You mean, the dissertation presented by a Texas A&M University student to the Office of Graduate Studies at Texas A&M University. Does that seem independent to you? Largoplazo ( talk ) 00:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just added category ""Liberal arts colleges at universities in the United States"" when It was still a . I can't say anything more. Anas1712 ( talk ) 19:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Texas A&M . No indication the article meets WP:GNG . Phil Gramm teaching there does not make the college notable, see WP:NOTINHERETED . -- John B123 ( talk ) 09:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 33, 21 May 2023 (UTC) MULTIAFD is needed for most of the articles in Category:Texas A&M University colleges and schools . -- John B123 ( talk ) 05:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. Aquabluetesla ( talk ) 02:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with Texas A&M University College of Science - The two schools are merging so this makes sense. As for the broader discussion, about the various sub schools within a university are noteable, that is something for WP:UNI to discuss not here. I see no evidence that ""Very few individual university departments are notable"". Doing a random search of universities, I see plenty of sub school pages. See Trinity College of Arts and Sciences or University of Texas at Austin College of Liberal Arts or University of Arkansas College of Education & Health Professions . I am not sure why this page has been singled out. Oldag07 ( talk ) 18:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oldag07 , this page wasn't ""singled out"". Those with experience in AfD have heard that a thousand times already. Drmies ( talk ) 15:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your reason for nomination is unintelligible. Aquabluetesla ( talk ) 19:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC) OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ... -- Randykitty ( talk ) 19:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This information was cited as a counter to ""Very few individual university departments are notable"" demonstrating that it's pretty conclusively false...which the point that OldAg07 was making. You cited a reason he wasn't debating. Buffs ( talk ) 03:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] while good advice, that article is not official Wikipedia policy. see the top of that page. the presence of articles similar to it help establish its notability as least as it relates to Wikipedia. we aren't talking about one or two pages. we are talking hundreds. Oldag07 ( talk ) 20:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, there are likely dozens or hundreds of articles about non-notable university colleges and departments that should also be d. This is a very neglected part of Wikipedia that has usually been edited only by alumni and employees of those organizations - this is a long overdue correction. ElKevbo ( talk ) 20:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Correct, it isn't an official policy. It's an elaboration on common sense. A consistent history of a particular kind of criminal charge under particular cirumstances being thrown out of court indicates to prosecutors that it's foolish to bring more of such cases to court. But the occurrence of many bank robberies where the robbers haven't been prosecuted because they haven't been caught yet doesn't mitigate the seriousness of charges when they are raised against a particular bank robber who's been caught. That latter point is the entirely valid one that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS makes. One points to essays like that in discussions like these because the reasoning is already fully spelled out in the essays, sparing everyone the repetition of it at length in every discussion where it's relevant. Policy isn't the only thing with value. Largoplazo ( talk ) 22:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I respectfully disagree that the point here wasn't ""OTHERSTUFFEXISTS"" so this should (which was the primary point of the essay). He already said "" it"". Buffs ( talk ) 03:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Make this a draft I respect the efforts of Aquabluetesla to improve this article, but at this point, it doesn't meet the threshold for a separate article. To a certain extent, it includes information that could be incorporated into the Texas A&M article (mostly already is). Information that is too detailed could be added as a note and I see nothing procedurally to discourage that. There's no reason to lose the information here. I would caution people about throwing around ""not an independent source"". Very little of the cited information is remotely controversial or something that a University would lie about. While we need to avoid boosterism, the date the College began or their enrollment is hardly controversial unless it is a wild claim. Such claims are submitted to the US Government under penalty of perjury...they have little reason to lie and are checked by the US Dept of Education. Buffs ( talk ) 03:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"The Black Major: To wit: - research conducted during creation of Action Force (comic strip) and update of Battle Picture Weekly found no sources to support a standalone page for the character. The one sources on the article is weak, it's very OR-y and really the character is a cypher. BEFORE brings up only passing references. Not against ing to either Action Force or Action Force (comic strip) . BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 18:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems like to Action Force (comic strip) gives the reader the most information on the character. — siro χ o 04:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC) I lazily copied much of the nomination from that of Baron Ironblood, so would just like to note that describing the character as a cypher in this case is inaccurate as over the course of the comic the Black Major actually has a bit of interesting development, both with a dedicated origin arc and his continuation of the Red Shadows after the ence of Cobra. However, this does not affect the actual nomination as none of this is covered by secondary sources. Just wanted to clarify. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 08:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Action Force per nom. There doesn't seem to be much for him. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 18:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Action Force (comic strip) . This character has no SIGCOV. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 14:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV for a separate article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 21:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Death Is the Only Answer: four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or to Doctor Who (series 6) . The article fails to estabilish notability for itself. No reception/legacy/analysis/etc. Most of the sources are not independent (the show itself, BBC, etc.). Doctor Who Magazine seems reliable and the content sourced to it could be d there, but I don't think what we have suggests SIGCOV is met, plus GNG requires coverage in multiple independent, reliable soruces. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with that for a place specificly Doctor Who (series 6)#Supplemental episodes . Doctor Who Magazine is the offical magazine of the show. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect/partial to Doctor Who (series 6)#Supplemental episodes per",redirect
+"Jackson Bentley: I could barely find any outside, reliable sources about the character. The article itself cites no sources JooneBug37 ( talk ) 02:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . JooneBug37 ( talk ) 21:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . JooneBug37 ( talk ) 21:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's widely considered one of the greatest films of all time. I wouldn't be surprised if every character in it has enough scholarly analysis to have a standalone article. Just from a quick search: [24] (search for Bentley), [25] , [26] . There's also sourced content in Lawrence of Arabia (film) about the other two actors associated with the role that could be included. Jfire ( talk ) 05:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC) Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Brighton . The sources here are borderline for WP:SIGCOV . But there is enough reliable coverage to write something about how the filmmakers adapted real life people into composite characters . It's a rare niche where there is no real life person to these characters to, but there are multiple real life people who inspired these characters, and that is reliable information we should WP:PRESERVE . A list of characters is normal for fiction like this. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 19:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - The article does not need work but as Jfire said above there are several sources indicating notability. Otherwise, I would support renaming the page to Fictional characters in Lawrence of Arabia as above. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 13:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More discussion on the extent of sourcing about this character, such as listing sources that one purports to provide significant coverage of him, would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . This has potential but right now it is just a poorly refenced plot summary. Out of three sources presented above, the first one is just plot summary, second one gives me no access, third one gives me snippets with some suggesting analysis, but WP:SIGCOV is hard ot judge with snippets. So this has potential to be rescued, but unless this is done, I am afraid a soft deletion () with no prejudice to anyone restoring it and improving it with sources is the best outcome. PS. I'd also be fine with to a list as suggested above, particularly if we could rescue something from the d article mentioned. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 00:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist for consensus which is currently split between and /. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to the film article. Reviewing the sources given (I have full access to one of the book sources), they are really mostly covering Bentley in the context of recapping the plot of the film, not giving deep analysis of the character. Similar story for other sources I found in my search. Mach61 ( talk ) 00:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment is anyone actually stepping forward to make the 'Fictional characters in' article? Wizmut ( talk ) 02:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"KAJS-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 07:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Nebraska . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 07:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG . as a WP:ATD . Let'srun ( talk ) 12:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. : It had been a while since the last nomination of a run-of-the-mill 2010s-established nothing-local DTV America/HC2/Innovate station that nominally survived a 2023 bulk nomination ; as ever, the amount of significant coverage and the likelyhood of SIGCOV are the same (i.e. zero). No reason to have anything more than an {{ R to list entry }} . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Meg Austin: Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 06:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Military , and United States of America . Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 06:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Non notable character, fails GNG and fails WP:NCHAR . Nagol0929 ( talk ) 12:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC) per Nagol0929. Does not have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 14:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC) ATD . Obviously the link should exist, and freestanding notability is not required for a . BD2412 T 01:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of JAG characters#Lieutenant, Junior Grade Meg Austin, USN (JAGC) . As User:BD2412 states above, this is an appropriate alternative to deletion . It is very likely readers will search for this character, and while the role doesn't have the clear claim to notability to justify a freestanding article, s are cheap . Redirecting will also preserve the edit history on this article should it later achieve stand-alone status. Jacona ( talk ) 11:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per Jacona. Idiosincrático ( talk ) 14:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"That that is is that that is not is not is that it it is: It's like how even though She sells sea shells by the sea shore is a common tongue twister, yet it doesn't have it's own article. I am aware of the previous AfD, but that was 15 years ago, there wasn't as much emphasis on SIGCOV, and half of the ! votes seem nonsensical. I propose ing to List of linguistic example sentences . — MATRIX! ( a good person! ) [ citation unneeded ] 21:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List_of_linguistic_example_sentences#Lexical_ambiguity (+ add sources there). No WP:SIGCOV per nom. – Austronesier ( talk ) 21:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as proposed. Bduke ( talk ) 23:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Ian Tomlin School of Music: Other than a few brief press articles relating to the funding which was used to set it up, I'm not seeing much. I don't think it meets the notability criteria. JMWt ( talk ) 13:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Scotland . JMWt ( talk ) 13:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - to Edinburgh Napier University as an ATD per SCHOOLOUTCOMES . Article at hand fails GNG. 69.92.163.38 ( talk ) 00:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Edinburgh Napier University . LibStar ( talk ) 06:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Edinburgh Napier University . A nicely written article but standalone notability is too thin at present; as an ATD. Aszx5000 ( talk ) 18:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"WFWG-LD: Should be ed to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. . Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 21:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Virginia . Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 21:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. : pretty much per nom. It's a run-of-the-mill 2010s-established DTV America/HC2/Innovate station where the non-national content and the significant coverage are equally nonexistent. Another nominal survivor of a bulk nomination from last year . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Dyce station (Manitoba): – dlthewave ☎ 04:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Transportation . – dlthewave ☎ 04:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Can you consider bundling these? Easier to get them all done with Jumpytoo Talk 04:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I can't find out anything about the station, but I expect that it was once more than just a signpost. Here are a few resources that may include significant coverage of individual railway stations in Manitoba: https://www.gov.mb.ca/chc/hrb/internal_reports/pdfs/railway_stations_full.pdf https://yourrailwaypictures.com/trainstations/manitoba-train-stations/ https://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/business/cnr.shtml Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Some VIA Rail stops are notable so all of them should be blue links, with those that aren't individually notable being s to a list or some other appropriate target. Thryduulf ( talk ) 08:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per the above would be the best choice. TH1980 ( talk ) 01:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC) each train station is not individually notable, although the whole train line is. Several other stations on this line have already been WP:BLARed to that article. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 10:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Faith healing ministry of Aimee Semple McPherson: Bearcat ( talk ) 21:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , and Canada . Bearcat ( talk ) 21:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to main per nom. There is no indication this is a notable subject apart from the main article. The tone and content is unencyclopedic. If someone wants to volunteer to filter out the problems and properly sourced material that meets NPOV, no objection. // Timothy :: talk 21:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Aimee Semple McPherson per nom. This article was created in 2015 by the RagesossBot of User:MaggieHood19 and her students, as a Wikistudent project - more than a decade after the original article already existed. There really is no reason to this. — Maile ( talk ) 23:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Spirituality . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] if then the material would be migrated back into the main article lengthening it again (which is why it was removed to its own article in May 2015) The faith healing section was originally part of the main article but was lengthy and detailed enough for its own article as it was adding substantially to the main article which was to be condensed. This occurred in May 9 2015 by MaggieHood19 Sources are already well referenced, if there is an issue with ""encyclopedic"" tone, some specifics in this area to the problem sentences etc would be useful as objections currently too vague to be actionable by myself at least In any instance, I plan to work on the article as needed, for example a neglected area is the opposition against McPherson in this area from theological view of Cessationism is the view that the “miracle gifts” of tongues and healing have ceased, at the end of the end of the apostolic age. Granted more in this area could be done to explore the Cessationism aspect in the article and likely the only significant viewpoint missing since already there is the American Medical Association in San Francisco, Pastor Charles S. Price , (skeptic minister who came to believe after he saw) atheist, Charles Chaplin (skilled hypnotism and the power she commanded over the crowds); P.H. Welshimer of First Christian Church (hypnotism and ""mesmeric power"") and others in the Views on McPherson’s work section and elsewhere. SteamWiki ( talk ) 00:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC) As per the nomination. Ratnahastin ( talk ) 14:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] but revise. If incorporated back into Aimee Semple McPherson there are a few references here that are different and should be kept. The main article already has 204 references (although possibly some of those can be cut down IMO). Some of this material could be moved to Faith healing which currently only says ""During the 1920s and 1930s, Aimee Semple McPherson was a controversial faith healer of growing popularity during the Great Depression."" although that article also isn't designed to go into details about individual faith healers. If this article is kept it needs revision. johnmark† : Talk (talk to me) 00:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC) 28, 29 December 2023 (UTC) ) I intend on working on the article, especially past the ""holidays;"" December a good month for editors to work on articles demanding attention buried as they can be with all the responsibilities of friends and family around this time of year LoL. [ reply ] As before the ""Cessationism"" view needs to be included, this I already have text and a source from a famous minister of the time, it has to be properly edited before it can be added to the article. Also, among other things, more details on McPherson's first faith healing by which she learned of it she herself; (broken ankle) healed by William Durham, who brought the Azusa revival to Chicago and its link to Pentecostalism and its traditions of divine healing. The healing, stated, by McPherson, in a testimony, was done before 12 witnesses (one a skeptic who was astonished then joined the others in praise after he saw the cast removed from the healed foot) divided the congregation. Doubters did not think the foot had ever been broken, or did not believe it had been healed (Epstein p 59). William Durham, attended the Azusa Street revival, initiated with African American preacher William J. Seymour who had established the Azusa Street Mission in 1906. was known also for its numerous statements by people of either faith healings they saw or received. William Durham, himself was convinced; after severe attack of rheumatic fever in 1891, he survived by praying, confirming his belief in the doctrine of divine healing. The period skeptic of the era angle, among with mesmerism, hypnotism etc also have examples of persons who were not healed. At this time I have not located any information or interviews by skeptics investigating those who emphatically claimed they were healed such as the Romani who came to Christ because of stated healings; nevertheless I have some examples of those, given by some skeptics, who wanted healing and did not get it and shall include those in the article as well. SteamWiki ( talk ) 04:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As stated earlier I intend on working on the article,and to this end obtained another source Charles H Barfoot wrote the book Aimee Semple McPherson and the Making of Modern Pentecostalism, 1890-1926 which has details in areas glossed over or not covered by other biographers . SteamWiki ( talk ) 13:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote L iz Read! Talk! 05:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC) ) per the NPOV maintenance tag which has been up for seven years and as a WP:POVFORK article. The article is written in the POV of a faith healer and duplicates the content of Aimee Semple McPherson . बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 04:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Aimee Semple McPherson per nomination, non-neutral content fork. Daniel ( talk ) 03:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Jianghuai people: And I did not see a direct introduction about Jianghuai People on Google Scholar , Google Books , and CNKI . The source given in the English article, the title seems to have little to do with Jianghuai People. 日期20220626 ( talk ) 04:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and China . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not an encyclopaedic topic. This is kinda like if we had an article Yorkshiremen or Manitoban or Adelaidean that was positioning residents of those geographical areas as separate ethnic groups (all three of the above are s). Whoever said ""splicing together unrelated information"" nailed it. There's no sources discussing ""江淮人"" as an ethnic group. It's extra weird because it feels like some irredentist Jianghuai local pushing for the recognition of their natal area's people as some distinct and separable subset of Han Chinese , right? But the citations to Chinese sources are so bungled I can't believe anyone with a familiarity with the language could have done this. to Jiangnan or . Folly Mox ( talk ) 19:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Jianghuai is the area north of the Yangtze River in Jiangsu Province and does not belong to Jiangnan. Redirecting is inappropriate. 日期20220626 ( talk ) 01:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As someone who edited similar pages in past IP adresses, strong disagree, nowhere in the page are the Jianghuai people stated as an ""ethnic group"", but as a regional subgroup of Han people, like the Sichuanese or Wuyue, speaking Jianghuai chinese and sharing some cultural aspects and history by simply being in the same region of China, so saying otherwise is disingenuous as this is not what the page says. Just because it has a problem of sources here for now, doesn't mean it doesn't warrant a page. It was good enough for Wikipedia in Mandarin so maybe we're missing something, nothing says there aren't any. My familiarity with such subjects indicate to me this is a quite recent and currently fringe phenomenon of national genesis, pioneered by a cultural theorist and historian named Liu Zhongjing, who had a master in history studies at Wuhan University. He is quite the active figure in chinese opposition spaces with his philosophy of auntology. Perhaps there are other figures who talked about this within this philosophy? Perhaps it could be reworked as a hub for siocultural particularities, culture specific to this region? Just food for thought -- 142.170.60.67 ( talk ) 00:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] However, no source can be found that fully introduces the concept of Jianghuai people, and Liu Zhongjing does not seem to have invented the concept of JACs, and his own teachings are marginal. Wikipedia should not create its own concept. 日期20220626 ( talk ) 11:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . There seems to be some merit to the idea that few if any sources treat ""Jianghuai people"" as a separate ""ethnic group"" compared to the clearly adequate coverage of Lower Yangtze Mandarin as a separate topolect, but the suggestion that Wikipedia shouldn't or doesn't, have articles on Han Chinese subgroups is just wrong. As many of the sources are in Chinese I don't feel confident balancing the different considerations myself, but wanted to clear up what seemed to be confusion above. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 06:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. While I'm open to the argument put forward in the nomination, I think this subject and article could use more discussion to arrive at a consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per synthesis . It seems to be discussed in paper sources, but the overall picture is one of synthesizing random sources into an essay. I tried to add links, and had little success. Bearian ( talk ) 19:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Kholida Dadaboeva: I am unable to find coverage outside of passing mentions ( 1 , 2 , and 3 ), failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Uzbekistan . JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 18:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. // Timothy :: talk 13:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as on top. -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 16:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Words (Piri & Tommy song): I'd suggest a to Froge.mp3 . theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 04:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom . theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 04:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Froge.mp3 as suggested above. Agree that it doesn't have sigcov. Also, there are plenty of bigger artists that don't have articles for songs. Knowledgegatherer23 ( Say Hello ) 14:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Froge.mp3 per the above. Viriditas ( talk ) 02:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Try to Remember (film) : Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 21:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Television , and Canada . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 21:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC) 52, 13 May 2024 (UTC) 00 hour. The user was blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. Cunard ( talk ) 07:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Added reliable sources for verification. The film was internationally distributed (in German , French , at least). Rather notable cast. No page for the director. to Mary_Higgins_Clark#Selected_television_adaptations (where it is obviously listed and the refs can be moved) seems a good ATD imv, if this is judged insufficient. (Personally not opposed to Keep). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC) Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion . I did not find significant coverage in independent reliable sources about Try to Remember . A with the history preserved under the will allow editors to selectively any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A with the history preserved under the will allow the to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard ( talk ) 07:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Antti Anatomy : KaisaL ( talk ) 13:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . KaisaL ( talk ) 13:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Negative (Finnish band) , as he has done nothing notable outside of the band. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Pete Capella : Of the sources here, #1 is barely about Capella, #2 even less so, #3 is an interview, and the rest are unreliable. Found no additional coverage for GNG, and he only passes WP:NACTOR for having played the one role multiple times. May as well be ed to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters#Silver the Hedgehog at that point. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 18:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Video games , and New Jersey . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 18:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as suggested in nom. Coverage is absent and unlikely to be found - he only seems to voice very minor characters. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, I could not find enough (or any) significant coverage of the subject himself. I see little point in ing. Merko ( talk ) 11:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a plausible search term, and the closest thing to something he'd be ""known for"". Sergecross73 msg me 14:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No good sources. Redirecting instead of deleting per Sergecross. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per valid arguments by Sergecross73 . Merko ( talk ) 01:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per all. Coverage does not pass WP:GNG . is a valid alternative to deletion. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 23:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Police forces of Wales : Note that there is no such article for England, which is much larger and has many more police forces. Overall article is fluff. Elshad ( talk ) 12:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Wales . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is plenty of scope to improve the article including the state of policing in Wales and debates on the devolution of policing and on an all-Wales police force. Where would info on these topics go if this article were to be d? Perhaps a better action would be to rename the article ""Policing in Wales"" and improve it. Examples of potential additional sources for improvement; [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] Titus Gold ( talk ) 22:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin : Titus Gold ( talk • contribs ) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD . [ reply ] , unnecessary deletion. If there is an issue about paraphrasing then please attempt to rewrite, deletion isn't the solution. The article holds merit because of it's accumulation of information. Cltjames ( talk ) 08:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment would be happy with a move to Policing in Wales . Elshad ( talk ) 09:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC) RM move discussion on the page. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 10:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of police forces of the United Kingdom#Wales – the exact topic, police forces (not generalised policing ), is not clearly notable separately and may be a fork . Welsh police forces aren't majorly different from those in England by law, so better served in a UK article when specifically on police forces. The content of this article is overwhelmingly copy-and-pasted content, word by word, from the leads of the four police forces with no new content (to justify a separate article), with an extra sentence or two. The only prospect of an article under this title is a list of four entries, which would better to a UK list. Supportive, in principle, of a ""Law enforcement/Policing in Wales"" article (as suggested above, with citations on the generalised topic), but I don't see any current content in this article being retained in an article on that topic (content here is already at the police forces' articles), outside just listing the four forces and the extra two sentences already which can be elsewhere. If that article is made (even by me), likely a re-start , then this can be ed there when that time comes. (Does this divergent vote, prevent a suggested withdrawal now?) Dank Jae 20:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Upon further review, I agree with the above reasoning, and would prefer a with a new article being created later if sufficient material found. Elshad ( talk ) 10:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of police forces of the United Kingdom - Per DankJae. There is no need for this hived off article, and that article contains the substantive topic. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 10:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - it would be helpful if the AfD nominator were to put up valid grounds for deletion. The nomination seems to be based on the quality of the article rather than deletion policy, see WP:DEL#REASON . Without such reason(s) it's difficult to give an opinion and there may be cause for a procedural . Rupples ( talk ) 19:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as their are opinions to Keep, and this article (looking beyond bolded statement). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of police forces of the United Kingdom#Wales as a plausible search term. The map could be d if people find it useful. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 07:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Islamabad court attack : No lasting effects or coverage to meet WP:EVENT . LibStar ( talk ) 01:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Terrorism , and Pakistan . LibStar ( talk ) 01:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2014 . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 02:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is sufficient coverage of this event. -- Ameen Akbar ( talk ) 19:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC) LASTING coverage. LibStar ( talk ) 22:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2014 where this is already covered. With no sustained significant coverage, there's no reason for this to have its own article. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 18:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2014 . Lack of lasting impact. Rzvas ( talk ) 15:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Michael Kulich : Star Mississippi 00:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . Star Mississippi 00:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Entertainment , Sexuality and gender , California , and Connecticut . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Because rather recent decisions have made WP notability criteria incredibly hard to meet for pornographic entertainers, to skweezme , where sources like this can be added if needed. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC) ATD-R - otherwise fails WP:NBIO . SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Hospital trust : ""Hospital trust"" is not a legally or otherwise defined term, all trusts which run hospitals are either NHS trusts or NHS foundation trusts . Single cited source also is not specific to the term. Contains no information of value that isn't already covered at NHS trust and therefore does not even need merging, simple and perhaps will suffice. Article can essentially be summed up ""a hospital trust is a NHS trust which runs hospital services"". That does not need an article Elshad ( talk ) 19:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England . Elshad ( talk ) 19:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Medicine . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to NHS trust . Owen× ☎ 20:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Bhitabaria : NGA is considered an unreliable source. Nagol0929 ( talk ) 16:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions . Nagol0929 ( talk ) 16:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Added two more references to verify existence. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 14:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Bhitabaria Union - Places are not notable simply because they exist. WP:GEOLAND gives a presumption of notability to legally recognised populated places, but the only thing that has legal recognition demonstrated in the sourcing is the union parishad (Union council) of Bhitabaria, which we already have an article about at Bhitabaria Union . We have no information about the village separate to this union council. FOARP ( talk ) 20:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Bhitabaria Union. Not seeing multiple sources meeting general notability. Flurrious ( talk ) 00:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"KQML-LD : Article technically survived a bulk AfD last year but there is nothing to show this station meets the notability guidelines on its own. Let'srun ( talk ) 04:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Kansas , and Missouri . Let'srun ( talk ) 04:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. Only history is as an automated operation from out of state. Nate • ( chatter ) 15:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. : you can only say so much about a mid-2010s-launched DTV America/HC2/Innovate LPTV with little-to-no significant coverage , and none of it warrants a separate article these days. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Oisis Sediles : The subject has earned at least one cap for the Nicaragua women's national football team . I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Nicaragua . JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 10:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Ankara'dan Abim Geldi : Kadı Message 19:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs , Music , and Turkey . Kadı Message 19:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC) No appearance of notability. tr:Ankara'dan Abim Geldi has other sources, but is also up for deletion with two votes in favor so far, so I imagine those are no good anyway. Band doesn't appear to be notable either and could easily also go, but ing there in the meantime is fine. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 11:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Fails GNG. Article makes no claim of notability, simply states, ""is a Turkish popular song"" followed by five paragraphs of bland WP:OR much of which is from tr.wp. BEFORE showed nothing that would make the song meet WP:N. Sources from tr.wp: Comments Source Fails SIGCOV 1. ^ ""POPULAR MUSIC SOUND PERFORMANCE"" (PDF) . Ankara Music and Fine Arts University. Dup of #1 2. ^ ""POPULAR MUSIC SOUND PERFORMANCE"" (PDF) . Ankara Music and Fine Arts University. Album booklet, primary 3. ^ My Brother Came from Ankara (Album booklet). Group at Sunrise . Kervan Plakcılık . 1993. 8691575026780. Album booklet, primary 4. ^ Mest of Gündoğarken (Album booklet). Group at Sunrise . Universal Music Production . 1998. 8691024008480. About an album, no SIGCOV about the song 5. ^ Salik, Ruya. "" How many times can the album ' İlhan Şeşen: My Gift' be listened to?"" . Molatic . Nationality . Access date: 21 November 2023 . Mention in album review 6. ^ Nakitoğlu, Emre (12 November 2018). ""A living tribute to the doyen composer of love songs: İlhan Şeşen - My Gift…"" . Bi'Kuble . Access date: 21 November 2023 . Fails SIGCOV 7. ^ ""Joint rally from Ekrem İmamoğlu, Mansur Yavaş and Meral Akşener"" . Real Agenda No objection to a consensus to Grup Gündoğarken . // Timothy :: talk 16:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"CFAV Haro : There is no reason for this article to exist separately from Naval Large Tugboat . Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 01:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada . Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 01:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Naval Large Tugboat , no notability independent of the class a a whole. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk ) 20:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Nonsuch station : – dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Transportation . – dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Some VIA Rail stops are notable so all of them should be blue links, with those that aren't individually notable being s to a list or some other appropriate target. Thryduulf ( talk ) 08:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to a list or another suitable page would be the best idea indeed. TH1980 ( talk ) 01:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC) each train station is not individually notable, although the whole train line is. Several other stations on this line have already been WP:BLARed to that article. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 10:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Lesego Keleboge : The subject has played for the Botswana women's national football team , but I cannot confirm the number of games. Regardless, I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Botswana . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or as above. Botswana seems to have relatively robust sports journalism infrastructure and subject is only mentioned in match summaries. Danish Ranger ( talk ) 13:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect' as above. Giant Snowman 16:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"KYNM-CD : Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 03:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New Mexico . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 03:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , This article needs reducing, not deleting. Searched the station, and was able to pick up a source from the LPTV Report, and even then, the article seems to have enough to justify saving it. -- Danubeball ( talk ) 20:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 05:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC) Does not meet WP:GNG and I did not find any significant coverage on the article or online. Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 12:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak This station started as a translator for, and is still related in ownership to, KCHF . The only independent SIGCOV, and probably the only time it aired any locally originating programming, come from the period in the early 2000s when it aired Christian music videos as YTV. I have two feature articles in the Albuquerque Journal from that period. I cannot shake the feeling that the YTV period alone is insufficient. This thing was mostly a translator and/or diginet coatrack. [29] and [30] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 01:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Sammi Brie makes a good case for ing as an AtD. // Timothy :: talk 12:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV . as a WP:ATD . Let'srun ( talk ) 02:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"To Mars and Providence : The article is just a plot summary, catalogue information, and said notes (OR commentary). My BEFORE failed to find anything but passing mentions (the best one is a paragraph in Gizmodo here , but I think it is not enough per SIGCOV and like). Per ATD I suggest ing this to the anthology it was published in ( War of the Worlds: Global Dispatches ), which seems notable. Said anthology had a number of reviews, some of wich likely mention the story - there is a tiny chance this could be salvaged if anyone could access them. The one I found here sadly fails SIGCOV with regards to this story. ISFDb notes that the story has been reprinted in several venues ( [52] ) but lists no reviews. For now, I fear the dedicated entry for this can just exist on fandom ( https://lovecraft.fandom.com/wiki/To_Mars_and_Providence ). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy , Literature , and United States of America . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC) Global Dispatches . — siro χ o 21:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Bapaiya : The subject does not appear to be notable , as none of the sources provide significant coverage of the subject, only passing references. A check before the nomination turned up no other useful sources I could find to establish notability. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 22:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Mythology , and Gujarat . — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 22:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Courtesy ping for Be Brave AI , who created/moved the article into mainspace . — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 22:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC) ATD for now. Geschichte ( talk ) 11:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] a minor character in the goddess' legend. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 07:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question At the suggested target, Bapaiya only appears in the footnotes, while the spelling Bapiya appears in the article text. Is that a mistake or a spelling variant? If the latter, a should probably point to an WP:Anchor . Daranios ( talk ) 10:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"List of Ended Paramount+ original programming : When you look at lists of ended shows on Netflix and Prime Video , it becomes clear that this article falls short, as Paramount+ does not have enough ended shows that warrant a separate page, compared to the previously mentioned streamers. My concern aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines, which stress the importance of authority and reliable sources. A thorough evaluation is needed to take a close look at how significant this article is in the context of Paramount+'s programming history, because right now, it doesn't measure up to the standards set by other well-established streaming services. BrickMaster02 ( talk ) 18:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC) I'm not sure what the reason for the nomination is. If the article falls short of our writing standard, we improve it, not it. It does not have enough ended shows? The article currently lists almost 100 shows. How much is enough to warrant a standalone article? If sourcing is sufficient to provide notability, I see no reason to remove the page. Note that the nom previously tagged this article for speedy deletion with the reason, ""Did not discuss on original talk page regarding the creation of this"". I don't know why the nom believes article creation must be previously discussed with them. Owen× ☎ 20:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC) TV editing standards. Nate • ( chatter ) 21:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also...""A show is also assumed to have ended if there has been no confirmed news of renewal at least one year after the show's last episode was released."" That's not how we source a program's end, ever. You can't make up criteria for something to be in an article based on something you made up. Nate • ( chatter ) 02:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, but then ""List of ended Netflix original programming"" and ""List of ended Amazon Prime Video original programming"" should be ed too? IgelRM ( talk ) 02:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Paramount+ original programming This list is currently unnecessary, there isn't a large amount of ended shows, like other platforms have, that justified splitting out this list. Also, discussions should occur on talk pages prior to making a controversial edit, such as splitting an article, which is why the PROD probably is a reasonable rationale. Happily888 ( talk ) 23:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"College of Business (Minnesota State University, Mankato) : The sources cited don't come even close to establishing notability, and a search finds only the usual social media accounts, rankings and directory listings, capsule profiles in course guides, etc. (and for that reason there is also no point in draftifying). Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT . -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 08:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , United States of America , and Minnesota . DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 08:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - to the university's article, or if one exists, the campus article as an ATD . Nominator's rationale is spot on. This is generally what we do per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES . 69.92.163.38 ( talk ) 16:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * per sources in the article. // Timothy :: talk 08:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] TimothyBlue , could you expand on that please? Although there are a large number of references, only one is an independent secondary source, and it references a transactional event (staff change). I'd argue there isn't a single source on the article that speaks to notability. What am I missing? 69.92.163.38 ( talk ) 23:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm ok with a to the school's page here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. // Timothy :: talk 15:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment just to say that I've no issue with a redir, I just can't quite see anyone searching for ""College of Business (Minnesota State University, Mankato)"". But I guess it will at least the place warm in case someone does manage to develop something notable in the future. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 15:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't either, but we need a consensus, s are cheap, and that is the direction this is headed. I'd support the closer deciding the is unneeded and deleting. // Timothy :: talk 18:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Norconex Web Crawler : A to Web crawler#Open-source crawlers would probably be the best option. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 14:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology , Internet , and Software . Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 14:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC) per nomination, currently fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage at all from independent sources Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 15:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are 5 references listed which from independent sources. Please also take a look at Mentions in Academic Research portion where academic research with mentions of the Crawler are listed. These are independent sources as well. OhTwadi ( talk ) 22:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All of which having barely significant coverage... TappyTurtle [ talk | contribs ] 02:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, I see other open source crawlers which have much less in terms of content and/or references and yet are considered fine. One example: MnoGoSearch OhTwadi ( talk ) 22:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] From what I could see, that article was considered ""no consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination"". Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 11:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC) The subject fails to meet WP:GNG . Medium.com and blogs can’t establish notability. It would be better to this article to Web_crawler#Open-source_crawlers . Grab Up - Talk 16:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Alf Davies (swimmer) : Happy to if significant, non-routine coverage can be found. As an WP:ATD , the page title should be ed to Swimming at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metre breaststroke . Raised as an example at this Village pump discussion . Suriname0 ( talk ) 18:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Sports , Olympics , and England . Suriname0 ( talk ) 18:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC) Blue_Square_Thing , User:BeanieFan11 , User:Simeon . Suriname0 ( talk ) 18:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I haven't looked into this, but if no significant, non-routine coverage can be found, then to the Olympic event. I think that's better than deletion as it's reasonable to Olympians that don't have an article. - Simeon ( talk ) 18:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To clarify, that's what I'm proposing in the nom. I'm not sure if there's a better venue for discussing contested s; RfC, maybe? But AfD has been conventionally used for this. Suriname0 ( talk ) 19:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC) I see there's actually a for this purpose already: WP:CONRED . Looks like AfD is the appropriate venue. Suriname0 ( talk ) 19:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can't find anything besides name in result lists. Kingsif ( talk ) 21:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Given the details we have available in Olympedia it seems very likely that sources will exist, possibly in The Times or other newspapers from the time, maybe in other sources. That suggests to me that this is a clear and obvious option per ATD. Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 08:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Kamalapur (neighbourhood) : Does not meet wp:notability. A neighborhood in the city of Dhaka. Clearly does not have presumed wp:notability under the SNG per the criteria there which leaves GNG. The only source is a blog and even that just gives it a one word mention. So no sourcing much less the required GNG sources. North8000 ( talk ) 20:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 22:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC) A Longitudinal Study of Society in a Third World Megacity ISBN 978-1-4094-1103-1 contains half a page about the concentration of the city's Buddhists in Kamalapur and the adjacent Basabo neighborhood, describing the related viharas, pagodas, and schools there. Other than that, sources of any depth focus on Kamalapur railway station , about which we already have an article. -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 03:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Motijheel Thana , of which Kamalapur is the easternmost slice, until sufficient in-depth reliable sources are written about the neighborhood to justify a stand alone article. -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 03:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as suggested to Motijheel Thana . Right now, there is a single source in the article, which constitutes WP:OR . Bearian ( talk ) 15:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Samantha Banfield : All that came up in my searches were passing mentions ( 2018 , 2019 , 2020 , 2021 , 2022 , 2023 , etc.) No evidence of notability. JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , Canada , Caribbean , and South America . JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 19:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per nom. Svartner ( talk ) 22:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Chacha Chaudhary (2019 TV series) : It only has one ref. M S Hassan ( talk ) 16:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Comics and animation , and India . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Obvious WP:ATD . - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed, the article in question doesn't include anything that will be missed if moved into Chacha_Chaudhary#Adaptation . - Mjks28 ( talk ) 13:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Chacha_Chaudhary#Adaptation . RangersRus ( talk ) 14:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Commissioner for Human Rights of the Republic of Azerbaijan : There is no independent reliable sources of the body, and there is nothing that suggests that this is a meaningful entity in Azerbaijani politics or that it actually does anything on human rights matters. Thenightaway ( talk ) 19:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC) no independent notability for this government body. Owen× ☎ 21:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLA (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC) Fails GNG and NORG, sources fails WP:IS. BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS. Azerbaijan government sources are not independent reliable sources for the subject. No objection to a consensus to Human rights in Azerbaijan . // Timothy :: talk 05:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Hy-Gain Antennas and Rotators : The only two sources cited are PR from the company itself and a WP:BEFORE search reveals only promotional information rather than any WP:SIGCOV . This company is likely notable within the ham radio hobbyist sphere, but I'm not seeing any justification for a Wikipedia article. Flip Format ( talk ) 09:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Companies , Engineering , and United States of America . Flip Format ( talk ) 09:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mississippi and Nebraska . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC) 35, 15 July 2023 (UTC) 51, 15 July 2023 (UTC) WikiProject Amateur radio -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 12:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [36] . Basic facts about the company and its products are verifiable, as well as some of it's history. I don't know if this is enough coverage for GNG, but it is enough verifiability to verifiable bits to MFJ, which places the former company in a modern context. -- {{u| Mark viking }} { Talk } 21:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC) 10, 15 July 2023 (UTC) GNG per nom. SBKSPP ( talk ) 03:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Your Old Used to Be : This literally just states that the song exists, the end, and cites absolutely no sources at all -- but the mere fact that a song charted somewhere is not in and of itself an instant notability freebie that exempts a song from actually having to have any sourcing to support any substantive content about it, so this as written is not enough all by itself. Obviously I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived US media coverage from the 1960s than I've got can find enough sourcing to salvage it -- but nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt it from having to have any sourcing. Bearcat ( talk ) 13:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Faron Young - I cannot find any evidence of independent notability, but a would be appropriate since the song clearly exists and charted. — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 20:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America . Bearcat ( talk ) 13:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"QtRuby : Wikipedia seems to generally be lenient in enforcing notability policy for open-source software projects, but notability isn't established by the currently-cited sources. A determined editor could probably dig up some ancient reviews in a WP:BEFORE search, but I'm content that Wikipedia is not lacking as an encyclopedia by not having this article. Daask ( talk ) 21:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . Daask ( talk ) 21:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - nowhere near notable enough for an article. Sgubaldo ( talk ) 13:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC) trimmed (2-3 sentences max len), properly sourced material into Qt (software)#Language bindings . As it stands this is an unnneeded CFORK, a proper will improve the target. // Timothy :: talk 16:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Princess Marie Alexandra of Schleswig-Holstein : Wkipedia is not a genealogical website. I have no idea what those external links even mean. Surtsicna ( talk ) 22:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Royalty and nobility , and Germany . Surtsicna ( talk ) 22:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] no sources, and the external links appear to be regarding another person. The content of the article has not improved within the last 8 years. EmilySarah99 ( talk ) 13:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to her father, Wilhelm Friedrich, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein . Worth noting that she does not have an article on de-wiki either. -- asilvering ( talk ) 00:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC) ATD . Ingratis ( talk ) 06:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Connell Wagner : BuySomeApples ( talk ) 06:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Engineering , and Australia . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Aurecon . LibStar ( talk ) 05:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Primary notability lies elsewhere. Not enough content to bother with a . Tar nis hed Path talk 12:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Carlo Robelli : Does not seem to pass WP:NPRODUCT . Whole lots of sale listings and some forum posts mainly. No sources since 2010. Contested PROD. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Business , Products , and United States of America . StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC) No product coverage outside of sales listings. I don't see anything even in period newspapers we'd use. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC) Newspaper classified ad from the 1930s. [31] Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC) 19, 21 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC) valid search term. Bearian ( talk ) 16:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+Sunwise Media : Nexttv is a trade publication and should not contribute to notability. The rest of the sources and sources I've found online are just brief mentions of the company. The source,redirect
+"Luke station : – dlthewave ☎ 04:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Transportation . – dlthewave ☎ 04:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Some VIA Rail stops are notable so all of them should be blue links, with those that aren't individually notable being s to a list or some other appropriate target. Thryduulf ( talk ) 08:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] would be the wisest choice. TH1980 ( talk ) 01:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC) each train station is not individually notable, although the whole train line is. Several other stations on this line have already been WP:BLARed to that article. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 10:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Manini (1979 film) : Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found listings, interviews, nothing that addresses the subject indepth meeting WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 08:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or to List_of_Kannada_films_of_1979 . Film does exist but the page has poor unreliable sources. Not much can be found other than on imdb and watchable link on Amazon Prime Video. RangersRus ( talk ) 12:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello@ RangersRus , have you seen Liz's relist comment below? Both targets seem OK but in general, I think when the director or writer has a page, it seems more appropriate to a film there than to a list (even if a list by year is really not a bad target). If you agree, can you leave a note? If you don't, please consider I obviously will not oppose a to the list you mention. Best, - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to K._S._Sethumadhavan#Selected_filmography - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Two different target articles suggested. We need to settle on one. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC) I will suggest to this article to K._S._Sethumadhavan#Selected_filmography director’s page will be more appropriate. Grab Up - Talk 16:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to K._S._Sethumadhavan#Selected_filmography . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 20:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or to List_of_Kannada_films_of_1979 I agree with one the suggestions to or . Sanwalniazik ( talk ) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Fresno Crossing, California : Site is not a recognized populated place (let alone ""unincorporated community""); it's just a river crossing. No improvements to article since previous AfD. Without meaningful secondary coverage it fails WP:GNG , and without evidence this was a populated place it fails WP:GEOLAND . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All of the external bare URLs from the prior AFD discussion are either paywalled or ""no such page"" for me. So I read the Fresno history books instead. It's not an ""unincorporated community"". It was the site of the James D. Savage Trading Post, and near to the site of (until the area was flooded in 1971) the Savage Monument . There's very little to say about this that isn't really about the Savage Trading Post. There are perhaps a couple of sentences in some 19th century histories of Fresno that describe ownership the year after Savage died. But pretty much all else is histories of Savage. I'm not sure whether we should have this point to Jim Savage or the Savage Trading Post article, or refactor it into Savage Monument . We do seem to have much of this actually in Jim Savage already; the problem with Savage Trading Post is that it doesn't cover that (per the Rensch+Rensch+Hoover history) he actually had four trading posts, and the one at Fresno Crossing was his fourth and last; and the Savage Monument is only near to where the fourth trading post was. The mining was not here, but at Coarse Gold Gulch in the history books. And the only ""camp"" here in the history books was but one of several forestry labour camps ""for unemployed transients"" in the 1930s. Uncle G ( talk ) 02:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Stockton–Los Angeles Road#The route of the Stockton–Los Angeles Road . I suspect this location's historical importance is solely as a river ford on the north-south California wagon route from Fort Yuma near Mexico to Benicia on San Francisco Bay. It's mentioned briefly in the United States War Department 's 1859 guidebook to overland travel, The Prairie Traveler by Captain Randolph Barnes Marcy . Later, starting in 1912, ""Fresno Crossing"" doesn't show up as a place name on topographic maps until 1962. There are never more than several buildings shown at this place. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 02:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Due to an edit conflict, I only saw Uncle G 's comments after I posted my comment above. I think a to one of the Savage-related articles would be better than a to the old overland route. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 02:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC) I would be fine with a to one of the Savage-related articles Uncle G mentioned, as long as the article in question mentions Fresno Crossing and its relevance to Savage and his business interests. I'm not opposed to ing articles/s on minor locations; I'm opposed to information-less stubs created not to preserve history but because GNIS had an entry with this name, which is clearly what happened here. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Triton (programming language) : Artem. G ( talk ) 11:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Does not meet WP:BASIC and has minimal content. If kept, it should be d with another article. Pumpkinspyce ( talk • contribs ) 00:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC) 12, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"BK XXL : Most references are to first party nutritional guides. Skipple ☎ 19:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions . Skipple ☎ 19:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products , Middle East , and Europe . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion due to previous bundled AfD . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 23:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] not exactly a Big Mac or Whopper, don't see why it needs its own article. AryKun ( talk ) 06:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think that this can be retained as a standalone article. However, a to Big King#BK XXL is plausible. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 14:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"International Foxhound Association : Struggling to find evidence this organisation even exists. It certainly has nothing to meet WP:NORG . AusLondonder ( talk ) 17:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom . AusLondonder ( talk ) 17:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal , Belgium , France , Germany , Italy , Netherlands , Portugal , Australia , and Canada . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not one gnews hit. Fails GNG completely. LibStar ( talk ) 19:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC) The group is probably worth a paragraph or two in the article about the breed of dog it promotes. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 20:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom; the references generally don't mention the group. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 02:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to English Foxhound per ATD and CHEAP. The subject is mentioned at the target so is off the table. Not convinced more of this content is needed at the target, also given valid concerns by the sayers, so isn't the correct resolution either. Hence this defaults to . gidonb ( talk ) 17:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC) DUE . The main evidence we have for its existence is an entry in the French associations register [5] (which is obliquely referenced by the third party listing in the article). There is also a brief mention at a French hunting website which states the organisation intended to run events in 2016 [6] ; the fact there is zero coverage of this suggests that this organisation exists on paper at best. At this time does not come close to meeting GNG or NORG. Triptothecottage ( talk ) 03:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6577333/German-prince-moved-UK-marry-Englishwoman-killed-falling-horse-race.html and I doubt a Dailymail exception will occur here. There is supposed to be a mention in this: https://www.scribd.com/document/367228678/TField-June-2016-pdf but I cannot find it. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 07:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thus and RM the mention at English Foxhound , if there is no secondary coverage of the organisation then what is presented has to be original research, and is also undue. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 07:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or to English Foxhound. Nothing to . I've done what passes for a WP:BEFORE search and found nothing of value. Certainly the article doesn't cite any substantial coverage - some links are broken, others don't mention the subject, and others don't pass reliable-source. Oblivy ( talk ) 01:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ‘’’’’’There are three reliable references (Dailymirror, Covertside and the French official government website) with clear mention of IFA. This is sufficient to this entry in Wikipedia. On June 2 I met one of IFA leaders in Montlucon at the occasion of the French national dog show. Leaflets were distributed to support the foxhound as a working breed. I find very strange that this deletion call comes exactly two days after the publication of the Labor manisfesto in the UK - The Labor party plans to ban trail hunting which does use foxhounds running along a trail as alternative to foxhunting. Trial hunting has saved the English foxhounds from total extermination. This Wikipedia entry has never been flagged in the past eight years. Why now just before the election? This is very suspicious. Such deletion is obviously politically motivated. COI should be disclosed by the person who did push for deletion and all other based in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintin2004123 ( talk • contribs ) 07:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Dailymail isn't considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. The French government site you refer just shows it exists as a company, but verifiability is not notability. The Covertside magazine might confer notability but you would need to provide a way for people to see it. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 21:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Covertside has been fixed with an archive link . It's a newsletter/blog-type article published by a foxhounding association (not very RS) and doesn't mention the article subject. Doesn't move the needle on notability. Oblivy ( talk ) 23:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This page is written to request COI declaration from Traumnovele and AusLondoner. Traumnovele is obviously a CAT lover from his own page and therefore not so keen on the foxhound. Do you want to be responsible for killing thousands of foxhounds? IFA is a front fighter to save the foxhound from extermination in the UK. AusLondoner and a couple of other bloggers are involved with labor fights from a Corbynist angle according to their own pages. Labor manifesto published two weeks ago is clear: total ban of trail hunting. Push to IFA entry is conducive to eliminating opposition. Wikipedia should not be used against freedom of speech. Many entries represent anti- hunting ideas in Wikipedia. Just a few does represent the pro hunting side. Hitler eliminated opposition when coming to power in 1933. Is Wikipedia now following the same Nazi methodology !! ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintin2004123 ( talk • contribs ) 12:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reference 2 now fixed with clear mention of IFA (in French). Note that Dailymail is a perfectly reliable source used extensively by Wikipedia. Covertside article does clearly mention the creation of IFA at the end of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.171.20 ( talk ) 04:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would appreciate if you could quote the language from Covertside which you believe mentions the article subject. It says obliquely that there's an effort to ""raise a groundswell"" to create an international group, without mentioning ""International Foxhound Association"". Even that is just a mention, not significant coverage. Oblivy ( talk ) 13:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ‘’’’’’ The last paragraph of the Covertside article clearly mention the launch of an ‘international association to promote the Foxhound’ This cannot be more relevant. Then it does describe exactly the structure, organisation and purpose of the International Foxhound Association. Reference 2 is a fourth reliable source very well known in France ‘Chassons.com’ (in extra of the Dailymail, Covertside and the French government registry of association). I feel there is bad faith here with you trying to a page for absolutely no valid reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.94.10.176 ( talk ) 19:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"1957 Sunfield tornado : This article is WAY too short to be here and unless you have some way to expand it, the article should be d or ed back to the main tornado outbreak article. Not every strong to violent tornado needs an individual article; please remember that. Chess Eric 00:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Tornado outbreak sequence of December 18–20, 1957 where I think this event already has sufficient coverage. This is arguably an unnecessary fork of that article. BrigadierG ( talk ) 00:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC) PRIMARYTOPIC and it passing WP:NEVENT . So obviously it passess NEVENT's lasting criteria with articles like this one 55 years after the tornado. But actually, the tornado is more notable than the overall outbreak and Wikipedia viewcounts tell us that. This tornado article has been viewed 4,800+ times since its creation in September 2023. The outbreak article has been viewed just over 4,000 times in the last year (April 2023 to March 2024). It is obvious people are specifically searching for this tornado over the outbreak associated with it. So in a weird way, the split article is the primary tornado from the outbreak. Article size for the tornado article is over 7,000 bytes while the 3-day tornado outbreak with 37 tornadoes is 53,000 bytes. There was a similar conversation (OTHERSTUFFEXISTS time) for the 2002 Van Wert–Roselms tornado , which was split from the 2002 Veterans Day weekend tornado outbreak . A third-party editor commented amid the content dispute (separate article or not) and determined it could be a separate article as it passed the criteria to be a stand-alone article. Now, in the last month, the tornado article was viewed nearly 400 times more than the outbreak article and also got to GA rank. Obviously, this article doesn't have GA potential due to the lack of information regarding the tornado, but nonetheless, it does pass the criteria for a stand-alone article. So I am very strongly opposed to a full deletion. My ! vote should be seen as a full ! vote unless consensus starts favoring another verdict. In the event of a consensus forming for a or , this ! vote can be seen as a support for a (i.e. not opposed to a if consensus falls that direction). The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 00:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Sometimes OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments demonstrate a precedent rather than poorly justifying an unrelated article's retention, and Weather Event Writer seems to have it right. There is a general case for the tornado's individual notability (even decades on). Could a conversation conceivably take place? Sure. But this seems to be a strong enough topic to stand on its own from the broader outbreak. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 00:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Environment , and Illinois . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 01:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to entry in Tornado outbreak sequence of December 18–20, 1957 . I would have said """" but there appear to be major factual accuracy problems: the NWS report indicates that the tornado started a ways north of the town and went away from it, not into it; also I don't know why the intersection would be called the ""wye"" since it is a perfectly ordinary crossroads. It could be made into a separate entry within that article (as is the case for two of the tornadoes in the outbreak) but if so, the text needs to be researched anew. Mangoe ( talk ) 03:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC) I am not sure what NWS report you are referring to? The entire NOAA report for the tornado can be seen on Wikisource ( Wikisource: NCDC Climatological Data National Summary for the 1957 Sunfield tornado ) and it clearly states, "" Occurred at junction of highways 51 and 154. Small crossroads settlement at Sunfield ""Y"" wiped out. Very heavy destruction in small area. Several survisors took cover in buildings. Man remaining in open killed. Tornado moved east-northeastward. "" Could you link what NWS report you are seeing, because there is a chance it is a media report and not the official government reports. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 03:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, it's that NOAA report to which I refer. If you look at the map of the path and zoom out a bit, you can see Sunfield SSE of the touchdown point. Reviewing the other sources it seems clear to me that they were referring to damage at the intersection and then further east, not in the town itself. Mangoe ( talk ) 03:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC) Oh you mean the storm event database . Yeah, don't use the map. The map is not a representation of the tornado track. It just draws a straight line from the start to the end of the track. The 2013 El Reno tornado is a very good example of that straight line path drawn for those maps. NOAA produced an actual map of the tornadoes track (an image in the Wikipedia article), but if you look at the Storm Event Database report for it, it just draws the straight line. NOAA also says this just above the maps: "" Note: The tornado track is approximate based on the beginning (B) and ending (E) locations. The actual tornado path may differ from a straight line. "" Also just a side note, you can take a look at User:WeatherWriter/LLM Experiment 1 and User talk:WeatherWriter/LLM Experiment 1#Follow up with 32k version of GPT4 , where myself and another editor actually used A.I. to basicaly fact-check and check the verifiability of the article. Both of us came to the same overall conclusion of it being verifiable and accurate based on the sources. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 03:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One extra note I wanted to mention, the Storm Event Database, while official as in from the government, is not the actual ""official"" report for the tornado. That comes from the ""Climatological Data National Summary December 1957"" paper released in 1958. Basically what is on Wikisource is the formally ""official"" report for the tornado. The other NOAA sources are official as they are from NOAA, but were made decades after the tornado in the internet era. NOAA discontinued the large paper-based official reports in November 2018 and from December 2018 to present, the Storm Event Database is the official location for tornado records. But the paper/PDF reports are official reports pre-December 2018. You can see these publications here and here . The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 03:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is all well and good, but again, when I read all these various sources, none of them says that the tornado went though Sunfield. They all say that the tornado touched down near the intersection, obliterated everything there , and proceeded ENE. The Benton News story is particularly detailed. You are spending too much time on what is an irrelevancy; regardless of which source you prefer, none of them says what the article claims they say. Sunfield itself was not touched by the tornado. Mangoe ( talk ) 04:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC) Now that the accuracy issue is solved, would you reconsider your ! vote, which was “” with the sole explanation of the now fixed issue. I am not swaying, but even you have to admit it does pass WP:NEVENT and WP:LASTING , i.e. it meets all stand-alone article criteria. Plus, it gets more views than the outbreak overall does, indicating that it is potentially more notable than the outbreak. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 23:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Back as an unnecessary split. 108.6.176.12 ( talk ) 20:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Special Rescue Exceedraft : Tagged for notability since 2022. Other language articles do not have sufficient citations to support notability. Donald D23 talk to me 12:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan . Donald D23 talk to me 12:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Currently, every one of the 18 series listed at Metal Hero Series has an article; even if nothing significant were found this should end up as a to that article rather than a . I haven't looked carefully, but the Japanese Wikipedia article has 102 footnotes and 17 book references listed. As a nationally broadcast show with 50 episodes that was also released in several foreign languages (Chinese, Tagalog, Indonesian, Thai), this seems likely to be notable. In general I still don't believe that the drive to nationally televised series from Japan is productive (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joker: Yurusarezaru Sōsakan , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rasen (TV series) , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kekkon Dekinai Otoko , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kagerō no Tsuji: Inemuri Iwane Edo Zōshi , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love of My Life (Japanese TV series) from this editor). Dekimasu よ! 15:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC) As Dekimasu says, the corresponding ja:特捜エクシードラフト page has 65 citations, and 17 items in the bibliography. Did the nominator evaluate those, per WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST ? Just saying ""other language articles do not have sufficient citations"" isn't really enough to dismiss all of those citations. Toughpigs ( talk ) 19:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I looked at them. Most are BLOGS, Episode Guides, hobby guides, other encyclopedias, broadcast channel pages, and guidebooks. None of those are notable, independent, and in-depth. Just because a page has a lot of references does not mean they are good enough to support notability. WP:REFBOMB . Did YOU assess the citations?? Donald D23 talk to me 19:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I had not, that's why I asked if you had. Thanks for your explanation. Toughpigs ( talk ) 19:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 19:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 19:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Vikipedija : No evidence that the word 'Vikipedija' is used in Engish texts. We have hundreds of languages with millions of non-english words, right? Lokys dar Vienas ( talk ) 03:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (changed opinion) to List of Wikipedias , accorfing to great find of Tavix below. Lokys dar Vienas ( talk ) 20:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This is a harmless disambiguation page. Someone searching for information about one of the four Wikipedias that use the name ""Vikipedija"" is likely to search using that name. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 03:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This disambiguation page is fine, it serves a purpose and has more than one valid article. to List of Wikipedias per Tavix. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 06:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Wicipedia s to Welsh Wikipedia and Vicipéid to Irish Wikipedia , and when a could have multiple targets we use a dab page. (Though I note that Wikipédia s to List of Wikipedias rather than French Wikipedia - either a or a dab page needed there, I suggest) (No time to do it right now). Pam D 07:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a dictionary , as Wiktionary is clearly a suitable place for this. We only need a disambiguation page in the encyclopedia if it's reasonable to assume or if there's evidence of average English reader usage needing to be disambiguated. -- Joy ( talk ) 07:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC) MOS:DABOTHERLANG , WP:PARTIAL . Lokys dar Vienas ( talk ) 16:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Croatia , Lithuania , North Macedonia , and Serbia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Wikipedias , where one can find all Wikipedias that can be translated in this manner. There are more than just the four listed in the present disambiguation page and it is unnecessary to duplicate this effort. -- T avix ( talk ) 13:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Wikipedias per Tavix. No such user ( talk ) 07:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"InstallAnywhere : Moreover, the absence of proper citations or references to substantiate the information presented further weakens its credibility. Additionally, the article fails to adhere to the guidelines set forth in WP:NPRODUCT , which are necessary for a standalone article. Barseghian Lilia ( talk ) 10:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC) I wasn't able to find any independent SIGCOV. Owen× ☎ 12:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If the article is deemed not notable and lacks reliable sources, ing it may not be the most appropriate course of action. The purpose of the List of installation software article is to feature notable and significant entries. Therefore, it is advisable to remove articles that do not meet these criteria, rather than ing them. This ensures the list maintains its intended purpose and showcases genuinely noteworthy content. Barseghian Lilia ( talk ) 13:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirects do not need to be notable . If they are a likely search term, and have a relevant ion target article, they should be kept. And our notability standards for inclusion in a list are far more lax than they are for a standalone article. The items listed under List of installation software need to be verifiable . They don't have to meet WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. Owen× ☎ 13:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand and respect your viewpoint, but I maintain the belief that removal remains the optimal solution. In my opinion, it is not appropriate for an article (about which there is not a single reliable source, i.e. cannot be verified), to be ed to another Wikipedia article. Additionally, there are numerous articles on this list that may also need to be removed due to ambiguity surrounding their notability. Barseghian Lilia ( talk ) 19:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are two problems with your view, Barseghian Lilia . Firstly, a is not an article . List of installation software is an article. A to it is nothing but a search term that takes the reader to the article List of installation software . Individual items on a list are not required to meet our notability guidelines. Secondly, there are reliable sources that mention InstallAnywhere: [14] , [15] , and others. They do not provide significant coverage, but they do establish verifiability for the product, which is all we need for including the product in a list. It's nice of you to say you respect my viewpoint, but deletion discussions are based on policy and guidelines, and so far you failed to point which policy or guideline prompts you to claim that this software cannot even be mentioned in a list. Owen× ☎ 20:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps my previous explanation was not clear enough. If we consider the history of editing of List of installation software and the discussions on the talk page , it can be inferred that there exists a certain level of soft consensus regarding the inclusion of only those items in the list that have their own dedicated articles on the English Wikipedia. The editors often refer to rules WP:WTAF , WP:NOTDIR , WP:LSC in support of this ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 etc.). Consequently, if the article in question is removed, it would also be removed from the list, rendering any ion to it just inappropriate. Barseghian Lilia ( talk ) 10:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC) //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=List_of_installation_software&oldid=196700606 in the beginning of March 2008, already DID contain reference to IA (InstallAnywhere). I've never had to add it myself, all that I did was to reflect the ownership change. -- Vlad | -> 14:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * as a nominator. Based on the current situation, it is necessary to remove the article. This action is prompted by the absence of reliable independent sources to support its content. Additionally, it should be remove from the List of installation software article and other places, rather than ing it. Barseghian Lilia ( talk ) 13:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC) — Duplicate ! vote: Barseghian Lilia ( talk • contribs ) has already cast a ! vote above. Barseghian Lilia , as OwenX has pointed out, there ARE sources about this niche software. Unfortunately, it's been more than 10 years since I've last used it (as a developer) and only recently saw it used by a software installed by myself, so I cannot help more in order to it as an standalone article. -- Vlad | -> 09:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin : Vlad ( talk • contribs ) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD . //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=InstallAnywhere&action=history I'm NOT the creator of this article, just by accident the person who contributed the most, and that... 16 years ago! -- Vlad | -> 09:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear Vlad, I apologize for my inattention. Barseghian Lilia ( talk ) 09:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] After consulting the article history (not much in the last 10 years, but it's better than nothing), and not because I contributed a long time ago, but I do change my vote, it's an established 20 years old multi platform installation software, not known probably just because of that (i.e. that's not Windows-oriented like InstallShield) but there are people actively using it, there used to be a community around it, probably still is. -- Vlad | -> 14:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems that there is an established consensus to remove the article due to the lack of reliable sources and substantial coverage, which is one of the main criteria for all articles, and we now determine the need for ion. My suggestion is to the article and refer the issue of creating a to a new separate discussion. Barseghian Lilia ( talk ) 15:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC) ok, it's your right to nominate the article for deletion, but there's another user (not me) that pointed out that there are in fact external references for IA; while initially agreeing to transform it into , I changed my mind and voted to it. Why? Because while I haven't touched it in years, I realized that stuff that I'd added eons ago, when d, someone else readded it, so in a way agreeing that it's better than nothing. Counting me, there are exactly 3 users that opinated, each one with a different opinion, where do you see ""established consensus""?!? -- Vlad | -> 17:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of installation software An item on a list does not need to be notable. Also, maybe add a short section or sentence about this to the software package that inherited its user base. Llajwa ( talk ) 16:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Jonathan Kakou : Four official appearances for the New Caledonia national football team ; no indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 08:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , France , and Oceania . JTtheOG ( talk ) 08:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - lots of hits on les Nouvelles Caledoniennes , but unclear whether they will have anything which meets GNG. -- IdiotSavant ( talk ) 03:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Giant Snowman 18:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"List of concerts at Amsoil Arena : A list of concerts at a medium-sized venue in a small city will not meet WP:NLIST . Mach61 16:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Lists , and Minnesota . Mach61 16:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , as per nom. - Samoht27 ( talk ) 21:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to to Amsoil Arena#Events . I was going to recommend merging into the main article for Amsoil Arena, however it appears the same list (or a very similar one) is already in the article. This is not notable enough for a standalone article, however is a good addition to the main article. Standalone list fails NLIST. Bgv. ( talk ) 04:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Audio Visions : Perhaps this to XM Satellite Radio channel history ? Let'srun ( talk ) 03:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Radio . Let'srun ( talk ) 03:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC) this is the logical alternative to deletion for otherwise non-notable pre-r XM channels that were replaced by its Sirius counterpart (if not associated with another notable parent entity). As I've mentioned before, even the pre-2021 version of the NRADIO essay, amidst its overpresumption of notability on the broadcast side,",redirect
+"Book III : Rusalkii ( talk ) 23:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . Rusalkii ( talk ) 23:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC) couldn't find any reliable coverage either. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 00:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Brotha Lynch Hung per QuietHere . TheChineseGroundnut ( talk ) 08:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Sourcing I could find online refer to different books with a similar title. TLA tlak 07:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Anwar Rasheed Entertainments : No inherent notability. Passing mentions and routine coverage won't count. The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 20:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 20:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with nom in principle. to Anwar Rasheed hopefully leading readers to the information they seek over there thereby discouraging creating such an article again, no necessary. — siro χ o 21:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Kerala . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC) per nom. No significant coverage from multiple reliable sources to meet GNG. 116.68.98.76 ( talk ) 12:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC) 04, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"World Affairs Council of Kentucky and Southern Indiana : Fails to meet WP:ORG on its own. The only coverage is about the Council hosting events and panels, rather than WP:SIGCOV about the Council itself. Otherwise, it's a non-notable chapter of the WACA with ~100 chapters. Longhornsg ( talk ) 19:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Indiana , and Kentucky . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC) is proposed and this does not require a deletion discussion. Should we close this? ~ Kvng ( talk ) 13:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to World Affairs Councils of America per nom. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 09:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Ravinder Chauhan : Sources in article is primary by the subject, BEFORE showed mentions, but nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). // Timothy :: talk 02:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of mayors of Slough . Fails WP:NPOL , non-notable as politician. (""Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the GNG."") Mooonswimmer 03:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He is the first Indian origin mayor. Moreover he is of indian untouchable dalit origin. Dev Mahey ( talk ) 09:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not a criteria. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk ! 03:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC) per above. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk ! 05:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of mayors of Slough . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 07:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of mayors of Slough . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 09:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"A World Away (Remix) : Part of a walled garden of articles promoting a musical and the people around it, which should all get some scrutiny: but this one seems to be the worst when it comes to notability (the others were already d in the past though, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Chiang ). ProD was removed with the addition of sources, but as these were the website of the singer and the Apple music store [46] , they didn't help to solve the problem. Fram ( talk ) 08:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . Fram ( talk ) 08:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre , Hong Kong , and Canada . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 11:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC) Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion . I was able to find only one source about the subject. The source is of unknown reliability but likely is unreliable as I cannot find evidence of editorial oversight: ""Review – A World Away by Theresa Kowall-Shipp"" . Indiewrap . 2021-12-17. Archived from the original on 2023-05-23 . Retrieved 2023-05-24 . The review notes: ""A World Away, is the signature pop ballad from the award-winning musical, Golden Lotus. Sung by award-nominated singer Harriet Chung and written by award-winning composer George Chiang, the song transcends time with a heart wrenching message about missing the person you love."" The song does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline . Cunard ( talk ) 07:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC) PROMO and nom. No sigcov in independent reviews other than Chung's own blog(!). These ""awards"" do not seem noteworthy, and the fact that they are not covered by WP:RSs confirms that. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 16:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Virginia Mennonite Missions : The only sources I could find about Virginia Mennonite Missions was on anabaptistworld.org, which according to their staff page is associated with Mennonites, so I can't call it an independent source. It might be best to this article to Virginia Mennonite Conference . Deauthorized . ( talk ) 14:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Virginia . Deauthorized . ( talk ) 14:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Search term too generic for me to find anything on Google. BrigadierG ( talk ) 14:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. I ran across the article after its creator began repeatedly pasted large chunks of promotional copyright from their website. After some pointless back-and-forth of restoring the and deletion revisions of the copyright, I tried to start a neutral stub as a way forward for the not-quite-single-purpose (and apparently COI) editor. But the only RS I've found so far is the two Anabaptist World references cited, one of which only mentions VMM in passing, and neither of which are independent, as noted by nominator. Maybe another editor will have better luck finding significant coverage in some independent RS. Wikishovel ( talk ) 15:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] e/ to Virginia_Mennonite_Conference#Organization_and_commissions . - Altenmann >talk 16:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"New Tradiciones : The Billboard source currently used in the article is solid, but one source does not justify a separate article, and I could not find evidence of further coverage outside of that single source. Aoba47 ( talk ) 23:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . Aoba47 ( talk ) 23:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to artist, Adrienne Bailon-Houghton . -- asilvering ( talk ) 21:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Battle of Kota Batu (1578) : I moved it to the draftspace for incubation. After a brief period of andditions and the draft being declined by two editors (including myself), the article's creator appended a handful of citations and moved the article back to the mainspace. I can find no indication of significant reference to the battle in any of these sources besides one blog post. Additionally, at least one of the sources appears to be a middle school-level textbook. Much of the information in this article is not cited to any reference. I don't think this is a hoax so I think deletion back to draft is probably the best option. Pbritti ( talk ) 16:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Brunei , Philippines , and Spain . Pbritti ( talk ) 16:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then how come articles like Brunei People's Awareness Party can get away with it before? its has literally no effort putting on the article? it totally ridiculous. Battle of Kota Batu (1578) at least had effort put into it. Meanwhile Brunei People's Awareness Party has zero effort. Syazwi Irfan ( talk ) 06:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, The Castilian War article, when being made. Only had an INFOBOX. only in 22 September 2007 it had context. They didn't even had REFERENCES. Syazwi Irfan ( talk ) 06:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And the Battle of Kota Batu (1578) was also MARKED as a Stub. Syazwi Irfan ( talk ) 06:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC) Other Stuff Exists . Curbon7 ( talk ) 07:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good citations on Bruneian history are sadly hard to find. The current text is written with a slant, but the core details seem roughly right. This source (pp. 16-17) provides a ship number of 30 to 40, and provides a bit more political background, but devotes no time to this battle itself. It doesn't refer to ""Kota Batu"" but simply ""Brunei"", but it's clearly the same place. It gives a similar number of cannons (62, article has 64). This source (page 30) mentions Seri Lela and Seri Ratna, but otherwise skips right through this period. (Both sources are notably reasonably old at this point, reflecting the difficulty of finding information.) Given the current paucity of sources both here and at Castilian War , corresponding to a very short length in each case, I would suggest ing to Castilian War , merging The Battle section and the Aftermath detail. CMD ( talk ) 07:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've been on and writing Brunei wikipedia articles for a year now and I do agree that sources for the Bruneian Sultanate era are indeed very hard to come across, and are hardly reliable or valid with many different sources giving different informations for the same topic. This convinced me to stay away from writing articles of that era as it could be challenging to fight for. With how this article stands, I can only give my best of luck to justify its existence on Wikipedia. Please do not be discouraged from writing future articles, other topics from the 1900 onwards are much easier to start from and more likely to be accepted (if done correctly). DuckieWackie ( talk ) 08:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Deferring to subject matter experts here. I consider to Castilian War a good solution, per CMD's digging. Thanks for adding your two bits, too, DuckieWackie! Your work in a poorly illuminated corner of history is a credit to this project. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 14:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait, I am confused with the ""62, article has 64"" part. Syazwi Irfan ( talk ) 14:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The source said there were perhaps 62 cannons (although it notes this was not a count from during the battle). The article says 64, citing ""Lloyd, Yeo (2010). Explore Social Studies...p. 39. ISBN 978-981-280-979-7"" whose existence I cannot validate. CMD ( talk ) 01:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Battle of Kota Batu (1578) article said 62 Cannons. Syazwi Irfan ( talk ) 05:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC) ""Bruneian defenders were already outnumbered the Bruneians which had only 64 cannons "". ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 12:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC) 08, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So are we gonna (or draft) it or not? Syazwi Irfan ( talk ) 14:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC) 12, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 02:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I moved Battle of Kota Batu (1578) to Siege of Kota Batu (1578). As its siege rather than a battle . Syazwi Irfan ( talk ) 06:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have reverted your move. Please do not move articles that are being discussed at an AFD, it complicates the discussion closure. After it's closed, feel free to move the article. L iz Read! Talk! 02:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I already made a topic in the main article. it should be here . Syazwi Irfan ( talk ) 05:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We should talk about the article and not moves. Syazwi Irfan ( talk ) 05:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, we're talking about article moves because you mistakenly moved the article. Now the discussion can return to notability and sources. L iz Read! Talk! 05:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per others. The sourcing just isn't there. S0091 ( talk ) 14:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - The article has at least three sources that are scholarly and directly relevant which is enough to support the article. I don't see how deleting or ing would improve the encyclopaedia, and draftify is for improvement when the article seems ready for mainspace as written. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 18:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The issue is that other material cited in the article does not actually verify the content of the article, so we are partially relying on AGF under those rocky circumstances to believe there are academic SIGCOV sources on this. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 18:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC) DINC , or it's WP:BABY writ large. If instead you mean that the subject meets GNG only by inflating the attention that the sources pay to this event, I would still ! vote to Keep. I think it would be wiser to err on the side of WP:NOTPAPER and give the benefit of the doubt. To clarify what I said above, I don't see how deleting this entire article or ing would improve the encyclopaedia, even though the article could certainly use improvement. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 21:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Last1in can you or @ Syazwi Irfan point to a reliable source that has written in-depth about the event? I struggle to understand how, for an example, The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia , covers it as at least according to outline it begins in the 1800's but this event occurred in 1578. Some details about what the sources actually state will be helpful. Also @ Chipmunkdavis states there is one source they can't find evidence it exists and @ Pangalau states reliable sources largely do not exist covering the time period. S0091 ( talk ) 21:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Castilian War per CMD's argument. Not notable in its own right. SBKSPP ( talk ) 00:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Embassy of Tanzania, Beijing : This article is based on 1 primary source so does not meet WP:ORG . LibStar ( talk ) 04:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Tanzania , and China . LibStar ( talk ) 04:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of diplomatic missions of Tanzania per previous AfD discussion. No sources found. Brachy 08 (Talk) 05:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Draconian (Doctor Who) : Does not seem to meet GNG or SIGCOV, and a search for sources yields nothing. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC) has been mentioned in-show and frequently in spin-off media and is considered one of the main villains. Regards, Anameofmyveryown ( talk ) 14:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC) //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pokelego999 has over approx two days mass-nominated for deletion fifty-one Doctor Who-related articles as follows: Blinovitch Limitation Effect, Destrii, Muriel Frost, Kadiatu Lethbridge-Stewart, Iris Wildthyme, Shayde, Fey Truscott-Sade, Sam Jones (Doctor Who), Molly O'Sullivan, Jason Kane (Doctor Who), Flip Jackson, Mila (Doctor Who), Charley Pollard, Evelyn Smythe, Thomas Brewster (Doctor Who), Abby (Doctor Who), Vislor Turlough, Rutan (Doctor Who), Draconian (Doctor Who), Sisterhood of Karn, Henry Gordon Jago, Professor George Litefoot, Forge (Doctor Who), Timewyrm, Threshold (Doctor Who), Coal Hill School, Nimrod (Doctor Who), Nobody No-One, Borusa, The Monk (Doctor Who), Polly (Doctor Who), Ben Jackson (Doctor Who), List of UNIT personnel, John and Gillian, Shalka Doctor, Sabbath (Doctor Who), Chris Cwej, Grandfather Paradox (Doctor Who), The Other (Doctor Who), Alan Jackson (The Sarah Jane Adventures), Vortis (Doctor Who), Thal (Doctor Who), Ogron, Werewolf (Doctor Who), Sil (Doctor Who), White Guardian, Mara (Doctor Who), Sabalom Glitz, Castellan (Doctor Who), Professor Edward Travers, Alpha Centauri (Doctor Who) Such a mass deletion would significantly alter the coverage of Doctor Who on Wikipedia. WikiProject Doctor Who was not informed beforehand. Regards, Anameofmyveryown ( talk ) 14:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Frontier in Space , their first appearance and only appearance in the TV show. What few sources I can actually find outside of fansites regarding the species is pretty much entirely just regarding their appearance in that single episode. There is no coverage that would indicate that the species is notable enough for their own article. Whatever importance they may have in the franchise (and honestly, it looks like they actually do not have very much at all) is irrelevant to actually passing the WP:GNG . Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC) ATD , as they are not individually notable as a fictional race. I oppose ing to the list of aliens, as I don't believe they are major enough to even merit a mention there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Frontier in Space , per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ and Rorshacma . To the argument, by Anameofmyveryown , that we need to things that are mentioned and are ""one of the main villains"" ( Tardis Data Core page seems to imply they are only referenced in the tv show twice in 2 throw away lines, in episodes outside of Frontier ) , that's an Assertion of notability without providing the thing that is needed for WP:GNG , that being sources in third-party WP:RSs . Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/ notability requires verifiable evidence . There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV in third party sources to support this article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 23:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Karen Vick : A quick search doesn't show much for analysis or anything meaningful about this character. There is little value said here not already covered in List of Psych characters article. It should there with only a very brief description of the character. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed! Did a quick search not finding anything else notable with name referencing the character Teddy012 ( talk ) 04:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Unreferenced plot summary. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 23:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Balotlhanyi Johannes : The subject has earned at least eight caps for the Botswana women's national football team . I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Botswana . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or as above. Botswana seems to have relatively robust sports journalism infrastructure and subject is only mentioned in match summaries. Danish Ranger ( talk ) 13:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect' as above. Giant Snowman 16:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Chimpoo Simpoo : It lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. It lacks in-depth analysis or substantial coverage from reputable publications. The references are primarily primary sources or basic descriptions, which do not provide the necessary independent verification to establish the show's notability. M S Hassan ( talk ) 16:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Comics and animation , and India . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Sony_YAY! #Current_programming - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of programmes broadcast by Sony YAY! #Current programming : There are many incoming links, and the nature of the article appears like a near future notability. While I won't oppose the deletion because of SIGCOV, I believe there is a need for the to exist per WP:ATD . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 23:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Kailey Leila : The subject has earned at least four caps for the Guyana women's national football team . I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , Canada , Caribbean , and South America . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 08:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Racho Zhekov : did a WP:BEFORE and cannot find any additional references for notability besides the competition record. lizthegrey ( talk ) 19:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Olympics , and Bulgaria . lizthegrey ( talk ) 19:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I suggest that for Olympians who attended one Game, and participated in one event, and did not medal, and for whom there's not enough information to sustain an independent article, their name be a to the article on that event at that Game (in this case, Cross-country skiing at the 1936 Winter Olympics – Men's 4 × 10 kilometre relay ). DS ( talk ) 17:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 65.200.160.160 ( talk ) 05:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC) GNG . He competed at more than one event but only one Olympic games so that seems like the better WP:ATD . Suonii180 ( talk ) 09:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - There is a lack of information about the athlete, with no additional sources. Svartner ( talk ) 15:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"MTV Sri Lanka : It's not notable as a separate topic, this is the historical name for the now existing TV One (Sri Lankan TV channel) . (please correct me if I'm wrong). JackFromWisconsin ( talk | contribs ) 13:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Television , and Sri Lanka . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 13:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and SALT I have restored the and warned the IP responsible many times. Redirects are costly . How many times do our NPP have to re-address this topic? Chris Troutman ( talk ) 14:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral comment Please clarify whether MTV Channel is related to this. Nate • ( chatter ) 17:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - If it is a historical name for TV One, it should certainly be ed to the current name, even if that means protecting the to avoid recreation. However, this is based on the presumption that is is the historical name... I really have no insight into the matter, and I think confirmation would help resolve this discussion. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 22:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] mtvsports.lk s to tv1.lk, so there's the truth. As for the verifiability ... Mach61 ( talk ) 03:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC) 45, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] english.gossiplankanews.com? No. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 03:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC) 49, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Medicine in Star Trek : Much of it is unreferenced, and the first part is arguably ORish, with footnotes to Star Trek episodes. No academic source is cited (GScholar suggests something on this could be found, although it is not clear to me whether an overview of 'medicine in Star Trek' is possible). Subtopics like Hypospray can be independently notable (and that article exists and has some academic refs), but whether this can be salvaged, I am unsure (since the articles I see concern specific subtopic, like Nursing in Star Trek of genetic engineering in ST, etc.; ditto for sources identified in the AfD 10 years ago which haven't been even added to the article but suffer from the same limited focus). For now I suggest, per WP:ATD-R , to this mess to Technology in Star Trek , with perhaps some short . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Medicine . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh man, yeah. I guess I'm a Weak . This could be an article, but right now it's a mess, and I can't see a good way to make it work. Andre 🚐 08:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . All sources are either primary, or make a ""This would be like in Star Trek!"" remark without discussion the topic to a degree that would justify the article. We could possibly roll this into Technology in Star Trek , but that article has a quality and fan cruft issues as well. Cortador ( talk ) 09:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC) ATD . May be a notable subject, but WP:TNT applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC) While there might be a worthy topic here, the current article needs to be destroyed so that something else can be written. Almost all of the sources in the article are either primary or brief mentions of specific types of technology in Star Trek . Only one of them is usable. Furthermore, considering the length of the potential target article, any useful information could easily fit into a discussion of the general topic. ― Susmuffin Talk 17:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Technology in Star Trek as above (maybe a light ). Alternative would be to stubify into a short list. Almost certainly meets GNG but I think the OR/SYNTH/UNDUE issues are enough of a problem that we can't simply tag. — siro χ o 20:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and improve or to Technology in Star Trek . This is a notable topic, secondary sources exist, they just have not yet been adequately used in the article. So what we have could be perhaps trimmed and incorporated into an improved article which better addresses the overall topic. Alternatively relevant parts could be d into Technology in Star Trek . A pure is not appropriate in my view: While it is a sub-topic, it is nowhere addressed there yet. And we do have specific sections or full articles of VISOR , Hypospray , Ency Medical Hologram , which should be referred to in the same manner as other concepts already are in Technology in Star Trek . Daranios ( talk ) 15:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC) ATD . There isn't WP:SIGCOV to make this a separate article. Editors are rallying around an acceptable target. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC) TNT does not apply to such articles. People quoting it should, you know, actually read it and apply it in context. Jclemens ( talk ) 04:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Stalin-Allee : The most I've been able to find, which isn't much, is this really short description in a German newspaper from 1991. Note that the film also seems to be spelled as ""Stalinallee"". The director does not have an article, so that's not a option; the article could be ed to Karl-Marx-Allee . toweli ( talk ) 19:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Germany . toweli ( talk ) 19:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC) As an WP:ATD-R , it is already listed as a synonym at the article, and with no apparent notability of the film (or any sourcing here) there isn't anything to . 2pou ( talk ) 17:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC) GNG not met. Nyamo Kurosawa ( talk ) 22:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Balitaan (2013 TV program) : No good references obtained in GSearch, GBooks, GNews and GNews Archives. Suggest List of programs broadcast by People's Television Network as plausible WP:ATD -- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Television , and Philippines . Lenticel ( talk ) 03:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of programs broadcast by People's Television Network#Previously aired programs Another generic Filipino morning newscast. Nate • ( chatter ) 23:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"André Schlechter : JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Namibia national rugby union players A handful of international caps, but for a smaller nation, and as common finding sourcing for Namibian internationals can be difficult. a suitable WP:ATD . The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Uganda Program on Cancer and Infectious Diseases : Fails WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine , Uganda , United States of America , and Washington . UtherSRG (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 16:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC) ATD-M . — siro χ o 18:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (or if actual sources found). The sources here are about the Institute, and I don't find any on the program itself. Lamona ( talk ) 15:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Jason Gideon : If the character is not notable, I suggest a and/or to List of Criminal Minds characters#Jason Gideon . Spinixster (chat!) 10:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Spinixster (chat!) 10:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - non notable for a standalone article. Already fully treated in Criminal Minds . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 12:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update to per nom. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to the list as suggested by the nom. Nothing to , pure plot summary, poorly referenced. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 14:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I really don't think the article should be d. the article had been here for years, why now it? Movieking134 ( talk ) 03:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC) ARTICLEAGE . Spinixster (chat!) 04:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to draft , given that this was one of the most substantially used characters of a popular series, I expect that additional sources showing notability can be found and integrated here. BD2412 T 04:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"No Limit Forever Records : Most of the refences are from their own defunct website or to streaming media. No indication of notability. Karst ( talk ) 15:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Companies , and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC) N doesn't expire and it passes based on a few sources, though the Soundcloud sources need to be trashed. Nate • ( chatter ) 20:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and to No Limit Records . First, this isn't a notable company . This is a non-notable company associated with some notable performers. The company itself must be "" the subject of significant coverage ... with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules "". I don't see any such cited. I see articles about performers, with the company figuring only incidentally or not at all in them. Second, the company (CA 201030110082 ) doesn't appear to be independent at all of Master P or No Limit Records. Its only official act was incorporation (Oct 2010). It was effectively dead 3 1/2 years later when its agent quit and officially dead 6 months after that. Except in company blog posts it's Master P who's signing artists, not the putative company founder Lil Romeo, and he's signing them to NL Records, not NL Forever. Some of the signings postdate the 2014 demise of this company. I'm persuaded that No Limit Records, New No Limit, No Limit Forever, and No Limit Global are simply alternative branding of one entity. Yappy2bhere ( talk ) 01:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC) 23, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Billy Kincaid : Industrial Insect (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Comics and animation . Industrial Insect (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to the List of Spawn characters or such. Plot summary and little else. Embarassing section on 'Recent Activity' (poor style). FANPOV to the extreme. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] due to insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 17:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Vaggie : But, despite that, it seems like this [31] is the only good source. BEFORE, most of the sources were from the film reviews and Vaggie was just a passing mention. Fails WP:GNG . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 10:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation . Owen× ☎ 10:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to character list / draftify per reasons for nom. 91.219.238.98 ( talk ) 15:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC) NOTE Royz-vi Tsibele ( talk ) 14:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I saw this one coming, no in depth coverage or even a massive fan following to warrant inclusion. We aren't Fandom. ~ GoatLordServant ( Talk ) 01:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was honestly surprised when I saw 4 individual articles for Hazbin Hotel characters, as typically Wikipedia is pretty strict on these kinds of things. I think Alastor and Charlie are notable enough, but Angel Dust and Vaggie don't feel as fitting for individual articles. XanderK09 ( talk ) 19:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters . Unless we find more independent sources talking about Vaggie specifically and not ones depending on her relationship with Charlie, Vaggie doesn't deserve an article. -- Turtletennisfogwheat ( talk ) 06:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Lionel Cristiano ? 14:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, but why? Historyday01 ( talk ) 04:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON . In the future the continued popularity of Hazbin Hotel and this character could warrant an article, but the information should be put somewhere rather than the history being purged as a full would do. Original Alastorian ( talk ) 16:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Alternatives to deletion ? I believe the multiple sources together provide enough significant coverage to establish WP:Notability . I agree that most coverage is about the relationship to Charlie Morningstar, i.e. applies equally to both characters. I don't see a problem in having some of the same coverage in two places on Wikipedia, based on WP:NOTPAPER . But if that's seen as an issue, and if one wants to discount sources like ScreenRant with regard to notability, deletion still goes against the spirit of WP:AtD , as it e.g. would remove the coverage by what also the nominator sees as a good source from Wikipedia alltogether, because what we have here is not present anywhere else yet (I think). Therefore the reception information with regard to the relationship should be d to Charlie Morningstar and other relevant information to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters#Vaggie . Daranios ( talk ) 16:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters#Vaggie , or , per Daranios. Eve Would Never ( talk ) 18:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree completely. As such I also vote to to the page link that Eve Would Never suggested, or to . To say that this page should be d is incorrect. . Those who want to this page are either citing weak or no arguments, or are not considering any alternatives to deletion. Like with the Charlie Morningstar AfD (which is also faulty by the way), the OP just slapped on a notability tag on the article and nominated it for deletion, but did not seem to do the work prior to the nomination which could have addressed these concern. I hope that this AfD is withdrawn like the Charlie Morningstar AfD . The work that users put into building this page should be respected. Historyday01 ( talk ) 12:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The difference is, unlike Charlie's article whose sources make her the subject and analyze her character traits, all of the sources in Vaggie's article mostly talk about her in regards to her relationship with Charlie. Turtletennisfogwheat ( talk ) 01:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC) As a valid WP:ATD . StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can agree with that as well, but I would also believe it can be kept, as the nom's arguments are invalid. As such I vote as well, but also per the other arguments on here. 71.179.137.86 ( talk ) 02:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON and the preferable vote for an WP:ATD . Spinixster (trout me!) 13:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC) 28, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Kabyle Wikipedia : That is to say Wikipedia/other Wikimedia projects. Perhaps this is also considered circular referencing? Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 13:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Internet , Websites , Africa , Algeria , and Florida . Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 13:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. No secondary sources. NotAGenious ( talk ) 14:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Common WP:ATD is a to its section in List of Wikipedias (ex. WP:Articles for deletion/Cebuano Wikipedia ). Curbon7 ( talk ) 05:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Wikipedias. No coverage independent of the Wikipedia, so fails GNG. AryKun ( talk ) 14:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the above. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 02:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC) 19, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Mike Gabler : Most of the """" votes were based on assumption that winning Survivor just once is an automatic pass of notability. Those such arguments were made in AFD nominations on a few or several other articles about Survivor winners, like Natalie White and Bob Crowley , yet those AFD discussions resulted in ""ed to [X]"". Furthermore, the closure was done by a non-admin who has edited for a few years. I contacted that closer, but no response yet to this date. Well, one of """" voters cited significant coverage . However, I'm unconvinced that it (and WP:GNG ) can override the longstanding WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E , either of which may apply to this article. This person became notable solely for winning Survivor 43 (and donating all his winnings to charity), and I don't see one reliable source verifying his notability as a heart valve specialist or for anything else also as significant as the Survivor 43 win. In other words, consensus can change , and the page must be ed to Survivor 43 . George Ho ( talk ) 00:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Television , and Medicine . George Ho ( talk ) 00:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Frankly, I think some of the votes in the first nomination were based on WP:ILIKEIT rather than actual notability arguments; examples being an editor saying that ""historical precedent in regards to Survivor and media coverage says otherwise"" in response to a relist noting that winning Survivor doesn't mean notability and an editor with just 22 edits and no other edits to AfD voting . I don't think AfD nominations should be closed unless it is WP:SNOW , withdrawn, or a nomination with invalid reasoning, which wasn't present. The article fails WP:BLP1E and the sources are either too short or contain too much interview to qualify for WP:SIGCOV in my opinion. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 09:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC) ONEEVENT . The only sourcing is in the lead. The completely unsourced body of the article is not encyclopedic at all. It reads like a play-by-play narrative of the event. — Maile ( talk ) 23:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC) 11, 14 May 2023 (UTC) Blocked as a sockpuppet. Courcelles ( talk ) 14:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Survivor 43 per BLP1E. AryKun ( talk ) 12:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC) BLP1E . The event is notable enough for people to be searching for him as the winner of Survivor 43, particularly since he did something different from other winners by donating his winnings to charity. Darthjoey91 ( talk ) 22:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Tirukkural translations into Finnish : Already covered in Tirukkural translations . No proof of WP:Notability of the the one partial transalation on its own accord. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Hinduism , India , and Finland . Redtigerxyz Talk 17:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC) More citations added to establish notability. Kural translation is a highly notable topic and the addition of citations asserts the notability of individual translations, as noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani . Article now passes WP:GNG . Rasnaboy ( talk ) 09:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Reference #1 is literally just an entry in a table, contributing nothing towards GNG. Reference #4 appears to be the (partial) translation itself, and naturally can't contribute towards GNG either. @ Rasnaboy : What do the offline sources (#2 and #3) say about the Finnish translations in specific ? How detailed is the coverage? Simply asserting that GNG is met is not useful for this discussion. - Ljleppan ( talk ) 09:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source #2 is a collection of articles by various authors and, if my memory serves me right, has separate essays on each translation. Source #3 has a chapter on translations in general, where the Finnish translation is included. In general, details for Finnish is meager compared with other translations. Nevertheless, it is discussed on most, if not all, of the Kural translations–related works. Rasnaboy ( talk ) 02:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is much too vague to be useful for this discussion. What does a chapter on translations in general, where the Finnish translation is included mean? Is it mentioned once in passing? Listed in a table like in ref #1? As for reference #2, we don't count hypothetical sourcing: someone must verify that it discusses the topic in some detail. You can't just vaguely hand wave towards most, if not all, of the Kural translations–related works and claim that Article now passes WP:GNG . Ljleppan ( talk ) 06:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , since the two references I have access to are useless for GNG purposes (one being literally a single word + a single number in a table and the other a partial translation itself), and no concrete information seems to be forthcoming about the other two. - Ljleppan ( talk ) 18:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Regarding ATDs, I'm not really seeing anything properly sourced to into Tirukkural translations . W/r/t ing to it, I personally don't see much value in this , but I wouldn't oppose it either. Ljleppan ( talk ) 18:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Two sources that cover a subject is not really enough for WP:SIGCOV . I would not object to a s into the main article on translations of this text. Bearian ( talk ) 00:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"KZLL-LD : OWaunTon ( talk ) 02:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 03:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 23 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 04:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. : another run-of-the-mill 2010s-started DTV America/HC2/Innovate that simply has little prospect of ever attaining the requisite significant coverage . By itself, an article's failure to actually ""explain much"" isn't automatically a reason to remove it, but this is one of those stations where there really is nothing to say. Yet another nominal survivor of last year's bulk nomination . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Missouri , and Oklahoma . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Ameni Boukari : No indication of notability; the subject seemingly made a single appearance for her national team. Searches turn up nothing. Fails WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Tunisia . JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 18:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Subject does not meet the WP:GNG and WP:BIO . Micheal Kaluba ( talk ) 08:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Friedrich Magnus VI, Count of Solms-Wildenfels : I am unable to find any indication in online sources that ""Friedrich Magnus VI"" is an encyclopedically notable individual. Surtsicna ( talk ) 21:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Royalty and nobility , and Germany . Surtsicna ( talk ) 21:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merits further investigation . There are at least five book sources in English, German, French and Turkish that record details of this individual and his family that appear to line up with what is said in the article. However, I can't see the full entries online - someone would have to have access to the actual sources. Bermicourt ( talk ) 09:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Count of a county that no longer exists (and apparently hasn't since 1806)? That isn't going to do it doesn't count for anything. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 09:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Or to Solms-Wildenfels#Mediatized Counts of Solms-Wildenfels . Clarityfiend ( talk ) 10:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as suggested. While it's not exactly ""fancruft"", it is poorly sourced . On the other hand, he has claims to heading several important deposed royal families, so deleting this will erase the coding for a potentially valid article. Bearian ( talk ) 00:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"K29NM-D : Let'srun ( talk ) 03:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Washington . Let'srun ( talk ) 03:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC) this appears to be a station that has, for the most part, only ever carried HSN and/or its sister networks, even before coming under HSN-associated ownership groups. (Even now, the only subchannel that isn't an HSN or QVC channel is a Dabl affiliation on 29.6, which a few Ventana stations have for some reason.) There's no separate notability here, and doubtful there's much significant coverage anyway. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as per WcQuidditch above. Llajwa ( talk ) 20:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Alex Blake (Criminal Minds) : Spinixster (chat!) 03:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Spinixster (chat!) 03:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Criminal Minds characters . No sources, no hint of notability in the article, pure WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:GNG and WP:V . This level of 'cruft can be safely WP:PRODed IMHO (nom, please consider this in the future and bring here only ones which have been deprodded or look better). - @ Spinixster Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Piotrus I would PROD it, but last time I did it on another article, someone quickly deprodded it and asked me to bring it to AFD, so just to be safe in case I am horribly wrong, I brought it to AFD. Spinixster (chat!) 06:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Spinixster It can happen, certainly. I'd PROD anyway (as the last serial deprodded I am familiar with got topic banned from deletions and I am not aware of anyone new causing problems). If you aren't, I recommend using Twinkle with prod log function, handy for checking after a while what got deprodded and why and if necessary, bringing it to AfD without risking forgetting stuff. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 00:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/Redirect per Piotrus. Lacking in reliable independent coverage to pass WP:V , let alone WP:GNG . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 01:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Tekkeitsertok : The only source of the article is ""Albert Tuktuvit, Berlin University of Northern Studies"". However, there is no such University - at most, a center for North American Studies at a Berlin University. Furthermore, I could not find any references to a Albert Tuktuvit. Hugo Lima ( talk ) 15:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Religion . Hugo Lima ( talk ) 15:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - This deity was not created for Sweet Tooth , if that is the implication in the nomination, as this article predates the creation of that comic by a number of years. I also own one print source (the 1994 English edition of The Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology ) that does have a small entry for Tekkeitsertok confirming much of the information in this stub. That said, the sourced content is scant enough that a to Inuit religion#Deities where this deity is already included might be a good option. Rorshacma ( talk ) 14:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Inuit religion#Deities . I was unable to find any sources other than the Larousse Encyclopedia entry ( available here ). Sojourner in the earth ( talk ) 17:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Inuit religion#Deities . Like a lot of the Inuit pantheon on Wikipedia it's poorly sourced. Unfortunately, most references like The Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology , were written by someone who thought all Inuit were the same. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk) , Huliva 21:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Sons of Alpha Centauri (demo album) : All sources either are bare mentions, crowdsourced, or affiliated. Paid creator. Valereee ( talk ) 11:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . Valereee ( talk ) 11:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC) Found no additional coverage. Two of the four sources are primaries from the band's own website, one is from Discogs , and the last is a single sentence in their AllMusic bio. I know nothing about any PAID / COI violations. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 12:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC) Formation and Sons of Alpha Centauri per above, citations support the existence, but not the details, I don't think there is anything properly sourced for a that isn't in the target already. // Timothy :: talk 11:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Unified Code Count : No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. Tagged for notability for a decade . PROD was declined due to a prior REFUND at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 81#Unified Code Count (UCC) , but no party has done anything to address the lack of sourcing. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] extremely selectively to Source lines of code . This was important work and is still in use by the US Department of Defense. However there is almost no independent material available for a separate article. As a note about the earlier days of Wikipedia, one of the papers on the project reports: A Wikipedia® [6] page was set up for the UCC as a structured software environment to record and present project information to the software community. This wiki is periodically updated by student teams at USC. StarryGrandma ( talk ) 21:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""periodically updated"" in this case appears to have only lasted until 2011. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Nina Menegatto : It presents the subject as holding actual positions and titles, which do not exist. Not to mention that the page uses a few primary sources from the micronation itself. Presenting a micronation roleplayer as a real head of state is misinformation at best . Di (they-them) ( talk ) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , Women , and Italy . Di (they-them) ( talk ) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] weak - there are a few fairly long media reports in addition to those on the page. There may also be more in non-English publications. On that basis, in my opinion the GNG is met. JMWt ( talk ) 06:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the content from reliable secondary sources to Principality of Seborga . Insufficient independent coverage for a stand-alone article per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event . Celia Homeford ( talk ) 08:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] , although English sources also exist: [51] [52] [53] ). Notability is not determined by the validity of her claims/titles/positions/offices. Many articles exist on pretenders and claimants to defunct and non-existant monarchies. The question is if Menegatto is has received significant media coverage, and the answer to that is yes. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 13:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions . Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 14:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions . Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 14:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Principality of Seborga . She is no more notable than her so-called predecessors, Giorgio and Marcello . Keivan.f Talk 19:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per the user above. Wolverine XI ( talk to me ) 15:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I sincerely disagree with Di's and Celia Homeford's arguments, however I believe it indeed deserves a as per the user above. Dem a goras talk 18:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/ I don't see how she's notable on her own. She can be adequately covered on the main page for Seborga. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 08:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Robert T. Huang : Refs are entirely routine. scope_creep Talk 09:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Taiwan , and United States of America . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion . A with the history preserved under the will allow editors to selectively any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A with the history preserved under the will allow the to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard ( talk ) 10:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Fuckin' 'Ell It's Fred Titmus : I've created several dozen {{ R from song }} s to the band's albums. I didn't mark any as {{ R with possibilities }} because I didn't think any had them. This album track and crowd favourite is no different, much as I've enjoyed it for nearly 40 years. The sources are WP:REFBOMBINGs of track listings and gig reviews. None suffices to meet WP:NSONG . to Back in the DHSS as {{ R from song }} while ing the categories . I'm bringing this article to AfD rather than WP:BOLDly WP:BLARing it because it's been around since 2009. I haven't notified the article creator because they were WP:BLOCKed in 2018 for reasons which at passing glance look irrelevant to this discussion. Narky Blert ( talk ) 17:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC) 56, 31 March 2024 (UTC) 18, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"UW Aquilae : Article likely only exists on the basis of it being a very large star. SpaceImplorer ExplorerImplorer 09:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC) The main author was a sock - it would have been a candidate for G5 deletion had Ozzie10aaaa not done a fair bit of tidying up on the article - their thoughts on its retention or otherwise would probably be relevant. Girth Summit (blether) 09:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC) 12, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which ones? All the ones I could find are catalogues which do not establish notability. SpaceImplorer ExplorerImplorer 15:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC) I did find a couple for studies that make mention of ""UW Aql"", but no more than a few sentences. I'm on the fence about this one. Praemonitus ( talk ) 19:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of largest known stars , where it is mentioned. This is fairly an obscure star, it doesn't has even a Henry Draper or HIP designation despite its modest brightness of 8.8. I was planning to it to List of stars in Aquila , but it fails the criteria of inclusion for these lists. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk ) 19:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can't to List of largest known stars as that page is a . At least when I edit Wikipedia, s show up as a different color font (green links) rather than articles (blue links). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then to List of largest stars because the name changed recently. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk ) 11:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of largest stars which is the target of the . Mangoe ( talk ) 05:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of largest stars . User:Hamterous1 ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ ) 11:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Ned Napier : While he was the lead in Worst Year of My Life Again I don't think he passes WP:NACTOR as he hasn't had multiple significant roles. A possible could be to Worst Year of My Life Again. Suonii180 ( talk ) 01:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . Suonii180 ( talk ) 01:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . Suonii180 ( talk ) 01:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Worst Year of My Life Again as an alternative to deletion. The current sourcing of the article is insufficient to serve as a standalone article. Bandit Heeler ( talk ) 09:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC) NACTOR , no multiple significant roles. LibStar ( talk ) 22:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC) fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG . S0091 ( talk ) 14:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"San Rafael National High School (Tigaon, Camarines Sur) : Tooncool64 ( talk ) 02:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC) SCHOOLOUTCOMES . Rupples ( talk ) 14:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Tigaon, Camarines Sur#Education . Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. Could've ! voted since it's several schools bear the name, but the name is specified to a certain town. SBKSPP ( talk ) 23:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above discussion. Lorstaking ( talk ) 06:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC) 29, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Lively Laddie : Tkaras1 ( talk ) 20:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - this is just a line in the Guinness Book of World Records . It is not a suitable topic for an article. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 20:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion . I added to the article a sentence about Bob Champion in his youth riding Lively Laddie. A with the history preserved under the will allow editors to selectively any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A with the history preserved under the will allow the to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard ( talk ) 11:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC) Tkaras1 ( talk · contribs ) and Walsh90210 ( talk · contribs ), would you support a to Bob Champion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion ? Cunard ( talk ) 06:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All right. Tkaras1 ( talk ) 12:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know why we need to mention a low-visibility jockey 's childhood pet donkey at all, but YMMV. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 01:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it complies with the due weight policy to mention the donkey in one sentence of his article to provide more information about his early life before he became a racehorse jockey. Cunard ( talk ) 08:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Mouse Fitzgerald : The subject is about a single character in a niche show that aired on Adult Swim, hardly the notability required of a Wikipedia article. Samoht27 ( talk ) 06:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 13 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 06:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support per nomination. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 07:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Television , and Comics and animation . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or to 12 oz. Mouse . There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV to support a full article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 11:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 12 oz. Mouse ; I'm in genuine shock that someone was even able to give the smallest of detail about this character considering that 95% of the show's viewers (and even their writers) couldn't. 😂 Nate • ( chatter ) 13:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or --even if this were found to be notable, this is still a NOPAGE situation where the content is better covered in the sole media appearance article for this fictional character. Jclemens ( talk ) 19:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 12 oz. Mouse , which this article was initial created to do until being changed last year. Zero sources, but it is still a valid search term for a . Rorshacma ( talk ) 20:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 12 oz. Mouse : Per reasons above. Frankly I'm surprised people care enough about this show to make a page for one of its characters. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 12 oz. Mouse , lacks GNG compliant sources that are needed to show independent notability. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5423:227C:96C8:FF0C ( talk ) 04:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 12 oz. Mouse is appropriate. Captain ☎ 09:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 12 oz. Mouse : this is the logical alternative to deletion here, especially since that is what it was for seven years before being converted into an article only last year. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Adom (artist) : From 1999-2006. This is a part of history and a shame to see this page d when time passes and these people are gone. Wikipedia will still be there. Please consider taking this article and help it stay. It was created many years ago when he was a member of the band and touring. Currently the artist is making waves and starting to gain notable press. Here are a few links clearly showing his time in the band and this was a ruling by a federal court judge. Article should stay indefinitely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.194.170 ( talk • contribs ) 10 July 2023 (UTC) Weak Keep, alternatively, to Boston (band) . He's pretty borderline for WP:NMUSIC - per that, individual musicians are ed to their bands unless they individually satisfy notability guidelines, and I'm not sure he does. He does have a few articles from Billboard and another news outlet, though. They're pretty scant, but it's something, and they cover his solo work since he left Boston. Kalethan ( talk ) 20:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changed vote from to Weak Keep, edited entry above. Kalethan ( talk ) 15:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It looks like the entire band is being targeted for notable tags and deletion.seems almost like someone is trying to erase history? It’s only fair if one goes down then they all should come down. I vote they all stay up, and let the musicians have articles because they all were part of a pretty cool band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreykaa ( talk • contribs ) 01:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Boston (band) . Just about all of the info on this musician is about his time in Boston, so his temporary membership can be discussed there, while his songwriting credits are already covered in the article for the one album on which he appeared. His non-Boston work has received no reliable coverage and is only visible in promotional announcements and the usual streaming services. And finally, he was discussed in articles about the lawsuit in which he was sued for promoting himself as a former member of Boston (linked by a commenter above), which means that he has few other ways to promote himself. That also shows that there is no need for his own article here. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree with this because I see a lot of links with current press on Adom on his page. This seem pretty notable to me. Since his time in Boston he's had numerous projects. I've been following him for 20 years. Not notable? People want to know what the musicians in these highly popular bands are doing today. There are at least 20 musicians that have been in Boston and because they were in the band Boston makes each and everyone of them notable. Steve Hackett, Lawrence Juber and many other musicians shouldn't have a Wiki page according to the poster above. That's crazy. If you were in a popular band that sold millions of records. You are notable. These rules are stupid. 2603:9001:5000:5E29:A986:5FFD:E166:40E7 ( talk ) 03:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Revert back to Anton Cosmo. His name with the group Boston. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreykaa ( talk • contribs ) 11 July 2023 (UTC) Comment - The people above who are in favor of ing the article have done little or nothing else in Wikipedia. Most of them also put their comments in the wrong place, which I have fixed. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 12:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would have to disagree on this. The people who are not involved in writing wiki articles are very invloved in donating to wikipedia. Common folks. 74.78.194.27 ( talk ) 05:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . For what it's worth, the Billboard sources are not Billboard magazine, but Billboard Sound, which appears to be its press release offshoot. The ""interview"" (and all others like it on the site) appear to be the same generic template questions filled in exclusively with the artist's own answers. There is nothing to indicate this is actual journalism, as there is nothing written by an independent author (here just credited as ""Staff"") to reinforce or contradict anything the artist said. I'd say this is a very poor quality source for establishing notability. Rift ( talk ) 20:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Go back to Anton Cosmo article . ""For what it's worth"" It seems like there are the same two users voting over and over again. I vote go back to Anton Cosmo. If we the article, the rest of the former band members have to come down. At least Cosmo has new music and press and also 16 million views on his single Kids of America. [1] How many other former members have these numbers? Not even Scholz himself has much going on. Something to ponder over. This artist is pretty active and notable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreykaa ( talk • contribs ) 06:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Boston (band) . I cannot find sufficient significant coverage to support individual notability per WP:MUSICBIO , searching by both names. Schazjmd (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The musician is current and I see more references being added daily. I have been watching this guy for years. He is also verified (artist verification not paid sub) on social media platforms and very popular. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.194.170 ( talk ) 18:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC) //www.youtube.com/watch? v=xar7cpR8I_g ^ https://www.instagram.com/adomcloud/ The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks : The article started its life as ""Third Russian Revolution"", which is a term that was used by anarchists of the time (particularly the Makhnovshchina and Kronstadt rebellion ) to claim legitimacy for their revolts against the Bolsheviks. But since then, the article's title was changed to the much more vague ""Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks"", a term I haven't seen used in any sources. This vague title has given way to some pretty bad scope creep , lumping together dozens of different (and sometimes opposing) movements that share little in common other than their supposed left-wing politics and their anti-Bolshevik orientation. (E.g. it currently implies a connection between the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly and later uprisings by Left SRs and anarchists, both of whom supported the assembly's dissolution) If anybody has ideas for how to retool this article into something a bit more focused, and sources that could help with that, then I'd be happy to hear them. But as it stands, I unfortunately don't see a reason to this article around. I'm not sure how it can be effectively cleaned up and I don't think there's any good targets for . Short of narrowing it back to the ""Third Russian Revolution"" scope, I'm not sure how this article can be improved. Grnrchst ( talk ) 09:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , and Russia . Grnrchst ( talk ) 09:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Armenia , Belarus , Georgia (country) , and Ukraine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC) I guess I may be ignorant here, but it doesn't seem like the issue of synthesis here is insurmountable. While it's certainly true that all left-wing movements (or indeed, all right-wing movements) do not share common alliance with one other, it seems like an obviously meaningful category to me. Although, looking through your edit history, it seems you may be more well-read in this area than me, so if you say that the contents of this article are really too disparate to reconcile in a single article, perhaps you are right. That said, if this is the case, I think it would be very much possible to retool the article to just be about the Third Russian Revolution; whether or not such a thing happened (clearly it didn't happen successfully ) it's clear that a lot of stuff happened, and that that was a meaningful concept which people talked about and advocated for, et cetera. I think what you mentioned would be a good idea. Reworking it back to the ""Third Russian Revolution"" would narrow its scope to something that jp × g 05:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC) The issue is how does one categorise what constitutes a ""left-wing uprising""? Both ""left-wing"" and ""uprising"" are vaguely defined here. The SRs were to the right of the Bolsheviks, Chernov himself wanted them to constitute a force against ""despotism of the left and the right"", and they ended up joining the White movement anyway. Is that enough to be ""left-wing""? As for ""uprising"", does this just mean anyone that opposed the Bolsheviks in one way or another? Because the Georgian government certainly wasn't friendly with the Bolsheviks, but they never rose up against them either, they were already independent before the Red Army invaded. The term ""Third Revolution"" has a narrower definition, as it was almost exclusively used by the Makhnovists and Kronstadters to refer to a revolution that would transform Russian society into a libertarian socialist one, not a reaction that would bring it back to before the October Revolution (i.e. the Constituent Assembly's goal). Even by its broadest and most synthetic definition, used by Murray Bookchin , such a ""third revolution"" is limited to the actions of the Makhnovshchina, Tambov Rebellion and Kronstadt Rebellion. Yet all of these are relegated to the ""other revolts"" section at the very end of the article. (He also gives some lesser nods to the Left SR uprising and Workers' Opposition, but ends up concluding that neither were truly ""revolutionary"") If one were to make a ""Third Russian Revolution"" article, it would be almost entirely different from this one. But past talk page consensus already decided that this article shouldn't use the ""anarchist slogan""/""propaganda term"" and should instead be synthetically defined as ""left-wing uprisings"", which has resulted in it becoming a complete mess. Hence why I'm here. -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 15:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What would be the best target for an overview of this content? Perhaps a section of Bolshevism related to counter-movements (i.e., what the target of anti-Bolshevism would be)? czar 10:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC) No suggestions on or yet. CastJared ( talk ) 16:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] sourced content to Russian Civil War § Anti-Bolshevik movement , answering my own question above. This section heading looks like the natural inheritor of this overview content, which can be greatly summarized without loss of fidelity. The article isn't about a discrete event but a series of loosely connected events, making the case for a summary section rather than a lengthy topical rehash. czar 04:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd support this r proposal. -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 18:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why would you this page? It provides crucial insight into the early ussr and leftist dissent in soviet russia post russian revolution, if it needs better sourcing or formatting or rewriting or anything add notes to do that rather than outright it? There isnt a reason given? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.114.108 ( talk ) 09:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC) There’s plenty of verifiable sources, that support this article, plus it pass the notability guidelines . So, don’t understand the idea of merging or even deleting. Frankly, Islamism ’s Hizb ut-Tahrir should be one with this deletion discussion instead. (Due to not, passing the guide lines ) — 216.49.130.15 ( talk ) 18:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We consider each article on its own merits . There are obviously sources for the disparate events grouped under this heading but the question is what sources justify this grouping? If it's only a loose affiliation between these events, the parent article could sufficiently contain the overview, as it currently does. czar 12:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC) COI . 216.49.130.15 ( talk ) 22:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC) A notable article, but could be made more concise. Also, I disagree with Grnrchst in saying that SRs, which were to the right of the Bolsheviks, should not be listed as part of this page on left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks were a far-left movement. By the same token, can nobody ever be an anti-Stalinist leftist given that they would be perceivedly more right wing than him should they oppose forced collectivisation? That's not to say though that this article couldn't do with some cleaning up though. Also the mention of the propagandistic term of ""Third Russian Revolution"" should be pushed down to the bottom of the lead section. It is propaganda, after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oak Pencil ( talk • contribs ) 12:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC) The question is what reliable sources describe this grouping as independently notable from disparate reactions in the Russian Civil War altogether. What sources show left-wing anti-Bolshevik uprisings to be covered as a group rather than unrelated events as part of the larger timeline? This overview of could be adequately covered in the parent section, linking to all of the same breakout articles, without any loss of fidelity. czar 12:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure how it meets GNG at all to be honest. There isn't significant coverage of ""left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks"" in any of the reliable sources I have available to me. I can't find anything that links all of these disparate (and often opposing) events together, much less something that conceives of them in a way that warrants its own article. I find it quite odd that issue has been taken with the ""propaganda term"", when that term is covered extensively in reliable sources, while this grab-bag collection of random happenings with a made-up title is seen as notable without any clear demonstration of its notability. If people that want to it could prove that its scope isn't synthetic, that would be fine, but I haven't yet seen anything to support this article's continued existence. -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 18:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC) SYNTH POVfork. No doubt there were left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks, what's missing is any source that links them all together like this. We have number of articles like this (e.g., Afghan conflict that combines the Soviet war and the American war into a single conflict for some reason, and Iraqi conflict that does the same thing with the US war and the war against ISIS) and all they do is serve to combine the same content in two or more articles into one with no additional material except maybe some WP:FRINGE POV. FOARP ( talk ) 20:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Warwick Police Department : WP:FAILN - organizations local to a city, town or country maybe added to respective article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warwick,_Rhode_Island Wikilover3509 ( talk ) 6:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Note : I have fixed spacing in the header that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Rhode Island . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] redir to the city government, as the only non-routine information has to do with it being featured on a reality show, a matte which can be disposed of in a sentence. Mangoe ( talk ) 10:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to the applicable city government, as Mangoe suggests. 71.246.78.77 ( talk ) 12:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Checkuser blocked. Queen of Hearts talk 23:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Mangoe; ping me if sources are found. Queen of Hearts talk 23:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Hessenford railway station : Any content would be better at St Germans & Looe Railway - but not convinced even a is necessary. JMWt ( talk ) 10:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England . JMWt ( talk ) 10:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merging if NN to St Germans & Looe Railway would probably make sense as it does seen like a useful term as we normally do have articles for completed stations. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 17:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to St Germans & Looe Railway . There's nothing here to , but it's a useful to capture the search term. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 03:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"DYAN-TV : A search by ""One Sports 29"" ""Cebu"" and DYAN-TV does not seem to yield any results providing significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. MarioGom ( talk ) 17:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines . MarioGom ( talk ) 17:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment a possible alternative to deletion would be ing to One Sports (TV channel) . MarioGom ( talk ) 17:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to One Sports (TV channel) unless the Cebu transmitter had local programming, which I doubt. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 18:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Tsvetana Mancheva : JTtheOG ( talk ) 04:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Bulgaria . JTtheOG ( talk ) 04:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per nom. Svartner ( talk ) 12:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 20:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Consulate General of The People's Republic of Bangladesh, Milan : I can find no significant coverage about this consulate to establish notability . Whpq ( talk ) 21:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Bangladesh , and Italy . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Embassies are not inherently notable and consulates even less so. Fails WP:ORG . LibStar ( talk ) 23:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/ - to Bangladesh–Italy relations . Not independently notable. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 07:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC) ATD . I think that list is a slightly better target than Bangladesh-Italy relations . In any case, I agree with everyone that the consulate isn't independently notable. @ Whpq and LibStar : Would you find acceptable, and if so, where would you recommend ing to? -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 17:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC) 31, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Derek Morgan (Criminal Minds) : If the character is not notable, I suggest a and/or to List of Criminal Minds characters#Derek Morgan . Spinixster (chat!) 09:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Spinixster (chat!) 09:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This time we have a Reception section, limited to the sentence ""Morgan was included in TV Guide's list of ""TV's Sexiest Crime Fighters""."" If anyone thinks this is not the very definition of laughable, raise your hand. For me, well, this is an obvious fail of GNG in need of ing if not deletion (but since s are WP:CHEAP , let's be merciful...). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Restore - This was just Redirected via an AFD consensus a couple of weeks ago, and then the article was reverted back to an article with absolutely no changes. This should not even be at AFD again - it should just be immediately reverted back to the that was already decided on, and then protected to this from happening again. Rorshacma ( talk ) 19:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "" , as this could be considered a subtopic and just deleting it wouldn't be helpful. - Sumanuil . (talk to me) 06:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Sri Paramakalyani College : I cannot find anything of particular note about the College (except what it says on its own website). Newhaven lad ( talk ) 13:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Tamil Nadu . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University as we usually do in these circumstances. Mccapra ( talk ) 09:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Mccapra. Seems sensible, and there is no automatic notability for colleges of a federated university, nor for a university itself (for instance, see this AfD close [20] ). Sourcing not there to sustain this page. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 10:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis : BilledMammal ( talk ) 08:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine . BilledMammal ( talk ) 08:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (I created the article). The allegations that Hamas is committing genocide against Israelis are broader than just this year's war – the 2009 law journal article I cited by Justus Weiner and Avi Bell accuses Hamas of genocide against Israelis, but obviously is not talking about the current war, since it was published almost 15 years prior. SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 08:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changed my position on ing this. See new position further down. SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 18:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC) This page was created with good intentions in draft as a stimulus for discussion, but it should never have been moved to mainspace. As mentioned by the nom, the connection of the content is extremely tenuous and essentially WP:SYNTH , at a systemic level, for reasons already raised on the talk . Iskandar323 ( talk ) 08:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC) I don't see how it is a ""SYNTH"" because the synthesis is in the sources, not of my creation. I didn't invent the allegation that the Palestinian cause is a continuation of the Holocaust; I'm citing an Israeli academic who accuses Netanyahu of making that claim; I'm also citing a couple of American academics who make that claim. You may think that A and B have nothing to do with each other, but if there are sources presenting them as connected, then the claim that the connection has been made (which neither I nor the article ever endorse as accurate) is not a SYNTH. SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 09:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact that the connection is based on claims made by Benjamin Netanyahu is really pretty much all that needs to be said about this. ""A politician said X"" is not a reason to create a topic. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 09:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The connection pre-existed Netanyahu, and had been made by other pro-Israel figures before him, as the 2009 cite from Dershowitz demonstrates–six years before Netanyahu's infamous address. When Raz-Krakotzkin accuses many of his fellow Israelis of unfairly conflating the Palestinian cause with the Nazi Holocaust, he's not presenting Netanyahu as the origination of that conflation, merely as the highest profile expression of it. SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 09:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, so the one half-decent source says the topic is idiotic. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 09:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If notable people are making idiotic claims, what is wrong with documenting their idiocy? SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 09:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe it has a home on some page somewhere, under idiotic ideas for the ages, but not here, on its own page, giving the idiocy undue credence. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 10:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Maybe it has a home on some page somewhere"" seems to be an argument for ""Merge"" rather than ""Delete"". And I'd actually be okay with ""Merge"" as an outcome. The question is, where? My original idea was not a separate article, it was a subsection at the end of the Genocide against Palestinians article, but both you and User:Scientelensia were opposed to the idea of a section in that article; Scientelensia suggested a separate article, so I've done what Scientelensia suggested. As I've said all along, I think it is more important that the content live somewhere , whether it is its own article or a section within some other article is less important to me. SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 10:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC) article created merely to prove a point. The other article should be d as well. Make knowledge, not war. Marokwitz ( talk ) 09:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My original plan was not to create a separate article, it was simply to add a section describing Israeli genocide claims to the Genocide against Palestinians article. I only decided to create another article instead when the feedback I got from other editors was that they didn't think the content belonged in the same article, and they advised me to create a separate article instead. How can it be that ""article created merely to prove a point"" when I didn't originally intend to create a separate article at all? My point was simply to document the fact these allegations have been made – a fact many people seem to be ignorant of – if we d this content into some other article, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Because I think the allegations are notable (because the people who make them are notable). SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 09:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or with a section on another page. I don't believe that a population can be said to be experiencing genocide whilst it is also increasing in size. I understand why some are reaching for this extreme language, I don't really see that en.wiki needs to treat it as much more than a WP:FRINGE idea. JMWt ( talk ) 10:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't believe that a population can be said to be experiencing genocide whilst it is also increasing in size The definition of genocide under the Genocide Convention doesn't require a population to shrink (or even stagnate). Under the Genocide Convention's definition of genocide, an ineffective attempt at genocide still counts as genocide. As Jens David Ohlin argues in ""Attempt, Conspiracy, and Incitement to Commit Genocide"" (2009). Cornell Law Faculty Publications. Paper 24 : ""However, the crime of genocide has, in a sense, an inchoate component already built into it, since the crime does not require the successful destruction ‘in whole or in part’ of an ethnic group or another group protected by Article II of the Genocide Convention. Indeed, the crime of genocide simply requires the intent to destroy a protected group and the actus reus of the offence does not require the actual destruction of the group. In one sense, this suggests that all crimes of genocide are better characterized as attempt to commit genocide "" (my emphasis) SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 10:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, I'm not arguing with you about genocide. JMWt ( talk ) 10:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are several competing definitions of the term ""genocide"", and in many cases the biggest factor determining whether or not something counts as ""genocide"" is which of those definitions you choose to use. You give me the impression you are only familiar with one of those definitions, the narrowest one. SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 10:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC) since you say ""or with a section on another page"", would you support or oppose the below proposal to to Second Holocaust ? SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 00:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the two articles together to an article titled Accusations of genocide in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict . nableezy - 14:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is the only suggestion in this whole discussion that would produce an article that could possibly be neutral, if these were common topics of scholarship. They aren't, and this will still become a coatrack of claims given undue weight. – SJ + 00:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Articles can not be d into a nonexistent article. Please do not suggest this before the article is created. L iz Read! Talk! 05:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to the genocide of Palestinians article and rename that one. That work? nableezy - 00:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC) since you are saying ""Merge"", would you support or oppose the below proposal to to Second Holocaust ? SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 00:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC) Some odd SYNTH, with no sources from RS we'd use. One is green per sourcebot, but that's not enough for a whole article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] no sources from RS we'd use . Sources for the article include a chapter in a book published by Columbia University Press, and a law journal. Why are they not ""sources from RS we'd use""? One is green per sourcebot What is this ""sourcebot"" tool? Is there a page explaining how it works? SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 18:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC) per G3 criterion (pure hoax). It's just petty revenge against the creation of the "" Genocide against Palestinians "" article. (Which by the way, is just a bunch of postmodern activists proposing the expansion of the definition of genocide to conveniently include the Palestinians . There's no way someone would take that seriously. It's comically harmless, not even worth deleting, and it's going to be d with another article soon). That should pacify the Israelis. – Daveout (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] pure hoax It isn't a hoax that some pro-Israel sources accuse Palestinians of committing genocide of Jews/Israelis. Did I invent articles in the San Diego International Law Journal, a major Israeli newspaper, and a well-regarded group blog by law professors claiming that? Did I fake the quote from a well-known Harvard law professor in which he claimed that? It's just petty revenge against the creation I'm not engaging in revenge. I just thought the existence of these allegations was noteworthy and the fact they have been made ought to be documented. I have never once claimed they are true . One of the sources I cite in the article (the book chapter by Israeli professor Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin) argues they are essentially an Israeli smear job to equate the Palestinian cause with the Holocaust. I think you should WP:AGF . Which by the way, is just a bunch of postmodern activists proposing the expansion of the definition of genocide to conveniently include the Palestinians That's a historically ignorant argument. The guy ( Raphael Lemkin ) who coined the word genocide defined it in an extremely broad way. Nobody is expanding the definition; on the contrary, the popular definition is heavily narrowed from the original one, and scholars and activists who you accuse of ""broadening"" it are just relying on the older broader definitions. No ""factual relativism"" involved here, just the perennial truth that different people define the same words in different ways, and most people are ignorant of definitions that differ from their own–even when those definitions are older. If I had an ""agenda"" in creating this article, it wasn't anything to do with trying to be pro or anti either side of the conflict, it was to do with trying to counter the ignorance of people who insist their own ahistorically narrow definition of ""genocide"" is the only correct one. SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 18:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Not encyclopedic, fringe use of polarizing language where inapplicable. Here again: There was no such genocide, we shouldn't have an article on allegations about it. – SJ + 00:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Devoid of useful content and can't be fixed. This is only a ""thing"" in fringe circles. Zero talk 10:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is only a ""thing"" in fringe circles This isn't sourced to InfoWars or the National Enquirer; it is sourced to a law journal article, an article in a major mainstream Israeli newspaper, a blog post by the dean of Cornell Law School writing in a notable law professor group blog, a chapter in a book by Columbia University Press discussing a speech by the Israeli Prime Minister, a blog post by a famous Harvard law professor on the website of another major mainstream Israeli newspaper, an article in JSTOR, etc. Those aren't ""fringe circles""; they aren't people like Alex Jones or David Icke, which is the kind of circles we normally consider ""fringe"" SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 18:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC) There is no reason to have two articles for the same topic. Parham wiki ( talk ) 15:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for that suggestion, I support it. It doesn't seem like there is support for this as an independent article, so I am changing my ! vote to agree with yours. SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 18:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC) 24, 17 October 2023 (UTC) (article creator) seems like an appropriate target and doesn't seem like there is going to be support for ing this as an independent article. SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 18:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Totally Unencyclopedic! Using Wikipedia to gain sympathy against what that hardly exists. Palestinians don't have a military or armed forces to conduct this. The only force that do this is Hamas which itself is created due to Reverse genocide effect. Tousif ❯❯❯ Talk 09:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] both this and the Israeli one into Allegations of genocide in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict , per nableezy above and my comments in the Israeli AFD. Levivich ( talk ) 16:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC) SYNTH. Serial 11:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC) SYNTH ? All the sources the article cites have a common element – they all concern pro-Israel accusations of Palestinian genocidality against Jews/Israelis, either as direct instances of such accusations, or as sources which describe those accusations without endorsing them. Where is the SYNTH in that? SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 21:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as fringe and intentionally provocative, and with little chance of ever achieving NPOV. For policy choice, I'd pick WP:TOOSOON with a side order of WP:NPOV and WP:N . Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] this one, along with with Genocide against Palestinians into Genocide question in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict . VR talk 04:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"N-Toons (French TV programming block) : Listed this as a CSD G2 (Test edit) which was reverted, so listing it here. This has to go! Intrisit ( talk ) 12:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and France . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC) My suggestion is to this article with a related topic. At present, it is a single paragraph on the subject's history, thus it fails GNG, NMEDIA, and NTV. A r would result in a more coherent and informative article for readers interested in French TV. -- AstridMitch ( talk ) 02:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 21, 22 June 2024 (UTC) as a WP:ATD . Does not have any coverage in reliable sources to justify for a . Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 19:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC) Per @ AstridMitch 's recommendation, I agree with the merging proposal. Would also help if some citations were added, as it currently violates WP:OR . -- Mjks28 ( talk ) 04:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Nickelodeon . The problem with merging is that none of this is sourced. It should be BLARed . Even if there were sources, adding this content to the Nickelodeon article would probably be undue weight for such a minor...TV schedule timeslot? I'm not even sure what to call this. Toadspike [Talk] 22:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"DYVB-TV : A possible target would be List of GMA Network stations . MarioGom ( talk ) 17:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines . MarioGom ( talk ) 17:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 01:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of GMA Network stations per nomination. - Ian Lopez @ 11:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"CurveBall : As it currently stands I do not think it is notable enough for a standalone entry. Sohom ( talk ) 03:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing , Internet , and Websites . Sohom ( talk ) 03:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC) NOTNEWS , WP:ROUTINE . Partofthemachine ( talk ) 05:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Microsoft CryptoAPI . Not independently notable, but because this vulnerability made the news, it is WP:DUE to mention it in the article about the software component that contained the vulnerability. Jfire ( talk ) 22:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"UWSP Albertson Center for Learning Resources : If kept, needs significant cleanup. Some of this information may be able to be d elsewhere, but I'm not sure where. SportingFlyer T · C 19:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Wisconsin . SportingFlyer T · C 19:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a former library on a university campus. Absolutely nothing here is cited to independent sources. Most of the sources provided are from this library's website itself; the rest are from the websites of the university it served. A to the university campus is probably warranted; unfortunately, that article is a mess, too. There's probably citable material for the decision to demolish the structure and the plans to replace it, but I hesitate to suggest """" per se when the level of detail here is so excessive. Lubal ( talk ) 21:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC) GNG . The Banner talk 15:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC) This article requires independent verification. The cited sources are primary and from the subject, which does not provide a balanced perspective. If kept, it will be of utmost importance to rewrite the article in a professional, encyclopedic tone. Its excessive detail does not warrant a . Instead, we could condense and relevant information to the university’s article (which itself needs much improvement). AstridMitch ( talk ) 6:01, 19 June 2024 The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Flashpoint (Elseworlds) : Industrial Insect (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or to List of Elseworlds publications as it a notable Flash comic book story. Dwanyewest ( talk ) 23:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notable how? It only has one citation and it's an interview. Industrial Insect (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the information with being the best option at present . It's a story of some note even if it doesn't meet that GNG that I helped come up with all those years ago, which I mention just so I don't have to argue about what notability means. There's something here that needs to be conveyed to the reader and we need to work out how and where, but deletion isn't the answer to the problem here. Working out how and where to present the information is the problem, and deleting doesn't do that. As per the Editing policy, can I ask that we look at other options before deletion. Would love to , but don't have the time and deletion debate is now underway. H i ding T 11:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So far the only argument so far for ing is ""it's notable"" with no explanation of why. Flashpoint is already listed in the List of Elseworlds publications , so there is no reason to this article. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC) LOSE and Wikipedia:JNN pretty much sums up the arguments made so far. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Elseworlds publications#DC Universe Elseworlds - It does not appear to be a particularly notable storyline. The few sources that come up on it are basically just a few short ""Did you know that there was another Flash story called ""Flashpoint"" before the actually notable Flashpoint (comics) ?"" type articles. And when the most notable thing about the comic is that its not the notable comic with the same title, that is probably a sign that it does not pass the WP:GNG . It it already listed and briefly described at List of Elseworlds publications#DC Universe Elseworlds , so a there would be fine. Rorshacma ( talk ) 19:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. The only coverage I can find is of the "" actually , there was another Flashpoint first"" and then going on to talk about the one that was interesting instead. It's a footnote. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 19:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] / Babysharkboss2 was here!! — Preceding undated comment added 14:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Elseworlds publications#DC Universe Elseworlds , not notable enough for a separate article and it's already mentioned in that section. Suonii180 ( talk ) 09:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Bala Turkvision Song Contest 2015 : Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV . Largely based on one source for majority of references, with additional primary sources , and a lot of information presented is also unverified. Parent article ( Bala Turkvision Song Contest ) was PRODded successfully for similar reasons, leaving limited options for ion of this article. Sims2aholic8 ( talk ) 08:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Television , and Turkey . Sims2aholic8 ( talk ) 08:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kazakhstan , Kyrgyzstan , Iran , Albania , Azerbaijan , Belarus , Georgia (country) , Kosovo , North Macedonia , Romania , and Ukraine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. I had already d the important information from this article into the parent Turkvision Song Contest article in anticipation of the prior PROD being successful. Grk1011 ( talk ) 14:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC) please see WP:PROMERGE for instructions on doing this sort of consolidation in the future. It is rare for us to need to anything to accomplish a . ~ Kvng ( talk ) 20:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC) By """" I meant that I took the relevant sources from this article and wrote a more concise recap in the main article. Yes, I could have also just ed this article to that section, but I think the spirit of this AfD was that a is potentially unnecessary as well. Grk1011 ( talk ) 21:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC) CHEAP . Keeping also avoids time spent by editors in AfD, time that is better spent improving the encyclopedia. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 12:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If material from the nominated article has been d, wouldn't it be best to to that target? Joyous! Noise! 17:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per Grk1011's explanation above, it was not necessarily a """" but more a case of a summary of the topic of this article being added to that article. I don't believe that a is the best course of action for this article given that there is not necessarily a direct link between the two articles, and that deletion is a ""cleaner"" method of dealing this article which does not pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Sims2aholic8 ( talk ) 21:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Turkvision Song Contest#Bala_Turkvision_Song_Contest . ~ Kvng ( talk ) 20:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"AISINDO : Google searches showed multiple passing mentions - this organization conducted forums and meetings, but none has shown in-depth coverage. The parent organization Association for Information Systems is notable, but the organization in Indonesia isn't notable enough. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Technology , Computing , and Indonesia . ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment to Association for Information Systems or try to find sources and the page. NiLok223 ( talk ) 10:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added recently one source. Maybe more good are still somewhere NiLok223 ( talk ) 10:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Polish–Ottoman Wars : It makes more sense to make a new article called ""List of wars between Poland and the ottoman Empire"", just like: Polish-Russian wars and Polish-Swedish Wars Olek Novy ( talk ) 07:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Another proposal Another proposal by me is not deleting the page but Reverting all edits done since January 5th and Rewriting the article with the lists of wars Involving Poland and the Ottoman Empire. Olek Novy ( talk ) 23:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 22 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 08:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Lithuania , Poland , and Turkey . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment that Infobox is seriously crazy! Mccapra ( talk ) 21:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Restore to disambig . This was a disambig until a new user rewrote it (sadly, they also got banned, which I don't think was fair, but that's off topic here). Anyway. this should be restored to a disambig. No prejudice to creating an article that is an overview of Polish–Ottoman Wars. In fact, the disambig should be at Polish–Ottoman Wars (singular), so we need a move as well. What the new editor did was to create a poorly referenced overview topics, good effort but the low density of references reminds me of what we used to do 10-15 years ago. Sadly, I cannot recommend ing their article; if they were not blocked I'd encourage them to work in this in their sandbox. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC) 59, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Restore to disambig per Pioturs. No prejudice to a future broad concept article, but this is just recycled material that competes with dedicates pages. Srnec ( talk ) 23:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Dental surgery : The article has also been unsourced for 16 years, and i cannot find any non-commercial web articles that cover this concept in depth. At this point I feel like WP:TNT is the best route to go for this article. Tooncool64 ( talk ) 22:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 22:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to dentistry . Left guide ( talk ) 23:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC) this seems to be a content fork based on WP:SYNTH of existing articles. Owen× ☎ 13:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC) Dentistry is the best target. XxTechnicianxX ( talk ) 15:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC) 58, 28 December 2023 (UTC) ing only what is under the ""types"". This is a common search term. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 05:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Party of Freedom and Solidarity : Clearly fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking ""significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."" AusLondonder ( talk ) 05:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics . AusLondonder ( talk ) 05:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 06:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the party fielded candidates in 61 ( see p.483 ) seats in the 2014 elections (out of a possible 250) - in any country that would be substantial, in a country like Mozambique that suggests something even more. Quite a good likelihood given country and timing that there would be offline media sources. Nevertheless, on a very precursory search, online sourcing is weak - a to List of political parties in Mozambique might be appropriate at this time. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 09:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of political parties in Mozambique as an ATD , per Goldsztajn. As noted above, the available sourcing at this point is not quite enough to pass WP:GNG . No prejudice against recreation should more RS-based coverage eventually become available. Sal2100 ( talk ) 16:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Baltar (Battlestar Galactica) : Additionally, the characters are already covered elsewhere. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Battlestar Galactica characters . No evidence of independent notability. WJ94 ( talk ) 16:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The nom is nonsensical--since when is it OR to discuss together two characters from two retellings of one story? It's not in dispute that both Baltars are notable characters, just whether or not this is a good summation of the two separate but similarly named characters. But does any RS treat the disparate characters as a subject worthy of comparison and contrast? Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy: Knowledge Here Begins Out There, by Jason Eberl, ISBN 9781444356571, appears to... but I ran out of preview pages before I got to the next-to-last chapter where I think it does. It's entirely worthwhile to cite both character sketches in this combination from the RS in their respective articles, but I don't see a policy-based reason for deleting this. Jclemens ( talk ) 00:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 1. Both Baltars being notable is definitely in dispute, seeing as Count Baltar just had an AFD that closed as . 2. I do not see how this is not a redundant CFORK of Gaius Baltar and Count Baltar / List of Battlestar Galactica characters . 3. One book is not enough to prove that the concept is notable. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 01:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 1. Rather poor form of you to not mention a related AfD that appears to have been closed within a day prior to your starting this one. Obviously, I missed it, because this article would have been a better target. 2. The fact that you are ignorant of WP:SS as an organizational technique is easily rectified; by all means, go read about it. 3. One book is enough to demonstrate that your BEFORE was lacking and the topic merits further investigation and discussion. Jclemens ( talk ) 06:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Convert to a dab page with two entries. There's no need to regurgitated plot details and actors' names. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 04:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Baltar , which is far easier to navigate than List of Battlestar Galactica characters . There's no need for regurgitated plot details and actors' names, so this page doesn't serve much of a purpose, but s are cheap. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 04:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to the bigger disambig as linked above. No need for this sub-disambig that clearly has mutated into a very poor article. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Baltar ; unnecessary glorified DAB page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 11:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to DAB where this is already covered in a more organized way. As is, this is just a poorer DAB, with no hope of expansion into a properly sourced article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 00:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"1995–96 Bracknell Bees season : No notable content, so no need to salvage information. – Aidan721 ( talk ) 16:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Ice hockey . – Aidan721 ( talk ) 16:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (a summary) to a higher level article. I agree there isn't a need for a standalone article, but straight deletion will not benefit readers. Thryduulf ( talk ) 17:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please specify a target article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 16:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as unverified tables of statistics do not an article make. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Articles for deletion/2013–14 Invicta Dynamos season , and per indication there that the club article is an acceptable target, at least for the interim. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 09:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"WKBJ-LD : Article was part of a bundled AfD last year that closed as no consensus, but there is no apparent notability for this station individually. Let'srun ( talk ) 14:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Florida . Let'srun ( talk ) 14:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC) Another run-of-the-mill ground-up 2009-window DTV America/HC2/Innovate station airing national networks with no local content nor any significant coverage . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. per above. Nate • ( chatter ) 21:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Francesca Covali : The subject has earned at least eight caps for the Moldova women's national football team . I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 07:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Moldova . JTtheOG ( talk ) 07:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 13:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Richard Bellamy (Upstairs, Downstairs) : (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 17:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television . (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 17:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Couldn't find WP:SIGCOV via WP:BEFORE . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 21:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment if not kept, the more appropriate target seems to be List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters as he is not mentioned at List of Upstairs Downstairs (2010 TV series) characters , and the text of the article supports this. On a brief look, it actually appears there's not much more at this article than the character list. Jclemens ( talk ) 23:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Richard Bellamy . Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 01:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Richard Bellamy . Doesn't appear to be independently notable. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 17:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As pointed above. Doesn't meet GNG and lacks any sig cov whatsoever. X ( talk ) 23:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Super Mutant : I've done a BEFORE and found very little beyond what's here, and after discussing it with the nominator, I've elected to send this to AfD to determine a consensus. Due to a lack of familiarity with Fallout, I'm not really sure as to a good AtD, but in any case, I don't believe this article currently meets Wikipedia's notability guideline. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 23:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Video games . Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 23:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment forgot to do this in my nomination, but pinging @ Haleth due to their large contributions to the article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 23:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - not notable independently of the Fallout series. Flounder fillet ( talk ) 23:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] C'mon, why would you it entirely. There's other WP:ATD option. 🥒 Greenish Pickle! 🥒 ( 🔔 ) 23:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] into Fallout_(series) . Multiple editors have suggested ing there, but the topic is not covered by that article. Flounder fillet ( talk ) 06:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not to mention ""not notable (qualifier)"" demonstrates a poor understanding of notability. Jclemens ( talk ) 00:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References 2, 6, and 36 are sigcov independent RSes. Even if the notability was borderline here--and I argue that it's fine--this is a really well written fictional element article: exactly what we want to encourage people to write. The fact that it's been dragged to AfD is unfortunate and probably demoralizing. Jclemens ( talk ) 00:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reference 2 is CBR, which does not factor into notability. Reference 6 is a listicle discussing one specific Super Mutant, not the species as a whole. Reference 36 does not actually offer any commentary, and instead is just coverage of one guy attempting to rationalize a retcon on Twitter. Normally I'd accept any one of these things in an article as support, or in 36's case, if there was commentary alongside it, but there's no real backbone or meat to the article beyond the one scholar source, which in and of itself barely discusses the Super Mutants. I agree that the writing quality overall is excellent, but the sourcing itself is rather bare and not meeting notability for a fictional element independently from its source material. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] None of those source assessments are correct. CBR is RS for fictional topics. Reference 6 is all about a specific super mutant, so discusses the topic of super mutants (e.g. comparing memory of one super mutant to the species as a whole) in depth, and 36 is RS coverage of a twitter discussion--this happens all the time. Mind you, I skimmed the list and searched five that looked promising before settling on these three, so there's probably plenty more adequate coverage there. Jclemens ( talk ) 00:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC) VALNET : ""In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability outside of periods they were considered reliable or prior to being purchased by Valnet, due to concerns over undue weight and content farming."" Personally, I feel the assessment is a bit harsh, but I do recognize that if we're going strictly off of policy, CBR is a source that, while adequate, does not provide weight in this discussion towards notability. As for Ref 6, while TheGamer is reliable, it is one of their pure listicle articles, and only focuses on one individual. Lily is a very separate individual from the concept of Super Mutants as a whole, and thus the source acts as coverage discussing Lily, not Super Mutants. I will also note that this source is practically all plot summary about Lily; there's very little commentary, if at all. I can see the argument for the Eurogamer source, but even then the commentary is less so about the Mutants and more about the retcons involving them. There's little actual commentary on their character here, and thus does not contribute much to actual discussion of them. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Fallout (series)#Post-War conditions or similar. I think Pokelego's analysis is fair; if better sources come up at any point, please ping me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 01:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Fallout (series)#Post-War conditions per nomination. There aren't a lot of RSes here, and none of these sources suggest independent notability for this. Generalissima ( talk ) (it/she) 01:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Fallout (series) with no prejudice towards recreation if sufficient SIGCOV is found. This is a topic that could be notable at some point, sources may even exist, but right now there is a serious lack of significant coverage demonstrated. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Fallout (series)#Post-War conditions doesn't even mention them. It definitely should, but it would be what, a few sentences? is an option, but a new article about the world of the series should be created for that. While there was no Super Mutants in TV series, yet, I think it's just a matter of time. Interesting how articles which notability *rises* are so often nominated. Mithoron ( talk ) 16:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Bit surprised to hear that they don't show up in the TV series, but I don't think that saying that they certainly will in the future really gives any weight to ing this article as a stand-alone now. It will probably be quite a bit of time before that second season is released, and guessing that they probably will be introduced and probably will have coverage then is more or less a WP:CRYSTAL statement. As Zxcvbnm pointed out, if and when more coverage becomes available, there is no prejudice against splitting it back out as an independent article then. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Fallout (series)#Post-War conditions - I agree with the above arguments for why the subject currently does not meet the threshold to sustain an independent article, but as Flounder fillet pointed out above, it is not actually covered at the proposed section of the Fallout article, and is barely mentioned throughout that article as a whole. So, there should be some Merging going on, not just a Redirect. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Fallout (series) or subsection thereof. Star Mississippi 17:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect per Rorshacma. There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV to support a separate article, but it can be summarized and d at the series article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 01:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Fallout series#Post-War conditions per all the above who said the same thing. MKsLifeInANutshell ( talk ) 14:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - The fact that Fallout (series) as an article has, to date, largely glossed over the appearances of Super Mutants in the franchise is not a reason to this article. I do agree with the sentiment that more information included in this article should be included in the overall series article, but it's not something which should be just relegated to Fallout series#Post-War conditions - as the creation of Super Mutants in Vaults is essential to the narrative of the first game, and a significant element of Fallout 3 and 76. To that end, I have just added to the mention of mutation experiments in Fallout series#Vaults . I think if this article is kept there is still going to be necessary additions to Fallout (series) . SCSQ3 ( talk ) 22:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't quite see your argument here. We shouldn't this because there isn't info there? That's what a is for. In any case, in-series importance does not dictate the existence of a separate article. If it did, we'd have articles on a lot of subjects who have been determined to be non-notable at this point in time, such as King Dedede and Diddy Kong . Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 03:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Hart and Shepard : 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Fashion , Christianity , and New Hampshire . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC) 12, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - While Harvard magazine and a single article in the Union Leader may be reliable for use in verifying facts, just those two citations together are insufficient for establishing notability. The two publications would appear to not have the circulation/audience necessary to demonstrate notability beyond a small region or special interest niche. The citations do not show that Hart and Shepard is anything close to a household name. CapnPhantasm ( talk ) 03:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - anything from that period that is even being discussed today in magazine articles is surely noteworthy. An additional source: the ""famous Dorothy cloak"" made by Hart and Shepard is held by the Shaker Museum , and is discussed in Beverly Gordon's 1990 research paper ""Victorian Fancy Goods: Another Reappraisal of Shaker Material Culture"" . A different take is provided by Antiques and the Arts ( ""Smalls Bring Big Prices At Willis Henry Shaker Sale"" of 4 December 2007) which notes the high prices fetched by the cloaks. I am certain there are numerous other such sources that credibly establish the importance of this brand, back in its heyday. And ""Once notable, always notable"". Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 15:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] None of those article provide in-depth information about the *company* (which is the topic we're looking at here), they all discuss the cloak. HighKing ++ 13:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Dorothy Durgin . An article on the ""Dorothy Cloak"" or the ""Shaker Cloak"" would appear to meet GNG as a standalone topic, but a topic on this organization/company fails GNG/ WP:NCORP and therefore a is in order. A search on Google Books for ""Dorothy Cloak"" provides lots of suitable references. HighKing ++ 09:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and , per HighKing. Fails NCORP. JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"La Côte International School : Only thing I could find in a search was a press release. Heck, it's not even the most notable LCIS school out there. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 21:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Switzerland . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If sources aren't found, one could either to Aubonne (locality) or to Nord Anglia Education (operator) though I think locality may be better. I'd have to check if Swiss newspapers covered this subject... WhisperToMe ( talk ) 04:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think Nord Anglia Education would probably be the best here. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 16:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Howard Handler : Could perhaps to the 313 Presidents article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to 313 Presents by @ Oaktree b is a good option, but does not account for marketing experience & campaigns created for NFL, Virgin Mobile, SNL, MTV or the MLS. Sources have been updated in effort to meet suggestions. Some d portions of original contained citations in NYT, Forbes & other page links. as example of marketing/advertising executive history. S2Squared ( talk ) 19:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It doesn't seem like there's enough sources to demonstrate individual notability. Sure there's a lot that could be said about his ""marketing experience"" but that's not a good enough reason to a Wikipedia page. BuySomeApples ( talk ) 21:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC) THREE . No good target, though I'm not opposed to nom's idea. A big problem for me is the voice, it reads like publicity/promotion. If this person happens to meet GNG, we'd still need a full stubification/rewrite of this article. — siro χ o 23:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. Made some edits to work on tone & find additional sources. WP:THREE: Potts, Mark (May 14, 1991). ""LIVE FROM NEW YORK, IT'S 'SATURDAY NIGHT' MERCHANDISE"" . The Washington Post . ; Elliott, Stuart (August 28, 1996). ""The N.F.L. kicks off a campaign to unmask its incredible hulks"" . The New York Times. ; McCollum, Brian (January 14, 2022). ""Pine Knob is Pine Knob again: DTE Energy Music Theatre reverts to original name"" . The Detroit Free Press. S2Squared ( talk ) 19:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom to 313 Presents , which already mentions him. (I express no opinion on the merits of that article.) No reason to IMO. Fairly classic case of an article assembled almost entirely from incidental mentions, which is especially problematic given the BLP and promotional issues here. -- Visviva ( talk ) 00:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom and Visviva to 313 Presents as an ATD. CycloneYoris talk! 01:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Full Negative (or) Breaks : Fails WP:NALBUM I can't find anything in the way of non-trivial coverage. That's not to say sources don't exist, but in any case per WP:NALBUM : Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be d into the artist's article or discography Polyamorph ( talk ) 10:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music . Polyamorph ( talk ) 10:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC) Articles for deletion/Bells Break Their Towers . This album had a couple of pro reviews but they are not very descriptive. The could have been done boldly for all of the band's albums with little controversy and no need for this lengthy process. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree, but note I brought these albums to AfD after your suggestion here . Polyamorph ( talk ) 16:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Bright (American band) . Fails WP:NALBUM . Mooonswimmer 23:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Erika Casupanan : Sure, her win in Survivor 41 was watched by millions of viewers, but so were other Survivor winners. Even notability for being a Survivor winner and nothing else has been proven insufficient to save an article from being ed to another article, if not d, as what happened to some other articles. I've yet to see her being notable for other events besides her Survivor win. Even complying with WP:GNG or WP:SUSTAINED , depending on one's own interpretations, would not prevent that as well. Neither would her being the first Asian Canadian winner as well nor being the first female winner after six Survivor seasons (or after three years) of male winners. George Ho ( talk ) 22:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Television , Philippines , and Canada . George Ho ( talk ) 22:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC) should be ed to Survivor 41 . If not, then to the list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants . George Ho ( talk ) 22:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: We need more participants in AFD land! Opinions, anyone? Redirection? If so, to which suggested target article? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to the Survivor article for that season. I'm doing what I can! Phew! Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC) GNG stands for celebrity reality shows but doesn't stand for solo topic Gerblinpete ( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 09:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Davide Sanclimenti : Not enough coverage to establish the notability. - The9Man ( Talk ) 11:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . - The9Man ( Talk ) 11:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC) 42, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Ekin-Su Cülcüloğlu - both of his notable TV appearences featured them as a couple. UltrasonicMadness ( talk ) 10:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Kushura Abbas Ali High School : Sources in article and found in BEFORE are primary, database records, and mill news. Article ends with ""Also, there is an ex-student of the said school who has been very interested in technology since childhood MD SABUJ HOSSAIN and he created this page."" and reading the article it is promotional. // Timothy :: talk 05:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no need to it. It has qualified to be on Wikipedia and currently has Bengali Wikipedia Sabuj.bd71 ( talk ) 07:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC) 03, 28 February 2024 (UTC) The existence of an article in other language versions of Wikipedia is not evidence that the topic is notable on the English-language Wikipedia. -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 22:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC) NSCHOOL and justify a stand alone article. -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 22:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Mercantilism in Armenia : Smpad ( talk ) 01:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy This is not a reason for deletion. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 20 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Armenia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC) fails GNG. terrible nom, but there are valid concerns about this article. The single general ref is to ""G. Kirakosyan, M. Tavadyan, S. Grigoryan - Economics 2004"", an incomplete citation and I was unable to find anything resembling it or to find anything with WP:SIGCOV supporting the topic Mercantilism in Armenia. Since there is nothing properly sourced, I see nothing that could be d. Under most circumstances I think writing a new article under a new name and then nominating an existing article with a similar topic to the new article (without proper discussion) is bad form, but this stark difference between the two, particularly the unsourced state of the first makes this worth considering. Comment : @ Smpad : , AFD needs nominations made according to source evaluations, and based in guidelines and policy, if you are in need of help, I would spend more time at AfD participating and reading the nominations of experienced AFD participants. Nominations can be concise (and this is often very helpful) but this nom presents no valid rationale for deletion. If there was even one plausible source, I would have ! voted to procedurally close the nomination per Pppery. // Timothy :: talk 02:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you colleague , I will know it for the future. I agree with you, the article is devoid of sources, the topic is not covered and probably cannot be fully covered under such a title. With respect. Smpad ( talk ) 11:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Natalie Orellana : The subject has earned at least five caps for the Nicaragua women's national football team . I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , Nicaragua , and California . JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 10:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Era Square : I did a search for (""Era Square"" seremban -wikipedia) and nothing indepth comes up. LibStar ( talk ) 07:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Articles_for_deletion/Terminal_One_Shopping_Centre with some concerns. Possible to Seremban#Retail was suggested, which may or may not be appropriate here. — siro χ o 07:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Malaysia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Seremban#Retail , where this mall is mentioned, with thanks to Siroxo for the idea. Couldn't find any WP:GNG passing coverage. Found some passing mentions in travel guides. – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 07:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to the aforementioned Seremban#Retail as non-notable shopping mall. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 12:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Emily Wilkinson : CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Television , and United Kingdom . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination to List of Coronation Street characters (2024)#Emily Wilkinson . Blog sources cited are of little use, and there's not a lot about the role in RS. Wikishovel ( talk ) 04:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Not much from reliable sources that can be added, and what is here is not from a reliable source. Oliver Phile ( talk ) 14:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Not enough coverage in WP:RS , and does not meet WP:SIGCOV . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 16:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - The original needs to be restored. I would have just done that rather than AFD and have done so with other creations linked to the editor. They are a confirmed sockpuppet who continues to split random characters from list entries. I reported them and they have since been blocked. Rain the 1 00:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Sadustu Tau ( talk ) 16:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Mere Hamrahi : — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 15:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 15:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC) producer - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Great West League : As a result, this subject does not meet the WP:GNG . Let'srun ( talk ) 14:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Baseball , California , and Oregon . Let'srun ( talk ) 14:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Collegiate summer baseball . Spanneraol ( talk ) 21:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Floralba Krasniqi : The subject has appeared for the Albania women's national football team . I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , Albania , and Austria . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/Redirect The subject is not notable enough to have an article of their own. Nothing like in-depth coverage. Ktrimi991 ( talk ) 17:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 18:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Consulate General of France, Miami : AusLondonder ( talk ) 07:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Organizations , and Florida . AusLondonder ( talk ) 07:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as there’s no indication of notability. Mccapra ( talk ) 18:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Embassies are not inherently notable, and consulates even less so. This one fails GNG. LibStar ( talk ) 01:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of diplomatic missions of France , I could see someone possibly looking for this, but it doesn't meet GNG however. Samoht27 ( talk ) 17:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Neslihan Bozkaya : I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, failing WP:GNG . All that came up were passing mentions ( 2017 , 2019 , 2020 , 2021 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 06:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , Azerbaijan , and Turkey . JTtheOG ( talk ) 06:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per nom and previous similar AfD. Svartner ( talk ) 16:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which similar AfD? I am curious why a in this case and not a as there does not appear to be significant coverage. KeepItGoingForward ( talk ) 02:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In several other similar cases, where there is an article listing women's footballers, the decision was to . Svartner ( talk ) 14:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 20:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"MDU Wi-Fi : Tagged for more sources since 2011, but no improvements have been made. No evidence whatsoever of notability. CycloneYoris talk! 22:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Technology , and Internet . CycloneYoris talk! 22:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think even if not quite enough for a standalone article, we could potentially write something about larger scale WLAN deployments not quite the size of a campus network (CAN), and Building area network s to WLAN currently also. I'm going to go with to Wireless LAN (I don't see the point of going for a specific section for now). Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 12:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Robbins Hill : The article also includes a extended biography of the person the ridge is named after, copied from GNIS, but as that isn't directly related to the ridge I don't believe it justifies an article on the ridge. BilledMammal ( talk ) 04:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions . BilledMammal ( talk ) 04:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC) GEONATURAL . APK whisper in my ear 04:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC) GEONATURAL . – dlthewave ☎ 15:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC) and Dlthewave ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Blue Glacier (Antarctica) where Robbins Hill is mentioned. I would also support merging, although there is currently not much information worth merging. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 12:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Lea Folgueira : The subject has earned at least one cap for the Luxembourg women's national football team . I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Luxembourg . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC) 46, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 16:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"MTV Satellite Radio : Let'srun ( talk ) 01:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America . Let'srun ( talk ) 01:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels , where a list of such channels already exists. A quick WP:BEFORE check finds that this will be nigh-impossible to source, especially with all the false positives. For example '80s on 8 , a satellite radio channel with a similar scope, is hosted by former MTV veejays . It is noteworthy that no sourcing of any kind has been added to this article during the 16 years of its existence. Stony Brook babble 17:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The best I could find was this interview with XM's circa-2005 executive VP of programming that includes a question about why XM decided to drop this channel and a similar channel for VH1 (which, not to bring up the proverbial ""other stuff [that] exists"" , seems equally [un]suitable for a separate article — but nonetheless, it was using the Wayback Machine to access what passed for sourcing in the Vh1 Satellite Radio article — our citation standards are just a little different now than they were in 2007, to say the least — that led me there). All that might be good for is to have some source to support a brief mention at MTV to allow for a to that article — interviews are irrelevant when considering notability to start with (not that there is any separate notability to speak of here anyway), and this is effectively more of a passing mention anyway. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Danie van Schoor : JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Cricket , and Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Namibian first-class cricketers Sourcing for non-international international cricketers is commonly difficult to find. Suitable per WP:ATD, and I'd have no issue to these non-internationals being BOLDly ed going forward. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC) per JTtheOG -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 15:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Abo Ebam : It is merely the health clinic of a very tiny village in rural Nigeria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 08:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Africa , and Nigeria . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 08:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC) ATD-R . This appears to be a town in that region (eg, the AP reported from there [40] and a journal article noted it [41] ), but the current article does not reflect that. — siro χ o 10:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] seems the best choice. Appears too small to be notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Josef Kopecký : According to Results on Sports Reference, Kopecký was not in the top three winners of 1936 Summer Olympics. He also had not gained any medal record. My Google search came up with similar namesakes. I would also consider footballer of the same name for deletion due to possible dubious info. I also couldn't find anything to verify his death; EU-football.info stated that he played two games each for Meteor Prague and now-defunct Bohemia national football team. Unlike the shooter, footballer has corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia but it's an unsourced stub. Josef Kopecký (footballer) ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Clara A. Djalim ( talk ) 11:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics , and Czech Republic . Clara A. Djalim ( talk ) 11:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] both - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Happy to the shooter as suggested below. the footballer. Giant Snowman 16:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Josef Kopecký to Shooting at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's 25 metre rapid fire pistol , Josef Kopecký (footballer). Couldn't find sufficient sources for either to pass WP:GNG . Suonii180 ( talk ) 16:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Suonii180. FromCzech ( talk ) 10:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Most Daring : Tagged for notability since 2019 Donald D23 talk to me 12:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America . Donald D23 talk to me 12:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 09:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Nash Entertainment#Television programs Very definition of a non-notable filler clip show, which this company has so many of, and ing to the TruTV list would be too vague here. Nate • ( chatter ) 17:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then if that's the case, Most Shocking needs to be ed to that too. OWaunTon ( talk ) 03:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 07:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Nash Entertainment#Television programs . WP:GNG not established. Flurrious ( talk ) 00:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Combat (Torchwood) : Tagged for notability since 2011. PROD removed with ""deprod; every Torchwood episode has an article"", which is untrue. At least one other episode from Series 1 does not have an article, and none of Series 3 have articles. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Donald D23 talk to me 02:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom . Donald D23 talk to me 02:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . It's not a valid argument, but it's a valid argument against prodding, which is only for uncontroversial deletion. Something which many editors seem to fail to understand. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I find it dumb that so many series seem to have an unwritten rule that every episode must have an article. Besides The Simpsons , I see no series in which every episode is notable enough for its own article (and even The Simpsons is stretching it). Anyways, rant over, if it's been tagged for so long and nobody found sources, then it should usually be d. Liliana UwU ( talk / contributions ) 10:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per LilianaUwU. We simply don't need to over-represent series such as this just because they are disproportionately popular with a particular demographic that tends to contribute to Wikipedia more heavily. RobinCarmody ( talk ) 18:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Echoing what Liliana said, not every episode of a TV show would have an article, only the ones that are notable. SWinxy ( talk ) 21:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can we this to the pertinent season of the show? That is typically done with PROD'd articles but I don't see anyone mention it here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As nominator, I support a . Donald D23 talk to me 13:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I would suggest ing to List of Torchwood episodes as is the case with the other series one episode not to have an article - They Killing Suzie . Dunarc ( talk ) 22:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"John Slingsby : Nothing appears to exist which shows why this person was notable. JMWt ( talk ) 10:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Cricket , and England . JMWt ( talk ) 10:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At worst this is a clear to List of English cricketers (1787–1825) , but I'll note immediately that the Cambridge source notes that his death, presumably, was noted in the Gentlemen's Magazine and also references another source. We're headed into NEXIST territory here - chances are as well that as a clergyman that there is a reasonable chance that other sources also exist. I've no idea how much detail Haygarth includes on him - we'd need an IP to come along and check for us probably. I'm not necessarily unhappy with a - more detail can be added to the table - but I'd like to see what else we can find first - he'll also be in the Eton Register, for example. Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 12:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I doubt a thorough WP:BEFORE has been conducted here, per BST there are likely to be contemporary sources on this guy. StickyWicket ( talk ) 20:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC) V . Not ones that you postulate exist and therefore show notability. JMWt ( talk ) 08:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Verification isn't a problem - we know that he existed and what he did. WP:NEXIST is a reasonable call at this point given the references in the Ac Cam source that wjemather dug out and the fact that he was a clergyman which sometimes means we get half decent biographies - and it does rather depend on what exactly it says in Haygarth: is there a biography of him or does it simply list him on a scorecard? I won't have a chance to hit some archives on this for a little while and can't access Haygarth, but it's possible something might pop up - but I don't think there's any doubt that there will be sources there. The Gents Mag is sometimes accessible online - have you checked the ref that Ac Cam has on him from there? Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 10:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not doubting your knowledge. I'm saying that without being able to look at them, we can't tell if they show notability. Not every person that went to Eton is notable, not every clergyman is notable, not everyone who has a write-up in Gentleman's Magazine is notable. Unless we look at the sources, how can we possibly know what they say - they may in fact be a passing mention. JMWt ( talk ) 10:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The relevant volume of The Gentleman's Magazine is available via Google Books ( [27] ). In the ""clergy deceased"" section, it contains the exactly same simple one-line death notice that was published in various newspapers at the time; nothing more. Other newspaper mentions are trivial (ordination listing, involvement in an old Etonians vs Gentlemen of England cricket match, his children's marriage announcement, etc.). Given what I've managed to find, I really don't see any merit to the claim/optimism that sources with significant coverage exist elsewhere. wjemather please leave a message... 12:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, I didn't see this - distracted by the list of 1,200 articles... Thanks for finding the source - yes, I agree, we're looking at a here. Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 11:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of English cricketers (1787–1825)#S For now I'll go with on this one unless something significant is dug up that suggests a GNG pass while AfD is going on. Certainly shouldn't be d though with a clear in place per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 08:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of English cricketers (1787–1825) . Per my comment above, lacks significant coverage and these is no reason to believe such coverage exists. wjemather please leave a message... 12:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of English cricketers (1787–1825) . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 03:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC) ATD . If significant coverage is found at a later point in time, then and only then can this article be restored from the , but from the conversations above, looks like significant coverage is not known to exist. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Haini Wolfgramm : In a WP:BEFORE search, I can only find passing mentions of him in articles about the band. The Grammy nomination was for the band. He and his large family were interviewed on a national TV programme in 1994, and that interview was covered by some other media, but that would appear to be WP:BLP1E , and doesn't quite get him over the line for WP:MUSICBIO. A to the band article could be an alternative to deletion , but I'm bringing it here first for discussion. Wikishovel ( talk ) 05:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California . Wikishovel ( talk ) 05:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to The Jets (Minnesota band) . He has done nothing independently notable outside the band, and the article is simply an attempt to fill space with some tidbits from his personal life. The fact that he owns a small record company could possibly be mentioned briefly at the band's article. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 12:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC) 43, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 11:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC) ATD . Ingratis ( talk ) 21:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"15955 Johannesgmunden : All you can say about this is the same thing you can say about any minor planet, some numerical parameters from a database and a brief blurb about its namesake. NASTRO explicitly states ""if a minor planet has received an official name from the Committee for Small Body Nomenclature, this does not necessarily mean that object is notable"". Its subsection WP:DWMP states ""For asteroids numbered above 2000, if an article of questionable notability is found, and a good-faith search has failed to locate references establishing notability, then it is appropriate to the article to the corresponding list of minor planets, ing the original categories and {{DEFAULTSORT}} information."" I did this (both the good-faith search that failed to locate any in-depth publications about this minor planet and the ) but my was reverted, so here we are. For exactly the same reasons, I am also nominating 9119 Georgpeuerbach and 9097 Davidschlag . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 45, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote , but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts : {{subst: spa | username }} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed | username }} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry : {{subst: csm | username }} or {{subst: csp | username }} . Hello David, sorry i am from europe and i have some troubles with tecnical english. Can you for me summary in the case for 15955 Johannesgmunden the problem? Thank you. David Voglsam Hauptgürtel ( talk ) 07:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We long ago agreed not to have articles on all asteroids. We only have articles on asteroids with some particular historical significance (numbered less than 2000) or those for which we know an unusual amount of information (for instance those that have been visited by space missions, or that have been studied closely and individually in other ways). I see no evidence that these three asteroids are in any way unusual. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 59, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 08, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 28, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 15001–16000 . Doesn't pass the WP:NASTRO criteria. Couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV so doesn't pass WP:NASTRO #3 or WP:GNG . – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 06:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC) 46, 22 June 2023 (UTC) NASTRO criteria do you think 15955 Johannesgmunden passes, and how are 9097 Davidschlag and 1073 Gellivara related to that? – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 23:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC) NASTRO criteria) criteria 3 - source you can find here (Austria Press Agentur - Net Science-Week vom 26. Jänner 1996- second article) [15] https://www.sternwarte.at/erfolge.html it describes a long historical descovery break for asteroids in time and place in austria. Hauptgürtel ( talk ) 13:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC) 57, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For all three minor planets, shape models are available (with the corresponding images shown in the articles). Creating a shape model requires long series of photometric observations over several oppositions of the objects, so I would argue that there certainly has been significant ""study beyond refining its orbit"". Note that for most, even lower numbered minor planets, no shape model is available. For 9097_Davidschlag , the fact that it was the first discovery in 70+ years made in Asutria, adds further, historic significance. -- HerbRaab ( talk ) 16:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC) — HerbRaab ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 15001–16000 . It fails WP:GNG . Praemonitus ( talk ) 13:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC) 15001–16000 , it is a good idea for yet at all. MICHAEL 942006 ( talk ) 14:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"Once in a Lifetime (Gregorian song) : Binksternet ( talk ) 23:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . Binksternet ( talk ) 23:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC) Found no evidence of notability. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 23:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Gregorian (band) . No SIGCOV , fails WP:NSONG . Has no individual notability. ULPS ( talk ) 16:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per above. Lacks sufficient coverage to justify a stand alone article. Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 04:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
+"List of types of businesses using the ""as a service"" business model: An inferior copy of Category:As a service , not notable in its own right. MrOllie ( talk ) 16:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Convert to disambiguation and re-title as As a service (disambiguation) The list of links is notable and would be a great DAB page, and I don't find this to be a POV fork at all, as it's a simple list. It certainly doesn't need to be in grid form with abbreviations, though; the average reader can discern what it is just by reading. Nate • ( chatter ) 16:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC) PTMs . * Pppery * it has begun... 05:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Lists . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Either as a separate list, or into the main article As a service . We certainly do need to have a list showing the types of business that use the as a service business model. Since this list is longer than the article, it may make sense to it separate from the article. But an argument could be made that since the article is not very long to begin with, the list should be d with the article. Either way works for me. Where is Matt? ( talk ) 23:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The 'as a service' topic is more than adequately covered in Cloud computing#Service models , which provides all the necessary context needed. There is no merit whatsoever in providing a list of whatever-as-a-service acronyms, given that the scope is more or less infinite, and the significance more often not existing only in the minds of those looking for marketing-speak to impress the less informed. It is jargon. New words for old ideas. Wikipedia is not a compendium of fashionable acronyms. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 01:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] more or less infinite ? really? If that's the case, we have our work cut out for us. If you stop and think about it, that's actually a argument for a list article. Where is Matt? ( talk ) 13:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Either Convert to set index article or into As a service . There isn't really ambiguity between the various types of ""as a service"" given their different names, so a DAB page wouldn't make much sense. A SIA would be appropriate if more details about the entries can be added. Otherwise, merging into the main article is also fine, but the list is actually better referenced and takes up more page space than the current main article, which would look a bit weird if d. Liu1126 ( talk ) 14:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC) LISTN , as opposed to merely analyzing one individual model? None have been provided either here or in the article itself. Also note that a discussion at Talk:As a service is developing a consensus to that article elsewhere, which would complicate merging something to it. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The notability of the business model is inherit in the As a service article. Nonetheless, I added a reference to the list article to show the notability of the business model. If this reference is not sufficient, we can find others. Where is Matt? ( talk ) 13:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 06:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC) LISTN as no sources have been shown that treat this subject as a group. The source added in response to Pppery's comment merely describes what the model itself is and makes no attempt to provide any kind of notable list or grouping, so misunderstand's the objection. Fails WP:LISTN . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 09:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC) SETINDEX . This serves a useful navigation function per WP:CLN/WP:AOAL, but it needs to be cleaned up. // Timothy :: talk 07:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"2023 Barbuda Council election: it's all fading away talk 00:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Antigua and Barbuda-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC) Extremely close paraphrasing of this news article , and excessive quotations, though the topic could be notable. Curbon7 ( talk ) 11:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it passes NEVENTS as an event with lasting effects over a wide geographic scope , the entire island of Barbuda. It is the equivalent of a statewide election in the U.S. or a Scottish parliamentary election. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 19:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Presidentman. Mccapra ( talk ) 05:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Sindhuja Rajaraman: I've done some digging on the subject, and here's my conclusions: 1. This individual has not won a Guinness World Record. This appears to be a miscited claim from them saying they had submitted a world record attempt for ""fastest created movie"" for creating a 3 minute animated movie in 10 hours. This attempt was not recorded by the Guinness Book of World Records. In the previous nomination , it was commented by several voters that the 3rd source in this article is from a reliable source. Given that they have printed this very simply false claim in the second sentence, I propose it be disregarded. 2. From what I can see, this individual's appointment was by her father's friend (described as her mentor) and carried pretty limited scope of responsibilities. This article seems to explain it best - https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/bs-people-sindhuja-rajamaran-111032400058_1.html 3. WP:NEWSORGINDIA was not mentioned in the previous nomination, but I would like to comment that I think it makes this specific claim of notability extra dubious. No ill will here, she seems like a smart woman making a good way in the world, but this marketing stunt is her *only* source of notability. It seems like it will be very difficult to write an encyclopaedic article about her because the only sources covering her are local puff pieces about how great she is. BrigadierG ( talk ) 22:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC) We literally just closed this less than 3 weeks ago. Let it rest for a bit. There is nothing that's changed in a month. Any ""untruths"" lets call them (as mentioned above), can be removed from the article by edit, not be deletion. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion closed as no consensus which doesn't hold prejudice to renomination. Given that the most recent coverage for this individual is from 7 years ago or so, I don't think much is going to change about their notability status. At best, waiting stirs the voter pool a bit. BrigadierG ( talk ) 17:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Businesspeople , Women , Comics and animation , and Tamil Nadu . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC) 17, 8 May 2024 (UTC) Relisting. Soft deletion is not an option as it was JUST at a previous AFD discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC) Deletion review if you think the closer made a mistake. And significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Christian75 ( talk ) 19:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC) Deletion review/Log/2024 April 6 . Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits ( T ) 22:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC) Please note that Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 6 explicitly allowed the renom. Suggest a focus on content and not process. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC) For my part I'm not seeing anything recent or meeting RS about this subject, and I'm not satisfied with the applied or presented sources meeting WP:BLP. Reading the DRV leads me to believe there is not much community support for ing (as the side comments in this process might lead one to believe). BusterD ( talk ) 15:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC) BLP1E and the nature of the ""event"" in this case is not well defined. The fact that there has not been significant coverage since 2019 is not a reason to per WP:NOTTEMPORARY . ~ Kvng ( talk ) 14:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC) The nominator has a strong rationale as also illustrated in prev AfD. Issues of churnalism/promo remain in sources. Current GoogleSearch brings out heavy PR stuff. Would refrain form making any personal comments about the subject. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits ( T ) 18:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Béatrice d'Hirson: entire section in the article about her apperance in fiction. french article has no citations. ltb d l ( talk ) 03:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and France . ltb d l ( talk ) 03:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC) appearance in fiction and film contributes to her notability and is a reason for Wikipedia to have the article, to satisfy the curiosity of the viewer/reader who wants to know ""Who was she?"" ""Was she fact or fiction?"". Pam D 08:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a badly worded deletion request, which makes it difficult to reply to. However even significant fictional characters can be notable. ""The Accursed Kings"" may not be well known in Britain, although the 1972 adaptation was shown on British television, but I believe it is well known in France. Whether the French Wikipedia version has citations is completely irrelevant, this version now has some. PatGallacher ( talk ) 14:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] irrelevant aside - I loved watching this on tv in the early seventies and have not seen any mention of it anywhere for more than fifty years until reading this AfD. You’ve all made my day. Mccapra ( talk ) 07:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even more irrelevant comment . The original series is being shown on French television at the moment. Athel cb ( talk ) 13:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC) French article appears to be PROMO for the film listed, I think this was a translation of that effort. I don't see anything about this person not related to the film. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Thierry Larchier d'Hirson . This article (Béatrice's uncle) already mentioned her, and the TV series, in which he also appears. I've added the cast info for Béatrice there, so no info or sources will be lost with the . Thanks. — TAnthony Talk 19:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, C avarrone 08:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - reasonable presence in fiction and got reasonable coverage as fictional character regardless obscurity in flesh. - Altenmann >talk 03:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth . No sources provided by votes, which just boil down to ILIKEIT, not guidelines and sources, let alone sources with indepth content about subject. // Timothy :: talk 03:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Mako (template engine): DatGuy Talk Contribs 22:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - initially I was skeptical, but I think there's actual decent secondary source coverage. Its use in Pylons is especially notable. I don't believe use of a dependency in a major project is itself grounds for notability - or we'd have articles for all million of Webpack 's, but templating engines are different since they are a major factor in the user experience of any web framework. (Yes this is WP:Other stuff exists , but) Jinja2 deservedly has an article for similar reasons. Besides Pylons I found several other sources discussing Mako, including: https://docs.nvidia.com/networking-ethernet-software/knowledge-base/Configuration-and-Usage/Automation/Configure-the-interfaces-File-with-Mako/ https://suffolklitlab.org/legal-tech-class/docs/mako/ https://www.fullstackpython.com/mako.html StereoFolic ( talk ) 03:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC) beginner's guide , which all have significant coverage of Mako. Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software . Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All the examples above are passing guides on how to use the library in the context of another library. There are no high quality sources dedicated to the topic like Ruby on Rails has, there is no in-depth analysis into its function like Webpack has (although the majority of Category:Programming tools may be a discussion for another day). There is no content backed by a high-quality secondary source in this article, and indeed nothing I've found that would provide that content. DatGuy Talk Contribs 18:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't agree that sources here need to meet the level of depth of projects like Rails and Webpack. Those are vastly more complex projects, and there's simply much more to write and learn about them. Templating engines are necessarily pretty simple and almost always embedded in other software, but this does not make them non-notable. StereoFolic ( talk ) 21:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Python 2.6 Text Processing devotes a full chapter to mako and although it's largely a howto, it also discusses mako itself. I think(?) that both https://turbogears.org/2.0/docs/main/Templates/Mako.html and The Hitchhiker's Guide to Python ( Mako is well respected within the Python web community. ) also contribute toward notability in that they support mako's place within the Python community, are generally reliable for programming topics, and are more than a trivial mention. I think that Python Interviews , although not contributing to notability very much since it's an interview, would give some more factual details to add to the article as well. I'm also happy I learned doing research for this that mako is/was fairly commonly used as a tool for help generate 3d model and other description files (see Google Scholar results.) Skynxnex ( talk ) 23:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . From those books above, does it cover Mako in depth? They don't provide basic information, like who wrote the library or its history. They're just how-tos. An attempt to extract the information contained by them should be shot down under WP:NOTHOWTO . Being used in Pylons is WP:NOTINHERITED . I am unconvinced that the blogs and documentation pages are sufficient for GNG. SWinxy ( talk ) 18:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 03:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Did an independent search for sources. SIGCOV in this Person book [35] , including evaluation and comparison with Django templates. SIGCOV in this O'Reilly book [36] , including some evaluation, and a comparison of syntax with python syntax. Here's a different O'Reilly book with SIGCOV [37] , again including evaluation, pointing out some of the drawbacks, as well as a bit of background and comparison to Myghty. From these three sources alone we could write a start class article that explains some of the functionality provided, describes some strengths and drawbacks, compares it to other template engines, and provides some basic background, with zero how-to content. — siro χ o 04:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC) GNG — siro χ o 04:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I debated on closing this as no consensus or relisting and decided to relist, hoping that we can have a little more discussion to avoid a no consensus closure. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 11:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Muhammad Saleh Thattvi: Only 1 source of any kind mentions Muhammad Salih Tatahwi (misspelled throughout wikipedia article). That would be Savage-Smith, Emilie; Belloli, Andrea P. A. (1985). ""Islamicate Celestial Globes: Their History, Construction, and Use"". Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology (46). Washington, D.C., where he gets barely a few sentences. The other sources cited do not mention him at all. Based on searches on google scholar, that one source is the only secondary source to mention him; all sources on google web search are derived from wikipedia. Also, as is, almost everything on the article is wrong, including the spelling of his name, his place of birth, and the time period he lived in, and what kind of globes he made, and it incorrectly places him in mathematician and astronomer categories. All other details are about other people and historical trends already covered elsewhere on wikipedia. Hi! ( talk ) 00:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Mathematics , and Pakistan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The subject here wrote his name in a different alphabet, for which there are multiple correct transliterations. (So, the correct spelling of his name is something like ""محمد صالح التاتفي""; at least, that is what Google Translate gave to me.) If kept, we should use the most common transliteration. No strong opinion on notability; this could use the attention of a Persian, Arabic and/or Urdu speaker, as there may be be sources in those languages. Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 11:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC) Besides the Lahore family workshop, there was in the seventheenth century another maker in northwestern India who was producing globes that appear to be cast seamless globes. The instrument maker is known by three astrolabes and two globes (Nos. 25 and 29). On the earlier globe, executed in 1070 H/AD 1659-1660 at the request of a certain Shaykh cAbd al-Khaliq, the maker signed himself as Muhammad Salih Tatah-wi, while on the second globe, made in 1074 H/AD 1663-1664 he signs as Muhammad Salih Tatawi. The spelling of Tatah-wi, which uses quite unusual orthography, is probably an attempt on his part to indicate the pronunciation of the name, for with the second spelling one might be inclined to pronounce it Tatwi. It seems unlikely that he was actually from Tatta in the delta of the Indus river as some have suggested, since the name of the town is written with different characters and should more accurately be transliterated Thattha. Both globes by Tatawi seem to be quite precise with full sets of constellation figures, though the available photographs of his earlier globe show little detail. Of special interest is the fact that the second globe has the names of the constellations and the signature written in both Arabic and in Sanskrit (see Figure 18, which also clearly shows a plug from the casting process). One might speculate that this maker perhaps worked in the Kashmir area, where at the end of the sixteenth century cAli Kashmiri ibn Luqman may have produced his apparently seamless metal globe. Kashmir was a region where Sanskrit was the language until replaced for official purposes by Persian in the late fifteenth century, and consequently might have been an area where a globe in both Arabic and Sanskrit would have been requested. ... The use of the word c_amal is usual with Diya al-Din of the Lahore workshop as well as later makers such as Muhammad Salih Tatawi of the seventeenth century, ... There are also some details given on two of his globes (one in the Red Fort Archaeological Museum ), and references are indicated to be present in Robert T. Gunther The astrolabes of the world and W. H. Morley Description of a Planispheric Astrolabe Constructed for Shah Sultan Husain Safawi, King of Persia, and Now Preserved in the British Museum; Comprising an Account of the Astrolabe Generally, with Notes Illustrative and Explanatory: to Which Are Added, Concise Notices of Twelve Other Astrolabes, Eastern and European, Hitherto Undescribed . Gumshoe2 ( talk ) 16:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as there are sources that mention the figure for it to be notable. However cleanup unsourced and poorly cited information. SKAG123 ( talk ) 20:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , but clean up unsourced and poorly cited information. User:Hamterous1 ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ ) 11:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Damian Conway: Also does not meet WP:PROF , google scholar comes up with a namesake who is an expert in sexual health. LibStar ( talk ) 05:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Computing , and Australia . LibStar ( talk ) 05:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - There are two claims to notability I looked at carefully. That he is an author, and that he is the three time winner of the Larry Wall Award for Practical Utility. I also considered NPROF but that one is a clear fail. So looking at these others, I looked up the Larry Wall Award, and was rather surprised that most hits were talking about Conway, the three times winner. I could only find one other winner [22] and this posting explains why [23] . In any case the award is just a Perl conference award [24] and I don't think this is significant enough to confer notability. So the other guideline I looked at was WP:NAUTHOR where there are two books that he has authored (and one he has contributed to). One of these has a page. Perl Best Practices is a stub article. The book has a number of reviews I could find, although the quality of reviews would need assessment. So is it a notable book? My reason for not yet making this a ! vote is that I would consider a WP:ATD such as a , but it is not clear whether the book is notable, in which case the best outcome of this AfD would be to content here with the book stub (in a section on the author). If the book is of marginal notability, might it actually be better to that stub here? Or if the book has no notability at all, maybe that should be d too. Thoughts? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the Perl Best Practices book was a major publication and inspired several modules based on it. Perl is no longer widely used for programming, which is why references are a bit dated. But Damian's work in Raku is very significant. Hard to qualify with references, but I would suggest he is one of the most significant Australian contributers to open source programming. Teraplane ( talk ) 01:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 06:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No further comments on what I stated above but Teraplane calls the Best Practices book a major publication. Whether major publication == notable work is not the issue here, as the page is about the author. However a refusal to mention the book anywhere would seem to be a poor decision, but the author's page is the fuller, and under WP:PAGEDECIDE I would suggest that the book is d into the author's page, to the benefit of them both. This would need to be kept in that instance. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Commonwealth free trade: This has led to various misinformation occuring through out the article. In turn, the majority of properly sourced information is spoken about on their own dedicated pages without an explanation for their relevance to this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevoLake ( talk • contribs ) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 12:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 12:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to ""Imperial Preference"" it was a thing at one time to have free trade among members of the British Empire, but as the empire has faded, free-trade has evolved. Being in the Commonwealth isn't such as an important factor for Canada for instance as being part of the Empire was for trade. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC) 03, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More opinions are welcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy ( talk ) 04:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ● - Article is well referenced & we have learned about this in school. PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 19:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Having learned about it in school is not really a valid reason for this instance. But it is fair game for WP:NBOOK . Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 21:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC) The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protection [1] Free Trade Reimagined: The World Division of Labor and the Method of Economics [2] Free Trade [3] Free Trade and Prosperity: How Openness Helps the Developing Countries Grow Richer and Combat Poverty [4] PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 01:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just heard this concept talked about on the Indicator podcast from NPR, plus the article is well sourced. What's the Commonwealth good for? Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] added the podcast above to ""see also"" section and cited it with the link you provided above. PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 02:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Roberts, Russell D. (2007). The choice: a fable of free trade and protectionism (3 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-143354-0 . ^ Unger, Roberto Mangabeira (2007). Free trade reimagined: the world division of labor and the method of economics . Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-14588-4 . ^ Hanson, Ann Aubrey; Zott, Lynn Marie, eds. (2013). Free trade . Opposing viewpoints series. Farmington Hills, Mich: Greenhaven Press. ISBN 978-0-7377-6055-2 . ^ Panagariya, Arvind (2019). Free trade and prosperity: how openness helps developing countries grow richer and combat poverty . New York, NY, United States of America: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-091449-3 . The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Shani Louk: Going through the criteria: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. Y She has been covered only for having been kidnapped as part of the Re'im music festival massacre . If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Y She is a tattoo artist who has never been any sort of public figure. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. Y Although the massacre as a whole is clearly significant, her role in it was not substantial, as she was one of hundreds of casualties. The use of or in the guideline means that this is sufficient to fulfill this criterion. The video clip that made Louk famous is covered in a paragraph at Re'im music festival massacre , which is a sufficient level of detail for our encyclopedic purposes. This provides an additional WP:PAGEDECIDE / WP:NOTNEWS rationale for ion beyond the BLP1E argument. {{u| Sdkb }} talk 21:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote , but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts : {{subst: spa | username }} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed | username }} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry : {{subst: csm | username }} or {{subst: csp | username }} . to Re'im music festival massacre § Hamas's assault as nominator. {{u| Sdkb }} talk 21:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Terrorism , Judaism , Israel , and Germany . {{u| Sdkb }} talk 21:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] /undecided/ per nom. — Alalch E. 21:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC) BLP1E , also WP:RECENT comes to mind. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC) 51, 12 October 2023 (UTC) pinging those who have edited the page. RodRabelo7 ( talk ) 21:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC) Now we're going to see these memorial-type articles, like we did with the war in Ukraine... This person was not notable before the incident, they aren't notable at this point in time either. Very much a run of the mill individual Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC) NOTMEMORIAL has very little to do with an article like this, that is about a globally covered topic. Further, notable does not always mean remarkable. It's a question of whether this person being the most famous victim of a major historic event, due to appearing in a viral video related to that event, seen all over the world, means that that the individuals's role [in the event] was [or was not] ... substantial (third bullet of BLP1E). To be clear, being a victim of an event is defined under WP:VICTIM as having a role in the event: Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: For victims, and those wrongly accused or wrongly convicted of a crime (or crimes), The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event , had a large role within a well-documented historic event . The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. /Example: Matthew Shepard . / Being ""one of hundreds of casualties"" (quoting Sdkb ) is not the same as ""being the most recognizable out of hundreds of casualties due to having appeared in a viral video"". This is very close to being WP:NOTBLP1E (it's possible to see the coverage of what happened or is happening to Louk as persistent coverage ; example ), and a much stronger reason for me to support ion is that there are appropriate existing articles (which is really WP:PAGEDECIDE ). — Alalch E. 01:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong and move to Kidnapping of Shani Louk . The event (of her kidnapping by itself) is clearly notable and has been described as one of the most shocking moments of the Hamas offensive by reliable sources. Em um dos vídeos mais chocantes da ofensiva do Hamas sobre solo de Israel… The 22-year-old tattoo artist was seen in one of the most distressing videos of the weekend bloodshed… etc. RodRabelo7 ( talk ) 00:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC) check it out too) links to: ""Influencer diz que não faz sexo há 2 anos porque homens se intimidam com beleza"" (an influencer discussing her sex life) and ""Estrela pornô preocupa ao atingir marca de 900 cenas após quase morrer em filme"" (worries of a porn star), and a story about people eaten by a bear, so this seems to be a questionable and tabloid source; the second source listed is the WP:DAILYBEAST , which has no consensus for reliability and describes the event as ""one of the most distressing videos of the weekend bloodshed."" Beccaynr ( talk ) 03:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Terrorism victims and Category:Murder victims . She is not just any casualty, but the one who has become the face of this conflict in media, comparable to Rachel Scott for the Columbine High School massacre . — Lowellian ( reply ) 01:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Rachel Scott article was created on 25 November 2003, more than four years after her death, and listed as a potential candidate for deletion several minutes later [35] . By 29 November 2003, the article was updated to include a list of books published by her parents [36] . The current Rachel Scott article is much more developed and has related book and organization articles linked, and notes a film based on her life (2016 Guardian review ). By contrast, there has only been a few days of sensationalized and repetitive news coverage available to support this article, which makes this article unbalanced; and according to WP:BLPBALANCE , The idea expressed in Eventualism —that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. Beccaynr ( talk ) 03:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC) AVOIDVICTIM (""This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions""), as well as the limited information currently available, which is not sustained WP:GNG coverage nor sufficent to demonstrate enduring WP:EVENT notability at this time; this article should therefore also be excluded per WP:NOTNEWS . Beccaynr ( talk ) 02:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC) - add target to comment Beccaynr ( talk ) 14:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC) ""When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."" The issue is whether the coverage is sourced, neutral, and on-topic . It means ""avoid secondary victimization (through poor coverage)"", not ""avoid writing about victims"". — Alalch E. 04:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC) AVOIDVICTIM seems to further support a in addition to the nom's rationale to pare this topic back to a neutral and on-topic summary at the target. Characterizations of this subject as ""the face of this conflict in media"" or ""one of the most shocking moments of the Hamas offensive"" or ""the most recognizable out of hundreds of casualties"" do not appear well-supported by reliable secondary sources at this time. Beccaynr ( talk ) 04:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Rationale per nom, and notability (of the event) should be passed on to the notability (of the subject) here. – robertsky ( talk ) 04:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC) BLAR before by the nom and was reverted by the author almost immediately, therefore the AfD here with the intent to instead of I suppose. – robertsky ( talk ) 04:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Kidnapping of Shani Louk or to Re'im music festival massacre § Hamas's assault . I'm between those two. While Shani Louk had many news articles dedicated to her in multiple languages, her story has not really developed enough to differentiate her from all the other kidnapped victims. I'm leaning towards ing to the festival massacre, and reassess the situation later if the situation develops. AdrianHObradors ( talk ) 08:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC) BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS . If additional sources appear in a few years, then we may want to reassess at that time. Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 09:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Kidnapping of Shani Louk and , as the kidnapping clearly received significant coverage by multiple sources. Skyshifter talk 09:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC) BLP1E , WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:MEMORIAL just in case. Unlike previous cases of Hamas abductions ( Gilad Shalit et al.) there are just too many co-victims in one specific sitting for her to be singled out. And unless there may be other factors that make her subsequent status more notable (which I will not discuss since others might get the wrong idea about me), I believe it must remain so. Borgenland ( talk ) 11:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Crime , Events , Terrorism , Internet , Israel , Palestine , and Germany . — Alalch E. 15:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Re'im music festival massacre . Even if we choose to ignore the BLP sensitivity issue that is very much at play here, crimes such as kidnappings are not inherently notable, even if they are widely covered for a brief period of time. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 15:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to target suggested above, per Beccaynr. Additionally, as mentioned by Alalch E, WP:NOPAGE suggests that even if the event received coverage, it can be covered on Wikipedia within in the wider scope of that article (and this is appropriate per BLP1E). — siro χ o 17:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Beccaynr ( talk ) 18:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - BLP1E and it isnt even close. nableezy - 22:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keeo The face of the terror attacks. Hektor ( talk ) 22:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Kidnapping of Shani Louk , as it is widely covered by different sources, and her kidnapping is a notable and shoking part of the Re'im music festival massacre tragedy. The article should be focused on her kidnapping, as that is what is notable. PatrickChiao ( talk ) 09:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or - no evidence of notability outside of events here. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 10:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] An important international event, regarding the kidnapping of a German citizen to Gaza, which involves leaders in Europe and the world. In addition, the abduction video of Louk the published all over the world, and was used by Hamas's propaganda, as part of the psychological warfare, which warns of what is to come for Israeli women, as soon as the Palestinians defeat Israel. Luke's story has been published on every international media channel , including BBC , CNN , Fox News , ABC News , Euronews , New York Times etc. ℬ𝒜ℛ ( talk ) 00:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The article has been viewed almost 60,000 times in the past two days . RodRabelo7 ( talk ) 00:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not a guidance-based notability argument . And the thing we care about is whether the subject will be notable in a decade , not whether it's currently in the news (which no one contests). {{u| Sdkb }} talk 14:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC) the 24 hours of terror that shook the country (Guardian, Oct. 13), one sentence; there is also Die verzweifelte Suche nach der kleinsten Spur ( Die Zeit , Oct. 14) (Google Translated headline and subheadline: The desperate search for the smallest trace / Eight German hostages are in the hands of Hamas. Their relatives are suffering - and trying to influence German efforts to free the hostages). To the extent there is ongoing coverage of Louk in reliable sources , this appears limited and reported in the context of broader events, so therefore seems to further support a per WP:NOPAGE at this time. Beccaynr ( talk ) 16:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC) - updated to fix error, as noted below Beccaynr ( talk ) 23:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC) The Die Zeit piece is a retrospective piece about Shani Louk's case in the context of the broader hostage situation and has ""Shani Louk"" positioned on top of the title. — Alalch E. 16:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From my view, the Die Zeit piece, based on a Google translation, seems to emphasize the limited information available about Louk at this time, and a focus on the broader hostage context without specific reference to Louk. The piece includes interviews with her family members, in the context of limited information available and various reasons why information is limited. Beccaynr ( talk ) 17:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The headline is not what you said, that is only the subheadline. The headline is ""The desperate search for the smallest trace"" next to a portrait of Louk's mother, clearly referencing the widely publicized case of Shani Louk. So widely publicized that there's no need to even state the name, but for those readers who have missed the news, there is ""Shani Louk"" spelled out on top of the headline. About 80% of the article is about her case. — Alalch E. 22:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for noting my error copying the title - I adjusted my comment above to fix it. Beccaynr ( talk ) 23:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're welcome, thanks for the correction. — Alalch E. 23:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to the Re'im music festival massacre, per above. Ornithoptera ( talk ) 07:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Kidnapping of Shani Louk and - same as per Skyshifter . Pg 6475 TM 13:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] An important international event, gained ginat public recongnizion around the world. dov ( talk ) 14:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Kidnapping of Shani Louk . The kidnapping itself was notable, though the person may not be by herself. -- Lenny Marks ( talk ) 19:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] She has become a symbol linked to the attacks that occurred on the first day, more specifically to the Re'im music festival massacre. She is already relevant enough for her biography, which is also available in Portuguese and in simple English , to remain. I think it is correct to this article in Wikipedia , taking into account that we can also find biographies such as George Floyd or Omayra Sanchez (who were not public figures before their deaths, but became iconic figures that should be covered encyclopedically). Salvabl ( talk ) 00:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC) CRYSTAL . And other language editions is another notability fallacy called out at WP:Arguments to avoid . {{u| Sdkb }} talk 03:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Exactly. That is complete non argument and you seem to be drawing conclusions on evidence that doesn't exist. It is complete WP:OR . She is no more a symbol that any other person involved in this war and per above, it is a argument to avoid Wikipedia. scope_creep Talk 08:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand your point, but I just mentioned Floyd and Sánchez to illustrate that it is not always necessary to be a public figure before. Determining/measuring the level of relevance is always difficult. Floyd's relevance and Sánchez's relevance are not at the same level; however, I consider that both require encyclopedic coverage. On the other hand, you have state that "" She is no more a symbol that any other person involved in this war ""; I respect your point of view, but I have to say that she (Shani Louk) is the only kidnapped person in this war whose name is known to me, because she has had a significant coverage, superior to the coverage that has been given to other civilians involved in this war. Salvabl ( talk ) 10:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No it is not. Professional historians would never create such an article like this, because it is far too soon to determine if she historically significant and that is reflected in how poor the references are. Your statement make no sense and is a completly arbitary and non-standard way of looking at notability. The fact her name is known is not histrically significant and no reflected in modern history and how is it documented. scope_creep Talk 19:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC) BLP and its not a historically significant individual. It is seems to be a memorial type of article perhaps created by editor who has WP:COI . It is also a WP:BLP1E . All reason not have this type of article. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. The coverage is immediate and consists of affliate with very slim detail. Non of it can really WP:SECONDARY and none of it is historically signifcant. Fails WP:BIO , WP:SIGCOV . scope_creep Talk 08:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and move to Kidnapping of Shani Louk . Had this been a one-off this article may have survived. However, she is one of thousands victimized in a major event and it is likely that she is not the only one undergoing the experiences described at this moment (consider every atrocity dispute in related talk pages). Borgenland ( talk ) 16:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Borgenland Hello, you've already ! voted in this AfD ( October 13 ). Please strike one or the other comment. — Alalch E. 17:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Gosh I totally forgot about that one. I’d like my first comment removed. Borgenland ( talk ) 17:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't worry about it. I've struck it. (I don't think it should be d entirely.)— Alalch E. 17:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Kidnapping of Shani Louk and as her case has received significant publicity and global media coverage, more than any other single victim, making it notable. Jogarz1921 ( talk ) 08:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per BLP1E. Thanks ToeSchmoker ( talk ) 10:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong and move to Kidnapping of Shani Louk. In addition to the wide coverage this has received, including coverage on multiple national-level news broadcasts, editors claiming WP:BLP1E are wrong here. It must meet each of the 3 criteria for BLP. This fails criteria #3: ""If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented."" Even weeks after the event, there is wide, ongoing, and sustained coverage in national and international coverage, including American international media German international media , [37] , Brazilian media , among others. Not to WP:CRYSTALBALL , but I'm sure whenever news of her whereabouts surface, given the high-profile of her brutal kidnapping, there will be more sustained international coverage to augment here. Longhornsg ( talk ) 17:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The objection is that Louk's role in the Re'im music festival massacre was not substantial, not that it received no press coverage. We need to decide whether BLP1E still retains any power whatsoever as a bulwark against WP:NOTNEWS . in mind that the example given at the policy page of an article to retain per criterion 3 is John Hinckley Jr. , the guy who shot Reagan. Retaining an article on Louk, where your go-to example of ""sustained coverage"" is a Newsweek article ( RSP-yellow ) that adds essentially no new information that was not already known shortly after the kidnapping (the stuff cleanly summarized the paragraph at the massacre article), was absolutely not the intention of that criterion. If BLP1E is insufficient to prevent articles in textbook cases like this, it has been nullified to the point of uselessness. {{u| Sdkb }} talk 19:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC) RSP , WP:NEWSWEEK (the ""American international media"" link in the comment above) is now owned by IBT media, which ""introduced a number of bad practices to the once reputable magazine and mainly focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism,"" and the third link in the comment above is WP:BILD , listed at RSP as a generally-unreliable tabloid. The brief Brazilian coverage notes her German relatives, and repeats limited coverage about the video, limited biographical information reported by Der Spiegel , and limited information available about Louk's current status. The German news reporting includes ongoing coverage of her family members, reiterates the limited information currently available, and recycles reporting from the tabloid WP:THESUN . The source also discusses other missing and kidnapped people. Beccaynr ( talk ) 20:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Western Caribbean zone: Searching for ""Western Caribbean zone"" yields no useful results at all, and while the sources here are citations for specific facts, I can't find anything that discusses this as a region as a whole. Describing these historical eras seems like original research when combining what happened in some places over a long time without being able to describe their relationships to a specific region, rather than just about Central America or History of Central America with a bit of adjacent Mexico and Colombia tossed in. Reywas92 Talk 20:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Geography , and Caribbean . Reywas92 Talk 20:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC) OR / WP:SYNTH . Indeed it is very similar to the other 3 Caribbean subregion articles I nominated for deletion earlier today. It has sources, but those usually only deal with specific countries and not the purported wider region as a whole. NLeeuw ( talk ) 21:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge... In response here, I initiated this article in 2010 as a way to incorporate the Afro-Carribean diaspora into Central American history. Typically as it appears to me, work focused on Central America tends to leave out the important role played, as the original contribution did, that there is a complex set of African components in the region that were always connected to the the Caribbean, hence the Western Caribbean zone. This includes, initially, the role of African groups like the Miskitos or Miskitos Zambos, with their international connections, to English colonies in particular, and then the use the English made of them to promote their own illegal (in Spanish eyes) trade with the region. This was followed by the large scale migration from the English speaking Caribbean in conjunction with the building of the Panama Canal, and the actions of the fruit companies in particular. These communities are connected thought their adherence (today) to the English language (though many are bi-lingual), English customs, such as the Anglican church and other lesser religious groups that have home in the English Caribbean, to include customs like playing cricket. I am perfectly willing to accept a r with other areas, or a renaming, but I think that deletion of its content at least along the lines established here, is unnecessary and the piece is worthy of retention as a topic in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beepsie ( talk • contribs ) 21:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think History of Central America would be a good place to include most of this then. I agree with your comments that this is an important part of history, but even if this ""zone"" term is sometimes used, I don't think it needs to be a separate page like this. Reywas92 Talk 00:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are definitely sources to support the term. I don't know why the conclusion is that there are no useful results at all - it seems to have been a British geographic term, and countries self-describe as being inside the zone. [45] SportingFlyer T · C 22:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I DO NOT agree on deleting this article because there is some important components that can help with the article. I'm currently not certain if a r is possible while there there's a way to improve the nature of this article or we could just it as is while improving it. 20chances ( talk ) 19:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Arjun Balu: for lack of sourcing, not at GNG. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and India . Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Tamil Nadu . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Added a number of citations including to his 11 National titles. Kindly suggest what else needs to be corrected/added. Davidindia ( talk ) 05:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Arjun Balu is one of the handful of Indian motorsports athletes who won more than 10 National titles over a period of 30 years. Since wikipedia lacks much material and articles on Indian motorsports a few of us have started writing about popular athletes. If you suggest the areas where it needs to be improved to make it a proper article, I am willing to work on it and improve it. Kindly suggest in what areas work is needed. thanks, Davidindia Davidindia ( talk ) 04:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe the article is encyclopedic and my stand is oppose/ for the following reasons. Arjun Balu is an indian motorsports athlete who won more than 10 Indian National titles. In the history of Indian motorsports there are less than a dozen who won that many national titles. The sources used are from reputed Newspapers like the Indian Express, the Times of India, Deccan Herald and reputed auto magazines like AutoCar India. Since I am not well-versed in the abbreviations used, I am not clear what are the reasons for deletion. I someone suggests I can work on it and improve the article if the style needs to change or more citations needed. Though I know the athlete, I have no personal relation or interest in the said athlete and I have no commercial interests or dealings with him. I have watched him only as a reporter. I would like to state that I have NO Conflict of Interest. Need suggestions to improve this article. Davidindia Davidindia ( talk ) 09:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Need sourcing that confirms what he does and why it's important. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have added more sources to confirm his status as a notable Indian racing champion. Davidindia ( talk ) 11:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy SNG for sports is meeting here. See NMOTORSPORT #Criterion 4. Okoslavia ( talk ) 12:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article definitely meets this criteria as Arjun Balu has won umpteen races and over half a dozen National Championship titles in the INdian Nationals, which is an equivalent of the British Touring Car. So it meets the criteria under No.4.. . Winning a ""round of any primarily-professional series of significant national importance, such as the British Touring Car Championship"". . , He is also considered as one of the legends of Indian motorsports... Kindly let me know what else needs to be added to remove the AfD tag... Davidindia ( talk ) 11:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have added more sources to confirm his status as a notable Indian racing champion. Davidindia ( talk ) 11:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article definitely meets this criteria (See NMOTORSPORT #Criterion 4. ) as Arjun Balu has won umpteen races (rounds) and over half a dozen National Championship titles in the Indian Nationals, which is an equivalent of the British Touring Car. So it meets the criteria under No.4.. . Winning a ""round of any primarily-professional series of significant national importance, such as the British Touring Car Championship"". . , He is also considered as one of the legends of Indian motorsports... Kindly let me know what else needs to be added to remove the AfD tag... Davidindia ( talk ) 11:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have d references to the website I edit and have added other references to uphold neutrality and remove anything that may appear as ""Advertisement"". Request editors to check. Davidindia — Preceding undated comment added 08:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: We need input from unconnected editors Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC) NMOTORSPORT criteria 4. IncompA 00:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Beru Revue: The principal attempt at a notability claim here is that they had ""one notable radio hit"", but without any attempt at sourcing that the song was ever actually a hit -- NMUSIC #2 looking for IFPI -certified national pop charts on the order of Billboard , while music publicity mavens tend to indiscriminately attach the word ""hit"" to any song that ever got played on any radio station at all, so a song isn't automatically a notability-clinching ""hit"" just because you call it one without proper sourcing for that. But there's no other strong notability claim here at all, the referencing is entirely to (deadlinked) primary sourcing and blogs that aren't support for notability without a shred of WP:GNG -building coverage about them shown, and the article has been flagged as needing better referencing since 2010 without improvement. Nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt them from having to have much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pennsylvania . Bearcat ( talk ) 14:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC) A few articles in the Delco Times; [26] is an example. I'm not sure how good of a source it is. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Meets GNG. In addition to the above article in the Delco Times, I was able to find [27] [28] [29] ~ EDDY ( talk / contribs ) ~ 16:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC) THREE raised by Editorofthewiki. TLA tlak 02:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Michael Raiter: Sources are mainly primary. LibStar ( talk ) 05:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Christianity , and Australia . LibStar ( talk ) 05:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Pakistan , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC) 29, 24 December 2023 (UTC) 42, 25 December 2023 (UTC) 22, 27 December 2023 (UTC) 20, 28 December 2023 (UTC) 05, 6 January 2024 (UTC) It's possible that Stirrings of the Soul may meet WP:NBOOK given it won an award, though online RS reviews seem thin. ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 05:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC) 59, 3 January 2024 (UTC) BIO and I don't see any other notability criteria that are met. I don't see that WP:BOOK is met. A reading of the award process (self-nomination and an entry fee required) and its criteria does not convey obvious notability. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib ( talk ) 02:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - he's a well-known Anglican evangelist and preacher in Australia, was principal of a Bible College in Australia too which has notability in other countries. If there's no consensus to then please to Melbourne School of Theology to preserve the history of the article. Cavepavonem ( talk ) 10:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""well-known Anglican evangelist and preacher in Australia, was principal of a Bible College"" are not criteria for notability. LibStar ( talk ) 11:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The only applicable notability guideline is GNG, it requires in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and we do not have that. All the blathering in earlier contributions to this discussion about how we should ignore the guidelines and consider him notable because he's notable is content-free, circular, and should be disregarded. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 19:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist to consider option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak He's discussed in a few textbooks [35] , [36] , with a quote in this one [37] . For such a small field of study, he's somewhat well-known. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Najmadeen Mala: Notability tag since 2010. Fails WP:AUTHOR . UtherSRG (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Authors , and Iraq . UtherSRG (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Can be expanded with the references already present in https://ckb.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%86%DB%95%D8%AC%D9%85%DB%95%D8%AF%DB%8C%D9%86_%D9%85%DB%95%D9%84%D8%A7 Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Syria . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Eastmain. No good rationale for deletion. How can it possibly be a WP:BLP when he died in 1962? A very basic failure of WP:BEFORE , I'm afraid. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Old Town Manor: Orphaned for a decade. Pepper Beast (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions . Pepper Beast (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC) A Forbes contributor piece [34] , a small mention in Nat Geographic [35] , a gay-friendly hotel listing [36] and a train derailment nearby [37] , none of which help notability here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC) I'd be ok with a to ""Key West Historic District"", of which it seems to be a component. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This might be a hard one. There's WP:COI around the article's creation and the website points back here [38] . There are references to Miami Herald and Key West Citizen that might help, but we have to verify the articles and see if they are beyond a passing glance. The article can be fixed up to remove the promotional tone and anything not NPOV that can be dealt outside of this AfD. I did find out there's a historical marker at the place [39] , so it seems searching should include the name The Samuel O. Johnson House . The building is located within the Key West Historic District but it appears no historic nomination has been made for the manor. [40] [41] and was added when the boundary was increased in 1983. [42] [43] (page 121). I'm going with a weak . – The Grid ( talk ) 16:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC) PROMO. COI authorship of article. Not used in National Register application to expand district. Florida historic marker sponsored/placed by the property. No historic events or notable historic people (at least none with Wikipedia articles) cited. Citations don't show general notability. In fact, newspaper citations are worthless since they link to the Wikipedia articles about the two newspapers, not to articles about the property. They could be anything, including advertising. won't work. Brief description of historic district as a whole and list of properties with links to articles; no content about individual properties. Donner60 ( talk ) 04:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is rather perplexing. I provided a citation that shows the property is at the very least listed and included in the boundary expansion. The classification provided was conforming. See page 27 of the pdf. Of course there's not much content provided but this provides some basic information from NRHP. Florida historic markers are going to show as sponsored/placed by the property. It's a public-private partnership that will also be sponsored by the area's tourism agency. That does not negate the information that is provided on them. It looks like the historical markers of the Key West Historic Walking Tours are sponsored by the Key West Art & Historical Society. [44] top bar Historical Markers, Inc. maintains them. For this item, it looks like both entities provide the historical information on their website [45] [46] . I don't know how more ""official"" I can make this. For the news articles, that's where we have to verify them. I give benefit of the doubt for them to be pure advertising because it's from the 1950s and 1960s. I'll see if I can find the articles in question. – The Grid ( talk ) 15:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the additional comment and information on Florida historic markers. I will check back in a few days at most to see what else you may be able to add. Donner60 ( talk ) 21:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At this time, I am staying with my original comment of Delete. The citation to the NRHP document failed verification by me. The property on that page (27) is not the Old Town Manor. Simply being an old building within a historic district is not enough to show that it is notable. The house, as the Samuel O. Johnson house is on the cited Key West Historical marker tour. However, I don't see the information as making the house notable for Wikipedia. No occurrences or activities of historic note are shown. The previous owners are not shown to be notable simply by being referenced on a historical marker as previous owners who conducted businesses at the house or had a nice garden. This type of activity by owners is not uncommon for old houses and does not make it notable. I don't see this house listed on the Key West Art & Historical Society historical markers page or any of the walking tours either. The page lists 125 historical markers and I think it is significant that this house is not listed. (If I am missing it under another name, let me know in reply.) In summary, I don't see any historic notability for this house outside of it being in the district. We also know that this was one of several B&Bs which followed instructions on a YouTube page on how to evade Wikipedia requirements and to publish a promo article. The promotional/advertising nature of the article is apparent. Others may differ based on the historical marker, I suppose. As time passes it is beginning to seem unlikely there will be many additional. (I am not sure whether old listings may actually attract a few more comments.) If I have computed it correctly, this will be passing into the older Afds category tomorrow. I will check back again in a few days and will re-read the marker information to see if I should give it more weight if this AfD is still open. Donner60 ( talk ) 04:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC) 511 Eaton Avenue. Its first existence was the home of Samuel O. Johnson in 1886. I was looking beyond the name of Old Town Manor for my research above and used Eaton Lodge as well. I knew looking through Old Town Mayor would get into circular sourcing. I couldn't find anything through the newspapers which sucks. It just seems there is information here with The Samuel O. Johnson, Eaton Lodge, and Old Town Lodge but then the Old Town Manor renaming and owners add promotional language to the information that could perhaps be salvaged. – The Grid ( talk ) 17:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I imagine this will end up as no consensus (and I have no prejudice if it's brought through AfD again). I can comb through the article and copyedit a lot of the promotional language. The focus of the article on the ""Old Town Manor"" is a blip on the structure's history. – The Grid ( talk ) 14:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I too failed to find this in the NRHP link, but I'm not used to searching there. The first occupant, Samuel Otis Johnson, does not appear notable per lack of non-paid obituaries in newspaper search. I did find 51 hits in newspaper search for ""511 Eaton Street"" +Florida. The first few hits show that by the 1920s it was owned by the Warren family (particularly Dr William R. Warren), who appear to have been locally notable in 1920s to at least the mid-1950s; eg The Key West Citizen 23 Sep 1947, Page 6 gives a long account of George Allen Warren's marriage, which includes a little info on the family. There's a brief note that John Allen Long designed the interior ( The Key West Citizen 18 Feb 1938, Page 2) and something about an orchid (unfortunately didn't note the ref). Searching on ""William Richard Warren"" finds an authored piece on Mrs William Richard Warren (Myrtle Cosgrove (10 Jan 1940). Key West Women: Their Homes and Gardens. The Key West Citizen , Page 4) which calls her garden ""one of the beauty spots of the island"" and says ""her home is a center of both social and cultural things."" It definitely was a private house c. 1956, so earlier newspaper articles are probably acceptable sources. By 1987 it is an inn under the name Eaton Lodge, owned by Samuel Maxell; there's a promo piece that might be partly editorial, in Fort Lauderdale News (30 Aug 1987, page 410), which implies it is included in Humm's Guide to Key West . Proquest searches under various keywords gave ""one of the more attractive inns, a dignified Victorian house in the middle of a tropical garden"" in the NYT (Walter Logan. WHAT'S DOING IN KEY WEST. New York Times 31 Jan 1982: A.10.) I think a diligent search of local newspapers and books (eg trying to find obits for Dr William R. Warren and his wife) might well unearth enough coverage. If it is kept, it should be retitled probably to ""511, Eaton Street"". Espresso Addict ( talk ) 03:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC) Google Books finds lots of hits; including [47] which has a 2-page spread on Eaton Lodge (pp53–54), which looks to be where a lot of the article comes from. Also several separate accounts of ghosts eg [48] . Also, can't access, but Makers of America has several pages on William Richard Warren (pp. 349–353). Espresso Addict ( talk ) 05:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Assuming no consensus due to few, if any, additional comments, I can support a ""no consensus, "" result. I do this on the basis of accepting that The Grid and Espresso Addict will make the revisions and improvements that they mention in their comments. I must add that I still think the subject of the article as it stands is not notable and is promotional. However, I trust that these editors will make satisfactory additions and revisions to make it worth ing. Donner60 ( talk ) 06:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Dust Racing 2D: Fails WP:GNG . Charcoal feather ( talk ) 17:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Charcoal feather ( talk ) 17:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This game does not have enough coverage from reliable sources to get an article. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 17:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] for lack of sourcing. Plenty of hits in a German site called Computer Bild, rest are blogs. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC) This subject does not meet any notability guidelines. User:Let'srun 01:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete; quite literally nothing here and there's eight year old maintenance tags as well. Search engine pulls up no sources. This article must be sent to the cemetery. NegativeMP1 ( talk ) 07:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found 3 reviews for it, Linux Voice , Linux Format , and the official Softpedia review that's already cited in the article. With these, it certainly passes GNG. Deletion rescue man, away! ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was almost ready to withdraw, but our own article says that ""the editorial staff of the Linux Voice came entirely from the UK magazine Linux Format ."" They, therefore, don't appear to have been sufficiently independent of each other. Charcoal feather ( talk ) 22:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ehh... they are separate reviews, in separate magazines, years apart. One was written by Ben Everard, while the other was written by Mike Saunders. I am unconvinced they are related enough to disqualify it as SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure of the significance, but if you look at the editorial teams for both magazines, Ben Everard and Mike Saunders were on the editorial staff for both publications. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 03:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources found by Zxcvbnm. Timur9008 ( talk ) 14:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources are still threadbare in terms of independent commentary on the game; it is not clear to me that this game has notability. The Softpedia article has fairly minimal commentary on the game other than that it's ""fun"", with the rest being a general description commensurate with the site's status as a file hosting website. WP:VG/S seems to have some commentary that it is not a clearly reliable source. I appreciate the help finding the other sources, but I think this falls short. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 12:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It was harder since it was in Italian, but I found another review in Linux Pro. While the formatting is similar as Linux Format, so I assume there is some relation, it's indeed a completely different review by a different person appearing years later. Therefore I think it would qualify as a separate publication for the sake of SIGCOV, especially because it's for a different country. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources found by Zxcvbnm; solid work, I didn't even think to check the Internet Archive! Anyway, I think the reviews are decent enough to pass as secondary coverage. PantheonRadiance ( talk ) 08:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per new sources. Bobherry Talk My Edits 01:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still No consensus regarding sources mentioned in this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Embassy of the United States, Port of Spain: Biruitorul Talk 21:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Trinidad and Tobago , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC) ORG . LibStar ( talk ) 00:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC) GNG . Here, at the very least, an English-language WP:BEFORE should have been run through Google News. Trinidad Express , Trinidad Express 22 , Loop News , Loop News 2 , St. Kitts and Nevis Observer , Guardian 1 , 2 , 3 , among others. Pilaz ( talk ) 19:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That’s all worth a one-line summary in the bilateral relations article; a big, new, undistinguished office building isn’t remarkable in any way, routine coverage notwithstanding. — Biruitorul Talk 20:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Delaware Tennis Club Tournament: Prod removed without improvements and with arguments which don't really address the lack of indepth sourcing. Sources are passing mentions or routine coverage only. Fram ( talk ) 15:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , History , Tennis , and United States of America . Fram ( talk ) 15:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It looks like the tournament (or at least one with that name) lasted longer than one year - this article from 1925 mentions the ""twelfth annual Delaware Tennis Club Tournament"" and discusses it a bit. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 20:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mention of the 1886 edition here , but oddly it mentions C. B. Davis as the runner-up (while teamed up with Leigh Bousall) and Remak as the winner (with Cowperthait)? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 20:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [8] . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 20:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [9] [10] and [11] . The last one makes it seem like there was a doubles and singles event, the former of which Remak/Cowperthait won and the latter I guess Davis won, so that issue is cleared up. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 20:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another source discussing it . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] -- A one-off tournament held over 130 years ago does not merit an article. Even if it was held annually for some years the answer would be the same. If we had an article on Delaware Field Club , which apparently staged the tournament, we might have d there; or Delaware Tennis Club , but both are apparently NN; and so is the tournament. Peterkingiron ( talk ) 14:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Having done extensive research on historical Delaware sports, I can say that the Field Club is almost certainly notable – maybe I could create the Field Club at some point soon and have this d there, perhaps with the Delaware Field Club Open as well? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Peterkingiron - Single events can absolutely be notable and when they took place doesn't matter. KatoKungLee ( talk ) 15:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - not sure how it started but it looks to have sources now and is notable. Fyunck(click) ( talk ) 21:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Possible or to Southern Championships if it can be be established through reliable sources that it was the inaugaural holding of or forerunner to that tournament — it's stated as such in that article. However, the information in Southern Championships seems to conflict with the information provided here, which states it was a one-off tournament. Until this is resolved it's difficult to make a formal recommendation. Rupples ( talk ) 01:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've been working on a draft for the Field Club ; perhaps it could be d there when done? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 02:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist to consider or Redirect. This discussion does need to be closed whether or not a Field Club article is in main space. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The one person who could help clarify the facts here is the creator of both this and the Southern Championships article Navops47 who I initially thought hadn't been formally notified of this AfD on their talk page and that was why they hadn't contributed here. About to query this, but a check of their Talk page history shows that notification was indeed made. Without confirmation of the position as to whether this tournament was one-off or the forerunner/inaugaural to the Southern Championships we run the risk of merging incorrect information. Rupples ( talk ) 01:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Non notable, one off event. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 13:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak It looks like there's enough sources to support an article. The fact it happened once is of no importance. SportingFlyer T · C 13:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"2019 National Conference League: Not enough in-depth coverage to meet either WP:GNG or WP:VERIFY . Onel 5969 TT me 10:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Rugby league , and England . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Based on the fact that the 2012 season and 2013 season had existed on Wikipedia unchallenged before I have / currently am doing trying to update the competition to present day. That being said however, those pages aren't in great depth themselves so I would suggest that the outcome of this discussion is applied to all NCL pages from 2012 to present and also to the 2010–11 Rugby League Conference page aswell. If I'm being honest this is an issue across rugby league articles on Wikipedia and some continuity is desperately needed so it's why I want to all or bin all. However my preference would be to the pages, I don't feel the National Conference League page covers individual seasons in sufficient detail and adding the detail currently on each NCL season page to the main NCL will overload the page. Second as the majority of teams competing in the NCL have their own page, I think that Wikipedia should have some record of the competition results. Thirdly, football in England has individual season pages down to tier 9, so I don't think it's out of order for English rugby's tier 4 to have either. As for citations, I agree the pages needed to be better sourced, but that comes with building the article, and deleting it doesn't help with the building process. Mn1548 ( talk ) 15:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC) This is a very welcome addition to the coverage on Wikipedia of a leading UK rugby league competition. Rillington ( talk ) 08:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC) This competition is the top level of amateur rugby league in the UK, and is easily notable enough to warrant articles on individual seasons. Article needs improving, not deleting. J Mo 101 ( talk ) 12:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - not a single valid, in-depth independent source has been added since the beginning of this discussion. Onel 5969 TT me 10:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Done. Trust this is sufficient to satisfy the nominator. J Mo 101 ( talk ) 08:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Agreed sourcing is the issue here. I can understand the due to failing verifiability but not due to notability. That being said sources are hard to find so if people could help with that, it would be amazing. Alot of rugby league article suffer with a lack of continuity which results in pages being created which should have been done along time ago and thus sources are harder to find. At the end of the day it makes no sense to only have articles for 2012 and 2013. But to reitterate what has been said, articles need improving, not deleting, as do alot of rugby league article on Wikipedia. Mn1548 ( talk ) 11:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The rationales discuss its subjective importance within its field but do not make an argument on how it would meet a notability guideline. Do sources show notability through WP:GNG ? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh ( talk ) 16:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Just as an aside, I have added a dozen references to this article since it was AFD'd, which should show that this article easily meets GNG. A quick Google search shows there is plenty of coverage for matches played at this level. J Mo 101 ( talk ) 18:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please review after addition of new sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC) additional sourcing by J Mo 101 has shown WP:NEXISTS . Storm machine ( talk ) 01:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lacks in-depth coverage of the season as a whole. Notability isn't WP:inherited from coverage of individual matches. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Nemeton TV: While there's a fair amount of PR for this company floating around (e.g. [26] ), significant coverage is scarce. The best examples I was able to find were this writeup of a university course that they sponsor and this article about their GAA coverage acquisition , which despite a promising title turns out to be almost entirely quotes directly from Nemeton's executives. signed, Rosguill talk 18:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ireland . signed, Rosguill talk 18:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Companies , Sports , and Scotland . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment maybe the Nemeton TV is notable, however right not it's too related on primary sources and has lack of independent sources as said before. -- Johnpaul2030 ( talk ) 08:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I did some research and added significant coverage from The Guardian source, along with some Irish local sources, though they lack significant coverage. Maybe Irish folks could help more. I think the page should be Kept. Johnpaul2030 ( talk ) 09:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 02:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] there are some press releases online, and coverage on industry websites, as you might expect for a television production company that has been in that business for more than 25 years. As well as sponsoring some Royal Television Society Ireland and Scotland award categories, they had a nomination for Live Sport coverage at the RTS Scotland awards 2021. Beyond some of the online sports news articles that mentions Nemeton TV, there is some substantive press coverage which I have added to the article, for example the GAA streaming coverage in Waterford News & Star or the return of Live Action TV and celebrating 25 years both published by the Irish Examiner. Drchriswilliams ( talk ) 07:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC) GNG . Suonii180 ( talk ) 23:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Parmida Beigi: The page is full of mundane events written up as though they are not (e.g., Her research findings were published as a journal article — yes, that's what a researcher's job is to do). The only in-depth source fails the independence requirement , since it is from her employer. Other sources do not mention the subject at all, e.g., this page that just describes teaching assistantships at UBC. The h-index has its flaws as a measure of academic success and influence, but an h-index of only 10 even by the permissive standards of Google Scholar is nowhere near what we would consider highly cited . PROD was removed by article creator. XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Computing , and Women . XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the feedback. About the award, please note that NSERC is an award by the Government of Canada, intended to be a fair assessment solely based on the merits of researchers' research. PhD/Post graduate funding does not influence the selection process. I believe this individual deserves a Wikipedia page based on the guidelines outlined by Wikipedia. Apart from their academic notability (apparent from NSERC recognition alone), they have made significant contributions to the democratization of AI/ML, as evidenced by their involvement in engaging with the community through various social channels. They are highly recognized in the data science and ML community, and that's the main reason I started this page for them. The recognition by Amazon Science holds high regard in the industry, highlighting Beigi's significant contributions and community involvement. While the individual is currently an employee of Alexa AI organization, Amazon Science, is considered an independent blog that showcases exceptional individuals within the company. I'd like to highlight that only a selected few individuals are featured on this blog, and the selection process is conducted solely by Amazon Science committee itself. I would appreciate any suggestions regarding additional information that could further support the legitimacy of the article. I reorganized the main sections to improve the article. I would appreciate any further guidance or suggestions on how to enhance the article and provide additional relevant information. WikiFactEditorial ( talk ) 22:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] An NSERC CGSD2 is a 2-year scholarship to support one's doctoral work, not an ""award"" in the sense that the notability guidelines ask for. We don't write articles based on future potential . Nor does a person qualify merely for having written papers. That's what the job is about, after all. There is no way that a blog by the subject's employer can be considered an independent source for the purpose of establishing notability, no matter who within the employer decides to write it. XOR'easter ( talk ) 22:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Total fail of WP:Prof : nothing else. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 22:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] . Yet another unaccomplished ""science communicator"". Of the sources in the nominated version of the article, ""On a mission to demystify artificial intelligence"" is by her employer, so non-independent. The UBC ""teaching assistantships"" source doesn't mention her. ""Be Updated With Big Data On Instagram With These 10 Profiles"" and ""Learning Data Science Through Social Media"" are neither in-depth nor reliable. The rest appear to be works by Beigi, social media links, or mere announcements of talks by her. So we do not have a pass of WP:GNG demonstrated. The listing of awards in the infobox is decidedly unimpressive (definitely not the kind that might pass WP:PROF#C2 , nor likely to have the in-depth coverage needed for GNG). And as already noted, her Google Scholar citation counts are not yet at a level that would pass WP:PROF#C1 . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 23:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on my article. I appreciate the committee's efforts in reviewing the content. However, I would like to highlight that the term ""unaccomplished science communicators"" may not be an appropriate or accurate characterization. The individuals who are often recognized as ""accomplished"" based on the guidelines are typically the ""communicators"" in fact, working with news agencies and media outlets to share their opinion! But remember that many accomplished scientists in high-tech fields or startups are often involved in confidential projects where they cannot openly discuss their work, and may not even have any interest in getting involved with news agencies anyways. Nonetheless, they are still making significant contributions to their respective fields, if not more. Thanks for the feedback! WikiFactEditorial ( talk ) 18:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC) there's no ""committee"" here; we're all just volunteers who for whatever reason think that writing an encyclopedia is a good hobby. XOR'easter ( talk ) 19:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for clarifying, that explains it then. I didn't appreciate the disrespectful and unconstructive references and comments I encountered in some of the discussions. Anyhow, I have requested the speedy deletion of this article to facilitate the tasks of the volunteers! WikiFactEditorial ( talk ) 19:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC) NPROF is met, or significant independant coverage for WP:GNG . More like a case of WP:TOOSOON . - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 17:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Smart person gets money"" is what this boils down to, no sort of any award we'd recognize as notable. TOOSOON as well. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.",no consensus
+"John Bartlett (racing driver): I find a couple of passing references to Bartlett in reliable sources, but nothing substantial. See discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#John_Bartlett_(racing_driver) Dweller ( talk ) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC) NMOTORSPORT . The C of E God Save the King! ( talk ) 08:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC) NMOTORSPORT they are ""significant international motorsport series"" (as mentioned in the second bullet point). NuIotaChi ( talk ) 13:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Sportspeople , Motorsport , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [25] . Also [26] . Feels like there should be more coverage... BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My name is John Bartlett (the John Bartlett you are discussing). I have just been alerted to this situation. I'm not very internet savvy so not sure if I'm supposed to even comment but have been directed to this discussion. Having now viewed the various comments here I thought I should perhaps point out that my actual blog/website already has my medical history published (including the MRI scans somebody mentioned, which in fact have my name on the top of the scan, albeit very small). The MRI scan on my website site is bigger so it's easier to see my name. Re the other ""John Bartlett"" someone referred to as owning a US hockey team (I think). That person bears no relation to me, so is clearly a different John Bartlett! I therefore have no idea if what is being said about him owning a hockey team in the US is correct or not. I spent most of my racing career in the world sports car championship/world endurance championship, generally considered (at the time) to be one tier below F1. My blog also has a lot of my career facts/history/documents etc. Most of my former racing history is in paper form in book/reference books (such as the various Official Le Mans Yearbooks) etc. As to the person questioning something about my company, Maidstone Scuba, if you look at the 'Meet our team of PADI instructors' on the website, you'll see I am still the Director of Maidstone Scuba School, althow I have just seen that I am shown as being 61, which is incorrect. Because what happened to me back in 1993/4, I have always freely publish (albeit with helpers) everything. Therefore everything mentioned about me is already in the public domain and therefore their is no breach of any copyright. I'm now almost 70, and anything internet is usually handled for me by various very kind 'helpers'. I'm not a lot of good at any of this internet stuff but can be contacted by old-fashioned phone (Redacted) . I attempted to add my email address but it wont allow me to do that! Their is a messaging system on Maidstone Scuba so you can contact me on that if needed. if I can assist any further. John 77.101.199.59 ( talk ) 20:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC) Hi John. Do you know whether you have been covered in-depth in independent sources? E.g. stories focusing about you in newspapers, racing magazines, etc.? If so, let us know and that could be able to rescue the article. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 20:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, there will be lots of stuff but I'd have to search through boxes and I'm about to leave tomorrow for Birmingham for a protest outside the offices of the CCRC on Friday (we're hoping it might hit the headlines)! I do remember putting a Post of a German magazine on my Facebook page a few years ago (probably 2014/15) that did a feature of some sort about me but I have no idea what it said, as it was all in German, but it did have various photos of my Team. I have enough trouble with english as I'm very dyslexic! I will defiantly have Le Mans year books for 84/85/86/87 (the years we ran) but I'll have to find them, probably in the roof! I do know Penthouse Magazine (who were sponsoring us that year) ran a full a 2 page article on us in 1987. I suspect it was published in the July or Aug edition, as Le Mans would have been June. I'll see if I can at least find the German article for a start but it probably won't be until I get back. Thanks, John 77.101.199.59 ( talk ) 21:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That should have been ""definitely"", not defiantly!!! Anyway, I've found it, but still no idea what it says. It was 'RTL GP magazine' and I put it on my facebook page on 3rd Feb 2015. On the front cover it mentions Features on Lamborghini, De Tomaso and Bardon, a car we ran in 85/86/87 in WSPC. The Bardon was the Group C car I developed in 1996. The name was a mix of BAR (me) and DON (Robin Donovan). Robin was one of my regular co-drivers and is listed on Wikipedia. I have just re posted the magazine on my Facebook page as a memory. Hope this helps but I'm going to be away until next week now (longer if I'm arrested)! John 77.101.199.59 ( talk ) 21:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I added the message below to BeanieFan11 last night but I don't know if you also got to see that message? I will now be away until next week but I have added my direct contact info below. John My name is John Bartlett (the John Bartlett you are discussing). I have just been alerted to this situation. I'm not very internet savvy so not sure if I'm supposed to even comment but have been directed to this discussion. Having now viewed the various comments here I thought I should perhaps point out that my actual blog/website already has my medical history published (including the MRI scans somebody mentioned, which in fact have my name on the top of the scan, albeit very small). The MRI scan on my website site is bigger so it's easier to see my name. Re the other ""John Bartlett"" someone referred to as owning a US hockey team (I think). That person bears no relation to me, so is clearly a different John Bartlett! I therefore have no idea if what is being said about him owning a hockey team in the US is correct or not. I spent most of my racing career in the world sports car championship/world endurance championship, generally considered (at the time) to be one tier below F1. My blog also has a lot of my career facts/history/documents etc. Most of my former racing history is in paper form in book/reference books (such as the various Official Le Mans Yearbooks) etc. As to the person questioning something about my company, Maidstone Scuba, if you look at the 'Meet our team of PADI instructors' on the website, you'll see I am still the Director of Maidstone Scuba School, althow I have just seen that I am shown as being 61, which is incorrect. Because what happened to me back in 1993/4, I have always freely publish (albeit with helpers) everything. Therefore everything mentioned about me is already in the public domain and therefore their is no breach of any copyright. I'm now almost 70, and anything internet is usually handled for me by various very kind 'helpers'. I'm not a lot of good at any of this internet stuff but can be contacted by old-fashioned phone ([REDACTED]). I attempted to add my email address but it wont allow me to do that! Their is a messaging system on Maidstone Scuba so you can contact me on that if needed. if I can assist any further. John 77.101.199.59 ( talk ) 07:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Read your message. I'll see if I look into the German article / Facebook post soon. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC) request relisting to allow for more time to research. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Per Beanie's request, and as there is currently no consensus Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting per request at WP:Requests_for_undeletion#John_Bartlett_(racing_driver) . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC) BLPN per WP:BIOSELF JMWt ( talk ) 10:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've posted some potential sources on the article talk page. Porterjoh ( talk ) 15:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"2024 Allah word socks controversy: This is a minor news story that spread because of social media, and will be forgotten about in ten months, never mind ten years. WP:NOTNOTABLE . Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose - This is a serious matter and this is involving religious issue. Why you wanted to nominate it for deletion. What's your problem is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.141.191.165 ( talk ) 15:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just because religion is involved doesn't dispute anything the nominator said. Sadustu Tau ( talk ) 13:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Almost TOOSOON to establish notability, some press coverage, but it was only 10 days ago. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) This controversy is an important issue in Malaysia. Somehow, it will be remembered by the majority of Malaysians (notably the Malays). Thegreatrebellion ( talk ) 17:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC) NEWSEVENT . LizardJr8 ( talk ) 18:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . We don't know whether it fails the Ten Year Test. There might be some things that point in that direction, and some things that do not. Can it not be moved to just ""Allah socks""? Geschichte ( talk ) 21:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] However, the incident has caused international media reports. [14] [15] [16] MikadoYuga ( talk ) 00:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't forget with this [17] , bro @ MikadoYuga , bro @ Fandi89 , bro @ DDG9912 and bro @ Pratama26 .78.197.139 ( talk ) 23:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC) 16, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per Thegreatrebellion ( talk · contribs ), recent information on the issue should updated. – Fandi89 ( talk ) 03:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Appearing in the news is not sufficient coverage to warrant an article per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N . Unless this has lasting ramifications and long term retrospective analysis, this is not a notable historic event, just a news story. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 01:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – I previously have added a paragraph relating to the Molotov cocktail attacks, since it maybe connected to the socks controversy. DDG 9912 13:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - a minor news story does not usually have 22 different articles in the references section. Clearly notable enough. User:Sawerchessread ( talk ) 02:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strongly - Bro Pratama26 please support it. 36.78.197.139 ( talk ) 21:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC) CAN ). AfD discussions don't operate by majority-vote anyways. ArkHyena ( talk ) 22:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS . This is still just news - ""This case will be investigated..."" and charges have just been filed. There is no way, yet to know if this will blow over or not. Bearian ( talk ) 14:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Sadustu Tau ( talk ) 13:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC) TENYEARTEST ( 3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi! ) | (PS: Have a good day) 00:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON . Suonii180 ( talk ) 16:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: more policy based input needed Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk ) 14:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , plenty of references. Too soon to determine notability, but enough cites to in mainspace for now. 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 15:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as it seems to be relatively benign in nature with potential to be developed into a more notable article. SW DG 18:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - enough sources to , especially if there has been international coverage of the topic. [19] [20] However, the extent and notability of its ramifications are too early to tell. ArkHyena ( talk ) 22:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Selective to KK Super Mart . - KH-1 ( talk ) 02:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC) GNG . 115.90.199.195 ( talk ) 07:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] for now. If it was just a social media event this wouldn't be worth inclusion; however, the fact that this has led to many politicians making statements and Molotov cocktail attacks tells me that this is a fairly significant event in the country. Does need a bit of copyediting and could use a move to a more succinct title. Dan • ✉ 15:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Hot milk cake: WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV . BaduFerreira ( talk ) 13:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions . BaduFerreira ( talk ) 13:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Although it may not be obvious from the article (which I've not looked at), this is a baking technique for sponge cakes, rather than an individual recipe. One of the earliest known recipes was published in 1911. [44] It became popular during the Great Depression and wartime rationing. [45] We have some information about how the cake works (the hot milk starts cooking the egg whites before the cake goes in the oven). [46] WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 00:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Classic baking technique. Already kept in an earlier AfD. The Banner talk 15:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Bethann Siviter: Probably a WP:BIO1E . UtherSRG (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , Women , Medicine , United Kingdom , England , United States of America , and Massachusetts . UtherSRG (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning . A search of google books indicates that the Nursing Times have written two articles about her. She is a published author. She spoke about her cancer and treatment in interviews in local news . There is local news about her. She is not a WP:LOWPROFILE individual and therefore WP:BLP1E 's three criteria are not all met. (see WP:NOTBLP1E for more details on my logic). WP:BIO1E doesn't talk about deleting articles, it talks about helping us decide between a biography and an event article. My reading of it is that it directs us towards the biography in this case. CT55555 ( talk ) 15:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC) 's dePROD rationale that might get her to notability that way? Otherwise I land on deletion, unfortunately, as there doesn't appear to be a r target. Star Mississippi 16:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC) 19, 4 July 2023 (UTC) 56, 5 July 2023 (UTC) 52, 10 July 2023 (UTC) 14, 10 July 2023 (UTC) NBOOK or WP:AUTHOR notability. The second source appears to be an article she wrote for Nursing Standard , which similarly does not support notability. The third source is also written by Siviter; it helps verify aspects of her biography but does not support WP:BASIC notability. The fourth source is a book review written by Siviter, not about her work. Beccaynr ( talk ) 03:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC) GNG based on her authorship of The Student Nurse Handbook . People write vocational guidance all the time without being considered notable as a national figure. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC) 22, 10 July 2023 (UTC) 27, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Stonehouse, ""Who’s responsible and accountable? You are!"", Siviter (2005) states that accountability involves using your professional skill and judgement, to enable you to make decisions that are in the best interests of your patients—and then, importantly, being able to justify why you made those decisions. Lamp, 2008 ""Book Me"" The Student Nurse Handbook is a guide on how to get into and survive a pre-registration nursing course. Covering a wide range of topics it helps students to: make the most of clinical placements; make drug dosage calculations and administer medica-tion; write assignments; avoid plagiarism; cope with stress; and, understand nursing models, theories and philosophies. Ashurst, 2008, Nursing & Residential Care, ""Career progression: the administration of medicines"" includes an in-depth summary of some information from the handbook. There are other citations I don't have access to. — siro χ o 19:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC) 01, 16 July 2023 (UTC) 21, 18 July 2023 (UTC) My search of GBooks finds two results for the same 2008 Nursing Times source ( snippet [22] ); at ProQuest 197551015 , the available abstract includes ""Hitchen talks about how Bethann Siviter and Sylvia Kenneth, disabled nurses, overcome their disabilities. Siviter, who was eight months into the position of a consultant nurse at South Birmingham Primary Care Trust when, on Jan 1, 2006, woke up with a high fever that left her with mobility difficulties and long-term pain. Ms Siviter was declared fit to return to work and was able to retain her role as a consultant nurse for older people but her duties were different."" (Hitchen, Lisa, Nursing Times : NT; London Vol. 104, Iss. 21, (May 27-Jun 2, 2008): 16-8.) There is brief 2022 coverage in the Birmingham Mail that notes she ""worked as an NHS consultant and community nurse for 26 years. She was diagnosed with a rare form of endocrine cancer in 2019"" and she ""also wrote the Royal College of Nursing's student handbook"" but is otherwise focused on coverage from WP:DAILYMIRROR related to her delayed surgery and her statements of support for the nurses' strike (there is no consensus on the reliability of the Daily Mirror , which also reports similar biographical information). From my view, this brief, sensationalized coverage does not transform her into a high-profile individual according to the WP:LOWPROFILE essay. At ProQuest 323712684 , she is quoted in her capacity as chairwoman of the RCN Association of Nursing Students in 2002 Birmingham Post coverage, ""Registration delays leave vital nurses stranded without jobs."" There is also a 2011 source from Pretoria News on ProQuest with ""Credit: Daily Mail"" ( WP:DAILYMAIL ) at the end, and further appears unusable based on the content and because it is largely based on Siviter discussing a non-notable third-party who has a presumption in favor of privacy . In the article, there is a 2004 announcement of a book with quotes from her, and some limited biographical content, published in the Stourbridge News , a free local newspaper. This does not appear to support WP:NBOOK notability and seems to offer limited support for WP:BASIC notability. The article also cites a July 2005 Newsletter of the Elderly Services Directorate entry she wrote, with biographical information she provides, which is not independent. Based on my review above of Oaktree b's list of sources [23] , these sources do not provide independent support for WP:NBOOK or WP:AUTHOR notability. A Nursing Standard review of The Newly Qualified Nurse's Handbook – A Survival Guide (Louise Nadal, 22, 50, 31) was noted above by Atlantic306; this is the brief review I referred to above [24] available at ProQuest 219869320 (Vol. 22, Iss. 50, (Aug 20-Aug 26, 2008): 31) - it is for ""Siviter's sequel publication to the Student Nurse Handbook"" and rates the book ""*** Good"" out of five stars. The other Nursing Standard review noted in my comment, ""The Student Nurse Handbook: A Survival Guide - Second edition"" (Vol. 23, Iss. 21, (Jan 28-Feb 3, 2009): 30) is more in-depth, rates the book ""****"" and is somewhat mixed - overall the book is praised, and also includes, ""The only downside is the inclusion of chapters focusing on banding and roles, which may lead to the book becoming prematurely out of date."" So we have two books, with one independent review apiece currently available, which is not sufficient to support WP:AUTHOR notability for a collective body of work, nor WP:NBOOK notability for either book. Also on ProQuest, there are various nursing-related sources that quote her, i.e. Nursing-related sources quoting Siviter ProQuest 219804330 ""Cost of childcare pushing students into hardship"", Murray, Karen. Nursing Standard ; London Vol. 16, Iss. 23, (Feb 20-Feb 26, 2002): 6. (""RCN association of nursing students chair Bethann Siviter said [...], [...] Ms Siviter said."") ProQuest 219800393 ""Students should be taught first aid as part of training"", Duffin, Christian. Nursing Standard ; London Vol. 16, Iss. 33, (May 1-May 7, 2002): 7. (""RCN association of nursing students chair Bethann Siviter said first aid courses featuring cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) could save lives. "" (with a quote)) ProQuest 219823533 ""Equal measures"", Murray, Karen. Nursing Standard ; London Vol. 16, Iss. 34, (May 8-May 14, 2002): 12-3 (""[RCN association of nursing students (ANS)] chair Bethann Siviter says: [...] She adds [...] Ms Siviter says [...] Ms Siviter adds: [...]"") ProQuest 230483603 ""The human face of nursing"" Andalo, Debbie. "" Nursing Management ; London Vol. 10, Iss. 4, (Jul 2003): 10-2. This source examines ""life and work and the legacy [Maude Storey] has left for the nursing profession"" (""RCN council student member Bethann Siviter admits it is a pity that so few student nurses know the difference her work has made to their lives. "" followed by a quote ProQuest 219814333 ""Mentor shortages could scupper 'foundation year'"" Duffin, Christian. Nursing Standard ; London Vol. 18, Iss. 50, (Aug 25-Aug 31, 2004): 7. (""Former ANS chair Bethann Siviter said [...] Ms Siviter, the author of a handbook on becoming a model student, said [...], [...] Ms Siviter said."") ProQuest 219828652 ""New kid in town"", Duffin, Christian. Nursing Standard ; London Vol. 19, Iss. 13, (Dec 8-Dec 14, 2004): 12-3. (""Bethann Siviter, district nurse team leader in the West Midlands and an American citizen, has concerns. The challenge for UK universities, she says, [...] Ms Siviter, from Rowley Regis and Tipton Primary Care Trust, wonders [...] Ms Siviter backs the idea of PAs in principle, but says [...]) ProQuest 218612614 WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? , Duffin, Christian. Nursing Older People ; London Vol. 21, Iss. 3, (Apr 2009): 18-21., this source ""examines the findings of a survey of readers of the RCN Publishing Company specialist journals"" (""Bethann Siviter, a nurse consultant for older people from Birmingham, says of the results [...] Ms Siviter comments: [...]) ProQuest 219841777 ""Latest sickness absence figures show increase among NHS nurses"" Snow, Tamsin. Nursing Standard (through 2013); London Vol. 24, Iss. 25, (Feb 24-Mar 2, 2010): 6. (""Nurse consultant in caring for older people Bethann Siviter had nine months sick leave last year after falling on a wet floor at work. She told Nursing Standard: [...]; Ms Siviter plans to take part in a debate at RCN congress in April on giving healthcare workers priority access to health services. "" - this says what she plans to do, not what she did at the RCN congress. ProQuest 1346147167 ""OPENING DOORS TO JOB EQUALITY"" Kendall-Raynor, Petra. Nursing Standard ; London Vol. 27, Iss. 32, (Apr 10-Apr 16, 2013): 62-3. (""Nurse consultant Bethann Siviter, who became disabled following an illness, says there remains a lack of insight into disability: (with a quote) [...] Ms Siviter is unable to attend RCN congress this year, but she will be following closely a discussion topic [...] about whether disability discrimination exists in the NHS. "") - this says what she plans to do, not what she did during the RCN congress. There is a source with commentary and context on some of her other writing: ProQuest 1370336734 ""Respond to criticism with action"", Young, Lynn. Primary Health Care ; London Vol. 23, Iss. 5, (Jun 2013): 3 (""Siviter's thought-provoking columns in Primary Health Care offer a delightful, interesting and intensely personal perspective on nursing and the impact it can have on those who provide and those who receive. [...] She has been shortlisted for a prestigious award, the Professional Publishers Association columnist of the year."") - this is not entirely independent because it is published by the publication she has written for; the award shortlist appears to be independent. ProQuest 1400446299 There is also ""No task too great for is my hero Taska the wonder dog"", Varma, Anuji. Birmingham Mail ; Birmingham (UK). 03 July 2013: 24. This is a profile of her and others, with quotes from her. This source states Siviter ""was paired with the labrador in November 2011 through Canine Partners and the charity believes three-year-old Taska is the only assistance dog to be working with an active NHS nurse. "" Otherwise, there appears to mostly be results for her writing on ProQuest, or briefer mentions, e.g. ProQuest 219831127 ""Save as you learn"", Bal, Rosalind. Nursing Standard ; London Vol. 20, Iss. 3, (Sep 28-Oct 4, 2005): 36-37. (""Finally, read The Student Nurse Handbook: A Survival Guide by Bethann Siviter, published by BaillièreTindall, price £10.99. It offers practical advice to inspire and encourage you to complete your course and become a nurse."") - this sources does not seem to help support WP:NBOOK or WP:AUTHOR . Overall, I have been looking for ways to either develop an article about a book and/or support an article about Siviter according to policies and guidelines; at this time, I find it challenging to consider the sources identified in this discussion as sufficient independent and reliable support for notability according to the WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR guidelines, and WP:NBOOK also does not appear supported. We have some independent biographical and career information, and some secondary coverage, so I am leaning weak . Beccaynr ( talk ) 21:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC) the administration of medicines"") source for NBOOK? — siro χ o 22:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC) ""The administration of medicines is often an area of concern for newly qualified nurses. Adrian Ashurst discusses the principles of safe storage and best practice in the first of two articles"", so it does not appear to be a book review, and based on your description it does not appear to contribute substantial support for ""how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media"" according to the WP:TEXTBOOKS guideline. Beccaynr ( talk ) 22:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC) TWL links. Hope this link works [25] — siro χ o 23:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found it on EBSCOhost - the author cites themselves several times, and includes a table summary of ""The Five Rights"" (not referring to legal rights) related to dispensing the right medication in the right dose to the right person at the right time in the right way, cited to Siviter's 2004 book. This is not secondary commentary or analysis of her work, and not particularly helpful for supporting notability, because it is an example of her work being cited. Beccaynr ( talk ) 23:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for checking it out, wasn't sure how much weight to give it. I generally agree with your analysis, it's a borderline case to be sure, and I was hoping a move/rework to an article about the book might be an easy solution, but it looks like not. — siro χ o 23:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Nadia Naji: Fails WP:NPOL and GNG . My WP:BEFORE search didn't bring much, which could be because of the language. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 19:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , and Belgium . Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 19:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions . Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 19:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC) joint president of a national party which has elected representatives to parliament. Could be expanded with sources from the nl:Nadia Naji , mostly 2022 sources so not associated with her current candidacy. Pam D 08:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC) Would you mind taking a deeper look at the nl:Nadia Naji 's sources again? From what I can see via google translate, they only have significant coverage surrounding her election as joint president. Apart from that, I do not see significant coverage on the other sources! Also, it would be helpful if you could mention the best three sources here. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 13:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC) well, what's the matter with that? Coverage of her as one of the two leaders of an established political party. De Standaard , which we call a ""quality newspaper"", has a piece about her marriage, which also suggests a level of notability. Pam D 16:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC) Thank you, that makes two sources. If you can share one more, I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 10:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added another source. Pam D 11:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] FWIW, bladi.net has an inbuilt forum, which I'm not sure any news media has. It doesn't look very reliable and the article does not have significant coverage, so I'm not withdrawing. I'll just leave it to the closing admin to make a decision. Cheers Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 11:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 03:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC) She's the co-president of a major Belgian political party. The person who put this article up for deletion seems to be completely ignorant on Belgian politics and should refrain from putting up articles for deletion in the future on Belgian topics. Sources: https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/nadia-naji-covoorzitter-van-groen-het-vlaams-belang-spuwt-op-mensen-zoals-ik-waarom-zou-ik-tom-van-grieken-dan-een-hand-geven~b9d1cf65/ https://www.hln.be/binnenland/covoorzitter-groen-nadia-naji-over-premie-elektrische-wagens-geef-je-dat-geld-aan-heel-select-clubje-vlamingen-om-tesla-mee-te-kopen-of-aan-openbaar-vervoer-voor-iedereen~aab1ef67/ https://www.brusselstimes.com/897661/fight-against-the-far-right-must-be-mission-of-all-democrats-say-belgian-greens https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2023/11/04/ontbijtgesprek-nadia-naji-groen-michael-van-droogenbroeck/ https://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/politiek/nadia-naji-groen-waar-zijn-de-socialisten-in-het-asieldebat/ 178.51.7.219 ( talk ) Comment: Being the co-president of a major Belgian political party will obviously attract a lot of media attention, but all the sources you have shared are just interviews from routine coverage. Interviews are not independent. Notability is not inherited, so being the co-president of Groen (political party) carries no weight here. If she is as important as you claim, then there should be a lot of reliable and published third-party sources available. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 17:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC) https://www.hln.be/binnenland/interview-nadia-naji-30-vlaams-blok-woog-op-mijn-jeugd-ik-kan-vbers-geen-hand-geven-zolang-zij-geen-respect-voor-mij-tonen~af213995/ https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20240414_96614061 https://www.brusselstimes.com/221713/flemish-greens-set-to-revive-the-party-with-new-leadership https://www.dezondag.be/actua/nadia01102023/ https://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/politiek/naji-van-den-brandt-en-van-der-straeten-trekken-groene-lijst-in-brussel/ https://bx1.be/categories/news/nadia-naji-groen-sur-les-liens-avec-ecolo-entre-francophones-et-neerlandophones-on-peut-travailler-ensemble/ https://www.gva.be/cnt/dmf20231202_93310380 178.51.7.219 ( talk ) 178.51.7.219 ( talk ) 14:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Instead of sharing what you find on Google or in local searches, I would request you to analyze it yourself. HLN - Interview standaard.be - Interview brusselstimes - No in-depth coverage about the subject dezondag.be - Interview knack.be - No in-depth coverage bx1.be - Interview with no in-depth coverage on the text below. gva.be - Interview Being a co-president of Groen does not make her notable. Since she hasn't been elected to any office positions yet, NPOL does not apply. The Belgian news media, like any other news media in the world, are supposed to interview her or get a quote each time she makes a public appearance and these fall under routine coverage . The sources you have shared and subject at its current state does not pass the basic criteria . And the article cannot be d as it does not pass any of the additional criteria as well. It should either be d , ed to Groen or draftified . Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 08:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC) ""People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."" She clearly passes this, with your only objection being that a lot of coverage consists of interviews (instead of profile features?), but this is simply how Belgian media often times tends to work with regards to politicians. Furthermore [WP:BIO] clearly states: ""If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability."" I'd argue a bit [WP:IAR] applies as well here. Belgian political party presidents occupy such an important part in the Belgian political system that party presidents gain automatic notability similar to that of elected politicians. The number of sources is only going to rapidly increase over the coming weeks and months, considering the upcoming elections and government formation. 178.51.7.219 ( talk ) 22:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] IP, Jeraxmoira is saying she doesn't pass that, because these are interviews, and interviews are not independent of the subject. -- asilvering ( talk ) 05:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Adding on to what",no consensus
+"Installer VISE: The sources used in the article are mainly either primary sources or focus on the company rather than the software. An earlier attempt in 2011 to remove the article was made due to the lack of detailed and in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Currently, there is still a lack of widespread coverage in reliable sources for this article. Barseghian Lilia ( talk ) 18:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Articles that have been proposed for deletion cannot be soft d. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 18:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EMCO MSI Package Builder and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zero Install , so how is it at the end of the day?!? Thanks! -- Vlad | -> @ Vlad : We're at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion , which is different from Wikipedia:Proposed deletion . Comment - After looking at the nominator's edit history, I'm a little worried that there is some sort of vendetta, ulterior motives or conflict of interest going on here where aside from creating a couple of Armenian articles this editor appears to just be trying to installation technology-related articles. Many of the articles that the nominator has suggested for deletion have been on Wikipedia for many years - in the case of the WiX article ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WiX ) it must rank among the oldest articles having been started in 2004, so my question is why are these all being nominated for deletion all of a sudden? TubularWorld ( talk ) 13:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun ( talk ) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong . It is easy to find independent WP:RS of very reasonable quality. For example, here is an article in an IEEE publication reviewing a different installer and using Vise as a reference point for comparisons: [45] . -- Викидим ( talk ) 00:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Any suggestions in ing this article? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette Edit! 06:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've changed my vote to after having done a little more research into this software (and added a few things to the article). It appears that this was quite popular 20 something years ago, even to the point that Apple themselves distributed their own software using it. TubularWorld ( talk ) 09:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Kozhaniy Olen': I did a Google search for news, and what happened was a first one for me: there was nothing there. Nada. Niet. It obviously fails WP:GNG , and I'm surprised it lasted 11 years. Liliana UwU ( talk / contributions ) 07:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . Liliana UwU ( talk / contributions ) 07:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did end up finding links under the supposed Russian spelling (Кожаный Олень), but I don't speak Russian, so I cannot assess the little sources I found. Liliana UwU ( talk / contributions ) 07:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC) 31, 27 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Ukrainian wiki article has 3 references and looks a bit better than ours. Did anyone try a BEFORE in Ukrainian for Ukrainian sources? I concur that notability is not apparent from our English article :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC) did anyone even bother searching in Russian or Ukrainian before deciding that this article should be d? Notability does not depend on language. Here's what I found after a five-minute Google search: 2005 review of the band on an old Ukrainian alternative music website. Page also includes reviews of several other bands which were prominent in the alternative scene around that time. 2013 review of the band's album Snegiri i superklei from the same website 2007 interview with the band's frontman from a different alternative music website 2016 interview by a Russian music journalist 2015 review of the band's show in Kyiv, by a Ukrainian music journalist It's very difficult to find Ukrainian music charts from this time online, but the band's single ORZ seems to have been significant in the Ukrainian alternative scene at the time, and a number of sources mention this. That's just what I found after five minutes of Googling. I wouldn't say that it's beyond all doubt, but it seems to me that the volume of significant coverage produced without the band's participation is enough to justify notability. Akakievich ( talk ) 12:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk ) 04:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reliable, in-depth, independent. I'm not seeing or finding three articles that pass all three. This is a common problem in alternative music, but that doesn't change that it's missing here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions ∆ ° co-ords ° 18:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Let’s try relisiting 1 last time. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌) 🔥 11:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Gary Greenhill: 1keyhole ( talk ) 17:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Scotland . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC) 07, 15 May 2023 (UTC) 56, 15 May 2023 (UTC) "" They have now secured partnerships with Gym64 in Kirkcaldy, Raw Pressed in St Andrews, East Fife Football Club and some local gyms in Leven. "" Mutt Lunker ( talk ) 08:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC) 22, 15 May 2023 (UTC) 46, 15 May 2023 (UTC) 06, 15 May 2023 (UTC) If you're interested, I actually think the game, arrest and trail, built with the other stuff is enough to pass basic GNG. Regards. Govvy ( talk ) 23:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC) 57, 16 May 2023 (UTC) 29, 16 May 2023 (UTC) How can it be one event? He got sent off in one event, won a league in another event and from a twitter post get suspended for 16 matches in another event! :/ Govvy ( talk ) 21:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC) 07, 17 May 2023 (UTC) 41, 16 May 2023 (UTC) BASIC tells us that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. I believe I have done that with the amount of sources I've added since this AfD has been nominated. This footballer has been involved in multiple incidents in his career, up's and downs. I feel what I have added shows that. Govvy ( talk ) 08:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC) 26, 17 May 2023 (UTC) What are your thoughts on what WP:BASIC should be? And ye, I didn't see how to use that gossip bit! That's why I dumped it in ref-ideas on talk page. But overall, I found rather a few hits and some goods ones on his sending off's. Tell me, don't you feel I've built a decent picture there? Govvy ( talk ) 10:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC) BASIC is not an indication that weight of numbers of sources mentioning the subject is a substitute for the significance, or lack thereof. For instance, if there are multiple court reports in the press for drink driving offences by the dame in the panto at the Adam Smith Theatre , that does not establish their notability as an actor, or offender. Mutt Lunker ( talk ) 11:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC) 18, 17 May 2023 (UTC) 21, 17 May 2023 (UTC) 29, 17 May 2023 (UTC) 37, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Why do footballers get continued coverage, because they are sports people. This player has played what you call top level football in Scotland, covered a fair bit by different sources over a period of time. There is more on the web to find. I honestly feel you no longer understand the term basic coverage. You don't need SIGCOV for BASIC. Basic is the concept where you are not using in-depth coverage for the fact there is enough coverage among the spread of sources provided. Often I've noticed people go and run an in-depth analysis on each source and completely forgetting to count all the sources together. You can take all sources together, the one liners, the paragraphs from others, the whole article from another. Not one vote is doing that, there-for there is a complete dilution of the understanding of what constitutes BASIC. Govvy ( talk ) 08:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC) 07, 18 May 2023 (UTC) 49, 19 May 2023 (UTC) 18, 19 May 2023 (UTC) 03, 20 May 2023 (UTC) BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval: Comments Source Game report 1. ""Dunfermline 1-1 Dundee Utd"". BBC Sport. 14 April 2004. Retrieved 16 May 2023. Routine sports news about a signing 2. ^ ""Dalziel makes McMullan his first signing at Raith Rovers"". The Herald. Scotland. 8 January 2005. Retrieved 16 May 2023. Game report 3. ^ ""Berwick Rangers 0-3 Dumbarton"". BBC Sport. 15 January 2005. Retrieved 16 May 2023. Game report 4. ^ ""Stenhousemuir 2-3 Berwick Rangers"". BBC Sport. 30 December 2006. Retrieved 16 May 2023. Game report 5. ^ Jump up to:a b ""Berwick Rangers 1-0 Arbroath"". BBC Sport. 21 April 2007. Retrieved 16 May 2023. Routine sports news about a signing bonus 6. ^ ""Triple signing boost for Berwick"". BBC Sport. 15 May 2007. Retrieved 15 May 2023. Routine sports news about a signing 7. ^ ""East Fife sign Greenhill and Fox"". BBC Sport. 20 August 2007. Retrieved 16 May 2023. Game report 8. ^ ""East Fife 3 - 1 Stranraer"". The Herald. Scotland. 27 August 2007. Retrieved 17 May 2023. Game report 9. ^ ""Dumbarton 5-2 Berwick"". Daily Record. 2 November 2008. Retrieved 16 May 2023. GiantSnowman had it right, this is tabloid coverage of bad behavior, not SIGCOV 10. ^ Mathieson, Jack (3 November 2008). ""Exclusive: Cops charge Berwick Rangers footballer over 'push' on referee"". Daily Record. Retrieved 16 May 2023. See above 11. ^ Mathieson, Jack (26 December 2008). ""Red card ref attacker has case thrown out of court"". Daily Record. Retrieved 16 May 2023. See above 12. ^ ""Footballer fined for 'you're dead, referee' tweet"". The Scotsman. 21 January 2014. Retrieved 16 May 2023. See above 13. ^ ""Footballer fined for Twitter threats"". The Courier & Advertiser. 21 January 2014. Retrieved 16 May 2023 – via pressreader. About a food catering business subject is involved in, no SIGCOV about subject. 14. ^ Okhai, Mariam (18 July 2022). ""Fife entrepreneurs serve up 3,000 dishes a week with Super Lean meal prep business"". The Courier. Archived from the original on 15 May 2023. Retrieved 15 May 2023. I think the closest this comes to SIGCOV are the 2Es the subject was involved in and these were about minor incidents (both resulted in a league fine and missed games, one was thrown out of court), not something that someone becomes notable for. Corret me if I'm wrong, but fines and game suspensions are reasonably common? (they are in the United States, I'm assuming it is the same in Europe). // Timothy :: talk 00:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC) Per quota to games played, footballers that play football, red cards are uncommon, player fines are rare and a 16-match ban is extremely rare. That event holds SIGCOV on it's own. There were a few other sources for that I didn't add. I am not sure about your breakdown here, I have added the sources per fact, to cover that fact. So other than your dream for complete in-depth coverage on each source?! :/ Really... just add all the sources together, take the prose from each citation, combine it into one word document and see how much prose is there. And then tell me, does that one document have in-depth coverage. Govvy ( talk ) 07:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some of the references are a bit tabloidy - but wait, there's more. This Australian article about the Big Brother Incident - which no one seems to have mentioned yet. There's enough here for GNG, even without the tabloid stuff. Nfitz ( talk ) 03:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Incident mentioned , with agreement as to its triviality. I can't access your article link I'm afraid, getting ""A System Problem has Occurred To begin a new session, please login again."". Mutt Lunker ( talk ) 11:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, so it has been mentioned - subtlty. I've fixed the link . Nfitz ( talk ) 17:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] clear fail of GNG, as demonstrated by source evaluation above. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 04:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC) GNG per source analysis above. There is no significant coverage beyond a few tabloid-style entries. Jogurney ( talk ) 14:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Timothy's source evaluation. Most are routine coverage. SWinxy ( talk ) 20:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , clearly passes GNG. Source table above is biased, and tabloid coverage can be significant IMO. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 20:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid [...] The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism . JoelleJay ( talk ) 21:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Biased? what? SWinxy ( talk ) 21:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Scotsman is a tabloid now? (well, I guess most of them are - even The Times - but is the paper size they print on relevant? The table is biased, simply dismissing this good Scotsman source as a ""Tabloid"" Nfitz ( talk ) 22:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ye, it's really bizarre, voting, disregarding BBC, The Scotsman and The Courier & Advertiser! :/ Govvy ( talk ) 17:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I've gone ahead and evaluated the sources again. For future-proofing, I am referring to this revision. Source(s) Evaluation Policy or Comment 1-6 not SIGCOV Passing mentions only. 7 not SIGCOV Per WP:SPORTCRIT , mentions in databases with ""low, generic standards of inclusion"" do not establish notability. these BBC SPORT ""reports"" on games and transfers have almost no standard of inclusion, they report on practically all matches and transfers. 8 not SIGCOV Passing mention only. 9 not SIGCOV Again, this is a report on a match from a source that generates these reports indiscriminately. 10 Borderline This coverage of an event that is specific to Greenhill constitutes significant coverage. The low reliability of the source poses an issue, especially since it's an allegation of a crime relating to a WP:BLP . To me, it's not clear that the Daily Record is sufficiently reliable to be used as the source for such an allegation. 11 Borderline Additional coverage of the alleged ""shove"" again constitutes SIGCOV, but the issue of low source liability persists. 12 Good Low circulation <10,000 of the source newspaper (The Scotsman) is not optimal, but this still contributes to notability. Allegation of a crime / serious misconduct (causing fear and alarm) needs to be well-supported, see below. 13 Good Additional reporting on the same incident by a different source means this incident can likely be included in an article. 14 not SIGCOV I cannot access this article due to a paywall, but going off of Robby.is.on 's summary, this is not significant coverage of the individual. There is significant coverage of Greenhill in 4 references coming from 3 different sources. One of them has limited reliability, but two of them (coincidentally reporting on the same incident) appear reliable. I think this collection of reporting quite clearly meets the threshold for notability. As I mention above, I don't think the coverage in BBC SPORT is significant enough to contribute to notability, but of course it can be used to verify individual claims. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 16:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC) 48, 28 May 2023 (UTC) BIO1E and WP:BLP1E provide some guidance, but it's certainly a tricky situation. Here are some factors going into my interpretation: According to BIO1E, ""the general rule is to cover the event, not the person."" However, in my opinion, it would be absurd to have an article entitled ""Greenhill Shove of Referee"" or ""Greenhill Tweet Scandal"" as opposed to just an article on Greenhill himself. If Greenhill is notable, he is notable as a footballer, not as a referee-shover or tweeter. The events are certainly less notable than the individual. Nowadays, nobody cares about death threats on Twitter; unfortunately, they are nothing out of the ordinary. The only reason this was reported on at all was who was making the threat. If this event is notable, it is notable in virtue of its association to Greenhill, not on its own. The one-event-rule in WP:SUSTAINED is qualified by this condition: ""if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event [...]"". A part of me wants to say that the shoving incident and the twitter incident were distinct events, but that feels like rule-lawyering. So instead, I will point out that he has received SIGCOV as a footballer (within the context of his games), even if not for his football abilities in the strict sense. All the coverage exists within the context of him being a professional footballer, and he will most likely continue to be just that for a while. Thus, at least in my mind, he is notable as a footballer , even if not for being a particularly outstanding one at his craft. Govvy said he plays at the ""top level"" of Scottish football. I don't know enough about Scottish football to evaluate that claim, but taking it to be true, here's another thought: A player who plays a country's most popular sport at the national level and has received coverage beyond that mere fact is probably notable. For my conclusion, I will (for the first time) invoke WP:IAR , relying on WP:COMMONSENSE for policy interpretation. To me , and this is distinctly a matter of opinion, the volume of coverage is sufficient to show that there is real value in having an article about this person. In the end, the notability criteria exist to ensure that articles provide some value to readers. It's not unusual for biographies to land on this razor edge of just barely meeting the technical notability criteria set out in policies and guidelines. Of course we can count sources and argue endlessly about the precise threshold of source reliability or the duration of ""sustained"" reporting required to establish notability, but it is more practical to ask: ""Does this article make Wikipedia better, does it provide readers with value to have it here?"" and ""Is that value outweighed by the confusion or ambiguity the article could create?"" And to me, in this case, the answers are Yes and No, respectively. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 19:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC) 48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 ( talk ) 02:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC) 07, 29 May 2023 (UTC) N. Hobit ( talk ) 00:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Wood diesel: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 13:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Was newly developed in the lab and has not become an actual product since. Reywas92 Talk 14:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your ability to purchase the article subject has nothing to do with it's notability. small jars t c 16:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC) 10, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It would be more notable if RSes had more things to say about it. I guess production could be one of those things. I do agree there's content issue with the weight given to enviromental/economic benefits in this and the section in pyrolysis oil if they haven't come to fruition. It should focus on the science if the topic is experimental. small jars t c 14:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC) What links here is part of WP:BEFORE . If you had checked, you should have found two distinct reliable sources on wood diesel at pyrolysis oil , enough to pass WP:GNG . small jars t c 16:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not independent reporting, it's a press release by the University of Georgia touting their own researchers' publication. This is essentially the same thing repackaged, using the same quote <""It's going to take a while before this fuel is widely available,"" Adams said. ""We've just started on developing a new technology that has a lot of promise.""> Without any further development of additional research publications and independent discussion, I do not see notability, and Wikipedia is not the place for stand-alone articles for any new technology. I maintain my vote and would also suggest removing it from Pyrolysis oil unless this moved beyond this lab. Reywas92 Talk 21:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair points and I should have been less arrogant. It still seems to meet GNG from sources such as [2] and [3] , though these seem to be less practical forms of diesel-compatible biofuels based on wood than the one the article is currently focussed on. small jars t c 22:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There's this [4] , I'm not sure if it's the same product though. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could to biomass, which I think is a similar product, but I'm not an expert in biofuels. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC) 48, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The thing about that is that ""wood (bio)diesel"" seems to refer to various biofuels that can be combined with or used as a replacement for (bio)diesels, rather than to biodiesel in the proper sense of the word. small jars t c 10:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 20:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC) 02, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to biofuel or biodiesel . This is clearly a thing that exists and has been reported on in reliable sources ( [5] , [6] ). Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 16:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to determine whether deletion or merging is the better solution (and if it is Merge, to which specific article). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The subject seems to be important, there is one source only, but the article can be improved. Adler3 ( talk ) 00:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC) ITSNOTABLE and WP:ASSERTN . You can't make vague statements about notability without backing them up. If you can find sources that do, I am willing to change my vote. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC) //biomassmagazine.com/articles/19846/alleo-energy-produces-renewable-diesel-from-wood-waste https://www.dw.com/en/powering-cars-with-diesel-made-from-wood/a-16148231 These sources seems to talk about Wood diesel. There might be overlaps with another article Adler3 ( talk ) 15:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Adler3 is now blocked, but both the sources they gave are good finds which are not derivative of the press release that ! voters brought up earlier in the discussion. We still have the problem that wood (bio)diesel is a loosely defined concept, and this article could benefit from expert attention. small jars t c 16:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Eva Devi: Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 21:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , and Indonesia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC) There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [37] . He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [38] [39] . Also there's another sources about the subject [40] , [41] , [42] , [43] , [44] , [45] . 202.43.93.9 ( talk ) 03:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] — 202.43.93.9 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Removed per WP:SOCKSTRIKE . Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 20:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC) The sources in the article along with this and this should be enough for GNG. At the very least, it's very likely that there is SIGCOV in offline sources. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 09:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Additionally, there appears to be SIGCOV of her in this and this . Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 12:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Devi probably passes NACTOR as well. She starred in Senyum Nona Anna (coverage here ), Papa, Mistery in Hongkong, Pulau Putri, Kenapa Kau Pergi and Jurus Maut. She also starred in Mei Lan, Aku Cinta Padamu, which according to this launched the career of Hendra Cipta. It's likely that these films have SIGCOV in offline sources. It's a shame that that's unverifiable though. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 10:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC) An article about an Indonesian actress and model with unverifiable notability. On English wiki, every statement must be verifiable by at least a reliable source. Here, the films listed weren't sources and won't count to NACTOR. There has no been any recognition or I influence cited by peer for acting in Indonesia films; infact BEFORE have nothing except existence on books which still commutes non notability per SIGCOV. I won't rather vote for now since I am not used or neither speaks Indonesian language (there may be existing but I have clear doubts because the article I saw on ID Wikipedia cited no source.) This is not also a case of System bias, while I can't find maybe two successive citations to her impact in the 1990's or an interview in the 2000's on her role. On the other hand, I will say for now. All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk ) 10:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I am of the opinion that nobody should strike comments from an AFD they initiated . Though it may seem clear-cut, the nominator should instead have a third party carry out the sockstrike. Geschichte ( talk ) 11:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"The Curve (shopping mall): Could not find significant coverage, many of the sources identified in the last AfD are now dead links. LibStar ( talk ) 23:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Malaysia . • Gene93k ( talk ) 05:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV , as they are more focused on events there. If we include the next-door eCurve (which I don't think is part of the article), there would be a lot more sources. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 00:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"WBNM-LD: [ [2] ] probably qualifies, but one source isn't enough. Let'srun ( talk ) 14:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kentucky . Let'srun ( talk ) 14:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here's #2 . Those two sources alone help. It's understandable that coverage of this LPTV trails off into nothing. The fact that it was supposed to be a Star Television Network affiliate (as in your source) is a surprise. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 19:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 17:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft . All the sources so far scream WP:ROUTINE , even including a local fight over an antenna (snooze), and I couldn't find anything else substantial, but I have a soft spot for almanac entries in the Wikipedia, and that's how I think of populated places as well as radio/TV stations of any size. They are what we may call naturally connecting subjects that provide information that everyday folks may be looking up. Per that and WP:NOTPAPER , I can't see that ing it particularly harms an encyclopedia. Stefen Tower s among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 07:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 19:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"L.N. Tallur: Purely reads like a resume. 2nd citation does not open and the award is also not a notable award. Totally fails WP:BIO Trolli Onida ( talk ) 23:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Visual arts , South Korea , and India . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 00:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I added some references. The Škoda Prize is no longer offered since Skoda withdrew its sponsorship after the first three years, which is why the prize's website is dead. The Internet Archive has several archives of the prize's website, though, and I think the prize is notable. This might be a good time to encourage anyone considering nominating an article for deletion to do WP:BEFORE . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 00:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I removed ALL the self-referential embedded links to the artist's site. This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST . He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. The article was created by SPAs User:Nature Morte and User:Nature Morte 1 . Long gone. No attempt to the article up to date. The single citable award of the Škoda Prize does not establish notability WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 15:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC) NARTIST . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 10:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . We also have to look at the general notability criteria. Tallur is also substantively covered in the following independent sources: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/plumage/ln-tallurs-miniature-masterpieces-in-bronze/ https://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/art-and-culture/ln-tallur-art-sculptures-delhi-5829200/ https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/features/conversations-on-the-fringe-814943 The article could certainly do with additional high-quality content, however. Agree that winning a prize does not confer notability – we have to look at coverage in reliable sources. Enervation ( talk ) 07:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This is contentious not because of the number of sources present, but because of the notability of the artist despite the number of sources. He doesn't meet any of the criteria for the guideline that applies to creative professionals and hence the article should be d. Trolli Onida ( talk ) 13:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm just not seeing the notability with the ""prize"" won, the rest isn't much to go on. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , the existing references and further available sources mentioned above denote both notability and coverage. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 11:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The existing sources are either passing mentions, native advertising, or notification of wining the the Škoda Prize, which we seem to agree isn't enough to confer notability. The new sources added to this discussion, but not added to the article, are very puffy pieces, and in the third instance ( https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/features/conversations-on-the-fringe-814943 ) an interview. I don't see that the subject has been proven to be notable. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . First, on the face of it, an Indian art prize so prominent that its being awarded to the article subject gets a full article in the notably non-India-centric Wall Street Journal would seem very likely to be a well-known and significant award or honor , satisfying ANYBIO . Maybe there's a reason why appearances are misleading here, but it hasn't been expressed in this discussion. Second, setting that aside, we have at least two articles in very highly respected periodicals (WSJ + The Hindu ) that appear to be independent of the article subject and cover him sufficiently directly and in sufficient depth that no original research is needed to extract the content . (I think it's important to separate the question of whether coverage prompted by the Skoda Prize meets the threshold for NBASIC from whether the prize meets ANYBIO.) We also have this piece in the Hindustan Times that is wholly about the article subject's works though somewhat short on biographical detail. That seems ample for NBASIC. Finally, while there is some promotional abuse in the history of this article, there appears to be none in its present or foreseeable future, the creators having moved on, so I don't think that is likely to affect our ability to provide encyclopedic coverage. In sum, it seems to me that even if the article subject does not meet ANYBIO he meets NBASIC. -- Visviva ( talk ) 02:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist but I'm seeing No consensus right now. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I think he has an WP:ANYBIO pass with the Skoda prize. CT55555 ( talk ) 02:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Kaya Comer-Schwartz: As always, the councils of London boroughs are not a level of office that confers an automatic free pass over Wikipedia's inclusion criteria just because the person exists -- it's a valid notability claim for an article that's sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG , but not an instant inclusion guarantee that overrides any sourcing problems. But the referencing here consists entirely of a mixture of primary sources (her member/staff profiles on the self-published websites of her own party and the council) that aren't support for notability at all, and a small smattering of run of the mill coverage in Islington-based community hyperlocals , with not even one hit of citywide or nationalizing coverage shown at all. Serving on borough councils, even as the leader of the council, simply isn't an ""inherent"" notability freebie in the absence of much better sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England . Bearcat ( talk ) 14:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC) Upon reevaluation of the article about ""Kaya Comer-Schwartz,"" it is evident that the references provided are from reliable sources. Let's break down the sourcing: 1. The first citation, "" Black History Makers: 'They said I profited from tokenism' – Kaya Comer-Schwartz "" is a news article on the Islington Gazette , a well-known newspaper founded in 1856. 2. The second citation, "" Islington Labour urges government to support low-income households ,"" is from a local news website. 3. The third citation is a primary source from the Labour party itself. 4. The fourth citation, "" Cllr Kaya Comer-Schwartz appointed first Black woman Leader of Islington Council ,"" is from The Voice (British newspaper) , a national paper and a reliable source. 5. The fifth citation is a primary source from Islington Council's government website . 6. The sixth citation is again a primary source from "" Democracy in Islington ,"" a government website. 7. The seventh citation, "" Cllr Kaya Comer-Schwartz takes over as leader of Islington Council ,"" is a reliable source from the Islington Gazette . Furthermore, there is another notable article about Richard Watts (politician) , who was succeeded by Kaya Comer-Schwartz in Islington London Borough Council . Upon evaluating these articles and citations, it is clear that notability has been established. The presence of a previous similar councillor's article on Wikipedia also supports the notion that politicians in this council are notable. Thank you. Arhamic ( talk ) 02:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Added some more reliable and independent citations one from Islington Tribune which is also about Kaya Comer, another citation from NewsinCyprus.com , one from BBC and more. Arhamic ( talk ) 02:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources being reliable isn't the only test they have to satisfy — the sources do have to be reliable, yes, but they also have to be covering her in a context that would satisfy the notability criteria for her occupation. For example, every local councillor in every town and city on the planet can always show some evidence of local coverage in their local media — but every local councillor in every town and city on the planet is not always notable enough for Wikipedia . We're not just looking for whether local media coverage exists in a councillor's local media — we're looking for whether a councillor's coverage establishes a compelling reason to treat her as a special case who occupies a special niche of elevated importance over and above most other local councillors, to the point that people on the other side of the world need to read an article about her. Bearcat ( talk ) 16:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This comment is only generalisation about content, it does not specifically evaluate the sources presented. She's notable because she's being written about with SIGCOV in reliable sources. The sources do not focus on her presiding over a council meeting, or reading minutes of a previous meeting (which could rightly be considered routine), they cover her celebrating Irish revolutionaries, being the first black leader of the council etc. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 10:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC) NOT ... SportingFlyer T · C 10:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] non-notable borough councillor - almost all of the coverage is utterly routine that every borough councillor would receive and while it looks like she was covered in Cyprus, the website says the article was ""automatically added to the system."" It also reads promotionally, like a CV, and if kept needs to be rewritten, but could also be d on PROMO concerns. SportingFlyer T · C 22:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] not a ""borough councillor"" but a Black-Jewish Leader of a municipal area with 200,000+ people in one of the most significant metropolies on the planet. (FWIW, that population is almost three times the average UK parliamentary consituency). More than adequate sourcing available to satisfy the GNG: eg Town Hall leader: ‘Racism left me feeling worthless’ , Cllr Kaya Comer-Schwartz appointed first Black woman Leader of Islington Council , Plaque unveiled in London honouring Irish revolutionary Michael Collins . Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 10:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first article is the local paper covering local politics so therefore routine, the appointment is clearly routine coverage, and the latter isn't significant coverage, just an article on an event she attended. SportingFlyer T · C 10:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The number of people who do or don't live in the entity that a politician represents is not relevant to our notability criteria for politicians at all. An MP isn't notable because of the number of voters in his or her own constituency, an MP is notable because he or she sits in a national body whose law-making jurisdiction encompasses a whole country, and thus has national authority and relevance beyond just their own constituency alone. You can live in the Shetlands and still have every bit as much need to know and read about Caroline Dinenage as anybody in Gosport does, because as a national MP she still has equal impact on your life no matter where in the UK you live — so her notability doesn't hinge on how many voters live in Gosport , it hinges on how many people live in the entire United Kingdom . So a borough councillor isn't of equivalent notability to an MP just because the borough's population might match that of an individual parliamentary constituency, because the borough council's area of jurisdiction isn't equivalent to that of parliament. Bearcat ( talk ) 16:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To reiterate, that's not the crucial element (hence ""FWIW""), it's the sourcing. Nevertheless, population numbers can be a factor when considering notability, it's right there in WP:POLOUTCOMES : ""Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD"". Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 05:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] She's clearly not a mayor, though, and mayors of regionally prominent cities are generally kept because they'll receive coverage not just in their city, but outside their city... SportingFlyer T · C 22:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""She's clearly not a mayor"" ... can I suggest reading this and this to understand the difference between the Leader of Islington Council (primarily political) and the Mayor of Islington (primarily ceremonial). There are sources showing coverage outside of Islington. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 00:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No need - I understand how it works, especially given I'm writing this comment from Islington. SportingFlyer T · C 09:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Former rate payer myself. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 09:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions . Goldsztajn ( talk ) 02:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I had been leery about the possibility of notability for someone in this role, but the reality of the article is that the role is notable and the in-depth independent sources available from national sources demonstrate that the notability standard has been met. I acknowledge that some of the sourcing is drawn from local publications, but in totality the standard is met. Alansohn ( talk ) 20:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Notable political leader, valid claim of notability, passes WP:GNG due to: https://www.islingtontribune.co.uk/article/well-be-good-listeners-says-council-leader-as-she-invites-residents-to-say-what-they-really-think in Islington Tribune https://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/21228276.councillors-grandad-survived-nazi-concentration-camp/ in Islington Gazette (relies somewhat on primary content, but still proves some notability) https://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/article/inequality-cannot-be-right-says-boroughs-first-black-leader in Camden New Journal Combined with lots of interviews, primary sources, and less significant coverage, this all adds up to enough for me to ! vote . I recognise number 2 above is open to debate, but WP:THREE isn't a policy, and even if you disagree with that, I'll invoke WP:IAR and say the existence of this article about a Council's first Black women leader is a net positive to the encyclopedia, obviously information that people would seek out, not WP:PROMO and useful content. CT55555 ( talk ) 23:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those are all hyper-local publications. Local political leaders are rarely notable enough for Wikipedia, and we generally require at least some non-local news on them which pass GNG. SportingFlyer T · C 18:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We require a lot more than just run of the mill local coverage in the local media to deem local officeholders notable enough for an international encyclopedia — we would need to see nationalizing or internationalizing coverage, or at the very least reams and reams more than just three hits of local coverage. As I said above, every local politician in the world can show a handful of coverage in their local media — so we're not looking for just the bare minimum needed to verify that she exists , we're looking for a depth and volume and range of coverage that marks her out as a special case of greater notability than everybody else. Bearcat ( talk ) 16:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I'm sorry, but I'm simply not seeing sufficient coverage that isn't extremely local and routine for an elected member of a municipal government. I would be willing to accept the size-of-constituency argument in some cases, but with all due respect, Islington simply isn't large enough for that. The equivalent for all of London might be a different matter. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 17:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC) ATD . Suriname0 ( talk ) 19:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The position is of a local councillor and the coverage is ultra local to Islington. There is no national nor intenational coverage to indicate it passes WP:SIGCOV . There is nothing here that indicates the person is notable. It has been accepted that local coverage is sufficient to satisfy notability. At best it satisfies WP:V and that is the limit of it. scope_creep Talk 09:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I was tempted to close this as ""no consensus"", but I think one more go round, analysing the sources already given in the article, and this debate, would be useful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Routine coverage about her political dealings. Not seeing the required notability. We'd need a heck of a lot more talking about her to be at GNG. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The Irish Post and the BBC are not ""hyperlocal"" sources. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 12:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC) PRIMARY and of no use to establishing notability. It wouldn't be significant coverage. It is also commerating the Irish community in Islington, make it ultra-local coverage. The BBC is just up the road, and does a enormous amount of London reporting on all sorts of stuff that never reported on in the regions, unfortunately. I don't see that significant either. If it was the BBC India covering the event, then yes, that would be ideal. The two of them are confirmation that she not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep ( talk • contribs ) 21 September 2023 7:25 (UTC) London constitutes around 15% of the UK population, we do live in the digital era and it's not as though the journalists sitting in Broadcasting House are too lazy to do something other than head up Euston Rd to find stories; the scale of news items about London is a reflection of its size and *international* significance. The Irish Post is a *national* news outlet covering issues related to the *international* Irish diaspora and the cited story has municipal, national and international connections. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 06:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The only reason it was reported in the Irish Post was because the Irish Ambassador was there, not because of the councillor. That is the test. If he wasn't there it wouldn't have been reported. It is WP:PRIMARY . All of it is local to Islington. scope_creep Talk 12:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I see no basis for parsing the editorial decisions of the Irish Post. WP:PRIMARY is not policy against their use, it is about how they are used: ""Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense"" (see also WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD ). Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 20:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I feel that enough of the sources are about her and not the position. If this is chose to not be kept I think that there could be a future for this so a would be better than outright deletion. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Knysna fine art: My confidence in the sources is not enhanced by the fact that all of them are blocked by the library where I edit. TheLongTone ( talk ) 13:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts , Visual arts , Museums and libraries , and South Africa . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources are accessible for me. Some are not independent, but I believe this contributes to N:ORG while this is not likely independent content. Weak as I imagine there's some offline sourcing. I'll look for it while this is at AfD. Star Mississippi 13:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC) 34, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I submit that the subject of the article should be eligible for publication as the gallery in question is the largest of its kind in South Africa. I have added additional sources since first publication DoubleTripleYou ( talk ) 09:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is promotional, stating It is considered one of the top contemporary galleries in South Africa with a citation to a travel guide and no further information about why it might be considered important. Also states Read, who is considered one of the foremost authorities on contemporary South African art with citation to the gallery's site and a tour guide. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC) looking at the sources as a whole, what doesn't fail WP:V fails WP:N . Not part of my consideration but notable to the discussion is the concerns about WP:PROMOTION . microbiology Marcus ( petri dish ) 16:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Bassel al-Assad Stadium: The disambiguation should be d per WP:ONEOTHER : If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. (This means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page.) Toptanazikov ( talk ) 06:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations . Toptanazikov ( talk ) 06:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 20 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 06:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC) neither has been identified as the Primary Topic, and page views don't show a massive difference. Pam D 07:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 15:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Could make Bassel al-Assad Stadium (Homs) primary and add a hatnote. The Homs article had a lot more traffic in the past and still has a little more. Flurrious ( talk ) 22:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner ( talk ) 19:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Cooperative web: It might be possible to create an article about Blue Spruce, but this article's title and content are not appropriate for such an article. There's also the older, wiki-inspired collaborative service CoWeb , which stands for ""Collaborative website"", but this service is unrelated to IBM's project. Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 20:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software . Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 20:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Capital punishment in the State of Palestine: This page seems like an invalid DAB, but perhaps someone here can salvage it. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 01:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Palestine . Walsh90210 ( talk ) 01:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC) G5 . BilledMammal ( talk ) 01:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"List of French words of English origin: I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason: List of French words of Gaulish origin ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) List of French words of Germanic origin ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) List of French words of Germanic origin (A-B) ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) List of French words of Germanic origin (C-G) ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) List of French words of Germanic origin (H–Z) ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Pepper Beast (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and France . Pepper Beast (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you think it would be a good idea to move it to Wiktionary instead? Obviously these articles have value, so I think we should retain them, but in the other wiki. איתן קרסנטי ( talk ) 06:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not familiar enough with Wiktionary policies to have an opinion. Pepper Beast (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mae yr erthygl hon yn cynnwys llawer o eiriau sydd yn debyg iawn i eiriau Cymraeg (sydd hefyd yn iaith Geltaidd) sydd ddim yn dod o eiriau Lladin na Saesneg. Felly rydw i yn sicr ei fod yn adnodd pwysig iawn i'w chadw fel cofnod o eiriau Ffrangeg sydd yn dod o hen iaith Gaul, felly dylai gael ei chadw er mwyn ei phwysicrwydd. Nid yn unig oherwydd diwylliant Ffrangeg, ond y ddiwylliant Geltaidd sydd yn gorchuddio llawer o Orllewin Ewrop, yn cynnwys Sbaen, Y Wlad Belg, Y Swisdir, Gogledd Yr Eidal, a Gorllewin a De'r Almaen. Wrth ddileu'r dudalen hon, rydym yn dileu darn pwysig o'n hanes a'n diwylliant. This article contains many words that are very similar to Welsh words (which is also a Celtic language) which do not come from Latin or English. Therefore I am certain it is a very important resource to be kept as a record of French and Celtic words that come from the old language of Gaul, so should be kept because of its importance. Not only for its importance in French heritage, but also for Celtic heritage which spans most of Western Europe, including Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, the North of Italy, and the West and South of Germany. Gareth ap Emyr ( talk ) 21:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Well, it's Euro-centric. The Academie Francaise isn't representative of French in Quebec, the Office de la Langue Francaise sets suggestions for Quebec French, which is mostly what we use here in Canada. This would need a rewrite for a more global view and most of this is unsourced. There's something here, but I'm not sure even a draft would fix this. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A selfie is égoportrait [10] , literally an ego-portrait. I suppose we could draft it, but this would be a project. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If we were to this one, we'd also have to all similar articles, and there's a lot (five just for the lists of English of French origin). I've never encountered such lists on the Wiktionary, but it would indeed maybe make more sense to have these there. But in the end it wouldn't make any major difference. Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé ( talk ) 01:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC) //en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_terms_derived_from_French Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé ( talk ) 01:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC) //en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:French_terms_derived_from_English Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé ( talk ) 01:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the opening context and various ancillary information are not adequately covered by the relevant Wiktionary categories. It is desirable to expand these articles into something like Influence of French on English which is an encyclopedic discussion of the topic and not just a list, but these lists are better than nothing and better than a link to a Wiktionary category. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 03:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus here yet to take any particular action with this bundled nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To be honest I'd just the lot of them, these seem too niche to be of interest here, without some further scholarly discussion around these words, which seem to be missing from the article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC) 's recommendation of expanding the article to be similar to Influence of French on English . It has problems with the way it's currently written, but it isn't unrecoverable. Ships & Space ( Edits ) 01:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Potters For Peace: Source 3, 10 and 13 are dead. In any case, sources 10 to 15 are about Ceramic Water Purifiers and not this organization, so it's a content fork. LibStar ( talk ) 00:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Environment , and Colorado . LibStar ( talk ) 00:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I don't have time to fix the article myself right now, but a Google Scholar search shows up lots of articles about the group. Some discuss the group itself while many are about the technical quality of their water filters. Rarick, Charles A. and Duchatelet, Martine, Potters for Peace: Building Social Entrepreneurs One Piece at a Time (2006). Journal of the International Academy of Case Studies, 4(1)2006, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2491964 Carpenter, B. S. (2010). Embodied Social Justice: Water Filter Workshops as Public Pedagogy. In Handbook of Public Pedagogy: Education and Learning beyond Schooling (pp. 337-340). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203863688-52 Kowalski, K. (2008). Removal of virus-sized particles and escherichia coli by the potters for peace ceramic water filter (Order No. 1460862). Available from ProQuest One Academic. (288219160). Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/removal-virus-sized-particles-escherichia-coli/docview/288219160/se-2 Lijil ( talk ) 08:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering ( talk ) 01:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Sources don't have to be available online to be valid. In this case, the references that appear to be dead may be available through The Wikipedia Library or a university library. I think that the references establish notability. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Lakshmi Shruti Settipalli: Sources are not secdondary or independent dont meet WPINDP or WP:SIRS Comintell ( talk ) 07:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , and Tamil Nadu . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC) All I find are PR items [27] , [28] which at least confirms it's written by ANI PR, [29] and [30] , none of which are RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC) The article needs inline citations and may have originated for promotional purposes, but still meets notability. I dug through the listed sources and converted the bare URLs into citations. It turns out that two of the sources do provide significant coverage that is independent and reliable. ""Lakshmi Shruti Setttipalli Was Intrigued by Squash When She First Saw It Played"" is published in Prosquash , the leading source for squash in India (where the sport is big). The other solid source is the extensive article, ""I Want To Be The Best"" in the Deccan Chronicle . Rublamb ( talk ) 21:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC) GNG . ~ Kvng ( talk ) 22:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . As has been pointed out, there is some coverage. That said, it falls short a bit of the WP:GNG . gidonb ( talk ) 02:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see what's wrong with the Deccan Chronicle article; that's an extensive full-page feature story. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Zirkeyk: Hongsy ( talk ) 14:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions . Hongsy ( talk ) 14:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC) 20, 28 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Reference #2 is the official Census of Iran . If a town is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#11), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable. @ Hongsy , is Zirkeyk listed? Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE . Thanks, -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - This is an abadi , which is a class of rural locality explicitly excluded from GEOLAND as so many of them are not actual communities but instead pumps/farms/factories/etc. However, locations with populations above 100 are supposed to be slowly being converted into actual villages, so it's possible this is a real place. FOARP ( talk ) 11:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 17:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . There's at least a school there, per IRNA ( معاون سياسي اجتماعي استاندار سيستان و بلوچستان در سفر يك روزه به شهرستان خاش از مدارس زيركيك و ده قلعه ايرندگان ديدن كرد و مشكلات حوزه آموزشي اين بخش را مورد بررسي قرار داد appears to refer to a زيركيك in Irandegan, which would correspond with the entity in this article). That being said, the IRNA link isn't significant coverage, and my Persian language abilities are quite limited, so I'm having a hard time finding anything about this place other than it exists, has a school, and has some small population. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Mollie Milligan: Only minor roles. Fails WP:NACTOR . UtherSRG (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , United States of America , and Texas . UtherSRG (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Entire career seems to be bit parts, lots of hits in Gsearch, only confirming the one-off or minor roles. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The last discussion hinged around her role in the ""Spit on your Grave"" movie; ok fine, but she doesn't seem to have done much either before or since, so it's still a ! for me. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The biography qualifies under WP:ENT because of the films she produced/coproduced, acted in, as well as was an executive producer for. NOTE: There are many additions of cited information as well as more complete information since this was last voted on. Starlighsky ( talk ) 04:12, 10 July 2023 WP:ENT is only a guideline and is superseded if there are no sources. I waded through 10 pages of Google results without seeing anything substantial - with most actors/creatives with significant film roles you'd expect some press coverage at least from local/regional media, but not seeing anything reliable even below the required quantity. -- Colapeninsula ( talk ) 11:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC) ENT and largely per Onel5969's contribution to the previous AFD , which does not seem to have been successfully refuted. We seem to have significant, verified roles in at least three notable films: I Spit on Your Grave (2010 film) , The Gray Man (2007 film) , and Three Days in August . (As to WP:ENT being only a guideline, I feel compelled to note that the WP:GNG is also only a guideline, and the GNG and SNGs are on an equal footing in affording only a presumption of notability.) -- Visviva ( talk ) 23:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC) My vote below does not directly address what Onel said, but it is relevant; with both WP:GNG and WP:ENT being ""only"" guidelines, I think there's room to say that the subject technically meets the requirements of WP:ENT but still isn't notable due to a lack of good sources. Even if we want to stick to the WP:ENT's wording really precisely, we can still find that wiggle-room: ""may be considered notable"" quite explicitly allows for diverting from the SNG's notability threshold when appropriate. Onel's ENT argument is fundamentally sound (though I like ""significance"" of roles to be established through reliable reporting, not OR), but ENT is not the end-all notability threshold, and I think we can reasonably divert from it here. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 19:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] When sourcing clearly isn’t there then presumptions of notability from SNGs carry less weight then the GNG fail. This is a BLP and should be assessed against the need for high quality sources. These appear not to exist and this person is marginal at the very best. Spartaz Humbug! 04:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC) The purpose of most SNGs is to provide an outline for when it can be reasonably presumed that significant coverage of a subject exists; fulfilling an SNG does not have to mean that a subject is notable with definitive certainty, it's just highly likely. Thus the generally more malleable wording of those guidelines – ""presumed notable"" is common. In the case of WP:NACTOR , the subject ""may be considered notable"" if they meet the relevant criteria, but as has been mentioned above, this probability is superseded by the lack of detailed reporting in appropriate sources. After all, the purpose of notability is in part to ensure that articles can comply with WP:V , WP:NPOV , and WP:OR , amongst others. Although BLPs don't have higher notability requirements per se, given the need for high-quality sources in writing a WP:BLP , and the lack thereof here, I think it's fair to say that notability requirements are not fulfilled. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 19:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is an opinion you're entitled to have, but I'll state for the record that I don't think it is supported by the relevant guidelines. To quote the opening of the GNG: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when ... (emphasis in original). That's exactly the same language you quote as being ""more malleable"". The hard boundary around notability is given by WP:V#Notability : If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it . Within that boundary, the actual text of almost every notability guideline is carefully flexible, as it should be, because the question of whether a freestanding article serves our encyclopedia in a particular case is always going to involve many different considerations. Sourcing is important, but so is (verifiable) encyclopedic significance as embodied in various SNGs including ENT. We should be careful to avoid the trap of giving the PAGs a meaning that an ordinary user would not give them. Doing so is harmful on many levels, but particularly because it damages our standing as a community that is open and welcoming to newcomers . -- Visviva ( talk ) 00:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The notability guideline WP:ENT is met per Visviva's reference of Onel5969. Note that Three Days in August was indeed released so the case has become more clear than before. — siro χ o 08:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Hayden Moss: Looking at the first nomination, the close may have been based on numerical superiority, i.e. majority vote, more than merits of arguments. No offense to a longtime editor who participated in the prior discussion, but I analyzed the following sources: Primary sources (e.g. interviews and questionnaires), which may not apply per WP:GNG : Ent. Weekly , Calgary Herald , Toronto Sun , CBS biography Covers Big Brother 12 win: NY Daily News (subscription required) , HuffPost Even Moss's rivals onscreen in Survivor made references about Moss's Big Brother appearance. Despite a news report of Hayden's then-upcoming Survivor appearance with his then-girlfriend, I doubt Survivor appearance is sufficient to prevent the article from being either ed to Big Brother 12 , his winning season, or d. If the editor's arguments were to be disputed and then discounted, then other """" votes basing on that argument would also no longer hold more weight. Other rules would also apply: WP:BIO1E (just in case), WP:PAGEDECIDE , and WP:BLP (not just BLP1E alone), which can apply to (material about) this person's personal life. George Ho ( talk ) 04:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Television , and Arizona . George Ho ( talk ) 04:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC) BIODELETE if no one here opposes. George Ho ( talk ) 01:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha: By German law, he is not actually a prince, and there are thus no noble houses; and that seems to be his only claim to notability. Mangoe ( talk ) 20:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - head of a defunct royal house is still notable. This was just on the ""Did you know"" part of the Main Page. Bearian ( talk ) 20:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Technically, he's not the head of a defunct royal house, he's the son of the head of a defunct royal house. 2601:249:9301:D570:A899:3E2B:BB8C:AE49 ( talk ) 23:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Got it. Bearian ( talk ) 14:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - is this some kind of infinite loop whereby the page is recreated every few years and then sent to AfD where the same participants make essentially the same comments? JMWt ( talk ) 20:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Classic example of there being sources, but no significant coverage more than an inch deep. As already stated, he is not actually a noble, which might have justified such an article, but the German nobility have been abolished for over 100 years. Yes, CBS has a bunch of pictures of their wedding, but this is essentially the equivalent of those ""human interest stories"" newspapers sometimes run where they give a deep dive to someone but not really due to any direct importance. To quote AFD2: ""The rest of the article is utterly trivial (was born, went to school, got a job, got married, had kids, that's it.)"". Not notable. SnowFire ( talk ) 21:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I see that this article survived a deletion discussion years ago, failed another a few years after that, and now is up for deletion again. Definitely odd that it should get through the DYK process, only to be potentially d. My thoughts -- if he were the current head of the house, I'd be more keen on notability, but he's the heir, so whatever. The article as-is doesn't have great sourcing but I'd say there are sources to be found. The sources related to his marriage are fine sources. Might be a close-run thing, but given the choice to or , I say . The article doesn't need to be perfect right now, and I'm reasonably confident it will improve in the future. RexSueciae ( talk ) 21:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails SUSTAINED, sources restricted to breathless human interest crud, zero presumption of notability for being the ""head"" of defunct noble family. JoelleJay ( talk ) 21:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions . JoelleJay ( talk ) 21:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as there is some coverage and I have expanded this article from when it was d the first time. By the nominator's logic, a Prince from a defunct royal dynasty does not deserve an article on Wikipedia. Okay, so does that mean the articles of Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece , Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza , Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples , Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon , Franz, Duke of Bavaria , and many more should be d also? Therealscorp1an ( talk ) 22:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC) OTHERSTUFFEXISTS . It is true that there is a nest of borderline-notability members of former noble families that could probably be d, although your examples aren't them. 2) Vittorio Emanuele is a bad example; he really was a noble when he was a kid, so he'd be judged under actual noble standards. 3) Most of your example articles involve people who have done notable things that would merit their inclusion regardless of their nobility - Franz von Bayern (who is not a Duke of Bavaria, for the record, there is no such position) would merit an article if he was simply a wealthy philanthropist with a backstory about his family having opposed the Nazis and been locked up by them. That's actually the more relevant hypothetical to think about: suppose that there was some parallel person to Hubertus who was not a noble, not a pretender, but was born into wealth and lived an identical life to Hubertus. Suppose we also had ""high society"" news that talked about all the wealthy friends that showed up to this scion's wedding. Is that enough for an article? Because that's the standard that needs to be met. We have this situation crop up all the time elsewhere for non-noble rich people, and we generally demand a little more than just ""they exist"" to get an article - they need to do something, anything. Sponsor a Formula 1 team, be a philanthropist, be a political donor or advocate, etc. Take a look at, say, Mellon family - you'll note that while there's plenty of bluelinks in the family tree, there's plenty of non-linked articles, too. Not everyone born into wealth gets a Wikipedia article, and that's okay. SnowFire ( talk ) 23:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These cases are not all equivalent anyway. I note first that the last's article is under his actual name, and that Vittorio Emanuele is probably notable fo all his escapades if nothing else. The Greek fellow presents something of a different issue since he was once crown prince but hasn't been such since he was seven or so, but all the business about a Greek royal house has been nonsense for half a century at least. The Portuguese and French pretenders likely should be d on the same grounds as this, namely, they seem to have no notability beyond supposedly being in their nonexistent positions. Thee's still time. Mangoe ( talk ) 05:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . If it is indeed true that the subject is not in fact a hereditary prince because such titles have been abolished, I would have to suggest that even if he is notable (I'll not offer opinion on that until I've looked into the matter further), it is a gross violation of WP:NPOV to describe him as such, either in the article title or anywhere else. Wikipedia is not (amongst very many other things) a platform for advocacy for the restoration of German aristocratic ranks. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 22:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not necessarily, because the common name of a thing is not necessarily the same as its legal name. Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex is not his name legally. Jahaza ( talk ) 23:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you suggesting that Wikipedia policy permits demonstrably false assertions of hereditary rank in article titles? That would appear to me to constitute a violation of WP:BLP policy amongst other things. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 23:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC) COMMONNAME we use the names commonly used for people. And, like it or not, members of royal families, whether or not their country is still a monarchy, are generally still referred to using the titles which they claim. We don't make a special exception to COMMONNAME for them. Arguing we should just sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC) Passes WP:GNG . Besides the coverage the article subject got for his wedding back in 2009, he has been receiving coverage satisfying WP:SUSTAINED : Bunte , Süddeutsche Zeitung , Gala , Neue Presse , inFranken , Bayerischer Rundfunk , and L'Éventail . Also, whether or not the article subject is actually a prince or a noble has no bearing whatsoever on notability and getting a standalone page and neither does the content of the article itself. -- StellarHalo ( talk ) 05:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC) RUNOFTHEMILL sources to ""society blotter"" type sources. I can't speak to the interview as it's paywalled, but IMO the most significant event in these articles that isn't ""he got married"" or ""he baptized his kids"" (neither of which really speak to notability) is https://www.np-coburg.de/inhalt.parkplatz-am-schloss-gesperrt-prinz-hubertus-greift-durch.b8c8c916-2a78-414e-9454-ee36d6482fe0.html , which talks about how a parking lot on his private property near Callenberg Castle that had previously been open to the public is now closed. That... might be worth a single line in Callenberg Castle... but isn't enough for notability IMO. SnowFire ( talk ) 01:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC) RUNOFTHEMILL . Only notable people get their wedding and their children being born covered in news sources. And this is expected, since his father is a public figure in Coburg and its region. StellarHalo ( talk ) 08:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] When there is significant coverage, why is there only trivia in the article? As discussed above, there is no notability from the sources. A to his father or his family would fulfill any encyclopedic needs. -- Theoreticalmawi ( talk ) 07:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . He does appear to satisy WP:GNG . That's all that matters. Any other claims are mere anti-monarchist POV WP:IDONTLIKEIT . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, as an American I suppose I am supposed to an anti-monarchist, but whether or not Charles III ought to be king of the United Kingdom, the fact is that he does hold that position. Meanwhile I go back to this fellow's great-grandfather, who was the last man to actually be the duke, and I find he lost both his British and German titles as fallout from WW I. Everything since then is pretense. This man is not a prince, and it's rather difficult thing to work with sources which are playing along with the pretense, and even if one appeals to WP:COMMONNAME we are now culpable of participating in the fraud by calling him a prince. If he's notable as fake nobility, so be it, but I am dubious about that, and in any case, it is in that fake nobility which his only possible notability can lie. Mangoe ( talk ) 02:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no fraud or pretense. People can call themselves whatever they like. A state may strip hereditary nobles of their titles for political reasons but that does not invalidate those titles, particularly since that state didn't give them the titles in the first place (these titles long predate the Federal Republic of Germany, or indeed any other version of Germany). And if reliable sources generally use those titles then COMMONNAME is satisifed. As I said, your argument is no more than IDONTLIKEIT. As to Americans being anti-monarchist, I think many of your compatriots would disagree with you; many of them seem to be utterly obsessed with the British monarchy! -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 18:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think we're getting a bit side-tracked here. COMMONNAME is maybe relevant if we decide the article is -able for how it should be titled. It's not relevant if the article doesn't meet the notability bar. Obviously where the line is drawn will differ from person to person, but I'll say the same thing as above: if there was an article with the same level of sourcing and same degree of notable events on some rich scion but who had no recent-ish noble blood, should that article be kept? If people ! voting """" here say yes, then fine, that's just differing notability standards, although I'm personally not a fan of articles mostly sourced to fawning society blotters. But I suspect that the result for such an article would generally be no , it'd get d. And if that's the case, then this article has the same exact issue, because objectively speaking Hubertus is just a scion of a wealthy family, at least according to current German law, like it or not. SnowFire ( talk ) 16:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 14:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC) GNG , explain how the coverage constitute ""significant coverage"". From what I checked, it appears really trivial to me. I asked already above and as by now nobody answered, I want to clarify my question. Whoever claims that WP:GNG is satisfied should be able to explain, what is significant about the coverage per WP:SIGCOV . -- Theoreticalmawi ( talk ) 21:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 14:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] look, titles or no, CBS News thought this fellow was relevant enough to publish their wedding photos. Official aristocracy or unofficial, clearly the name carries some weight. This is in-depth coverage, and no it doesn't make a difference that weddings are common. https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/american-woman-marries-royalty/14/ BrigadierG ( talk ) 15:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC) ONEEVENT of his marriage with Kelly Rondestvedt , one could propose that this article is d into his wife's, as there is no necessity for a standalone article. That is a compromise I could agree to. -- Theoreticalmawi ( talk ) 12:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's pretty clear that the notability works the other way around. The marriage is covered because of the perceived prominence of the individual. There was nothing special about the wedding except the people it was between. BrigadierG ( talk ) 15:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Fairglen Additions: This article is primarily a paraphrase of the application form (which is neither reliable nor independent), and its only other sources are press releases and other paraphrases of the application form. I can't find any better sources for this, so it fails WP:GNG . – brad v 16:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . 16:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 16:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . 16:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 16:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The nominator is incorrect. All places on the National Register are in fact inherently notable. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 16:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then it should be easy to verify the content of the article using reliable sources. Notability requires verifiable evidence . – brad v 16:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We have gone through this before. Fairglen Additions is notable becuase it has been placed on the National Register of Historic Places on June 6, 2019 and has reliable sources, e.g. NRHP reference 100004036 . Please see WP:GEOFEAT and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/27–29 Fountain Alley . Greg Henderson ( talk ) 16:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and re-create as stub. There's zero doubt that Situated within a 1952 urban expansion zone southwest of San Jose's early Willow and other phrasing is plagiarized and edited with an LLM to not be detectable as easily. A stub can exist about Fairglen, but the copy is problematic as is the sourcing. The latter is why I think it's TNT territory. Star Mississippi 16:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is long standing consensus that the documentation needed for a place to meet the NRHP qualifies those buildings for articles under GNG. I'm not sure I necessarily completely agree, but it does look like there is enough there for an article here. I haven't done a COPYVIO search on this one and it does need cleanup, but I don't see the problem with having an article. SportingFlyer T · C 16:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please see National Historic Preservation Act passed in 1966. Also see National Register of Historic Places . Any site that is so deemed by the NRHP is definitely notable. These are not only notable, but so designated by the United States Congress. — Maile ( talk ) 18:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Unlike possibly most here, I just finished reading that long ... long ... long NRHP form, word by word. The Fairglen Additions are indeed notable. I have no doubt of the notability here. However, it would be helpful if there could be more independent sources (newspapers, etc.) added. — Maile ( talk ) 20:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC) But doesn't this beg the question, is notability determined by wikipedia's criteria or by someone else's criteria for some other purpose? Even if that someone else is the US Congress. (I can't help but think that the argument that a body in any other country had designated something as notable wouldn't be so easily presumed to be the only argument needed). My read of WP:GEOFEAT is exactly that - a national body saying something is notable should give a presumption of notability here, but is does not necessarily in every case all that is needed. Melcous ( talk ) 23:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Again I would like to emphasize that the only reason this addition is notable is because of Joseph Eichler , and his ""Eichler Homes"". Eichler is mentioned 110 times in this NRHP document citation [21] . The article, should be ed or d to Joseph Eichler or possibly to Willow Glen of which this addition is just that - an addition - to Willow Glen. The reason for its NRHP status is because of the mid-century modern architect/builder Eichler. Netherzone ( talk ) 23:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As I see it, the presumption of notability means that there would need to be something overwhelming to prove that presumption wrong. For example, an archeological site on the NRHP, without any publicly available address and any published reports, is one of the few exceptions to this presumption of notability. For what it's worth, this can probably be covered in the Willow Glen, San Jose , article without any problem - we've done this for other NRHP districts as well. – Epicgenius ( talk ) 23:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Places on the National Register are not inherently notable. The relevant guideline is WP:GEOFEAT which says they are presumed notable , which is not the same thing. This is the heart of the question: what would overturn that presumption in favour of notability? My argument would be a total lack of WP:GNG and WP:RS . If all that can be said about it is to paraphrase the (non-neutral) application form for such status, then I do not see how the presumption should apply. And if consensus is that they are notable, I would then agree with Star Mississippi that articles that merely paraphrase the application form should be WP:TNTed . Melcous ( talk ) 22:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - and to the mid-century modern developer/architect Joseph Eichler who is indeed notable (or possibly to Willow Glen of which this addition is a subdivision). It is the fact that Eichler was the architect/developer that is the key core of why this addition achieved NRHP status in the first place. I also somewhat agree with Star Mississippi that this might be a candidate for WP:TNT and stubbification, however I feel more strongly about the . I also agree with Melcous 's comment regarding WP:GEOFEAT ; not everything on the NRHP is inherently notable, rather the entries are presumed notable not inherently notable. The lack of GNG and RS is key to that argument. seems like the best solution. Netherzone ( talk ) 23:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC) GEOFEAT . As to the claim that ""not everything on the NRHP is inherently notable"", in practice almost everything on the NRHP is listed because it is notable for some reason; these reasons are given in the NRHP nomination form. However, given the copyright concerns, it may be proper to consider a WP:TNT rewrite, anyway. As to the claim that the ""application form isn't reliable"", that's just plain wrong. Draft applications are not reliable, but final registration forms have been vetted by architectural experts and historians. – Epicgenius ( talk ) 17:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC) The form itself is just basic information about what criteria it passed to be on the NRHP. To write an article about the property, the user must do other research, just like creating any other article. Some NRHP articles are written better than others, but the basic sourcing should be research beyond what is on the NRHP form. — Maile ( talk ) 18:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Maile66 , thanks for the clarification. I have no other comments on the registration form itself, but I agree with you that articles should cite additional sources as well, not just the form. – Epicgenius ( talk ) 18:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC) per SportingFlyer and Eastmain. This has been discussed before. Places on the National Register are inherently notable. Lacking RS is not a reason for deletion because the article can always be edited/shortened if necessary. C F A 💬 17:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC) is there a link available to a previous discussion where there is consensus that being on a/any national body's register makes notability inherent rather than presumed , i.e. more than reasons given in a discussion about a particular site? If not, I'd be keen for this broader discussion to occur as this would make literally millions of sites around the world qualify for an article even without WP:SIGCOV (or indeed any coverage). Personally, I can't help but feel the National Register argument is a little US-centric, and wonder if the discussion would be the same I started creating articles for the 20,000+ nationally heritage listed sites in my small part of the world, or if one of our friends from an Asian or African country did the same. Melcous ( talk ) 07:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC) Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary coverage. Places on the National Register are not inherently notable. Let'srun ( talk ) 14:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Romy Tiongco: TheNuggeteer ( talk ) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Christianity , Philippines , and United Kingdom . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I think the two programmes on the BBC all about him and the first of these and its report his on him were what led me to start this page and think him notable enough - perhaps via general notability rather than as a politician per se. A political activist, NGO worker and then politician ( Msrasnw ( talk ) 17:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Comment - maybe you should find more sources, only 2 out of the 7 sources work. TheNuggeteer ( talk ) 00:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC) GNG . Howard the Duck ( talk ) 05:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One of the sources is a video source which does not work anymore, is one source okay? TheNuggeteer ( talk ) 05:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC) LINKROT , and it being dead should not be taken against the article, more so if the reference is more than a decade old. So no, your premise of this article having just one source doesn't hold. Howard the Duck ( talk ) 07:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC) BEFORE search outside of the sources in the article and can't find anything which suggests to me that the article passes WP:GNG . The non-working links do not necessarily suggest there was secondary coverage of him, either - the magazine just has a wordpress site and the BBC radio bit is an interview, which are not secondary. SportingFlyer T · C 17:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 14:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Pandavar Illam: Tirishan ( talk ) 22:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC) GNG have added references from The Times of India [19] . and Sun TV Website [20] and more Episode coverage in Tamil language. [21] , [22] . -- P.Karthik.95 ( talk ) 10:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source 1 aka the Times of India source on this reply is routine promotional coverage on the serial hitting a certain milestone and quotes from the actors Source 2 is routine coverage on the promotional video and repeatedly states that something detail about the serial is unknown Source 3 is a self published source, and its expertise is currently unknown. The entire body of this source is ""Serial story coming soon..."" with a list of actors Source 4 is also a self published source, and its expertise is currently unknown. It just lists the serial cast (taking from this archive because the source isn't loading for me) Source 5 is routine coverage about the cast receiving their COVID-19 vaccination This reply links to the show's page on Sun TV (the channel airing the serial which is not independent), which is not a source and none of this proves how this serial is notable for Wikipedia. Karnataka ( talk ) 15:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Longest running Tamil serial. most of people know about this series. you nominated this is actually a well known one. It does cite it's notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:4000:12CA:3C7B:C5A3:1C9A:2FB9:C004 ( talk ) 05:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Trojena: It has been selected as the host location for the 2029 Asian Winter Games . The references are all press releases or marketing, except for one news report of the award of the games. Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary 1 www.neom.com Announcement of establishment No Yes Yes No 2 www.neom.com Information-advertising brochure No Yes Yes No 3 english.alarabiya.net Press release announcing establishment No Yes Yes No 4 saudigazette.com.sa/ A press release about the announcement of the plans for the site No Yes Yes No 5 www.spa.gov.sa, Saudi Press Agency Press release about bid to host 2029 Asian Winter Games No Yes Yes No 6 www.arabnews.com News report that it will host 2029 Asian Winter Games Yes Yes Yes Yes That one news story is not enough to satisfy general notability . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 07:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Saudi Arabia . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 07:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Its nomination as a site for the Asian Winter Games makes it notable. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC) . This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 08:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now it looks like No consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Maximilian Janisch: Perhaps the subject is notable, but this is not the way to an article compliant with WP:NPOV . – Joe ( talk ) 11:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Mathematics . – Joe ( talk ) 11:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC) for starting a discussion of deletion. There is currently a discussion because of a WP:COISELF problem: The article in its current form was created as a translation of the German article de:Maximilian_Janisch by myself, the subject of the article. COI disclosures can be found at the article talk page , as well as my user page . I agree that the process through which the article was created is unfortunate as I should have suggested it through WP:AfC . My apologies for this mistake. Nonetheless I will argue that deletion is not the appropriate reaction below. I have suggested steps to resolve the COI problem at the article talk page . I will now argue that deletion of the article is not the right thing to do since none of the criteria at WP:DEL-REASON are met. Instead I suggest WP:ATD , specifically editing and discussion. It would be great to have other Wikipedians ensure that the article is written based on solid evidence and from a WP:NPOV . I now provide reasoning why I believe that none of the criteria at WP:DEL-REASON are met. Speedy deletion criteria are not met. Copyright violations are not present. Vandalism is not present. The article is not spam, notability has been discussed in a deletion discussion in the German Wikipedia, de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/3._Februar_2018#Maximilian_Janisch_(LAE) , in 2018, when there were many less independent references about me than now. An incomplete list of such references can be found through a Google Search . Content forks do not apply. Article is well-referenced and satisfies WP:Reliability . See point 4. Does not apply. Does not apply. Does not apply. Does not apply. Does not apply. Best, -- Maximilian Janisch ( talk ) 11:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Just my thoughts- the subject is clearly notable, with significant coverage in many locations, as per https://www.srf.ch/sendungen/dok/srf-dok-maximilians-welt-aus-dem-leben-eines-hochbegabten https://magazin.nzz.ch/empfehlungen/maximilian-janisch-ist-der-juengste-doktorand-der-schweiz-ld.1733390 etc. etc. especially in Swiss media- all reliable sources, all clearly about him specifically. Having read the article and considering the conflict of interest, I definitely think the article could be improved and could be considered a little too in-depth and perhaps overly supportive of the subject, but I definitely feel like the article should not be d. I would perhaps suggest that Mr. Janisch consider editing articles in other sections of Wikipedia rather than his own article? Doing this only makes these deletion arguments even more painful and difficult to reconcile. Spiralwidget ( talk ) 11:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] since it follows the general notability guideline . OhHaiMark ( talk ) 03:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Further Comment I have edited the article significantly in an attempt to remove material that I consider unjustified or not cited in reliable sources. Among other points: Removal of Scientist infobox, as currently Janisch is known for his child prodigy status and coverage associated with that; replaced with infobox:Person. Removal of Masters Thesis title; not cited reliably and did not receive significant coverage. If one is completing a PhD, you would expect that to take precedence as the thesis in the infobox. Removal of Bibliography- not cited, and none of the titles are notable. Change to the opening paragraph; replacement of ""mathematician"" with ""child prodigy"" and inclusion of more relevant reasons why the subject has received coverage Removal of mentions of advocacy for young people attending University; links with some of these organisations with the subject are not justified enough, and in addition this advocacy has not received significant coverage Removal of his mother (unreliable source, unpublished, from 1992) Removal of his CV and website as sources Removal of German citizenship; uncited Removal of demasiado coverage of the documentaries; no need to include dates etc. Removal of personality traits section- not relevant. Removal of weblinks. Please feel free to revert, continue editing, etc. if you feel these edits are not warranted. Hopefully the article now has (close to) a neutral point of view. I thought it was important to do this, as if the article is d I have experienced that it becomes exponentially harder to justify the article in the future; I therefore would really recommend ing the article in this edited form, or continuing edits if you feel they would be conducive. Spiralwidget ( talk ) 12:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC) I will answer to your edits here since I think editing the article myself would now be very much frowned upon. I would prefer continuing this discussion on the article talk page, however, so I have posted a copy of the text below there. First off, thank you very much for your extensive work aiming at having the article be written from a WP:NPOV . Here is what I think of each of the edits: Removal of Scientist infobox : Agree (it was not added by me). Removal of Master's Thesis title : Agree. Removal of Bibliography : Disagree with. The book Instability and nonuniqueness for the 2D Euler equations in vorticity form, after M. Vishik has been published in a very renowned venue (Annals of Mathematics Studies) and furthermore in the two years since its publishing as a preprint it has been quite influential in the field of mathematical fluid dynamics (see e.g. Google Scholar ). We could also discuss the relevance of my autobiography. I feel that mentioning a book written by the subject of a Wikipedia article is routine and would be justified in this case. Change of opening paragraph : Agree. Removal of mentions of advocacy : Unfortunate but ok. Removal of his mother : Strongly disagree. Her dissertation exists as a book, cf. Katalog für die Bibliotheken der Universität Heidelberg , you can order it here [39] . It was an influential work in its research area with over 400 citations listed on Google Scholar . Furthermore, mentioning both parents in the article about a ""child prodigy"" seems very reasonable. Removal of his CV and website as sources : Agree. Removal of German citizenship : Disagree, I am a German citizen. How would you suggest I prove my German citizenship? Removal of demasiado coverage of the documentaries : Fine. Removal of personality traits section : I very much agree with this (I took those over from the German article but they were not added by me). Removal of weblinks : Fine, although I believe it is not unusual to have links to Webpages in Wikipedia articles. -- Maximilian Janisch ( talk ) 13:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello again. I feel like I do have to respond here, though I do not think it is really too appropriate for you to respond to every point in this deletion nomination- it makes it feel like a negotiation between the subject of an article and Wikipedia editors et al. (with me as the metaphorical leading author). I think it is very hard to maintain a neutral point of view if you continue commenting on the deletion discussion thread. I will make it clear that the default in this situation is a , and you are not helping by being so deeply involved. With that being said, I think I should respond to the points you provide here. Removal of Bibliography: Janisch was not the leading author on Instability and nonuniqueness for the 2D Euler equations in vorticity form would be my counterargument. I see his point on his autobiography, and it is in fact used as a source in the article already. I could see the section therefore being added. Removal of his mother: I see the point that the dissertation was an influential work in her research field. However, I would like to see a source linking Janisch with Janisch before it is added back to the article- I would expect one to exist. Removal of German citizenship: I would suggest that someone would have to find a third-party reliable source that states clearly that he holds German citizenship. I also would express doubt that Janisch will be able to his hands off the metaphorical editorial cookie jar of editing his own article. Just my two cents. Spiralwidget ( talk ) 14:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies if my point-by-point reply came off as overly involved. I assure you that I am acting in WP:GF and am happy to use whatever venue you suggest to reply to content-wise issues related to my article (I'd like to do this on the article talk page) and will refrain from further interacting with this deletion discussion unless absolutely necessary -- Maximilian Janisch ( talk ) 14:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC) this is not ""your article."" Please see WP:OWN . If the article is not d. you should completely abstain from making any further changes to the article to avoid any further COI. Instead, post requests for edits on the article's Talk page and one of us will get to it. Qflib ( talk ) 18:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC) ACADEMIC are satisfied here. One could make a case for general notability under WP:BIO , but since this is a WP:AUTO case, the article is highly promotional in nature (I'd say a borderline G11 case) and notability is mainly asserted on scholastic/academic grounds in the article, I feel that "" is the correct outcome here at this stage. If and when the subject makes substantial research impact, the matter can be revisited. Nsk92 ( talk ) 14:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC) PROF . For someone this early in their academic career, I think significant international recognition of a major result (at the level of the Salem Prize , say) would be necessary to overcome the usual obstacles, that the work has not had time to accumulate recognition in the normal way (citations) and the researcher is too junior to disentangle their work from that of their academic advisors. The only case for notability is through WP:GNG and through media coverage of the subject as a child prodigy. All that said, I don't read German, the language of most of the coverage, so I don't feel comfortable making an evaluation of notability that way. I have some concern that the many sources may really all be echoes of a single story and that we should consider WP:BIO1E . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC) Sources 2 and 15 are directly about the subject, in RS. I'm not sure what else is required, a rewrite perhaps. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC) BLP1E ). The argument for deletion is that this is an autobiography that would have to be rewritten from scratch to conform to WP:NPOV . – Joe ( talk ) 12:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Have read the sources given in the article in German and French. I am knowledgeable about the education system in Switzerland. I confirm that Janisch had an absolutely extraordinary path through our schooling system. When he wanted to become a student at the ETH Zurich at an early age, he was not allowed to enter as a regular student due to a minimal age requirements of the ETH, of which I am an alumnus. Translation of a comment concerning Maximilian Janisch by Michael Hengartner , president of the University Zurich in 2018, quote: «I am glad that he had some more time for his personal development.» Hengarter is president of the ETH Board by now, the supervising administration of the ETHs in Zurich and Lausanne. It is exceptional that such a personality makes a comment about a particular student. ( ""Das Wunderkind an der Uni. "" In: ""Sonntags Blick "", October 14, 2018 (in German). Retrieved June 26, 2024) In my opinion, Janisch is an outstanding prodigy in mathematics who fulfills WP: GNG through WP:SIGCOV .-- BBCLCD ( talk ) 11:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC) May I ask what brought your attention to this discussion? – Joe ( talk ) 12:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] for not meeting the academic notability standard and otherwise being only known for one event . Essentially, the problem is that if you cut out the puffery, nothing remains. XOR'easter ( talk ) 22:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I agree WP:PROF does not apply to me. In response to WP:BIO1E please consider that news coverage about me started when I finished the final high school exams at age 9, der Spiegel, 2013 , Die Welt, 2013 , Tagesanzeiger, 2013 . Then continued as me being France's youngest student Le Monde, 2015 , Europe1, 2015 , Tagesanzeiger, 2015 . Then continued when I started the Master's at age 15 Sonntagsblick, 2019 , and when I started my PhD at age 18 Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 2023 . You may argue these stories are echoes of my high school exams, but considering WP:NOTBLP1E I find it hard to argue in favour of WP:BIO1E . -- Maximilian Janisch ( talk ) 07:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC) Too soon . Zero pass of any categories of WP:Prof . No evidence of significant mathematical achievement yet. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 07:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] . Straightforward GNG pass, which trumps all special categories: as Maximilian Janisch points out in his latest comment above, there is extended coverage in multiple reliable sources ( Blick being a possible exception) from 2013 to 2023. In addition, there are enough biographical details to write more than a cv. It's unfortunate that the article was written as an autobiography; I note that Spiralwidget has done some rewriting (summarised above) and may do more myself to make full use of the sources. But he's notable, so deletion and recreation is not appropriate, particularly since policy does not actually forbid autobiographies. Yngvadottir ( talk ) 07:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC) 20, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Passes GNG, although I think it is remarkably inappropriate for the creator to be the subject and for the subject to be participating in this debate. May this article wear the COI badge of shame for all time. Carrite ( talk ) 18:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC) Maximilian Janisch). The talkpage cc, sure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 11:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Yngvadottir. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 11:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - the subject would not meet notability standards at all if it weren't for the subject's age. I do feel that this is an example of WP:BIO1E - the one event being the subject's age. Here, the press coverage for the student achieving at a series of young ages what would otherwise be nice, but non-notable, achievements (earning degrees, entering grad school) is the only thing that generates notability. Technically these could be viewed as separate events, although I personally don't see it that way - so that's GNG for you. Anyway, I hope that this subject's future is bright and many more reasons for their notability become clear in time. Qflib ( talk ) 18:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC) BIO1E ? BBCLCD ( talk ) 06:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can see it both ways. The way I look at this situation is that they aren't exceptional steps at all. They certainly would not be considered exceptional for anyone who was not this young. When a person does these things at the usual times, they would not be notable enough occurrences to merit any coverage. They are unexceptional steps that happened at an unusually young age - which of course is why the coverage was generated. The coverage itself is enough to merit a ""weak "" recommendation. The really singular event I see is completing the bachelor's degree in a single year - that must have been done by examination, I suppose. Of course, when the subject finishes their education they will not be the youngest person to receive a Ph. D. - that appears to be Karl Witte , who did it at age 13. Qflib ( talk ) 21:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"List of books considered the best: Wikipedia is not for deciding which book is best. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️ ) 17:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️ ) 17:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Meets WP:NLIST , as described in the article itself eg Time's List of the 100 Best Novels , Modern Library 100 Best Novels , The Guardian's 100 Best Novels Written in English . The selection criteria is clear and reflects NPOV approach by relying explicitly on multiple RS for every entry; further RS could easily be added if it improves neutrality. I see no sign of WP:PROMO . Perhaps move to List of novels considered the best considering the topic. — siro χ o 18:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it's relevant to mention that List of novels considered the greatest was actually d at AfD last July ( link ). Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't participate there, but from the comments it appears that article had substantial problems that this one does not share. — siro χ o 21:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd note that Time's List of the 100 Best Novels is sourced only to Time, Modern Library 100 Best Novels is weakly sourced (and cite 1 is a pretty good criticism that it only listed those it published), and The Guardian's 100 Best Novels Written in English is mainly sourced to the Guardian! I'll suggest merging all of these, along with others listed at List of top book lists which are similarly short or poorly sourced, into a single article. Maybe maintain that article and just have subsections about each list, and another section that includes those named on multiple lists. I mean, List of films considered the best has been kept seven times, but it's structured quite differently, but just because those rankings exist doesn't mean this article meets NLIST as it is. Reywas92 Talk 18:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do like this plan, I think it could be a solid article that would improve the state of all the articles you're mentioning, including this one. As it's too complex an outcome for AfD I will stick with my above ! vote, but would support this proposal in a discussion (whether after a BOLD attempt, or as a proposal) — siro χ o 21:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Despite the title, this is not a list of books considered the best. By its very construction ( The books listed here are included on at least three separate ""best/greatest of all time"" lists from different publications, as chosen by their editorial staffs/authors. ), it is a list of books considered among the best. I think it's highly dubious if that's a valid way of constructing the list in the first place, and it certainly shouldn't be at this title. Contrast list of films considered the best , where each entry actually has been deemed the best (i.e. #1) by a notable poll. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of novels considered the greatest from last year. TompaDompa ( talk ) 03:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This exact debate has been had like 10 times about List of films considered the best , I don't see why the same reasonings wouldn't apply to books. ★Trekker ( talk ) 18:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If they were constructed the same way, I would agree. But they are not, they are constructed in completely different ways as outlined above. TompaDompa ( talk ) 18:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To me that seems like a good argument for why this article needs major changes, not deletion, unless we're talking a DYNAMITE case. ★Trekker ( talk ) 18:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, maybe. But if we want a list of the same kind as List of films considered the best , we need new sources as only one out of five none (see below) of the sources used to construct List of books considered the best is a ranked poll. Time ' s List of the 100 Best Novels (1) is neither ranked nor a poll, Dick Meyer 's 100 Years, 100 Novels, One List (2) is ranked (though The order is essentially silly. ) but not a poll, Modern Library 100 Best Novels (3) is a ranked poll ranked but not a poll , The Daily Telegraph ' s 100 Novels Everyone Should Read (4) is ranked but not a poll, and The Guardian ' s 100 Best Novels Written in English (5) is neither ranked nor a poll. That would leave us with only a single entry, the rest of the list needing to be scrapped. That is pretty much indistinguishable from starting over from scratch. TompaDompa ( talk ) 22:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC) Amended. TompaDompa ( talk ) 01:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC) 27, 17 August 2023 (UTC) ANALYSIS , and I don't mean that as a positive. And when the sources are mostly not polls but what amounts to opinion pieces, it gets even more dubious—we're back to the issues that led to the previous discussion ending with the article being d . Are we suggesting that Lev Grossman (1), Richard Lacayo (1), Robert McCrum (5), Dick Meyer (2), and unnamed Telegraph staff (4) are that authoritative sources on this topic? TompaDompa ( talk ) 23:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC) Christopher Cerf , Gore Vidal , Daniel J. Boorstin , Shelby Foote , Vartan Gregorian , A. S. Byatt , Edmund Morris , John Richardson , Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. and William Styron ) to the list of sources we are apparently saying are sufficiently authoritative to base this list on. TompaDompa ( talk ) 00:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC) Amended. TompaDompa ( talk ) 01:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC) ANALYSIS . By ""tertiary analysis"" what I mean is summarizing and consolidating secondary sources. — siro χ o 01:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC) Systemic bias on display here isn't exactly subtle: four out of five are explicitly limited to English-language works, the sole exception being the list by The Telegraph (4)—which isn't even a list of the 100 best but 100 ""everyone should read""), and some robust statistical analysis—and then you are way into WP:Original research territory. TompaDompa ( talk ) 01:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC) 21, 20 August 2023 (UTC) 16, 20 August 2023 (UTC) 30, 23 August 2023 (UTC) 17, 26 August 2023 (UTC) 36, 27 August 2023 (UTC) 23, 28 August 2023 (UTC) 00, 28 August 2023 (UTC) 16, 29 August 2023 (UTC) 27, 30 August 2023 (UTC) 18, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Comparison of BitTorrent clients: ( This listicle —which barely does any direct comparison—is the best source I can find.) ( t · c ) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology , Computing , and Internet . ( t · c ) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral for now This article is also a magnet for spam. The Banner talk 17:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A valid navigational and information list. Far more useful than a category, more information provided. If spam is a problem, then block IP addresses and new users from editing it. D r e a m Focus 05:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not concerned about spam, I'm concerned about notability. Perceived usefulness is not a valid notability rationale. ( t · c ) buidhe 05:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates , and the section at Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Advantages_of_a_list . D r e a m Focus 10:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC) This vote doesn't actually provide a rationale for ing the article other than merely asserting that the article is valid and useful. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 23:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC) Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software . * Pppery * it has begun... 03:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC) CLTs don't need notability (only the included elements do). Pretty much all of the things compared here are reasonable; there have been no debates about whether a feature here should be removed, and in my opinion they all look fine. The article has also been pretty stable, so I don't think there's much of a maintenance burden. (The included software in the list are also all articles and should meet notability, so I don't think NOTDIRECTORY-esque arguments apply either) Thus, I don't think Dynluge's argument applies. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 13:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC) WP: NLIST applies here. The assertion that only the included elements of a list need to be notable isn't true, because notability is never transitive. The arguments about the stability and maintenance cost of the article aren't relevant and skirt the core issue of notability. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 23:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the relevant guideline, but torrent clients as a whole definitely have significant coverage. PCMag and TorrentFreak list them like once a year. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 00:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please point to specific sources and add them to the article. Claiming that two websites could possibly provide coverage on them isn't sufficient. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 01:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] [37] [38] [39] and [40] are just examples of lists of them. You also have [41] , which extensively compared 2004's BitTorrent clients to a proposed version, and [42] , a methodology proposal to use on BitTorrent clients. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 02:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As I stated in my last comment, please add these sources to the article. Otherwise, someone may nominate the article for deletion again, which would be a massive timesink. It doesn't have to be substantial. A sentence or two summarizing each source would be sufficient. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 17:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While I don't think the lists have much use, maybe I could indeed find some use in the latter two. I'll try to read up this weekend. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 17:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Articles need to meet notability guidelines in order to be kept, and this article doesn't meet WP: NLIST . The sources in the article don't discuss BitTorrent clients generally, and neither does the article in the nomination. I'm happy to reverse this vote if someone comes forth with compelling evidence that this article meets WP: NLIST (or could meet WP: NLIST with some improvement). HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC) NLIST but any option for merging can be entertained. Shankargb ( talk ) 12:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What about the citations I've provided? Aaron Liu ( talk ) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ample coverage as per the links above. Greenman ( talk ) 14:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Meets NLIST [43] , [44] , [45] , [46] . Meets CLN as a Wikipedia navigation article. // Timothy :: talk 16:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - We're a good 15 years from the bittorrent heyday, so an awful lot of the comparisons and lists will be gone due to linkrot, but there were tons of sources comparing this software to meet NLIST. Might be tougher to find now, but even just doing a google news search returns a bunch of comparisons and lists. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you are counting the sort of listicle articles that Timothy linked, at minimum the article should be moved since these sources don't actually show a comparison between different clients, just listing multiple. ( t · c ) buidhe 13:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"United World College of the Adriatic: UtherSRG (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe this school is notable, both for Friuli-Venezia Giulia (the region it is based in), and for it's role in developing international education and pedagogy. I will take a stab at adding some details and a handful of independent sources to the article to make that more apparent. . Dotx3 ( talk ) 13:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - United World Colleges tend to be notable. However this article has been flagged for over a decade and is in real need of proper sourcing. - Imcdc Contact 02:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Charles Wijewardhana: WP:VICTIM states that ""where there are no appropriate existing articles [that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person],...the victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if the victim...had a large role within a well-documented historic event"". The killing wasn't a historic event - there were many events involving police officers during the Sri Lankan Civil War , either as victims or perpetrators. There is no inherent notability in being a police superintendent or an amateur rugby union player. Article also fails WP:BASIC as there isn't significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources. The only sources are in relation to the killing or memorials written by relatives or friends. No sources prior to subject's killing. There are currently no articles that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material but it's possible an article could be created to cover the entire incident - the killing of the civilian by the police and subsequent mob killing of the subject. Obi2canibe ( talk) 13:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Sri Lanka . Obi2canibe ( talk) 13:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC) The killing of Charles Wijewardhana gained much national coverage during and years after the incident [25] , [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] with Wijewardhana been considered as one of the senior most police officers killed in the Sri Lankan Police service [32] . Given he was promoted to the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police which is the military equalant to a Major General or a General officer which has been considered to have sufficient coverage to qualify per WP:SOLDIER , the article meets the notablilty requirment. Cossde ( talk ) 13:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC) - WP:SOLDIER is no longer applicable. It needs to comply with WP:ANYBIO . Dan arndt ( talk ) 04:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC) SOLDIER is no longer applicable? Cossde ( talk ) 13:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC) - the notability guidance previously provided by the WP:SOLDIER essay has been deprecated as a result of this discussion . It is no longer considered by WikiProject Military history to be useful guidance on the notability of military people, and its use in deletion discussions is actively discouraged by the project. Deletion discussions regarding biographical articles should refer to WP:ANYBIO . Dan arndt ( talk ) 05:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Victim of a notable murder that was widely covered in Sri Lanka. Batmanthe8th ( talk ) 19:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom hundreds of Police officers have died in the Sri Lankan Civil War . Fails WP:BASIC . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 16:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC) and move to The death of Charles Wijewardhana (or similar) per NBIOs guidance on events and 1Es, the references in the article push this past GNG. // Timothy :: talk 07:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I just don't see notability for this person; one of many tragic deaths during the civil war, but a non-notable career otherwise. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Oaktree b one of the tragic deaths in the conflict not notable. Tame Rhino ( talk ) 16:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Sevvanthi (TV series): Tirishan ( talk ) 20:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC) WP:GNG have added references from The Times of India [31] , [32] . The serial has been remade in more than two other languages: Telugu : The Times of India [33] , News18 India [34] , Malayalam : Kerala TV [35] . There may be important updates in the future. -- P.Karthik.95 ( talk ) 10:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC) It does pass GNG. CastJared ( talk ) 15:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 08:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Alex Bhathal: The sources presented do not demonstrate in-depth coverage of her as a person, focusing on her various campaigns and a dispute with her party. After politics she appears to be a low-profile individual and this BLP amounts to a Pseudo-biography - ""Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage, or is the person mentioned only in connection with an event or organization? In the second case, it is likely that the event or organization is notable, but that the individual is not."" AusLondonder ( talk ) 14:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , and Australia . AusLondonder ( talk ) 14:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] we almost never create articles for unsuccessful political candidates, they have to be notable for activities/achievements outside running in elections. LibStar ( talk ) 14:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose for several reasons. She didn’t meet SIGCOV in the past, but does now in my judgement. There are a number of articles specifically discussing her- including several not yet featured on the article. See here: https://www.sbs.com.au/language/punjabi/en/article/alex-bhathal-supports-the-call-to-end-school-turban-discrimination/krrqxd9xg https://www.sbs.com.au/language/punjabi/en/article/alex-kaur-bhathal-targeted-with-racist-anti-sikh-flyers/2k94up67g https://www.sbs.com.au/language/punjabi/en/podcast-episode/alex-kaur-bhathal-greens-candidate-for-batman-vic/actokiawc Since the last deletion, she has also been the subject of a 2019 documentary, since shown at a number of film festivals. Just one example: https://cdocff.com.au/the-candidate/ https://amp.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/greens-candidate-horror-show-comes-to-the-big-screen-20190708-p525ae.html it won an award at a film festival too https://fan-force.com/films/the-candidate/ (The first screening of the documentary got its own article as a fun side note https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/strewth/green-alight/news-story/34f16b93c3f2d45b59addbf7c21a6053?amp ) I think the previous deletion was 100% correct- but in my opinion, this new content brings her up to notability. GraziePrego ( talk ) 14:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Adding more to my vote I understand the deletion arguments if all the coverage about her was solely about the 2018 by-election, but that isn't the case. The SBS articles (two from 2016, one from 2017) are about her at a previous federal election, and they do indeed provide ""in-depth coverage of her as a person"", describing her religion and the history of her father and grandfather. All of these articles are coverage from before the 2018 by-election. She's not just notable for a single event, she has notability through coverage over years. Also, I would love clarification as to why Amelia Hamer is notable enough to , but this article isn't- Hamer is a candidate at an election that hasn't even been called yet. Bhathal has significantly more coverage. Both are notable enough to . GraziePrego ( talk ) 02:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While other stuff exists is not the best argument to make at AfD, I have nominated Amelia Hamer for deletion as she is not notable. AusLondonder ( talk ) 19:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2018 Batman by-election - the articles that GraziePrego posted were published in 2016 and 2017, nearly in the height of her political activity. Most coverage I can find is concerning controversies of the by-election, which is also the focus of the documentary. I didn't find any coverage of her after she quit her party in 2019 at all, other than on her own website. This is effectively a WP:BLP1E , and I don't think there's any more to write about here than what is already covered in the by-election article. Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 15:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun ( talk ) 15:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC) I think it's been made evident that this article passes the WP:GNG . I don't agree that this article is a WP:BLP1E ; she has been separately notable in the sources based on her previous candidacies; her final candidacy for the Greens; the allegations made surrounding her candidacy and the review that was undertaken by the Greens; her not seeking re-election; her leaving the Greens; and the documentary. To me, the coverage is about separate things. Although it could definitely be argued that coverage of the documentary is about the documentary and not her, given the documentary is not necessarily notable, it makes sense for it to be included in this article. Separately from the GNG, this individual was at the centre of a national media story with persistent coverage for multiple years. She does not have to continue making the news in perpetuity to be considered notable. J2m5 ( talk ) 10:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Subject comfortably meets WP:GNG . The argument stated above that ""we almost never create articles for unsuccessful political candidates"" is unsupported by Wikipedia's policies or guidelines . We accept articles as worthy of inclusion on the basis of their subject's notability . A political candidate could be chronically failing to get elected but be notable all the same, e.g. Ralph Nader who has never been elected U.S. president. Extensive and repeated reports and articles in major Australian media testify to subject's notability. She's been in the news for more than a decade . - The Gnome ( talk ) 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This person has run for Australian parliament which doesn't have the same international standing as running for US president. In any case WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS . LibStar ( talk ) 03:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Was originally closed but was reverted following talk page message. Closing admin, can you please give me some advice and how this will be closed? Toadette Edit! 12:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC) Unfortunately, the subject of this article does not meet notability outside of her candidacy. ( WP:NPOL ). I have thought quite hard over the past couple of weeks on what my ! vote would be on this AfD and have come to this decision because I think it is important for a consistent policy as during an election cycle, most candidates will receive some level of press attention, and to have every single candidate to ever run for an election would ultimately be to the detriment of Wikipedia. So taking into account the sources present (and on Google) that are outside her candidacy and inside her candidacy (to an extent) I don't think that notability is established through GNG or NPOL. — GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 13:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - found this below [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] . Possibly a WP:BASIC pass. Wasilatlovekesy ( talk ) 19:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Lesaka Technologies: Fails GNG, NCORP BoraVoro ( talk ) 07:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and South Africa . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Technology . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * - The Mail & Guardian article seems prominent enough to establish notability. WmLawson ( talk ) 05:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC) per WP:NCORP 104.7.152.180 ( talk ) 13:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC) An IP that added ""Delete per WP:NCORP"" to 3 AFDs in 2 minutes. I think the chance that the closing admin places weight on these posts is approximately zero. Geschichte ( talk ) 16:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Block evasion, at any rate -- struck. jp × g 🗯️ 01:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] based on present citations and also have found these additional citations Insider Monkey , Seeking Alpha , itweb , and The Street . It should be noted that this is a publicly listed company on NASDAQ and there are more news articles in Google under its current name and old name ""Net 1 UEPS."" Hkkingg ( talk ) 08:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hkkingg , Seeking Alpha and TheStreet are, as I understand it, generally considered group blogs, not RS, and as far as I can tell Insider Monkey seems to be the same. Is there any specific reason not immediately obvious you believe those sources meet the criteria? ( itweb seems to be a WP:CORPROUTINE announcement as well) Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 08:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know about this one. Simply Wall Street has a detailed analysis of the company's stock performance, [6] and this article (the second half) has important facts about the company (e.g., ""3,300 employees in five African countries""), but there are so many press releases in the search results that it's hard to tell what's useful. WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 02:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Cassius Willis: Very few mentions aside from the usual set of websites (IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, etc), no significant coverage . Was in 42 episodes of The Young and the Restless , but seems to h ave otherwise played fairly minor roles. Was an NAACP image award nominee, but I couldn't find any SIGCOV relating to that. PROD was removed by Kvng with the rationale 11 incoming links indicate potential importance . All of the links are from cast lists, with the exception of one from NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Actor in a Daytime Drama Series . — SamX [ talk · contribs · he/him] 04:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] being in 42 episodes of The Young and the Restless I think is more than enough to establish notability given the prominence of that show. Jack4576 ( talk ) 09:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak , the Young and the Restless part seems to have been a major story arc (for what it is, a soap opera) and 42 episodes is major. Rest are bit parts, but he's just above notability I think. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No one responded in terms of GNG and BIO. More policy-based opinions are welcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy ( talk ) 07:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC) NACTOR . These are policy-based opinions. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 19:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One last try. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 08:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Christopher Erskin: As always, filmmakers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and have to show evidence of passing one or more criteria for notability -- significant awards, evidence of third-party reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in media and/or books , etc. -- but this literally just says he exists, lists a bunch of jobs he did, and sources all of it exclusively to directory entries (IMDb) and other primary sources (Vevo) that aren't support for notability at all, which is not enough. He needs either a significant volume of WP:GNG -worthy coverage, or a stronger notability claim than just his work's existence. Bearcat ( talk ) 15:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . Bearcat ( talk ) 15:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Meets WP:FILMMAKER for the combination of Directing the feature film Johnson Family Vacation – critically panned but a major film nonetheless – reviewed many many major critics including but not limited to Roger Ebert [10] , Richard Roeper (quoted in [11] ), Stephanie Zacharek for Salon.com [12] , as well as critics for Chicago Reader [13] , Globe and Mail [14] , and many other major outlets. Note that as director, subject was discussed directly in many of these reviews. Verifiably directing a large number of major music videos including but not limited to: "" I Wish (R. Kelly song) "" [15] T-Boz's "" My Getaway "" [16] Uncle Sam's "" I Don't Ever Want to See You Again "", with Boyz II Men [17] Rome (R&B singer) 's I Belong to You (Every Time I See Your Face) [18] Allure (group) 's version of "" All Cried Out (Lisa Lisa and Cult Jam song) "" [19] It seems very likely, given all this coverage, that WP:BASIC is met as well, though WP:FILMMAKER suffices. :— siro χ o 06:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Vladimir Jankovski: Sources in article are a bios on a nomination pages, nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth from independent sources. BEFORE found nothing meeting SIGCOV with indepth coverage. // Timothy :: talk 17:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC) The Macedonian article has two news items about him and confirms he won an award; the news appears to be in RS, I think this passes notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's also a review of his book here [3] . The News link in the nomination header here brings up a few other articles about him in Macedonian media, and he's mentioned as a translator here [4] in a Maltese newspaper, showing some international reach. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Winning/being nominated for a major award here meets WP:ANYBIO . I am more certain of SIGCOV especially when translators usually aren't given more details like a normal full-time writer. However, if the article was nomiated for such an award, then, there should be reviews of works somewhere. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 06:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"List of FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters: The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Also, all of the sources are announcments and does not assert notability. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 15:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports , and Football . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 15:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and SALT Recreation of unencyclopaedic content. Govvy ( talk ) 18:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball , Lists , Delhi , France , Netherlands , and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC) There was no way in which this article was going to survive. I have copied and pasted its content into the main article which means there is now no need for this to be retained. I am only commenting on, and advocating for deletion of, the FIFA CWC broadcast list. Rillington ( talk ) 20:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] only the Club World Cup broadcasting article to FIFA Club World Cup#List of current broadcasters per nom. Lacks standalone notability. Procedurally all others so they can be renominated separately if desired and their individual merits can be better examined. This list includes domestic football leagues, domestic and international football cups, and multiple non-football competitions which could have widely varying levels of notability. Frank Anchor 23:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedurally all others Agreed. Each of the others need to be separate AfD debates, should anyone propose their deletion from Wikipedia. Rillington ( talk ) 05:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I tried that before but then I had one user who suggested that they could be bundled together. I nominated them all as they had the same issues. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 09:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no need of an article for something which can be covered in just 1 paragraph. Azuredivay ( talk ) 10:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] List of FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters as per last AFD, and then procedural the rest due to inappropriate bundling. Giant Snowman 19:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural the other 5 articles and renominate separately. Some of these articles refer to leagues and others to a specific instance of a competition. One of these is about basketball. Each might have separate merits. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] this article and then procedural the rest per GiantSnowman's suggestion. Anwegmann ( talk ) 19:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and salt List of FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters , procedural on rest as per others, the bundling of these together doesn't work well, since they're a range of different sports. List of FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters already has a clear mandate to be d, as it hasn't demonstrated any more notability than last time round. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the FIFA one to each tournament, and the others, for the poor bundling. Nfitz ( talk ) 18:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and salt List of FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters , procedural on the rest . Per the last AfD, the FIFA article is a violation of WP:NOTTVGUIDE . Let'srun ( talk ) 20:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and do not salt the FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters article only. No opinion on the others which can be renominated individually. Carson Wentz ( talk ) 04:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per above. Also, many of these articles use an OR spatial division, where countries in Western Asia are a fake continent with Egypt or are part of Europe. gidonb ( talk ) 23:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Pacific Century: The first few paragraphs defining and analyzing the term broadly are unreferenced, then there is a random note about the existence of a documentary titled The Pacific Century , followed by two lengthy paragraphs on American policy in Asia/Pacific, based on sources that mostly do not even use this term. Perhaps this is a notable term (although this could be just to Asian Century , which could discuss the usage of this term as well as of Asia-Pacific Century ), but the current article makes a good case for WP:TNT . I can't even recommend a to Asian Century, given the above-described poor state of the article (OR about the main term+mostly irrelevant content about American policy in the region). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics , Asia , and United States of America . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi. This Wikipedia article is the only reason I even know what ""Pacific Century"" means, so I'd prefer it not be d. I've seen the phrase used elsewhere and this was the first source. Thanks. 2600:8804:5A03:BB00:6265:C273:2376:543F ( talk ) 20:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC) ITSUSEFUL Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC) DINC . The article needs to be rewritten, but it is neither unencyclopaedic nor factually wrong. Reliable sources exist, are persistent over time, and are independent of the subject. It is tagged correctly. There are no policy-based reasons to this article, and doing so would not improve the encyclopedia. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as there does not seem to be a coherent topic here. The article seems to contain two paragraphs of unsourced OR claiming that the term ""Pacific Century"" is used like ""Chinese Century"" or ""Asian Century"" to describe the 21st century, one paragraph about a PBS documentary series focused on 19th and 20th century Asian history, and two paragraphs about miscellaneous aspects of US foreign policy with respect to Asia. This is not an encyclopedic article about one subject – it's a collection of unrelated information that can vaguely be associated with the phrase ""Pacific Century"". — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 16:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mx. Granger I noticed Asian_Century#Origin talks about the term ""Pacific age"", which would arguably be more relevant here then there, but it also further reinforces the point that this is all really the very same concept just with few different names. Redirecting this tere might be best for now? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think that makes sense, because I don't see any sources indicating that ""Pacific Century"" is used with a meaning related to ""Asian Century"". If anything, a to The Pacific Century would make more sense as a variant of that title. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 19:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe ( talk ) 08:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are a number of Google Scholar results for the term ""Pacific Century,"" many independent of the term ""Asia-Pacific Century."" The term goes back to at least the 1980s. The article by Rosemary Foot and Andrew Walter includes a useful definition of the term and some history. -- Enos733 ( talk ) 22:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"FaceGen: No sustained significant in-depth coverage can be found at all. In direct relation to video game, WP:VG/S 's custom search of reliable sources has two (2) hits, one of which is a press release that an unrelated game engine included this software in a new release, and the other is a copyright notice. Google searches, such as the news search, for ""FaceGen"" (quotations required because ""face gen"" refers to a common technical term) has only five total results... Only one of which actually mentioned the software, only in passing as explaining ""this image was made with FaceGen"". The rest are false hits. The researchgate link in the article goes to a paper that does mention the software, but not as a subject of coverage. It is a tool they use in the course of discussing face modelling in general, and almost more of a ""how to"". Tagged unreferenced since 2009. -- ferret ( talk ) 20:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing . -- ferret ( talk ) 20:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral I made this article way back in 2006. I see on the talk page that in 2009 I complained that the interview that gave it significant coverage at Discovery Channel's Daily Planet (TV series) no longer worked. Talk:FaceGen#Interview_no_longer_where_it_was. There was coverage way back then and big name game studios were using it for their notable games. But whatever, doesn't really matter nowadays, there so many competitors, and most games have their own systems they make themselves. D r e a m Focus 21:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That software is outmoded shouldn't affect its notability, so long as coverage is available. I'll take a look and see if I can find some older sources. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 02:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Hmm, well, it's not self-evidently not notable, at least. The software has had good coverage in Game Developer including an in-depth review [38] and descriptions of various versions [39] [40] [41] . I'm yet to find any sourcing on it, but the software does have some fairly wide appearances in the credits of 00s video games, most notably being the software used to create the infamous not-so lifelike faces in The Elder Scrolls III: Oblivion . Still a long shot. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 21:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Although usually those sources might be just enough, them being all from a single publication (Game Developer), puts it below notability for me. -- Mika1h ( talk ) 18:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC) //www.proquest.com/docview/233640275/C062825AE2704010PQ/7 and https://www.proquest.com/docview/1789237253/C062825AE2704010PQ/9 , and sustained usage in scientific articles that can be found on Google Scholar. - Indefensible ( talk ) 05:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please can the sources be evaluated. If you are asserting scientific cover you need to provide the sources or they won't be considered in the close. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (bordering on weak ) – Although there's a seeming lack of meaty coverage in ""news"", the sources above do demonstrate that there probably enough sigcov in RS'es to satisfy the inclusion threshold. The four articles (including one real deep one) in Game Developper Magazine (linked by ＶＲＸＣＥＳ) and the scientific papers linked by Indefensible coupled with supplemental coverage listed in GScholar, in sum total this makes me lean in the direction of ing. There is also an authored Softpedia review and several mentions of FaceGen that are more ""passing mentions"" in gamedev articles like https://www.animationmagazine.net/2023/07/delivering-the-facial-animation-for-call-of-duty-modern-warfare-ii/ and science papers like Spatial Heterogeneity in the Perception of Face and Form Attributes Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 13:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Daniël van Goens: Nothing in the article is a discernible claim to notability. JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 00:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unclear . There are some newspaper articles , but he lived before social media and TV. Bearian ( talk ) 18:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe ( talk ) 17:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC) The newspapers linked in the comment above the relist are simply name drops. I can't find anything else for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Best I can find are various musical works (sheet music) in the BNF Gallica and a few mentions in Gscholar, mostly confirmation of his works. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC) Musical Netherlands 1850-1910 . Bio-bibliographic dictionary of Dutch musical artists - as well as writers in the music-literary field, 2. edition with additions and improvements. Utrecht: JL Beijers, 1913, page 239 Illustrated music lexicon, edited by Mr. G. Keller and Philip Kruseman, collaboration with Sem Dresden , Wouter Hutschenruijter (1859-1943) , Willem Landré , Alexander Voormolen and Henri Zagwijn ; published in 1932/1949 by J. Philips Kruseman, The Hague; page 178 Jozef Robijns , Miep Zijlstra : General music encyclopedia , Haarlem: De Haan, 1979-1984, ISBN 978-90-228-4930-9 , volume 4, page 29 Necrology Caecilia 1904 by Simon van Milligen. Several of those books have dutch wikipedia articles about the books themselves. Also coverage here and here . Together there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC) GNG . I really suspect there is a lot more, but I have trouble assessing it with my limited language skills. There is certainly a lot of his work available, especially since he died 114 years ago. Jacona ( talk ) 01:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Zupan's Markets: Fails WP:NCORP Coverages are all routine and hyper-local. Graywalls ( talk ) 02:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies , and Oregon . Graywalls ( talk ) 02:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC) I found this source , which shows coverage that's more than just hyper-local. Left guide ( talk ) 04:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This screams sensationalism. Like ""10 best affordable tequila""... the best US made tofu... type stuff. That falls far short of Wikipedia:ORGDEPTH and Wikipedia:SIRS . Also, looking at the article creator's edit history, my experience strong suggests it screams public relations editing. Graywalls ( talk ) 07:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC) RS criteria, particularly given its editorial policies , thus fulfilling all of the WP:GNG requirements. Also, that publication only chose 12 businesses across the whole country (some of the others are based in Florida and Michigan for example), so it clearly bestows this business with some sort of significance. Do you have any concrete evidence that would discredit the quality of the source? Vague unsupported claims like this screams sensationalism wouldn't be helpful. Lastly, the article creator's edit history has no bearing on the notability of the topic. Left guide ( talk ) 08:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reliable in that these are that author's opinions, but reliable vs notable aren't quite the same. Articles in companies and organizations is the highest standard applied for notability test, because they're the most susceptible to promotional article creation. That article certainly wouldn't be something that can be used to support notability of each of 12 businesses. Graywalls ( talk ) 10:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I respectfully disagree, it certainly can be used to support notability for each of those 12 businesses. If it was selecting 12 businesses from the same city block (like the sources we've seen in Carmel-by-the-Sea articles), then that would likely be an indiscriminate source , but this is far different; it's choosing these 12 among thousands in the U.S. Unless there's evidence that this is a WP:COISOURCE (which doesn't appear to be applicable here), I don't see how this source wouldn't count towards notability. In any case, we can wait for input from others. Left guide ( talk ) 10:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC) NCORP guideline because it is inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in ""best of"", ""top 100"", ""fastest growing"" or similar lists , it also appears to be a low-quality website focused on advertising and promotion. Beccaynr ( talk ) 16:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Left guide I would say it's comparable to something like these 1 and 2 . ""Example of trivial coverage"" mentioned above describes it well. Please have a look if you haven't had a chance to see their response. Graywalls ( talk ) 21:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I'll also chime in and vote for ing the page alive. Zupan's, at one time, was a larger chain with more locations in/around the Portland metropolitan area. Just because it's hit a rough patch in recent years doesn't mean its Wikipedia page should get erased from existence. Furthermore, I'm of the opinion the sources cited here clear the notability bar. Constablequackers ( talk ) 14:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC) I agree with the nomination, coverage is all routine local business happenings. One location closing. Small family run business, nothing terribly different than any other such commercial enterprise. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Left guide and User: Constablequackers . I have removed some of the promo philanthropy stuff and added several additional reliable sources published by major outlets. This article should be expanded, not d. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Coverage is sufficient for WP:GNG . I also see coverage of Zupan's from Supermarket News (a trade periodical covering the grocers industry). P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk ) 23:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC) , please refer to WP:TRADES with regard to use of trade magazines for notability purposes. Graywalls ( talk ) 01:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm aware. The linked story meets the qualifications of a feature story. There is a credited author, independent research, and examples of interviewing multiple subjects to tell a factual story. P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk ) 02:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC) ORGIND - none of the information is sourced from persons unconnected with the company (suppliers, customers, partners, etc are all considered ""connected""). HighKing ++ 11:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article I linked falls under independence of the author , I would think. Is there some connection between Supermarket News journalist Barbara Murray and Zupan's Markets that I don't know about? P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk ) 20:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC) GNG is not the only consideration, and we should also examine the What Wikipedia is not policy; the WP:NCORP guideline incudes a focus on a common issue of advertising and promotion in company articles, and assists with an evaluation of sources by outlining generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article . Regardless of editor intent, sources related to companies can tend to be promotional, and if an article is primarily built from such sources and lacks the significant coverage described in the WP:NCORP guideline, it can be excluded according to the notability guideline and WP:NOT policy. For example, this article includes several bizjournals.com sources - which is American City Business Journals , a source that describes itself as ""the premier media platform for companies strategically targeting business decision-makers,"" so this does not appear to be the type of independent content that helps support company notability. There are also several news reports related to the death of the founder; announcements of store openings and closings and products ( examples of trivial coverage ); several reports about donating food boxes (see WP:ORGTRIV ); and references to various books (cited without page numbers) used to support limited content in the article. The WP:SIRS coverage needed to support a standalone article does not seem to be available at this time. Beccaynr ( talk ) 17:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC) NCORP guidelines apply. I concur with Beccaynr's analysis above. In order to establish notability, references must meet both WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND (among others) and nothing I can find appears to do so. HighKing ++ 11:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Part of the problem appears to be that the article currently overfocuses on the Portland grocery stores owned by Zupan's Markets. In the 1990s, Zupan's Markets was based in Vancouver, Washington, and operated many other stores in both Washington and Oregon, including Food World and Food Pavilion stores. The 1994 opening of the Food World in Cascade Park to much fanfare (as a Costco-like store without membership with rollerskating staff...in the midst of a grocery workers' strike), followed by its closure one year later and subsequent sale to Safeway, is interesting and well covered by the business section of local newspapers. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 03:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which means it still appears to be of hyper-local interest. Do you have any independent, reliable, significant source that is not local? per WP:AUD and WP:NCORP you would suggest as notability supporting pillars? These hello and goodbye announcements are ok for confirming closure and opening but they're not contributing anything to asserting notability. Graywalls ( talk ) 04:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Good find!, thanks for sharing. This entry should be expanded with more detail about Food World and Food Pavilion. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC) NCORP guideline, and the first source also appears to be substantially dependent on statements from the store spokesman, e.g. what he says about the timing, his expectation for turnout, his description of the concept, his mention about commercial accounts, and his general promotion of the store; while some of this source could be used to expand the article, it does not seem to help support notability , including because of the promotional aspect. I can't access the second source (""This clipping has been marked as not public"") but it appears to be local coverage from The Columbian . Beccaynr ( talk ) 17:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC) 02, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Cielquiparle and Another Believer have added additional content and citations to bulk up the article. I urge those who voted ""Delete"" to have another look at it and see if that's still their stance. Constablequackers ( talk ) 09:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Constablequackers Don't hold your breath. Up to 47 sources, but I doubt anyone would want to revisit or take the time to put together a source assessment table. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, hang in there. The deletionists and overthinkers around here have discouraged me from working on no less than a dozen Portland related pages. Wanted to create a few, update others, etc. It's a total drag. Such a shame that so many editors are more interested in being pedantic and bickering over incredibly minute nuances of wiki-regulations with the passion of a lawyer in the final chapters of a John Grisham novel instead of, you know, sharing knowledge with the world, which is what this site is supposed to be all about. Unbelievably tedious. Constablequackers ( talk ) 10:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment after additional content and citation added. We're now up to 36 references in the article and not a single one provides in-depth independent content about the company. For example, this article from The Columbian was added, described as an ""in-depth article interviewing ~6 sources"" but equally acknowledging the sources are ""all connected in some way"". So none of this is Independent Content, fails ORGIND. None of the stuff about openings/closings is relevant for the purposes of establishing notability as those articles inevitably all rely, entirely, on the announcement/PR from the company and therefore has no Independent Content, also failing ORGIND. If Another Believer or Cielquiparle believe there are a couple of particular sources which meet NCORP, please point them out here and also point out which pages/paragraphs in particular they believe meets NCORP. HighKing ++ 11:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No thanks. While I disagree with Beccaynr's analysis, I am tired of the AfD game where deletionists (too often a handful of the same editors) refuse to change their NCORP vote no matter how many quality journalistic sources are provided. Waste of my time. Happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC) it doesn't help save an article to include every mention of the article subject. Quality, not quantity helps both those wanting to preserve an article and those who are advocating Delete. Beccaynr ( talk ) 19:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Beccaynr It's not cool to discourage article improvement at AfD, even if you believe it's futile. I have admired your work in improving numerous articles at AfD. It takes a while to sift through tons of coverage like Zupan's Markets has over its nearly 50 years of operation. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 12:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC) 21, 23 March 2024 (UTC) WHATABOUTX , linking to other discussions as though they are somehow indicative of policy is discouraged. Each article needs to be considered on its own merits. Frankly I am disappointed to see so much WP:WALLOFTEXT . Cielquiparle ( talk ) 15:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC) 13, 23 March 2024 (UTC) 45, 22 March 2024 (UTC) 57, 22 March 2024 (UTC) 07, 22 March 2024 (UTC) Per their Talk page, the above user was blocked indefinitely for promotional editing. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 23:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC) 05, 24 March 2024 (UTC) 02, 24 March 2024 (UTC) 05, 24 March 2024 (UTC) GNG and WP:NCORP and WP:HEY . I actually agree with a lot of the analysis above, poking holes in various corporate press release-driven media coverage as sources establishing notability, although I think some of the categorical statements are too broad brush and extreme. Obviously this article and the sources cited have changed a lot over the course of the discussion, and by now it's clear that Zupan's Markets are not ""just"" an obscure family-owned business that no one has ever heard of outside of Portland. In fact, it got a lot of nationwide media attention in 2012 when it was the location for the ""No Grocery Bag"" sketch on Portlandia , and was even mentioned in TIME magazine . Going back to the 1990s, Zupan's Markets' practice of offering fresh fruit samples to customers was considered unusual (and ""exciting""), earning it a favorable mention in Supermarket News . In terms of independent analysis of Zupan's Markets, that seeks to provide a ""balanced"" view, I would point to the 2017 Oregon Business article , ""Zupan's departure dismays local businesses""; it assesses the impact of Zupan's Markets in the Belmont district over time as a catalyst for mixed-use development in a high-poverty neighborhood , and includes the opinion of other businesses in the neighborhood, with zero commentary from Zupan's. Another piece of significant coverage that seeks to take an independent, balanced view of Zupan's Markets is the 1999 Business Journal article ""Hero or villain? Zupan's blunders ignite passions""; although it includes quotes from John Zupan and his lawyer, it also includes other quotes from the Portland City Council and the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. If this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and you feel that only national chains like Safeway, Albertson's, Trader Joe's, and Whole Foods deserve Wikipedia articles, there is nothing I can do; but if your objection is to the gushingly positive descriptions of Zupan's or the ""gentrification"" of the food industry, I've tried to include some critique of Zupan's to balance out the otherwise rather favorable descriptions of the business. (But I fully expect it might not stand.) Cielquiparle ( talk ) 12:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The objections have nothing to do with IDONTLIKEIT or requiring ""gushingly positive descriptions"" and it isn't helpful to include comments such as these. We require a minimum of two references which have in-depth ""Independent Content"". That's it. Nothing more and nothing less. None of those references come even close. The ""Shock Departure"" tells us almost nothing about the company other than they're a supermarket that didn't renew their lease. It certainly does not ""assess the impact"" of anything, it includes commentary from dismayed locals. Nor does one article which you've described as ""significant coverage"" concerning being cited four times for selling alcohol to minors include anything resembling significant in-depth ""Independent Content"" about the company. HighKing ++ 21:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC) NCORP guidelines and accusing them of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or seeking a ""Platonic level"" of coverage which you say doesn't exist in the real world (despite the vast number of topics that meet the guidelines). This is not helpful to the process. If you genuinely want to ""let other people make up their minds"", then step back from the discussion yourself. HighKing ++ 11:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC) 10, 25 March 2024 (UTC) 33, 23 March 2024 (UTC) ""John Zupan runs grocery business at full throttle"" which appeared in the Portland Business Journal in 1996 , and ""FRESH THINKING: Michael Zupan takes his parents' Vancouver-based grocery chain to new level"" which appeared in The Columbian in Vancouver, Washington, in 2003 ; here is the continuation of that article on Page 2 . In addition, there are numerous articles about John Zupan and Zupan's Markets after his death in 2011, like ""John Zupan, Portland grocery 'maverick,' dies at 66"" in The Oregonian in 2011 . The obvious WP:ATD is to or more accurately, split , this article about Zupan's Markets into two biographical articles about John Zupan and Michael Zupan, since the notability threshold for articles about people is much lower than the threshold for organizations. That said, I do not believe this is the best outcome from a Wikipedia point of view; both individuals are mostly notable in the context of how they ran their family-owned business over a 50-year period, and I still maintain that the article satisfies WP:NCORP on the basis of these and additional articles provided in the earlier paragraph above (for which I deliberately looked for non-feature articles focusing on a specific question about the company that didn't rely heavily on interviews with the founders) and that to dismiss all of it completely in pursuit of a Platonic ideal of coverage that doesn't exist in the real world misses the forest for the trees. I understand that HighKing and Beccaynr do not agree with this view, so please do not repeating that you do not agree and it is not good enough because it only serves to discourage further thoughtful participation in this discussion by other editors due to WP:TL;DR . We differ in opinion. Let other people make up their own minds. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 06:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Additional sources have been identified and an ATD suggested, so in the spirit of a collaborative discussion, and because we operate from a baseline assumption of good faith, including that editors can change their minds based on new evidence and ideas, I considered the sources and the suggested ATD. Source review As to new sources presented: the TIME magazine mention is not substantial coverage of the company, this is a brief mention in a report about Oregon politics and Portlandia the 1996 mention in Progressive Grocer about having fruit samples is an example listed by a produce merchandiser and is one sentence about Zupan's, so also not substantial coverage the 2017 Oregon Business source is not significant coverage of the company itself , but instead a brief report that seems more focused on the building, the neighborhood, and new development I agree with HighKing that the 1999 Hero or villain? Zupan's blunders ignite passions source about an upcoming liquor license administrative hearing, with substantial quotes from Zupan's attorney is not substantial coverage to support notability per NCORP; we're not looking for a platonic ideal of coverage, but instead a level of depth and independence to allow us to develop encyclopedic content that is not advertising or a directory entry Eater Seattle quoting a commenter in a brief post about Zupan's is also not significant coverage of the company the 1996 Portland Business Journal is a bizjournals.com source that I discussed in a comment above; a promotional publication, and this source is substantially based on what John Zupan says about himself, what a ""Business associate and racing buddy"" says, what a close friend of Zupan's says, what Mike Zupan Zupan, etc - not independent content that can support notability the Columbian ""Fresh Thinking: Michael Zupan takes his parents' Vancouver-based grocery chain to new level"" source is substantially based on statements from Michael Zupan, John Zupan, the landlord of one of the stores, and an architect who works with Zupan's - this is not independent content that can support notability there are several sources related to the crash that killed John Zupan, including related criminal proceedings that do not support notability for the company, and the Oregonian source noted in this discussion is substantially based on quotes from people connected to John Zupan, and has some biographical content - even if this was substantially independent, the company does not inherit notability from an owner. As to the suggested ATD, while WP:BASIC anticipates significant coverage could be developed by a combination of independent, reliable, secondary sources, this does not seem supported because the same challenge for developing encyclopedic content on this company and biographies of its owners appears to be the limited and often promotional sourcing that is available at this time. Beccaynr ( talk ) 16:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC) - updated comment to fix typo, expand source review Beccaynr ( talk ) 13:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC) , I too consiedered ATD, but with company articles, unless there's a parent company, finding the appropriate target isn't always possible. Graywalls ( talk ) 17:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC) ATD . Cielquiparle ( talk ) 06:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC) , To me, that seems like content forking to game the system to retain a CORP article that may not pass NCORP Graywalls ( talk ) 07:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC) AGF . It is a sincere attempt to offer a solution for those that think Zupan's Markets should be d. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 07:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Graywalls To confirm, if the article is d and ed to John Zupan , it should not be retained in its full form. Another alternative would be to and to John and Mike Zupan , but in my experience, many editors struggle with the existence of double biographies even when they are siblings or married couples. In this case, it would be a BLP-plus-non-BLP. IMO of the two, John Zupan seems more notable (plus he's the eponymous founder). Cielquiparle ( talk ) 09:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I personally don't agree with creating an ""anchor"" bio article to be used to retain a company article that may not pass NCORP. I am also not certain John Zupan merits meets WP:ANYBIO . I've not put time into investigating. Graywalls ( talk ) 09:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Graywalls As I said in an above paragraph, I'm OK with ing John Zupan to Zupan's Markets . Maybe there is no need to have two separate articles. I just thought it was helpful to ""see"" it so we could decide accordingly. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 10:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC) I have looked at your addition about plastic bag. This is tangential mention of Zupan's and pure fluff of no real substance. Graywalls ( talk ) 21:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Graywalls Yes exactly! I wasn't putting it forward as evidence of in-depth coverage. I was simply presenting the TIME magazine mention as evidence that it's not true that no one has ever heard of Zupan's Markets outside Portland. While the Belmont store was still open, many travel guides (and the travel section of the Arizona Daily Star for example ) specifically mentioned it as the ""real location"" of that Portlandia TV sketch too. By itself, it wouldn't justify ing the article, no. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 21:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We're not making patties. No amount of trimmings that can be ground up replaces a large thick piece of steak even though they might be able to make large hamburger patties. Graywalls ( talk ) 01:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Frank, Gerry (2012). Gerry Frank's Oregon . Salem, Oregon: Oregon Guide Book. p. 71. ISBN 978-1-879333-23-9 . Retrieved 2024-03-26 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: ""Founded by the late John Zupan in 1975, Zupan's is a locally-and family-owned market that serves Portland's food-loving community. Likened to farmers markets, Zupan's focuses on quality, selling everything from the best meats and wines to the freshest produce, baked goods, gourmet deli products, specialty foods, flowers and more. Touting a unique grocery shopping experience, Zupan's stores are meant to indulge the senses, inviting customers to see, smell, taste and learn. Regularly scheduled beer, wine and cheese tastings are among customer favorites. Full-service floral departments (Burnside, Boones Ferry and Macadam locations) have beautiful fresh-cut flowers year-round and provide custom design, wedding and event services. The deli features handmade, home-style items with grab-n-go meals, gourmet sandwiches and catering. Bakery items are delivered from 35 of the best bakeries around the Portland area."" Fehrenbacher, Gretchen (2003-06-15). ""Fresh Thinking: Michael Zupan takes his parents' Vancouver-based grocery chain to new level"" . The Columbian . Archived from the original on 2024-03-26 . Retrieved 2024-03-26 . The source contains quotes from the subject but there is sufficient independent reporting to amount to significant coverage. The article notes: ""Zupan's, with headquarters in Vancouver by no means has the lock on specialty groceries and prepared foods. Among the most prominent are Nature's, Whole Food Markets and New Seasons. Trader Joe's, ... Zupan's stores are 15,000 to 20,000 square feet, compared to the 40,000 to 50,000 square feet of the traditional supermarket. ... At one time, there were eight stores, including one store in Battle Ground and two in Vancouver with one on Mill Plain Boulevard and another in Salmon Creek. They were operated as Zupan's Food Pavilion, and, in the case of the Mill Plain store, Food World. Today, there are no Clark County locations. The first two stores in Vancouver were bought in 1989 and sold in the mid-90s."" Giegerich, Andy (1999-09-17). ""Hero or villain? Zupan's blunders ignite passions"". The Business Journal . Vol. 16, no. 30. p. 1. ProQuest 225384612 . The article notes: ""Imagine the bustling, hip Southeast Belmont business district without Zupan's Market. Belmont residents don't want to think about it. But it could happen if the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, the Portland City Council and the Portland Police Bureau revoke the store's liquor license."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zupan's Markets to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria , which requires ""significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 10:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment As you well know by now, ""sufficient coverage"" is not the criteria for establishing notability. None of those meet the Primary Criteria once you apply the tests (which you ignore) outlined in WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND , something that has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions in the past. Of the sources you've listed, the first is a tourist guidebook which includes a summary which has been copied for the most part from Zupan's website at that time , fails ORGIND. The others have been explained as failing NCORP above. HighKing ++ 12:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC) ORGIND : For the coverage to be significant, the sources must describe and discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership instead of just listing the fact that the corporation employs 500 people or mentioning that John Smith was appointed as the new CEO. In other words, it's OK if the SIGCOV focuses on a specific aspect of the company, or a specific milestone, or a specific event, as long as it does so in-depth and in a meaningful way. Nowhere does it say that every piece of SIGCOV we are counting for notability must be totally comprehensive about every aspect of the company. For this reason, I stand by my original argument that multiple sources exist to satisfy WP:NCORP . (I accept that travel guides tend to be somewhat problematic though.) Cielquiparle ( talk ) 14:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think anyone is suggesting NCORP says ""every piece of SIGCOV we are counting for notability must be totally comprehensive about every aspect of the company."" In my first comment, I mentioned NCORP has source assessment standards to help apply the second prong of the notability guideline , specifically that Wikipedia is not advertising and promotion ; the three sources listed above all seem to be contrary to NOT policy - a promotional guide, a local feature substantially based on promotion by people connected to the company, and a promotional publication with a substantial focus on what the company's attorney says about an upcoming local administrative hearing. Beccaynr ( talk ) 14:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"2023 Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council election: Most likely a case of WP:TOOSOON , but draftifying is no longer an option. Onel 5969 TT me 20:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This page, like the various other election pages for 2023 local elections in the UK and previous years, provides information on an election that is quite important. The election is three weeks away, so I would say it isn't too soon and there is plenty of precedent for creating these types of articles in advance of elections in the UK as well as the US and other countries. Additionally, the article does cite independent, reliable sources such as Manchester Evening News. TheSubmarine ( talk ) 07:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom . Shellwood ( talk ) 20:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC) Normally I'd say WP:TOOSOON on something like this, but this election is a couple of weeks away, the article is sourced to major local press outlets and it will be populated with results soon. There is plenty of precedent for these local council election articles - see eg. 2022 Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council election . Flip Format ( talk ) 12:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - per the two responses above, there is a precedent for such articles and it is cited using reliable sources. Most local elections are rarely in-depth. Dank Jae 22:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - please don't be over-zealous in pushing for the deletion of these election pages ahead of the event. Once the candidates are announced, you start getting local media coverage which tells the story of who the contenders / group leaders / policies / coalitions might be, plus it's precisely at this point in the run-up to an election that people pay more attention than normal to local politics. If the pages are here and ready for potential editors to start documenting the story, that increases the likelihood that the pages will have greater value in future beyond simply recording the bald mathematical outcome. Stortford ( talk ) 12:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Originally closed as """", but reopened for further consideration following a request. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 10:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC) OSE , WP:ILIKEIT , and WP:USEFUL are not policy based arguments. I am not saying that this article will not be notable at some point, but currently it is not, and should have remained in draftspace until there was enough in-depth sourcing to show that it passes WP:SIGCOV . Onel 5969 TT me 11:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC) OSE , WP:ILIKEIT or WP:USEFUL . Every local election in the UK has had a page produced for it for some years now. That is not simply ""other stuff exists"", but a comprehensive and well-established consensus that such events are of themselves notable. It you're wanting to have the much wider debate about whether every election should have its own page, that needs to be done in a much wider forum than here, for the significant implications on large numbers of pages that could arise. I agree the sourcing on these election pages could be improved sometimes, but that should be a note to improve rather than a deletion in the first instance. I also agree there's a point at which it's too soon to create such an article, but I don't think too soon is a reasonable argument after the candidates are announced, and certainly not just three days from the election as we are now. I'm glad you acknowledge it may well be notable at some point; I therefore struggle to understand why you think it's a worthwhile use of your or anyone else's time to be continuing to trigger these deletion debates on multiple councils' election pages. I have yet to see any comment supporting deletion from anyone else on all the equivalent pages you're trying to get d. Stortford ( talk ) 05:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think it's a worthwhile use of my time, I think that when it was moved to draft, it should have remained there until there was enough sourcing to pass notability criteria. The initial ! votes on this and the other AfDs, if they had been based on policy, should have been Draftify, at best. But that is the time-waste, the insistence that poorly cited articles, not yet ready, should remain in mainspace regardless of their lack of sourcing. And no, your argument is the epitome of WP:OSE , just because there are tons of poor articles does not make creating more poor articles okay. There is no policy that says that these elections are automatically notable, therefore it would be incumbent on those who feel they are to begin an RfC to create an SNG which says they are. However, I doubt that it would pass. I would also suggest you change your duplicate ! vote to a comment. Onel 5969 TT me 09:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have changed my previous follow-up response from to comment, if that is the etiquette; I haven't had much engagement with the deletion process before. The wording of your initial proposal explicitly says that draftifying is no longer an option, which is perhaps why no-one's suggested it in response. Stortford ( talk ) 10:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for doing that, yes, in AfD discussions, you may comment as often as you like, but you may only ! vote once. And regarding my initial Draftify comment, that means that a reviewer no longer has the option to draftify, but the result of a discussion can be to draft. Onel 5969 TT me 15:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON . Took a few seconds to find some in-depth coverage [5] [6] [7] Number 5 7 12:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. It's not WP:TOOSOON , it's notable and it's in 3 days time. When there's only one person trying to get 6 different pages for the same reason and there's no other votes, what are you trying to gain? I don't get it. There's news coverage, and a list of candidates is important information anyway. On your attempt to remove Luton , you argued that the election authority isn't a proper source for this information - your lack of understanding of UK elections is showing here, as the election authority - in this case, Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council - are the only place that publish a legally-binding list of candidates. How else do you find out the full list of candidates? Every UK election page ever has done the same, it's convention. This is just getting tedious. Dan pixelflow ( talk ) 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I agree completely. One should know a little, at least, about the subject or research it to find out why so many of the same type of article are all having the same made up ""issue"". Thanks, Wikieditor019 (If I do not respond, please visit my talk page) 21:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The election has occurred and in depth coverage is being added as results solidify. As with UK local elections, each election is not covered nationally. However, on Wikipedia, every local UK election has had a article if someone has made it. Comment It appears you nominate UK local elections for deletion without knowledge of the fact they are not covered nationally, for each individual election. This means that there will be no BBC/ITV/Sky News article dedicated to a single election. Possibly in cities but not rural areas. Thanks, Wikieditor019 (If I do not respond, please visit my talk page) 21:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Leonard Mbotela: BoraVoro ( talk ) 07:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Kenya . ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Seems to pass notability, sources 6 and 11 are the best. I also found this [30] and [31] . The last one I posted seems to suggest political notability as well. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Procedural per meeting at least some credible and ...able input. There can be sources since the article somewhat meets inclusion by importance and source by few reliable source per WP:RS . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm seeing lots of opinions from this editor on this day, and regrettably, most of them do not make sense. ""Procedural per meeting at least some credible and ...able input"" is close to nonsense. ""Somewhat meets inclusion by importance and source by few reliable source"" is not a helpful or useful comment. Please state which sources are reliable and contribute towards notability. Geschichte ( talk ) 21:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC) Geschichte , it seems I used mobile that caused much of the typographical error. Also the time shows I was in a sleep carried mode (ready to sleep for the night), that I may have edited wrongly (but with love not with prejudice). I didn't see this as early as because I wasn't pinged. Please this type of comment should be partly, when necessary addressed to the editors talk page and if likely, only on that particular case. If I had made mistake, advise me on my TP and not leave a message without diff as you did. Now j understand your message on my TP. The diff I requested wasn't sent by you and it was difficult to check if there was any error with my vote in AFDs. Thanks though and will value the spirit of rechecking. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 20:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting after reading Geschichte's comment. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't think a diff is required when an editor is quoting from a message right above theirs. Sorry if it was embarrassing but some comments in AFDs just don't make any sense. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Midreshet Tavor for Zionist Leadership: Article cites three outlets, which I've machine translated. All article are fluff pieces on the subject, which is fine and can help constitute notability, but Emek seems wholly unreliable. Ynet is probably reliable. I would lean unreliable with Mida. Remsense 诉 15:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm wondering what sort of notability one looks for in a school. Wikipedia guidelines seem to indicate the bar is set at notability within one's field and how high is that bar for ""the field of schools""? Are only Harvard and Juilliard notable because they are in the news whenever some famous alumnus is appointed to SCOTUS or wins an Oscar ? Initially, it appears that one can make a good argument that since other similarly notable schools have no article, then this should also have no article, but then maybe the WP:Be bold rule applies? So there's a bad article or two. I found another good article demonstrating that a) this school exists and that b) it's written about online and in newspapers and serves a role in society and in IDF military preparedness. 15:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC) @ DRosenbach : it sounds like you were reading WP:NPROF which covers people in academia. Schools are covered under WP:GNG or if the institution is for-profit then the GNG WP:NCORP sourcing guidelines might come into play. See WP:NSCHOOL . S0091 ( talk ) 17:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools , Judaism , and Israel . Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 10:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"2025 World Men's Handball Championship qualification: The newly page created is unnecessary, overkilling, messy and does not add much of a value at was done previously on the 2025 World Men's Handball Championship page. Plus it has never been done before for the previous tournaments : IHF World Men's Handball Championship . What's more, some of the parts of the page will need to be upated in the original pages and in this newly created article. I propose we this new page and we go back to normal as it was before the division into two articles. Pindrice ( talk ) 05:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 31 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 05:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Handball . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC) . It does not any value of what is already present in the overall article. Comment to @ Pindrice : , your ping did not work as you did not sign your post. Kante4 ( talk ) 16:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC) . Better ;) Pindrice ( talk ) 16:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Someone reviewed it already and didn't ask it to be nominated for deletion. The 2025 World Men's Handball Championship article was so messy before, with multiple tables, an unfinished bidding process section which had false information (it took me years to find out info about the bidding process because no one bothered to put the info in the section) and a messy qualification section. so I decided to follow the FIFA World Cup route by making changes like adding a qualification page. Also, in my opinion we didn't need a summary of qualified teams and a qualified teams list on the main page, That's why I put the latter into the new page. Deleting the page would feel like I am being punished for caring. If you don't think the qualification article isn't good enough, then improve it, please. The more people editing on the page, the better. It should be exciting to see the World Men's Handball Championship expand to have separate articles about the tournament (like you have for FIFA World Cups), yet I'm getting a reaction like what on earth am I doing . Finally, if it's a problem to do both brackets for the European qualification (both European qualification and general qualification article), then I'll do it, it's not a problem. ILoveSport2006 ( talk ) 19:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, if anyone has any advice to improve the article, please tell me. ILoveSport2006 ( talk ) 19:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Like Kante4 said, it does not add any new value of what is already present in overall article. The difference between handball qualification and FIFA World Cup qualification, is that each confederations has its own separate qualification and inter-confederation qualification matches for FIFA WC, while qualification to Handball WC happens through continental championships. 90sveped ( talk ) 23:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC) Like Kante4 said and in my personal opinion, this article is not outstanding enough to stand alone and had not handball world championship tournament has ever had an article about qualification. to 2025 World Men's Handball Championship . Mohammed07102007 ( talk ) 03:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] valid article split and already contains more information than other qualifying sections for other tournaments. SportingFlyer T · C 12:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 14:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] based on primary sources and no evidence of third party coverage to meet GNG. LibStar ( talk ) 03:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLA tlak 07:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and Draftify If the original author says he can improve it, we give him that chance, and it should go through AfC again, ensuring it it meets notability first. DarmaniLink ( talk ) 18:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Reliance Industrial Infrastructure: There is no need for a one paragraph article when the Summary page already has the information. Gails GNG and NORG. Single source in article and BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. No objection to a consensus (a bold would be rv) to Reliance Industries#Reliance Industrial Infrastructure . // Timothy :: talk 17:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Maharashtra . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom We really don't need an article on this at all separately. Nate • ( chatter ) 18:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This is a separate company, traded separately on two different stock exchanges. Reliance Industries only has a minority of the shares of Reliance Industrial Infrastructure . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 06:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Eastmain 's comments above are compelling. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Disagreement rests on whether or not these are two separate companies. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] -per",no consensus
+"Fourth Down and Love: As always, television films are not ""inherently"" notable just because they exist, and have to show evidence of WP:GNG -worthy coverage about them -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with absolutely no evidence of third-party media coverage shown at all. Bearcat ( talk ) 18:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Television , and United States of America . Bearcat ( talk ) 18:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Added a presentation in Southern Living , and a review in Decider (see this ). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 18:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC) The Southern Living article is ""Checking out an exclusive clip"". This is about the extent of all coverage I find, where to watch the thing. The TV Guide sourcing in the article is bare, so isn't a valid source. I don't mind any reviews other than what's given already, that's not enough. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This [1] , still doesn't add enough to the discussion to ! . Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . White, Brett (2023-09-09). ""Stream It or Skip It: 'Fourth Down and Love' on Hallmark Scores a Touchdown Thanks to Pascale Hutton and Ryan Paevey"" . Decider . Archived from the original on 2024-04-07 . Retrieved 2024-04-07 . The review notes: ""I’m happy to report that Fourth Down and Love offers no real surprises plot-wise and pretty much adheres to every trope you expect from both a Hallmark romance and a kid-centric sports movie. You bet Mike’s brother and sister-in-law try to set him up with Erin every chance they can get. You bet there’s a sweet and sassy grandma. There’s a fundraiser, a winning touchdown, hurt feelings and boosted morale, all that good stuff. I’m happy that Fourth Down and Love has all of that, because all of those plot points are fun to see and because it means I can focus this take on what the movie really excels at: character."" Nowak, Laura (2023-09-09). ""Fourth Down and Love Explores Second Chances at Love"" . TV Fanatic . Archived from the original on 2024-04-07 . Retrieved 2024-04-07 . The review is listed on Rotten Tomatoes here . The review notes: ""While we're unsure if this film was a one-off or part of a movie series, I'm crossing my fingers for more. I found the entire Hanson family to be charming, and I'd love to see Mike coach another season of the Whalers flag football team with assistance from Jimmy, Danielle, and Erin. Since this was the first adult male that gave Kiara any attention, I think we need more time to see how the family dynamics evolve now that Mike is her mom's boyfriend and her coach."" Wang, K.L. Connie (2023-09-09). ""An Awkward Second Meet-Cute Reunites a Single Mom and Pro Football Player in Hallmark's 'Fourth Down and Love' "" . Parade . Archived from the original on 2024-04-07 . Retrieved 2024-04-07 . The article notes: ""In Hallmark Channel's latest Fall into Love movie, a single mom runs into her old college sweetheart who is now a professional football player. ... Fourth Down and Love premieres on Saturday, Sept. 9 at 8 p.m. ET on Hallmark Channel."" Baer, Rebecca Angel (2023-09-07). ""Check Out An Exclusive Clip From Hallmark's Football-Themed 'Fourth Down And Love' "" . Southern Living . Archived from the original on 2024-04-07 . Retrieved 2024-04-07 . The article notes: ""Hallmark is giving all fans a big treat with their newest flick in their Fall into Love programing, Fourth Down and Love starring Pascale Hutton and Ryan Paevey. Paevey plays professional football star Mike Hansen who suffers an injury that sidelines him for a month. Mike’s brother Jimmy (Dan Payne, Outrunners) convinces Mike to come home while he’s recovering."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Fourth Down and Love to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 11:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: An evaluation of newly found sources would be very helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still hoping for an assessment of newly found sources and whether or not they make a difference as the deletion rationale states the article is not properly referenced. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Arepera Socialista: Most of the current coverage in the article is due to a WikiLeak cable description: ""Socialism's Tangible -- and Tasty -- Benefits"" and the chain has been closed for years, with no long lasting impact. NoonIcarus ( talk ) 18:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Politics , Business , and Venezuela . NoonIcarus ( talk ) 18:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC) //foreignpolicy.com/2010/12/10/chavezs-socialist-sandwich-emporium/ , https://www.elciudadano.com/economia/la-arepera-socialista-venezolana/04/13/ , https://www.proquest.com/docview/1082428344/2183CA7C85174C77PQ/17 , etc. which meets WP:GNG . - Indefensible ( talk ) 19:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC) once again, Foreign Policy's article is about the WikiLeaks cable, and the ProQuest reference seems to be a case of WP:NOTNEWS and a passing mention: "" Employees who arrived late will be sanctioned "". -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 10:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Morrigan Aensland: I took on the task of cleaning out the very outdated and over bloated Reception, and when I was done trimming out trivial mentions and unreliable sources, I found practically nothing left over. I performed an extensive BEFORE in the hopes of finding something to salvage this article, but there is genuinely nothing out there bar trivial mentions from stuff like CBR. In the article's current state I'm really not seeing enough to meet the GNG, and I'd suggest a or to the Darkstalkers character list as an AtD. I'm genuinely so surprised there's nothing here, so if anyone can find anything I missed to improve this article, please feel free to share them, but right now I just don't think there's enough for an article here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 23:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 23:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment A reception section is not necessary for a fictional element to meet GNG. Can you comment on the plethora of other sourcing still present in the article? Jclemens ( talk ) 00:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Seconding this. I've mentioned this to the nominator many times before but they never seem to hear me. . Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would appreciate not being accused of ignoring advice, here, and I've been wary of that primarily after the Koopa Troopa debate. Akin to that article and other articles I've seen in similar situations, those articles had a demonstrated impact beyond or within their series (Koopa Troopa influencing the designs of many characters in the series, for example.) Morrigan has some decent conception information, yes, but there's nothing in her conception information really demonstrating an inherent importance to her series or beyond it, especially in conjunction with the real lack of overall Reception, hence why I nominated it. Pinging @ Jclemens for this reasoning so they're notified of this reply, given that both of you had the same query. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you don't like the accusations, stop writing nominations that hinge so heavily on the lack of a reception section. Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reception is a major crux in showing the subject's notability. While conception and design info can greatly help with that, oftentimes it isn't enough. (For instance, I once worked on a draft for Celebi (Pokemon) , and that article had fantastic conception information but nothing showing that Celebi actually made an impact on anything. ) Reception needs to work in conjunction with design information to prove a subject's notability, and I have seen cases where this is the case (For instance, I recently got Mew (Pokémon) to Good Article, and that article's heavy amounts of developmental information in conjunction with its displayed cultural impact help demonstrate notability) but in the case of Morrigan, there's scraps of information in her Reception with a conception section that doesn't display that Morrigan impacted her series with her design (akin to Koopa Troopa) nor has there been extensive detail on the subject's development been published to a point where the development in and of itself is notable. I'm not saying the conception info here isn't bad, but what I am saying is that I'm not seeing enough for a separate article to be worthwhile when a more than valid AtD happens to exist. I will admit that past cases such as Shulk and Koopa Troopa turned out to be incorrect in terms of their consensus, but I have noted these past consensuses and adapted it into my overall philosophy with articles. If Morrigan had even a few sources more I'd believe her to be meeting the notability guideline, but in this case she just frankly isn't. I have concerns with your accusation not because I'm ignoring your advice, but because of the fact that I worry that you think I am . Just because I have had past AfDs with ""Keep"" consensuses should not immediately devalue this one solely on the grounds of the one who nominated it, especially since I have laid out my rationale in very extensive detail in response to both you and Jclemens's queries. Additionally, I would also appreciate that we to the discussion of the subject in question, as I feel continuing down this chain of response will only lead to us getting off topic, but I thought I'd at least make my stance clear for clarity's sake so this does not become an issue both for this discussion and for future discussions. If you have further concerns about this, I'd appreciate if we continue it on my user talk page, since an AfD is not the proper place for a discussion about editing practices that do not pertain to this discussion in question. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 02:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A reception section is one, but not the only, way to demonstrate notability. Many, but not all, RS coverage could be shoehorned into a reception section. Hence me asking the clarifying question: is there no RS coverage that you believe to be suitable for a reception section, or no RS coverage at all? You wrote a nomination that didn't answer that question, and I'd still like to hear your thoughts on that, because at first blush there appears to be a lot of references in the article, most of which are not in the reception section. Jclemens ( talk ) 05:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm a bit confused about what you're asking. Are you asking about if there are sources for Reception used in the plot summary? From what I can tell, most of them are just verifying plot information or something similar, and any conception info isn't valid for Reception in this case. I can take another look when I'm home if you want but when I looked I didn't really notice much in the way of anything helpful in there. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 12:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The Darkstalkers series (and its media spin-offs) were at the height of their popularity from 1994 to c. 1998. I an not certain that there are recent sources on for a series that has not seen new entries for about 25 years. Dimadick ( talk ) 00:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I definitely second this, but I admittedly was unable to find much in the way of coverage in a peruse of Archive.org, and any other form of accessing sourcing or magazine coverage from that time period is inaccessible to me. There may be coverage, but the existence of it cannot be ascertained unless other editors bring them to light. If significant coverage in those kinds of source is found, I'd definitely be willing to reconsider my stance, but I unfortunately cannot confirm the existence of these potential sources at this time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Darkstalkers characters . Could not really find any SIGCOV besides this , but there is a perfectly fine WP:ATD . However, deleting nearly the entire reception before nominating is considered something of a ""cover-up"" and not encouraged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 00:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies, I wasn't really intending anything of the sort, as I was intending to just clean up the article before I realized the lack of any actual coverage in there. I will assure you that the stuff I removed wasn't really doing much for the article, in any case, and if any editor wishes to take a look at the sources in the old state of the article, they can be found here . For the most part, it was primarily trivial mentions and sources of questionable authenticity (Practically of all of which were not really helpful either way). Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Pokelego999 ""I will assure you that the stuff I removed wasn't really doing much for the article"" I disagree with you strongly (and I am a deletionist). Please do not remove such content ever again outside AfD, or without providing detailed explanation on talk why a particular source is unreliable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you want, I am willing to do an analysis on each source I removed from the article. I am more than willing to justify my stance on this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 02:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zxcvbnm @ Pokelego999 This is.. . bad . If the article is kept, I ask Pokelago999 to restore the removed content. What was wrong, for example, with "" In 1996, Mean Machines Sega described her as ""one of the most bewitching girl characters ever to appear in gaming, which explains her huge fan base in Japan – comprising men and women!"""" sourced to "" Mean Machines Sega 40 (February 1996), pages 18–20.""? @ Daranios in case you have not seen this (plenty of interesting sources there). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Half of these sources were using trivial mentions putting up a semblance of notability when coverage really isn't there. For instance, the article you're citing seems to really be only a sentence in terms of actual commentary. Looking at the magazine in particular, the text states ""A succubus, or demon, who feeds on human blood while hiding in beautiful female form, Morrigan is one of the most bewitching characters ever to appear in gaming, which explains her huge fan base in Japan – comprising men and women! Given the chance, she reveals her less attractive batty form. Specialty attacks include creating mirror images of herself, and blasting across the screen on a beam of fire. "" and nothing more. For the most part this is relatively minor, with only the cited sentence really amounting to much. At most, all that can be cited is ""in beautiful female form, Morrigan is one of the most bewitching characters ever to appear in gaming, which explains her huge fan base in Japan – comprising men and women!"" which is at most an extension of one sentence coverage, aka the standard definition of a trivial mention. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 02:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC) 54, 9 June 2024 (UTC) 22, 9 June 2024 (UTC) BEFORE . I *rewrote* the entire dev section on this article even. But I don't think Pokelego's reasoning is wrong here: when you look at what's actually being said here, and the context, it's not there or at least hasn't been found. Even the Troopa article had some footing on how it changed with the Mario series and affected it, and that'd been lost. Here anything major can be summed up for the list or series article I feel.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 04:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC) 19, 4 June 2024 (UTC) GNG . 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 22:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC) GNG and allow to write a non-stubby article which fullfills the requirements of both WP:WHYN and WP:ALLPLOT . Also e.g. some commentary in the Gameplay section amounts to reception even if it is under a different heading for reasons of coherence. Failing that, I would obviously prefer a as WP:ATD compared to deletion. Daranios ( talk ) 14:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC) The mention of Morrigan in the academic article is solely listing her as an example of an erotic devil and not saying anything about that depiction other than briefly stating what a succubus is supposed to be. Additionally the sources under gameplay fall under game guide, and are strictly relating to how the character played in those particular title. To boot, if you look at these articles, they are done for all characters there, not individually just for her. If that counted as SIGCOV, we'd have articles for every Pokemon.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 15:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC) If you would like to have sources with Morrigan as the main topic, which is not required by WP:GNG , there would be the two-page book chapter and the Kotaku web article, thus two sources for the bare minium of ""multiple sources"". The academic article talks about the iconography represented by Morrigan, I'll add what I see there to the article when I have time. Sources under game play descibe the game play, but there are also things like she's a ""balanced character"" ""but doesn't stand out"", which are clearly value judgements , i.e. reception. Otherwise things boil down to the usual discussion: That sources should not ""count"" for notability if they do not have long or exclusive treatment of the topic is an interpretation of WP:SIGCOV which I do not share. To the contrary my interpretation is that multiple short treatments collectively can form significant coverage, but of course only if said coverage is not trivial. That then is the something one can argue about, like the fact that someone had added source to the article thinking them worthwhile, while Pokelego999 has removed many in the good faith assumption that said coverage was trivial. So far I have only looked at the remaining sources after that clean-up. Daranios ( talk ) 11:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC) I'm all down for a ""Death by 1000 Cuts"" approach, but sources still have to be saying something and offering some sort of analysis to satisfy SIGCOV. There still needs to be something that illustrates discussion that warrants an encyclopedic article. ""Morrigan is a succubus"" and nothing more in an article academic or otherwise isn't that. I get trying to save an article, but you can't by calling molehills mountains.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 13:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Thanks for improving the content from ""Lilith en la cultura audiovisual"" . I think what we have there now is indeed something (I've never claimed it was very long). So my opinion remains that there is enough non-trivial material based on secondary sources available to write a non-stubby article, and what we already have in this regard in the article now would be akwardly much if pressed into the current format of List of Darkstalkers characters . Thus I still prefer over . Daranios ( talk ) 15:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC) I strongly feel you are giving that source undue weight: it's not an examination of her as a character, or even commentary of, it's simply observing she's a succubus in modern media. It is borderline trivial, and nothing would be lost by the article being d (unlike the Koopa Troopa article above).-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 15:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC) I believe the two sentences added are suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia which has no space limit as in WP:NOTPAPER , I do not find this look into the creative origins trivial. That's all the weight I give that one source. Daranios ( talk ) 20:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 43, 8 June 2024 (UTC) VALNET , bears no weight on notability in discussions such as these. The Kotaku source is... a figurine review? Admittedly the first paragraph is nice but the rest is the author criticizing fan artists and describing how good a figurine looks, which really doesn't discuss Morrigan much at all. As you stated above, most of the other sources don't meet SIGCOV. There really aren't many strong sources, if at all, to support this. Per my above comment, I'm willing to give an in-depth source analysis on every single source I removed to prove my point further. There's really just nothing here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 02:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC) 47, 8 June 2024 (UTC) The Ultimate Guide "" since I lack access to it, but an article that's just a paragraph of people saying ""she's popular"" with no commentary plus one or two additional sources really doesn't have enough to justify a separation. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 16:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC) The Night Warriors , Morrigan Aensland has become one of gaming's most iconic characters. A fan service favorite, Morrigan continues to attract cosplayers, eager to put on succubus's revealing outfit..."" the rest is just the author critiquing fan cosplays. This is basically a trivial mention given that, in basic terms, it's just saying ""She's iconic and popular in cosplay. "" It can be used to bolster the point of the prior Kotaku article mentioned above by Daranios and Piotrus, but given how weak it is- and the fact that is three paragraphs and a swarm of links to random cosplays- its overall commentary is minimal. -The "" Mean Machines Sega 40"" source, which Piotrus brought up earlier, has this one sentence summary of Morrigan being popular. Thing is, it only acknowledges that she's popular in cosplay, and she isn't even the sole focus, with Felicia also being brought up. A look at the source reveals no more than this. Frankly, this is a very trivial mention given how brief it is, especially given it isn't even specifically about Morrigan. -I can't access the UGO source given it's a dead link like all other UGO sources, but given it seems to be an easter egg video for Scott Pilgrim, I'd assume the commentary is a rather minimal explanation of a cameo appearance in the game. At most it can really only be used to additionally verify the ""she's popular"" claim. -""Top 15 sexiest characters to cosplay"" is exactly the kind of commentary Wikipedia needs. But yeah, sarcasm aside, this basically just says ""Morrigan is sexy"" in a single sentence of a top fifteen listicle. Trivial mention in a nutshell. -This Destructoid source is a brief, three-four paragraph article talking briefly about an upcoming figure, and unlike the Kotaku source, the reviewer barely comments on the figure in question. Again, just another brief thing saying ""Morrigan is popular"" with little to no substance. -These sources for famous cosplay figures are... bizarre. The Nigri source is just a link to her Facebook page, the first Gosiengfago source is just a brief paragraph of how she likes cosplay and how Morrigan is one (among many) characters she enjoys cosplaying. I can't access the UNO Guam source but it seems to be owned by the same people who made the last Gosiengfago source. The Kotaku source is a brief couple paragraph blurb about how a photo of a Morrigan cosplay looked good. There's nothing on the character there bar verifying the fact that Gosiengfago cosplayed Morrigan. The first Le source is an interview, which is a primary source. The other Le source I can't access because of a pop-up for their newsletter or whatever it is... which seems to indicate the site itself is really iffy, but I can't ascertain reliability per the pop-up. The G4tv source is labelled as a blog but seems to be a staff writer which is confusing, but either way is really only a sentence or two of commentary at most. The first Meritt source is a trivial mention briefly discussing how she did Morrigan once. The second Meritt source seems to be a blog, while the third source mentions her for a sentence. The Bayonetta source mentions Morrigan once as a past cosplay with no additional commentary. While this kind of stuff is worth mentioning, there's a lot of very trivial mentions of it being roped in (Or straight up unreliable sources) being roped in that put undue weight onto this part of the subject. You can very likely trim this down to just a sentence saying ""Several notable people have cosplayed Morrigan..."" and leave it at that, though even then there's a lot of sources that need trimming first. -Second usage of the same Mean Machines source which I've gone over above already. -The two sources following Mean Machines- """"ベストキャラクター賞"" [Best Character Award]. Gamest (212): 102. 30 January 1998."" and "" SSM 25/1997, page 125."" are both random listicle rankings that place her rather low on it overall. There's not really any value in these sources and they're the exact type of thing that wouldn't be acceptable in an article these days. -Famitsu source is the same as above, except this time it's literally just her name in a column and nothing else. -I can't access the ""muses"" source, even via Wayback/Archive, but it seems like a rather trivial listicle given it's a top twenty for a niche subject. -The Girls of Gaming source I can't access, but it seems minor overall given it's an introductory quote not even entirely about Morrigan. If you can find this one do let me know so I can take a look at it. -The Kotaku source following this literally has all of its commentary summed up by what's quoted in the old version, that being ""I've always found Morrigan a fascinating character. Darkstalkers is a fairly obscure series, one which few people will have played on a regular basis, and yet Morrigan is always front and centre when it comes to fan art and cosplay. "" Aka, it's one sentence of coverage in a three paragraph long article which is literally just the author sharing a cool piece of Morrigan fanart they found on DeviantArt. -EGM Source seems to literally just be ""Morrigan had a baby named after them"" which is cool I guess but very much trivia and not even that uncommon among videogame characters. -The GamesRadar source about Morrigan and Chun-Li in Project x Zone is not even entirely about Morrigan and just reiterates that she's popular and nothing more. The fact the bit quoted had to link Chun-Li in the quote for it to make sense is telling. -The GamesRadar top thirty source mentions Morrigan as part of Felicia's description. Morrigan isn't even ranked on the list. -The GameSpot source's entire text is ""From the Capcom side, this week we're featuring everybody's favorite succubus, Morrigan. Hailing from the Darkstalkers universe, Morrigan has been a mainstay in the Capcom crossover fighting games and is definitely a fan favorite. Morrigan's default costume is perfect for her personality: somewhere between a batlike demon and a charming lover. The purple and teal are great colors to work from. "" Which is... very minimal. It, again, boils down to ""she's popular"" and I guess one sentence on color cohesion? Will note this whole source is mostly just summarizing alt colors for an upcoming fighting game, and that Morrigan wasn't even the only character being described, with Deadpool being directly before her, for example, with similarly trivial commentary. -Again, I can't find or access the ""play"" sources, so I can't assess their notability, but given that they are summarized with zero quotes or anything, ing them around is very much not a weight on notability unless their contents can be found and assessed. -The Crunchyroll source is just the author making one sentence commentary on various pieces of fanart- and not all of them are about Morrigan. Very much a trivial mention. -GamesTM is a standard ""Why did this character get in instead of x and x"" thing that happens every time a fighting game roster is fully revealed. Very much a trivial mention, especially since it isn't even exclusively Morrigan who is brought up here. -The We Love Golf source is cool trivia but not much more. -The Kotaku source following this mentions Morrigan once in the whole article. This is the most trivial mention trivial mention I've ever seen. -I can't even access where Morrigan is in the Game Informer source due to the link expiring. Due to the fact that the link's stuck with a broken archive link, it's impossible to ascertain the notability of this source, but this seems to be a standard list akin to ""twenty characters we'd like to see in the next Smash game"" kind of deal. Not impossible for commentary but it seems unlikely. -Complex source is a weak listicle per others above. The second complex link literally mentions Morrigan once in the whole article with no additional commentary. -The only commentary I can glean from the GamesRadar listicle is ""This sultry succubus is one of fighting games leading ladies, striking a balance between the dignified seriousness of Chun-Li and the hyper-sexualized cleavage-heaving antics of Mai Shiranui. Granted, Morrigans ridiculously revealing costume seems like it could slip off at any moment. "" The rest is plot summary and appearance summaries, and the second sentence of this quote is just ""she has skimpy clothing"" which really doesn't count as valid commentary. -Third Complex source is another listicle per the others above. -I can't speak on Gamenguide's popularity, but in the case of the article, it's literally just saying ""She's popular because a Darkstalkers game just came out and strong in competitive"" with a one sentence statement saying she's iconic. Really only is able to verify the above two ""popularity"" and ""iconic"" points more than anything else. -Crunchyroll source after this is a figure review with one sentence of commentary on Morrigan, being ""Morrigan Aensland is a perennial Darkstalkers favorite, and for good reason. She's gorgeous, powerful, and all-around awesome. "" which is the definition of a trivial mention. -Do I even have to explain why 3/4 of the ""sex appeal"" articles are unreliable? You can take a look if you want but most of them are trivial rankings or listicles about how Morrigan is sexy and whatnot. It's very unprofessional and doesn't even have much significant commentary. -A Top 50 listicle about ""chicks behaving badly"" offers very little real commentary on Morrigan. -Morrigan isn't even mentioned in the following GamesRadar source, she's just included as part of an image collage alongside who knows how many other characters. This article is more about Chell (Portal) than anything else. -The next two listicles really explain themselves. Following this, most of the sources there fall into similar pitfalls of ""Really random thing tangentially related to Morrigan and how she was brought up in an oddly specific listicle. "" There's really nothing in any of them and they all lack substance. The Game Revolution source is literally just an April Fool's joke they did that doesn't even comment on Morrigan, and instead is just a joke. -The entire paragraph on her cartoon appearance are all trivial mentions, primarily sourced to season reviews that are barely about her. I feel you could maybe squeeze some stuff out of the celebrity cosplayers bit if you tried but that doesn't really help with notability when nearly every other source surrounding it boils down to a trivial mention or sources that just aren't valuable commentary in the slightest. Do ping me if anyone disagrees with any assessments here and I'll be willing to elaborate on these in further detail, but I do hope this helps enlighten some of my thinking with removing these sources and why I feel they don't contribute to Morrigan's notability in a debate like this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 22:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC) 56, 9 June 2024 (UTC) they're just images. And speaking frankly, I would've cleaned the hell out of this article if they hadn't, because I have had the unfortunate experience of doing that with Niemti's works.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 02:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC) 27, 9 June 2024 (UTC) 32, 12 June 2024 (UTC) 54, 12 June 2024 (UTC) 47, 12 June 2024 (UTC) 22, 12 June 2024 (UTC) 06, 12 June 2024 (UTC) If it's any help, I've found two scholarly sources on Morrigan. MoonJet ( talk ) 05:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC) 36, 10 June 2024 (UTC) 04, 10 June 2024 (UTC) There's been extensive argumentation from participants thus far, who are relatively evenly divided between and . Additional opinions from new participants would likely be the most useful contribution for establishing a consensus at this time. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC) ) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC) I hope this link or this Google Scholar search will work. Daranios ( talk ) 14:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC) we have repetitions of ""she's sexy/awesome!"" and ""she's popular in fan works!"", but no encyclopedic weight given as to *why* she is beyond ""Capcom uses her a lot"". Trying to search through Japanese sources like Inside Games is also illustrating that there's just no commentary. And despite asking multiple times, neither of the editors voting ""Keep"" have provided sources from the ""old version"" that really illustrate SIGCOV or why this is important separate of the parent work. The argument was also made that ""It can't be d into the list without losing info"" but both elements of the aforementioned reception can be summed up as ""Due to Capcom's frequent use, she has been cited as the most popular character from the franchise, and is frequently the subject of fan works. "" I feel these points, as a whole, need to be considered when closing the AfD: the arguments for it just don't hold water as much as I'd personally wish they did.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 02:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC) Your impression you have summarized here is not at all what I said in my original argument, maybe due to topics discussed further down. If one would like to look again, my original argument plus addendum was based on the then current version of the article plus finds from WP:BEFORE searches, not the old version . I do believe there is something worthwhile in the trimmed parts , agreeing completely with this point raised by Piotrus , but that's an additional argument, not the one my original statement is based on. Daranios ( talk ) 10:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC) you're just doing WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST with extra steps.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 10:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC) Huh, how could that impression come about in the face of my arguments from 5th and 6th of June? Sure, one can discuss about the sources, but how can it be a WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST case, when the sources were either concretely provided and linked here, or are present in the current version of the article? That's what WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST asks us to do, isn't it? I don't think it will contribute more to this discussion, but do you want me to reiterate the sources? Daranios ( talk ) 14:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC) 59, 13 June 2024 (UTC) 30th anniversary Capcom character encyclopedia , p. 125, "" Darkstalkers' Sultry Succubus Has Never Looked Quite So Good "" and all the other secondary sources currently making up the article. Is that enough? Well, first of all, we do have a full non-stubby article even after the trim. I expect the Concept and creation section is completely fine and fitting for an encyclopedic article, which circles back to the initial argument by Jclemens that not only a reception section is relevant. But I don't really have a good overview if these are all independent reliable secondary sources. So whatever is going on there, I believe the current reception section is fine for an encyclopedic article and should be preserved in case there should be a rather than a decision. Taking this section, and the already discussed brief commentary on gameplay by EMG2 and Revista Oficial Dreamcast , as well as the one sentence by Guinness World Records , with that content alone we are already nicely beyond the somewhat fuzzy WP:Stub threshold of 250 words, even if we discount the contribution by CBR which is debatable with regard to notability. All of that content I do not find trivial. Capcom Encyclopedia and the recently found ""O Eros em uma sociedade cansada: uma busca narcisista pelo outro através dos videogames"", as well as any other sources removed from the article, are not yet part of this count. That means without having to do further research we already do fullfill the requirements of WP:WHYN ( We require ""significant coverage"" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. ) and therefore WP:N . This content is made up by many small contributions from multiple sources, or, as you put it, by a ""Death by 1000 Cuts"" approach . Which I do not see as a problem. Daranios ( talk ) 18:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC) PRIMARY , Capcom produced it for that year's San Diego Comic Con and then sold it separately. The statement in the Kotaku ref is the one CBR is making. The gameplay commentary is not exclusive to her: again, if those worked as sources, we'd be citing game guides and having pokemon popping out of the woodwork. Under scrutiny, these arguments aren't holding water.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 18:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC) WHYN . I believe this is the case for the current version of the article. Daranios ( talk ) 18:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC) If it's this close on a fictional topic that isn't hurting anyone to include (or not), then just leave it in. Jclemens ( talk ) 21:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC) 13, 13 June 2024 (UTC) 29, 14 June 2024 (UTC) BEFOREs , I've scoured Japanese and Chinese sources to find something that could help improve Morrigan even before the AfD, but despite all my best efforts, I've found very little that say much of anything of substance. Morrigan gets brief mentions of her significance, but I don't believe that the end result of the reception is more than two or three lines. I don't think it should be a simple matter of counting sources, but the end result of said sources. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 03:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC) Pokemon Test : the bare minimum an article can have said about it and somehow pass notability. We're using terms like ""there's many sources"", ""she's in a lot of games"", ""fan reactions"", and it makes me wonder how do we measure that? I ask these things because it makes me reconsider some past s I've done, while also worried how much WP:ILIKEIT is a factor in this AfD, especially considering Cukie's points above.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 09:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC) TRIVIALMENTIONS . The !votes suggest that sources are out there, but this is an old article, and I believe it reflects the general availability of sources already. I also trust people with expertise in the topic area that they have done a thorough WP:BEFORE . The reception section talks about cosplay and sex appeal over and over, with a lot of padding. There are four mentions of self-published fan works that she has appeared in -- this isn't WP:SIGCOV either. Articles need to have significant coverage in reliable sources, and this isn't it. ""She is a fan favorite with lots of fan art and cosplay"" is the kind of short statement that can be d into a more notable article, per WP:ATD . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 16:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Lord British: WP:BEFORE becomes notoriously hard, but when you rifle through it you find that the character is often seldom discussed as a fictional character. In addition, while it's been suggested players trying to find ways to kill the character across the Ultima series gives him notability (leading to the coining of the ""Lord British Postulate"" trope, though trying to find sources on that shows it's also barely discussed in SIGCOV ) I'm going to argue that gives Ultima as a series notability, especially Ultima Online , but the character itself doesn't inherit that notability. The reactions are more to a recurring game mechanic, and not the fictional character. And that's the important thing to remember: this is an article about a fictional character. Notability needs to demonstrate why the character itself matters beyond the series. Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 03:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 03:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Richard Garriott . The character doesn't seem notable independent of its creator, and Garriott is usually referred to as ""Lord British"" in gaming media rather than talking about his avatar (or at least, they are thought of as one and the same). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Richard Garriott . killer bee 09:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Richard Garriott . As others have stated Lord British doesn't seem to be independently notable from Garriott and the Ultima series. Also, half the article and two thirds of the references are about killing Lord British in-game, which is a long-running Ultima community joke, so even if we were to retain this article, it should probably be about killing said video game character. Cortador ( talk ) 11:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC) It appears that consensus for a is forming. If this happens, please add a ""This article is about the game developer. For the video game character etc."" note to Garriotts article that links to List of Ultima characters . Thank you! Cortador ( talk ) 11:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC) The consensus which seems to be forming is not for a pure but a , i.e. that Lord British the character , created and represented by Richard Garriot , should be covered within the article about Richard Garriot the person . Therefore an intro like you suggest would not be appropriate. Daranios ( talk ) 15:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That would only be the case if Lord British the character wasn't already covered in the List of Ultima characters article. Cortador ( talk ) 06:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC) I disagree. If there is a decision to and then to Richard Garriot , that means consensus is that the character Lord British is best (and in the end most extensively) covered within the context of that article. The entry in List of Ultima characters is then the lesser version limited to what's necessary to cover it within that context, which should refer back to Richard Garriot . Only if there was consensus to to List of Ultima characters as suggested by (Oinkers42) would it be the other way round. Daranios ( talk ) 11:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 11:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above, little to add. The character has no in depth significant coverage and any sourced information is easily contained at the parent topic. -- ferret ( talk ) 15:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural Oppose to Richard Garriott - there was a discussion that was closed less than a month ago as no consensus. Link here: Talk:Richard Garriott#Lord British proposal . No comment on the article itself. If it were to be d, may I suggest List of Ultima characters ? (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 01:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No consensus does not mean it cannot be re-discussed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why would would it be problematic to you to be working towards a new consensus on something that we couldn't find a consensus on before? And what ""procedure"" would support such an approach? I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Sergecross73 msg me 20:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sergecross73 , while our policies urge us to do otherwise, I cannot believe that this AFD was started in good faith. Previously, Kung Fu Man began a discussion about this article that concluded just three weeks ago with a result of no consensus. Then, an AFD is brought here in which not one person at the time I type this has actually voted for deletion of the material or a straight . Instead, the pro votes are all to material into an article that they could not get consensus on the first time around. I find it hard to believe the nominator really wants this article d as opposed to d, since that was their original stated desire for this content. While is, of course, a valid AFD outcome, this reeks of forum shopping, which does not sit well with me at all. Indrian ( talk ) 23:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Richard_Garriott#Lord_British__proposal That r discussion was opened from July 26th to November 7th, he then closed it himself with the results he wanted. I reverted him, and then someone not involved closed it as a no consensus to . So plenty of time for people to comment there and discuss it. D r e a m Focus 23:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC) my dissenting opinion is that with the coverage the killing of Lord British has received, which describes impact beyond the Ultima series (""brought the phenomenon of player killing [...] to the attention of game designers""), plus the reception as a character, there is enough material to have a stand-alone article. I have no problem with rearranging (and possibly renaming) the article around this killing as the most-discussed incident as suggested by Cortador . I don't find that necessary, though, as then the reception would have to be accomodated in a different way somehow. Daranios ( talk ) 16:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Pinging participants of the discussion not yet present. Daranios ( talk ) 16:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd suggest ing Lord British to Richard Garriott , and creating a new article called ""Lord British Postulate"" or ""Killing of Lord British"" which is about killing the character, as that does indeed seem to be the most transcendent aspect of Lord British. Cortador ( talk ) 16:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per previous discussion comments, with a second choice of Restore to List of Ultima characters#Lord British (as I will certainly grant the existing sourcing is borderline - I feel confident more sourcing exists but I'm not the person to dig it up). Strong oppose to merging to Richard Garriott, which is conceptually wrong. Yes, Lord British is based on Garriott, and yes, Lord British is a nickname of Garriott, but Lord British is a fictional character . He is not the same as the real-life person. This would be like merging an article on a borderline-notable movie character to the character's actor rather than the movie itself. The character is a creature of Ultima , not of real-life Garriott. The nickname usage can simply be a hatnote to Garriott's article. SnowFire ( talk ) 16:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I pointed out in the discussion, there is coverage for the character of Lord British without having anything to do with his creator. Richard Garriott doesn't walk around dressed as a king and role playing as Lord British all the time. Significant coverage about the character exist. https://www.eurogamer.net/will-richard-garriotts-lord-british-survive-the-night https://www.gamesradar.com/final-fantasy-14-legend-yoshi-p-witnessed-one-of-early-mmo-historys-most-infamous-mishaps-firshand/ https://www.pcgamer.com/the-50-most-iconic-characters-in-pc-gaming/ The article is well referenced with too much content to fit in another article. D r e a m Focus 20:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A top 50 List as significant coverage? Really? Each entry only gets a couple sentences. Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A reliable source considers the character to be one of the ""most iconic characters in PC gaming"". The other two links give far more coverage of the character of course. D r e a m Focus 20:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Eurogamer article can be summed in a sentence or two at most. It has nothing to do with Lord British as a character. It's his player avatar in a spiritual successor game, proving the point that the name is more intrinsically tied to him than Ultima...-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 22:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC) 20, 12 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration . D r e a m Focus 20:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC) 48, 12 December 2023 (UTC) 04, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All of which is fair game to mention in his article, but that is very different from asserting that the Lord British character IS Garriott. The character in the games is not Garriott anymore than the bloodthirsty pirate Captain Hawkins is actually Trip Hawkins. Garriott does this a lot. Some are in jokes, some are easter eggs, and yes, some like Captain Hawkins are (not so) subtle takedowns of people Garriott feels aggrieved by, but they are all references. The target article people are calling for this to be d into is not the right one to deal with this. And this is the wrong forum considering the previous attempt. Start a discussion (NOT an AFD) to a target article I feel is appropriate, and you will likely have my support. Indrian ( talk ) 23:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Indrian I started an AfD because genuinely, I feel the character itself is not notable. While merging is a viable option, as other have pointed out options such as The killing of Lord British or the Lord British Postulate are both also viable options, and aren't able to be covered by a discussion (especially when there's disagreement on *where* to it, as brought up by that previous discussion). I would be grateful if you assumed some good faith. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 23:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Multiple sources assert notability. According to Wired magazine, ""among fans [of Ultima].. no [character] was more revered than Lord British, ruler of Britannia"". [13] The book 100 greatest video game characters (2017) published by Rowman & Littlefield ISBN 9781442278127 takes a serious justified approach to the list, devoting a chapter to Lord British. [14] The PC Gamer magazine (2021) included Lord British in its list of 50 most iconic game characters. [15] Lord British (the character) is discussed throughout the book Virtual Justice: the new laws of online worlds (2010) published by Yale University Press. [16] The book The evolution of fantasy role-playing games (2011) [17] discusses an important aspect of the Lord British character, also discussed in the book Creating Things That Matter . [18] Archive.org has nearly 13,000 results for Lord British . Most of it is gaming magazines from the 1980s. But there is reliable content, also. More help requested searching these sources I found the above sources in the first 22 pages of results (each page is about 50 so there might be 260 pages of results, I only got through the first 10%). -- Green C 02:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GreenC Going into a source analysis, the first is a brief and only mention in that article with no further discussion. The second list discussed above as pointed out by Serge offers no discussion or reception; it's a listicle, and that's coming from someone that frequently cites lists in articles. Virtual Justice: the new laws of online worlds is discussing how a player circumvented laws in a game, and is more about Garriot's reaction than anything with the character. The evolution of fantasy role-playing games further illustrates that the death of Lord British in Ultima Online is more notable than his character, and frankly I would not oppose moving the subject matter to an article built around that. 100 greatest video game characters is more about Garriot's role as the character...and again the in-game death. Lastly, this is a misnomer: adding ""Ultima"" to the search alongside ""Lord British"" cuts it down to under 5k results, and a cursory glance will show many of them are simply copyright acknowledgements. ""Gastly"" by itself pulls down 8k, but that alone isn't going to have an article. Popping up in search results does not automatically mean WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST . -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 03:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC) 32, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I apologize, I meant to say ""the third"" in regards to the list. The PC Gamer article is a listicle. You also seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of notability: displaying significant discussion on the subject in question. A sentence going stating ""among fans [of Ultima].. no [character] was more revered than Lord British, ruler of Britannia"" by itself is offering nothing to that end no matter what publication it's in. And as for your outrage in ""misrepresenting"", you dropped a link saying there were ""13k results"" when you didn't bother to refine it yourself. Assuming good faith here, but reading these sources one has to consider what would be said in a citation regarding them. We can't refbomb a character into being notable, plenty of past AfDs have shown that. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 04:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC) 57, 13 December 2023 (UTC) searching for ""Lord British"" is going to turn up any article about Garriot, or his other uses of the character in non-Ultima appearances. You need to search for ""Lord British"" and ""Ultima"" together if you're going to dig through Archive.org. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 05:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm not going to bludgeon the discussion, but my opinion on the matter is still completely unchanged despite the above debate and ""Keep"" ! votes. The above sources largely talk about Lord British as an ""alter-ego"" or ""avatar"" of Richard Garriott, and the real person and the avatar are intrinsically linked to the point it does not make sense to have two articles. The thing Lord British is most known for is being Richard Garriott. It does seem like we're headed for a ""yes, Lord British is technically notable, probably shouldn't have an article but half the people believe he should"" result and a redux of the discussion, so it was relatively pointless to do this AfD to confirm that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 11:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect/Merge as compromise. As most of the ! votes still support a to a different target, I sympathize that neither target makes 100% sense. This article is substantially about the fictional character (but largely unsourced). Outside of WP:PLOT summaries, the scant sources about its reception is about it being an avatar of the Richard Garriott (but is only a brief part of the current article, as written). The solution is to summarize the information and cover each aspect in both articles, with a ""see also"" hatnote below the section header. There isn't substantial material in either case (Lord British is a recurring character in the series, Lord British is also surrogate character for Richard Garriott). I recommend that the aim towards the fictional character, but that's something that can easily be decided through editing, after the AFD is closed. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 17:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC) I disagree with the scant sources about its reception is about it being an avatar of the Richard Garriott : The brief reception section we have deals with the evaluation of the character sans any relation to Richard Gariott. The impact of the ""assassination"" of the character is only tangentially related to its creator. That said, and while I remain with my ! vote, if there should be consensus to , the described split of present information to those two targets seems the best course of action to me. Daranios ( talk ) 16:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Sources presented demonstrate notability and a to either Richard Garriott or the list article would be awkward. Charcoal feather ( talk ) 16:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The duration and depth of coverage, even if just for one aspect of the character, is sufficient to meet GNG. Nothing wrong with a discussion, I just disagree that it necessarily must be enforced as a matter of policy. Jclemens ( talk ) 04:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jclemens The problem is there's some partial agreement that merging is viable, but nobody can agree to where . It's been suggested to possible reformat the article to focus on the Ultima Online death as The killing of Lord British and work the postulate into there, but what you think about that as an option? -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 05:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Richard_Garriott#Lord_British__proposal was open from July to November. No reason to have another discussion, there no way for people to convince each other. Too much valid information to fit in any other article. Creating a new article for some of the information makes no sense at all. Why have an article for the killing of a character, without an article telling who the character was and explaining why they were so important? D r e a m Focus 11:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC) 01, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That article is completely unrelated. Its about a single event that happened in World of Warcraft. There are references in this article talking about the Lord British character, and about how he was killed in other games. D r e a m Focus 17:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, only one of these deaths was a notable event and helped define the whole ""postulate"". Lord British doesn't inherit notability due to the event, the same reason Hakkar doesn't due to the Corrupted Blood bug. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 17:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC) 54, 20 December 2023 (UTC) 04, 20 December 2023 (UTC) most revolve around attempts to kill this character does not mean all secondary sources do. Those others should have a place, too. And as Dream Focus said, even an article centered around the killing of the character would need to say who the character was and explaining why they were so important . And then we are basically back where we are now, an article about the character with a majority of the discussion about the killing incident. If that's the case, wouldn't Lord British as a title be more in accordance with the WP:CONCISE policy than Killing of Lord British ? ( The killing of Lord British would stand in contradiction to WP:DEFINITE .) Keeping the simpler title in no way hinders you to further flesh out the killing event within our article here. Daranios ( talk ) 11:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC) Well if you're certain, write a reception section focusing on anything other than killing his character. Please, do. I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong looking at these sources. Show that there's SIGCOV not revolving around how players want to kill him but illustrating he has real world importance as a fictional character. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 11:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] == Reception == In a 2021 list published by PC Gamer staff, Lord British is ranked among the most iconic characters in PC gaming. Wired magazine called Lord British ""an idealized father figure - strong and brave, patient and loving, wise and powerful"". Significant doesn't mean long, but context. Various reliable sources consider the character significant. D r e a m Focus 11:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dream you and I are both aware that's trivial and not what SIGCOV means. That wouldn't even hold up a Pokemon article on its own! -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 11:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is not trivial to mention how notable a character is. Trivial would be to mention they were in a game without saying anything else about them. Trivial is defined as https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trivial of little worth or importance , but this mentions their worth and importance. D r e a m Focus 11:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What we have as reception is short, but like Dream Focus I believe not trivial. More importantly, notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles . I am not arguing that there is enough coverage about Lord British as a character when excluding sources about his killing. And frankly, I do not want to invest the time to find out the answer to this theoretical question. Because I believe the most convenient solution is to have one article here covering both the killing event(s) and other aspects of the character. Which would make the unresolved target question obsolete. The rest then are editorial questions about what best to name the article and how to best arrange the contents, not reasons for deletion . Daranios ( talk ) 16:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem is, quite frankly, you're arguing that the character should inherit notability from the event. Even the overall *killing* of the character across the games isn't notable. The main Ultima Online event is, due to the reactions to it. And DreamFocus's citations fail WP:SIGCOV : quick, short mentions of a character that don't provide notability to a subject. Just two passing mentions for a ""short"" reception section. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 21:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC) On the one hand, there is coverage by secondary sources on the character, a larger portion(?) of them dealing with the killing event, and a smaller portion of them dealing with other aspects of the character, which together give us enough material to fullfill WP:WHYN . So we can have an article on the character, which obviously includes the killing incident. On the other hand, if we look at the killing incident as an event, and there is enough coverage in secondary sources to make this event notable, we could have an article about this event. But to have relevant context , it would still need to include as already discussed ""who the character was and explaining why they were so important"" . Fine. Which leaves the question where to put the commentary by secondary sources on the character unrelated to the killing incident. Assuming that this information is not so long as to suggest having two separate articles as more readable, the solution which suggests itself to me in accordance with WP:MERGEREASON #3 is to include that information here. (Which, by the way, is pointing to WP:NOTINHERITED which you have referred to.) And then we are back at our article and the editorial question if it should better be named Lord British or Killing of Lord British . Daranios ( talk ) 08:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What secondary sources though? The ones provided above are either a) about the killing or b) about Garriot. Reception towards the character itself is near nonexistent, partly because if you don't include Garriot in there it doesn't matter. This isn't a case like Weighted Companion Cube , where people's perceptions towards a character shaped how they perceived it and there was discussion on that. You have an unfortunate situation in the end where a character is known, and nothing is said about them. All the information on Lord British (the character) can easily be included in his list entry (which it already is) and linked back to from that article, which can as is give a summary of the character. But British the fictional character needs to demonstrate notability as a fictional character, not because of one game event that was discussed due to being one of the earliest MMO controversies, and not due to its creator who uses it as his secondary persona or his actions through his avatar. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 15:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC) 04, 22 December 2023 (UTC) UNDUE : most of the discussions about the Ultima Online event does not actively discuss the character in the context, only the event and the reactions. A similar instance happened with Sombra (Overwatch) , where she had an ARG tied to her reveal, and there was massive discussion about that. Earlier versions of her article included that discussion, which brought into question, again, Undue, the implication of her inheriting notability from it, and whether that discussion was better as its own article or part of the Development article. It was separated, but Sombra stands on her own because there's active discussion about Sombra as a character (and speaking frankly there's enough discussion on the ARG I'll probably flesh it out into its own article eventually). So there is a precedent for whether an event tied to a character should make the subject ""count"" for notability itself. I think you get what I'm trying to argue, that the event eclipses the character and it itself doesn't provide notability, and would further require it to be discussed in diminished capacity to avoid Undue if it is bootstrapped here. I will say I'm not opposed to the idea of including what little reception British has in his list entry as we do with others. That would preserve the information while also leaving the opportunity to spin it back out if by some chance the subject gets enough SIGCOV as a fictional character later.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 18:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per above. Tooncool64 ( talk ) 02:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC) GNG . Videogameplayer99 ( talk ) 11:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Selective or bust Bit ambitious. A selective that splits information between Richard Garriott and Ultima (series) seems like the only commonsense outcome to avoid the inconvenience of heaping excessive in-universe information in Garriott's biography or removing it altogether. I don't think a generic to Richard Garriott is the best outcome. The useful information about Lord British consists of Garriott's self-identification and presentation with the character, and then the appearances and characteristics of that character in the Ultima series, including the invincibility arc. These are fairly conceptually separate. If there's enough significant coverage a creation of the Killing of Lord British article or like would be valuable without invoking the notability issues for the character. Given the complexity of the discussion I have a feeling I am only adding fuel to the fire, but at least it's nice and toasty! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 11:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Panta n' antamonoume: Donald D23 talk to me 11:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Greek name is Πάντα ν' ανταμώνουμε . I find it very hard searching in Greek. Geschichte ( talk ) 11:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe ? (or to the channel or to Rika Vagiani , where I've just added it). https://program.ert.gr/details.asp? pid=3844901&chid=11 ; NewsBomb articles https://www.newsbomb.gr/tag/panta-na-antamwnoyme including https://www.newsbomb.gr/media-agb/story/429147/erhetai-to-panta-nantamonoyme ) or this kind of things: https://typologies.gr/πάντα-ν΄ανταμώνουμε-στη-δτ-με-την-α/ (and yes, it's in Greek),- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Might be another No consensus closure. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The show has been on for 10 years and should have some media coverage, but apparently it has remained a local Greek TV show. This article would be more appropriately placed in the article about the show's host. -- Saul McGill ( talk ) 15:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What do you mean by ""local Greek""? The show was broadcast on NERIT#NERIT1 , the main national Greek television network channel. (Not that I mean to have you change your !vote). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Allegiance: War of Factions: In the WM library, appears only in games catalogues e.g. “Greater Games Industry Catalog • #6 Fall 2008: L.” Greater Games Industry Catalog , no. 6, Oct. 2008, pp. 136–42. EBSCOhost, link . We don't have an article for the publisher, so no obvious WP:ATD . Suriname0 ( talk ) 20:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Games . Suriname0 ( talk ) 20:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC) @ Ealdgyth , Mathman1550 , QamarPl , Leitmotiv , and Mindmatrix : Suriname0 ( talk ) 20:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC) Preview in Scrye : [50] and will see if anything else comes up. BOZ ( talk ) 13:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nice find! Suriname0 ( talk ) 20:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (remark) 17:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There is also a review in Paizo's Undefeated magazine #9. I don't think I have that issue, but am checking. Guinness323 ( talk ) 19:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC) N, so it sounds like we are over the GNG bar of multiple reliable independent sources. Hobit ( talk ) 13:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering ( talk ) 01:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"2023 World Junior Short Track Speed Skating Championships: Onel 5969 TT me 12:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Sports , and Germany . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong . There are independent reliable sources. The CBC , Xinhua and likely sources in other languages such as Dutch, Korean, Chinese etc where the sport is more popular and they are more successful at it. I just don't have the time right now to search for them. oncamera (talk page) 07:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to World Junior Short Track Speed Skating Championships . Lacks sources with SIGCOV from IS RS showing notability. Before found nothing that meets SIGCOV. If there is no consensus for a , support . 01:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 16:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Third party coverage is extremely limited. Fails GNG. There are a whole series of World Junior Short Track Speed Skating Championships that should be all considered for deletion. LibStar ( talk ) 01:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Clear fails of the nominator not doing WP:BEFORE . [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] and [36] among sources I found doing a 2 minute google search. I'm sure there is more. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There's still no agreement in sight… Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Enough reliable sources available. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 01:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lack of reliable resources and in-depth coverage. Grahaml35 ( talk ) 05:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"2023 Anantnag encounter: I am not seeing from the sources how this is notable as a standalone or any lasting significance of it. Gotitbro ( talk ) 23:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Pakistan , India , and Jammu and Kashmir . Gotitbro ( talk ) 23:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Terrorism . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not disputing what the nominator says, but our threshold for acceptance is not commonality or lasting significance but widespread coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] With events, lasting significance is very much a factor, which I think this fails. An event can get a lot of reliable coverage at the time, but without lasting significance, it is usually d at AfD. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 12:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Routine news coverage of Insurgency in Kashmir region are not sufficient basis to warrant this page. No significance of this newsworthy event to qualify for inclusion. RangersRus ( talk ) 13:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It was notable at that time and it is notable today as well. The article has to be updated and content about NIA charging the individuals involved in this incident on 16 March 2024 should be included. ArvindPalaskar ( talk ) 02:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - mostly routine coverage, and it appears the article has copyvio problems (as per my tagging today). Maybe needs a more general page with the history of this and similar insurgency operations? Mdann52 ( talk ) 05:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC) as per Hawkeye7, also article need to clean up! Thank you. Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 15:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as per the several opinions above. Hyperbolick ( talk ) 08:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) The subjects seems to have widespread coverage which makes it notable, maybe it needs to be improved but not d EncyclopediaEditorXIV ( talk ) 18:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . No lasting significance or retrospective coverage. Wikipedia is not a collection of news stories . The big ugly alien ( talk ) 05:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"List of A.D. Isidro Metapan players: As it stands, this is an indiscriminate list of mostly non-notable people. Let'srun ( talk ) 03:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Lists of people , Sports , Football , Lists , and El Salvador . Let'srun ( talk ) 03:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It desperately needs an update, but this is another misuse of the term ""indiscriminate"" in a list deletion discussion - there is crystal clear inclusion criteria. SportingFlyer T · C 02:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC) NLIST , by my reading. It's not the individuals who are notable. It's the ""group or set"" at is notable as such. Anwegmann ( talk ) 04:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yet this list only includes a self-selected number of players, many of whom have no article themselves, and has no sources discussing these players as a group. In my opinion, it is much more appropriate to have a category for the notable players who played here. Let'srun ( talk ) 17:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which is fixable through editing, and nowhere in NLIST does it require sources to discuss the list as a group, since there are several valid reasons for creating lists. SportingFlyer T · C 18:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – a category for the players from this club is enough. Svartner ( talk ) 19:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still no consensus. User:SportingFlyer , I see your remarks as a vote, no? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC) I specifically didn't ! vote because the article's not in good shape, but I'm not a . The deletion rationale is flawed - LISTN does not require a source listing the subjects as a group, and it's not indiscriminate. SportingFlyer T · C 08:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] notable group of individuals covered by a group in reliable sources. The article needs improved, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP . Frank Anchor 19:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Robert Zebelyan: Unsourced except for promo stats links in EL. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). // Timothy :: talk 13:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sports , Football , and Armenia . 𝘚𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘈𝘺𝘩𝘢𝘯07 16:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC) 50, 5 April 2023 (UTC) 14, 6 April 2023 (UTC) , I found [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] and [36] , among many many more Russian and Armenian sources. Defiently has offline sources as well, having been clearly significant figure in football in former Soviet states with over 200+ appearances isn fully top flights and second tiers of Soviet states and 7+ appearances for Armenia in extensive career spanning 10+ years. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 23:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC) 58, 6 April 2023 (UTC) 44, 6 April 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV . This blogpost actually sums up Zebelyan's career (he is one of 20 Armenian footballers who ""didn't live up to expectations"") in a way that helps me understand why I can't find any SIGCOV. Jogurney ( talk ) 21:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC) GNG , per my WP:BEFORE above. Unfortunately, any of Das osmnezz's sources that I didn't discuss are also not independent or routine/trivial as well. Jogurney ( talk ) Comment - I have just spent an hour and a half doing a WP:HEY and vastly expanded the article with the sources. WP:HEY states that it can be ""invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion"". On top of that, one of the sources (sports.kz) states, ""the forward Robert Zebelyan, quite well-known in the post-Soviet space"" (he has a wikipedia page in 9 languages). Defiently has offline sources as well, having been clearly significant figure in football in former Soviet states with over 200+ appearances isn fully top flights and second tiers of Soviet states and 7+ appearances for Armenia in extensive career spanning 10+ years. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 10:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC) 34, 7 April 2023 (UTC) 07, 7 April 2023 (UTC) GNG after going through the sources. Dougal18 ( talk ) 13:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC) 53, 8 April 2023 (UTC) NSPORTS , a press release from a sportsperson's club (or the league that organizes the competitions their club participates in) is NOT independent and cannot contribute towards notability. We need to see in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources; and you've not provided that. Jogurney ( talk ) 02:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC) 07, 8 April 2023 (UTC) 06, 8 April 2023 (UTC) GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi ( talk ) 10:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC) HEY and vastly expanded the article with the sources. WP:HEY states that it can be ""invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion"". As one user stated in another deletion discussion, ""expansion... renders the above WP:WIKILAWYERING a moot point"". On top of that, there are definitely also offline sources about him in Armenian and Russian. Responding to Jogurney, the majority of the sources are not club press releases and are by the news portals themselves. Finally, Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of knowledge, and this article is a ""yes"" to Wikipedia:The one question . Zebelyan is clearly a topic of interest , especially with Wikipedia pages in around 9 languages, and no, I'm not saying everybody should have a Wikipedia page, but Zebelyan is ""quite well-known in the post-Soviet space"" (which means he has been a significant figure in the football of at least a few nations), as the many sources, primary or not (and some aren't), from many countries and years show, as well as his extensive professional career, which included playing in the ""elite level"" Russian Premier League . On a side note, I find the double standard of the most consistent pro-deletion users very frustrating since most of them either support Wikipedia:SNG for another topic where the article doesn't need to meet WP:GNG or have sometimes created articles with less coverage than this one... (I support article creation, but their double standard is very frustrating). Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 18:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC) 47, 9 April 2023 (UTC) ROUTINE states that routine coverage is things like ""wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs"" etc. My other points in the previous statement above still stand, but at this point, let's agree to disagree. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 04:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC) 55, 10 April 2023 (UTC) Wikilawyering ) without thinking about why the ""law"" exists in the first place... the reason the secondary source ""law"" exists is objectivity, which this article does anyways... if a fair amount of independent, reliable sources, primary or secondary, can produce an objective factual decent sized article about a clear topic of interest , there's no logical reason it should be d at all (Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of knowledge, and this article is a ""yes"" to Wikipedia:The one question ). Lastly , For some backwards reason the focus is always on deletion rather than improvement, (but, I hear you say, isn't the whole point of editing Wikipedia to others articles?) but I spent hours doing a WP:HEY and vastly expanded the article with the sources. WP:HEY states that it can be ""invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion"". As one user stated in another deletion discussion, ""expansion... renders the above WP:WIKILAWYERING a moot point"". Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 08:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC) MINORASPECT and thus is not encyclopedic to include in the body of an article, which is part of why it doesn't contribute to notability. An article that merely states which teams a subject played for and when, and their basic stats, is just prosifying details from the infobox without adding context from secondary independent RS about why those things are important. Your ""expansion"" is almost entirely ""Zebelyan signed for [team] in [year]"" supplemented with non-independently-sourced content: a spot check reveals almost every single fact in the ""club career"" section is sourced directly to quotes from the subject or affiliates or to press releases. That is not acceptable for any biography, let alone a BLP. JoelleJay ( talk ) 21:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC) 38, 10 April 2023 (UTC) 44, 10 April 2023 (UTC) SNG for another topic where the biography doesn't need to meet WP:GNG being the staunchest advocate of WP:GNG for any other biography besides those ones... (Like I've said before, I support article creation on all topics, but the double standard is very frustrating). Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 08:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC) 16, 10 April 2023 (UTC) in 1998, it briefly climbed to second place in the major leagues, and ten years later it hit Moscow with a huge banner “We abandoned Beckham” and an invitation from coach Cherchesov... Robert Zebelyan, the forward of the team that disdained Beckham, sells real estate. "" , "" Recently, the striker, who previously played for Sochi Zhemchuzhina and Krasnodar Kuban, signed a two-year contract with Minsk Dynamo... the forward has already been involved in the Armenian national team, playing a total of 7 matches for it in 2006-2008 "" etc etc), Secondly , The lack of WP:COMMONSENSE is staggering... there is nothing logically wrong with using a primary source is as a reference for a clearly factual and objective statement in the article (e.g. ""Born in Sochi , Soviet Union , Zebelyan played different sports as a child, including tennis, before focusing more on football"")... for instance, if there was, then e.g. autobiographies would not be allowed to be cited as references for these kinds of statements. Also, using JoelleJay's logic the entire body of e.g. Martin Harnik would be ""not encyclopedic to include in the body of an article""... the Wikipedia:WIKILAWYERING must stop. I am not , I just think we should draw the line between this clear topic of interest who was most likely created by someone who believed Zebelyan was notable enough and an e.g. American coach with no sources starting his hike right nw. Thanks , Das osmnezz ( talk ) 08:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 47, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 38, 11 April 2023 (UTC) COMMONSENSE is alarming... deletion editors are so stuck in their own WP:WIKILAWYERING (they are just repeating ""our policies say"" again and again, like the statement above) that they completely forget the point of the ""laws"" and Wikipedia itself. The main reason the ""laws"" were even made to begin with was to combat vandalism, spam, unambiguous self-promotion/advertising, none of which this comprehensive article about a clear topic of interest has, and the main reason Wikipedia was even made to begin with was to be a permanent place of knowledge for topics of interest to people. On top of that, there is a clear difference between a player like e.g. Tiago Quintal or Slaheddine Sebti (both of whom I didn't vote to ) and a seasoned Armenian international with elite level experience... Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:The rules are principles state ""Use common sense in interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; rules have... exceptions"" and ""They [the ""laws""] must be understood in context, using... common sense and discretion"". Again, this article is not completely based on primary coverage (see my statements providing a decent amount of examples above), and there is ""context from secondary independent RS"" supported by secondary coverage in the article. As for the parts that cite primary coverage, they are clearly factual (.g. ""Born in Sochi , Soviet Union , Zebelyan played different sports as a child, including tennis, before focusing more on football""), and former Soviet states tend to have interviews as one of the highest forms of sports coverage compared to other countries (again, context), as shown by significant Soviet league players like Almaz Chokmorov , Valery Reinhold , Leanid Harai , Vladimir Bychek , Viktor Razumovskiy , and Yuri Gladkikh not to mention others. Regarding Zebelyan's achievements (even then, my point is not even about his achievements, he is clearly a topic of interest that warrants a Wikipedia page - for instance, he has Wikipedia pages in 9 languages), he played at at an ""elite level"" (Jogurney's words, also Russia Premier League is considered a top 10 league in Europe ), he was clearly considered an Armenian prospect and an important player in the Russian pro leagues . Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 18:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC) IAR ? It's a fair argument. I haven't contributed to this discussion but I'm interested to see how it develops. The article's depth is impressive considering the lack of depth in the coverage. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 28, 11 April 2023 (UTC) Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:The rules are principles clearly state ""Use common sense in interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; rules have... exceptions"" and ""They [the ""laws""] must be understood in context, using... common sense and discretion"". Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 01:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC) (Early life) sentence 1 is sourced to source #1, an interview published by his club Dinamo Minsk N . (Club career) sentences 2 & 3: an interview published by source #2, his club Zhemchuzhina-Sochi N ; 4: synthesis from a quote by Kakosyan and later statements in interview source #3 N ; 5: a quote from #3 N ; 6: a quote from the transcript of interview source #4 N ; 7: an interview prompt from source #5 N and a quote from source #6, an interview released by his club N (but could be partially sourced to the one secondary sentence in source #9 maybe Y ; 8: #7, a routine press release report N ; 9: #8, a blog, which should be removed from the article N ; 10: [ failed verification ] #9, a routine post-match interview that does not contain any of the info it's supposed to support N ; 11: #9, quotes and interview prompt N ; 12: #10, quotes from a routine injury report + interview N ; 13: #11 SYNTH/OR from a passing mention in a routine match recap N ; 14: from the intro to #5 Y ; 15 & 16: quotes from interviews #12 N and #13 N ; 17: interview prompt from #5 N ; 18: quote from #5 N and intro from #10 maybe Y . (International career) 19: [ failed verification ] from interview #14 N ; 20: synthesis from prompts/quotes in interview #15 N ; 21: #8 blog N and dossier stats from #15 maybe Y ; 22: quotes from an interview with his club FC Kuban N ; 23: [ failed verification ] /SYNTH from quotes in interview #17 N ; 24: OR from routine press release #18 written by a national team rep N . The final 5 sentences are sourced to quotes from interviews #1, 3, and 6 N . The article utterly fails the policy requirement that it be based on secondary sources. JoelleJay ( talk ) 01:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC) ""the 22-year-old boy was noticed in Kuban, where he became the team's top scorer in the 2006 season and from where he was regularly called up to the Armenian national team. Moving next season to Khimki... seemed like a step forward, but at the peak of his abilities, Zebelyan decided on a desperate step, once again plunging into the abyss of the PFL in the hope of reviving the Sochi Zhemchuzhina. Alas, the new project, despite a promising start, soon sank into oblivion"", ""In the mid-2000s, Zebelian was considered the terror of all teams of the 1st league of Russia. Having been recognized as the best scorer, Zebelyan also received an invitation from the Armenian national team. Unfortunately, Zebelyan could not stand out at least once during the 7 games he played in the team. And the peak of failures was in 2007. in autumn, it was the match against the Serbian national team, where Zebelyan became one of the anti-heroes of the game together with Ara Hakobyan. Having lost his place in the national team, he could not strengthen himself in Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan and is now in search of a new team"", ""Two Sochi footballers - Manuk Kakosyan and Robert Zebelyan - are talking... the Sochi Zhemchuzhina was twice at the peak of Russian fame: in 1998, it briefly climbed to second place in the major leagues, and ten years later it hit Moscow with a huge banner “We abandoned Beckham” and an invitation from coach Cherchesov... Robert Zebelyan, the forward of the team that disdained Beckham, sells real estate"", ""On January 21, Robert Zebelyan, a former player of the Armenian national football team, underwent an operation in Yerevan. The intervertebral hernia operation was successful, and the football player went to his native Sochi for rehabilitation. Zebelyan played for the last time as part of the Armenian national team in the match against Russia in Yerevan. 2011 since July, he has been playing in ""Tobol"" of Kazakhstan"", ""the forward Robert Zebelyan, quite well-known in the post-Soviet space"" (I know its from the club, but they ' clearly wouldn't be saying this about any player ...), ""Robert Zebelyan, the striker of the Armenian national team and ""Dynamo"" of Minsk, has recently participated very little in his team's matches, but during the preparatory phase and in the first matches of the Belarusian championship, he played an effective game"" , ""On Saturday, the fans of Minsk ""Dynamo"" finally felt relieved. First, the team scored after a goalless streak of 403 minutes. Secondly, she won after four rounds since the last victory. Thirdly, it dispelled (so far) the clouds that had already gathered over Oleg Vasilenko. Although minimal, but such a pleasant victory became possible thanks to the goal of the Armenian striker Robert ZEBELYAN... who is still settling in the capital of Belarus"", ""In 2006, Robert Zebelyan became the most productive player in the first division, scoring 23 goals for Kuban. Now Robert mainly comes on as a substitute in Baltika""... As for the primary sources, unless you think he is somehow lying or has an ""agenda"" (both of which clearly aren't true) when he says, among other examples, that he ""played different sports as a child, including tennis, before focusing more on football"" or that he ""initially operated as a defender [as a youth player] before starting to operate as a striker"", or ""Kuban Krasnodar were initially reluctant to let him play for the Armenia national football team due to the congestion of fixtures in the Russian second tier but they eventually let represent Armenia internationally"" (he said this in interviews, and a Kuban Krasnodar official verified it in a separate interview by a separate source), or ""However, during the 2007 season, he made significantly less appearances for Kuban Krasnodar due to the manager (Pavlo Yakovenko) trusting him less as the 2007 season began, even after he scored during preseason friendlies"" (the journalist interviewing Zebelyan for eurofootball essentially said this) or ""Zebelyan's father had to buy his transfer rights so he could play for Zhemchuzhina Sochi"" (the journalist asking Zebelyan about this knew about this and was aware of this already, and Zebelyan merely confirmed it) or ""Zebelyan has a wife and son"", there is no logical reason why these primary sources can't be used for these objective, factual statements that provide background information and can't be found in an infobox (again, context and common sense, its not as if I wrote in the article something based on a quote from him like ""Upon arrival to Kuban Krasnodar, the manager told him ""you're not part of my plans"" ). Another aspect is that former Soviet states tend to have interviews as one of the highest forms of sports coverage compared to other countries like e.g. Indonesia and Vietnam , which tend to have much less straight-up interviews in sports coverage (again, context ), as shown by significant Soviet league players like Almaz Chokmorov , Valery Reinhold , Leanid Harai , Vladimir Bychek , Viktor Razumovskiy , and Yuri Gladkikh not to mention others. I've said it before and I'll say it again... there is not much WP:COMMONSENSE from the deletion side who are missing the point/bigger picture... the main reason the ""policy ""requirements"" were even made to begin with was to combat vandalism, spam, unambiguous self-promotion/advertising, and false information, clearly none of which this comprehensive, factual, objective article about a clear topic of interest has, even with these primary sources , and the main reason Wikipedia was even made to begin with was to be a permanent place of knowledge for topics of interest to people. On top of that, the fact that, years after his retirement, third party news portals are conducting in-depth interviews of him that go through his entire career, early life, post-playing career etc, show that he is clearly a topic of interest to people and that he was a significant figure in Russian pro league football (not to mention an Armenian prospect) . The entire time I'm using effort to try to improve the article while deletionists are using all their effort to this comprehensive article about a clear topic of interest through being pedantic and WP:WIKILAWYERING . (Maybe I'm wrong though... maybe the entire point of editing Wikipedia is deleting others hard work through being pedantic and WP:WIKILAWYERING ...). Using common sense , there is a clear difference between a player like e.g. Tiago Quintal or Slaheddine Sebti (both of whom I didn't vote to ) and Zebelyan, a seasoned Armenian international with ""elite level"" (Jogurney's words) experience ( Zebelyan plauyed in Russian Premier League, which is regarded as top 10 league in Europe ). Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:The rules are principles clearly state ""Use common sense in interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; rules have... exceptions"" and ""They [the ""laws""] must be understood in context, using... common sense and discretion"". Furthermore, many times the pro deletion editors like JoelleJay have gave false statements about the article, here are two examples among others by them (others examples explained in my other statements above) - First example: Their ""Source analysis"" of 9: ""a routine post-match interview that does not contain any of the info [in the Wikipedia page] it's supposed to support"" (the Wikipedia page says ""In 2007, he signed for Khimki, where he mainly appeared as a substitute""). However, the journalist author of the source , (also the source is not merely routine), writes in the source, ""In 2006, Robert Zebelyan became the most productive player in the first division, scoring 23 goals for Kuban. Now Robert mainly comes on as a substitute in Baltika"" Second example: Their claim that the article is just ""details from the infobox without adding context"": Just looking at the first paragraph alone , it states that ""Zebelyan scored 23 goals for Kuban Krasnodar, becoming the club's top scorer that season and one of the top scorers of the league that season. However, during the 2007 season, he made significantly less appearances for Kuban Krasnodar due to the manager (Pavlo Yakovenko) trusting him less as the 2007 season began, even after he scored during preseason friendlies. Kuban Krasnodar were initially reluctant to let him play for the Armenia national football team due to the congestion of fixtures in the Russian second tier but they eventually let represent Armenia internationally. During the middle of the 2000s, Zebelyan was considered a consistent goalscoring threat in the Russian second tier."", etc etc among other examples, most of which aren't found in an infobox... I also added context with references (besides above and other examples) like ""His first stint for Zhemchuzhina Sochi was only a few years after the club's only spell in the Russian Premier League"", ""Zebelyan dropped a division to return to Zhemchuzhina Sochi with the aim of resurrecting the club's fortunes, but the club dissolved a few seasons later"", ""He scored his first goal for Dinamo Minsk during a 1–0 win over Dnepr, the club's first win in four matches and the first goal his team scored after a goalless streak of 403 minutes, and temporarily eased the pressure on then Dinamo Minsk manager Oleg Vasilenko"", ""In 2008, Zebelyan signed for Baltika Kaliningrad, where he wore the unusual number ninety-nine on his jersey, (the journalist for championat.com wrote that the number was unusual) etc etc among other examples. Since I doubt you (JoelleJay) will ever change your mind... lets just agree to disagree and leave it to the rest of the community to come to consensus ... Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 07:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources . [material from the subject] may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources. POLICY: Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability . Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. POLICY: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable , does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia POLICY: the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources. NBIO: Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject . N: Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written It does not matter that primary/non-independent sources are factual and verifiable or that they provide helpful context. Articles cannot be based on them; they have to be a minority of the content. 1. Their ""Source analysis"" of 9: ""a routine post-match interview that does not contain any of the info [in the Wikipedia page] it's supposed to support"" (the Wikipedia page says ""In 2007, he signed for Khimki, where he mainly appeared as a substitute""). However, the journalist author of the source, (also the source is not merely routine), writes in the source, ""In 2006, Robert Zebelyan became the most productive player in the first division, scoring 23 goals for Kuban. Now Robert mainly comes on as a substitute in Baltika"" That source does not say anything about him playing for Khimki . 2. Their claim that the article is just ""details from the infobox without adding context"" I specifically said Your ""expansion"" is almost entirely ""Zebelyan signed for [team] in [year]"" supplemented with non-independently-sourced content . That is an objective fact: the vast majority of the article comes directly from quotes from the subject. Even without the primary sources, here is purely secondary coverage, The plurality of the content you quote comes from the source that Jogurney and I have both pointed out to you is a blog . Claiming it as an example of secondary coverage is deliberately misleading since it is not RS! Another couple large chunks of the quoted ""coverage"" only contain a combined total of <35 words that are actually directly on Zebelyan. You also still included the quote from the club about him that obviously doesn't count toward SIGCOV. The remaining 4 sources amount to the sole non-trivial piece of coverage, which nevertheless is only 3 sentences; another 3 sentences distributed across 2 sources; and a routine injury announcement almost certainly derived from a press release. JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC) BLUDGEONing the process with your WP:WALLSOFTEXT . You’ve already made your point. Many editors disagree with your interpretation of policy. Frank Anchor 23:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Needs more assessments of the sources. Das osmnezz , if you continue to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion with walls of texts, you may be blocked from contributing to it further, and such contributions will almost certainly be disregarded by the closer. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC) 15, 13 April 2023 (UTC) 40, 13 April 2023 (UTC) 05, 13 April 2023 (UTC) 59, 13 April 2023 (UTC) 33, 13 April 2023 (UTC) BLUDGEONING the same pedantic point ( WP:WIKILAWYERING ) over and over to my various points above and that lots of editors disagree with your interpretation (as shown by the votes above). For the final time, how about we agree to disagree and leave it to the rest of the community to come to consensus ... Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 07:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC) BLUDGEONING and WP:WIKILAWYERING . Alvaldi ( talk ) 08:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC) BLUDGEONING is ""making the same argument/point (in this case, a pedantic point - WP:WIKILAWYERING ) over and over, to different people"", which is exactly what they are doing, while I use various arguments using WP:COMMONSENSE . We can agree to disagree and leave it to others . Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 09:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC) 22, 14 April 2023 (UTC) 59, 14 April 2023 (UTC) out of the 500 words claimed to be ""secondary coverage"" above, about half are from a blog or a club press release or don't contain any coverage of Zebelyan. The remainder are distributed across six mostly primary and/or routine sources: 40 words on average. JoelleJay ( talk ) 13:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC) NBIO , If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability . As you allude to in your response to me, several sources have small amounts of significant, independent coverage. These can be cobbled together to allow Mr. Zebelyan' to be considered notable. Frank Anchor 14:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC) 40, 14 April 2023 (UTC) 26, 14 April 2023 (UTC) COMMONSENSE : even if article ""based on"" primary, the secondary source ""law"" exists merely to ensure what article is already : comprehensive, objective, factual and clear topic of interest, no deletion reason. Das osmnezz ( talk ) 16:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC) comprehensive, objective, factual and a clear topic of interest, no deletion reason The subject is not an objective source on themselves , and primary sources cannot be evaluated for proportionality, so you have no basis for the claim that the article is any of those things. And anyway the secondary coverage requirement does not exist ""merely to ensure"" an article has those properties: I quoted three separate P&Gs that say primary sources do not establish a topic's notability. You are also completely ignoring the policy that the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources and that a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news (a policy that is non-negotiable , and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines , nor by editor consensus , not to mention NOTNEWS and INDISCRIMINATE. JoelleJay ( talk ) 17:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC) RAP , WP:5p , WP:POL , no guideline is ""non-negotiable"" and ""cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines , nor by editor consensus "". Whatever your legalese/pedantic objectivity stance, using WP:COMMONSENSE , unless you think they are lying/have agenda, statements from the subject like ""I played different sports as a child, including tennis, before focusing more on football"" or ""I initially operated as a defender [as a youth player] before starting to operate as a striker"" etc are all clearly objective and factual, so even if this article was completely based on primary (which many editors and I refute), there's no reason why in these situations an article can't be based on primary sources. Wikipedia is not a bureacruacy . Whatever your legalese/pedantic notability stance, using WP:COMMONSENSE , the fact that, years after his retirement, third-party portals are giving in-depth interviews of him combined with lots of coverage during his career, secondary or primary, many of which went into his early life, entire career etc, clearly show notability. As one user said, deletionists ""have their noses so far into the policies that they can only see them in black and white... there is color, nuance, and even gray areas... Our policies... are not supposed to be rigid"". For the last time, lets agree to disagree and leave it to others. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 08:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC) 37, 15 April 2023 (UTC) 23, 15 April 2023 (UTC) Participants at AfD that habitually ignore core policy such as WP:V and WP:BLP to bludgeon discussions are causing a lot of disruption, contributing to a (continuing) toxic environment at AfD. Das osmnezz's walls of text here are a perfect example of toxic bludgeoning and ignoring policy. Regardless of the outcome of this particular discussion, there is no way this type of participation should be allowed to continue. In this case the disruptive editor has already been warned to stop in the relisting comment by an admin, but they have continued (see page history). These bludgeoning walls of text are making any close determination difficult to impossible and is disruptive. Admins need to address this. How anyone is supposed to make heads or tails of this discussion is beyond me. // Timothy :: talk 13:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC) Promotional Question and Answer style interview. Fails WP:IS . Interviews do not make a subject notable 1. ""Robert Zabelyan: I think we'll make a lot of noise in the Belarusian Championship"". pressball.by. A promotional blog post sourced from the team. Fails WP:IS , WP:RS 2. ^Jump up to:a b ""INTRODUCING THE TEAM'S BEST SCORE POINT"". States: ""The leader of the first team, Manuk Kakosyan, works in Adler as the director of a sports complex, and Robert Zebelyan, the forward of the team that disdained Beckham, sells real estate. "" Fails WP:SIGCOV 3. ^Jump up to:a b c """"AFTER GOING TO THE FNL THERE WAS A BANQUET WITH VIAGRA AND KSENIYA SOBCHAK"". WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CITY WHERE THE RUSSIA TEAM PLAYED"" . matchtv.ru. Promotional Question and Answer style interview. Fails WP:IS . Interviews do not make a subject notable 4. ^ Jump up to:a b ""Robert Zebelian: ""I don't know why I don't get into the first team of Kuban"""". euro-football.ru. Promotional Question and Answer style interview. Fails WP:IS . Interviews do not make a subject notable 5. ^Jump up to:a b c d ""Robert Zebelian: I hurried with leaving Kuban"". sportfiction.ru Promotional Question and Answer style interview. Fails WP:IS . Interviews do not make a subject notable 6. ^Jump up to:a b ""Robert Zebelian: ""In Zhemchuzhina I played with Ruslan Baltiev"""". sports.kz. Interview with source connected to player and team. Fails WP:IS 7. ^ ""Chairman of the board of directors of Kuban: ""Zebelyan received a portion of confidence in the Armenian national team"""". armenia-online.ru. Blog post with one paragraph. Fails WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV 8. ^ Jump up to:a b ""20 Armenian football players who did not live up to expectations"". Promotional Question and Answer style interview. Fails WP:IS . Interviews do not make a subject notable 9. ^Jump up to:a b ""Zebelyan: first lap played very badly"". championat.com. Promotional Question and Answer style interview. Fails WP:IS . Interviews do not make a subject notable 10. ^Jump up to:a b ""Robert Zebelyan. I underwent an operation in Yerevan on the advice of Roman Berezovsky.news.am. Routine article/blog about a game. States ""Robert Zebelyan, was alone against the goaler of our national team"" Fails WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV 11. ^ ""Robert Zebelyan upset Roman Berezovsky"" . aysor.am Promotional Question and Answer style interview. Fails WP:IS . Interviews do not make a subject notable 12. ^Jump up to:a b ""Robert Zebelyan. I want to move to another club in the summer.tert.am Archived fromthe originalon April 7, 2023. Retrieved 7 April 2023. Promotional Question and Answer style interview. Fails WP:IS . Interviews do not make a subject notable 13. ^Jump up to:a b ""Robert Zebelyan: every year Oleg Vasilenko becomes a more mature mentor"". pressball.by. Interview with subject. Contain very brief background. Fails WP:SIGCOV 14. ^ ""Robert Zebelyan: ""I will join the Armenian national team, but only in a year"""". regnum.ru. Promotional Question and Answer style interview. Fails WP:IS . Interviews do not make a subject notable 15. ^ Jump up to:a b ""Robert Zebelyan: Tobol is a team with traditions"". sports.kz Interview with subject. Contain very brief background. Fails WP:SIGCOV 16. ^ ""Robert Zebelian: I was 90% sure that I would play for the national team"" . yuga.ru. Interview with subject. Contain very brief background about a game. Fails WP:SIGCOV 17. ^ ""Robert Zebelian: Armenia national team suffered from UEFA verdict"" . aze.az. Routine sports story about player being called up. Routine, nothing SIGCOV and the source for the article is the coach of the team. Fails WP:IS , WP:SIGCOV 18. ^ ""Zebelyan to be called up for match with Russia"" . sport-express.ru Most of the sources are promotional interviews, mainly question and answer style interviews. These all fail WP:IS , WP:COISOURCE . Guideline states, ""Non-independent sources may not be used to establish notability. "" None of these can be considered when evaluating a subjects notability. There are two blog style posts that fail WP:RS The remaining are brief mentions failing WP:SIGCOV . The spam refs simply serve to show that the subject is not notable. The arguments above are either ""Me too"" votes or points that fall outside of policy and guidelines, ignore the requirements of BLP which states, ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' , and openly reject the recent consensus regarding the change to NSPORTS. Article fails notability requirements. The disruption in this article needs to be addressed. // Timothy :: talk 14:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC) NBIO , If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability . This source analysis therefore solidifies my ���” vote. Frank Anchor 23:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 3 has almost zero secondary commentary. 14 has less than one full independent sentence on him. 16 is one sentence in a report directly from the FC Kuban website (the non-quote material is churnalized too), so fails independence. 17 is less than a sentence (""Forward of the Armenian national football team Robert Zebelyan, who recently replaced Krasnodar Kuban with Khimki near Moscow"") prefacing a routine interview. Come on. JoelleJay ( talk ) 03:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the catch on 16 only, as I missed the reference to the Kuban site. However, the remaining small bits and pieces referenced by JoelleJay and TimothyBlue combine to be enough for a pass of NBIO. Frank Anchor 12:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"April 2024 Chernihiv missile strike: Insignificant, one off airstrike among hundreds, if not thousands of airstrikes in the span of the Russian invasion of Ukraine . Ecrusized ( talk ) 18:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC) 29, 17 April 2024 (UTC) User not extended confirmed per WP:RUSUKR . Mellk ( talk ) 23:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It really isn’t. Russia has been deliberately attacking civilian targets for a significant amount of time now. This strike is no different than the thousands of other attacks. Cutlass Ciera 18:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Please read policies before commenting on your interpretation of their shortcuts. WP:NOTNEWS is a policy which states that "" Wikipedia is not a newspaper "". Quote, "" not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion... breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information Ecrusized ( talk ) 21:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC) 09, 25 April 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 17 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 18:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Military , Russia , and Ukraine . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC) 05, 17 April 2024 (UTC) 42, 17 April 2024 (UTC) User not extended confirmed per WP:RUSUKR . Mellk ( talk ) 23:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC) OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here. Ecrusized ( talk ) 21:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC) 34, 18 April 2024 (UTC) 55, 17 April 2024 (UTC) April 2023 Sloviansk airstrike , 2023 Uman missile strike , Kharkiv dormitories missile strike and many more. -- Lystopad ( talk ) 23:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC) NEVENT after the war is over. But for now, I see no reason why it should be d; every Russian warcrime is notable enough for an article. -- Rockstone Send me a message! 00:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC) 42, 18 April 2024 (UTC) 32, 18 April 2024 (UTC) 18, 18 April 2024 (UTC) 35, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Ecrusized failed to bring a valid reason for deleting this article.-- 3E1I5S8B9RF7 ( talk ) 14:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Ecrusized failed to bring a valid reason for deleting this article. "" @ 3E1I5S8B9RF7 : Perhaps open your eyes before so presumptuous? "" WP:NOTNEWS . Insignificant, one off airstrike among hundreds, if not thousands of airstrikes in the span of the Russian invasion of Ukraine "". Ecrusized ( talk ) 14:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC) 42, 18 April 2024 (UTC) A number of people were killed – Just an arbitrary number that is not in any way relevant to WP:N or WP:NEVENTS . Similar articles exist or they should all be discussed together – That doesn't mean this should be kept . The notability of this article has to stand on its own, and there's no guarantee that those article are about notable subjects. It's bad, a war crime, or a terrorist attack – WP:TDLI / WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS . We're not here to pick sides in a real world conflict. In some ! votes this approaches WP:SOAPBOXing , which is a conduct issue and should result in a warning. Its notability can be determined later – Then it can have an article later. We don't create articles about things that might be notable in the future . It's covered in reliable sources – WP:GNG requires that these be secondary sources, and WP:SUSTAINED / WP:PERSISTENCE require that coverage continue beyond the news cycle. I'm hoping that the closer will consider whether these ! votes are valid, and I suggest that editors be reminded about WP:ATA when they use arguments that are listed there. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 02:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC) 55, 25 April 2024 (UTC) Notability -points. I am also puzzled why this article is up for deletion when all these US high school Wikipedia articles exist of schools whom are neither notable nor special. I can not understand why somebody would think that Gilbert High School of Arizona has a bigger impact than this horrible attack on innocent people in Chernihiv. Not that I am advocating that there are too many Wikipedia articles about US high schools, I am saying that it is better to have too many articles (on Wikipedia) then too few. I also think that nobody should become used or in any way or ""administrative"" the death of innocent people by bombing in any war or conflict everywhere. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC) SCHOOLOUTCOMES : Before 2017, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC , secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability , as well as those for organizations . I don't know whether that specific school is notable or not, but this is generally why there is a lot of articles about schools where there otherwise wouldn't be. Presumably, AfD discussions would some/most of these schools, but if there's no reason for an AfD, many of them will remain MarkiPoli ( talk ) 13:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC) OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, even one of them citing a US high school having an article as the reason why this should be kept. In addition, being a terrorist strike does not make it notable. There have been countless bombings in war zones that don’t have articles. Cutlass Ciera 21:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC) 29, 2 May 2024 (UTC) GNG , and I don't know how coverage of an airstrike killing a dozen and a half civilians can be considered ""routine"". BD2412 T 02:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: An analysis of sources per WP:GNG would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] • . I don't see this article passing the WP:TENYEARTEST . Number of casualties, while tragic, does not indicate this attack being more notable, and nothing indicates this airstrike is anything special aside from lack of defense missiles. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can see this article passing TENYEAR, or TWENTYYEARTESTS. BilboBeggins ( talk ) 14:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Notable event covered by many news sources. Does not fail WP:NEVENT . Batmanthe8th ( talk ) 17:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC) Another attack in the ongoing conflict, I don't see this as notable. Sadly, these events happen almost daily now. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is the deadliest attack in weeks. The timeline and most important events of greatest conflict since end of World War are significant and notable for encyclopedia, without a doubt. BilboBeggins ( talk ) 14:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning but if it's d, a good place would be Chernihiv strikes (2022–present) . Niafied ( talk ) 22:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Asim Munir (cricketer): Let'srun ( talk ) 14:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Sports , Cricket , and Pakistan . Let'srun ( talk ) 14:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Utterly pointless nomination, obviously missed the outcome of the first AfD. AA ( talk ) 16:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The previous nomination closed as no consensus 56 days ago. Possibly a little soon for a renomination , but there is no requirement that a person wait any amount of time after a NC close. Frank Anchor 16:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Without a proper rationale, it's hard to consider your vote when the time comes to close this discussion. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC) 64 matches at the highest domestic level, likely to be coverage in Pakistan too. Unlike western media archives (like Gale, BNA, Trove), Pakistan print media remains largely non-digitalized. Common sense should dictate that in cases where a large number of matches are played by a cricketer, they are likely to be notable. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (copying my vote from the previous AFD, which still applies in full). The subject played 64 matches at the highest domestic level. Seems like a case where WP:COMMONSENSE needs to prevail, even if the references aren't quite to the level of GNG. Frank Anchor 16:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My comments remain the same as the previous AfD. It is highly likely that there is offline sourcing or non-English language sourcing that is difficult to access that would pass the subject for WP:GNG given the career he had. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 17:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] read the last AFD , fully concur with the voters there. Most likely passes WP:GNG Me Da Wikipedian ( talk ) 21:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV . No proof offered - per WP:NCRIC cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof. . Closing admin should ignore votes that couldn't find any significant coverage. 103.125.122.179 ( talk ) 00:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC) — 103.125.122.179 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. SOCK should be discounted; not to mention that NCRIC is a guideline and common sense is allowed to be used . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC) SOCK of someone. Checkuser? AA ( talk ) 10:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC) On the one hand, the sock suggestion is serious. On the other hand, all information as of this relisting comes only from a single source: CricketArchive. Even if the self-proclaimed ""most comprehensive, searchable and trusted cricket database in the world"" turns out to be valid and reliable, a notable individual should pop up in other sources as well. If other valid sources worth adding exist, great. If not, that may pose a problem. It would be nice for this not to end in another ""no consensus"" again so soon after the last one. I'm saying this here because it seems a bit long for a formal relisting comment. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , per the last AFD (should not have been renominated so soon and I question how the nom came across it) and my rationale there. We need to use common sense . Unless someone can prove that some source from the era in Pakistan was searched in, then one cannot claim that this fails GNG – from my comment at the last AFD: it does seem the best option to be on the side of [common sense] for someone who seems ... to have played 64 top-tier matches in the fifth-most populous country in the world in its most popular sport . It is highly unlikely a person of such accomplishments would not have gained any coverage. I also question how four valid ""s"" plus one "" from a sock"" – which should be given no weight – equals ""relist""... BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC) ASSUMEGOODFAITH , and as of today the IP has not been blocked. Consensus changes and one of the bolded votes didn't reference any policy. [User:Let'srun|Let'srun]] ( talk ) 18:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just because the IP has not been blocked does not mean the almost certain sock should be given full weight. Common sense is absolutely a policy. Also, if you think my concerns about the nom are unfounded, would you tell me exactly how you came across this article, then? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 18:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC) AOBF . I also wasn't referring to that vote. Let'srun ( talk ) 21:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What were you referring to, then? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 21:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The first vote. Let'srun ( talk ) 21:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm... I guess I missed the ""one of"" part from ""one of the bolded votes didn't reference any policy"" – though I think the ! vote implied that the rationale of ing per common sense at the last AFD still applied, as I said above. Still think AA's ! vote should be given weight. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 21:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC) CricketArchive is a directory, not a secondary source. WP:MUSTBESOURCES is a flimsy argument at the best of times, but for a BLP, it's a non-argument. Without independent secondary sources providing SIGCOV for this BLP, we don't really have any options. Owen× ☎ 15:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We are allowed to use common sense. It is invalid to argue the article fails notability when no one has searched in Pakistani sources whatsoever! BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, that's exactly the MUSTBESOURCES I was talking about. Owen× ☎ 16:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It simply makes no sense to articles when no one has searched for coverage . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC) N and WP:BLP policies to a version that makes more sense to you, BeanieFan11 . As they are written now, unless and until we find those sources, we can't have an article about anything, let alone a living person. Owen× ☎ 16:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's why IAR / common sense exists. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course. Who needs all those pesky policies and gnarly guidelines when we have our WP:IAR trump card in our back pocket, right? Owen× ☎ 16:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability is a guideline; Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply . This is one of the rare exceptions. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] IAR is not a trump card , but an understanding that Wikipedia’s policies are not perfect and there are cases in which the rules need not rigidly apply. OwenX, as an admin and consistent contributor to AFD/DRV discussions, should know this, even if he doesn’t agree with this particular application of IAR. Frank Anchor 00:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Full two relists seems appropriate given the relatively recent, prior no consensus outcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . CricketArchive is a stats directory; every single one of the sources cited for this BLP is a prose-less table of primary data and therefore is unacceptable per N, OR, and BLP ( Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. ... Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research , and the other sourcing policies. ) . Per NSPORT, the burden is on those wanting to to establish there is high likelihood of the subject meeting GNG; to do that, NSPORT requires a source of IRS SIGCOV be cited in the article . No one has demonstrated such a source exists in the 4+ weeks + 60 days this subject has been in focus. IAR is meant to be employed in exceptional circumstances, not for literally every athlete meeting some participation criterion who ""might"" have offline sources , which is how it is regularly being used by certain ! voters. If playing some number of first-class domestic matches -- which are not the top tier of cricket -- was a reasonable threshold for presuming GNG we would have guidelines stating as much rather than a guideline explicitly stating that sufficient coverage is not expected for that level of play : Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket,[a] may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof. At some point the repeated invocation of deprecated notability guidelines disguised as IAR becomes disruptive. ! Votes that are devoid of any P&G basis -- and especially ones that actively defy P&Gs -- should not just be automatically given weight, much less elevated to the same weight as P&G-based ! votes, any time the ! voter mentions the magic phrase ""IAR"". That completely defeats the purpose of consensus policy stating Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight. JoelleJay ( talk ) 20:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC) IAR in fact IS A POLICY, and the fundamental policy behind one of Wikipedia’s five pillars . The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions (emphasis mine). Having an article on a person who played 64 matches at the highest domestic level can easily be considered one of these exceptions. Frank Anchor 22:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So your claim is that IAR, which is supposed to be just as exceptional at AfD as it is everywhere else, must be applied to everyone playing some arbitrary number of matches at the highest domestic level (which would be 23, not 64) in Pakistan, despite 1) participation-based criteria explicitly being deprecated by global consensus; 2) the requirement for a SIGCOV source cited in all sportsperson bios, regardless of subject location or time period , receiving overwhelming global support; 3) the guidelines written by the cricket project itself explicitly stating playing at this level requires proof of coverage to even warrant the same presumption of GNG coverage existing afforded to Test cricketers; 4) NO ONE finding a single hint of a source in either the first AfD or this one; 5) NO ONE demonstrating why we can presume 23 first-class matches in Pakistan corresponds to SIGCOV; and 6) zero evidence being presented to explain why this page in particular , consisting exclusively of some unremarkable blandly-prosified stats that AA chose to emphasize and synthesize based on his interpretation of multiple sources of primary data, is so essential to Wikipedia that our POLICY of Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. and our POLICY that BLPs only rely on primary sources when they have already been discussed by secondary sources ( Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. ) and our POLICY that The idea expressed in Eventualism —that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies can be overridden because some editors have decided that per IAR PoLiCY we can completely ignore Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies ( verifiability , no original research or synthesis , neutral point of view , copyright , and biographies of living persons ) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies. Please tell me where Per ""ignore all rules"", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no less exceptional in deletion than in any other area. says consensus in a particular case can suspend multiple guidelines, let alone multiple policies , and be so utterly non-specific to the attributes of the actual subject that this precise reasoning for a ""one-time suspension"" could be (and will be) deployed for literally dozens of other subjects. JoelleJay ( talk ) 18:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First, I never stated or implied Per ""ignore all rules"", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no less exceptional in deletion than in any other area. Nor has any other ! voter implied this. Also, IAR is not a guideline or editors' consensus but rather a policy. So your WP:WALLOFTEXT leading to the argument that content policies can't be superseded by local consensus or guidelines, while correct, is irrelevant in this application. Frank Anchor 19:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Michele Fitzgerald: I think her runner-up finish in Survivor: Winners at War doesn't have enough depth or substantial coverage to be as equally notable as her Survivor win, despite being highly focused there. Same can be said about her appearances in The Challenge , where she hasn't yet won. I don't think she qualifies for WP:NENT either. Must be ed to Survivor: Kaôh Rōng per WP:BIO1E (if WP:BLP1E doesn't apply), WP:PAGEDECIDE , or WP:BIODELETE . George Ho ( talk ) 01:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Television , and New Jersey . George Ho ( talk ) 01:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I think more independent reliable source are needed. -- Meligirl5 ( talk ) 09:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC) N or GNG would not outweigh the topic's potential failures to comply with the project's policy toward such biographies, but I bet you disagree, eh? George Ho ( talk ) 09:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC) GNG . So I just had to suggest an opinion that could help to meet WP:GNG . Other editors are welcome to say what they feel.-- Meligirl5 ( talk ) 11:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose deletion because of her performance in both of her Survivor seasons, but I agree more independent reliable sources are needed. JohnAdams1800 ( talk ) 20:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC) What are your thoughts on ing the article to Survivor: Kaôh Rōng , an alternative to deletion? George Ho ( talk ) 20:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I oppose this because I love survivor. 75.132.100.119 ( talk ) 01:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC) GNG . Maybe before the 6 months time more proof of notability would have been gathered for the subject to be on the main space. If no improvement after 6 months, the draft page will be d as per wikipedia draft page policy under WP:G13 . -- Meligirl5 ( talk ) 14:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Gregg Henriques: – MrPersonHumanGuy ( talk ) 23:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Psychology , North Carolina , Pennsylvania , and Virginia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral -- the article is a mess, but the subject has a credible claim at notability as a full professor of psychiatry at a well-known university, with a pretty good citation trail. The impact does, however, look a little bit low for the field; if someone with more domain-specific knowledge could weigh it I'd appreciate it. (Adding signature -- -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relistiing due to low participation. Please remember to sign all comments made in a deletion discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Valiollah Khakdan: I'm not sure it passes WP:BIO . Losipov ( talk ) 03:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Film , Iran , and Azerbaijan . Losipov ( talk ) 03:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC) BIO . StereoFolic ( talk ) 03:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Important Iranian art director. See here or here for example. Or even here for information. He is credited for ""production design"" for notable films ( https://mubi.com/en/films/the-bride-of-the-sea/cast ; https://mubi.com/pt/films/the-midnight-terror etc), which makes him meet requirements for notability of Creative professionals. The page needs improvements. As is the case with various pages on Iranian cinema. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"The Devotchkas: A google search couldn't find much else of use. Biggest contributor (and I suspect other substantial editors) have a WP:COI - [14] . ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 15:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and New York . ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 15:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The references in the article seem to be sufficient. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 23:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC) I did a source assess table. See below: Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://www.laweekly.com/cy-fest-brings-the-punks-out-to-play/ ~ Alternative news site Only one mention ✘ No https://www.accum.se/~samhain/summerofhate/devotchkas.html ? Permanent dead link ? Permanent dead link ? Permanent dead link ? Unknown https://web.archive.org/web/20200113052743/http://www.punkoiuk.co.uk/interviews/devoc.htm It is an interview Doesn't meet wikipedia standards ✘ No https://www.rarepeace.com/post/20-important-female-led-rock-bands-you-should-know Doesn't meet wikipedia standards ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . ––– GMH MELBOURNE 00:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . It could do with some work, and punk by nature is not exactly the easiest thing to find durable references for, but I'll have a go. Here's a couple for starters. — Jon ( talk ) 04:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hefflon, Scott (29 March 2002). ""Review: Devotchkas – Live Fast...Die Young"" . Lollipop Magazine . Retrieved 20 October 2023 . ""Line Up 2024: Early Confirmations"" . Rebellion Festivals . Retrieved 20 October 2023 . The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Meltdown Records: Lacks sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP . Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 18:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Companies , and Slovakia . Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 18:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC) 42, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and I note there are a number of articles about minor New Zealand recording studios and record companies. As individual items they wouldn't meet WP:GNG but as a collective history of the New Zealand industry would. I recommend that the article be kept until these can be collated andm d into a single item on the industry. NealeWellington ( talk ) 10:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note from the reference there is likely to be more information in publications such as the Manawatu Evening Standard , Rip-it-up magazine, and the Massey University Student Association publications of the era with which to improve this article, none of which I have access to. NealeWellington ( talk ) 10:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Theosophy in Scandinavia: No independent reliable secondary sources cover this topic. Psychologist Guy ( talk ) 12:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy , Religion , Denmark , Finland , Norway , and Sweden . Owen× ☎ 14:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No secondary sources about this topic seem to exist. Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 00:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . A quick, cursory search found a number of sources: twenty-minute academic presentation on theosophy in Sweden , there's this article on the founding of Teosofiska Samfundet i Skandinavien (the Theosophy Association of Scandinavia), focused on the role (or lack thereof) of Viktor Rydberg , here's another academic article on theosophy in Sweden in the 1890s , and Western Esotericism in Scandinavia (ed. Henrik Bogdan and Olav Hammer), an academic title, seems to have eight (or six, depending on your definition of Scandinavia) relevant chapters, four (or three) focused on theosophy in the relevant countries. And so on. Whatever the issues are, I don't think it's that no reliable secondary sources exist. (I know nothing about theosophy, though.) / Julle ( talk ) 12:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , per the sources found by Julle , particularly Western Esotericism in Scandinavia , demonstrating that the topic has been covered in independent reliable secondary sources. Jfire ( talk ) 16:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . There are no other articles covering Theosophy in a particular geographic area (e.g. Theosophy in North America). Although there are good sources covering Theosophy in Scandinavia, I think that their content would fit better on the Theosophy article itself, perhaps in a section discussing the movement's geographic differences. Most of the existing content has a bit of a promotional tone which would not have a home on the Theosophy page, but if the article were expanded with the mentioned sources, I think that their content would fit best there. Uffda608 ( talk ) 11:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 15:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Move and rename (and , I suppose). Having thought about this, I think both the article and the sources show there's enough content for separate articles, and I don't see how the article on theosophy in general would benefit from a long section on Denmark, specifically. But while there's an a good list of sources for theosophy which does take place in Scandinavia, they tend to focus on the individual countries. Very little here is actually on theosophy in Scandinavia – rather, we have sources on the individual subsets of Scandinavia. This means that we could build in article based on them, properly covering the topic – but why, if that's not how our sources treat it? I think it makes more sense to have articles on theosophy in Sweden, theosophy in Denmark and so on, based on how the sources I've located deal with the subject. So since this mainly deals with Denmark, I suggest we let it focus on that part and move it to Theosophy in Denmark instead. / Julle ( talk ) 18:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 12:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Uffda608 too. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 16:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Move and rename (in ing with the above case presented by Julle). Nathantx ( talk ) 02:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Uffda608. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 10:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"BoND: Existence is not notability. Based on my evaluation of WP:NCORP , the sources present do not satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH . Shortly after I PROD the article, someone objected it and dropped a NY Times aticle, as an external link. The Hunt is a column in which NY Times is acting in the capacity of a local paper covering house search in NY and the newly added article fails to provide any coverage of BoND as a business. per WP:INHERITORG , coverage on the proprietors do not permeate into their company even if they are individually notable for reasons other than the company in question. Graywalls ( talk ) 18:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York . Graywalls ( talk ) 18:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment searches for ""BoND"" generate a thousands of extraneous hits for ""bond"". I suggest searching using ""Noam Dvir"" +""Daniel Rauchwerger"", the two partners. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All the coverage in the world about one of them individually, or about the pair have very little weight to establish notability for the legal entity; unless significant, in depth, independent coverage and analysis of them with relation to the company they've established, or about the company itself can be found. One has to be broadly circulated . Their house hunting endeavor in their personal life covered in The Hunt column of the New York Times acting in their agency as a local paper don't have any notability weight. The only thing that article did is to be a reliable source that the two men were correspondents for the Haaretz paper at one point. So, it is reliable source to verify that, but not to establish a grain of notability for their company. Graywalls ( talk ) 19:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] BoND is a two-man design firm. It could just have easily been named ""Noam Dvir and Daniel Rauchwerger"" - we have these sorts of BLPs that cover two closely-connected people together. I think we're wrong to focus on the ""legal entity"" alone. A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 21:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC) 17, 10 July 2023 (UTC) General: Baird-Remba, Rebecca (2 February 2021). ""How Two Israeli Newspaper Reporters Started Their Own Architecture Firm"" . Commercial Observer . Retrieved 10 July 2023 . Reviews of their work: Reginato, Noni (20 April 2023). ""This tranquil New York loft was designed around a striking art collection"" . Vogue . Retrieved 10 July 2023 . Howarth, Dan (8 April 2023). ""BoND uses pink scaffolding at New York ""embassy"" for fashion brand PatBo"" . Dezeen . Retrieved 10 July 2023 . Niland, Josh (16 December 2021). ""BoND's new Company Gallery space offers a unique showcase for Queer artists and for themselves"" . Archinect . Retrieved 10 July 2023 . De Conti, Massimo. ""Due architetti e un bilocale a New York trasformato nella casa dei sogni"" . Corriere della Sera . Retrieved 10 July 2023 . Yerebakan, Osman Can (5 January 2022). ""BoND Designs Company Gallery's New Lower East Side Location"" . Interior Design . Retrieved 10 July 2023 . Goodman, Wendy (15 March 2021). ""How This 1856 Chelsea Parlor-Floor Apartment Got Its Glamour Back"" . Curbed . Retrieved 10 July 2023 . ""Two Architects Bring the Glamour back to their 1856 Chelsea Apartment"" . Yellowtrace. 3 August 2021 . Retrieved 10 July 2023 . Howarth, Dan (28 April 2018). ""BoND turns dark, divided Chelsea apartment into light-filled home"" . Dezeen . Retrieved 10 July 2023 . Gibson, Eleanor (26 July 2020). ""New York hair salon Hawthorne Studio is designed for social distancing"" . Dezeen . Retrieved 10 July 2023 . Quigley, Annie (22 May 2023). ""Beneath the Surface: A Railroad Apartment in Manhattan with a Surprising Amount of Storage"" . The Organized Home . Retrieved 10 July 2023 . Quigley, Annie (21 October 2019). ""Urban Oasis: A Stone Orchard House in Tel Aviv, Redone by Two Architects"" . Remodelista . Retrieved 10 July 2023 . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 21:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Cohen, Joyce (29 June 2017). ""For Building Designers, a Customized Apartment"" . The New York Times . Retrieved 10 July 2023 . Personally, I think it's more relevant than Graywalls says but I suggest others take a look and decide for themselves. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 21:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 21:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The said reference was already present as a source in the article when I stumbled upon it and I don't see the justification why a duplicate was copied into ""further reading"". This is in The Hunt column section of the NYT which you can see at https://www.nytimes.com/column/the-hunt which solicits people to contact them about their recent home purchase. The select few chosen gets in depth coverage about their home purchase. In the case of these two men, it was about their personal purchase. The article does not touch about the business they own. Any amount of notability the pair accumulated do not pass through to their business. This is made clear by inherited notability guideline which says ownership by notable people do not bestow notability into the business. Graywalls ( talk ) 21:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC) ARCHITECT item 3: ” The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)” — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The guideline you're quoting is not relevant here, because this article is about their company. Similarly, bands or band members qualify through WP:NBAND , architects through WP:ARCHITECT . Architectural firms , recording companies are evaluated through WP:NCORP . Graywalls ( talk ) 22:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A few more. Some links are to Google translations into English. Starting to look sorta famous in interior design circles: Beath, Joe; Price, Elizabeth (19 October 2021). ""Chelsea Apartment"". Never Too Small: Reimagining Small Space Living . Smith Street Books. pp. 113–119. ISBN 9781922754929 . Retrieved 11 July 2023 . Zamora, Francesc (16 February 2021). 150 of the Best Apartment Ideas . Harper Collins . ISBN 9780063018884 . Retrieved 11 July 2023 . Johnston, Georgina (29 January 2021). ""New York's socially distanced hair salon solution"" . World Architecture News . Retrieved 11 July 2023 . Baird-Remba, Rebecca (1 December 2020). ""Swiss Energy Company Axpo Gets Minimalist Midtown Office"" . Commercial Observer . Retrieved 10 July 2023 . ""A Sense of Airiness Defines PatBO's New York Showroom, and Other News"" . Surface . 11 April 2023 . Retrieved 11 July 2023 . Gonzalez, Maria Francisca (1 December 2020). ""Axpo Holding AG US Headquarters / BoND"" . ArchDaily . Retrieved 11 July 2023 . Gonzalez, Maria Francisca (7 December 2020). ""Hair Salon in New York / BoND"" . ArchDaily . Retrieved 11 July 2023 . Bajić, Lorena Majcen (18 May 2023). ""Ostavlja bez daha: Evo kako je Liza Tedeschi dizajnirala milijunašev stan u New Yorku"" . (""It leaves you breathless: Here's how Liza Tedeschi designed a millionaire's apartment in New York"") . tportal.hr . Retrieved 11 July 2023 . Queiroz, Luiza (3 August 2020). ""Este salão de beleza em Nova York foi desenhado para manter o distanciamento social"" . (""This beauty salon in New York was designed to maintain social distancing"") . globo.com (Brazil) . Retrieved 11 July 2023 . Talawadekar, Vaishnavi Nayel (27 October 2022). ""Step Inside This 470-Square-Foot Cozy Chelsea Studio: BoND infused the 1920s NYC rental with queer cheer"" . Architectural Digest . Retrieved 11 July 2023 . Mahmud, Nurul Husna (31 July 2020). ""Tata rias jarak selamat"" . (""Safe distance cosmetology"") . Harian Metro (Malaysia) . Retrieved 11 July 2023 . Gonzalez, Maria Francisca (20 December 2018). ""Chelsea Apartment / BoND"" . ArchDaily . Retrieved 11 July 2023 . Hunt, Grace Beuley (27 January 2022). ""The Design Couple Shaping New Visions Of Home—For All"" . Luxe Interiors + Design Magazine . Retrieved 11 July 2023 . ""At architects"" . Label Magazine (Poland). 27 May 2021 . Retrieved 11 July 2023 . Mather, Lindsey (6 September 2017). ""You Won't Believe This 550-Square-Foot Apartment Remodel Was Done on the Cheap"" . Vogue . Retrieved 11 July 2023 . Reggev, Kate (21 June 2018). ""Vivid Accent Colors Turn This Tiny Abode Into a Dreamy Oasis"" . Dwell . Retrieved 11 July 2023 . Testoni, Paola (10 July 2018). ""Buio e Frammentato, questo Appartamento di West Chelsea diventa un Open Space Luminoso"" . (""Dark and Fragmented, this West Chelsea Apartment becomes a Bright Open Space"") . Elle Decor (Italy) . Retrieved 11 July 2023 . Salerno, Rita (28 December 2018). ""Best of 2018: 10 Modi di Intendere la Parola Restyling"" . (""Best of 2018: 10 Ways to Understand the Word Restyling: The top ten most viewed renovation projects in 2018"") . Elle Decor (Italy) . Retrieved 11 July 2023 . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 02:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would you name the two or three out of those that you would suggest for the purpose of establishing business notability so other editors are not burdened with having to go through every single one of them? This is often a significant hardship in deletion discussion in people, product and company articles. Those authored by the same journalist, or from same publication counts as one. Those based on interviews with company personnel or press releases do not pass. WP:ORGIND Graywalls ( talk ) 03:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Graywalls, I appreciate your enthusiasm for ing Wikipedia clear of unsourced articles. However, I think you're overly focused on establishing notability as a business independent of the married couple that are the business : Noam Dvir and Daniel Rauchwerger. There's just two people. BoND is short for ""Bureau of Noam & Daniel"" There are no articles that are only about ""BoND"", a company. Should we just rename the article ""Noam Dvir and Daniel Rauchwerger"", turning it into a people article? They've gotten coverage in multiple countries. Also, in their pre-BoND period, they did some noteworthy stuff at Harvard. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We can certainly chronicle their journey into forming the company in the background or history section; but those do not contribute towards notability. This article is about their architectural firm, a company. The proprietors chose to play off their names but coverage about them as individuals do not credit towards the business. In Wikipedia, a tuning shop owned by a renowned former race car driver can not piggy back notability off coverage that is not significant about the shop. It does not matter what how the business is named. If the coverage is not for the business, it does not count towards notability. We need CORPDEPTH and AUD passing coverage on the BoND, not about their proprietors outside of the article subject business. Graywalls ( talk ) 05:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak based on the above discussion. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The standard to be met here is NCORP so standard notability is irrelevant. Please can we refocus on that and identify the sources that meet the standard. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC) NCORP , but there's also a lot of press - what are the best WP:THREE articles please? SportingFlyer T · C 22:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 1 of 4: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 17:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Computing , and China . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 17:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC) 1. Lists are a kind of wiki articles in Wikipedia; 2. Similar articles such as List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 1 , part 2 , part 3 , part 4 have been on the main space for ages. 3. Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 1 of 4 etc. are sorted in YES order for easy lookup and include stroke orders information. By the way, the article has been reviewed twice since its publication last month and has been rated List-class by the first reviewer. Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 01:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ther are 4 relevant sources in the brief introduction in front of the list. And more are available in the parent article, as mentioned there. Thanks for your attention. Welcome to add more sources to make the article more notable. Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 02:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oops Comment you seem to have bundled different-style articles that go with List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 1 of 4 . The stroke-order one is the only one I would consider deleting. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 17:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Walsh90210 , Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs (YES order) indicates that they are all related—perhaps they are not, I don't know. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh no wait, you're right. This is rather embarassing. EDIT: or maybe not, I'm deeply confused. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 17:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article links were wrong. Stroke_orders_of_CJK_Unified_Ideographs_in_YES_order,_part_3_of_4 is part of the set recently created by a single author. You tagged List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 3 of 4 . Walsh90210 ( talk ) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ahhhh. I see. What's best to do now—transfer the AfD tags to the stroke order lists Walsh90210 ? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 17:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hopefully, everything is fixed now Walsh90210 ? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 17:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Looks correct; you might want to bundle Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs (YES order) as well. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 17:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. I have no strong opinion on whether this stroke-order information should be on Wiktionary articles like wikt:锗 ; but it should not be an encyclopedia article. Per nom, WP:NOTEVERYTHING , and WP:INDISCRIMINATE . Walsh90210 ( talk ) 00:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC) All the 4 articles have just been reviewed on June 15, 2024, by Vanderwaalforces ( talk · contribs ). (Thanks, Vanderwaalforces) Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 02:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The review was to take the article off the NPP queue and not to give it an outright approval. This discussion will determine if they’ll stay or be d. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 04:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC) NOTDICT . The Appendix of Wiktionary looks like a potential place for this; I would suggest to transwiki there. (Any Wiktionarians around?) — Kusma ( talk ) 07:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It sounds like a good suggestion. Thanks! I will try it. New to Appendix of Wiktionary, it may take time. Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 13:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC) Appendix:Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs (YES order) . Please help check if it is OK. Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 01:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC) These have been transferred as cut-and-paste moves. Is a history needed from WP to Wikt, or alternatively deletion and formal transwiki-ing, or given that all significant edits were made by Ctxz2323, no action needed? ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 04:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Better to move with history. But there is no such an option on the Move menu of Wikipedia. Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 05:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is there a handy way to copy the history to Wiktionary? Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 06:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sub-list 1 used to be the largest in Wikipedia. Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 06:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC) I just don't see what purpose these four lists of brush strokes serve. There is no context given to differentiate one from another and no other information than a unicode number... This seems too specialized for Wikipedia, this would only be useful to a very small subset of linguists or anthropologists and to be honest, I've read the article and still have no ideal what this is. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They are four sub-lists of Stroke orders for the 20,992 Unicode CJK character set sorted in YES Order. It is useful to all Chinese character users. Please read the parent and grandparent articles for more information. Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 04:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 20,000 Unicode characters don't need a Wikipedia article or series of articles; this seems to be an overly long list, that really doesn't serve the community here. Move to Wiktionary I suppose, not sure how interested they would be there (but they can decide for themselves). Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, moving is in progress. Can anyone help to move the History and other relevant data? More information is available in the previous discussion. Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 23:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Move to Wiktionary I suppose, ..."" I would appreciate it if you change the vote from to Move , to better express your more constructive and helpful standing. The value of the list is confirmed at ""Talk:Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 1 of 4 - Wikipedia"", I suppose. Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 00:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Gansz Trophy: Per WP:NOPAGE , this can be covered briefly at the articles for the respective schools. Let'srun ( talk ) 16:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , American football , United States of America , Maryland , and Texas . Let'srun ( talk ) 16:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . At first glance, the coverage doesn't look too deep, but there's a lot of it. Haven't had a chance to review it all and make a decision, but here are some examples found in my WP:BEFORE search: [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] , [32] . Cbl62 ( talk ) 22:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 19:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. We really a few editors reviewing these sources. Thanks. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC) this is a tough one. I reviewed the sources presented above and in general, each piece of coverage is about 80% run-of-the-mill sports reporting with 1-2 short paragraphs at the end actually discussing the trophy/rivalry as an overview-level topic. As for the references currently in the article, the Dallas Morning News piece similarly offers one short paragraph discussing the matchup, this one is merely a stats database, and the last two are primary sources published by the involved schools' websites. Left guide ( talk ) 23:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Richard Raymond (pianist): Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 18:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) NMUSIC , particularly criteria 1 and 9. I added a few sources found quickly from a google search. A deeper search may reveal more. Bgv. ( talk ) 23:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC) GNG -worthy media coverage that reports its winners as news, and is not ""major"" enough to pass that criterion if you have to rely on its own self-published press releases because third-party coverage treating it as newsworthy is non-existent. So he hasn't been shown to pass #9 at all, and with only one real media source about him he has not yet been shown to pass #1 either. Bearcat ( talk ) 15:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC) GNG criterion, however, we'd need more sustained coverage in order for it to actually pass WP:GNG . Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 16:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] With respect to the concern of competitions not being major, I only now noticed that the citation in the article is to the subject's self-published website, however the wins have been confirmed by other sources (e.g. [1] , [2] ). I'll digress that the competitions cited are not ""major"" enough to have their winners make the mainstream news, however the status of winning of (specifically) the Stepping Stone Competition has been cited by mainstream news sources in their determination of endorsements for young musicians (e.g. [3] , [4] , and less significant coverage [5] ). Focusing more heavily on NMUSIC #1 and the GNG, please see 1 and 2 above, along with this news article, and this inclusion of his biography backing the claims of notability from the Quebec Contemporary Music Society . For what it's worth, his discography was aired on the radio, as demonstrated here , and here . I will plug a few of these into the article, hopefully by the time anyone is reading this. Bgv. ( talk ) 01:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Meets WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG . Pianist are usually argued to be non notable but not here. Winning awards per WP:ANYBIO and performing at notable places makes the article individual notable. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 07:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC) The first Artsfile one and the WaPo one. Both of these, however, are reviews of specific performances and say little about him ""biographically."" The big problem is that most of the rest of the citations are not independent. The Forest Hill one is taken directly from his web site, as is the SMCQ one. Many of the others are mere name-checks, such as him named in the last CBC reference merely in passing. So I don't find anything independent to support a biography. Lamona ( talk ) 04:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments - Marginal. It's unclear if he's a full professor . The coverage, as noted, is not quite significant as most editors would define it . Bearian ( talk ) 15:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Conor Collins: Does making art that gain media attention due to their provactive notions create sufficient notability? No inbound links. No awards. No wider coverage that I can see. Seaweed ( talk ) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Visual arts , Politics , Sexuality and gender , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC) More than enough good RS, 3, 4 and 6 are the first ones I pulled up and they're about this individual. I suppose GNG is met, I'm unsure if they meet artistic notability, but they've been talked about enough by others, so that we can also include them here in wiki under general notability. Call it a cultural oddity curiosity I suppose. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. I've looked through most of the sources that could be considered reliable, and none are significant coverage that I see. The ""Time"" source, [6] for example, is just three sentences and an embedded instagram post. Elspea756 ( talk ) 23:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC) sources 3 and 4 are good, as is source 15 (a reminder that BuzzFeed News is different from BuzzFeed and is reliable). Source 19 even describes the subject as ""award-winnning"". Toadspike [Talk] 07:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To respond to SportingFlyer below, I think it's clear that the GNG has been met. For us to decide that people who get excessive media attention for provocative stunts need to meet some higher bar would require an RfC, or for someone to point me to some hidden policy/guideline I've never read. The media is biased toward this stuff, and, for better or for worse, we rely on the media to source our articles and determine what's notable. Toadspike [Talk] 11:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure, honestly. There's lots of sources - too many, really - in the article talking about his art, because his art is provocative, but many of them are just links to self-promotion on social media. The article needs a good cleanup, too. I don't really see any critical coverage of him , though, that I would expect to see from an artist. Don't really want to , but am leaning . SportingFlyer T · C 19:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I must admit I'm a bit confused about biographical articles about artists sometimes. I mean, if your life is about creating artworks, when do you become notable? It's fine if that's your career and livelihood, but when does make you notable for an encyclopedia? Where is the line? I think it's also fair to say that a key feature of the artistic world is about awards, prizes, grants etc. It's quite commonplace. Therefore I do wonder sometimes if we give undue weight to artist who has this award or nominated for that award. I'm also a bit concerned that too much weight is placed on media mentions to justify a Wikipedia article. To be fair, I do find it hard work to read all the Wikipedia policies sometimes, but I suppose that's my problem. In summary, I'm still not convinced that Conor Collins is notable enough for Wikipedia. Failing that, it's definitely too detailed. Seaweed ( talk ) 19:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I don't see notability here either. The notability guideline for artists is WP:ARTIST . It is basically that there needs to be multiple reliable independent sources that devote significant coverage to the artist, or that the artist is widely cited by their peers, has been a significant part of a significant exhibition, their work is in the permanent collections of multiple major museums, things like that. I am not seeing anything like that here, it's all just insignificant WP:ROUTINE coverage of minor run-of-the-mill events, like that ""this drawing of a celebrity by a local artist got several thousand likes on twitter."" Elspea756 ( talk ) 20:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's sort of my thinking as well. Most articles include links back to his social media account, making it a question as to whether he's been truly independently noticed in my book. It's clear he's getting noticed, but this may just be WP:TOOSOON . SportingFlyer T · C 17:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Strat Andriotis: The notability claim here is that he and his music exist, which is not automatically enough all by itself in the absence of WP:GNG -worthy coverage about him in reliable sources to validate its significance -- but the referencing here is entirely to primary sources (directory entries, content self-published by his record label) and blogs that are not support for notability, with not one shred of GNG-worthy reliable source coverage in real media shown at all. Nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat ( talk ) 17:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada . Bearcat ( talk ) 17:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC) 29, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even just basic ""notable because GNG"" requires more than just one ""substantial"" article. Especially when even that one source is a Q&A interview in which the subject is talking about himself in the first person: an interview source can be used amid a mixture of solid GNG-worthy sourcing, but it can't singlehandedly vault a person over GNG all by itself if it's the only media coverage he's got. Bearcat ( talk ) 18:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC) GNG does not say ""requires more than just one ""substantial"" article"". It literally says ""multiple sources are generally expected"" not ""multiple sources are required"". Please don't turn shades of grey into non-existent black and white rules. Nfitz ( talk ) 04:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One source is only sufficient if it explicitly verifies a hard notability pass on the order of ""won a Juno Award"". One source has never, ever been enough all by itself if you were going for ""because media coverage exists"" as the notability claim, especially if that one source was a Q&A interview in which the subject was talking about himself in the first person. Bearcat ( talk ) 01:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Museo Interactivo Kaná: Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk ) 19:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Mexico . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 19:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and move to Museo de Ciencia y Tecnologia Veracruz under which it has better sourcing albeit very local. I think there's enough to get it to WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 21:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC) GNG and Wikipedia:ORG . Avishai11 ( talk ) 21:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 04:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 06:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Chawarin Perdpiriyawong: No indication of significance. Fails WP:NACTOR , WP:SIGCOV . Refs are PR, profiles and interviews. scope_creep Talk 11:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Not sure how the individual ""Started work yesterday"" when the article says it was in 2022. I'm unsure of the awards won/listed in the article, so I'm not ! voting until we can comment on how notable they are. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC) SINGER he's had (at least) a song charting on a national music chart [25] (link found there [26] ) BloubDeFontenilles ( talk ) 15:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That helps, I'm assuming there is more coverage of the individual in Thai sources. I can find a few mentions in the Pinoy press, and much coverage of this individual in the ""Boy Love"" genre, which seems to be very popular in Thailand. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Source 4 in the article seems reliable. Rest are somewhat trivial, we have more than enough though to build out the article. Having a charted single in also contributing to notability. The individual is also mentioned in Filipino sources and in Singapore, suggesting broad popularity across that corner of the world. The individual seems to pass notability requirements. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Television , and Thailand . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ref 4 may be reliable but its not significant. It is an interview, stating in the article ""Get to know Nunew Chawarin"". It reads like a PR piece, nothing more. That is whole problem with the article. The guy hasn't done a thing. All the coverage is PR and inteviews. There is nothing significant. scope_creep Talk 17:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Winner of multiple awards, such as Manimekhala Awards (which is a rebirth of Mekhala Awards which was a top award for TV in Thailand), Nataraj Awards (a prestigious award). I think nominator should also check out Category:Newspapers published in Thailand . Many sources cite as references are well-known newspapers. Before Internet days, those had circulations over hundred thousands, some even reached 1 million copies per day like Thairath . ( -- Lerdsuwa ( talk ) 04:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC) 24, 4 December 2023 (UTC) //www.facebook.com/ManeeMaekkala2022/photos/a.100878265953558/144850098223041/ . The Outstanding Y Couple Award do have popularity vote and he came out second according to vote result https://www.facebook.com/ManeeMaekkala2022/posts/pfbid023fHBttZXkaxyyuE8chKxBTka7hnBHodnKQ18mdBnT1WDeT4ai4C6VgYz6iqNYeEl but get the Outstanding award. (I think they pick outstanding award recipient to be different from popular one). I don't see New Star – Y Series award in the voting so the award is based on merit alone. -- Lerdsuwa ( talk ) 02:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was going on what it was actually saying on the competition site not on a facebook post. scope_creep Talk 05:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] May I know the website address of the competition site? -- Lerdsuwa ( talk ) 10:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. A popular figure with a very large following in the market he's active in. I'm not sure why profile pieces and celebrity news should be inadmissible as references to establish notability; if that were the case we wouldn't have any references for a large number of celebrity biographies. While they're not particularly high-effort pieces of journalism, profile pieces by major news sites serve as an indicator of public interest, and these ones by Kom Chad Luek (Oct 2022), Sanook (Mar 2023) and INN News (Sep 2023) all provide overviews of the subject's career in the writers' own voices. And while the content of interviews don't usually count as a secondary source, having major interviews conducted by multiple established publications can also serve as an indicator of interest, with commentary from the interviewers that taken together can partly contribute to notability. These include the Thairath piece mentioned above (Jun 2022), ( The Standard (31 Aug 2023), and Woody Milintachinda ( Oct 2022 and Sep 2023 ). The subject has also been featured in traditional glossy magazines L'Officiel Thailand (Apr 2022) and Praew (Jul 2022). In any case, he should meet WP:NACTOR #1, having had starring roles in the TV series Cutie Pie and the film After Sundown , the latter of which lacks an article but should be notable by way of reviews in The Standard and Sanook . -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 19:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [27] , choosen for particular reason, it states in the opening sentence ""Get to know Nunew Chawarin, a new actor who is famous from the Cutie Pie series"", a typical PR agency statement. The article has statement that indicates that its a PR agency. This one: [28] , all of it is from social media. Are we supposed to suspend disbelief here due to an argument of quanity meets quality at some level. I don't think so. We will go all the references in the first block today or tommorrow. scope_creep Talk 08:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC) 04, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Thai newspapers industry is graded like every other industry. I'll look at everyone of these newspapers along with the references, today or tommorrow. Trying to qualify this argument as though that make is ok is disengeous and dishonest, particularly on a paid article. scope_creep Talk 10:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Este actor y cantante es uno de los más reconocidos actualmente en Tailandia a pesar de que su primera serie fuera transmitida en 2022 ha alcanzado numerosos premios como actor y cantante otorgados por especialistas. Es solicitado para interpretar OST de diferentes series. Sus fans son numerosos en Tailandia y en el extranjero. 152.207.147.61 ( talk ) 02:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Translation. For convenience, here is a Google translation of the above message. If anyone with a knowledge of Spanish notices errors in Google's effort, please post corrections. JBW ( talk ) 12:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This actor and singer is one of the most recognized currently in Thailand, despite the fact that his first series was broadcast in 2022, he has achieved numerous awards as an actor and singer awarded by specialists. He is requested to perform OSTs from different series. His fans are numerous in Thailand and abroad. Comment I think it will no-consensus ! vote at best with 4 ! votes. I don't see the point of doing a source analysis. I don't have the time at the moment leading up to Christmas. I do intend to do a source review in the article and remove anything that is low-quality or non-standard. If it comes to it that what is left is junk then I will renominate, but can't do anything at the moment. scope_creep Talk 23:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Switch Scotland: There is ! precedent for ing these articles to the article for their parent company [12] . Most of this article consists of unsourced WP:OR about stations being added, d and moved around on various digital radio multiplexes. Flip Format ( talk ) 13:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , United Kingdom , and Scotland . Flip Format ( talk ) 13:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC) No issue with notability, and the article contains a history, stations broadcast, transmitter information and references. Rillington ( talk ) 00:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Misty Buscher: As always, mayors are not all ""inherently"" notable just because they exist -- the notability test for a mayor requires significant coverage that enables us to write a substantive article about her political impact: specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But all that's here is two footnotes verifying her declaration of her candidacy and her swearing-in as mayor, which is not enough. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when a stronger, more informative and better-referenced article can be written, but just stating and minimally sourcing that she exists as a mayor is not enough in and of itself. Bearcat ( talk ) 00:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Illinois . Bearcat ( talk ) 00:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of mayors of Springfield, Illinois , where the mayor is listed. Djflem ( talk ) 13:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm ok with the . Likely TOOSOON, all articles simply confirm her win. One post is of the mayoral debate. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Added some references. The subject was already an elected official (city treasurer) 8 years prior and had some coverage from that time period. I've no opinion on whether this is enough to , thus just leaving thus comment. Mike Linksvayer ( talk ) 23:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The last eight mayors of Springfield, Illinois have articles and only Karen Hasara would be considered notable under the notability guidelines for politicians. There's a reason. Generally, locally significant politicians can pass GNG. Springfield is the state's capital, the central city of a metropolitan statistical area, and has 100,000+ residents. I think this is a case of a need to improve the article rather than the article. -- Mpen320 ( talk ) 03:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) 27, 22 June 2023 (UTC) ROUTINE coverage of a local politician running for office. The past mayors of the city having pages is not a rationale for ing an article... There is always going to be routine coverage of local elections. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 12:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What is routine coverage? WP:SBST , a subsection of our main notability guideline, says this: ""For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage."" WP:SIGCOV (a.k.a. WP:GNG , gives the rationale, which I believe clinches the argument for this article: ""Significant coverage"" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. This definitely applies to this mayor -- there is substantial independent coverage of her in multiple reliable sources to support this article. WP:ROUTINE is a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (events) . Mayor Buscher is not an event. Wikipedia:Notability (people) is instead the applicable guideline. Here's what the guideline says at the very top (""Basic criteria""): ""People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."" ""If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability."" WP:NPOL is the subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (people) that mentions politicians. Referring to local politicians it says: ""Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. "" The article cites full-length reliable, independent news coverage of this mayor. These are our guidelines and they're what the closing admin will use to decide this case -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 16:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC) ROUTINE applies to news coverage of any topic in Wikipedia, and there's no distinguishing news coverage here. SportingFlyer T · C 09:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC) 23, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ SportingFlyer - I just re-read my comment above and thought it probably sounded snarky. That was not my intent. When I said that stuff about changing guidelines, I meant that for real - it's a discussion worth having elsewhere (perhaps as an RfC at the Village Pump) to settle this issue (i.e., guidelines don't match actual recent practice). I think it's suboptimal when practice doesn't match our guidelines -- either change the guideline or reinforce its use as already written. I didn't mean it in the sense of ""go away"" but it looks that way when I look at it now. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 01:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mayors need more than routine local coverage to be kept at AfD. I don't know why I'd need an RfC to change that rule - it's just what we've always done, take a look at some of the archives. SportingFlyer T · C 09:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC) ROUTINE coverage outside the city she's been in charge of, so she doesn't meet WP:GNG . Otherwise every mayor everywhere would be notable, and that's not how we operate. SportingFlyer T · C 09:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As mayor of Springfield she's as notable as the previous few mayors who have articles. It's also a new article (was red link a few weeks ago) and it can be improved! Ninevolt ( talk ) 18:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , largely per A. B.'s analysis above. I don't think there is any serious question that the GNG is met here. As to the specific question of AFD precedent, i.e. whether repeated erroneous decisions by AFD participants to articles despite a lack of authority to do so under any relevant policy or guideline can, by simple dint of repetition, cause those decisions to no longer be erroneous, I think the question answers itself . -- Visviva ( talk ) 23:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Battle of the Border (Lamar–McNeese): Let'srun ( talk ) 18:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Football , Louisiana , and Texas . Let'srun ( talk ) 18:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football , Baseball , Basketball , and Softball . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There are several media outlets that call this rivalry the Battle of the Border in their coverage. [37] [38] [39] [40] Alvaldi ( talk ) 21:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Going over the sources, in the order in which they appear: Non- WP:INDY . SI bare stats that do not even mention a rivalry. Non-INDY. More bare stats. Non-INDY (and a mangled cite). Non-INDY × 3. Non-INDY and another mangled cite. Non-INDY × 10. I'm not going to read all the non-independent material from school publications to see if even they have any in-depth material on a ""rivalry"" as such, since none of it counts toward notability. A couple of sentences might be able into the articles on the schools in the sections under their athletic departments, but since it doesn't seem like anyone declares a ""rivalry"" to exist other than people at the schools, even this doesn't really seem like encyclopedically pertinent claims, and the all the sourcing for it would be WP:PRIMARY . The bare fact that there's a local name, ""Battle of the Border"", for games (in various sports) between teams from these schools might be worth including at the school articles, since Wcquidditch's sources above show the term used in independent (local news) sources. But none of them refer to a rivalry, and they're not in sufficient depth about this as a long-term series of games to make it notable. The first is about a particular instance of ""The three-game series"" in one season of baseball, and is almost entirely focused on players and on team stats, not a series of events as such, or a rivalry. The second is about the outcome of a specific football game and how players performed in it. Ditto the third one but basketball. And the fourth but back to football. So, what we have here is simply proof that locals, including the students and the local press, refer to games between these schools as ""Battle[s] of the Border"". It's arguably pertinent to mention this in schools' athletic sections, but this is not an encyclopedia topic on its own. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . In addition to the sources that Alvaldi has uncovered above, there is also this , and this , and this , and this , and this , and this . Ejgreen77 ( talk ) 23:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC) (i) geographic proximity of the schools (in this case 60 miles apart on the interstate); (ii) the existence of a trophy or an official name for the series (present here); (iii) competitiveness of the series (McNeese has the edge but not a runaway); (iv) length and frequency of play (series has been played for > 70 years and with regularity); and (v) prominence of the programs (not present here - programs not particularly prominent). Cbl62 ( talk ) 01:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Only the first factor is relevant to whether this should have an article. It matters not one whit that it may have been played for 70 years or has a trophy. It matters whether anyone outwith its coiners has ever documented it, and its trophy and whatnot, in depth during those 70 years, which is only marginally the case from the aforegiven. Uncle G ( talk ) 09:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Brings to mind a zinger coined by old Bill Shakespeare: ""Who knows himself a braggart, let him fear this, for it will come to pass that every braggart shall be found an ass."" SIGCOV is the touchstone, and no one has said otherwise. That said, it is entirely appropriate (one might even say "" snotor "") in close cases to look at other real-world factors in determining whether or not a series of football games is worthy of a stand-alone article. Cbl62 ( talk ) 16:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I think the coverage is enough to warrant this staying. KatoKungLee ( talk ) 00:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC) agree with SMcCandlish's eval. Sources show that students and school boosters use the phrase and that local news covers local sports. A phrase being mentioned in routine local news does not meet GNG, no sources from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth found in BEFORE. // Timothy :: talk 02:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Appears to pass GNG with given coverage, including articles providing direct significant coverage from at least seven different publications. Unlike what TimothyBlue seems to be asserting, locality of coverage has no bearing on whether coverage can count towards notability in these types of instances. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 03:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The sourcing provided by User:Ejgreen77 is the kind of WP:SIGCOV we need to establish a rivalry as notable. Cbl62 ( talk ) 23:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Meets WP:GNG , per the sources brought forth above in this AfD. Ejgreen77 ( talk ) 18:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The Subject meets the WP:GNG and WP:BIO . Micheal Kaluba ( talk ) 08:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC) a 1966 newspaper article that devotes 5 sentences to the subject (before going off to concentrate on the subject of the individual players of two sports teams), and at least gives us some historical context, although wouldn't justify a whole article; a 1982 newspaper article that is a headline-only match, and spends all of its body talking about a single family with two sports players in it that have ended up in competition with each other; a 1979 newspaper article that is fairly substantial, analysing the rivalry itself for a major fraction of the piece, and has an amusing ""I don't know that it can be classified as a great rivalry"" quotation; a 2022 newspaper article that is a headline-only match, that is actually an after-match score report and doesn't discuss a battle or a rivalry at any point in its body, and is a prime example of research-by-search-engine-keyword-matching without reading the source; a 2022 newspaper article that spends its first 4 sentences on the subject, and is like the 1966 one, providing more stuff on the subject for its development in the 21st century, building it up, making this three not very big independent sources, with a huge gap in the history between 1979 and 2022; and a 1971 newspaper article that ironically explains why the 1982 article is a non-source, since it supports adding content saying that the 1982 situation is run of the mill and why it is run of the mill, which still leaves a huge gap in the history, but it's four small sources now. Alvaldi 's sources are all only phrase matches without content like Ejgreen77 's first 2022 article, and one of them is that article, which overlap one would think people actually reading the sources proffered would have spotted. Even doing proper citations instead of bare URLs would have made this duplication easy to spot. I could make a fair stub out of this, but it would have glaring holes in it that the phrase-only headline-only matching research doesn't fill in. Amusingly with regard an earlier comment in this discussion, the second 2022 newspaper article explains how this is not something that has gone on continuously for 70 years, because it explains that there was a gap when it didn't. We have 40 years missing, during which there could have been further gaps, for all that we know. Would that people were properly researching this, instead of phrase matching with search engines! So that's a stub with probable scope for expansion, although we have no sources to show that the scope for expansion, to the missing decades, and to the other sports (the proffered sources all discussing one sport and not even the women's teams ), is definitely there. Uncle G ( talk ) 09:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Mathew Moolakkatt: The only sources I can find that discuss him at length (string: ""Mathew Moolakkatt"") are tied to a controversy and legal case about Catholic marriage practises . — Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Christianity , and Kerala . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Diocesan bishops of major denominations have generally been held to be notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC) BLP also applies here! — Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC) CLERGYOUTCOMES illustrates the consensus. BLP is irrelevant as to his notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC) I don't need to talk much here. I thought this has been emphasized before, that the Bishop or Archbishop of a particular diocese or Archdiocese is notable by the virtue of his office. It is an elected office for Wikipedia's sake. See WP:NBISHOP too, or WP:CLERGY . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Shubhada Varadkar: Previously declined through AfC and moved to draft space after. There are 23 references on the page which I went through. There is only one that I can potentially see as going towards notability. The rest are non-independent, mentions, or unreliable. I did an evaluation on the talk page of all sources and pasting that below for those in the AfD discussion. CNMall41 ( talk ) 22:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CNMall41 ( talk ) 22:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC) 1. Global Indian is a blog with very little traffic and no editorial oversight listed. 2. Nettv4U is a profile piece on a website that allows you to make your own profile . 3. Latestly , one sentence mention of an award that does not appear significant. Cannot vouch for the reliability of the website. 4. Nettv4U , same as #2 above. 5. Sanjeevani Life Beyond Cancer , this is a puff piece on what appears to be a non-profit organization website. Source not reliable. 6. Indian Council for Cultural Relations , I am not sure exactly what this list is but her name is on it with a link to YouTube. Mention and directory listing which is not significant. 7. Newsband , an interview so not independent. The publication states it is an English newspaper in New Bombay but there is no editorial oversight listed whatsoever. It also receives little traffic which makes me think this is a blog masquerading as a newspaper. 8. Ada2030 , only mention is in the bio of the author (the subject's niece) as inspiration for writing the piece. No other information included. 9 AsianAge , a simply mention verifying she is the cousin to the subject in the article. Nothing significant. 10 Irish Times , this is a link to tags, not an article. I viewed the articles and found this which is a short piece talking about her cousin, nothing significant about her. 11 The Better India , this is more of a mention, Article is her mom who talks about Shubhada's dancing. Not independent and not significant. 12. DNA India , this one is about her grandmother with a single mention of Shubhada. Not significant coverage. 13. Mid-Day , this one is closer but still falls short of being significant. It talks about her autobiography and could be used as a source to support such, but does not have any weight for notability. 14. Her book which is an autobiography. Can be used as a primary source for certain things, but never to establish notability. 15. Scroll.in , this is the first reference where a case could potentially be made for notability. It is about a documentary based on her autobiography. 16. Sanjeevani Life Beyond Cancer , duplicate of #5 above. 17. Hindustan Times , brief mention of her being part of a festival. Passing mention and not significant. 18. NCPA Mumbai , commercial site, advertisement for a function, not significant. 19. Eoicaracas , another mention of a function. Mention and not significant. 20. The Times of India , this is a good article, but per WP:RSP , there is no real consensus for reliability and it is know for accepting payments for coverage. 21. Maharashtra , duplicate of #3 above. 22. & 23. No link but these are duplicates of #5 above. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 22:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC) 16, 12 May 2023 (UTC) 40, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe it is the same parent company so likely a lot of mirror reporting. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 01:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why should she be d with Leo Varadkar? She is a Odissi dancer in her own right and a notable personality. https://www.thebetterindia.com/41535/shubhada-varadkar-odissi-dancer/ Kiran Java ( talk ) 05:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC) //scroll.in/reel/893106/in-documentary-peacock-plume-the-stirring-story-of-how-shubhada-varadkar-danced-around-cancer Kiran Java ( talk ) 05:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Should NOT be d I do not agree that this page should be d because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about all knowledge and this biography adds to the body of knowledge. This article adheres to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy She is an Odissi dancer preserving and propagating this art form A documentary has been made on her work https://scroll.in/reel/893106/in-documentary-peacock-plume-the-stirring-story-of-how-shubhada-varadkar-danced-around-cancer Scroll.in She has been awarded the Maharashtra Cultural Award for her work She is an empanelled artist with ICCR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Council_for_Cultural_Relations She has a senior fellowship from Ministry of Culture govt of India I propose that other editors can contribute to strengthening the article. This article should not be d as it is a biography of a living person and none of the citations are libelous and hence they do not go against the Wikipedia policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiran Java ( talk • contribs ) 04:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC) ANYBIO . No amount of editing or reference adding would make her notable. It all comes down to the sources which simply do not exist. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 05:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC) //www.dnaindia.com/just-before-monday/report-flamencodissi-2715298 Kiran Java ( talk ) 06:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and a off line source ""Pune Festival 95"". The Times of India, Pune Plus . 7 September 1995. Kiran Java ( talk ) 06:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [38] was already brought up in CNMall41's comment above. I don't know about ""Pune Festival 95"". The Times of India, Pune Plus . 7 September 1995, I tried to find it in The Times of India archive , but I couldn't find it, do you have any link to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk • contribs ) 13:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just a question, how many sources are a requirement? Kiran Java ( talk ) 06:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC) In documentary ‘Peacock Plume’, the stirring story of how Shubhada Varadkar danced around cancer ( Scroll.in ) is very good - this is an in-depth review of a documentary about her, described as ""a tribute to Varadkar’s resilience through her personal battles, including a failed marriage and cancer."" Not only did someone make a documentary about her, but an independent and reliable source is providing secondary support for its noteworthiness. This source suggests further sources supporting notability based on her life and career (at minimum according to the WP:BASIC guideline) are available. Beccaynr ( talk ) 13:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There has been discussion of this source previously and seems that it should be rarely used and only for certain things. I would highly doubt we get consensus to use it for notability purposes. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Dance , and India . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC) GNG / WP:BASIC - in addition to the 2018 Scroll.in review of the documentary about her, there is also a 2014 in-depth profile of her in the Mumbai Mirror : Dancing against disease , as well as reviews of her performances in The Hindu in 2017 and 2019 , The Mumbai Mirror in 2017 , and DNA India in 2013 . The Better India also profiles her in 2016 . There are also brief mentions of her that seem to be nontrivial support of her notability, e.g. the Hindustan Times reporting in 2020 ""WFAC festival showcases 9 female artists, each being an icon in their own right including [...] Shubhada Varadkar (Odissi)"". This article can be further developed with available sources. Beccaynr ( talk ) 14:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] via the Wikipedia Library , there are also reviews of her performances in ""Delightful evening of classical ragas at Tribal museum"" The Pioneer , 2019 ProQuest 2230122223 and ""Classical dance forms come alive on stage"" in the Hindustan Times , 2015 ProQuest 1655451986 , as well as a briefer review of a work she choreographed in ""The essence of Odissi"" The Hindu , 2018 ProQuest 2019716953 . There is also a report on some of her collaborative work: ""Flamencodissi: In a rare collaboration, the vigour and energy of Flamenco will meet the lyricality and grace of Odissi. Yogesh Pawar watched artistes from both styles rehearse together to explore their interface"" DNA ProQuest 2174802486 , and a 2021 report in The Free Press Journal about ""noted Odissi dance guru and exponent Shubhada Varadkar who is presenting her film – a 30-minute docu-feature themed on 'Dance in times of corona,' along with German flamenco exponent Catarina Mora as a part of the Prayaag Dance Festival 2021."" (""Prayaag 2021 to find out if classical dance works without a live audience"" ProQuest 2500343002 ). There is also a report mentioning awards, including the ""prestigious"" Mahari Award 2011 of Orissa, that she ""has been teaching, performing and conducting workshops in India and abroad for more than a decade"" and that her mother ""Manik Varadkar is a social activist"" (""Doordarshan Sahyadri Prerna Puraskar 2014"", indiantelevision.com , 2014 ProQuest 1520552910 . Beccaynr ( talk ) 15:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I left a note about Scroll.in above but we cannot use it to establish notability due to its reliability. Mentions, profiles, interviews, and breif announcements cannot be used either (at least for notability). The only reference that I see as possibly being used to establish notability would be the 2019 article in The Hindu. Assuming we all agree with that reference, that still leaves us way short of having significant coverage. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The 2018 RSN discussion linked above about Scroll.in between 4 editors does not appear to suggest a film review cannot be used or that the source cannot be relied upon for basic facts, such as the film being based on her autobiography. A 2020 RSN discussion about Scroll.in also has further opinions, including detailed and nuanced support for its reliability. And these profiles of Varadkar offer significant coverage of her life and career, so they provide support for WP:GNG notability; the reviews of her performances are additional WP:SECONDARY support of her notability, per WP:BASIC . And while passing mentions would be trivial coverage, it seems nontrivial when she is described as e.g. ""being an icon."" From my view, the level of sustained and in-depth coverage supports her notability. Beccaynr ( talk ) 21:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand your contention but disagree with your reading of the RSN discussion. There seems to be consensus to avoid it with a few saying it can be used for limited circumstance. Regarding SUSTAINED, she received most of her coverage during the same few years and there is nothing of note as of late. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 21:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC) gng and actress notability. Shaikha Habiba ( talk ) 08:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC) , being this is only your 4th edit to Wikipedia, can you provide a more comprehensive statement about how she ""clearly"" passes actress notability. in mind that deletion discussions are not a WP:VOTE .-- CNMall41 ( talk ) 01:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Shaikha has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Courcelles ( talk ) 14:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC) OP seems to apply same measurement in every case. Indian news media may be earning from movie industry, but I would doubt the same thing is true about classical dancers. Indian classical dancers may be getting some fame some money that too with difficulty to pay for their annual expanses. It would be surprising if Indian classical dancers would earn enough to pay Indian news media outlet. Again what money they would take from a cancer patient? This seems like stretched stereotype applied to wrong segment. Seems like a borderline case of WP:CSB . Bookku ( talk ) 16:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC) In 2014 Varadkar's age would be around 53 according to the date given in the article. Usually It's not time of career take off to pay for a news, much less likely when one is facing cancer. What I can see is inadvertently Appeal to probability taking shape. Bookku ( talk ) 03:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC) GNG / WP:BASIC . Bookku ( talk ) 08:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC) BASIC . . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;. . People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Policy seems clear article meets WP:BASIC is enough; WP:ANYBIO is an additional criteria and inconsequential in this case since article seems to meet WP:BASIC . Policy clearly mentions multiple independent sources can very well combined to demonstrate notability. Coverage may have ups and downs but media coverage Minimum ten years from 2011 to 2021 is not sustained then what it is? There is an article about her Guru Kelucharan Mohapatra who seems notable. And that what matters in Indian classical dance. And she has been awarded with a state level award that matters for the form of her classical dance. Beccaynr seems to have provided good number of refs from Proquest. This Hindu Newspaper article even OP does not have any issue with this publication. This DNA 2013 news report mentions even editors name and is substantial coverage by all means. As earlier explained Scroll and Times of India are other wise add to substantial and would have been ok to OP. RSN strictures on both these news groups are mainly due to their coverage of Indian politics and high paying Indian movie industry; otherwise those are news papers of record. As explained in detail in the comment above these RSN stricture criteria can't be applied to classical dance, she is beyond age of career take of for publicity dependence, and a cancer patient unlikely source of payment for any publication or media house. What I can see is inadvertently fallacy of Appeal to probability and WP:CSB taking shape. Need to get out of usual stereotype at least in this case. IMHO In this case if OP could have used Template:Notability and discussed at the article talk page first as part of WP:AFDBEFORE , it would have been better. Just to be clear, you are saying that I did perform WP:BEFORE ? As far as discussion, how much do you feel is needed? Based on User talk:Kiran Java you will see that both Onel5969 and Jamiebuba (pinging both to provide you with additional background) moved this back to draft prior to it being declined. User then moved it to the main space for a third time after I declined it in draft space. I then did a full review of references as shown above and performed a WP:BEFORE for any additional references (finding none that I feel could be used for notability). CNMall41 ( talk ) 17:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am afraid I just saw article talk page and missed on user talk page. User:Kiran Java certainly should have avoided haste and do more efforts to understand Wikipedia policies. I have had a feeling that whether we (community) could have had more discussion at the article talk page to revisit applicability of TOI and Scroll as an exception for Indian classical dances, since those are looking like border line cases. I have already specified that outlook of disagreeing users on points of content is inadvertent, so pl. be assured no direct or indirect personal aspersions are implied. Bookku ( talk ) 05:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - as per nom's source analysis (which I also performed prior to moving to draft). Onel 5969 TT me 19:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It should be noted that not only should the nominators analysis of sources be analyzed, but sources subsequently brought forth should also be analyzed. Coverage over a few years would generally be considered SUSTAINED. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 01:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC) per Beccaynr Jack4576 ( talk ) 01:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong per above. CastJared ( talk ) 08:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC) as per the nominator's thorough examination of sources. BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk ) 13:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - as per nom. AShiv1212 ( talk ) 01:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Keenagolla: No reliable source. Hongsy ( talk ) 02:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sri Lanka . Hongsy ( talk ) 02:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Other than a nature reserve, other references are about a tea estate in another province. Nothing found in gazetteer under this name or latest census. Rupples ( talk ) 15:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Found co-ordinates, it is mapped and the area around is populated. There's a Keenagolla primary school in Walapane Education Division. [12] . No. 1408 on this official list [13] . Striking on this evidence. getting Timed Out when trying to connect to the Divisional Secretariat website, which may give further proof of the village's/hamlet's existence. Rupples ( talk ) 15:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Per Erik Hedman: The existing article could be expanded with a list of works he has created, but secondary sources do not exist to expand the prose of the article beyond its current contents. Uffda608 ( talk ) 12:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disney , Comics and animation , Denmark , Sweden , and Artists . Uffda608 ( talk ) 12:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , nothing in Swedish Mediearkivet, not really anything in a Danish web search. This has a one-page article . Geschichte ( talk ) 21:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - WorldCat lists him as an author/creator of numerous books in multiple languages. — Maile ( talk ) 21:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The ones where he (and not another person by the same name) was the author are tiny children's books, we also have a comic about Phantom Blot . What we do need however is secondary sources about his work (reviews) or about him, a library listing does unfortunately not cut it in 2024. Geschichte ( talk ) 22:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"The Gentlemen's Rant: Looking at WP:BEFORE , I'm having a hard time to find more reliable sources, thus failing GNG. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 04:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Think the sourcing here is sufficient to establish GNG. Admittedly this is an article I created and worked on over a decade ago when I was much younger (and I do think of that decade-old work as mostly sub-par by my current standards for myself). That being said, it's still a for me. Or perhaps as an alternative to deletion, a move to John Elerick , the series' creator. (I just created it as a but suppose it could be d to make way for this to be moved to that target and then reworked as a BLP of Elerick). These sources 1 2 3 exist and are more than suitable for inclusion on both this article and the hypothetical John Elerick one and in both cases would help support the establishment of GNG. Soulbust ( talk ) 05:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Whilst more information and development would be great, this will not be possible if the page is d, and the sources demonstrate notability anyway. An alternative could be to draftify it. (Please note that I personally hate ranting videos and thus do not watch this show, so I am not biased). DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 15:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Imre Vallyon: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. None of the preceding apply in this case and almost all the sources in the article are not independent. There are almost no reviews of his work and the awards he has won are not notable. The only significant coverage is of his legal issues. Ynsfial ( talk ) 15:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Spirituality , Hungary , and New Zealand . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , the Stuff article certainly establishes that he's notable, although the focus of it is on his child molestation convictions. The award from the Ashton Wylie Charitable Trust might be notable given that it's in conjunction with the New Zealand Society of Authors , which is definitely notable. - Gadfium ( talk ) 22:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see how the Stuff article establishes his notability as an author. It's mostly about his convictions as you said. I'm struggling to find any reviews or analysis of his work. Even if the award is given in conjunction with the NZSA I don't think it's enough to confer notability. Do you think it is? It might also be worth noting that Vallyon himself is a member of the New Zealand Society of Authors, a membership he pays for. ~~~ Ynsfial ( talk ) 12:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Gadfium is not arguing that he is notable as an author. Gadfium is talking about GNG. Schwede 66 17:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I misunderstood, sorry. What other sources do we have for GNG then? We would need multiple. Will we be establishing his notability as a criminal if not as an author? or as a spiritual guru and leader? The only significant coverage in general seems to be that Stuff article, which focuses on his history of sexual assault. It's not unusual for a local newspaper to cover local criminals and crimes. The article consists of primarily sourced biographical information, a list of books with no analysis or reviews and a mention of a minor prize. If we were to remove the Scoop article, a local paper detailing his criminal convictions, what would his notability be based on GNG or otherwise? Ynsfial ( talk ) 22:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 18:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Source 6 is a book review in a RS, this in a Seattle newspaper discusses the author and his work [43] , should be at basic notability. Discussed here [44] in a RS from New Zealand. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I wouldn't consider Horror News Net a reliable source, see How to Get Your Book or Comic Reviewed on (HNN) Horrornews.net? and How to Expedite your Film Review? Their About us states: "" HNN simply is a means for your film, product, book or studio to have existence on the internet. Whether bad or good, a product without existence in the search engines is simply without relevance. You work hard to create something, while we work hard to create a site that provides existence for your items."" It's used as a reference on dozens if not hundreds of articles, so this should be brought up on the WP:RSN. The review in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is a republished one from Blogcritics . Archived discussions on WP:RSN seem to indicate that it hasn't really been considered reliable the times it was brought up since it seems to accept content from any blogger. The website's About us states: ""Blogcritics gives writers the opportunity to gain an exponentially higher level of visibility (and thus, traffic and search rank) than they could ever achieve through their home blog or website alone."" Mooonswimmer 01:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The book review is a terrible source. Many egregious spelling mistakes (""thru"" (!) and ""alot"" for example), it refers to the author by his first name and most importantly it's written by a random writer for a site that publishes paid book reviews as Moonswimmer pointed out. The other source is also unreliable. Are you still convinced they're enough for notability? Ynsfial ( talk ) 13:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG . The two reviews mentioned above by Oaktree b (the only ones I could find) are published in unreliable sources and are likely paid pieces. I'd say the Stuff article counts towards WP:GNG , but it's all I could find. The two awards he's won are minor and of debatable notability. Mooonswimmer 03:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 05:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 06:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC) The stuff article and the Dutch-language NOS article establish WP:GNG in my opinion. David Palmer aka cloventt ( talk ) 02:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you expand on how these two articles establish his notability and what they establish his notability as? I agree the Stuff article would count even though it's a weak source considering it focuses on his crimes and a local newspaper reporting on crime committed by a local isn't so uncommon. The NOS article focuses on the Dutch branch of the FHL, which is not notable, breaking with its leader Vallyon. They mention a Dutch victim of his and mostly discuss the group and separation. There is some but little information to extract about Vallyon. What is Vallyon notable as? As an author? Do you think the book reviews provided by Oaktree B are reliable? Or as the leader of the FHL? Or as a child molester? The latter is what the only two weak sources are focusing on. Are there any other sources? Ynsfial ( talk ) 14:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a center fielder leaders: We appear to fall short of WP:LISTN , and this title does not seem to make for an appropriate to any more general article. signed, Rosguill talk 18:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Baseball . signed, Rosguill talk 18:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This title is so oddly specific that it took me a second to figure out what the list even was. This is not a notable topic for a list. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 19:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To be fair, baseball is notorious for ing extremely specific records. But that doesn't mean every possible statistic meets LISTN, and currently we've identified only a single source covering this statistic. signed, Rosguill talk 19:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom, but can we just appreciate the specificity of the title. Like specifically center fielders with double plays is something to really track of. Only baseball-reference would have this stat too. I think I feel bad for the author(s) for this likely deletion. Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Outfield assist leaders are notable, and double play leaders are notable; this seems a worthwhile combination of the two. Newyorkbrad ( talk ) 13:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC) LISTN and WP:NOTSTATS . – Muboshgu ( talk ) 14:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can anyone tell me why this article is up for deletion? And if someway to make sure that article don't d at all, tell me of how to fix the article ASAP so the deletion notice is taken off the article. SO please, ask me because I put alot of sweat and tears into this article and I pray that I know how to fix this problem as quickly as possible. Thank you and good day. BaseballFanatic1 ( talk ) 17:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC) LISTN . So, multiple reliable sources (both lists and prose coverage would be considered, although prose is definitely better) that enumerate or discuss this specific statistic. Currently only one has been identified, baseball-reference.com signed, Rosguill talk 17:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC) LISTN , but there is also Statmuse and Baseball Almanac - BeFriendlyGoodSir ( talk ) 01:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps List of Major League Baseball career double plays leaders is a notable group (have not researched myself) but not for position-specific stats. I cannot confirm though. - BeFriendlyGoodSir ( talk ) 01:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC) This topic fails to have the necessary sources discussing this grouping, and as such WP:LISTN is not met. While it is clear that the creator put a lot of work into this article, it is not suitable for wikipedia. I'd encourage them to WP:TRYANOTHER . Let'srun ( talk ) 19:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC) This is an unfortunate can of worms you are opening up here. Obviously WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS , namely List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a pitcher leaders , List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a catcher leaders , List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a first baseman leaders , List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a second baseman leaders , List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a third baseman leaders , List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a shortstop leaders , List of Major League Baseball career double plays as an outfielder leaders , List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a left fielder leaders , List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a right fielder leaders . Always unfortunate to see volunteer time wasted. I personally see the value of it. Hope to hear that RS sources can be provided. Best, - BeFriendlyGoodSir ( talk ) 01:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC) IMO not really fair that this article is being targeted. There is also List of Major League Baseball career fielding errors as a left fielder leaders , List of Major League Baseball career fielding errors as a center fielder leaders , List of Major League Baseball career fielding errors as a right fielder leaders , List of Major League Baseball career assists as a left fielder leaders , List of Major League Baseball career assists as a center fielder leaders , List of Major League Baseball career assists as a right fielder leaders , List of Major League Baseball career games played as a left fielder leaders , List of Major League Baseball career games played as a center fielder leaders , List of Major League Baseball career games played as a right fielder leaders , List of Major League Baseball career putouts as a left fielder leaders , List of Major League Baseball career putouts as a center fielder leaders , List of Major League Baseball career putouts as a right fielder leaders and so on... all of which seem to have the same possible WP:LISTN problems. What makes this set different from those? - BeFriendlyGoodSir ( talk ) 01:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The reasoning as to ""why this article"" was that it was a new article awaiting review, that had already been tagged for {{ notability }} for over two months without improvement. The other articles would appear to be an example of WP:FAITACCOMPLI / WP:OSE . Moreover, given baseball's noted interest in arcane statistics, I think it's entirely plausible that a nontrivial amount of the above actually do meet WP:LISTN , and need individual WP:BEFOREs to be carried out prior to nomination rather than presupposing that they all have the same level of coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 13:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC) TRAINWRECK , we all know there are thousands and thousands of stat articles that possibly suffer from the same exact problem but people recognize their encyclopedic value. - BeFriendlyGoodSir ( talk ) 02:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On a side note, it's not like the article is outdated... the creator of the article is actively updating it. Look forward to everyone's feedback. - BeFriendlyGoodSir ( talk ) 02:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps the nom wants to go one by one? Mass nomination could be messy. Conyo14 ( talk ) 03:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This objection is silly, a trainwreck would be guaranteed to occur if and only if this were a mass-nomination. There is nothing stopping editors from discussing the relative merits of this list and coming to a clear consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 13:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . . I'm not sure about the subject matter but considering how many articles of similar types that exist it doesnt make sense to this particular one. Though i couldnt really understand if this was for hitting into a double play (which isnt really fielding position specific) or turning double plays as a fielder... Probably needs some actual discussion on the project page about these pages. . maybe the title should be List of Major League Baseball career double plays turned as a center fielder leaders Spanneraol ( talk ) 02:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These should be ""List of Major League Baseball career leaders in double plays as a center fielder"" maybe. Rgrds. -- BX ( talk ) 04:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC) 02, 26 May 2024 (UTC) 26, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – This type of statistic is pertinent to MLB. Svartner ( talk ) 22:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC) LISTN . Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs ) 18:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC) LISTN due to lack of significant coverage as a group. The fact that this is the only list being “targeted” is irrelevant. Each individual article must stand or fall on its own merit. Frank Anchor 00:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Prasads Multiplex: Star Mississippi 12:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC) Independent coverage in rather reliable sources, significant and in depth, about this multiplex, and backing the claim that it houses the biggest screen in India! (other sources claim it is one of the world's largest 3D IMax). So, yes, there are various indications of significance and notability and it seems to meet WP:GNG . A to Culture_of_Hyderabad#Film is imv absolutely warranted anyway. Opposed to deletion. (G11? ""exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion."" So basically, borderline G11 is not G11, if it was just that the tone and content may have been partially promotional, Afds are not for cleanup and given existing coverage, this potential issue was easily fixed; added 2 refs and trimmed the page but this can evidently be improved and expanded, thank you) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions . - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Before closing this as no consensus, I'd like to try one more relisting Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC) ORG applies to a building, I did remove some of the promotional stuff but it does appear this meets notability due to the sustained coverage of it. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 23:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Book of Mormon monetary system: Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Economics . Owen× ☎ 19:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or ok with a (see self reply) to Book of Alma or Nephites . Seems to be an OK amount of scholarship on the topic to merit a mention. I will note that my ! vote is based on lack of notability outside of the two suggested parent topics, not WP:INDEPENDENT : ""almost every single source is clearly not independent, being affiliated with or published by the Church of Latter Day Saints"" is an extremely broad claim. I don't think we can make the claim that religious scholarship is primary to the religious text, ""everyone who researches the Book of Genesis is affiliated with the Catholic Church "" wouldn't fly even if it was true. A412 ( Talk • C ) 19:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Journal of Book of Mormon Studies is funded by Brigham Young University , which is funded by the LDS Church. Books published by Deseret Book Company : owned by LDS Church. Herald House : owned by the RLDS Church. If some article on Catholic doctrine was sourced solely to Jesuit journals, I'd say your point of comparison would make sense, but this isn't a situation where ""they're talking about a Mormon topic and thus Mormon scholarship cannot be independent,"" it's that almost all the Mormon scholarship is directly connected to the Church . Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The LDS and RLDS are different churches. A better comparison would be if an article on Catholic doctrine in the 14th century had writers from both the Catholic Church and the Methodists, or if an article on the Koran was written by organizations based in both the Sunni and Shia sects. Naraht ( talk ) 20:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But both are part of the Latter Day Saints movement , so they both have the same independence issues. They don't counter each other out, they have the same issue. Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 21:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC) P-Makoto , so I'll repeat my notability/sigcov argument. Nobody is discussing this when they're not discussing the Book of Alma , the Nephites , or how it integrates with one of the above (how it helps explain the narrative of the former, or the setting of the latter). Also updating to a vote, coverage in that vein appears fairly substantial. A412 ( Talk • C ) 01:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment David Fuchs Referring to the Book of Mormon as writing about fiction is *not* going to help with a rational discussion. Naraht ( talk ) 20:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC) if the book of Mormon isn't historically rational then isn't the world it describes a fictional one? It doesn't describe the real world, it describes a religious fantasy world. Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 21:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are some independent sources, I'm not sure that any of them contain significant coverage of the topic at hand though... I would lead towards a with Book of Mormon or the pages suggested by A412. Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 21:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] a watered down version of this into Book of Alma as suggested by @ A412 . @ David Fuchs misses that MOS:WAF specifically says “exemptions might apply to other special forms of literature in which the fiction/non-fiction categorization is disputed, such as the possibly historical elements of religious scripture” as religious texts are generally sorted with non-fiction in settings such as libraries, etc. That said, WP:INDISCRIMINATE makes me lean toward viewing this article as being overly detailed for the purposes of Wikipedia and that a summary description could be included with context in Book of Alma . DJ Cane ( talk ) 21:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are no ""possibly historical elements"" in Mormon scripture... Its not like Jewish, Hindu, or Christian scripture, none of it has been substantiated by historians. Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 21:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I see you’re pretty set on making your view on that point obvious in this discussion but it is not relevant to whether or not this article should be d, d, or kept. DJ Cane ( talk ) 22:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Look, fiction and myth are different. Fiction aims to entertain, myth aims to explain religious truths. There are good and bad fiction and good and bad myth, and of course everyone has their own set of preferred religious myth in line with their belief system... yes, even atheists. But nominating myth as fiction, even if pretty much every non-Mormon agrees that the myths related in the book of Mormon are indeed fiction, is rude. Myths that have RS coverage get articles, without reference to the truth or provability of those myths. Jclemens ( talk ) 22:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So you're saying that what applies to a fictional world doesn't apply to a mythical world? I was under the impression that mythical was a type of fictional. What does that mean for something like Krapopolis ? Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 23:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC) 51-56, for example) that most reliable sources find it objectively unreasonable to believe that Joseph Smith believed what he wrote: he wrote fiction as myth for personal gain... But that's not how we treat myth here. Jclemens ( talk ) 07:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And what specifically is the difference between treating them as fiction vs as myth? I don't find any difference that applies to this context in either policy or guideline... The sentence ""X that have RS coverage get articles"" is the exact same no matter whether you put fiction or myth in the X and the whole point is that this mythical figure does not have significant independent coverage. Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 14:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you think it makes no difference, why did you bring up the book being a fictional one that is not like Jewish, Hindu, or Christian scripture in the first place? P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk ) 17:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't bring it up, I responded to the editor who did. I think you're also misquoting me.. . Its the world which the book described which I described as a fictional one , not the book. The difference between the Book of Mormon and those scriptures is that those scriptures contain possibly historical elements, the Book of Mormon does not. Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 18:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Description and analysis of the topic in multiple secondary sources demonstrates its sufficient notability, and it is a topic sufficiently discrete from suggested s like Nephites and book of Alma; The Shire is a separate page from Hobbits and Fellowship of the Ring , for example. Additionally, I would posit that social or institutional affiliation with Latter Day Saint denominations is not itself a failure of independence from, specifically, the topic of the Book of Mormon monetary system. As user A412 points out, ""I don't think we can make the claim that religious scholarship is primary to the religious text"". There was a conversation about this at WikiProject Christianity where the advice given was that using sources that expressly support the view that the Book of Mormon is a historically accurate account is acceptable—Wikipedia relies on similar sources for its coverage of Catholicism, Hinduism, and many other major world religions. Wikipedia itself does not put in its own voice claims that aren't NPOV, but as the Oxford University Press-published book Understanding the Book of Mormon (pp. 23–26) explains, speculation about a setting's mechanics has a long history in the literary analysis of fiction, and that can be as true for the Book of Mormon, making Nephite existence irrelevant to the analysis in the articles by Takagi and Couch. And what is Takagi's or Couch's financial or legal relationship to, specifically, the Book of Mormon monetary system? If their sources were being cited for something about the history of BYU, then I could understand non-independence. But BYU's participation in Mormonism doesn't make the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies or BYU Studies non-independent of content in the Book of Mormon any more than, to give an example, Baylor University's participation in the Baptist tradition would make it non-independent of content in the Bible. Baylor University Press's Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr is independent of the biblical figure Peter, though Baylor University Press is not independent of Baylor University. In a similar way, I hold that ""Gold, Silver, and Grain"" is independent of the Book of Mormon monetary system. Finally, I would point out that there are cited sources from publishers without institutional affiliations. John Christopher Thomas's A Pentecostal Reads the Book of Mormon from CPT Press is not affiliated with the LDS Church. And the commentaries The Book of Mormon for the Least of These and Second Witness are published with publishers that, while specializing in Mormon studies, are independent of religious institutions. To say that By Common Consent Press or Greg Kofford Books lack independence would be like saying that the University of Illinois Press, which also has a specialization in Mormon studies publications, is not independent of Book of Mormon topics. All this is to say that whatever one concludes about the topic's notability, it is not the case that ""almost every single source is clearly not independent"". Multiple sources have clear independence, as they don't have the attributes which the nominator says contests independence (institutional affiliation with a particular denomination). To close, I think that the article requires some revision—there are some portions that lean undue and could be trimmed, and multiple uses of the past tense that should be replaced with the present tense, befitting narration of literary content and to make it clearer that Wikipedia is describing this simply as content in a book—but I think the page should be kept. P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk ) 22:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per all the other ! votes above. This topic is “myth”, not “fiction”. LDS sources are inadequate to establish secular, historical accuracy but they’re fine for describing this topic in religious terms and for establishing notability. See our many dozens of articles about people, places and events in the Hebrew Scriptures, for example. —- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 16:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The article is well-researched and well-written. However, we need sources from outside the financial and ideological control of LDS churches to establish that this topic is of broad, real-world importance. We do not get NPOV or evidence of notability when the sources of SIGCOV are exclusively from people who believe the historicity of this material, who have a vested interest in maintaining its narrative and increasing its reach, and/or who are directly financially involved with the organizations that dictate which material is acceptable within the religion. Apologist researchers are necessarily going to approach issues between scripture vs non-LDS academic consensus (in history/archaeology/anthro etc.) very differently from those looking at the topic from a non-LDS/secular perspective. For example, the article predictably deemphasizes the substantial anachronism surrounding the existence of Nephite coins (Lehi left Jerusalem before coins were invented, and no Nephite coins--or Nephite anything--have been found in America) and seemingly skips the whole controversy regarding the addition of the word ""coins"" to Alma 11 chapter summaries by the Church Authority in 1920 and the ad hoc attempt by FAIR to then reconcile mentions of ""pieces"" of gold and silver in the context of money as actually being references to a system of weights and measures (despite no such metal weights being discovered either). JoelleJay ( talk ) 20:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Setting aside our disagreement about the topic's notability, I would point out that if there is thinking that the article has problems, Articles for Deletion is not for articles that need cleanup, but rather for articles that do not belong on Wikipedia. If cleanup is what's needed, an article can be fixed. Toward that end, I have gone ahead and revised the page. One of the revisions took the page's existing reference to the coinage/pieces matter in passing and rendered it more explicitly. P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk ) 22:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ( edit conflict ) it can be argued that every holy book is fiction and myth. Did Noah really collect two of every animal and put them on a boat while God flooded the earth killing every living thing? I think the sourcing for this article meets our GNG. A to Nephites WP:ATD-M is also reasonable and would preserve the material if others think this article should not exist. Lightburst ( talk ) 20:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Nephites or Book of Alma per JoelleJay. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 22:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Nephites and/or Book of Alma . Both of those articles are quite short, so regardless of notability or historicity it's quite unclear why a separate article is needed for their use of currency. But per JoelleJay this minor element of a work of fiction also does not seem to be notable. Reywas92 Talk 16:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC) as non-notable WP:FICTION offshoot, as per nomination. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 03:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or and if it is d, we should only sources which are not restricted from disagreeing with the Book of Mormon or their church doctrine. I think there were two or three of those in here. Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 03:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. Hello. As the creator of this article I want to apologize for my portrayal of the Book of Mormon monetary system as fact. Originally when I created the article I thought I had taken a neutral stance, but now I can see that, in fact, I did not. I understand that people have different views on this point and I am grateful that we can discuss this. I appreciate everyone's participation in this discussion. The article has great need for revision. Thank you to P-Makoto for her extensive edits that shifted the language of the article and presented the material as strictly within the Book of Mormon narrative. Heidi Pusey BYU ( talk ) 20:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] because secondary, independent coverage exists. I am extremely hesitant to describe religious scholars as categorically non-independent, even in the context of a very hierarchical religion. As noted above, that is inconsistent with how we treat other religions. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 02:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC) What religions are you seeing whose treatment is inconsistent? Its at the minimum how we treat Judaism, Evangelicalism, Catholicism, the Unification Church, and Falun Gong... Those are the other religious areas I have significant experience in on wiki, but perhaps there actually are ones which where we treat non-independent sources as independent. Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 20:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC) N. If that were true, then an article like Vatican Pharmacy would be suspect — except for sources 5 and 6, they all appear to be from explicitly Catholic sources. Obviously, the Pharmacy is real, and not mythical, but what about a relatively obscure Catholic Saint for whom most or all sources are Catholic (like Alban Roe or Albert of Trapani )? I'd not assume those sources are completely non-independent, and I'd be fine treating them as establishing notability. (I also don't think the (non-)historicity of the Book of Mormon is relevant when it comes to determining whether a source is independent, as another commenter noted above. ) WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 22:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nobody has proposed that we treat religious affiliation alone as indicator that a source is not independent unless I missed something. If you would like to challenge the notability of Vatican Pharmacy you can, but I suspect that there are suitable independent sources (notability is after all never limited to the sources in the article). Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 22:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion as I see no consensus yet. I'm a little doubtful that, with opinions circling around the LDS church and not the notabiity of the article subject established by reliable sources, a consensus can be arrived at. But still it is worth it to give this discussion a little more time. I'm aware that it's frowned upon to use the term ""LDS church"" but I don't have the time right now to track down the new established nomenclature. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC) Its Mormon Church which is now frowned upon... LDS Church (with a big C) is the new established nomenclature. Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 18:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] By way of aside (and noting that this is solely for clarification and doesn't strictly pertain to the deletion discussion), my understanding is that ""LDS Church"" is the consensus of Wikipedia's Manual of Style. I don't know if I'd quite call it ""new,"" as it has been around as a phrase for years, since the 1950s at least . Wikipedia's Manual of Style does indeed discourage ""Mormon Church"" as an ""informal appellation"" and has done so since 2011 . As far as ""frowned upon"" goes, the denomination itself requests the use of its full name in first mentions and ""the Church of Jesus Christ"" in subsequent mentions and apparently dissuades the use of ""LDS"" and LDS Church"" . That is not, however, something Wikipedia's own Manual of Style commits to for its main article pages. As for what terminology an individual user wishes to use on discussion pages, I suppose that's up to them. P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk ) 19:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC) 48, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merely to clear up an inadvertent misunderstanding, I will clarify that I did not share multiple links to the official Church style guide (there would be no need to link to it more than once). I shared only one link to the Latter-day Saints' own style guide, to source its disinclination for ""LDS Church"". The other links were to a book published in 1953 with the phrase ""L. D. S. Church"" in the title (as a primary source to demonstrate the longterm use of ""LDS Church""), to a CNN news article about the denomination's 2018 announcement requesting that others refrain from the word ""Mormon"" (as a secondary source about that request, since that more recent happening was potentially what Liz referred to as new nomenclature), and to MOS:LDS (twice; once for the current page, once for a version from 2011). In any case, the Manual of Style's current instruction for shortened reference is ""LDS Church"", and that has been a consensus for some time. P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk ) 21:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC) 45, 3 January 2024 (UTC) 20, 3 January 2024 (UTC) 41, 3 January 2024 (UTC) 00, 3 January 2024 (UTC) FUTURE and focus on, in the present, being respectful of others in my personal use of language while adhering to Wikipedia policies on article pages. P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk ) 16:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Might agree to selective as a very last resort (ATD). There is a serious notability issue of the article subject. The article is not clear that it is a work of fiction. The article creator apologized for making it appear the article was fact. The article does not approach the subject from a clear perspective which makes it appear to be non-fiction when in fact it is a tale, or by definition: ""a story, especially one that might be invented or difficult to believe"". Why is this important? Not everyone that reads the article will read this talk page. It doesn't matter if unintentional or willful there is currently subterfuge. The article uses the terms ""narrative of the Book of Mormon"" or ""Book of Mormon narrative"". These words are indicative of an ""LDS/secular perspective"" that are not ""independent of the subject"". Since there are no clear rules on works of fiction we must use other tests such as the GNG guidelines. This article fails to provide reliable sources that are not in some way connected to the subject. This means there is certainly no chance of the article being written from a neutral point of view . See: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view . -- Otr500 ( talk ) 05:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The references includes those that are in no way controlled by either the LDS or CoC (formerly RLDS). Wikipedia treats Scripture as being different from Fiction. I'm certainly not going to support deletion of the article on Noah's ark if every reference is to a Jew, Christian or Muslim. This isn't Harry Potter and ""The gold ones are Galleons. Seventeen silver Sickles to a Galleon and twenty-nine Knuts to a Sickle, it's easy enough. "". Naraht ( talk ) 15:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC) 53, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. The article has been extensively edited to fix fiction versus non-fiction issues, and no longer addresses the topic in a manner that lacks neutrality. Examples of such language include ""within the narrative,"" ""within the Book of Mormon,"" ""narrative describes its setting,"" ""people in the narrative. "" I do not see anything in these examples that posit a non-neutral stance. As I see it, revisions have made it so the article presents the monetary system as existing within the Book of Mormon narrative. Additionally, most of the sources are independent from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The following sources are separate and independent from LDS publication: A Pentecostal Reads the Book of Mormon (CPT Press, which is a company that primarily publishes Pentecostal works); What Hath God Wrought and Annotated Book of Mormon (Oxford University Press, which dedicates itself to publishing scholarly works); and Early Nineteenth-century America and the Book of Mormon (Signature Books, which focuses on LDS history that is not published by the church itself--see ""About Signature"" . ). Heidi Pusey BYU ( talk ) 19:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC) are you aware of WP:COI and WP:PAID ? Because you appear to have voted in an AfD in which you have a massive conflict of interest as a paid editor of the LDS Church despite that being prohibited... e.g. ""you should not act as a reviewer of affected article(s) at AfC, new pages patrol or elsewhere;"". Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 20:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Heidi Pusey has a paid conflict of interest for BYU, her employer. This is not a page about BYU. This is a page about an aspect of the setting in the Book of Mormon. Do employees of the U. S. federal government's Postal Service have a conflict of interest for articles involving aspects of literature written by the American founders? They do not. Nor does Heidi Pusey BYU have a conflict of interest for the Book of Mormon monetary system. Even if one supposes that Heidi Pusey BYU does have a COI for this topic, what she has done is cast a vote in an Articles for Deletion discussion. She has not reviewed or closed the discussion. She has not acted as a reviewer at Articles for Creation (AfC). She has not acted as a reviewer for the new pages patrol. From what I am seeing in Wikipedia policy, Heidi Pusey BYU's vote here would not be prohibited. In any case, she has disclosed her COI for her employer BYU, and this is not a page about a BYU topic. Book of Mormon monetary system is not the only page Heidi Pusey BYU contributes to that you have gone out of your way to comment on. Now you are escalating to COI aspersions. It is difficult for this user to not be reminded of another occasion on which you began complaining about [a user] in multiple places and it is beginning to seem personal . This pattern of behavior is becoming alarming, and I invite you to reconsider it and let the AfD vote proceed on its own. P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk ) 01:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] BYU is a non-independent arm of the LDS Church ... This is an LDS topic. She is currently acting as a reviewer in an AfD. Please don't make this personal, the COI is a fact not an aspersion. Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 05:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC) COI when WP:COIE further discusses the subject. COI is more of a situation when a paid editor is editing about a company or person that could be directly impacted by coverage in Wikipedia. An example of this would be if Elon Musk paid employees to edit pages about himself and his companies. Student employees of the BYU library adding coverage about Latter-day Saint subjects does not meet that criteria any more than an editor in such a role at Notre Dame editing articles about Catholicism or one at the University of Texas editing articles about state government would - a declaration of such being a COI would be rediculous. Per COIE this seems more like a Wikipedian in Residence position and their position as such is made blatantly obvious by appropriate disclaimer and by their username. Furthermore, your zeal in confronting opinions opposing your own in this discussion is both non-constructive and alarming, and I agree with the discussion provided by @ P-Makoto that your cross-discussion comments targeting specific editors is concerning and possibly worth an outside review on its own. DJ Cane ( talk ) 15:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Alexander Frank: Most of the cited sources seem to be interviews ( primary sources ) and I'm not finding much else in Google search results, though it may be possible that significant coverage exists in additional foreign-language sources. This article was PRODded and d in 2020, albeit with less substantial content. However, I believe the notability concerns raised then apply to the current version as well. Complex / Rational 18:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Tajikistan , Austria , and Germany . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment My foremost concern would be the reliability of the sources. What are these news outlets? Geschichte ( talk ) 19:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I found [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] , among many more sources. The news outlets are Tajik media outlets and he has been covered by various Tajikistani news outlets. Cleary was significant figure in Tajik football who played for three Tajik teams and helped Istiklol win AFC President's Cup. Defintiyl also has offline sources, having played in pre internet era also. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 23:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per sources above. Svartner ( talk ) 02:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Tajikistan doesn't have freedom of the press . This is a serious concern regarding the sources. Geschichte ( talk ) 08:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That probably does not apply much to football news and even then the recent tightening of media occurred after most of these sources were published. He has been covered by various Tajikistani news outlets. Cleary was significant figure in Tajik football who played for three Tajik teams and helped Istiklol win AFC President's Cup. Defintiyl also has offline sources, having played in pre internet era also. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 10:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 19:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First source has some decent coverage (if reliable), the second has a sentence and the other 3 are interviews which are not sigcov. Dougal18 ( talk ) 09:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , per Dougal18 and per the concerns with Tajik media raised above. One ok source isn't enough to meet GNG, and given the potential that it is not reliable I don't think we can claim SPORTSCRIT is met. JoelleJay ( talk ) 19:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I think important context is needed here... The sources do have secondary coevrage and even then if you look at Russian-speaking media it tends to cover players in the form of interviews (as opposed to e.g. Vietnamese and Indonesian media which are the opposite - tends to write about players without any or little interviews). He has been covered by various Tajikistani news outlets. Cleary was significant figure in Tajik football who played for three Tajik teams and helped Istiklol win AFC President's Cup and has Wikipedia pages in six languages... Defintiyl also has offline sources, having played in pre internet era also. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 21:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . Anwegmann ( talk ) 21:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC) 40, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Tyler Bocks: JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON on my part, although passed the old WP:NRU guidelines. Lots of coverage including this abut more needed for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable per WP:ATD also. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 20:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Change vote to weak on additional sourcing found, players career starting to kick off also which may well lead to more sourcing. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 20:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems notable enough. Found a couple of sources, including from the two major online media organisations, which I've added. Greenman ( talk ) 20:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC) To summarize the third-party sources that have been added, there is this 2022 interview with Independent Online and this trivial mention in News24 . JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"1905 (film): This article does not meet the threshold for notability stated in WP:NFF . Gonnym ( talk ) 13:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Japan . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC) The failure of the production received a lot of significant coverage from reliable independent media. A to the article about the director should be considered anyway. Absolutely opposed to deletion. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC) (added 4 sources, there are more). [ reply ] You mean that it received the same one paragraph about the production being canceled because the company being bankrupt. All valid information on the non-exiting Prenom H article or as you say, a one line mention on Kiyoshi Kurosawa 's page (which it already is). Gonnym ( talk ) 16:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC) 35, 30 April 2024 (UTC) 03, 30 April 2024 (UTC) 07, 30 April 2024 (UTC) 01, 8 May 2024 (UTC) Fails GNG, NFILM, nothing in article or found in BEFORE meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth , votes provide no sources or guidelines to eval. Ping me if sources are found. // Timothy :: talk 15:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I added FOUR sources addressing the production and I am not sure how one could consider them unreliable nor insignificant. Japan Today in an article titled ""Atsuko Maeda's film canceled after studio goes bust due to Senkaku dispute"" stated, Shooting of the film ""1905,"" starring former AKB48 member Atsuko Maeda has been canceled after its production and distribution company filed for bankruptcy, it has been revealed. The period movie was set to star Chinese actor Tony Leung Chiu Wai, 50, Japanese actor Shota Matsuda, 27, and Maeda, 21, who was making her first movie since she ""graduated"" from AKB48 last summer. It was to be directed by famed horror director Kiyoshi Kurosawa. According to a Sports Nippon report, movie production and distribution house Prenom-H Co filed for bankruptcy after shooting costs rocketed. The added costs were said to be incurred as a result of the Senkaku island dispute between Japan and China. The movie was a Japan-China joint production, with 90% of the movie's dialogue spoken in Chinese dialects. Credit research company Teikoku Databank Ltd said that Prenom-H Co has received authorization to start bankruptcy proceedings from the Tokyo District Court. Prenom-H is believed to have liabilities amounting to around 643 million yen. The large-scale action production was centered around Yokohama in 1905. Filming was scheduled for both Japan and Taiwan and the movie was pencilled for release in Japan this fall. The Hollywood Reporter in an article whose subheading is ""The Japanese shingle has filed for bankruptcy amid debt related to action film ""1905,"" which actor Tony Leung pulled out of due to the territorial spat."" wrote, Distributor Prenom-H began bankruptcy proceedings in the Tokyo District Court with debts of $7 million (643 million yen) on Feb. 21, following the problems with filmmaker Kiyoshi Kurosawa‘s 1905. The project ran into trouble after Hong Kong star Tony Leungpulled out of the production last September, at the height of the China-Japan row over the Senkaku-Diayou Islands. Leung had been criticized in China for appearing in the film, which was set in Yokohama, Japan, in the year of the title, but had been scheduled to shoot in Taiwan. Financing for the Japan-China co-production was also reportedly disrupted by the political tensions between the two countries, leaving the project in limbo. Variety in an article whose subheading is ""Production delays on '1905' tips distrib over edge"" wrote, Production difficulties on Japan-Hong Kong period actioner “1905,” which had been tipped for a major fest bow, has hastened the demise of its Japanese distrib Prenom H. The ongoing dispute between Japan and China over the Senkaku Islands, which touched off massive protests in China last year, has stalled the pic’s shoot, which started in November. Star Tony Leung has reportedly bailed on the project, pushing back the release and putting a crimp on financing. Starring Shota Matsuda and Atsuko Maeda, and helmed by Kiyoshi Kurosawa, the pic was set to bow in Japan in October, with Prenom H and Shochiku co-distribbing. The Guardian in an article about the effect of the Senkaku dispute on film wrote, The big budget Sino-Japanese co-production 1905 also appears to be another victim of the ongoing dispute over the islands. Starring Hong Kong's Tony Leung, and directed by Japan's Kiyoshi Kurosawa, the period action-drama was due to start filming in Taiwan in November but has now been postponed. Leung was due to play a loan shark who ventures from Guangdong province in China to Yokohama in Japan to recover debts from a band of anti-Manchu government revolutionaries. Feel free to also open and read the existing sources on the page, and to check the other existing sources covering the production and its notable failure. For example, a ONE-CLICK search gives, among other things: https://www.indiewire.com/news/general-news/tony-leung-and-j-horror-master-kiyoshi-kurosawa-team-for-upcoming-japanese-chinese-period-drama-1905-106255/ https://news.yahoo.com/news/style/tony-leung-1905-indefinitely-161527817.html https://variety.com/2012/film/news/tony-leung-to-star-in-1905-1118059020/ https://www.chicagotribune.com/2012/09/10/tony-leung-to-star-in-1905-hk-thesp-has-first-lead-role-in-a-japanese-pic/ Plenty of other articles about 1905 exist. Oh, and of course, the ""guideline to eval"" should be WP:NFF (""Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines."") and/or WP:GNG (""A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject""), if that is really the issue in the vote(s) (there's only mine) mentioned in the one ! vote above. . - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Articles about the studio or their financial problems are not articles about the film, none of the above as SIGCOV about the film, they are passing mentions of the film while addressing other subjects. SIGCOV requires direct and indepth coverage of the subject - the film. None of the sources above meets this requirement. Disputes and problems are common and derail productions all the time, there is not indication the ones that impacted this are anything notable that merits an article. // Timothy :: talk 17:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just read the titles of the articles or their subheadings, then read them, thank you. Stating that they are not ""SIGCOV"" and only contain ""passing mentions"" of the film is not accurate, I am sorry. The rest of your reply is contradictory, sorry again. Disputes and problems are common and derail productions all the time, there is not indication the ones that impacted this are anything notable that merits an article. ...hhm, yes, there is an indication and it's precisely the coverage addressing the failure of the production directly and in depth in numerous (again, more exist, as I am sure your BEFORE has shown you) articles in very reliable media. I have no further comment. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC) I beg to differ with the vote from ReaderofthePack and the vote from Timothy . — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 17:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Addressing ReaderofthePack's comment first, Kiyoshi Kurosawa , Tony Leung , and Atsuko Maeda were all leadings figures in the film, so it is unreasonable to the article into any one of them while neglecting the others. The examples raised, Superman Lives and Akira (planned film) , are not comparable in this case. Superman Lives was only in the early stages of development, not even with a confirmed leading cast. Akira is not exactly a cancelled film, but rather stuck in development hell and production waiting to resume due to Waititi's current commitments. A recent example with a more similar context that comes to my mind is Scoob! Holiday Haunt , which also underwent pre-production but was scrapped partially due to the production company's financial issues. Scoob! Holiday Haunt still has its article retained. Addressing Timothy's claims, I was puzzled by your statement that ""articles about the studio or their financial problems are not articles about the film"" and calling the above sources ""passing mentions of the film"". I agree with Mushy Yank 's skepticism about whether you have read the sources listed above. The Indiewire and Variety sources (published in 2012) announced the film's release and provided in-depth coverage of the plot, cast, crew, and development process. Meanwhile, The Japan Times , The Guardian , and Yahoo! News (Cinema Online) sources focused on the film sparking political controversies related to the Senkaku Islands dispute and Tony Leung being labeled a traitor by the Chinese. These five sources have nothing to do with the cancellation of the film, while they are all sufficient to establish the film's notability. In addition to the subjects discussed, I have found numerous related Chinese and Japanese sources. There are sources with in-depth coverage of Tony Leung, Atsuko Maeda, and Shota Matsuda's characters (see Elle [7] ). There are also sources covering pre-production, such as reporting on Kurosawa's site visit to Taiwan for film locations (See China Times [8] ), on Maeda's preparation for her character (See Wen Wei Po [9] ), and on Kurosawa's plan to continue filming despite Leung's departure (See Hong Kong Economic Times [10] ). Regarding the film's legacy, there are recurring mentions even though it was cancelled. When Kurosawa's cross-border project Daguerrotype entered the Golden Horse Film Festival in 2016, he was asked about 1905 in interviews and expressed the possibility of continuing the film (see Sina [11] and Liberty Times [12] ). Maeda also made comments on the project in 2016 and expressed interest in reprising her role (See Natalie [13] ). The language of the sources should not affect its reliability, in fact, it may even be better than English sources in this case, as the film is a Mandarin-language Japanese production. Let's review what we have at the moment. We have in-depth coverage of the film's early development, its announcement, pre-production details such as plot, filming plans, and character descriptions, political controversies related to the Senkaku dispute, the bankruptcy of the production company, the film's cancellation, and continuous subsequent mentions about the film's potential revival. Simply put, the sources listed above amount to a dozen, and there are more available on the internet. Therefore, I don't see why WP:FFEXCEPTIONS should not be applied in this case to override WP:NFF , as the film's pre-production has demonstrated significance and clearly fulfills WP:GNG already.— Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 17:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC) 50, 20 May 2024 (UTC) I see plenty of superficial coverage about the production difficulties, and exactly one sentence about the plot of the film. I'm not sure how that can be viewed as ""significant coverage"" of a movie. Owen× ☎ 22:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC) What are you even talking about? The twelve sources I quoted are absolutely UNRELATED to the production difficulties. All of them are either before the production enters controversies, or after the production was scrapped. The Elle source was also entirely about the characters' biography, and multiple sources covered the proposed plot. So I also do not understand which ""exactly one sentence"" about the plot you saw. I am not sure how you cast the vote without even bothering to click into the sources others provided in the discussion and ignoring the argument that has long proceeded from whether there are sufficient sources, but whether it fulfills WP:FFEXCEPTIONS , which has nothing to do with the reason why the film is scrapped or how much about the film details have SIGCOV in sources, but whether the pre-production or legacy demonstrated significance and has notability. The twelve sources I provided already have SIGCOV on these two aspects, so I still don't see a reasonable basis for deletion up until this point in this discussion. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 04:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC) the China Times source you provided is about a different film - Daguerrotype , and only mentions 1905 in a side note: In addition, the movie 1905 he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai (Wai Tsai) as the leading actor . That's it. Is that what you call ""SIGCOV""? Owen× ☎ 09:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC) What's the point of taking the one source with the least coverage to argue that all sources do not have SIGCOV? Yes, the China Times , Sina , Liberty Times , and Natalie sources are all not centered around the film. Because as I mentioned, this was to show how the film continuously demonstrated significance even after production was scrapped, and I have explicitly mentioned that some are from interviews of Kurosawa's other cross-border project Daguerrotype . It was to prove that the legacy of the film had significance, which settles WP:FFEXCEPTIONS . (I believe you are well aware that not all sources cited in an article must have significant coverage on the subject, and not all sources count toward notability. So I have zero clues why you chose the China Times source as ""the one example"" other than trying to pick the one with the least coverage to confuse others.) What you were claiming is that the sources only have passing mentions about ""the production difficulties"" and ""the plot"". Then you should focus on sources related to these topics. So what about the Indiewire source? The Variety source? The Chicago Tribune source? The Elle source? The Wen Wei Po source? Or the sources about other aspects of the film, like the political controversies in The Japan Times source, The Guardian source, and the Yahoo! News sources? Did none of them provide SIGCOV? And what about the ones that Mushy Yank listed out (the The Hollywood Reporter , Variety , and Japan Today sources)? It's sophistry to pick the one source with the least coverage and use that to argue that none of the sources have SIGCOV, while ignoring all the other sources that do demonstrate. Makes no sense to me at all. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 09:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Excuse me, but you claimed that all 12 sources provided significant coverage about the film. Did you not read the sources, or were you being dishonest? Owen× ☎ 09:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC) You are just proving my point that your argument is sophistry. Please take a look at WP:SIGCOV . An article with SIGCOV doesn't necessarily have to focus on the main topic of the article, it only means that as long as it is not a trivial mention and addresses the topic in detail. Let's put aside whether one of the three paragraphs in the article focusing on 1905 is considered trivial or significant, even though I personally don't consider it trivial. One, it is totally fine even if the article is from an interview of the director regarding another project. Two, I was mentioning that these twelve sources were all providing significant coverage on other aspects of the film, instead of just ""production difficulties"" or ""the plot"". That's why I was telling you that all of these twelve sources provided SIGCOV regarding two specific topics - pre-production and legacy. So of course you can only find little of what you were expecting there, because you were not addressing the right topics of the sources. Besides, you were neglecting the other aspects of the film which also demonstrate its notability that the sources provided SIGCOV on. You are being even more hypocritical by explicitly naming the one source with the least coverage (length/words) about the film, and trying to attack my statement on the sources providing SIGCOV, neglecting the fact that I clearly cited this to prove FFEXCEPTIONS. At this point, I think everyone reading this discussion can tell who is being dishonest and hypocritical, and who has a valid point. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 10:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, are you claiming that In addition, the movie 1905 he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai (Wai Tsai) as the leading actor is more than a trivial mention of the film, or was your original claim that all 12 sources provide SIGCOV a lie? At this point, you have two options: (1) admit that your original assertion was incorrect, and amend it, at which point we can address your amended statement; or (2) dig your heels in deeper, and make it clear to anyone reading this that you are not above twisting the truth to push your agenda. Owen× ☎ 10:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC) This is ridiculously hilarious. Alternatively, I think I have already proven to you that your assertions were wrong with my previous reply. One, the China Times source does not just have a passing mention of the film, but has a whole paragraph about it. You tried to conceal this fact with your wrongful translation (see below), and I do not agree that one out of three paragraphs of an interview is considered trivial. (especially the film was already scrapped years ago and the interview was basing on another project) Two, there is nothing wrong with citing an interview of the director in another project according to SIGCOV, so your attempts to refute the China Times , Sina , Liberty Times , and Natalie sources simply because they are interviews of Daguerrotype were wrong . Three, SIGCOV only requires the sources to address the subject topic in detail. It doesn't cover what you expect, simply because you have put the focus elsewhere. I don't see any of the twelve sources I cited failing to cover the pre-production and legacy aspects with SIGCOV . I really don't understand where your confidence came from to continue accusing me of lying, when you seem to be the liar in this case , especially with the misleading translation you provided with the China Times source. Also, I was wondering what is my ""amended statement"", as I have been holding on to the same one all the time, which is that I don't see why WP:FFEXCEPTIONS should not be applied in this case to override WP:NFF . By the way, this is not even my article. I am just a random passer-by. What's in it for me to be dishonest? Or what agenda could I possibly have? Assuming bad faith much? Or perhaps the real issue is that you were triggered when someone pointed out that your statements contained untrue and misleading elements. And now you are trying to turn the tables with your strawman arguments (still ridiculed by your ""this one source with the least coverage mentions so few about the film, so the all other sources you cited, or the sources other users cited must also be the same"") and accuse me of being the one who is dishonest, in an attempt to make yourself look more credible. This is my final reply and I will let the closing admin decide. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 11:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] By the way, although I can read Chinese, I used Google Translate to run the China Times source. There is a whole paragraph about 1905 , which reads In addition, the movie ""1905"" he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai as the leading actor. He also came to Taiwan to scout the location, but was unable to start filming for some reason. He said regretfully: ""I really want to come to Taiwan to film, of course. I also hope to find Tony Leung to act."" Which argument is actually misleading here? — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 10:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Prince of Erebor you've made your case, please allow others to weigh in and be mindful of Bludgeoning the discussion. Star Mississippi 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC) I was confused when you said I was bludgeoning, and I just realized there were sock puppets kept on closing the discussion. I have already stated that I will let the closing admin decide. (I was just editing some typos and bolding my arguments further, as I was dissatisfied with someone who was lying accusing me of lying instead in the discussion.) I did not bludgeon. (Not implying anything or anyone specific. But it is childish if someone is trying to accuse a veteran editor on zhwiki with ten thousand edits of sockpuppetry. A simple SPI can easily prove my innocence.) (Edit: Those sockpuppets seem to belong to User:Ivanvectra . I apologize if my previous comment offended anyone. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 13:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)) — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 13:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to be clear, I know you're not a sockpuppet. You're an established editor and there's no reason for an SPI involving you. That's a bored troll disrupting AfD over the last week. The timing of the semi to stop from playing whack a sock was coincidental. Opinions may differ on bludgeoning, but I'm glad you'll leave it to a closing admin. Star Mississippi 13:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah I see. I will just leave the discussion here then. Thanks for clarifying, Star Mississippi ! — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 13:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as a section to Kiyoshi Kurosawa . Although other big names were attached to the production in acting capacities, the film was Kuosawa's project, and it is not uncommon for Wikipedia to associate and list unrealized products with the director. Of course, nothing prevents it from being mentioned in other articles by reference to the section. BD2412 T 22:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC) The discussion is recently reopened on 00:04, 6 June 2024‎ per another Wikipedian's request. Since I consistently faced personal attacks and my argument had been constantly twisted, I hereby briefly summarise my stance and rationales once again for the closer or anyone else who may be concerned. Everything I mentioned below can be found above: I have quoted twelve reliable sources (including five English sources found by Mushy Yank, and seven Chinese and Japanese sources that I found, as I can read those languages and the subject film is a Mandarin-language Japanese production) that provided significant coverage on the film's pre-production details, the political controversy surrounding it, the departure of a lead actor Tony Leung, and future recurring mentions of the film's potential revivals, which I consider to be part of its legacy. These sources are all from well-established media outlets. The English ones include Variety and The Guardian , the Chinese ones are from Wen Wei Po and Hong Kong Economic Times , and the Japanese source is from Natalie . All of these sources address the film directly and in detail , and I believe the extensive coverage on pre-production and legacy fulfills the criteria of both WP:GNG and WP:FFEXCEPTIONS . Therefore, I believe this article should be kept. My initial argument is straightforward, and all the sources I presented are verifiable. One source, the China Times , was specifically discussed, as it appears to cover the subject film the least and was excerpted from an interview of the director on another project. To rebut this, I actually posted a full translated version of the source (previously falsefully trimmed down). It spans a full paragraph, while the whole article only has three paragraphs, therefore I did not agree that it should be considered trivial. Still, I agree that this source, along with the Sina and Liberty Times sources, are a bit shorter in length since they are interviews of the director on another project. However, according to WP:SIGCOV , it is also acceptable for the subject to not be the main topic of the source as long as it is addressed directly and in detail . All twelve of the sources I listed fulfilled this criteria and are not passing or run-out-of-mill mentions. I have presented these arguments above twice, but was never addressed. No thorough analysis or substantive arguments basing on the other sources I listed out were raised. Therefore, I respectfully retain my stance of in this relisting, as I believe the film has well fulfilled the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:NFFEXCEPTIONS. I will not summarise or address the opinions of Mushy Yank, Readerofthepack, Timothy, OwenX, DCsansei, and BD2412 to avoid further disputes or being accused of making strawman arguments. And respectfully, I find it very exhausting to be assumed bad faith even after this discussion (per talk page of the original closer ), merely due to my expression of disagreements with a Wikipedian. While I agree that my word choices may not have been especially mild either, I am uncomfortable of being repeatedly called out for being "" dishonest "" or accused of "" pushing my agenda "" to my "" pet page "". Also, just to record, I think two sentences I replied in the discussion on the original closer's talk page perfectly sums up the scenario. Did you really review all the sources presented in the discussion thoroughly before you cast your ! vote, so you would realise that plenty of the sources are unrelated to production difficulties? Is that also an act of dishonesty? Up till this point, I still see no addresses on why was the sources I cited about pre-production and legacy were mistakenly summarized as covering the production itself (and the subsequent doubts on whether the sources had indeed been reviewed), nor why was the source I clearly mentioned was to prove the film has legacy and fulfill FFEXCEPTIONS, was falsefully trimmed down and quoted to prove that it touches nothing about the film's production details. I guess everyone reading this discussion call tell who is really being dishonest and taking disagreements too personally. That is all I have to comment. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 17:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] noted in the history but doesn't appear on the logs. Just don't want it to get lost. Courtesy @ OwenX : Star Mississippi 21:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not showing as overdue, but definitely is so there's a log issue. Hoping this works this time Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC) Fails WP:NFF . It’s a textbook case. Coverage is only that it was to be made and was cancelled. There is no significant coverage to meet the GNG. There is no significant material, because there is no film. There is nothing to anywhere. SmokeyJoe ( talk ) 10:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC) Although WP:NFF states “films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles,” in the case of the movie 1905, WP:FFEXCEPTIONS applies. The topic of the film's planning and pre-production has generated multiple, non-trivial news stories. That coverage is, in my opinion, enough to satisfy the General Notability Guidelines. AstridMitch ( talk ) 02:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"大妈: Q 𝟤 𝟪 14:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"G. B. Singh: Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG . Ratnahastin ( talk ) 16:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Military , Politics , Sikhism , Colorado , and Oklahoma . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Non-notable. No sources provide him any biographical coverage. CharlesWain ( talk ) 04:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC) GNG . Only mentioned in passing over 2 non-notable books. Orientls ( talk ) 16:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources Fuller, Amy Elisabeth, ed. (2009). ""Sing, G.B. 1954–"" . Contemporary Authors: A Bio-Bibliographical Guide to Current Writers in Fiction, General Nonfiction, Poetry, Journalism, Drama, Motion Pictures, Television, and Other Fields . Vol. 270. Detroit: Gale . pp. 396–398. ISBN 978-0-7876-9528-6 . ISSN 0275-7176 . Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: ""Born September 5, 1954, in India, G.B. Singh eventually moved to the United States where he attended the University of Oklahoma. Educated as a periodontist, Singh joined the United States Army Medical Department, launching his career in the military. He gradually rose through the ranks, attaining the position of colonel, unusual in that he is one of few Sikh-American's to ever achieve such a high rank within a branch of the United States armed forces. Sikh-Americans who wear turbans must receive special dispensation if they are to be allowed to hold higher military ranks, and none of them are allowed to be part of units that go into combat. Singh wears his turban proudly along with his military uniform, a trait that has caused considerable talk in this post-9/11 world. While performing his duties, Singh has been stationed all across the country, and has also been stationed in Korea twice. Beyond his work for the Army, Singh is also a student of Indian politics, study- ing that nation's political history and religion, particularly Hinduism, and the life and works of Gandhi."" Reed, Bill (2004-08-24). ""Deconstructing Gandhi - Author claims 'Mahatma' guilty of racism, divisiveness"" . The Gazette . Archived from the original on 2024-06-20 . Retrieved 2024-06-20 . The article notes: ""Yet, Col. G.B. Singh isn't obeying the rules. His first book, ""Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity,"" portrays Gandhi as one of the most dangerous leaders of the 20th century. ... The book is the culmination of 20 years of research, as Singh evolved from one of Gandhi's admirers to one of his harshest critics. ... Singh has a kindly face framed by a dense beard and turban. He appears gentle and soft-spoken until he delves into the subject of Gandhi. Then his passion flares. Singh was born in India to a family of Hindus and Sikhs. He was educated in the scriptures, and he was trained in the godlike worship of Mahatma Gandhi. ... Singh became a periodontist and emigrated to the United States in 1976. He joined the Army and rose to the rank of colonel, making him one of the highest-ranking officers in the U.S. military to wear a turban."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow G.B. Singh to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Pinging the only AfD participant from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. B. Singh who has edited in the last three years: David Eppstein ( talk · contribs ). Cunard ( talk ) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi Under Cross Examination . Cunard ( talk ) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Cunard. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 09:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC) he not only passes WP:NAUTHOR as the creator of multiple notable works, per Cunard's later sources he appears to independently pass the GNG. Everyone voting is simply going WP:IDONTLIKEIT PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 23:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC) BLP1E ; person known only for writing misleading attack pieces on Gandhi. ArvindPalaskar ( talk ) 13:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The books were published and received coverage over a several year period so that isn't ""one event"". PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 14:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC) BLP1E , we need to assess that ""how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources"", and this subject fails that. ArvindPalaskar ( talk ) 08:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ...that isn't what BLP1E is for? He has multiple, full length author profiles. His books have plenty of reviews. There isn't even an ""event"" here. He writes books. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 23:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This person wrote books, that have been talked about in media, as has this person. As shown above, these are RS. Scandalous or not, notability is established. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC) BLP1E . Cursory search does not show anything different. Azuredivay ( talk ) 15:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . We shouldn't push to material merely because we disagree with it; the question is whether it is notable. The two related AfDs on two of his books Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi Under Cross Examination have turned up possibly as many as six in-depth reliable reviews for the first book and three for the second, well over my threshold for WP:AUTHOR . These are mainstream sources (and point out the fringe and partisan nature of the books) so the requirement of WP:FRINGE for mainstream coverage is met. He may be a partisan conspiracy theorist and he may be incorrect on all points; per FRINGE, that raises a higher bar, that we use mainstream and not fringe sources to cover him, but I think that bar is met. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There does seem to be an effort from this editor to remove things that are not complimentary of Gandhi, but that does not make a strong case for deletion. True or not, these ""things"" have enough coverage to be kept here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Only 2 sources provided above includes a database of many non-notable authors and a 20 years old random coverage from Colorado's The Gazette , a local daily . None of this establishes WP:GNG , let alone gaining significant coverage from the expert sources of this field. Orientls ( talk ) 12:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Striking duplicate """" comment. Cunard ( talk ) 10:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Non-notable fringe writer. Agletarang ( talk ) 11:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC) G. B. Singh received 820 words of coverage in Gale 's reference work Contemporary Authors . The Wikipedia article for Contemporary Authors cites a Texas State Library book for the statement ""The work is a standard in libraries and has been honored by the American Library Association as a distinguished reference title."" G. B. Singh received a 1,760-word profile in The Gazette (Colorado Springs) . The Gazette is a respected regional newspaper that won Pulitzer Prizes in 1990 and 2014 . Colorado Springs is the second-most populous city in the state of Colorado, and the 39th-most-populous city in the United States. The two sources were published five years apart. WP:BLP1E does not apply to an author who has received this level of coverage. WP:BLP1E does not apply because neither ""Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event"" nor ""The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual"" apply. G. B. Singh clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria . Cunard ( talk ) 10:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC) 09, 25 June 2024 (UTC) More than enough coverage in the sources listed above; regardless of the validity of the theories, this person has been talked about in RS, enough for notability here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC) The prior AfD was also a , for passing AUTHOR. Notability is not temporary, there was a valid discussion 13 yrs ago and it was notable then and still is today. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC) 26, 26 June 2024 (UTC) NAUTHOR and WP:GNG . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 14:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC) GNG . Capitals00 ( talk ) 12:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC) 43, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Deshbandhu Group: M.parvage ( talk ) 13:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - All the references from the company are used to identify subsidiaries. ""Most of the contents"" is sourced from independent news organizations. One of the largest conglomerates in the 25th largest economy in the world. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 11:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Subsidiary Deshbandhu Polymer Limited is publicly traded on the Dhaka Stock Exchange . [34] -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 22:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Buffalo International Jewish Film Festival: Boleyn ( talk ) 19:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Events , Judaism , and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Found this from a local publication. The Buffalo News article from 2018 and the rest of the articles under the tag. And there's more from this publication when you go below the article that's not from the link with the tag. And there's from Buffalo Rising . -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk ) 22:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC) N. FortunateSons ( talk ) 11:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC) 20, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 19:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC) Meets GNG [29] , [30] , a Google search showed more in addition to the above. // Timothy :: talk 16:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"2021 Akkar explosion: No lasting effects as defined by WP:EFFECT . News story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 16:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Lebanon . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 16:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - clearly a noteworthy event and is supported by multiple reliable sources. - w o lf 09:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC) BEFORE D1 search finds recent coverage from DW, Reuters, etc. Even without that, WP:NTEMP applies. Article needs touchup with investigation and societal repercussion (plus new sources), not deletion. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Last1in , literally no one needs to be wikilinked to BEFORE. If, instead, you had provided a few of the stories you found, and they were good, I could have closed this as a already. In the absence of such evidence I can't do that. Drmies ( talk ) 12:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Drmies , publicly calling me out for failing to do what AfD nominators no longer even bother with makes it clear that I no longer understand the process. Withdrawing my ! vote. Thanks & Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 11:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Erm... wtf just happened here? - w o lf 03:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What happened is that I walked away rather than collect more nasty little asides from an Admin. If I want this kind of behvaiour, I can get it at the office. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak , haven't done a deep BEFORE, but I see some signs that this has been picked up into academic work. [22] [23] . Alternatively a to Lebanese liquidity crisis may be appropriate. — siro χ o 05:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Stuart Bell (figure skater): Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom . Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 12:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"NASCAR on television in the 1960s: Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE . As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY , mostly dead and ed pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to to NASCAR on television and radio . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Motorsport , Lists , and United States of America . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio , alternatively to that target. Splitting individual decades s the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE . ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Valid split? ...which is made of YouTube links. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 20:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Tahchee, Arizona: Satellite views show what appears to be a cluster of ranching-type buildings, and topos do not show the name prior to 2011. – dlthewave ☎ 18:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona . – dlthewave ☎ 18:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This appears to be part of the community of Blue Gap/Tachee, one of the 110 chapters of the Navajo Nation [21] . See also this Navajo Times article. [22] It's not the same exact community as Blue Gap, because in 1954, there was a school established at Tah Chee *and* a school at Blue Gap, that apparently later d [23] . There are some historical notes about Tah Chee in A Diné History of Navajoland [24] . It's cited as a mission station (again separately from Blue Gap) of the Annunciation Indian Mission in the 1958 official Catholic directory. [25] And a 1985 article in Ethnic Forum notes that ""Tah Chee"" and ""Tahchee"" are variant spellings of the same name. -- Jahaza ( talk ) 01:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to the 1961 Navajo Yearbook the school at Tahchee had 25 students. [26] Robert Franklin Leslie visits circa 1967 and the ""ancient"" settlement has been abandoned by still nomadic Navajo herders. More discussion of Tah-chee in this book [27] , where circa the early 21st century it's being used as a summer settlement camp. [28] Jahaza ( talk ) 02:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] leaning We really need a better way of handling the Navajo chapters than co-opting towns for them, because that's not what they are; they're more on the county level of governmental organization. As far as this specific spot is concerned, first, state road maps are a terrible source for GNIS. Looking through the aerials and topos, yes, there are buildings here, but they don't obviously interpret as something more than a ranch. Which takes me to the textual sources, where first of all we have the issue of disentangling the chapter from the possible settlement. And conversely, picking this point out as the central point of the chapter is not clear either, not when we are looking at potentially tens of thousands of acres. If we had something that strongly tied this point to the chapter facilities, I'd be likely to go for a """" result, but as it is I'm having trouble tying it all together. Mangoe ( talk ) 04:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [29] Elinruby ( talk ) 04:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Rosemary Lillu: Sources 1,2 and 3 are interviews with the subject. 4 is an article generated from her Facebook note/post Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 13:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC) before has nothing significant. Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 13:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Film , India , and Kerala . Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 13:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Source 1 is The Hindu article - reliable, independent, secondary and featured article written majority from journalist point of view. Its a 500+ word article. Source 2 is Deshabhimani article - reliable, independent, secondary and featured article with 6 sentences from journalist point of view. Its a 500+ word article. Source 3 is Times of India malayalam version samayam article. It is based on a work of the subject. Its a over 1000 article. Source 4 is Vanitha magazine article is a reliable news source removed by the afd nominator. Source 5 is Asianet News article which has 5 sentence from journalist point of view. passes notability Mischellemougly ( talk ) 15:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC) PRIMARYNEWS . Interviews and reports of interviews are primary sources. The Vanitha article is generated from the subject's Facebook post. Secondary sources are needed to establish notability for the purposes of deciding which articles to . Topics that are only covered briefly or in poor quality secondary sources may not meet the general notability guideline. Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 16:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC) As detailed by Mischellemougly, there are reliable secondary sources for this article. Rublamb ( talk ) 19:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Rublamb . Are interviews with the subject considered as a secondary source? If not, could you please explain how BLP passes GNG? I am also open to a source assessment table from any uninvolved editor. Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 21:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] An article that incorportes an interview is a secondary source as it also includes analysis and comentary by the article's author. See also the article that I added to external links. Rublamb ( talk ) 21:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe you saw the Hindu article [1] which has the analysis and commentary by the article's author. The other's are standalone interviews with no analysis and commentary. Source 4 and 6 are articles generated from subject's Facebook posts. Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 21:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Citation 1, 2, 3, and the article I added to external links include editorial content. Rublamb ( talk ) 00:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I beg to differ on this. Only the Hindu article contains enough analysis and commentary throughout to be considered a secondary source. Citations 2 and 3 merely provide a gist at the top, which I believe are routine procedures followed by all Indian entertainment news media outlets to include a small brief of the subject. The external link is an unreliable website with no editorial oversight. Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 05:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC) We might have to disagree on Cinema Daddy; it has staff that curate its content and, therefore, appears to be reliable. Regardless, interviews can and do count toward notability. WP:INTERVIEWS says ""A multitude of interviews...shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability."" This is especially so when the interviews are in reliable or noted publications. When the interviews in Deshabhimani and The Times of India are considered along with a feature article in The Hindu , there is enough coverage in major publications to this article. Also, in mind that not all content from an interview is considered primary; again, I refer you to WP:INTERVIEWS . Rublamb ( talk ) 00:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] According to Cinema Daddy's about page, they are a entertainment portal that shares film updates. There is no editorial oversight, which makes it similar to the 1000 other entertainment websites that do the same(I would be glad to share some examples). WP:INTERVIEWS also states that However, the mere fact that a person has been interviewed does not automatically mean that interviewee qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article, and an article must still cite a mixture of other types of non-interview sourcing as well. and Anything interviewees say about themselves or their own work is both primary and non-independent, and therefore does not support a claim for notability. I would also like to note last few words of what you quoted, that it is only considered as evidence of notability . Only the Hindu featured article would qualify under GNG on a source assessment table. The Times of India is generally considered unreliable, see WP:TOI . As previously stated, Deshabhimani does not have analysis/commentary to consider it as a secondary source. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 16:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 23:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC) This is the only other source I could find [2] , not likely a RS. We have one good source and a few non-RS. I don't think we're at notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Humane Sagar: Has not received any award as an artist by national or state government. No references and thumbnail articles Md Joni Hossain ( talk ) 04:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Md Joni Hossain ( talk ) 04:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Bands and musicians , Television , and Odisha . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment rather than no references there are 55 already in the article. Those with significant coverage include this , Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting so we can hear from more editors about this article subject. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Receiving an award from a national or state government is not a prerequisite for an article's general notability. Coverage in reliable sources is the measure of notability for Wikipedia. At a minimum, there are multiple (at least two; a more familiar editor might argue more) sources of non-trivial coverage establishing the article topic as a subject. P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk ) 01:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Laith Saad Abdullah: Fram ( talk ) 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Literature , and Iraq . Fram ( talk ) 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC) AUTHOR but I can’t search for reviews in Arabic without the original names of his works. It’s unfortunate when editors rush to create an en.wiki article when there isn’t yet one in the mother language. Mccapra ( talk ) 07:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"List of MLS Cup broadcasters: Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE . As with sources per WP:RS ; one is a Twitter post, one is a now a dead link and the other is an announcment; neither doing anything to establish notability and the rest is unsourced. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 06:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Football , Lists , and United States of America . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 06:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per nom. Svartner ( talk ) 09:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Over 120 different sources have just been added, bumping the current total to about 123 references. If that doesn't establish the notability, then I really don't know what else there is that could do it. Also, Major League Soccer , is one of the big five North American professional sports leagues alongside the NFL, NBA, Major League Baseball, and NHL. It's also the official #1 professional soccer organization in North America, and has been since it launched in 1996. Broadcasting information about the MLS Cup is further detailed in the individual articles for each MLS Cup event. So it isn't like there is little remote interest about this particular subject overall. BornonJune8 ( talk ) 10:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This will definitely pass in 2009 but c'mon, this is 2024. Sourcing guidelines has changed since. First of all, Twitter does not count as a WP:RS , neither do YouTube. Bornon, Have you ever voted in any of my nominations? SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 12:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Big 5? LOL No such thing. Of course, there's the big 4. Back to the subject; these all consists of announcment posts, WP:PRIMARY , two are Twitter posts, most others are about the game and less the broadcasting. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 12:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC) LISTN . I reviewed the sources and I can chalk it up to this: TV announcements ( WP:NOTTVGUIDE ), WP:PRIMARY from mlssoccer.com, and of course WP:ROUTINE announcements about the schedule/broadcasting team. None of which provide justifiability for this article's existence. Conyo14 ( talk ) 15:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC) 25, 13 May 2024 (UTC) 02, 15 May 2024 (UTC) First of, why do you insist on replying to virtually single counterargument that somebody makes when you make an AFD? That's if you ask me, bordering on WP:BLUDGEONING ? Also, like I said, there's broadcasting info in the individual MLS Cup articles themselves, such as the very first one in 1996 . They're sourced or as good as the sources could possibly or remotely be. Here's some further articles about the MLS Cup broadcasting coverage , after the fact. BornonJune8 ( talk ) 7:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC) Furthermore, Major League Soccer actually is considered part of the ""Big 5"" among North American professional sports franchises. Los Angeles Football Club , according to this article , was in the year 2023, valued at over $900 million. That's more than the Pittsburgh Penguins, Seattle Kraken, and Calgary Flames of the NHL. BornonJune8 ( talk ) 7:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC) Information about the viewership averages for the MLS Cup dating back to 1996 has now been added to the bottom of the article. BornonJune8 ( talk ) 07:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC) Here's a collection of articles about the MLS Cup's television ratings and viewership : MLS Cup draws largest total audience in 25 years , Canada’s TSN drew almost as many MLS Cup viewers as the U.S. broadcast on ABC, despite Canada having 1/10th the people , MLS Cup on ABC down almost 50 percent from 2018 on Fox and close to 2017 on ESPN, with earlier timing likely a factor , Fox’s coverage of MLS Cup final sees highest viewership for final since 1997 , MLS Cup 2017 on ESPN draws lower overnight from last year , 2015 MLS Cup Final avoids distinction of being least watched ever , Weekly sports ratings: NFL, NBA, Army-Navy, MLS Cup and more , Ratings: MLS Cup , Lakers and more . And here's an additional article that discusses Bob Ley preforming play-by-play for the 1997 MLS Cup telecast on ABC. BornonJune8 ( talk ) 04:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC) 24, 17 May 2024 (UTC) 59, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Argue how you like but I don't understand why is it necessary for have this list? Why not it to the one about the league instead? As it being the 'big 5', ask an American how popular it is there, they laugh at you. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 10:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC) GNG , and the nomination statement is clearly flawed. NOTTVGUIDE specifically allows historically important television information, and this is looks at the history of broadcasting. The other WP:NOTs outlined in the deletion rationale - I've been at AfD enough to know that they're a grab bag of WP:IDONTLIKEITs - this isn't a database, the sources aren't routine, and now we're wasting time on this here. SportingFlyer T · C 16:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC) ROUTINE - that clearly doesn't apply as even though not every source qualifies for GNG, there's plenty of national coverage of the broadcasters and game ratings, including from Canada's National Post. WP:NOTDATABASE is also clearly wrong - this article is mostly prose. SportingFlyer T · C 23:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC) LISTN is not met as this grouping isn't discussed in secondary sources. Let'srun ( talk ) 22:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. This seems clearly true? There are many, many references and the broadcast every cup is compared to all of the previous cups, making a list a properly notable topic. SportingFlyer T · C 22:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC) THREE would you say do this? Let'srun ( talk ) 13:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning per BornonJune8 and SportingFlyer. There's nearly 300 references and much well-sourced text describing the history of MLS Cup broadcasters; I don't think it could be d anywhere. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC) REFBOMBING . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 07:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC) The article "" Professional sports leagues in the United States "" in itself, lists Major League Soccer as one of the top five major professional sports leagues in North America alongside Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Football League, and the National Hockey League. To put things into perspective, in the United States, the 2022 MLS Cup had more viewers than the 2020 Stanley Cup final . Here's a 2023 article from Forbes on Major League Soccer's growth. BornonJune8 ( talk ) 07:50, 178 May 2024 (UTC) Furthermore, according to this article on MLS' attendance , Major League Soccer in the year 2022 had a higher average attendance than the NBA and NHL in 2022–23. MLS that year had an average attendance of 21,033 whereas the NBA had an 18,077 average attendance and the NHL had an 17,101 average attendance in that same time frame. In 2023 , MLS set a new season long attendance record . BornonJune8 ( talk ) 08:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pretty idiotic comparing leagues taking place to a stadium vs one in an arena. Like comparing apples to oranges. Still, doesn't make it any bigger considering the size of those stadiums. I cannot give the figures now as NHL is in a playoff, so cost of tickets will be higher but the average ticket for an NHL game costs $94. according to [28] . A ticket to see DC United will cost $21 according to Ticketmaster. Again, this list is not about how big MLS is to Americans. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 08:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For the record, the average seating capacity of a Major League Soccer stadium is said to be between 18,000 and 30,000. PayPal Park , which is home of the San Jose Earthquakes , is currently the smallest MLS stadium at about 18,000 seats. Meanwhile, the average NBA arena has a capacity of 18,790. And the average capacity of an NHL arena is around 16,000–20,000. This is not like comparing an NBA or NHL arena to an NFL stadium , which has an average seating capacity of 60,000–80,000. The current smallest NBA arena in terms of capacity is the State Farm Arena in Atlanta, which has a 16,600 maximum capacity BornonJune8 ( talk ) 09:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What does this have to do with the broadcasting teams? Conyo14 ( talk ) 16:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC) UNCIVIL ). Brindille1 ( talk ) 16:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to MLS Cup Playoffs . I'm not a fan of listcruft, but I can see some value in preserving the history on this one, including all those sources. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC) I'm open to a to MLS Cup Playoffs as a WP:ATD . I do think as presently structured that this fails WP:LISTN . Let'srun ( talk ) 03:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC) Per SportingFlyer. This is extensively referenced and shows clear WP:SIGCOV , while appearing to meet WP:LISTN . ...to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans – What kind of opinionated and completed irrelevant nomination rationale is that? Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC) BornonJune8 made a good list of secondary sources covering MLS Cup broadcasts. I understand that there are low quality sources among the nearly 281 sources cited in the article, but MLS Cup viewership very clearly meets WP:GNG . The fact that there are other non-reliable sources covering this topic is irrelevant- there are significant independent secondary sources covering this topic and that establishes notability. It is also worth pointing out that the nominator has made a large number of comments that MLS as a league is niche- these comments simply can't be considered in the deletion discussion, as they're litigating the notability of the league as a whole, rather than discussion of the actual topic. Brindille1 ( talk ) 16:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Draft:Shemaroo Umang (TV channel): Jeromeenriquez ( talk ) 19:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I think the nominator meant the article Shemaroo Umang rather than this draft. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 20:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Sri Preston Kulkarni: The article summarizes Sri Preston Kulkarni as the Democratic nominee for in 2018 and 2020 for Congress in Texas. Candidates are neither notable or not notable under WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN . There is some routine coverage that one can expect in any semi-competitive congressional election. I do not believe that it meets the barrier for ""significant coverage."" The closest thing the article does to try and differentiate his candidacy from others is say he did outreach to Asian-American voters. Aside from its use of puffery , it's also NOT UNORTHODOX. Most viable campaigns reach out to persuadable voters and have literature/canvassers speak languages written/spoken in the district. Numerous campaigns have affinity subgroups (think Ethnic Americans for Dole/Kemp ). His father is Venkatesh Kulkarni , but notability is not inherited. There is nothing in the article stating his time in the United States Foreign Service was so unique as to warrant an entry and listing every country seems to be a way to mask the lack of notability Mpen320 ( talk ) 23:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . Mpen320 ( talk ) 23:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions . Mpen320 ( talk ) 23:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] with some rewriting to focus on what constitutes notability. But I do think notability is there: I think the focus here should be on Kulkarni's unusual, early use of (now-popular) relational organizing tactics, in particular with Asian-American groups. The Intercept article already linked in the piece (legit national outlet, not state based coverage) touches on this but there are plenty of other articles out there, findable via cursory google search, that make this clear: Two years ago, a Democrat named Sri Kulkarni attempted to oust an incumbent Republican from a congressional district outside Houston. His campaign turned to relational organizing, finding thousands of new voters in tight-knit immigrant communities that weren’t plugged into politics. Kulkarni lost by just 5 points, but his relational strategy caught fire, both nationally and in Texas. His organizing director, Emily Isaac, took the lessons she learned on Kulkarni’s race to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign as his relational organizing director. Mother Jones, ""The Unspoken Reason the Alaska Senate Race Is So Close"" Kulkarni’s campaign style is very focused on something he calls “relational organizing” — volunteers put effort into getting family, friends, co-workers, or other people they know in the community to get out and vote. “I think that by 2020, this is how all canvassing is going to be done,” he said. Vox, ""A Texas Democrat’s radical experiment in turning out Asian-American voters could become a model for the party"" Kulkarni said that other campaigns call him for insight into his relational-organizing model: “They’ll ask us, ‘Is this proprietary?’ Of course not. I want people to copy what we’re doing in Texas Twenty-two all over America.” New Yorker, ""Are Asian Americans the Last Undecided Voters?""÷ Kulkarni’s campaign built the largest relational organizing program in the nation during that election cycle, with volunteers phone-banking in 13 different languages. By connecting with so many tight-knit communities within the district, the campaign became something of a community in and of itself. Daily Kos, ""A tied house race in Texas"" So - I grant that emphasis may need to change but here you've got really substantial coverage in national outlets, some of which is solely focused on Kulkarni and his pathbreaking use of relational organizing. Even the New Yorker article which isn't all about him gives him 6+ paragraphs. Feels notable to me. Sorry for the sloppy linking here btw, I'm just in a bit of a rush. Vivisel ( talk ) 18:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply . The New Yorker article is about Asian-American voting generally. It mentions him once. It is not significant coverage of him or his campaign. The Daily Kos article is from a contributor, not Daily Kos staff. It's basically self-published . Relational organizing is not new. From a Mother Jones article (that yes mentions the subject in similar, trivial passing): The first thing relational organizing evangelists say is that their approach is nothing new . Word-of-mouth and community-based activism were the backbone of the civil rights, women’s rights, farmworkers’, and labor movements. The only person cited on the ""newness"" of this is is Kulkarni or his past/present employees who have an incentive to boost their methods as being more revolutionary than it is. The reliance on them for direct quotes muddies the waters as to how independent of the subject such claims for notability are. This is routine coverage of semi-competitive congressional race in the age of political nerds. This is far more appropriate for a to the campaign. This campaign technique by itself does not warrant an article on the candidate especially given the technique is not particularly new or innovative. Finally, an article about yourself (or someone you like) isn't necessarily a good thing . -- Mpen320 ( talk ) 21:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe take a closer look at the New Yorker article? I say that because you say he is ""mentioned"" but I see seven paragraphs of content which clearly required multiple interviews to accumulate. And he is ""mentioned"" 25 times in that article by name. And: any thoughts on the Vox article, which is obviously not a passing mention? I note also that the MoJo article you cite to suggest that relational organizing is not new is actually an article about the ways in which it *is* distinctive. (Subhed: ""The pandemic wrecked traditional campaigning. Relational organizing stands to reinvent it."") Indeed, right after the quote you reproduced comes the ""But"" followed by a many paragraph discussion of how those traditional methods of community organizing had been threatened or minimized over time. Also, your last sentence is passive-aggressive, needless, and unhelpful to the discussion itself. Vivisel ( talk ) 18:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"List of Formula One sprint winners: Also WP:NOTSTATS . A seperate article for this is undue. T v x 1 08:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions . T v x 1 08:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 08:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strongly . The more time passes, the more significant this article will be, because more sprints will be held and we have an article list of Grand Prix winners as well. They will be retained for at least the 2024 . 212.164.64.246 ( talk ) 20:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That’s just your crystall ball assumption of the future. This concept is still very much in an experimental phase and there is no guarantee it will be retained after 2024. Nothing what you say adresses the fact that it fails WP:LISTN. T v x 1 16:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The number of sprint races have been held has no bearing on its notability. And if it did the correct approach would be to this list and re-create it when enough sprints have been held for notability to be met. SSSB ( talk ) 09:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We could potentially this into a new section of List of Formula One Grand Prix winners , but otherwise, I would ! vote to per the nomination. ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, no. Because Formula One Sprint winners are not Formula One Grand Prix winners. Merging these winners together would create confusion. That being said, my point should be iterated more strongly; Sprint races are a part of a Grand Prix weekend. But not part of a Grand Prix itself. 2A02:A448:B759:1:F5CD:863B:5E09:367B ( talk ) 13:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC) A quick google search shows that WP:NLIST is clearly not satisified. SSSB ( talk ) 09:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Fails NLIST completely, but meets WP:CLN as a navigation list; as the IP mentions, as time passes this will become more useful. . // Timothy :: talk 00:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC) CLN is an editing guideline. It has no bearing whatsoever on whether a list can exist or not. The second part of your argument is false crystallball assumption of the future. The concept is under heavy scrutiny and there is no guarantee it will persist. T v x 1 09:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes it is an editing guideline. See WP:AOAL . // Timothy :: talk 09:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC) Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. — siro χ o — siro χ o 03:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It isn’t though. This is not nor has ever been the purpose of these lists at WP:F1 . T v x 1 08:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC) For now, I would be in favour of ing this page. The sprint format is still new and has been tweaked since its introduction, to have more of a presence in F1. I believe that this format is here to stay, as Liberty Media seems to be very much in favour of incorporating it into the sport long term, as shown by recent discussions to further improve the format for 2024. However, if the sprint format does get removed, then I would be in favour of deletion of this page. McLarenMercedes22 ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, that’s just not how Wikipedia works. T v x 1 08:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC) LISTN . Do we have another way of identifying these winners? If not, it is a particularly important list. If the Formula One article (which is excessively long) became split to create a new one on the sprints, we could consider having this list as part of that. Thincat ( talk ) 09:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We do not need a way of indentifing these winners because the sources do not show what they should be identified in this way. Or in other words, the sources do not show that winning a sprint warrants any identification of the kind that would support ing this list as a navigational aid. No source (that I have seen) identifies sprint winners, so we shouldn't either. SSSB ( talk ) 19:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC) 13, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No. We don’t even have such a list for all grands prix. T v x 1 18:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. I see editors with strong arguments on both sides of this issue. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How about moving the standings of this article to the 'sprint' section of the F1 racing article? I mean move part of this article to this section . By the way, a good (possibly good) source -- https://racingnews365.com/sprint-racing-f1 -- 212.164.64.246 ( talk ) 15:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not an appropriate place to put it. I would be against putting this list anywhere, but if we had to it, the only place I can think of where it would fit and make sense is in a sub-section of List of Formula One Grand Prix winners - but like I said, I am opposed to ing this anywhere (in it's own article, or tacked onto another). SSSB ( talk ) 20:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC) WP:CRUFT . Information on total Sprint wins may be relevant, but not in its own article. Svartner ( talk ) 16:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Akshar Árbol International School: Nevertheless, I am willing to withdraw the nomination if any enhancements are made to the article per the guidelines outlined in WP:HEY . RPSkokie ( talk ) 11:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India . RPSkokie ( talk ) 11:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Tamil Nadu . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . It seems to me the deletion nominator recognizes this is significant. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP . See the Google news hits in this search , including educational excellence awards from two organizations (one at top, another from an ""IDE"" down about 10 hits). Search also on ""AAIS"", sometimes used for the school, in conjunction with other terms. Sorry, I am not ggoing to slave away at developing this just because the deletion nominator doesn't like the current state of the article, and doesn't want to do the work themself. --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 04:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Chris Bambery: Fails WP:NPOL and also WP:NOTEWORTHY . Let'srun ( talk ) 19:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Scotland . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Journalism . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC) NPOL , but may pass WP:AUTHOR based on the reviews cited in the article and those elsewhere such as this (http not https). The article is very promotional, but as I said when I contested WP:PROD deletion in 2021 there are less promotional versions in the history. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 08:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC) NPOL . Among Bambery's books, ""The Second World War: A Marxist History"" was extensively reviewed in the Marxist press but doesn't seem to have been picked up by mainstream reviewers. ""Catalonia Reborn"" was the same story. ""A Rebel's Guide to Gramsci"" is, at 64 pages, more a pamphlet than a book. ""A People's History of Scotland"" was reviewed in both The Scotsman and The Herald but I couldn't find any other reviews in the major press. The two reviews of ""A People's History of Scotland"" are probably not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR . On the whole, my ! vote would be . Fiachra10003 ( talk ) 18:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Seems to meet WP:AUTHOR 's requirement of having created a significant or well-known work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews . Just looking at the People's History of Scotland , we have at least Monthly Review , Scottish Affairs , The Herald , The Scotsman . I am not aware of any policy-based reason for excluding Marxist periodicals, but even so that would only knock out the Monthly Review . Article is a mess but AFD is not cleanup and draftification is unlikely to lead to improvement. -- Visviva ( talk ) 04:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Passes WP:AUTHOR criterion 3, as well explained by @ Visviva above, but for the utter avoidance of doubt, I've created A People's History of Scotland . CT55555 ( talk ) 02:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Georges Rivière: According to IMDb, the subject died on 25 April 2011, in Cannes, Alpes-Maritimes, France. Is this true with other references? Tagged for living people on the English Wikipedia, who are dead on other Wikipedias, since February 2022. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 23:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , France , Oceania , and Argentina . Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 23:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] French wikipedia doesn't say he's passed away. I guess that's why we don't consider ImdB a reliable source. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is the Spanish Wp that considers him dead. See my comment below (includes 2 sources that mention it, one in English, one in French but this might all be based on a confusion (another GR who did die in Cannes that day, but not same middle names ). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment He was in the Longest Day and the Musketeers movie, I'm amazed there isn't more written about him. All I can find is a cast list for the Longest Day in a period newspaper that lists him. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's lots of film reviews on Trove which mention him, but nothing substantial. Would he be in old French cinema magazines 9and if so, can anyone access and read them? ) IdiotSavant ( talk ) 03:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] unless we can pull up sources, I can't find any. Looked at BNF Gallica, the NYT link above and in the Wikipedia library ProQuest. No sources for this actor found. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oaktree b One of the things that needs to be investigated further is coverage in books, because I'm seeing a fair bit on this actor. Some perhaps meeting SIGCOV. Silver seren C 01:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These are just name drops, I can't find anything extensive about him. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC) Fails GNG And NACTOR per nom. UtherSRG (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Clearly passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR based on the filmography alone. I'd also not that both images at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Georges_Rivi%C3%A8re_(actor) are of the front covers of French language magazines and have the actor on the front cover which indicates that these publications have significant coverage of the subject. That would seem to indicate that the subject also passes WP:SIGCOV . It's likely that the actor is also covered in other French language media of the period (ie newspaper articles, film criticism, etc.) 4meter4 ( talk ) 16:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those magazines are Spanish-language from Argentina. I suppose they might have coverage in Argentine sources, but I have no idea where to look for archived magazines from that country. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for catching my error. I assumed incorrectly that they were French. The point remains the same though. An actor making the front cover of a magazine is going to have SIGCOV in that magazine. 4meter4 ( talk ) 19:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Significant roles (including lead roles) in multiple notable films make him meet WP:NACTOR fairly. Noted as ""the beau of Argentine cinema"" -as Jorge Rivier [15] . Filmo: [16] [; [17] As for Rivière being alive or not: even though Sens Critique and various websites and the following book mention him dead 2011 in Cannes [18] , I think it is safer and fairer to consider him alive. The absence of any obituary is a rather strong indication, I find. Not that this is necessary to meet the criterion, but his roles have received coverage . More sources exist, in Spanish for example: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] etc. . - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Simon Amin: Simione001 ( talk ) 23:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 23:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 23:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 23:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 23:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - clearly notable, weak and lazy nomination. International player with ongoing career who has played in the top leagues of Sweden and Norway? Swedish Wikipedia has sources. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 21:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC) There's actually not a whole lot on the Swedish wikipedia. Mostly just player profiles match reports and routine transfer news. Simione001 ( talk ) 23:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This and this and this and this from Google. Giant Snowman 12:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC) Did you actually read these? The first one is a brief article about his contract expiring. The second is pay walled. The third article isnt even about the player in question and the last one is a match report. These do not satisfy WP:GNG Simione001 ( talk ) 20:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He is mentioned in the third one, you clearly haven't read it - just as you clearly haven't bothered to do any BEFORE. I have located numerous coverage about this person, you have done nothing. Giant Snowman 21:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - excuse me how do you know what i have and haven't done? I have read it and I've just read it again, the third article you provided, this article is not about the player in question. This is simply a list of players that were nominated for Allsvenskans Stora Pris. This doesnt satisy WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk ) 21:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He is still mentioned in the article, so you have not read it. Giant Snowman 22:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Seems like we are going around in circles here and im not sure what you are trying to achieve. Anyway, not sure why you provided the source in the first place, it doesn't do anything towards satisfying WP:GNG. Do you still think he's notable based on the sources provided? Sounds like just another case of WP:ILIKEIT . Simione001 ( talk ) 22:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , passes GNG. Plenty of coverage if you search his Arabic name. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 07:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If that's the case please provide links for the consideration of members. Simione001 ( talk ) 11:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . From the sources mentioned above: 1 is a routine transactional update N . 2 I can't access. 3 is literally just his name in a list published by the Swedish Elite Football organization N . 4 is a mention in a routine match recap plus a quote from teammate Strandberg N . Even if #2 is SIGCOV, that is still not equivalent to GNG. JoelleJay ( talk ) 02:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – There is coverage on sv.wiki in addition to Arabic sources, as mentioned above. Svartner ( talk ) 04:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC) GNG. Article needs improvements. But Afd is not a clean-up service. Sources are notable. BabbaQ ( talk ) 09:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Except that they aernt notable at all. Simione001 ( talk ) 12:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC) GNG and above. gidonb ( talk ) 04:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Martin Rafferty: Most of the entries are just passing mentions/announcements about the organization he heads. The two awards are fairly obscure, and trying to access the Gates Foundation source brings up a security warning. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 07:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Oregon . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The Bill Gates Foundation article can be accessed in Archive.org here and mentions him 5 times. Daily Emerald mentions him 4 times. KLCC mentions him 3 times. KVALL mentions him 14 times. BTW, I found several other articles in Google news that mention him. Hence these are not all passing mentions, so he meets WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC. Hkkingg ( talk ) 06:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply . Other than the Gates Foundation, the rest are passing mentions in articles about the organization he founded. The KVAL article is the best of the lot, but that is only coverage by a local TV station about the organization and the ""mentions"" are mostly things he says and claims. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 23:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I support ing it as there is enough news coverage to meet notability. Pershkoviski ( talk ) 20:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 13:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Out of all the currently cited sources, only source 9 constitutes significant coverage, with the rest being trivial mentions or lists as recipients of some minor awards. The sole article by Clackamas Review isn't really enough to support the entire article. Searches of the name ""Martin Rafferty"" yields more results about an Irish businessman than the American activist. Fails WP:GNG . Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 03:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC) compatriots, I submit this humble plea. Let us not disregard the 9th source. A veritable testament to Mr. Rafferty's public significance, it combines with preceding citations to form a robust mosaic of notability. Assembled together, they satisfy our stringent guidelines. To cast this article into oblivion would be a transgression against truth and a slight to the purpose of our noble enterprise. Jack4576 ( talk ) 09:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC) BLP, Fails GNG and BIO. These refs [23] , [24] do have brief info about the subject but not enough to satisfy SIGCOV. The remaining refs are about the org, Youth ERA , which would pass N. BEFORE showed refs about the org, but nothing SIGCOV about the subject. Move the article to Youth ERA and change it into an article about the org with a section and about the subject. // Timothy :: talk 04:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Off topic discussion @ CycloneYoris Did you notice that the relisting was already done twice? WP:RELIST states that you need to have a real good reason to relist a 3rd time and explain your reasoning. Given that you seem to be an experienced editor, I am guessing that you had not noticed it, so you should make a decision on the outcome and close this. Here is what the policy says "" in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation either within the {{ relist }} template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the debate sufficient. "" Hkkingg ( talk ) 06:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC) Yes, I'm well aware that this was the third relist, and it is usually done when a consensus is far from established (as is the case with this discussion) so there's absolutely no harm in relisting for a third time. CycloneYoris talk! 07:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, but yet you did not follow instructions to disclose your reasoning. Typically when there is no consensus after 2 relists, the page is kept. Hkkingg ( talk ) 07:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's normally no need to add a reasoning if there is an obvious lack of consensus, and that I can say based on my own experience. So please calm down, I know what I'm doing. Relisting for a third time isn't as unusual as you seem to be implying. CycloneYoris talk! 08:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Sports broadcasting contracts in Canada: The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL . I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 14:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports , Lists , and Canada . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 14:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Articles for deletion/Sports broadcasting contracts in the United States . 162 etc. ( talk ) 21:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I cannot see how a bunch of news announcments make a subject notable. Keep? Look at the state of this? Almost everything is unsourced. Tells you the low-quality state of Wikipedia. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 08:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , I found [39] , [40] , and [41] , which may help determine notabilty. Esolo5002 ( talk ) 23:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 16:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 18:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Math house: Sources in article and found in BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 10:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , Biology , Mathematics , Computing , and Iran . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC) //search.brave.com/goggles? q=%22isfahan+mathematics+house%22&source=web&q=%22isfahan+mathematics+house%22 Baratiiman ( talk ) 16:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - our colleague above unhelpfully provided a search engine result, however it did actually provide a source to discuss. This is a a conference presentation which was then published as an academic proceeding, and appears to be on topic. There appears to be another published paper that cites it, but I have not been able to establish the reliability of that journal. I see other whispers, it seems like there may be other sources (including non-English ones) if we dig a bit deeper. JMWt ( talk ) 08:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment , no opinion on the notability (at most borderline, it looks), but it should be moved to Isfahan Mathematics House or similar should it be kept. - Nabla ( talk ) 22:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 11:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 00:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Tachyons in fiction: Unfortunately, our current execution is simply terrible. Just three footnotes. A WP:OR prose opening with no source, followed by a gigantic list of random works that mention this topic that fails WP:IPC / MOS:TRIVIA . This needs to be rewritten from scratch, as nothing here is rescuable, or in other words, this merits a WP:TNT treatment, although a WP:ATD-R alternative is to this to Tachyon#In_fiction , from which it was spun long time ago. The short section there is at least referenced, if poorly - but still better than what we have here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 10:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , Popular culture , and Lists . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 10:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Provisional until and unless the nomination statement is amended to remove references to the manual of style. MOS is for how we present information, not what information to be presented. Thus, any AfD nomination statement which makes reference to the MOS does not support deletion. Ping me if it's corrected. Jclemens ( talk ) 15:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are not correct. The nomination statement supports deletion due to issues such as OR. As well as failure of WP:V . And from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections : ""Other policies apply. Trivia sections found in other publications outside Wikipedia (such as IMDb ) may contain speculation, rumor, invented ""facts"", or even libel . However, trivia sections (and others) in Wikipedia articles must not contain those, and their content must be maintained in accordance with Wikipedia's other policies . An item's degree of potential public interest will not excuse it from being subject to rules like verifiability , neutral point-of-view , or no original research ."" And this article fails all of those (well, NPOV, perhaps not so much). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Every issue you cite from the MOS is correctable by editing, proving my point that MOS arguments are irrelevant to deletion discussions. Jclemens ( talk ) 05:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If by editing you mean blanking, I do not see a difference. And how else are we supposed to fix it? By sourcing? Well, most of the content here is unlikely to be sourceable to anything reliable and will need to be d, as rewrites time and again have shown (rewrites of similar topics done by me or User:TompaDompa , fo rexample). Right now we have an unsourced, ORish collection of trivia that needs to go. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC) POPCULT says Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. A Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources (e.g., a dictionary or encyclopedia). A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item. This is a restatement of WP:PROPORTION for a specific context. TompaDompa ( talk ) 05:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per above. The article itself has severe no issues. Georgethedragonslayer ( talk ) 17:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Frankly, I'm surprised the tachyons article has such extensive, decent sourcing. We don't need an article about a fictional particle's appearances in media, it can be covered in a few sentences in the tachyon article. I'm not seeing notability for this fork. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC) OR / WP:V problem can be solved by cutting out the relatively small part in the introductory section which is not based on either secondary or primary sources (while probably most of what's based on primary sources there is better suited further down). The abundant sources found in the Google Books search both show that the topic is notable and can be used to go through the article, fulfilling the suggestions of MOS:POPCULT quoted above and trimming the rest of the examples. In my personal experience, the current list of appearances (bad because it lacks secondary sources and commentary) can be helpful in looking for more appropriate secondary sources if someone is willing to put in the effort. So failing that, I'd prefer a to deletion, so that on the one hand the list is at least preserved in the history for future improvement, and on the other hand the meager content supported by the three existing secondary sources can be used to the improve the even more meager content supported by one secondary source at Tachyon#In fiction . Daranios ( talk ) 16:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I have removed material that lacked proper sourcing. Two sentences remain. If somebody feels up to the task of expanding the article during the course of the WP:AfD discussion based on proper sources that would be great, though I don't personally anticipate finding the time to do so. Failing that, I don't see much of a case for ing a stand-alone article as opposed to ing/merging to Tachyon#In fiction —expansion can always be done at the latter and a split performed at a later stage. The material that was removed can be viewed via the article history, should anybody find that useful for locating sources as Daranios suggested above—though I would add that in my experience, that approach tends to skew the balance of WP:ASPECTS away from the relative weight given by sources on the overarching topic and towards the biases of Wikipedia's editors. TompaDompa ( talk ) 17:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Alright, I've taken a cursory look at a handful of sources and added some of them to Tachyons in fiction#Further reading . Going by those sources, authors (even when ostensibly discussing tachyons in a science fiction context) focus on tachyons as a theoretical concept much more than as a fictional one, and the principal tachyon-related work of fiction seems to be Gregory Benford 's Timescape (1980). These sources could probably be used to write at least a bit more on the topic; the article is well and truly a stub at the moment. TompaDompa ( talk ) 18:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC) 43, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction , WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination) , WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction , WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction , WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction , WP:Articles for deletion/Genies in popular culture (2nd nomination) , WP:Articles for deletion/Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture , WP:Articles for deletion/Loch Ness Monster in popular culture (2nd nomination) , and WP:Articles for deletion/Time viewer for examples of similar articles I have cleaned up and rewritten during AfD discussions. Improvement is preferable to deletion and it seems unlikely that the outcome of this discussion would have been """" rather than at minimum """" anyway. You should welcome this approach. TompaDompa ( talk ) 16:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC) NLIST . Where else outside Wikipedia and possibly TV Tropes can one find a ""list of works in fiction that mention the word tachyon""? This was unencyclopedic fancruft. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 00:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC) NLIST ! As usual, I would have gone around the other way and would have first referenced, then trimmed, but sourcing, adding commentary and trimming are relevant steps to solve indicated problems. So for me the question is if a prose article, such as it has been started now, can support all relevant instances, or if a complementary list, the better version of what we had before, might be beneficial. I could envision both cases. Daranios ( talk ) 11:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC) PROPORTION , i.e. treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject . A list article still needs to do that, but also needs to have proper WP:LISTCRITERIA that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources . Experience tells us that the list format itself encourages the addition of content that lacks proper sourcing. This is likely because of an impulse to get the list closer to being ""complete""/exhaustive, but without any consideration of relative importance to the overall topic doing so of course does not result in a proper list article but more of an index or catalogue—something more appropriate for TV Tropes or Wikia /Fandom (or possibly a category). Regarding the more general case: I try to imagine what a WP:Featured list of that kind would look like, and I running into a few problems, mainly where to put the threshold for inclusion and what/how much information to present about each entry. Both of those things need to reflect the sources on the topic and maintain a proper balance of WP:ASPECTS . I think it's pretty clear that in most cases we cannot present an exhaustive set of X in fiction/popular culture/whatever , so we need to establish some sort of inclusion (and perhaps also exclusion) criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources per WP:LISTCRITERIA . Likewise, each entry would need to provide sufficient context to explain how and why it is an example of X in fiction/popular culture/whatever that should appear on the list without being disproportionate either in the context of that particular entry or compared to other entries. All the while we need to avoid performing any editorial WP:ANALYSIS or interpretation of the works themselves. This would not, to put it mildly, be trivial, and it puts extremely high requirements on the sources. Such sources, I daresay, simply do not exist for these topics (or at least the majority of them). If we fundamentally cannot even in principle bring an article up to WP:Featured content standards, then we should not have such an article in the first place (which is not to say that the topic should not be covered on Wikipedia in some other form on some other article). On the other hand, we have no fewer than three WP:Featured articles on such topics: Mars in fiction , Venus in fiction , and Sun in fiction . TompaDompa ( talk ) 12:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC) NLIST is neither uncomplicated nor uncontroversial. The exact text is Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as ""List of Xs"" or ""Xs"") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources [...] There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as ""Lists of X of Y"") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists . I would not say, for instance, that the "" Tachyons "" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction discusses the proposed list topic (be it called list of tachyons in fiction , list of appearances of tachyons in fiction , works of fiction featuring tachyons , or whatever) ""as a group or set"", though I would say that it discusses the overall topic tachyons in fiction in the general/abstract; others may disagree. TompaDompa ( talk ) 12:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC) 47, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Original research , and in essence a collection of raw data without the proper contextual information. Why we would ever want to take that approach, when we know how to create quality content on these kinds of topics by writing prose articles, is beyond me. It is, well, precisely what the essay WP:CARGO warns against. TompaDompa ( talk ) 17:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC) while I enjoy such articles and would like to see them preserved at TV Tropes in a systematic manner, I don't see how they are ""one step up"" from OR - they are pure OR, unreferenced stamp collecting :( Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC) 06, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Original research , for instance through WP:Improper editorial synthesis . Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research , as our policy says. TompaDompa ( talk ) 09:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC) 55, 16 March 2024 (UTC) 26, 16 March 2024 (UTC) 08, 11 March 2024 (UTC) NOPAGE is appropriate here. There isn't very much to say, but a very brief summary could appear as an WP:ATD . I would be fine with plain deletion. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 22:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC) NOPAGE is still appropriate here, per Zxcvbnm. As many editors have already noted, there isn't enough for a stand-alone article once you remove the unsourced material (which someone thankfully did). This is best covered at Tachyon . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 14:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC) I don't care too strongly about or and split out again when appropriate, but still would like to point out that we have a decent paragraph after only a fraction of the secondary sources listed at the article and popping up in the Google Books search have been used. So while providing added context of the rest of the article explaining what the theoretical particle actually is remains as an argument, the amount of content here is insufficient for a split only describes the current state, not the source material, and There isn't very much to say seem incorrect to me. Daranios ( talk ) 17:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC) NOPAGE argument. I think it would greatly benefit readers' understanding of the topic if this information was presented as part of the same article that actually explains what tachyons are, and neither article is so long that length would be an issue. Rorshacma ( talk ) 18:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawing . The article I nominated [7] was a very different beast from what we have now (effectively rewritten from scratch, mostly by TompaDompa). As such, I am withdrawing my nomination and ping everyone who voted so they can reconsider their votes (IMHO we can consider r but it is not necessary and ing in the current state is preferrable, and I'd prefer to retain the old history of the article as well). @ Shooterwalker , TompaDompa , Daranios , Dream Focus , Jclemens , Oaktree b , and Georgethedragonslayer : -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't really take credit for most of the rewrite here—I removed the old unsourced material and located a few usable sources, but the new material was all added by Daranios (and some of it was then copyedited by me). TompaDompa ( talk ) 06:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Article is in much better shape now, but even at the time of nomination I would day that it was better than nothing and thus not a proper candidate for TNT. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 07:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Tachyon . After cleanup, the amount of content here is insufficient for a split. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To determine whether to this now-stub or to it as proposed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC) In its current state, I think what's listed here isn't enough to have a separate article and could be moved to the main article. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC) HEY . / Julle ( talk ) 00:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC) HEY , but given its lightness, might be better served as a topic on Tachyon MiniMayor98 ( talk ) 14:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do we need a separate ""in Fiction"" article for a fictional particle? Ben Azura ( talk ) 21:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC) I'd say there is difference in nature between a scientific hypothesis and a piece of fiction like Unobtainium . Daranios ( talk ) 10:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Good point, I change my vote to based on the cleanup work done during AfD and Piotrus withdrawing the nomination. Ben Azura ( talk ) 10:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"All India Muslim Personal Law Board (Jaded): I also tried for looking online sources in Urdu language but failed to find any. There are some good mentions I am able to see through Google Book but this organisation lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable source that discuss it and its works. Since this is an offshoot of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board , I suggest a to that article. Opinions please? ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India . ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Maybe merging is a good idea, if for no other reason, to get consistency on the name spelling. The article mentions ""Jadeed"", as does the article it would be moved to. However, take note that the title of this page spells it ""Jaded"". — Maile ( talk ) 20:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Maile66 , yep, I suppose that is an inadvertent error, the article could be moved to a correct spelling, ""Jadid"" or ""Jadeed"" both of which are used in sources. This is to make sure correct name s to AIMPLB where it would be d. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is another organisation, it cannot be d. Some articles names it “Jadeed” and some names it “Jaded”. You can move it to correct spelling but not to AIMPLB, if you’ll do like this then you should Shia Personal Law Board too. Thanks | Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi ( talk ) 10:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC) | [ reply ] The organisation being independent of AIMPLB is not the topic of this discussion but whether it is a notable one to be included ob Wikipedia, is what we are talking about. I do not find enough WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources that could help, and that made me suggest an alternative to deletion ( WP:ATD ) of having some information mentioned on the AIMPLB article about the split and creation of this separate board. I haven't had enough time to go through resources about Shia Personal Law Board. If you feel it doesn't merit an article subject to notability guidelines, you are free to bring it on AfD but this discussion is not about that article. This is about ""All India Muslim Personal Law Board (Jadeed/variants)"", whether it is notable or not. I don't see any indications of this being a notable organisation per WP:NORG . ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Let more users to comment here. —- | Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi ( talk ) 17:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC) | [ reply ] All India Muslim Personal Law Board and All India Muslim Personal Law Board Jaded both are different. Indian Muslim clerics opposed the All India Muslim Personal Law Board for working for the RSS, then through a meeting another Muslim Personal Law Board (Jadid) was formed by cleric of sunni barelvi muslim. Wikischolarrr ( talk ) 05:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is many significant sources available on Google please find in hindi. (ऑल इंडिया मुस्लिम पर्सनल लॉ बोर्ड जदीद) https://www.abplive.com/news/states/those-who-reject-sharai-law-islam-will-not-accept-them-913254 Wikischolarrr ( talk ) 05:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No reliable sources discuss All India Muslim Personal Law Board (Jadeed) significantly. It does have some routine coverage but that does not satisfy notability. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is Indian news not a reliable source? Wikischolarrr ( talk ) 07:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per @ Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi and @ Wikischolarrr . Both seem to be different organisations with different ideologies. Okoslavia ( talk ) 04:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is seriously not a question here. This organisation is not notable per whatever is available on Internet about it. It fails WP:NORG / WP:GNG so it is not notable enough to have a standalone article. Merge/Redirect to the originisation from where it took birth is just as WP:ATD and not something that says both the organisations are one. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This organisation is not notable per whatever is available on Internet about it ? really ? This policy is very new to me! Okoslavia ( talk ) 05:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC) BEFORE , you can provide if there is anything significant available to you elsewhere. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is the random AFD I come across alongwith dozens of afds I have participated. @ Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi @ Wikischolarrr You both seem to be familiar with the subject per your contribs, you can also cite offline sources if there any along with the decent source (abp live) which you have presented here at AFD. I am sure to say, there is no policy of Wikipedia which says that sources should be available on internet to make subject notable . Parting. Okoslavia ( talk ) 05:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also @ Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi and @ Wikischolarrr you might want to specify your votes by amending it as , or . This may help the discussion closer. Not sure though. Okoslavia ( talk ) 05:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is this source from The Milli Gazette a passing mention? Okoslavia ( talk ) 14:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also see Jones, Justin (2010). "" 'Signs of churning': Muslim Personal Law and public contestation in twenty-first century India"" . Modern Asian Studies . 44 (1): 175–200. doi : 10.1017/S0026749X09990114 . ISSN 1469-8099 . Okoslavia ( talk ) 14:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Okoslavia , could you please be specific and tell how ""significant"" the fewer sentences in these two sources are? From MG, What came as a surprise was that not even a cursory note was taken of the creation of a new “board” called the “All India Muslim Personal Law Board (Jadeed)” founded on 10 December 2004 by one of the progenies of the founder of Barelvi sect, Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, on the plea that his sect was not properly represented on the old board is seriously not something I would call very much significant but it is okay & helpful (if we add to to other significant sources). The CUP source I am getting mentions just In November 2004,Tauqeer Reza Khan of the Barelvi school of Sunni Islam deserted the AIMPLB to establish a separate and somewhat make shift organisation known as the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (Jadid), representing a partial split from the original AIMPLB of one of the largest subdivisions with Indian Sunni Islam ; and this is seriously not very detailed coverage. If you think mere two sentences about an organisation's split from another organisation and its establishment is worth, then I believe, a plenty of organisations would meet this criteria. I would at the least be happy with at least one paragraph in any reliable source that significantly discusses the works/history of any organisations. The two provided do not go beyond the ""establishment and split"", and hence my suggestion that this could be mentioned in a good detail on AIMPLB article. Please let me know if I missed anything. I would be happy to re-consider my thoughts. I am a human at all. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TheAafi is just making excuses because he belongs to Deobandi sect of Islam, He is here to this article and they don’t want Barelvi Muslims to progress on Internet and Wikipedia. The article passes WP:NORG do not excuse. We’ll fight with our Aqeedah but not on internet. The Subject is notable enough, it has great coverage you’re continuously saying not notable, what’s this? You’re not new to the policies. Don’t Do like this. I hope you’ll understand and stop making excuses. The subject is notable. ا—-• Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi ( talk ) 17:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC) •—ا [ reply ] @ Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi , you shouldn't be commenting on someone's personal inclination and I would call this a violation of UCOC . (Please avoid this in future). I have myself written/improved articles such as Yaseen Akhtar Misbahi (a Barelwi scholar) and got it on the mainpage. AfD's aren't sectarian debates but discussions about a certain subject's notability. You can help find resources and establish why and how the subject passes WP:GNG / WP:NORG . Don't bring anything else into this debate. Just present WP:THREE best resources that significantly discuss this organisation (offline/online) and for now we have just had one (Milli Gazette and Cambridge). I am counting this one because they talk exactly about the same thing. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi Please see IDL . And @ TheAafi you are really missing the whole para in The Milli Gazette source which says, What came as a surprise was that not even a cursory note was taken of the creation of a new “board” called the “All India Muslim Personal Law Board (Jadeed)” founded on 10 December 2004 by one of the progenies of the founder of Barelvi sect, Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, on the plea that his sect was not properly represented on the old board. There is news in the air that Shias too are in the process of forming their own board for similar reasons. The Barelvi board is said to be part of a Congress effort to split Muslims. Maulana Tauqeer is an active Congressman and close to the Congress MP, Maulana Ubaidullah Azmi. Reportedly the previous BJP government too toyed with the idea and contacted a number of ulama for the purpose. You might want to see trivial mention where Wikipedia provided us the clear guidelines with example to understand what passing mention is. Also please review BLUDGEONING . It wastes more Wikipedia resources. You are also missing other coverage in Jones 2010. Please make sure Three is not the Wikipedia policy but an essay by an admin. Okoslavia ( talk ) 17:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Okoslavia , Thank you. I am not BLUDGEONING but just asking for what I could have missed and how the organisation is notable. Thanks for bringing more from MG. I am aware that Three is an essay but ""even two resources are multiple"" and if a subject has enough coverage in just two resources I am personally of the view that such a subject is notable. As you have quoted MG above, I believe this one is a significant source, but there should be some more. Are there any sources beyond routine coverage? The Cambridge Resource has three lines that I have quoted above (and I am still agreeing to consider it as a potential helper) but it is not detailed. Please let me know what is missed. I would be happy to withdraw the nomination, if provided with how this organisations satisfies notability. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TheAafi you can check this Gupta, Akhil; Sivaramakrishnan, Kalyanakrishnan (2010-10-04). The State in India After Liberalization: Interdisciplinary Perspectives . Routledge . ISBN 978-1-136-93720-0 . Beyond what trivial mention says. Hope this helps. Okoslavia ( talk ) 18:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Tschalaer, Mengia Hong (2017-07-04). Muslim Women's Quest for Gender Justice . Cambridge University Press . ISBN 978-1-107-15577-0 . Fantastic example of significant coverage. Okoslavia ( talk ) 19:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Okoslavia , Thank you. I am not able to find anything but a passing mention (like it split and was created in 2004) in Akhil 2010 but Tschalaer is better and significant (imo), and I myself found a few sentences on this from German scholar Mathias Rohe in slamic Law in Past and Present which I have updated in the article. Now that we have some credible sources discussion's this organisation's split from AIMPLB and creation, we have exactly very few resources that talk about any other aspects of it, except what I could get from Siasat on the Tasleema Nasreen case. I believe there should be more, but I am relieved, and I view this is close to borderline notability. Let's see how other uninvolved editors weigh in on this. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Kattankudy Central College: PROD declined in 2012 but guideline changed in 2017, see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES . Web search only brings up Facebook & other social media. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Sri Lanka . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ● Comment- Ok so i found this , it is most definitely significant coverage but the problem is it is a blog which makes it unreliable and most likely a primary source. If this much can be written there must be reliable sources out there somewhere, the problem is finding them. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 16:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also Found this which I believe shows that the college is notable. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 18:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Found this too. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 18:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Found this . 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 18:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ●Keep- I got 3 results from Google Books, 4 direct mentions in Google Scholar, 2 results from Google News, & 4 reliable Results from a basic Google Search. Due to this school opening in Jan 1930 most news article about this school are going to be found offline. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 18:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 02:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"All-woman Israeli tank crew fight (2023): Makeandtoss ( talk ) 10:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC) as not only an entirely non event, but also merely a public relations talking point for one side of a conflict and an instance of extreme POV/whitewashing. Unencyclopedic nonsense. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 10:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC) as also explained on talk page it is from one sided viewpoint without neutral sources. Shadow4dark ( talk ) 10:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The point that whoever attempted to commit acts of terror, failed and then didn't comment on it has nothing to do here. Almost none of the articles on terrorist attacks has opinion of whoever commit acts of terror . With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 12:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC) This deletion proposal is unusually weak in policy-based reasoning and fails to perform even a minimal Google search to find significant, independent and secondary sources that establish notability before nominating this article for deletion. I found these in less than 2 minutes. Even 2 or 3 of these are enough to meet the notability requirements for news events. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Furthermore, the event has enduring historical significance, as it was one of the first-ever female tank crews to engage in active combat, proving women's capability to match men in battle. Marokwitz ( talk ) 12:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, there's some news coverage on the tank crew as part of the extremely localised news cycle in Israel, yes. It's unclear how that fragment of local news coverage suddenly makes a random skirmish by an individual tank crew a notable event. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT , particularly WP:EFFECT and WP:GEOSCOPE , as well as WP:NOTNEWS . Iskandar323 ( talk ) 12:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not true. Australia is not part of Israel . Belarus is not part of Israel . And etc. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 12:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Belarusian news is scraping the barrel a bit isn't it? But yeah, I'm sure there's some other coverage. But the question is of what? The Australian piece, as part of its analysis, notes that the spun story is part PR operation. But the topic here isn't shameless PR operations by the IDF, which certainly is a notable topic; it's the claim that some random firefight is individually notable. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 13:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC) GEOSCOPE and I also didn't see this about your argument regarding the Australian piece. However I do see sources that state that the event was notable as well as unique in history, that it's a first ever female tankers fight. Regarding WP:NOTNEWS it's clearly seen that the first information with analysis came up a few month after the actual event which at least means it was not an impulsive news. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 13:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I mean, the ""first female tank crew"" fight part is just bollocks in the first place. There were plenty of female tanks crews in Russia as far back as WWII , so the claim to fame is ahistorical nonsense. China also has such crews. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 14:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are missing the point here. There were female tankers before. No one denied it. However. First, it's ""all-women tank crew"" and even your own source says it about Israel as well and not Russian or China. Second, such crew engaged in active fight and won. Third, if needed, in the Middle East. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 14:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC) This article states, ""Russia unveiled its first-ever female tank crew in the 2019 Army Games hosted for international armies."" It does not mention that an ""all-female tank crew"" was ever deployed in battle. Did you even read this source? Marokwitz ( talk ) 14:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The point remains that female tank crews of various nationalities have existed for years, including in Syria's 800-strong female battalion (also promoted for propaganda reasons). Iskandar323 ( talk ) 17:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, we did mention before that such formations were present. But were they also the first ever female tank crews in the West to engage in active combat, lasting for 17 hours? With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) I'm not sure when Israel became definitively ""the West"" ... They're in the Eurovision song contest, sure, but ... Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A mix of feminism, a public relations war over the treatment of women, and Belarusian news sounds like great ingredients for a notable topic. Marokwitz ( talk ) 14:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pseudo-feminism. If the IDF had real feminism, its senior commanders might have listened to the female observers who reported Palestinian militants training to breach the wall. But regardless, feminist PR whitewashing remains a separate topic from the actual battle that is ostensibly the topic here ... the main claim to fame of which is an ahistorical and false one. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 14:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It looks like someone might have run out of arguments and is trying to add to this discussion a point that is entirely unrealed to current discussion as well as based on Wikipeda editor's own opinion which was not covered by a reliable sources in relationship to the topic of the discussed article. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 14:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] indeed. JM ( talk ) 11:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC) IDONTLIKEIT ? Marokwitz ( talk ) 14:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC) EVENTCRIT , WP:NOTNEWS Iskandar323 ( talk ) 15:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again . The event was covered a month and a half after it has happened. And all of the events with the current war can be d with the same argument of those two rules. But they are not d. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 15:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC) LASTING . Iskandar323 ( talk ) 16:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not one analysis piece and it's not a few weeks later. And it's the same as other current war articles. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 16:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Belarusian news is scraping the barrel a bit isn't it? What do you mean by this? Zanahary ( talk ) 03:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A google search proves what uou just referenced, five Israeli sources (not independent of the subject) and two mediocre sources. There is no significant coverage by RS for this topic. Makeandtoss ( talk ) 14:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would you mind to clarify if The New York Sun is mediocre or Israeli source? With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) Seems like both. The New York Sun is owned by Algemeiner, an Israel-related newspaper. It is also here categorized as a tabloid. [18] Please sign at the end using ~~~~. And how does it fit to your original number of 5+2 and no more? I have easily shown that it's already 6+3 (if we count it as both). In addition, there are other sources mentioned in this discussion which increase the numbers. And other sources which were not yet mentioned. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 14:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC) On November 2, 2021, The New York Sun was acquired by Dovid Efune, former CEO and editor-in-chief of the Algemeiner Journal . From the article on the Algemeiner Journal: The Algemeiner Journal, known informally as The Algemeiner, is a newspaper based in New York City that covers American and international Jewish and Israel-related news. It is widely read by Hasidic Jews. I don't think ""This newspaper is owned by a person who used to run a Jewish newspaper and Jews are related to Israel"" is a valid reason for disqualifying a source. JM ( talk ) 11:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC) NEVENT requires enduring notability beyond the recent news cycle, which you've failed to demonstrate. Furthermore, we can make up thousands of ""first"" like this, it doesn't mean every single one of them has enduring historical significance. Chaotıċ Enby ( t · c ) 02:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC) The subject is notable as this was the "" first ever female tank crews in the West to engage in active combat, which lasted 17 hours "" as well as "" this was most likely the first time in history that a female armored unit participated in a war "". It's obvious that The Australian Financial Review is not Israeli source, is reliable and is independent. Haarets is also reliable. As well as others. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 12:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per above, no and no. Russia had female tank crews in WWII - so no, Israeli media has made up a claim to fame without having first googled the claim. Pretty pathetic journalism. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 14:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Russia did not have all-female tank crews in WWII , which is what this article is about. Marokwitz ( talk ) 15:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Uganda did seven years ago , and it graduated 27 female tank personnel and 5 commanders this year. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 16:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Quora.com?! C'mom... Facepalm ... Once you make it a relable source like we can come back to it. Or when you make The Daily Mail the reliable source. And where in the second source it says that all-female tank crew was engaged in a battle? Have you read what was written? With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 16:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My response to that is below; this response was to Marokwitz's point, not yours. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 16:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You understood what I was talking about. All-female tank crews that participated in combat. Marokwitz ( talk ) 18:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You do not seem to read what was written. Sources state that it was a first all female tanker crew that was engaged in active fight in Middle East and won. You haven't shown the counter argument to it. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 15:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So it's three caveats now is it? Female tank crew, Middle East and claim of victory against infantry? ... that's getting mighty specific. But beyond the bluster, Syria also had female tank crews that beat back rebels in 2015 . Iskandar323 ( talk ) 15:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, not three. Just one straight point without any caveats. Please read what was written above. And please read what experts have mentioned on it. If needed I can read for you. And I already read. And even if there are 10 caveats if others in reliable sauces believe that it's unique then it's unique. Even if a Wikipedia editor doesn't like it. And please do not cite unreliable sources. The Daily Mail is not a reliable source. You may check it here: WP:DAILYMAIL . With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 15:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're quite welcome to Google your own examples of non-uniqueness, including those in Syria. Obviously the daily mail didn't make up a military entity, and you can certainly Google that yourself. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 16:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems you do not read what is written to you which makes the conversation harder, and now you send others to Google after you have failed to provide any data from there... With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 16:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can read just fine thank you, but if you'd like to asserting otherwise, we can solve this as hominem behavioural issue on your part at ANI. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 16:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then we should be clear on the arguments which were mentioned. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 16:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC) BOOMERANG JM ( talk ) 11:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per all -sayers above. Coverage is international. Haaretz is Israel's newspaper of record . No problem with a debate on widening the scope to the role of women combattants in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war . gidonb ( talk ) 13:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Women in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and Women in the Israel Defense Forces are already extant articles, so there are plenty of potential pages were a neutral and encyclopedic write up of something related to this could live. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 14:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure why now you are trying to limit pages to cover Israel events. Have you seen the size of the article? It makes sence to have a separate article since it has separate notability and sufficient size. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 14:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure what you mean. The first link is general; the second Israel-specific. On length: maybe the topic is just inflated and overwritten. The real art of editing is one of concision and brevity. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 14:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As an argument to try to this article you have mentioned ""there are plenty of potential pages were a neutral and encyclopedic write up of something related to this could live"". If it doesn't mean that you want to cover the current article on another page and use it as an excuse to this please explain what you have meant. Now you are trying to say that topic is allegedly inflated and I say that it's not. It's one wikipedia editor's opinion against another. All the content from the topic is from reliable sources. And even if the article was twice smaller we still have such article as independent from the other broader topics as it clearly shows separate notability. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 14:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC) NEVENT . Iskandar323 ( talk ) 16:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC) NEVENT . With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 16:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Iskandar323 , perfect! And this is a fine WP:SPINOFF . Then all is set to as is. Thank you. The alternative would be to have an article about this tank crew and on other women combattants in this war, i.e. a rename and widening of scope. That falls outside the AfD debate yet can be debated on the talk page. gidonb ( talk ) 15:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - not news, this is trivial material that will need sustained coverage to merit an article for an event. nableezy - 16:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What is not news and what is trivial? If you came here because of this and this and then clicked on my input please first check what was disused in this conversation above. TLDR: All of the articles about current war are not news, but they are not d; this topic had articles published more than 1.5 month after the event occurred so it was not just an immediate news; it covers the first ever all-female tankers fight after WW2 so not trivial. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 16:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC) BLUDGEON . You have made 32 edits to this page and are responsible for close to half its content. We know you want to the article. You can stop badgering people who disagree with you. nableezy - 17:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the link. What I am trying to understand is how my comments in your view are different from my colleague Iskandar323 other than my active participation in the creation of the article. And your count is not quite correct (we do not count fixing typos). I did 20 comments while Iskandar323 did 17 which is pretty similar. But now I'll step out and let others to comment as my point of view should be pretty clear now. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 17:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You have 32 edits (now 33) for about 10 kB of text, he has 17 for 5.5 kB of text. He should stop engaging as well though. nableezy - 17:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Events , and Military . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC) WP:ATD can be a to Women in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war . Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC) 32, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Major points is notability as well as first-timeness as well as uniquness. Homerethegreat ( talk ) 08:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Women in the Israel Defense Forces#Combat roles . As a standalone article, this fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG in general. It lacks any hint of lasting WP:EFFECT , sources lack WP:DEPTH , and the entire thing lacks WP:PERSISTENCE . It might have qualified as a nine-day wonder if the coverage has lasted another six days. This article appears to be an attempt to give the illusion of significance to a political stunt. Per NEVENT, political news, ""shock"" news, stories lacking lasting value such as ""water cooler stories"" and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable (emphasis in original). The just is no legitimate way to spin this into something worthy of an encyclopaedic article. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 13:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Marokwitz . Eladkarmel ( talk ) 14:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not in encyclopedic domain, would make an excellent documentary but do not see any reason currently as to why this should be precisely on Wikipedia. Pg 6475 TM 23:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment agree with @ Curbon7 's suggestion. Pg 6475 TM 23:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Marokwitz. \\ Loksmythe // ( talk ) 13:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Holit massacre . Holit massacre is currently a stub, and this is presumably a subpage despite being even longer than the parent article. Parts of it may also have to be rewritten so that it doesn't read like an advert , i.e. not taking the IDF's claims about this being ""the first XYZ"" at face value. XTheBedrockX ( talk ) 18:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as a notable topic, especially since it was composed of all-woman fighters. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 00:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC) NEVENT and being pretty one-sided propaganda. Chaotıċ Enby ( t · c ) 02:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . That was one of the most famous episodes during the attack by Hamas on Israel, and this is reflected in sources. Moreover, this is a unique case in the history of warfare. They made a history [19] , [20] My very best wishes ( talk ) 04:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to clarify, women served as tankers in many armies, even though this is usually an exception. For example, Aleksandra Samusenko was the only female tanker in the Soviet 1st Guards Tank Army, as our page says. However, I do not know any other episodes with an all-women tank crew , which would be as highly publicized as that one . My very best wishes ( talk ) 20:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC) SUSTAINED as I could find no evidence that this was picked up nationally. Also seems notable that major international news sources like the BBC and New York Times did not feature this event. Esolo5002 ( talk ) 07:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per various arguments above. JM ( talk ) 12:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC) War propaganda, with nothing for notability. As other comments have explained, this is not the first group of this type, making this not terribly notable. Could be a brief sentence or two in an article about the war, nothing much else to be said. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Meets GNG and therefore doesn't need to pass any SNG, however the sources clearly show this meets SNG as well (WP:GEOSCOPE and LASTING). votes are just IDONTLIKEIT that ignores GNG. Source eval: About the unit: [21] , [22] , [] About their role in the battle: [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] Stopped at listing 10 sources, but there are more. The only arguement for deleting this is IDONTLIKEIT. The event has lasting historical significance, as it was one of the first-ever female tank crews to engage in active combat, the above sources indicate this clearly. The international level of coverage demonstrates this further. // Timothy :: talk 18:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed, I checked sources through Google, but found no any other notable (widely publicized) examples of all-female tank crews involved in active combat. My very best wishes ( talk ) 00:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC) per reasons given by Makeandtoss. Mr. User200 ( talk ) 01:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] passes GNG. AryKun ( talk ) 14:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - This had international coverage and is likely to be a precedent internationally. Dovidroth ( talk ) 12:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC) 38, 21 December 2023 (UTC) Move or rename it into ""Battle of Holit"". - UtoD 13:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems that the fight has occur somewhere between Holit and Sufa, not just in Holit. The expression ""Battle of Holit"" does not appear often, but when it does [30] , it refers to Holit massacre , which is a different event. My very best wishes ( talk ) 23:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC) already covered at Women in the Israel Defense Forces#All-woman Israeli tank crew fight (2023) . (See also Holit massacre and Women in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war .) We need to be more critical of IDF claims about vague ""firsts"" (more generally, many claimed global firsts are repeatedly uncritical by press but are untrue). If the article is to stay, not much of its content could, such as the propaganda blockquotes, blow-by-blow descriptions of a minor fight or non-information like ""Their last names have not been disclosed for privacy related security reasons"". — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One journalist dug out, in connection to this fight, that there was only one all-women tank crew in Soviet forces during WWII (they were killed in combat in 1944), and surprisingly, at least one crew in Donetsk People's Republic . But very little is known about them. That was on YouTube, with photos [31] . I think each of these unique tank crews would deserve a separate page if they had a significant coverage in RS, but only this page under discussion has such coverage. My very best wishes ( talk ) 03:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So this article should say what—""despite IDF claims that it was the first instance, at least two others are known""? Or we have to spell out the heavy lifting done by ""in the West"" within the claim? How can we write an article where notability is based on a widely repeated claim that is dubious or requires significant contextualisation missing from almost all sources? — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC) V . We have many RS on the subject of this page. Hence, we use them. And, as usual, we just ignore everything that was not published in RS. I doubt that the YouTube record I cited is a great RS; it might be used, but it just as easily can be ignored. My very best wishes ( talk ) 18:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Generally reliable publications can be unreliable for particular facts in context. Here the specific articles are perfectly reliable to claim that the IDF's propaganda during warfare stated X. They are not reliable for a very bold historical claim about something being the ""first"" (which you have cast significant doubt on), whereas a modern war historian may be. An article can't be built on just military propaganda (if we have independent reactions to that propaganda or, after the war, a historical source about the role and context of the propaganda then it's a bit different). — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The YouTube presentation above is consistent with claims currently on this page, it just adds a few details. The page (and the cited source) says: ""The young women were the first ever female tank crews in the West to engage in active combat lasting for 17 hours"". I do not know why the source classified them as ""West/Western"" (rather than ""East""), but Russia and DNR are definitely not the ""West"". I agree this East-West thing is subjective, but again if there are other RS about all-women tank crews, one can bring them to this page, no one will object. This is how WP suppose to work. No RS - no content. Note that Haaretz and other sources used on the page are RS. My very best wishes ( talk ) 17:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So, I would certainly include the info about other all-women tank crews to this page, but I can not find it reliably sourced. The Youtube record probably is not good enough, although I have nothing against including it since it was produced by a well known independent journalist. My very best wishes ( talk ) 16:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC) All-woman Israeli tank crew fight (2023)#Nominating this article for deletion , appears to be still ongoing. Also the target Holit massacre , mentioned in both discussions, has also been nominated for deletion. Thincat ( talk ) 20:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per MVBW. Andre 🚐 21:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC) 57, 26 December 2023 (UTC) ""Composed of young women in their early 20s, the tank crews were the first Western women armored soldiers to go into active battle, according to the IDF."" And so on. -- K.e.coffman ( talk ) 20:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 00:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: At the moment I'm not seeing a consensus here. It would be helpful to have additional input on whether the information here needs a standalone article (as opposed to being incorporated elsewhere) and whether the sources being presented are genuinely independent (several arguments state they are not). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde ( Talk ) 13:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC) Feminism and tank warfare in Israel , A. Patrick for The Australian Financial Review , Nov 27, 2023), quote: ""It was probably the first time an all-female armoured sub-unit has fought in a war, according to Neil James, executive director of the Australia Defence Association , a pro-military lobby group."" Not Israeli, not Jewish, not US, critical (""PR operation"", other armies more integrated & less mysoginistic than IDF), but not denying the facts. Last not least, 100% of the """" and """" supporters are of the involved I/P type; waiting for a cool-off seems the more so necessary. The war & its effects won't take a turn based on this. Arminden ( talk ) 00:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC) This is notable enough to be kept. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 10:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC) GEOSCOPE and WP:INDEPTH . It's too soon to tell WP:LASTING ; no prejudice to re-nom'ing some years down the road if LASTING isn't met. Merging to the Women in IDF article would overwhelm that article. Doesn't matter if they were actually the first at anything or if they're used for propaganda by their gov't or what they did in any battle... just matters that we have two independent international in depth sources covering them, and it's too soon to tell WP:LASTING. Levivich ( talk ) 19:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Game Over (2013 film): I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 6 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 05:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV - every source seems to be minor mention, part of an itinerary or list without any discussion. Wizmut ( talk ) 06:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The film was screened at least in 37 film festivals in 2013 (and at least 14 times in 2014 and 2015) and then at least screened at the Bay Area festival in 2019 . So WP:NFILM's following criterion is met: ""The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release."" And I'm sorry but why say it's ""not important for"" this filmmaker or Iranian cinema? - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC) ( N.B. - Not opposed to a to the page about the director but cannot see why we ought to; absolutely opposed to deletion; renaming Game Over (short film) might also be a good idea). [ reply ] Thank you for your reply. Regarding the deletion purpose, the film was an average success for a young filmmaker at the time, based on the grade of festivals that the film had screened at, and the film had no significant achievements, neither artistic nor conceptually, for the filmmaker in comparison to his debut and also two last films. I want to delet this page in order to put the focus on the most successful films of the director. Backlashblues1976 ( talk ) 13:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. I cannot see how the existence of this page could hinder your effort in improving the pages about other films by the same filmmaker. You don't have to edit it but that's not a reason to have it d. if your point is that more attention should be given by readers to other of his films, that's also not a reason for deletion at all. It's less notable and certainly less covered in media than other films by the same director, fair, but again, that is not a reason for deletion. It meets at least one criterion for notability of films on Wikipedia. If a is decided, part of the article should be d into the director's page, but deletion does not seem suitable. Best, - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC) Where are the 1st and 2nd Afds?? - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I submitted the page for deletion, 2 days ago via PROD. The same day, user [GB fan] rejected the submission for the following reason: ""remove PROD, was previously PROD'd in edit at 21:23, 13 September 2013‎‎‎‎‎‎‎, was later removed, must go to WP:AFD"" So, I have followed the description and resubmitted my deletion proposal for the 3rd time. Backlashblues1976 ( talk ) 13:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the reply. PROD and Afds are 2 different processes, this is the 1st Afd. Anyway, let's wait until this is over (and maybe the page should be renamed then, unless someone does it before that). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Comics and animation , and Iran . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC) Backlashblues1976, you created this article in 2013. Why do you want to it now? Toughpigs ( talk ) 22:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, I see. Backlashblues1976 is the director, Seyed Mohsen Pourmohseni Shakib . Here's the diff where they admitted to that. Backlashblues1976 created a page about themselves a month ago, and now they want to the pages they created about their own student films, White Paper and Game Over . Toughpigs ( talk ) 23:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This is rather odd, I get a bit of an impression that this is a case of an artist not being happy with their early work and wanting to forget about it, not sure if that is a good reason for deletion. ★Trekker ( talk ) 22:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree. I think that is not a good reason for that. Due to that and My oh My's sources, which show that the film is notable as it meets WP:NFILM, I am ! voting . DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 22:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] into Seyed Mohsen Pourmohseni Shakib . As with White Paper (film) , nearly all of the sources available for this are guides for shorts programs in which the film has screened. When it comes to coverage of the film itself, there's not enough to require a separate article. hinnk ( talk ) 20:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Additional discussion of the available sources would be very helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as suggested to the Shakib article seems sensible. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC) COIN#Seyed Mohsen Pourmohseni Shakib ). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 22:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , per Mushy Yank. As to "" I want to delet this page in order to put the focus on the most successful films of the director"", we don't articles in order to assist the subject's promotional campaign. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 22:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: or ? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLA tlak 07:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Dead Guitars: Boleyn ( talk ) 11:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC) the German Wikipedia article contains 11 references. Left guide ( talk ) 23:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The German article cites Rheinische Post and Weser Kurier multiple times, which are IMO reliable sources, and the coverage is decent and specific to the band. Cortador ( talk ) 16:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Ruslan Shostak Charitable Foundation: 19 pick ups bought for the army is circulating in the news, but it's not about notability. possible promotion of the Ruslan Shostak persona as the author is the same for both pages DreamlarT ( talk ) 12:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Ukraine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ruslan Shostak is a notable businessman, the founder of huge national retail chains. The charitable foundation he founded, in particular, after the start of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, organized the evacuation of almost 2,000 orphans from Ukraine for a temporary stay in Turkey. There are more than enough neutral and reliable sources about both Ruslan Shostak and Ruslan Shostak Charitable Foundation, especially in Cyrillic. -- Perohanych ( talk ) 18:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC) 23, 4 November 2023 (UTC) Mill or WPREFBOMB won't halpe much, as the majority of the citations come from news releases wich fails WP:RS. Furthermore, the article reads more like a promotional piece rather than an objective encyclopedia entry. NiftyyyNofteeeee ( talk ) 13:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC) 11, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I translated 3 of the listed articles and they are substantial articles about the work of the organization. I cannot comment on the reliability of the publications themselves. I admit that I find it awkward to have an English Wikipedia article without a single English language reference. I would not object to a future Afd (maybe some years) if this organization is never covered in non-Ukrainian sources. I am assuming that there is an entry in the UA Wikipedia, but am not able to check that. Lamona ( talk ) 22:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would help if any of these translated sources (or a summary of their content) was brought into this discussion or added to the article. Right now, there have been no changes to the article since it was nominated so that's what editors are judging it on. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as and into Ruslan Shostak . Both articles are on the shorter side and given the amount of content that'll probably be removed when both articles undergo rewriting (especially Shostak's article), it'll be best for the two to be d so they don't each become stubs. Imo, I think this article would work great as its own section in Shostak's article, granted its rewritten and trimmed (it would also help give context for why he got a top state civil award, which the current BLP fails to answer). Cheers, Dan the Animator 06:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Wang Qingyun: PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , and China . Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 12:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Singham Again: Fails WP:NFILM . Classic example of notability based on announcements and press releases. Announced in 2017, official title in 2022, filming began in September 2023 and an announcement of release for August 2024. References show it is filming but nothing showing it is substantially complete and per NFILM, we have seen many films delayed so nothing to tell this is actually going to be released in August. Many references are unreliable or churnalism so fails WP:GNG as well. Would recommend draftify but previous film related draftified articles are simply moved back to mainspace shortly thereafter and we wind up right back here so not sure if it is an acceptable WP:ATD . CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India . CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or Draftify . This is another case of a movie article created way ahead of undecided release date and not even reached post-production stage. Too early to have an article in namespace. RangersRus ( talk ) 03:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or to Cop Universe as film is still under production and a part of that franchise that is still not covered under post-production. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 18:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - as per nomination. Krishna Dahal ( talk ) 04:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - deleting/draftifying major Indian films such as this only gives ammunition to socks to create more of a mess, as we've seen countless times before. The film is currently filming, just like major Hollywood films as Venom 3 or MI:8 (both of which were also delayed many times). The article, of course, can be improved with better referencing so tags should stay. Krimuk2.0 ( talk ) 09:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the comparisons. Of course, on a cursory glance those appear to meet WP:GNG while this film does not. Also, why would we reward socks by ing pages that do not yet meet guidelines. This one likely will, but falls within WP:TOOSOON . -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC) 13, 19 January 2024 (UTC) The article is well sourced and meets WP:NFF since the filming section is comprehensive. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC) 07, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Times of India is not completely non-RS, it can be used for general, non-contentious info like entertainment. See WP:TOI . Kailash29792 (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , or in worst case scenario draftify it. Personally I see no reason for deleting, because it is well-sourced regardless of whether it is a 'big movie' or not. Yes, it could be delayed again, but some other major productions around the world get delayed as well; that alone is not ground for deleting. And as another user pointed out, given that there are some well-known Indian actors among the cast, deleting it could potentially create an opportunity for socks/system abusers to recreate the article again and again, albeit with much less quality. Keivan.f Talk 18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] based on preponement. This is a major/popular Indian film not sure why it was d. DareshMohan ( talk ) 07:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Given the scale of the film and it's coverage an article is appropriate at this time. Sure it could be ed/d to Cop Universe , but once principal photography has begun and is covered in reliable sources, there really isn't any pressing reason to do so. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 01:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While numerically there appears to be a majority for "" here, a number of the opinions express arguments which aren't particularly strong in policy. A couple also suggest draft or / as alternatives. Relisting to establish a clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 09:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC) until more solid news is released, I can't see much now that warrants ing it in mainspace. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] for reasons already given above. It's not just announced as being in development, it's actually actively filming with a set release date later this year. Even if it ends up getting pushed back, that is not a reason to the page. Plenty of other forthcoming films have pages prior to release. As it stands, this page already has a substantial section detailing the production with plenty of sources. There is no reason to it. Happy Evil Dude ( talk ) 01:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC) NFILM . Or it should be moved to Draft for its improvement. Macbeejack ☎ 08:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Very comprehensive and insightful. Your comments are indeed appreciated. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Mohamed Ashmalee: Generally, ministers (and subordinates) there are not presumed notable. Otherwise, independent sources lack in-depth coverage on which to base an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 03:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , and Maldives . JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 03:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC) Cabinet ministers are generally presumed notable via WP:NPOL as national officeholder; is this ministerial position a cabinet position or is it a civil service one? Curbon7 ( talk ) 04:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Looks to be civil service (appointed bureaucrat, no mention of cabinet or the like). A presumption of notability does not apply here per the subnational politicians country listing for the Maldives. JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 15:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Gerardo J. Meléndez-Torres: The sources cited are either primary or press-releases. The two scholarships mentioned in the text are similar to other postgrad scholarship like Fulbright scholarship or Chevening Scholarships , and they are not notable FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 14:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 14:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [36] 8,000 citations, h-index of 40. Curbon7 ( talk ) 17:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC) NPROF : The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources . . As with any other BLP, significant coverage from independent and reliable sources is key FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 21:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC) please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#General_notes and its relationship to WP policy before commenting on discussions about academics. Here, Google Scholar is the reliable and independent source that would indicate whether the subject passes WP:NPROF#1 or not. Also a quick analysis on GS shows that he is one of the top 50 most-cited scholars in his field which would clearly argue in favor of NPROF#1. -- hroest 20:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC) 59, 18 October 2023 (UTC) NPROF in detail. -- hroest 14:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think anyone who has played with changing these keywords knows that their rankings are easy to game, either deliberately or by happenstance, by (1) choosing a narrow subfield, (2) using a less-common variant of the name of the subfield, or (3) working in two fields with different levels of citation, having many citations in the higher-citation field, and listing the lower-citation field as another of your keywords. I don't think they mean much. That said, appearing on page 4 rather than page 1 is evidence that they were not trying to game the system. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Medicine , England , and Pennsylvania . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . A very large number of co-authors in a well cited and popular field. Not one single-author publication. Despite the large number of cites I am not sure that an outstanding reputation is established yet. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 05:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Comment , leaning . Agree it's a high citation field, and that all the publications are co-authored, but the GS profile still looks pretty healthy to me -- top citations 1012,643,299,296,294, plus four more >200 and ten more >100. Holds a personal chair. Also various fellowships listed here [38] might merit assessment. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 11:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC) I did a spot check for all of the refs, only 1 checks out and another that is primary. The fellowships listed in his own website: Fellow of the American Academy of Nursing: there is approximately 2,900 fellow and the fellowship is awarded per application and paid fees. Not sure if I would call it highly selective fellowships ( WP:NPROF ) Fellow of the Faculty of Public Health: this is the UK equivalent from the previous fellowship. Same fees and application cycle and for what is worth I could not verify any of the fellowships so I stopped. Not to reiterate my previous point by I could not find any coverage about this person beyond what he wrote himself which I could not verify FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 18:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC) Overall very healthy citation record with 19 papers with 100+ citations, especially for such a junior researcher. I dont see an argument for NPROF per fellowship / awards as these are all early career or not very selective but I see an argument per WP:NPROF #1 based on the publication record. I agree with the overall assessment that many of these are collaborative but it is not up to Wikipedia to decide what merits being listed as a co-author and what his exact contribution was to each paper. -- hroest 20:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I dont see an argument for NPROF per fellowship / awards as these are all early career . Since we are talking about early career awards and fellowships in the UK, there are the Royal Society University Research Fellowship and Future Leaders Fellowships. These are actually prestigious and competitive fellowships. The NHS also awards different prestigious prizes. And if he is earlier carer and not yet well established then this is WP:TOOSOON I’m truly baffled by the current discussion where editors are basing their opinion on citations which are very low for this discipline (norm is in 100k), and fellows/awards that are only found in primary sources contradicting WP:BLPPRIMARY and self published sources FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 20:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you clarify where you got your statement norm is in 100k from (with regards for your expectation of the number of citation). While its a highly cited field I dont see any indication that this is the ""norm"". My point with regards to the awards is early career awards generally dont count towards NPROF even if they are highly selective. We are looking for awards that would be highly selective for fully established researchers. Finally, which editor based their vote in fellows/awards that are only found in primary sources - I cannot find a single one in the list of votes here? -- hroest 14:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . There are so many coauthors on his papers that I do not see evidence that the subject has made a significant contribution to the field by himself and he has not yet demonstrated independent achievement. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 01:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC) . And improve. His Department CV is far more impactful than this page, with two society fellow awards. I do not understand some of the comments about h-factors etc: His h-factor at 40 is very high and shows a major upwards trend, and a number of 38 since 2018 is notable. The number of co-authors is not relevant except for the 100 author groups. These comments are not appropriate IMHO. He was elected FAAN in 2020, one of 4 in the UK. This is notable, it is an American organization and getting elected internationally is way harder than within a country. He is a chaired Professor Ldm1954 ( talk ) 19:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the above editors' analyses of his publishing history. Not quite notable - TOOSOON. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - not sure what the argument is here. He's a full professor at the University of Exeter - which is in the Russell Group of the top research institutions in the UK. That alone appears to satisfy point 5 of NPROF. Add in the research impact, awards and membership of selective academic orgs, I think there is no doubt that NPROF is met. If he is not considered notable, the problem is with NPROF and not with whether he meets the criteria. JMWt ( talk ) 09:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Prof#C5 by itself. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 09:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC) . 16, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just being a professor is not one of the following conditions. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 09:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Criteria 5 says ""The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon."" This describes exactly the position of Full Professor at the University of Exeter. He's a named chair appointed Professor. JMWt ( talk ) 09:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A minor clarification -- Professor in the US and UK are different. In the US the ranks are Assistant, Associate, Professor, Chaired Professor. In the UK a Professor is equivalent to a US Chaired Professor. In his CV it states ""personal Chair"", which means that it has no specific name, but is a distinguished chair so does meet Criteria 5. (In the US Chairs always have names.) Ldm1954 ( talk ) 15:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sure you know, but in case anyone else is in any doubt, here is the link to the academic pathway for the University of Exeter [39] . Professor is the highest rank and is only given to those who meet the criteria of leadership and research quality. Which will be high for a UK Russell Group institution. JMWt ( talk ) 17:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . The cases for WP:PROF #C1 and #C5 have been much debated above, and are suggestive but to me not definitive. The society fellowships discussed above also do not appear to be enough for #C3. I think the UK Young Academy [40] (junior branch of Royal Society) is borderline for #C3 but much stronger than those two fellowships. It, together with the citation evidence (but not the dubious claims that full professorships at top UK universities are somehow better than full professorships at top US universities) pushes me to the side of the fence. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Ultraconservatism: Walt Yoder ( talk ) 00:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC) The article for ultraconservatism has been d so many times due to it being a . If it were to simply be a synonym for Far-right politics , can we have consensus that it should to that article? There have been plenty of users in the past who have argued that ultraconservative ≠ far-right, so this clarification is necessary. -- WMrapids ( talk ) 00:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC) it does not seem to be as clear-cut of a synonym as you propose it is. Sources in the article define ultraconservatism very clearly and do not make a case of it being just a synonym for the far-right. Willing to change vote if proven wrong with sources that make the assertion. – Vipz ( talk ) 01:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] After JPxG's observation, I'm leaning to ing to Conservatism#Authoritarian conservatism . Another suggested target article is Far-right politics , although I find the former more relevant (while also referring to the latter article as the Main one). – Vipz ( talk ) 12:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Agree with Vipz on the sources' definitons of ultraconservatism. HeartCat1 💬 📝 04:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per Vipz, the sources make a distiction between the far-right and ultraconservatives, and from a political point of view, a distinction can be made through their tolerance of moderates and social beliefs. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 09:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - ’Ultraconservatism’ is a term I find very useful, as it simply refers to an extreme form of conservatism. The term far-right is sometimes used to refer to very non-conservative groups such as revolutionary nazis or hardcore libertarians, making the relation to classical conservatism dubious. Trakking ( talk ) 21:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with Trakking. ""Far right"" can be anything extreme that is not Leftist, including Conservatism. Therefore, ""Ultraconservatism"" is a part of ""Far right"", not a synonym. Then, my opinion is: the article ""Ultraconservatism"" should be kept. Gondolabúrguer ( talk ) 16:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Sorry, I forgot to write it clearly. Gondolabúrguer ( talk ) 16:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC) The definition of ""ultraconservatism"" is very different from the sources used by WMrapids. Jason H. Gart's definition says ""Ultraconservatism, which combine(s) traditional anticommunist rhetoric with fresh acrimony toward civil rights legislation, welfare programs, organized labor, and taxation"" while, according to the New York Times, ""Huntington sees ultraconservatism as a broad part of the right-wing spectrum, encompassing fringe extremists, racists, violent reactionaries and those willing to moderate their views when and where necessary."", contrasting with his definition: ""Ultraconservatives occupy a broad section of the right-wing continuum, wedged between conservative pragmatists, those willing to moderate their views and work with the political center, and fringe extremists."". The one from El Orden Mundial says: ""(ultraconservatism) adds elements such as populism, anti-immigration or protectionism to traditional values, and encompasses a recent international wave that includes former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, the Spanish Vox party or the US radical right promoted by figures like Trump. These movements have also been described as neoconservative due to similarities such as the strong rejection of the left. However, the importance they give to national sovereignty contradicts the foreign policy interventionism of US neoconservatism"". ---- Neither of the three sources used have a coherent definition, the first one labeling ""ultraconservatism"" as opposition to civil rights legislation, welfarism, taxation combined with anti-communism, the second one as a branch of the right-wing composed of extremists, racists and reactionaries and rightist willing to cooperate with centrists (not a concrete term but an umbrella one), the fourth one as a populist and protectionist variant of neo-conservatism that also supports traditional values (doesn't common conservatism also defend traditional values?) and opposes interventionism. Also note how the user that made the article uses directly a definition from the Oxford dictionary to start the article, violating the Wikipedia:DICDEF rule. ---- I invited some users with expertise in the field of ""conservatism"" from the WikiProject Conservatism to debate if the article should be d or not. Alejandro Basombrio ( talk ) 21:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC) User indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE . -- WMrapids ( talk ) 21:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Many political ideologies don't have a consistent definition, or you could find varying definitions in use in reliable sources. ( t · c ) buidhe 19:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC) the concept may be partially included sometimes in the ""far-right"" label, but not necessarily. The concept is properly sourced, too. If the New Oxford American Dictionary , among other reliable sources, consider that this is a relevant and stand-alone concept, who are we to deny it? PedroAcero76 ( talk ) 21:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or . I think this might be something of, I don't know what to call it -- a "" RACKEN STEIN ""? Essentially, all of the sources here do use the phrase ""ultraconservative"", but it's not clear that they are doing so as a reference to a coherent group. To explain this a little better, I offer an analogy: we can imagine an article called gigantic tree , for which exact phrase a newspapers.com search brings up 26,000 results. But this does not indicate that anybody is using ""gigantic tree"" to mean a specific type of thing meaningfully separate from a ""large tree"" or a ""huge tree"". You could try anyway: A gigantic tree is any tree that is of notably large size. Different commentators have given different heights for a gigantic tree, ranging from 50 feet to 300 feet. That looks like what has happened here. The 1961 New York Times article says, for example: ""Senator Jacob K. Javits said today ultra-conservative fanaticism in the United States was under control. But he warned that it 'represents a danger to the Republican party'."" Here, it just seems like he is talking about people who are very conservative (i.e. much more so than the Republican party of the time). This article seems to use it the same way: note that the abstract says ""systematic analyses on how far-right leaders recreate their countries' foreign policy identity are still underdeveloped""; it doesn't at any point advance ""ultraconservative"" as a thing separate from being unusually far-right. If there are any sources that actually establish or comment on ""ultraconservatism"" as something separate from the simple fact of someone being extremely conservative, ping me, and I will strike this """" ! vote -- but I do not see any here. jp × g 07:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC) These are very good points, and I would have most likely voted for "" the first time had that been nominator's rationale. Would you say there's merit in a and/or a paragraph & anchor about it somewhere in Conservatism and/or Far-right politics (without all the coatrack content)? – Vipz ( talk ) 15:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC) relisting may be a good idea. – Vipz ( talk ) 08:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC) as the author of the original article, what do you think about above (please also see my new vote on the top of the page)? I presume you also saw my ping in this diff regarding the coatrack content (Germany and France sections) that was added by another editor. Cheers. – Vipz ( talk ) 11:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC) @ Vipz : It is difficult for me because there are good arguments against coat racking, but there seems to be a difference. My main concern is, are there reliable sources that explicitly say that far-right = ultraconservatism or authoritarian conservatism = ultraconservatism? There are sources that explain ultraconservatism and define it, though I have not found any sources that equate ultraconservatism with anything else. WMrapids ( talk ) 21:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC) I'll go with the latter for now because that's what I proposed above. There's a plentiful of sources that describe certain ruling regimes as ultraconservative, authoritarian [...] or ultraconservatism, authoritarianism [...] (incl. swapped order of these words) and these two go hand-in-hand in most, but finding explicit ""ultraconservatism = authoritarian conservatism"" statements can prove a bit more difficult. Here are a few that might come close: Use with Care: Managing Australia's Natural Resources in the Twenty-first Century , pg. 256 ultra-conservatism, a weltanschauung characterised by a strong commitment to an authoritarian social order [...] How White Evangelicals Think: The Psychology of White Conservative Christians , pg. 84 : Ultraconservative ideologies then cause people to embrace authoritarian policies and leaders in the face of persistent threats, real or imagined. 69 This happens crossculturally. The specics may be dierent, but the general process is the same. Encyclopedia of Power , pg. 33 : On average, authoritarian personality is still used primarily for ultraconservatives such as religious fundamentalists, military dictators, theocrats, and so on. Political Socialization in Western Society: An Analysis from a Life-span Perspective , pg. 129 : [...] They found authoritarianism to be related to political ultra-conservatism and fascism. The central theme in many other sources is that they are illiberal, anti-democratic, nationalist, ethnocentric, extreme right, etc. and that ultraconservatives tend to argue for authoritarianism. I can link and list out quotes for any of these if needed. – Vipz ( talk ) 07:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC) It's about the same as what I found. Interpreting the sources in such a way would be WP:SYNTH , so unless we have something more definitive, it could be inappropriate to make this article a . WMrapids ( talk ) 03:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting per request above… Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC) This is a WP:CFORK . There's no substantial difference between the two, they're both conservative extremism. –– Formal Dude (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Ultraconservatism is clearly different from general conservatism. Mureungdowon ( talk ) 03:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. –– Formal Dude (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC) any source that states clearly that ultraconservatism and far-right politics are the same? Then, whe should also or conservatism to right-wing politics, etc. This is not endorsed in any way by reliable sources as far as I know. PedroAcero76 ( talk ) 20:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Looks like a consensus for ? If we want a separate discussion for possibly making the article a page, I would suggest opening a separate move discussion when this discussion is closed. -- WMrapids ( talk ) 23:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm certainly not withdrawing the proposal. JPxG has expressed my views better than I have, specifically with: the sources here do use the phrase ""ultraconservative"", but it's not clear that they are doing so as a reference to a coherent group. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 23:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you support the creation as a then? Because there are three separate opinions on this deletion proposal; , and . Not asking you to withdraw your proposal at all, just seeking clarified responses. WMrapids ( talk ) 23:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not opposed to a . Walt Yoder ( talk ) 19:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk ) 08:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the term is part of the lexicon. Ultra-Liberal brings back fewer results but is also defined and used just not as often. If this article is kept Ultra-Liberal may warrant an article as well. Lightburst ( talk ) 15:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC) WORDISSUBJECT ) or that the concept is? TompaDompa ( talk ) 16:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC) OTHERSTUFF and Wikipedia is not a dictionary . jp×g's comment above addresses exactly this. – Vipz ( talk ) 16:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC) Are you suggesting a then? We should still determine where a should go since the notable usage of the term itself warrants some sort of article attention, whether it be a or independent. WMrapids ( talk ) 22:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC) I certainly am suggesting a , as can be seen in my reiterated vote on the top. The topic is about conservatism (albeit of an extreme kind) so I see Conservatism as the appropriate target. I'm not sure whether a of some content is warranted if that is done, and what's the best approach. Without much thought about it, #Authoritarian conservatism section seemed most relevant. – Vipz ( talk ) 23:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Where does this fall on the spectrum of conservatism? We have ""very conservative"" (111,000 Google News results), ""ultra-conservative"" (6,970), ""super-conservative"" (77), ""extremely conservative"" (11,600), and ""tremendously conservative"" (10). I would say that these phrases are just happenstance resulting from someone putting an intensifier on ""conservative"", and that ""super-conservative"" and ""extremely conservative"" do not actually refer to significantly different concepts. There are no sources I can see that lay out a spectrum with meaningful distinctions. (Parenthetically, note also the news results for ""infra-conservative"" (0), ""red conservative"" (67), ""blue conservative"" (also 67), ""X-conservative"" (62) and ""gamma conservative"" (3)). jp × g 22:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Trenkwalder: Without a notable entity of this name, the article should be d. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC) This page is an anthroponymy SIA as opposed to a dab: see WP:SIANOTDAB . There are actually many SIAs without a blue link entry, such as Feraye (name) and Aziory . NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 16:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC) Permalink/801021320 . ☺ Uncle G ( talk ) 16:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Does it matter? The promotional article has already been overwritten by a dab (which I later converted to a SIA) since 2018. If necessary, just split the history from the current article. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 16:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, because the administrator deletion tool s an entire edit history not an article title. Uncle G ( talk ) 08:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Thanks for pointing that out because I've been here ten years and never saw WP:SIA. The subject still isn't notable, and the entries in de-wiki are themselves probably not notable. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 16:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , (1) this article was hijacked from being an article about a company, to which an IP editor took objection, and who converted it into this rather strange list; (2) it doesn't qualify as a SIA as there is no special notability in the set of people sharing this particular name. In fact it's very rare for a family name to have set-notability unless the people who share the name are related, and a sufficient number of them are individually wiki-notable for people to want to write about them; the whole concept of SIA's doesn't really help family-name articles; (3) and it's all the wrong way round. Actually I think there's a chance some of these individuals are wikinotable, and this could be a reasonable DAB page, but we write the articles first, and the DAB pages afterwards . So at the moment, as a DAB page I'd it, but are we happy to ignore its history as a genuine article about a largish company that clearly exists/existed? Which article are we truly aiming to , here? One option might be to restore it as an article about the company, possibly moving to a different title, and permit the recreation of a DAB page if anyone cares to translate the DE articles about the various people of this name. Elemimele ( talk ) 16:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For a fair discussion about this page, I restored the original dab-page as it was before being ed and slashed. The Banner talk 16:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Trenkwalder seems to have been bought out by the Droege group, for which there's a German wikipedia article, [7] but we don't have one as a target. We do have an article about Droege's founder, Walter Droege . Elemimele ( talk ) 17:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC) NmWTfs85lXusaybq. He seems very persistent in his attempt to destroy this page. The Banner talk 17:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article about the company is the original one and got hijacked by a dab. Just it as it was when the AfD started or restore it to the original one. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 18:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Out of our hands now; I guess you should have left well-enough alone. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 18:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Austria . NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 17:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Right, this is ridiculous; we can't discuss a moving target. Here is my ! vote for the admin who closes this: Restore original version of this article and move to Trenkwalder Group AG , and this DAB page (as it's not a SIA), unless sufficient genuine Trenkwalder articles e to justify a genuine DAB. As I write, there are only two links, one of which is tenuous. It is conceivable that there are other notable Trenkwalders based on the German Wikipedia, but we don't seem to have the articles to disambiguate here, yet. Elemimele ( talk ) 22:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So, we had a that was nominated for deletion and after an alternative was offered that RfD was closed as a ""procedural close"" (what IMHO was incorrect, as the nomination was withdrawn by the nominator). Then we got a slashed version of the original dab-page, what I corrected to the original dab-page (i.e. the version that got ed), then an article of a company showed up, then the original dab, then the slashed dab again. What are we now discussing in this AfD? The Banner talk 22:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As a point of order which doesn't really help, I was the RfD nominator and I did not withdraw the nomination. It's here: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 23#Trenkwalder . Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 09:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Is there anything in this edit history, any form of this article, that we want and can justify per policy? Is the company notable? Is the list of people with this surname, and potential translations from the German Wikipedia, at various points also including a redlink for the very same company bizarrely inviting editors to write the original article all over again , suitable? 90.253.253.200",no consensus
+"List of former programs broadcast on TV Globo: Let'srun ( talk ) 17:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Television , Lists , and Brazil . Let'srun ( talk ) 17:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC) It's a highly-common practice to split off older programming from the main page (i.e., List of programs broadcast by TV Globo ). It does not need sourcing because it meets a basic WP:LISTPURP of a category turned into a list. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 08:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - for the same reason explained by editor above (Why? I Ask). Perfectstrangerz ( talk ) 01:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Maicol Azzolini: I found this interview and a couple of transactional announcements ( 1 , 2 , 3 ), but nothing substantial. JTtheOG ( talk ) 02:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and Italy . JTtheOG ( talk ) 02:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC) GNG pass. Obviously a lot of team announcements and transactional stuff, but there are a few bits in there that could pass WP:GNG . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Wreckovation: There is already a Wictionary item on the same topic, so there is no need to move the article there. The Wikipedia article has the following two problems: Notability not proven ( WP:N ) - the article does not cite any direct source about wreckovation. See also WP:NOTDICTIONARY , point 3. The content of the article is not coherent and has no clear connection with its theme. Therefore I suspect that Wikipedia:No original research and possibly neutrality ( WP:NPOV ) are violated. Jan Spousta ( talk ) 16:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Architecture , and Christianity . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC) A quick before yielded primarily blog results, with few RSs using the term. Except in blogs or mirrors of Wikipedia, definitions are not provided. I think that a good article on ""Post-Vatican II architecture"" or ""Modern church architecture"" could be made using academic resources with splitting from Architecture of cathedrals and great churches and Church architecture , with ""Wreckovation"" a to a section on criticism of such changes. However, ""wreckovation"" is a specific enough term that it is unsuitable as a to either of those articles. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 18:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] /, or , but not The article is terrible, so starting over isn't a bad idea. But I found plenty of journal articles using the term, and I'm quite surprised that Google's book search isn't finding hits (it's certainly producing tons of obviously bad matches). The reality in English literature on the subject is that the stripping of decorative detail in the reordering of churches (primarily Catholic, but the Anglicans got hit with it too to a lesser degree) after Vat II was extremely controversial in the day. If you think the attack is rarely used, well, in the day, it was used all the time by opponents of the changes being made. Probably a stand-alone article is not the right solution in the end, but the name needs to point to somewhere in WP discussing the reordering and the massive negative reaction against it. : I just now added reliable sources, including the New York Times, demonstrating notability. Michaelmalak ( talk ) 04:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV . -- Jan Spousta ( talk ) 08:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added more cites. Here is a summary of all the references: Books Non-fiction books Origins of Catholic Words: A Discursive Dictionary Environment and Art in Catholic Worship Fictional book White Smoke, Black Fire Secular periodical New York Times Religious periodicals La Stampa Crisis Magazine The Priest AD 2000 Catholic Key (official diocesan newspaper) Today's Catholic (official diocesan newspaper) Liturgical Arts Journal College student research Delft University of Technology ...plus one misc. (USCCB), one blog, and three primary sources (Church documents) Many of the citations added are from within the past six months, and in many I included a quote that specifically mentions ""wreckovation"". Michaelmalak ( talk ) 19:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for that. But it looks like you proved that the word is used in the described sense (which is something I have no doubts about) and that there are many cases where it may be used by some people. This would be more than enough for Wictionary. But the Wikipedia notability of a slang word needs to show that somebody wrote significantly about the word itself, not only about its meaning. For example there is no doubt that some people use the term ""simoleon"" and that there is a good deal of literature about one dollar banknotes, but that is not enough to have an article about simoleon here. -- Jan Spousta ( talk ) 21:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 1. The article recounts the history. It does not merely define the word and demonstrate that it is used. 2. Two references are about the phenomenon, not just the word: The one from Crisis Magazine and the one from The Priest. 3. Since my last response, I have added a reference to an entire book on the phenomenon, though it uses the word ""wreck"" rather than ""wreckovation"". There are many such books that could be referenced. Michaelmalak ( talk ) 22:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 1. The article recounts the history of the liturgical reform (albeit in a very partial and unsufficient way) but it does not explain the history of the term ""wreckovation"" which is what the article should be about. There is no discussion about the encyclopedical notability of the reform of the liturgical space itself: it is clearly notable, but it cannot be explained under such a derogatory title - the article about it should be as neutral as other articles in Wikipedia ( WP:NPOV ) 2. I do not see Crisis Magazine mentioned in the article and the reference from The Priest is only an anonymous essay about boys in the church which mentions a wreckovation only in one sentence, not as its main theme. Jan Spousta ( talk ) 08:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Added some of the timeline of the term usage Added a parameter to the Crisis Magazine cite to clearly identify it It is common for even racial slurs to be the titles of Wikipedia articles. But if you mean the article body, I did just now remove a usage of the term that cast it into a positive light. Michaelmalak ( talk ) 17:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I also just now rewrote that problematic introductory paragraph from the Background section. Michaelmalak ( talk ) 20:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC) , your approach to this discussion is puzzling. I don't agree with how you insist such an article be written, but what concerns me more is that you give the impression of being unaware of any controversy in the first place, though any student of Catholic liturgical reform in the USA and its architectural fallout in the latter decades of the 20th century cannot justifiably be unaware of this. Those of us who were interested in it and around at the time couldn't miss it. You are coming close to saying that the criticisms behind the word can be dismissed, which is untrue: those criticisms are amply documented. That is why I think it makes more sense to this to some place discussing the changes and the reaction to them. Mangoe ( talk ) 20:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC) The discussion about contemporary Catholic liturgical space has not only taken place in the US, but also here in Europe. Many books have been published about it, and it would be good to have an article about it on the English Wikipedia. But the article needs to be neutrally written under a neutral title. Wreckovation is slang, not a term for serious discussion. Slang words can be subjects of Wikipedia articles as words - who uses them and why - but they cannot serve as a starting point for describing what they refer to. See WP:NPOV . Jan Spousta ( talk ) 19:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's fine,and I said above that I think its mention in an article on the larger issue make more sense. But the mere fact that it is pejorative isn't reason to avoid mention of the slur. Mangoe ( talk ) 03:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC) N ) - not everything is worthy to be included here. Jan Spousta ( talk ) 13:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Per Nom Change of ! vote to Weak if title is changed. See rationale in ""Note"" below. Opening lead states, ""Wreckovation is a portmanteau disparagement term used since at least 2002..."". Wikipedia is not a dictionary . The first source I randomly picked, a 2008 article titled Before and After: St. Mark's in Peoria, Illinois , did not even give passing mention to the offered ""portmanteau"". The word just did not take off in society. Wikipedia is written for the general audience and not just a specialty group, or a ""student of Catholic liturgical reform in the USA"". The article might have merit but the title does not. A few people can use a word but that does not mean the word became common or mandate an article be created. The word, as used, only describes the ""wrecking"" of traditional church style and renovating to some non-traditional style. It does not encompass the re-renovation or reversal ""back"" (""reform of the reform"") to the original style. Over seventeen years after the creation of the new word, it still lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable and WP:independent sources to advance notability. -- Otr500 ( talk ) 03:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ctrl-F on the References section shows quotes of references that use the word -- and I just now added some more quotes to the already-existing references. The reversal of renovation, and the costliness of it, gives justification to leveraging the word ""wreck"". It is true the word ""wreckovation"" has not gained footing outside of Catholic publications (other than perhaps the cited college thesis by Bas Nijenhuis), but neither have Catholic-specific words such as ""St. Teresa of Avila"", which has its own Wikipedia article. Michaelmalak ( talk ) 05:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do not underestimate St. Teresa of Avila, Michaelmalak. See Teresa of Ávila#Portrayals . And do not overestimate ""wreckovation"" which has probably no single relevant Catholic publication under a title containing the word. That's a big difference from Teresa. Jan Spousta ( talk ) 19:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] but possibly rename to a less controversial name like ""Post-Vatican II liturgical design"" with a section on controversial renovations. Patapsco913 ( talk ) 02:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ryan, Bill (September 20, 2000). ""St. Pat's Protestors Make Demand"" . Sentinel Tribune . pp. 1 , 8 – via Newspapers.com . Gregory, Marketta (January 20, 2005). ""Protestors reflect on efforts and are glad"" . Democrat and Chronicle . p. 15 – via Newspapers.com . The problem is that this article is too one-sided ( WP:NPOV ) and also lacks even the basic information needed to understand the changes in Catholic liturgical space caused by the Second Vatican Council. It makes no mention of the debates and documents of the Council or of subsequent papal instructions such as Inter Oecumenici. There is an article in the German Wikipedia called de:Liturgiereform (Reform of the liturgy) which is quite good, explains these things in context, and would be great to translate into English. But I don't think it would help us to this POV text. Jan Spousta ( talk ) 11:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or , depending on whether people feel the existing content is worth salvaging or that it would be easier to start from scratch on a previous commenter's suggestion of a ""Post-Vatican II liturgical design article"". The current article seems like WP:CRITS to me. — Moriwen ( talk ) 00:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I'm seeing pretty good coverage of this term as a term , including an entry on pages 522-523 of CUA-published Origins of Catholic Words . Aside from coverage as a term , there is actually quite a good bit of study about, as one researcher from Lund University calls it , The purist transformation of the church interior following Vatican II . These include articles in Quadrant and [ U.S. Catholic ] . As the deletion policy notes, when editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page . And, editing can address this; the core subject of the article (i.e. the transformation of Catholic Church interiors following the Second Vatican Council) is notable, and a change to the page title (coupled with some tweaks to the lead) can make the article well-reflect this. As such, I think that WP:NOTDICT problems can be extinguished by relatively small textual tweaks converting this from WP:WORDASSUBJECT to an article about the subject of liturgical spaces, and I think that subject of the design of liturgical spaces (and related controversies) post-Vatican II passes the WP:GNG . — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as I see no consensus yet. A reminder, if you are advocating a or Merge, you need to name a proposed target article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC) 46, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems to me that there is (almost) consensus that the article cannot remain in this form. But there is no consensus whether to , or rename it. I think it would be best to it because the standard of the current text (NPOV, quality of sources, explanation of context...) is so far below the cited German Wikipedia article that it would be better to take inspiration from the Germans and start all over again. Jan Spousta ( talk ) 09:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Change of ! vote above with title change. See ""Note"" below: No title change= ! vote to . Note : There are options to relist . It can even be relisted more than once. I am struggling with a agreeable solution. There are issues. The entire concept, actual subject, is notable. NPOV issues and the article is ""not coherent and has no clear connection with its theme"" is valid. The renovations actually caused somewhat of a schism . The article title, a blend of words, did not actually gain enough notability to become a neologism and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is not a job description of Wikipedia to advance word acceptability. The title-to-subject disconnect, along with the apparent article presentation, is problematic as validly mentioned above. The Nom referred to ""rarely used derogatory slang term"" and as such the title is not notable. The content needs a total rewrite but that is not an AFD concern. -- Otr500 ( talk ) 21:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom, and for the reasons below. First off, we have long been suspicious of neologisms , for good reasons; we are a neutral source and especially are getting involved in domgatic disputes . There are few in-depth, neutral sources about the subject. Much of the information is in-universe discussion, akin to counting angels dancing on the head of a pin. Bearian ( talk ) 15:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As a neologism it's not particularly ""neo"". And seriously— angels on pins? There's nothing abstruse about the issue: many older churches, especially Roman Catholic buildings, had their interior decoration and architectural detail stripped in the name of updating the space for post-Vat-II liturgy (or its Protestant equivalent). It was widely decried at the time and in the years that followed, and eventually some changes were reversed where possible. It was attacked both as artistic vandalism and as a repudiation of Catholic values and principles. It may be of little interest to people who are irreligious or indifferent to artistry, it's hardly neutral to privilege the opinions of such people. I agree that using the pejorative word as the name of the article is the wrong way to handle this. We do need to mention it somewhere, though, because it was widely used by opponents of the changes, and every time I come back to look at this it s coming back to ""we don't want WP to admit of the controversy at all."" Mangoe ( talk ) 17:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC) and move to Post-Vatican II liturgical design per Red-tailed hawk. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 02:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, the phrase ""Post-Vatican II liturgical design"" found only 2 pages in Google. It is probably even much less notable than ""wreckovation"" (17 ths. pages found). Jan Spousta ( talk ) 09:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A topic doesn't need to be in verbatim quotes for the overall subject to be notable, though I'd prefer ""Post-Vatican II liturgical space design"" (so as to avoid confusion with the, say, Mass of Paul VI ). If you'd like some articles about the actual subject, I'd suggest you read ""The Council as Shibboleth: The Rhetoric of Authenticity and Liturgical Space after Vatican II"" , ""Archi-liturgical culture wars"" , and Architecture in Communion: Implementing the Second Vatican Council Through Liturgy and Architecture . There's quite a good number of sources out there that talk about the thing (liturgical space design post-V II) in a substantial way, and that is what makes this pass the WP:GNG . — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC) I do not object to the notability of something like ""liturgical space after Vatican II"", but ""liturgical space"" (space distribution of people and objects in the church) and ""liturgical design"" (the aesthetics of the church and its furniture) are two different things and the later has not much to do with the council. And I do object to the neutrality and quality of the current article. Jan Spousta ( talk ) 10:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] BTW, the ""pure"", simple Modernist and later International Style churches started to e already in 1930s (for instance St. Wenceslas Church (Vršovice) , 1929-1930), years before the Council. And this architecture then influenced even the rebuilding of older churches. The Council accelerated the changes (because of its demands on the liturgical space) but it was not the primary source of the ""aggiornamento""/""wreckovation"" movement in the church design - the source was the modern aesthetics as formulated by Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe and others. Jan Spousta ( talk ) 14:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] into Second_Vatican_Council#Controversies . The ""Related renovation controversies"" section is emblematic for the article. IgelRM ( talk ) 11:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Native American Guardians Association: As a result of a s̵p̵e̵e̵d̵y̵ ̵d̵e̵l̵e̵t̵i̵o̵n̵ prod tag placed August 19, there has been a discussion on the article's talk page . Neutrality continues to be an issue, although much of the non-neutral language and content supported only by the organization's website have been removed. The remaining content is original research due to sythesis , drawing conclusions from the organization being mentioned in primary sources, generally local news. WriterArtistDC ( talk ) 14:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , North Dakota , and Virginia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups , Politics , and Education . Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I am still pondering this. There is a lot of coverage from a lot of geographic areas, including some regional newspapers, so it's not clearly all unreliable sources or ones that don't contribute to notability. I agree the article needs work to be more neutral and it seems like there's little coverage of the org other than at particular events... (As a minor note since I was somewhat unsure, WriterArtistDC nominated it for a Wikipedia:Proposed deletion , not WP:SPEEDY , see Special:Diff/1171091255 ; I mention it since a PROD was more appropriate for this article than CSD'ing it.) Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I spend 99% of my time creating content, so I did not know how to an article and chose the wrong process, but I hope that this is the correct one. WriterArtistDC ( talk ) 20:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Against The organization has enough media coverage to warrant a stand alone article. the major problem was neutrality but as per the article's talk page that was resolved. there is no reason to the article. Scu ba ( talk ) 20:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Media coverage is the entire problem. Should an organization be deemed notable because its media campaign has had some success in being mentioned in primary sources? Is the creation of a WP article part of that campaign? There is no secondary source to establish that the organization has any independent support or recognition. Instead, several of the news sources quote other Native Americans as saying NAGA does not represent them. WriterArtistDC ( talk ) 22:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Should an organization be deemed notable because it's actions were notable enough to be mentioned by the news? Yes. that is the definition of notability. Scu ba ( talk ) 23:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability is a complex concept with no definitive characteristic. Being mentioned in the news is the lowest level. With regard to news reports, Wikipedia is not a newspaper states ""While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion..."". That there is an ongoing controversy regarding the removal of Native mascots is notable, but NAGA's role in that controversy has not been established. The closest any citation comes to being a secondary source is a Sports Illustrated article that casts doubt on NAGA's authenticity as an organization. -- WriterArtistDC ( talk ) 15:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This organization is less notable than they claim to be. Nor have they been transformational. - TenorTwelve ( talk ) 05:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning - appears to be a failed astroturf organisation and the cites are to their PR work. The coverage is scattershot with very little depth. Possibly there's an article here, but it would be considerably shorter and give the org much less credit - David Gerard ( talk ) 09:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 15:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC) Breaking news - The astroturf is continuing to be rolled out, and reported by local news without sufficient independent investigation to qualify as reliable sources for any Wikipedia article. An example from Thursday 08/31 is a CBS TV affiliate (KDBC) in El Paso, Texas , operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group , posting a story with the headline ""Soros-backed Native American group praises Commanders president's refusal to revert team name"". The group referred to is the NCAI , and the unsubstantiated connection to George Soros is the beginning of a making a false equivalency between NCAI and NAGA, the former being a civil rights organization founded in 1944, representing the shared interests of many tribes; the latter a non-profit founded in 2017 that does not have any secondary source to substantiate any of their statements as being representative of more than the handful of Native Americans listed in public records. -- WriterArtistDC ( talk ) 23:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I still wonder what you classify as an ""independent investigation"". Because usually media companies with things such as editorial boards tend to investigate the things they are talking about before releasing it to the world. Also what part of ""The organization traces some of its funding back to George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, as well as other left-leaning contributors"" is unsubstantiated, the NCAI lists the open society foundation in their list of backers on their own website. Scu ba ( talk ) 02:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC) 19, 3 September 2023 (UTC) I see no original research or synthesis in the article’s current version The article is well referenced by reliable secondary sources. The Sports Illustrated article, while primarily written to spotlight NAGA’s presumed major funder, also covers NAGA in substantial depth. Traditional local newspapers and media outlets in the United States are presumed reliable sources until proven otherwise. I have never heard news reports by traditional local newspapers and media outlets in the United States described as “primary” before. They are secondary We do not make a distinction between little news outlets and big outlets as to reliability unless proven otherwise. Instead we look at editorial oversight, independence and neutrality. The article seems to have a slight POV against NAGA. That’s irrelevant to article retention. Cleanup ≠ deletion. Whether this is some sort of Native American astroturfing group is irrelevant to article retention. Whether NAGA are the good guys or the bad guys is irrelevant to article retention. IRS form 990 returns are always primary sources. A possible exception might be any independently audited financial statements attached to the return. Analysis of and reporting about Form 990 returns can be used as secondary sources. — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The difference between primary and secondary sources is not the type of organization, journalistic or academic, but the level of analysis they do. A primary academic source is one that reports the result of a single study, a seconday source is a literature review which reports and synthesises the results of many similar studies, and a tertiery source makes an even broader analysis and places conclusions in an historical context. A primary journalistic source reports on a single event such as the vote by a local school board to change their mascot, a secondary source reports on the mascot controversy statewide or nationwide based upon an analysis of many such events, often with reference to independent experts. I have never seen NAGA mentioned in any secondary reports, although the SI article comes close. When I first encountered the NAGA article it was mainly based upon references to the organization's own website and the creator's synthesis of many primary news reports. The current content of the article is the result of removing this original research as much as possible. I used the IRS filings as an independent primary source for the infobox, much better that the prior information being from NAGA's own website. If the current content is negative towards NAGA, it is because the reporting that remains includes comments by Native Americans that NAGA does not represent them. The proposed deletion of the article is based upon notabilty, not POV. Notability is established by reference to secondary sources, not the media's uncritical parroting of NAGA's press releases. The bias in the Texas television report cited above is clear in their wording of the headline, which implies that NCAI is controlled by Soros. The NCAI is primarily funded by dues paid by it members. If it also receives donations from other sources, characterization of those donors as ""left-leaning"" belongs on an editorial page, not in a news report. -- WriterArtistDC ( talk ) 14:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] you might want to brush up on what a primary source is , the statements that NAGA makes can be classified as primary sources, and the media reporting on these statements as secondary sources. as such, due to the substantial media coverage, it classifies for notability. the CBS report called them ""Soros-backed"", the NCAI is backed, financially, by the open society foundation which is run by Soros. Not sure how more black and white it could be. Scu ba ( talk ) 16:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC) What NAGA has to say about itself is self-promotion, not independently published, thus no source at all. WP:Primary ""Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."" The LOC definition is somewhat different than WP, but similar to historical research: primary sources are ""original documents and objects that were created at the time under study"". Yet there is the same caveat: ""secondary sources, [are] accounts that retell, analyze, or interpret events"". On WP, not having secondary sources for the interpretation of ""raw materials"" found in primary sources is original research. Historians and journalists may do original research, but not wikipedians. -- WriterArtistDC ( talk ) 21:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC) NEWSORG . Scu ba ( talk ) 22:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The news stories are raw materials, almost all primary sources of NAGA's actual activity on particular occasions, not what they claim. The sources that remain in the article have some balance, also quoting other participants in the events. The SI article approaches being secondary, placing NAGA's activities in a larger context of Native support for the Redskins and finding it to have been mostly funded by Dan Snyder, and noting that one of NAGA's founding members and spokesperson is Snyder's favorite Pretendian , Mark Yancey. Not placing the contribution of the Soros organization in the context of the NCAI's total funding is biased reporting. NCAI's list of supporters includes business such as Walmart, government agencies including the Department of Agriculture, and 37 Native American tribes, yet this TV report picks out the Open Society Foundations to make claims that the NCAI is a front for woke liberalism ( DEI ). WriterArtistDC ( talk ) 18:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just because you don't like the reporting or the way it was reported doesn't make it incorrect. Scu ba ( talk ) 22:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to the Native American mascots article, or selectively there. That seems to be really all they do, so outside of that, nothing for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The main articles on Native mascots are GA. There is nothing worth merging. I fail to see the point of ing a title to an article that does not mention NAGA. WriterArtistDC ( talk ) 03:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment (After going through the history, and especially after looking at the first version of this article and the talk page, the problem is not with SPAs and IPs. Changing from neutral to Delete. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC) ) [ reply ] With astroturfing groups like this we always face a dilemma. I am familiar with this group. There is no way to put this gently or neutrally. They perpetrate hoaxes, and if they have a WP article, they will create accounts, or do IP edits, to attempt to abuse the 'pedia to perpatrate a WP:HOAX to claim they are actually Native people, that Native people support mascots, and other untrue things. As far as I am aware, from investigations done by Indigenous researchers, they are well-known pretendians and hoaxers, funded by opponents of Indigenous rights, who routinely mislead the media to advance certain political agendas. Advancing these agendas is their paid profession. So, there are usually- reliable sources that contain misinformation about this group, calling them legitimate when they are not, because they succeeded in fooling journalists. This puts us, as Wikipedians, in a difficult place. We can either: the article under the principle of Deny Recognition. Or, the article only if there are sufficient sources to tell the truth about them, in a neutral, encyclopedic voice. My opinion is that if we don't have enough sources to do #2, the best way to avoid being used for a hoax is to do #1 and . - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also very familiar with NAGA, having edited the Native mascot articles since 2012. Their tactics are the same as Dan Snyder and prior owners during decades of resisting change: ""I found one Native American Redskins fan, so I get to the name no matter what Suzan Harjoe, Amanda Blackhorse, and the NCAI says"". One of the Natives he found was Mark Yancey, a founding board member of NAGA who could not reliable say which tribe he was from. However, I do not say the NAGA members are all pretendians, but there are only about a dozen in the IRS documents, and no independent source for their claim of 5,000 due-paying members, but the majority are certainly non-native sports fans, as are the thousands signing the change.org petitions. The racism represented by Native mascots is not a matter of individual opinions, but studies published in peer-reviewed journals and supported by the professional organizations representing the relevant academic disciplines. The current version of the NAGA article has indeed been edited down to a neutral reprentation (per WP:DUE ) of NAGA as a fringe group with little credability or success at promoting its contrary viewpoint. This may be all they need, to be able to say there is a Wikipedia article on NAGA so it is noteworthy, but the woke editors are posting only lies and deleting the truth. -- WriterArtistDC ( talk ) 14:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC) ECP the article, it doesn't make sense deleting the entire article on the premise that IP editors might one day make incorrect edits. Scu ba ( talk ) 12:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course we can protect the article if we it. And we would most likely have to. Just looking down both roads, whichever way we turn at this crossroads. I'm not so much saying it's a reason to , but some have considered the hassles a reason in the past. I tend to lean towards ing something to tell the truth about them, but I haven't decided what's best here. Best wishes. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding. Scu ba ( talk ) 23:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Scu ba... I'm looking at your creation of this article. This opening you wrote is really not neutral, but seems like you believe their false claims and are promoting them. This is concerning. Do you have any connection to this group? - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just wrote what was in the articles. I didn't put my own POV into it, but the affiliated CBS ABC stations might've had their own POV to increase clicks. Scu ba ( talk ) 23:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC) 04 3 September ) and those of others. This organization is notable. A question that's been raised is: how's it right/righteous/appropriate/whatever to an article for an outfit like this. My policy-based answers: Wikipedia is not censored Wikipedia is neutral Our article deletion policy doesn't have a provision for deleting on this basis. As a practical matter, I don't think this article does the Native American Guardians Association any favors. It's not NPOV now but even edited to neutrality, it's still going to report awkward things. I think the organisation's foes would want an article here. It's the first place journalists and others will look when NAGA comes to their town. If I were NAGA, I would want this article d if I couldn't control it. It's too late for them to control it -- it's now on too many watchlists. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The relevant argument here is whether the article meets the GNG. I see a lot of discussion that skids past the sources and basically have two sets of assertions. What would help would be either a source analysis or a conversation about specific sources to enable us to get to a clear consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC) ORG), the Primary criteria is: ""A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."" This criteria is stricter than GNG specifically to prevent WP being used for advertising and promotion. If these criteria were applied to the NAGA article, all content would disappear, and almost has compared to when originally created. There is at most one secondary source (Sport Illustrated) which mentions NAGA but is about the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation , and supports the description of NAGA as an Astroturfing organization. -- WriterArtistDC ( talk ) 14:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, they have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, aka local news reports, that are independent of NAGA and instead focusing on the Redskins and other Indian mascot name controversies. Scu ba ( talk ) 02:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC) SECONDARY : ""A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event . It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."" With the exception of the SI article, all of the citations that have ever been in the NAGA article are primary - local news reporting of an event, in which NAGA was mentioned in passing, not ""significant coverage"". -- WriterArtistDC ( talk ) 15:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] based on wide coverage noted above, but should have a ""criticisms"" or similar type of section. There is definitely material out there which can be used to populate such a critique that would ensure the article is balanced and encyclopedic rather than being used merely for publicity. The subject is engaged in activities which the general public should know about with available references to support, and that makes it encyclopedic. - Indefensible ( talk ) 19:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Others have been editing the article during this discussion, and I have been doing cleanup, usually rewording based upon the cited sources or removing content that the sources do not mention at all. As noted, the article is moving towards being negative regarding NAGA, but this is due to accuracy, not bias. The organization is mentioned in many primary news reports in sources of varying reliablity, but the few that go beyond stating facts regarding an event either include statements by local Indigenous tribal representatives that NAGA does not represent them or actually represents white supporters of Native mascots that fund the organization. One source notes that NAGA has not received sufficient donations in a year to require submitting a full report to the IRS detailing their activities and spending. -- WriterArtistDC ( talk ) 13:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The latest cleanup has been the reversion of an edit deleting SI cited content. WriterArtistDC ( talk ) 19:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The SI content was again d without explanation. Should I bother to replace it since the entire artical should be gone? WriterArtistDC ( talk ) 18:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The deletion was self-reverted. WriterArtistDC ( talk ) 23:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more try for clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not having been part of an AfD before, I don't know what a clearer concensus would look like. Frankly, the topic is not worthy, so I am not surprised there are few participants here. There are currently 4 for deletion (including one ""leaning""), all offering comments specific to this article regarding lack of Notability, RS's and NPOV. There are three """", one by the originator of the article, who seem to offer inclusionist arguements that would make anything is the media worthy of a WP article, opening up a flood of astroturfing. -- WriterArtistDC ( talk ) 18:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a tough one. I'm sympathetic to the argument that effective astroturfing leads to coverage in minor/local publications (not to mention publications with a documented ideology compatible with the subject's). Fun fact: several of the sources cited quote this guy without qualification (or perhaps prior to the WaPo article). I'm also sympathetic to the argument that there are several sources which go into some depth about this group's activities. There's a good case for retaining some information about it, prioritizing the highest quality sources, somewhere . Does it merit a stand-alone article? It's borderline. What about a selective to Native American mascot controversy (again, preserving only the best sources). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have mentioned above that I am the major contributor to the mascot controversy article, which has been GA for years, and no editor found NAGA (or Mark Yancey, the ""guy"" alluded to) worthy of mention. The viewpoint that mascots are racist, not ""honoring"" is based upon peer-reviewed journal articles and books by professors in several disciplines, not the opinion of a fringe group. -- WriterArtistDC ( talk ) 21:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WEIGHT to include there. That's the nature of NPOV. Nobody says we have to parrot their talking points. If there's consensus there that it would not be due weight to include, that's fine, but it's based on sourcing. The could simply be something like ""Organizations like the Native American Guardians Association (NAGA) mobilized local and national activists claiming to be Native Americans to defend use of Native American mascots. These organizations are not part of any tribe or other Native American cultural group, and multiple people involved have faced allegations that they are not Native American"". Now, that may not wind up being an NPOV summary (I'd need to look closer at the sourcing), but it's an example of the kind of I mean. Doesn't the existence of these astroturfing groups (caveat: I can't find a good source that explicitly calls them that, so don't use that word) seem worth at least briefly mentioning as a frequently publicized player in the larger controversy? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC) 18, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course they exist, there is a verifiable EIN. - Indefensible ( talk ) 18:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Exist as they claim . From the evidence in public sources, NAGA is less than a dozen individuals with a website, a PO box and a registration as a charity which has rarely collected significant donations. They claim to represent a ""silent majority"" of Native Americans nationwide who are honored by Native mascots, but usually fail because there are members of local tribes advocating for their removal. WriterArtistDC ( talk ) 20:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is a little different than ""even exists as supporters claim,"" but even so it does not really matter. Wikipedia can still have neutral coverage of a problematic subject like a hoax or fraud, that is why I recommended previously to include a ""Criticisms"" section. - Indefensible ( talk ) 21:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is currently little more than a list of failures and criticisms, which is all that can be established based upon the sources. This discussion is about whether the paucity of sources warrants deletion. -- WriterArtistDC ( talk ) 01:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"The Legend of Zeta & Ozz: Not convinced the current citations are enough Donald D23 talk to me 23:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Comics and animation , and Chile . Donald D23 talk to me 23:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak May not have been a particularly relevant show but the sources seem to regard it as significant, especially as it seems to be the first or one of the first Chilean cartoon show to be on Cartoon Network. Referencing could be improved but a simple search shows there are sufficient sources. -- Bedivere ( talk ) 00:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC) 26, 4 October 2023 (UTC) Yes, it seems like we're talking about a notable Chilean cartoon show, particularly because it may have been one of the first to air on Cartoon Network in Chile.-- Correspondentman ( talk ) 08:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: If you can find reliable sources to support the notability of this subject, please share them here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Cold Fork, California: PROD was declined on the basis of the article having 3 references, but one is just GNIS (which doesn't establish notability), and the others are just the origin of the name and a confirmation that there was once a rural post office by this name (again, does not establish notability). As far as I can tell this is just a creek, not an ""unincorporated community"". WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 18:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 18:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Anything with fork (river) in the name is almost certainly a tributary, and likely would have had a post office. Welcome to the GNIS mess , where we've had hundreds of thousands of ""unincorporated communities"" dumped into Wikipedia over more than a decade, simply because of the lackadaisical and slipshod GNIS#Populated places . The USGS map shows that this is indeed a river. Figuring out what the ""unincorporated community"" rubbish is hiding is half of the battle. Cottonwood Creek (Sacramento River tributary)#Course already has Cold Fork as a tributary. So the real question is not the use of the administrator deletion tool, but whether there's anything to say about this tributary or whether, like so many ""unincorporated communities"" before it that turned out to be river forks, it should to the article on the main river. Wood 1912 , p. 23 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWood1912 ( help ) has Cold Fork under Cottonwood Creek on Wood 1912 , p. 25 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWood1912 ( help ) . But Smith 1997 , pp. 39–40 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSmith1997 ( help ) is actually a fairly good source with farms and houses and people, and pushes this most of the way towards being capable of having an article in my view. Uncle G ( talk ) 10:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Smith, Dottie (1997). Ritter, Eric W. (ed.). Historical Overview of the Western Tehama County Foothills . Bureau of Land Management, Redding Resource Area. Wood, Beatrice Dawson (1912). Gazetteer of Surface Waters of California . Geological Survey (U.S.). Water-supply paper. Vol. 295–297. U.S. Government Printing Office. Comment - Without taking a position on whether this page should be kept or not, Hislop and Hughes is a self-published book, it was not published by the Tehama County Department of Education - that is not mentioned anywhere in the book. We shouldn't be using self-published local histories. FOARP ( talk ) 18:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC) Articles for deletion/El Camino, California already. Uncle G ( talk ) 23:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC) //www.tehamacountyhistory.com/uploads/b/f66f4b40-4d01-11ea-b698-d75052f0ea16/7a6b6a20-d35a-11ec-a62b-e137e65301ed.pdf jengod ( talk ) 05:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ”endorsed” - simply hosting a PDF is not an endorsement. This is still a self-published book, not one published by an established publisher with a record of fact-checking. I never claimed it was written by school children, only that they did research for it which is obviously true since it says so in the acknowledgments. Making false claims about what another editor has said is a form of personal attack: please stop doing this. FOARP ( talk ) 05:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""I don't wish to be unkind to the great kids at Red Bluff Union High School and their teach Mr. Osbourne who I'm sure did a great job at their class-project for US history"" — You most certainly did, and this bunkum treatment of acknowledgements as if they were authorship is addressed there in that discussion. Uncle G ( talk ) 07:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And where does this say that the kids wrote the book? Nowhere. It says that they contributed to it, which is evidently true. Please dial down the personal attacks. FOARP ( talk ) 15:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This distraction fallacy about ""personal attacks"" is addressed elsewhere, and your saying that it's a ""class project"" by ""kids"" and ""their teach"" is right there. Uncle G ( talk ) 00:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - anyway, if people aren't into Cold Fork, may I suggest a move to Hunters, California , which seemingly appears on more maps for longer and later. All the preceding stuff w Cold Fork and Pettijohn and the wagon routes can be subhedded ""history"" and then we can all move along. jengod ( talk ) 05:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC) minor archaic placenames of Tehama County, California jengod ( talk ) 16:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Google Earth satellite image shows Cold Fork, the creek. There's a road, too. And a bridge. And a house. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 21:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC) all in the article. Google Earth is not research. Uncle G ( talk ) 00:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC) 31, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I spot the foundations of 3 old buildings within 100m of these coordinates. Another foundation 2.6 km away. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The United States Geological Survey 's 1890 map does not show any sort of community in this location. Ditto the 1902, 1916, 1949 maps. The 1959 shows a place called Cold Fork - it has 3 buildings. The 1967 map shows ""Cold Fork"" with 3 buildings. The 1977 map shows a place called ""Cold Fork"". I had bandwidth issues and was unable to fetch later maps. You can pull up 26 maps published from 1890 to 2022 . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC) GEOLAND and WP:HEY बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 02:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd be interested in hearing more about a possible page move or which is mentioned in this discussion as an ATD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC) GEOLAND , WP:HEY , & WP:NOTTEMPORARY . 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 15:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . It's pretty clear at this point that this should not be d as WP:HEY (and probably worth mentioning WP:NOTTEMPORARY ). The problem with moves and s right now is that its really not clear what the best title for this article is. I don't think the current title is particularly bad, even if perhaps not ideal. We make a point not to name articles minor archaic placenames of Tehama County, California or The land area surrounding a place once known as Cold Fork, California . So this is fine for now, and naming can be followed up on outside of AfD. — siro χ o 05:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Barry Onouye: It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn ( talk ) 08:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Architecture , Engineering , Hawaii , and Washington . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 09:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC) No coverage other than book listings on various sites, might have a pass at AUTHOR, but I can't find reviews. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC) The page needs improvement but should be kept. This is an educator who has spent most of his professional career in architectural practice in an impactful way within the city of Seattle; see C7 of WP:NPROF . In addition his book with Kevin Kane, Statics and Strengths of Materials for Architecture and Building Construction; 3rd Ed. ,(Prentice Hall, 2006), didn't go into multiple editions by accident - it's been used at lots of colleges and universities, which speaks to C4 of WP:NPROF . A distinguished chair and an annual studio have been named in his honor at the University of Washington, which are closely connected to C5 of WP:NPROF . See https://onouye.be.uw.edu/ and https://arch.be.uw.edu/people/barry-s-onouye/ and https://openpublishing.library.umass.edu/btes/article/id/1928/ . Qflib ( talk ) 19:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC) PROF. Llajwa ( talk ) 21:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 04:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Stefano De Marchi: Stefano De Marchi . – 64andtim ( talk ) 14:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Mathematics , and Italy . – 64andtim ( talk ) 14:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . It would be a weak based on his citations, but I think the existence of a special issue dedicated to him , with in-depth coverage of him, makes the case stronger. As for the existence of left-behind draft versions, I think that is an irrelevancy. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Professor De Marchi runs a research group which does a variety of important work in numerical analysis. A number of his/their papers are highly cited and influential (as one example, the Padua points ). – jacobolus (t) 21:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (visit) 17:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Fun and Frustration: However, the theme and the pace remains the same. This is not a film franchise (most have 3+ films). This article does not add anything that is not on F2: Fun and Frustration and F3: Fun and Frustration . The box office performance is not significant like K.G.F (film series) . DareshMohan ( talk ) 07:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Fun and Frustration and F3: Fun and Frustration articles. It would make sense for this page to disambiguate the two. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"40 Bank Street: Its current and former tenants don't make it so, Heron Quays could be a viable ATD as could César_Pelli#1990–2005 . Star Mississippi 23:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and England . Star Mississippi 23:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC) I'm perplexed. I may yet offer a formal opinion. There is a (false?) premise of inherent notability for many large buildings.yet there appear to be very few sources about this building per se, rather than about the various occupants. This is the only additional reference I have found, and it is simply a set of tabulated facts. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It has quite a few language links but the sources listed don't appear to show notability but I'm not sure. You would expect London's joint 36th tallest building to have coverage though. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 22:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yep. It's the premise @ Timtrent alludes to. The guidelines were created out of ""there should be"", but it has turned out these buildings never quite attained the anticipated coverage. I think because they became so relatively common in the construction booms of the last two decades. Star Mississippi 15:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or we have List of tallest buildings and structures in London , and either the ""1980s, 1990s and 2000s"" or ""Tallest buildings and structures"" sections of that article would also make useful targets. Alternatively, merging to a new article about tall buildings at Canary Wharf (as I expect several other skyscrapers there have similar issues, although I've not looked) might make sense. This title shouldn't be a redlink though. Thryduulf ( talk ) 12:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC) after taking sometime to consider and to perform a detailed WP:BEFORE I have concluded that this building is not inherently notable even if individual tenants are, Sufficient other articles exist for this to be mentioned in them, and it is part of a list anyway. There is no scope for an independent article on this. Fails WP:GNG . 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or to Canary Wharf Group ; there's independent coverage in this article by RIBA Journal (an architecture magazine) and this article by CoStar Group , though it's unclear whether it's deep enough and/or focused enough on the building itself to merit a standalone Wikipedia article. Much of the coverage describes the building in the context of the company, so a might be an appropriate alternative. Left guide ( talk ) 02:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the coverage demonstrated by Left guide. Oakshade ( talk ) 06:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong this stub because there is no evidence of notability. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . I find it funny that a village or hamlet of 50 residents would be automatically notable per WP:GEOLAND, even if their ""notability"" is limited to appearing in some land survey, while the notability of a building that is the workplace of thousands and often mentioned in the news is questioned. I bet more people routinely sleep in that building than do in, say, Nine Ashes , Essex. I realize that WP:NBUILDING and WP:POPULATED have very different notability thresholds. It just sometimes strains credulity the extent to which the two vary. Owen× ☎ 15:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well yes Nine Ashes may be legally recognized as its an OS settlement but yes it does seem otherwise a bit funny, the notability of OS settlements has been debated and we don't appear to have a clear consensus on this. Nine Ashes was created (by me) over 13 years ago and GEOLAND may have got tighter since then. Personally my instinct is to say the building is notable but the only presumed notability are for things protected on a national level and even that has been questioned, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/172 High Street, Elstow (2nd nomination) . Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 17:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I love it that we have articles such as Nine Ashes here. This is exactly what our WP:NOTPAPER top-level policy encourages us to create and . When flowed down to the subject-specific guideline level, however, we ended up with wildly varying degrees of notability requirements. So 40 Bank Street, if it were to be classified as a ""settlement"" (and its ""population"" is larger than that of many towns!), would automatically qualify under WP:POPULATED. As a building , it struggles for notability. Anyway, this debate would be more suitable for a policy RfC than on this AfD. Still, it's an honour to meet the author of a goodly portion of all UK place articles! Owen× ☎ 17:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I guess it could be argued that because settlements contain buildings they are more likely to be seen as notable than a single building but clearly the 36th tallest building in London is more important than a hamlet even if it contains many buildings. I guess though it could also be argued that streets contain many buildings yet we tend to be strict with notability of streets. @ OwenX : Just out of interest was it chance that you mentioned an article I created when I commented above questioning notability? Just wandering. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 17:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pure chance; I didn't even check that article's history. I was looking for a hamlet outside London, ideally with a number as part of its name, to contrast with the street-numbered building. In retrospect, seeing your massive article creation list, it's not exactly shocking I happened to land on one of yours... Owen× ☎ 18:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I think these four sources (two already mentioned above) suffice for GNG, especially when combined with a high probability of offline sources: [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] . Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 21:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC) I found some additional sources (most of them minor; but at least one book, London High , that might be more significant). The most significant new source is this one , which discusses the architecture of the building. I incorporated all of them into the article. Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 13:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Arbitrarily0 , very good work, thanks! Left guide ( talk ) 23:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All of this discussion of population is entirely wrongheaded. Notability is not about population at all. Nor is it about importance. It's about documentation . Nine Ashes is actually Nine Ashes Farm and has a documented history, more extensive than our article supplies, going back to the 19th century some of which is in the Victoria County History. Whereas I struggle to find more than a mere mention of this building even in the coffee-table book that is entirely about the architectural firm that designed it ( ISBN 9783775713290 ). That is why Nine Ashes passes the test and this building is borderline. Uncle G ( talk ) 00:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "" Nine Ashes Farm "" is a listed house in Nine Ashes hamlet they are not synonymous. There are at least another 2 listed buildings in Nine Ashes namely Walnut Tree Cottage and Hardings . Both the hamlet and 3 listed buildings all have names wile the building we are discussing doesn't even have a name. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 17:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, they are. Go and dig up the history, and you'll find things about houses being built at Nine Ashes Farm for farmworkers. ☺ Uncle G ( talk ) 23:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak per Arbitrarily0. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 17:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC) 9ASHES""... Owen× ☎ 23:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC) Uncle G/On notability has explained this for 17 years, of course, and is how the guidelines came about. Uncle G ( talk ) 08:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Interesting to compare this with 25 Bank Street and the way the narrative is spun and sources used in that article. Rupples ( talk ) 03:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not really, if one thinks about this the right way, the simple and obvious way given that Wikipedia is all about verifiable knowledge. That building is documented with things like who unveiled a plaque in front of it in 2004 ( ISBN 9781471113567 p.98) and its rather infamous changes of ownership. This building barely warrants a 1 line mention in several of the publications that it is found in. Left guide 's and Arbitrarily0 's sources do a little better, although they are just shy of being outright press releases, with the CoStar one even openly disclosing its promotional conflict of interest at the bottom and the FMJ one following the standard press release format of ""Company XYZ has done PQR!"" followed by a bunch of corporate officer quotes filled with fact-less buzzwords and hyperbole of how ""fantastic"" (word actually used in the source) it is. If one stops with the whole ""But, but, but fame and importance !"" ( Fame and importance were rejected in 2004.) and ""But, but, but population !"" and even ""But, but, but it is on the same street !"" and just looks at how well the world outwith the article subject's creators/promoters has noted the article subject it all becomes very easy. Nine Ashes Farm made it into a history book. Uncle G ( talk ) 08:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My comment doesn't imply 25 Bank Street is notable (not that you said it did). At first glance it gave me an appearance of such compared to this article and led me to believe this article had good potential for expansion. Though when one checks 25 Bank Street through much of its sourcing seems primary and/or not independent. Rupples ( talk ) 16:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC) please consider re-evaluating based on the sources now in the article. Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 14:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Wasn't sure what to recommend yesterday. Thanks to User:Arbitrarily0 the article is in much better shape today — in particular the new architectural points highlighted from additional sources, sufficient to pass the GNG. Rupples ( talk ) 19:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"List of rs in Kagoshima Prefecture: Devonian Wombat ( talk ) 22:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics , Geography , and Japan . Devonian Wombat ( talk ) 22:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC) Lists of rs in Japan for each of the prefectures, and I would recommend against deleting just one. The main article discussing the rs as a group is Municipal rs and dissolutions in Japan , and it seems appropriate to split instances of this by prefecture. The Japanese wikipedia has similar lists (though more comprehensive) at ja:Template:都道府県別廃止市町村 , with a longer main article at ja:日本の市町村の廃置分合 . Maybe rs or even deletion would be appropriate here, but they should probably be discussed as a group. Reywas92 Talk 23:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] mostly on procedural grounds. There are lots of references on the Japanese version of the page, making me think that it's a valid informational list that would be found per LISTN. SALAT does not require a navigational purpose, and the scope is sufficiently limited. SportingFlyer T · C 17:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC) it is unbelievable to propose this topic is not discussed in Japanese language sources (newspapers, urban/muninicial planning journals). Article also serves a clear navigation purpose and passes per WP:CLN . It seems this could be an important a piece in a local history SUMMARYSTYLE article structure, it would be odd to this piece. // Timothy :: talk 19:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC) IINFO . Absolutely nothing gives this data context. Above there is reference to links on the Japanese version of this page, but this is entirely links to the official Japanese Gazette, which of course lists every official event (e.g., promotions, deaths, awards etc.) in tiny one-sentence mentions - this is neither significant coverage nor from a source that exercises any discrimination at all in what it reports. These links are easily reviewed in machine translation. Here's an example: ""Pursuant to the provisions of Article 7, Paragraph 1 of the Local Autonomy Act (Act No. 67 of 1948), Ei-cho, Ijuku-gun, Chiran-cho, Kawabe-gun, and Kawabe-cho, Kawabe - gun , were abolished and their areas were abolished. Even if these were to be interpreted as significant coverage from a discriminating source, these are not lists of rs but instead single mentions of single events and therefore don't pass WP:LISTN . The argument that these are required for navigational purposes is also highly dubious. Just WHAT is it supposed to be helping people navigate? The individual rs have no articles (nor could they) so it is not helping people navigate rs. The locations do have articles but we already have pages that would assist with navigating them. Arguing that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is the hoariest of old AFD chestnuts. The argument from Reywas92 is probably the best but it still falls flat - for a page to be a valid WP:SPLIT it has to have stand-along notability and meet the requirements of WP:NOT per WP:AVOIDSPLIT , and this page clearly does not have that. It might be more economical of everyone's time to these articles in one go, but Devonian Wombat 's strategy of nominating one of them to see what people say is also a valid approach. FOARP ( talk ) 09:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I'm convinced by FOARP's assessment that these are little more than entries on prefectural ticker tape that serve no navigational or encyclopedic purpose. The whole lot should go. JoelleJay ( talk ) 05:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . These lists mark the conclusion of the history of individually notable populated places and the beginning of the history of subsequent individually notable places, each with significant effects at the local and prefectural level. While the level of sourcing and development of these sorts of articles could be improved, most of the comments in favor of deletion here do not appear to have been preceded by any WP:BEFORE in the native language. Future development of the article would likely describe the effects of these rs as a group (in this case, altering and determining the current constituent divisions of Kagoshima Prefecture). As an alternative to having an article on each individual r, or extended discussion about the individual notability of each r listed, ing these sorts of articles seems like a better result. Dekimasu よ! 07:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"South Australian Pipe Band Association: Struggling to find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:NORG . AusLondonder ( talk ) 12:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music , Organizations , and Australia . AusLondonder ( talk ) 12:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] admittedly can be a struggle - one of the weirdest afd coincidences - the original editor is still editing (!), it is clear that the the facilities of trove were not available when this article was created. The claims for the organisation in all probability are verifiable from a careful check of material in trove... JarrahTree 13:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC) Are you saying sources are available on Trove or potentially available? AusLondonder ( talk ) 13:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC) Fifieldt turns up with some semblance of where either the South Australian or Victorian article claims can be verified from (or not) - I am not as familiar with SA (being a WA person), but it is not something that I would bank on. For some bizarre reason Trove seemed to be offline when I was trying to follow up, I do not promise anything. Apologies for that. JarrahTree 13:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC) //www.pipebandsaustralia.com.au/south-australia/ . Its member the Caledonian Society may be notable as the oldest pipe band in the southern hemisphere https://bagpipe.news/2019/11/25/brett-tidswell-piping-in-australia/ fifieldt ( talk ) 04:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC) https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/275407559? searchTerm=%22South%20Australian%20Pipe%20Band%20Association%22 fifieldt ( talk ) 04:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC) BAND or WP:ORG . LibStar ( talk ) 22:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The organization has shut down, but there is a new group which could be mentioned in the same article. There are several Google hits for ""Pipe Bands South Australia"", which as Fifieldt points out, is the replacement for the South Australian Pipe Band Association, https://www.pipebandsaustralia.com.au/south-australia/ Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 06:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"La Crosse Technology: Graywalls ( talk ) 08:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Technology , Minnesota , and Wisconsin . Graywalls ( talk ) 08:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Local newspapers are still good sources. I added a couple more cites from the La Crosse Tribune, but yeah good cites are scarce, and I wouldn't complain if this ends up not being enough. --~ ฅ(ↀωↀ=) neko-chan nyan 16:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC) , WP:NCORP places emphasis on source quality due to susceptibility of companies/organizations article to public relations editing. WP:AUD specifically calls that at least one of the sources providing significant coverage must be regional or national, so based on these guidelines, I find the company unable to satisfy notability. Graywalls ( talk ) 22:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC) AUD purely local mentions do not contribute towards notability. Lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder ( talk ) 18:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"October 2023 UNRWA school airstrike: – SJ + 20:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Not notable, no continuing coverage, wasn't intentional, not many deaths. Mediaexpert3 ( talk ) 06:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] — Notable topic, with dozens of sources (international sources) visible in a simple Google search. Per WP:NEXIST , the article quality does not have to be good (seen/confirmed in in 1999 Aïn Témouchent earthquake / AfD ). WP:RS articles about the event include, but not limited to: Reuters , The United Nations , Times of Israel , Jerusalem Post , UN News , Metro (UK) , KELO (South Dakota) . The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 20:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC) RAPID discussion much? No PROD occurred prior to AfD being started, no talk page discussion occurred prior to AfD being started, and event occurred a few hours ago. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 20:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC) RAPID after blatantly ignoring WP:DELAY , not to mention WP:SUSTAINED and WP:EVENTCRIT . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 23:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait — It hasn't even been a day since the event took place. We don't know what amount of RS coverage will develop, or if this will become more important due to later events. aismallard ( talk ) 21:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per The Weather Event Writer. Significant RS coverage, and it seems likely the article will be expanded as we learn more info. Davey2116 ( talk ) 21:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per The Weather Event Writer. -- فيصل ( talk ) 23:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC) 05, 17 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Military , Israel , and Palestine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC) 09, 17 October 2023 (UTC) 14, 17 October 2023 (UTC) GNG . Popo Dameron ⁠ talk 23:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC) 42, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - not sustained coverage nor notable enough for a separate article. -- Rockstone Send me a message! 10:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - many sources, official UN condemnation , coverage will intensify as time goes on. MarkiPoli ( talk ) 11:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - notable topic. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk ) 13:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC) 45, 18 October 2023 (UTC) 32, 18 October 2023 (UTC) 44, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems significant, particularly in view of hospital explosion only a short time earlier. PatGallacher ( talk ) 19:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC) NOTNEWS and WP:SUSTAINED . The topic received a little coverage immediately after the event, but lacks the sustained coverage needed to comply with those policies. BilledMammal ( talk ) 06:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC) would a reasonable compromise be to this article into Attacks on UNRWA during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war (similar to Kidnappings during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war ). The analogy is apt because while we won't create a separate article on every kidnapped Israeli, collectively its an important topic. Likewise, collectively Israeli attacks on UNRWA during the war are important and have sustained coverage (and if past is any indication, they will be talked about for years to come, eg see 2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters ). VR talk 01:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd name it something different, as that proposed title has some NPOV issues (Israel's position is that it isn't targeting UNRWA but rather Hamas facilities that are build under, in, or around UNRWA locations). However, the concept of that article would be a suitable target, if we can find sufficient coverage on that broader topic - I haven't seen any yet, but I also wouldn't be surprised if such coverage existed. BilledMammal ( talk ) 01:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC) After waiting for about a day to see if any further coverage is made to this article, one thing is clear: no sustained coverage was made. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 11:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sustained refers to ""a sufficiently significant period of time"" not a day or two. More useful when looking back in time to see whether an article that was initially kept still deserves to be. Selfstudier ( talk ) 11:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC) 24, 19 October 2023 (UTC) 14, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , widely covered, multiple dead, and specifically a UN organization that was impacted. LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 23:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is not news. Little, not enough sustained coverage. Would recommend it be d with other incidents, if not. Recommend deletion. Homerethegreat ( talk ) 07:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . A United Nations building, a refugee school at that, being hit by an airstrike with confirmed casualties is not at all insignificant Salmoonlight ( talk ) 07:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC) WP:NOTE - This article is a single (2 sentence) paragraph that wouldn't warrant it's own subsection, let alone article. WP:SUSTAINED - Notability guidelines require sustained coverage. WP:NOTNEWS - Wikipedia values enduring notability over mere newsworthiness, and while news can serve as source material, most newsworthy events don’t qualify for inclusion due to Wikipedia’s non-news style. WP:EVENTCRIT - Editors should guard against recentism as current events may seem more important initially than they do in hindsight, often due to varying criteria between news outlets and Wikipedia. When evaluating an event's notability for a Wikipedia article, it's essential to assess its enduring historical significance, coverage extent, and impact, considering factors like depth, duration, geographical scope, etc.. WP:DELAY - We should avoid hastily writing articles on breaking news, as initial reports might lack depth and offer a skewed perspective, potentially leading to recentism. Instead, consider first adding information about the event to a related existing article. If the event proves to be notably significant over time, it can subsequently be given its own dedicated article. - Yaakovaryeh ( talk ) 08:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC) NOTE is overruled by WP:NEXIST (evidence and precedent for that was listed above — Aka a 2 sentence, unsourced article survived AfD on NEXIST grounds). The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC) Thank you for the reference; however, I'm not just going based on what exists in this article, but rather what exists period [I.E. the sources covering the story mostly just quote the short statement from the UN, that's pretty much it for the story]. Additionally, looking over at the case you provided, the arguments made there doesn't seem to hold here, and in fact highlight why this article here fails WP:NOTE . The opinion over there stated (emphasis mine): ""I've reviewed the two papers listed in further reading and they both provide in depth SIGCOV of the subject , the papers are entirely about this earthquake. The papers were published in 2004 and 2009, this 1999 event demonstrates WP:PERSISTENCE "" This story has received neither in depth/detailed coverage, and certainly not WP:PERSISTENCE . Another important distinction is that this was a standalone event, whereas this is a relatively minor event within a larger event, making this unnecessary WP:Content forking . Yaakovaryeh ( talk ) 07:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON to tell which events in this fast-moving situation will have ongoing resonance, and it isn't the job of en.wiki to decide. JMWt ( talk ) 08:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC) 30, 20 October 2023 (UTC) This appears to have been nominated within six hours of its creation with nary a hint of discussion on its talk page, and presumably before the subsequent coverage could be weighed. Seems pre-emptive and perfunctory. Yes, there's lots of news going up now, and not all of it develops WP:SUSTAINED relevance, but once something has been put up, better to wait and see how it develops. Here the topic is more generally notable as a strike on a school that is clear civilian and UN infrastructure, i.e. one of the more tangible war crimes out of many in the conflict. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 09:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC) This article entirely duplicates content already in 2023 Israel–Hamas war ; On 17 October, the IDF carried out an airstrike on a UNRWA school sheltering 4,000 refugees in the Al-Maghazi refugee camp, killing six and injuring dozens. Philippe Lazzarini, the UNRWA Commissioner-General, called the attack ""outrageous"" and showing ""a flagrant disregard for the lives of civilians . It also partially duplicates content in several other articles, such as 2023 in the State of Palestine . Given that we already have all of this information elsewhere it doesn't make sense to have a standalone article. BilledMammal ( talk ) 11:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC) 17, 21 October 2023 (UTC) 45, 21 October 2023 (UTC) 30, 21 October 2023 (UTC) 43, 21 October 2023 (UTC) 04, 21 October 2023 (UTC) 20, 21 October 2023 (UTC) 30, 21 October 2023 (UTC) 03, 22 October 2023 (UTC) 46, 22 October 2023 (UTC) 48, 23 October 2023 (UTC) 10, 24 October 2023 (UTC) 19, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Sj prove his claim that the attack was ""unintentional"" apart from official statements from Israeli spokesmen, and even if it was it wouldn't be a reason for silencing it. -- Te og kaker ( talk ) 23:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Assume good faith . The original poster and other contributors put forth several points that deserve consideration and response. Accusations or assumptions about others' motives, such as suggesting they are engaging in propaganda, aren't conducive to the collaborative and respectful environment we strive for on Wikipedia. It would be significantly more constructive to address the specific arguments made, providing evidence and citing guidelines as necessary, to ensure the discussion remains focused on improving the encyclopedia. This way, we can work together toward a consensus that reflects both Wikipedia’s standards and the verifiable information available on the topic. Yaakovaryeh ( talk ) 05:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Opinion is roughly evenly divided, hopefully not on the basis of views on this war but based on policy and sourcing. Discounting that this might be viewed as a ""minor event"", this was one incident of conflict in a larger war. As we've recently discovered at AFD with incidents during the conflict in Ukraine, not every incident, however terrible, warrants a standalone article so are there thoughts on where this content might be Merged to as an ATD? Just raising the question as opinion seems deadlocked right now. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC) I wrote ""minor"" only in the context of a war with thousands of casualties and hundreds of fully destroyed buildings, not because death in war is ever minor. Damage to one building and 6 deaths, with no other details, when we have only a couple dozen articles on any individual attack or battle in the war, is less than what normally makes for a standalone article. – SJ + 01:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC) 52, 25 October 2023 (UTC) 52, 26 October 2023 (UTC) 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Second week (14–20 October) Allegations of war crimes against Israel#UNRWA school airstrike War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Indiscriminate attacks 2023 in the State of Palestine#October 2023 in Israel#October The only """" arguments that potentially address issues like WP:SUSTAINED , WP:NOTNEWS , WP:EVENTCRIT , WP:PERSISTENCE , WP:SIGCOV , etc., were based on assumptions that have not been borne out : ""coverage will intensify as time goes on"" ""there will be more coverage in the future"" ""it seems likely the article will be expanded as we learn more info"" ""Keep for at least a week, as the event only took place today and articles related to war shouldn't be d this fast"" Aside from the speculative nature of this type of reasoning, in the more than a week since the event, there has been little (if any) significant additional coverage beyond the initial, brief news stories quoting UNWRA. Given the unfortunately escalating nature of the conflict and the occurrence of more significant incidents since then, it's increasingly unlikely that this will be recognized as a major event. Yaakovaryeh ( talk ) 08:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC) GNG . Mztourist ( talk ) 05:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC) ). .! 20:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] none should hide a widely admissible event. Sg7438 ( talk ) 08:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] — Notable event with dozens of international sources. This is a WP:RUSHDELETE we have time to revisit. Lightburst ( talk ) 01:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Cheryl Ruddock: She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. WP:BEFORE does not call up any RS for this artist. I am not finding any sources for claims of being in collections. The article, as currently written, has 4 dead links. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 02:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions . WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 02:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Canada . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Fails WP:NARTIST . 84.146.2.66 ( talk ) 10:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails WP:ARTIST, dead links not necessarily a problem, but all refs seem to be local news/gallery. No evidence of widespread/national level exhibition or recognition. Hemmers ( talk ) 14:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Passes WP:BASIC , if not the artist-specific criteria. Have added multiple sources to the article, including this review in a local Ontario newspaper . Her reputation really is as one of the top artists from Guelph, but at least her work is also acknowledged in publications in other parts of Ontario. If this article is not kept, I would suggest a and with her husband Nicholas Ruddock 's bio, even though their careers are in completely different spheres of work; they have been married for nearly 50 years and there is a lot of coverage about that as well since he likes to talk about it. (It would seem like a more natural fit to combine their bios, if they were both artists or both novelists. For this reason as well, I think it makes more sense to her article separate.) Regarding the collections holding her work, there is plenty of secondary coverage accessible via ProQuest that verifies this one by one; it would just take some time to add it back to the article. I came across many snippets of critics assessing/commenting on her work as well in newspapers from the mid-1980s through to her more recent exhibitions, which could be added to the section on ""Reception"". Cielquiparle ( talk ) 06:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful at this point to get some feedback about article improvements that have been made since its nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC) Sources are too local, I don't think she's at notability for artists. She doesn't seem to have gathered much attention from the national press in Canada. Guelph is a lower mid sized city in Ontario, so she has some local notability, but it's not Ottawa or Toronto. I don't see her works having been displayed at the Art Gallery of Ontario in Toronto, the McMaster in Hamilton or any of the national Galleries in Ottawa. I suspect she might not be notable (for our purposes) until after she passes away and the wider art community takes notice. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC) She's in the permanent collection of the Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery [42] , a regional museum. Does that add to notability? I'm somewhat out of my wheelhouse on this one. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC) NARTIST . Criterion 4d would suggest it is necessary to be part of the permanent collection of several notable galleries. Is Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery notable? It has no page and is regional, but even if we grant that it is, this is just one collection. We need several. I think we should be looking at BASIC and ANYBIO. Cielquiparle asserts they meet BASIC, citing one review. The review is occasioned by an exhibition at Glenhyrst Art Gallery. I do not see how that rises above a primary source, tbh. She is an artist, she has an exhibition, and someone writes about the exhibition - which is reporting. Any artist with an exhibition will get that much. Put another way, if all we had was that article, what could we really say about the artist? What is an article built on? I haven't entered a ! vote here because I have not satisfied myself that no secondary sources can be found, but I don't see any that have been presented to date. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 16:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A review is not a primary source. A gallery announcing an exhibit is a primary source, but a review is secondary by definition, if it is in fact independent. Anyway there are more sources in the article. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 17:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The art is the primary source and the review of the art is indeed secondary by definition. But as with all sources, whether a source is primary or secondary often depends on the question being asked. It is secondary for the art, but reporting of an artist's exhibition is primary for the artist. If it goes beyond reporting then it may be secondary for the artist too. But as I said, Put another way, if all we had was that article, what could we really say about the artist? What is an article built on? That is the real question. I'll take a look at the other sources in the article. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 18:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC) NARTIST . Curiocurio ( talk ) 16:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I said I would look at the other references in the article. Quite a lot of them are dead. There are a few that contain information that could be used to write about her, such as [43] , but these write ups used in exhibitions tend to be written by the artist themself. As such they are inot independent. I looked at her CV [44] and this largely confirms Oaktree b's comments. However, per Curiocurio, the public collections at the end does mention Canada Council Art Bank among others. I am leaning , but would sway to if I believed NARTIST criterion 4 was met: The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. I think the Canada Council Art Bank is definitely one, but we need several. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] She is in several. I don't see what the problem is with the Art Gallery of Hamilton, as Hamilton is not a small city. I also confirmed the Kitchener-Waterloo Art Gallery and Glenhyrst in Brant. The University of Guelph site is under construction so couldn't be confirmed. Curiocurio ( talk ) 13:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC) ANYBIO #3 (broadly construed). Cielquiparle ( talk ) 06:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] From my reading of it, I believe the Canadian equivalent would be Dictionary of Canadian Biography . Nothing lesser if the source is to be used to establish presumptive notability. Graywalls ( talk ) 15:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - It is borderline, but I am out of my expertise here, and so I think I should give the benefit of the doubt to ing the article. There does, on the face of it, appear to be reason to believe she is more than just regionally notable. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 09:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Musk family: The only content is basically that you'd really expect to find on the ""Musk (disambiguation)"" page in terms of links to articles of people with the same surname with a short summary. Instead now all you see is only Elon Musk and then a link to this page, just complicating the process and in effect making other articles less prominent artificially. So far, despite existing for more than a year, there has been little addition of content or subject scope that would necessitate the need for an article on a prominent ""family"", such as the Kennedys or Bushes for example where the detail of them as families stretches back into the 1800s in terms of family prominence in cultural/political life. As a result I would suggest that this article be d and the list of ""notable members"" be instead moved to the disambiguation page. Apache287 ( talk ) 01:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Move ""notable members"" to the disambiguation page, per nominator above. This is just a small list of six of Elon's immediate family members, who already have stand-alone articles. There's no reason to have a stand alone list. — Maile ( talk ) 02:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , South Africa , Canada , and United States of America . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and moving ""notable members"" to the disambiguation page would be the best solution. TH1980 ( talk ) 02:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Agreed with TH1980 - move the blue link members to Musk (disambiguation) . Resonant Dis tor tion 15:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Considering that there are 6 notable family members listed, all with articles, I don't see why this should be any less acceptable as an article than Rockefeller family , Kennedy family , Roosevelt family , Cuomo family , Walton family , Bush family or many others. Beyond My Ken ( talk ) 18:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So far, the Musks are only about the current generation. They are wealthy, but nothing suggests they are a dynasty. And other than Elon, their contributions really have no great affect on our culture. The Bush family are a political dynasty whose actions have had impacts on both our economy and our foreign relations, including the responsibility of putting us back on our feet after the 9-11 attacks. The Rockefellers, Kennedys and Roosevelts were dynasties whose individual and collective contributions re-shaped this country and its culture, and in the case of the Kennedys, are still at it. The Roosevelts, collectively and as individuals, changed our culture. It can certainly be argued that America was in such dire straits after the Wall Street Crash of 1929 that the country was vulnerable to a political overthrow by a foreign government. FDR's four administrations put people to work and moved us forward. — Maile ( talk ) 03:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are actually two generations represented with articles, not just one. Jahaza ( talk ) 23:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Musk (disambiguation) to history. Sebbog13 ( talk ) 19:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . It may end up being a WP:PERMASTUB , but I think it satisfies WP:NLIST . There is coverage on his children (even tho it should largely be excluded for the kids' privacy), or his parents as part of a family. But generally, there looks to be enough coverage on the family unit to warrant a page. There's some extra info that can't be included in a DAB page, namely the ancestral origins. SWinxy ( talk ) 02:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, just to say on the ancestral origins there's only one source on that and it's both paywalled and non-English so I can't confirm it. However, before nominating for deletion, there were other claims in that section that turned out all to be non-reliable. So really at most it appears to be a point of trivia than substantial reporting. Apache287 ( talk ) 16:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. These are the times when I wish I could act on my own opinion but this discussion is clearly divided right now. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [30] [31] [32] — siro χ o 06:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Musk (disambiguation) . As it stands, this is superfluous. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 16:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename Musk (surname) , add non-family members ( Jack Musk , Simon Musk ) and get rid of most of the text? Clarityfiend ( talk ) 07:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I don't think it's an issue. Every person here has an article and it seems to be a perfectly valid list. More could be added for each additional family member and more members could be added if that's the concern, but that just needs an improvement tag, not a deletion. KatoKungLee ( talk ) 00:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The point though is precisely that it's just a list, in which case it'd be better d/d with the disambiguation page unless there's credible attempts to actually improve it into an article on the family proper. Apache287 ( talk ) 14:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Liz , I'm kinda curious on what your opinion is. SWinxy ( talk ) 01:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SWinxy , I have to be careful. When I first started closing AFDs, I could be glib in my closure statement and that got me brought to Deletion Review which is to admins what being called to ANI is to editors. I was accused of ""super voting"" so it's best to my opinions to myself. If I have a strong opinion, I participate in the discussion and don't handle closures. L iz Read! Talk! 06:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I'd like to point out that the reason they had their own family page, just like Bush , Walton , Cuomo family is because they are relatively notable in their own right with well-known connection across mainstream media to deserve such page. HarryAnsyah ( talk ) 02:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC) — HarryAnsyah ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Buffer theory: It would probably be best if this were d or ed to another article. Shadow311 ( talk ) 15:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . Shadow311 ( talk ) 15:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Current state of the article and its content are irrelevant. I could find plenty of sources discussing the buffer theory here and here . It is important to note that since there is another buffer theory in the fields of biology and chemistry, I had to include the keyword ""migration"" which weeds out most of the irrelevant sources. More could be found with different search terms. I can't also think of an article for this to / into. The most relevant option would be a topic such as human migration or international migration , which are very general, so a main article on this topic is warranted in my current opinion. Aintabli ( talk ) 01:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 18:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Damn It Ani Barach Kahi: AShiv1212 ( talk ) 06:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Need to wait for more reviews. Orientls ( talk ) 12:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment reviews look arguably OK as they are right now; the article has been updated somewhat since nominated for deletion. to Mahesh Kothare is a sensible ATD since this is an autobiography, if we're not going to it standalone... but again, that's difficult to evaluate. Jclemens ( talk ) 00:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"List of Orange Bowl broadcasters: Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE . Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 07:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , American football , and Lists . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 07:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC) 33, 9 May 2024 (UTC) ROUTINE and WP:ITSIMPORTANT applies. This is not about the notability of the games itself. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC) LISTN . WP:NOTTVGUIDE —""An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc.""—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 ( talk ) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC) LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 ( talk ) 22:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC) You're practically speaking very subjectively when you state that this is another case of something to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans , especially without accompanying evidence to backup such a general statement. It almost sounds like your your saying that something like this shouldn't be around because you personally don't care, heard much of, or understand or have much reverence college football or its history and background. Just because it may not personally appeal to you doesn't instantly mean that there's otherwise, little merit in something like this. BornonJune8 ( talk ) 11:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] When I said appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans , I meant this list, not the sport as a whole. Did you pay attention to that? Of course not. As an non-American, we all know how popular the sport is to you Americans. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 07:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This user (BornonJune8) has a history of exclusively targeting my AfD with a vote, despite how weak they are. This was because I nominated one of his article for AfD. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 07:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Did you pay attention to that? Of course not. Please it civil. Zanahary ( talk ) 09:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC) Sources dating back to the 1950s on television are being added at this very moment. And more will soon come to help bolster the WP:RS needs. BornonJune8 ( talk ) 10:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Source is about an announcment of an analyst, the other is an announcment of TV coverage. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 14:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As of now, there are at least 70 different references, and almost 60 just recently added in regards to not only CBS' earliest television coverage of the Orange Bowl, but their coverage in the 1990s. There also are now references/sources that have been added for NBC's television coverage from the 1960s on through the early 1990s and Fox's coverage during the late 2000s. Sources for ABC's during the late '90s and first portion of the 2000s and ESPN's coverage from the 2010s on through the present day just need to added as well as sources for the radio coverage. BornonJune8 ( talk ) 9:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC) I had a check: some focuses heavily on the games with the coverage being a side piece, some are WP:PRIMARY , some are announcments or talk about the announcers, some are 404. Like Wikipedia, you know that IMDB does not count as a reliable source. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 10:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC) 41, 19 May 2024 (UTC) Relisting so that added sources can be further reviewed. Also, please no personal comments about contributors and accusations about motivations that are obviously unsupported. Focus on policy, sources and notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC) 56, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Final relist. or ? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC) ROUTINE mentions, WP:NYPOST , and finally, there are some sources that are reliable, but do not provide the significant coverage that are necessary to sustain such a grouping. Therefore, it is within the topic of WP:LISTN , that my !vote remains. Conyo14 ( talk ) 07:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Peter Lenz: This boy was only really notable for one event: his unfortunate death. All the other claims of significance are only sourced to his own blog. The levels he competed at fail our standards for significant coverage. This person just wasn’t notable. T v x 1 23:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . T v x 1 23:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . Couple thoughts. First off, notability can surface after death. This may not be BIO1E in which case, the subject would meet WP:BASIC . Eg. Associated Press notes: Despite being only 13 years old and listing his profession on the Grand Prix website as ""kid,"" Lenz was already a well-known racer. He had been riding bikes for six years, won nine national championships and nine regional titles, and appeared to be a rising star in a series that bills itself as a prep for riders 12 to 18 who hope to compete at a higher level. [28] Also, this appears to be a notable death which would meet WP:EVENT on its own, and if the consensus is that that the BIO is not notable, it may still merit a rework and move to Death of Peter Lenz . Beyond the immediate news coverage there were reactions that followed. For example, All Things Considered on NPR had a segment on it discussing the impact of the death ProQuest has a transcript: [29] . Here's a columnist from The Oregonian with an opinion piece about it [30] . Here's the WSJ reacting [31] . (there are a lot more contemporary reactions, I won't list more) To demonstrate WP:SUSTAINED , here's some secondary coverage of a memorial from the following year [32] , an editorial from about 5 months after [33] , here's some coverage from over 7 years later [34] , some coverage in French from 8 years after [35] . — siro χ o 08:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport , Florida , and Washington . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Meets GNG, NSPORT SNG is optional. Perfectly fine with a discussion on renaming to be an event, but I don't think that should be an AfD-required outcome. Jclemens ( talk ) 19:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC) GNG . T v x 1 14:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You say that, but I find Siroxo's argument more compelling. Jclemens ( talk ) 02:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 01:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't really see notability, it says he won ""national titles"", but I get the feeling they're not terribly notable. I would think it is like playing in Little League baseball; you can win titles, but we only really worry about the Little League World Series, and even that is a stretch. Young kid with a bright future, passed away too young. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed. Moreover almost of these are sourced to his own website only anyway. That's a major no-no. T v x 1 14:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If an individual is notable, sourcing non-contentious material from primary sources is not an issue. You have asserted, but failed to prove, that there are not two independent RS'es providing non-trivial coverage. Jclemens ( talk ) 02:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem is not the sources being primary. The problem is the sources being self-published by the subject or his family/entourage and that the claims of significance of his achievements all strem from them. It seems you don’t the understand thr difference between secondary and independent sources ( which are NOT the same). It’s perfectly possible to have primary but independent sources. T v x 1 12:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per BIO1E. Known mostly for his death, and at his age (and brevity of career) made no significant contribution to the sport, with non-notable awards and racing series. Only wikilinks in the article are racetracks and locations. Article has a lot of filler and sounds almost promotional in tone with sources consisting mainly of press releases. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 22:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"NASCAR on television in the 2000s: Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE . As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of mostly dead and ed pages, WP:PRIMARY and YouTube posts, not helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to to NASCAR on television and radio . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Motorsport , Lists , and United States of America . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio , alternatively to that target. Splitting individual decades s the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE . ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Valid split? ...which is made of Youube links. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 20:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Where is Kate? : TheSpacebook ( talk ) 19:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy . WP:TNT after recent diagnosis. See also discussions at the previous AfD , DRV , and BLP noticeboard . IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 19:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What's changed since the previous AfD that closed a few days ago is that the cancer diagnosis has shifted the goalposts entirely. The speculation merited an article for the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources it attracted, and there was (in my view) consensus expressed in the previous AfD to apply the WP:10YT in the fullness of time, likely eventually resulting in the article's into Catherine, Princess of Wales . To me, the diagnosis means that the WP:10YT applies today , not in ten years' time. We are effectively now talking about Cancer diagnosis of Catherine, Princess of Wales , with all the speculation in the article as a background section. That kind of article presents evident WP:BLP concerns, and is outside the scope of Wikipedia. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 19:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Switching ! vote to Neutral . Having substantially reorganised and trimmed the article, I think an article focussed on the speculation or Mother's Day photograph could be viable without running into WP:BLP concerns, if it is treated as a historical documentation of the mass media interest/speculation leading up to today's sad announcement. No doubt, further commentary will e over the coming hours about how awful said interest and speculation was. But that means that, unless the speculation continues, the article's scope should stop with this evening's announcement and any further commentary offered on the speculation. As the article's creator, one of its major editors, and the previous AfD nominator, I self-imposed a user topic ban on editing the article this morning, not expecting to work so much this evening on clean-up in case the article is kept. It has become a timesink detracting from the reasons I started editing Wikipedia, and I'm conscious of the tortured responses the article has evoked on the BLP noticeboard , which is why I'm excusing myself from the AfD. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 23:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC) BLP issue. We should not be scrutinizing the moves of a living person that is under going treatment for cancer. Most of the article is speculation anyway and falls short of criteria set by WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM . Keivan.f Talk 19:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC) BLP issue , and both the BLP noticeboard and DRV discussions highlighted that the BLP argument has struggled to specify exactly how this is a BLP issue: nobody, for example, has even quoted the relevant part of WP:BLP . At the same time, I think it should be a BLP issue if it isn't, and there may be a case to open an RfC to more clearly draw lines. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 20:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC) while it is unfortunate that someone has been diagnosed with cancer, the actual GNG analysis of this ""event"" and the coverage of the speculation conducted at the end of the last close is still valid (arguement for a speedy ). The article can be written to include (what will presumably be) the close of this saga. Further, all the calls of the BLP violation don't actually identify a problem; and if there were one it could be remedied on the page by being challenged in the article or discussed on the talk page. microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 19:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that the witch hunt the woman was subjected to is indeed a notable event. However, I think the article should be rewritten entirely if it were to be kept. We need to remove all the speculation and unnecessary details and discuss the phenomenon itself, similar to Paul is dead . Keivan.f Talk 19:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Absolutely. The article will now naturally progress to the past tense and I'm sure there will be plenty of ink spilled by secondary sources about how this was a terrible thing to happen and to speculate on, and that can and should be added to the article as well. The fact remians that we are at articles for deletion and we have no valid reason to this article, except for what appears to be a bunch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT , seeing as the ink hadn't even dried from the first deletion nom, as evidenced by the fact that there was an ongoing WP:DRV at the time of the re-nomination. microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 20:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Re-write as a lesson for the media and social media on how NOT to treat public figures when they are recovering from surgery Regarding my extensive editing on the article, I did my best to it reliably sourced, neutral tone, and kept the widespread unsubstantiated conspiracies sectioned off in its own section. Removed all tabloids and trivia. I thank those who have recognised that I was doing that, against the onslaught of international mainstream news outlets propagating the story further. It wasn’t a BLP violation before, but since the news it’s a clear BLP violation. Me and the involved editors have created Frankenstein’s monster. This must be d. Also, those with a Wikipedia-centric view of the internet, this article got less than 10k views per day, as opposed to the 400million views the media, and social media commentary received. The article had about 0.0000025% the viewership. TheSpacebook ( talk ) 19:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It may be worthwhile to note that",no consensus
+"Danny Moir: PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada . Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Subject meets the WP:GNG with sources such as [ [40] ], [ [41] ] and [ [42] ]. Let'srun ( talk ) 13:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 12:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"2017 IWBF Asia-Oceania Championships : This article relies almost entirely on associated (non-independent) sources). Our article on Wheelchair Basketball World Championship shows limited notability from outside the organization, itself, so I can't see notability of an individual season from an individual part of the world. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball , Asia , and Oceania . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Passes WP:GNG with coverage. We have plenty of articles on individual quadrennial regional championships. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 02:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Lingam Suryanarayana : Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Notability is not big, but enough to -- Maxim Masiutin ( talk ) 22:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC) 47, 18 November 2023 (UTC) 45, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Anton Iaria : BLPs require strong sourcing and all I really found was four sentences of coverage here . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league , Italy , and Australia . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC) Large scope for expansion, but not enough coverage to warrant ing article in current state. Mn1548 ( talk ) 13:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [24] , Love RL: [25] and Total RL: [26] . Also there are sources in which the name is given as ""Ilaria"" or ""Laria"". EdwardUK ( talk ) 18:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) SPORTBASIC . J Mo 101 ( talk ) 13:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Kevin Xu : Clearly failing WP:GNG , as well as failing WP:NBIO . Bimanmandal ( talk ) 20:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . Bimanmandal ( talk ) 20:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine , China , and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Seems to be a promotional article for the person. -- Kammerer55 ( talk ) 16:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as this article does not appear to have improved since it was previously d in 2017, relying mainly on non-independent sources, including many articles authored by the subject. Search of Newspapers.com turns up exactly one article in The Los Angeles Times which details a lawsuit against him along with other owner(s) of LA Weekly . Does not meet WP:GNG . Cielquiparle ( talk ) 02:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Kevin Xu mentioned in this newspaper article is not the same individual as the Kevin Xu referred to in the main article; they merely share the same name. Please stick to the facts. Voxl ( talk ) 20:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It definitely is the same Kevin Xu. The LA Times article mentions him as the CEO of Mebo International. The Lux Magazine article (among others) discusses his co-ownership of LA Weekly . Cielquiparle ( talk ) 23:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . Cielquiparle ( talk ) 00:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the ""Kevin Xu"" Article The ""Kevin Xu"" article should be retained as it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines with significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. These sources detail his notable impact and achievements. Additionally, if the article is kept, I recommend incorporating information about any controversies or disputes involving this individual, ensuring a more comprehensive and balanced representation of the subject. -- Loving This Mayweather ( talk ) 00:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC) Sock vote struck.-- Bbb23 ( talk ) 14:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources Li, Han (2023-09-15). ""A Chinese Businessman Gave $1M to San Francisco for APEC. Who Is He?"" . The San Francisco Standard . Archived from the original on 2023-11-24 . Retrieved 2023-11-24 . The article notes: ""Xu, 35, inherited the company in 2015 after the unexpected death of his father, Dr. Rongxiang Xu, who founded MEBO. At the age of 27, the younger Xu was not ready to take over an international corporation, but he received much help and encouragement from mentors to help him get through the transition. ... The $1 million donation also gives Xu some benefits and responsibility, as he now co-chairs the APEC Host Committee ... Even though Kevin Xu lives in Los Angeles, he has strong ties with the Bay Area, too. Xu serves as the chair the board of directors at the Bay Area Council, a pro-business group in San Francisco. He’s also the board chair of Street Media LLC, which owns the Marina Times."" Li, Li 李莉 (2021-11-08). ""徐鹏：敬畏生命是通行世界的语言"" [Kevin Xu: Respect for life is a universal language]. 科学中国人 [ Scientific Chinese ] (in Chinese). China Association for Science and Technology . ISSN 1005-3573 . Archived from the original on 2023-11-24 . Retrieved 2023-11-24 . The article notes: ""徐鹏出生的1988年是美宝集团成立的第二年，与美宝一起成长，... 2011年，从南加州大学神经科学专业毕业后，中西方科学和文化的融会贯通让他的视野和格局上升到新的境界和高度，他更加深刻地感知到人生价值和生命意义的神圣内涵。毕业后，徐鹏进入美宝，开始与他的父亲徐荣祥一起研究和发展人体再生复原科学技术，为人类的健康和生命质量提升探索新的可能。"" From Google Translate: ""Kevin Xu was born in 1988, the second year after MEBO Group was established. He grew up with MEBO... In 2011, after graduating from the University of Southern California with a major in neuroscience, he studied Chinese and Western sciences and The integration of cultures brought his vision and structure to a new realm and height, and he more deeply felt the sacred connotation of the value and meaning of life. After graduation, Xu Peng entered MEBO and began to study and study with his father Xu Rongxiang. Develop human body regeneration and restoration science and technology to explore new possibilities for improving human health and quality of life."" Saunders, Andrew (Autumn 2019). ""Meet the Renaissance entrepreneur: Kevin Xu"" . Lux Mag . Archived from the original on 2023-11-24 . Retrieved 2023-11-24 . Although the article is overly promotional, Lux Mag ' s about page says, ""Lux is a feminist magazine of politics and culture founded in 2021. We publish a glossy print edition three times a year featuring our award-winning writers, and a regular newsletter."" It lists an advisory board, an editor-in-chief, editors, and contributing editors. The article notes: ""He was born and raised in California, but we meet in London – he came for Royal Ascot, but also for meetings with charities and NGOs he’s interested in – before he headed to Japan for that country’s first-ever G20 summit. He’s on the advisory board of the California-China Trade Office, serves on the Asian Advisory Board at the University of Southern California’s Davis School of Gerontology, mentors young entrepreneurs at MIT, is the founder of the Kevin Xu Initiative at the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago and has endowed a new Neurotechnology Center in California Institute of Technology. The list goes on. Perhaps the relationships he is most proud of, however, are his ties to two former US presidents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. He’s a member of the Clinton Global Initiative and a contributor to the Obama Foundation, and recently spent a fortnight with Clinton in the US Virgin Islands, working with the 42nd president of the United States in connection with its efforts to help rebuild the region after the devastating 2017 hurricanes. ... And what of his co-ownership of Californian media outlet LA Weekly, which he acquired in 2017 alongside several other local investors?"" Liu, Xianxian 劉先進 (2023-06-30). ""華裔徐鵬捐百萬 助金山辦APEC 成目前捐贈最高贊助商"" [Kevin Xu, a Chinese-American, donated millions to help Jinshan organize APEC, becoming the current top donor sponsor.]. World Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-24 . Retrieved 2023-11-24 . The article notes: ""生物醫藥公司MEBO的執行長、華裔徐鵬捐贈100萬作為APEC的舉辦經費，他也是參與APEC捐贈的最高贊助商之一、目前捐贈最多的華裔。"" From Google Translate: ""Kevin Xu, CEO of the biomedical company MEBO and a Chinese-American, donated 1 million to fund APEC. He is also one of the top sponsors of APEC donations and the Chinese-American who has donated the most."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kevin Xu ( simplified Chinese : 徐鹏 ; traditional Chinese : 徐鵬 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 11:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC) RS test. There is no statement of editorial integrity. They accept contributions from whomever, you just have to email them. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 13:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lux Mag ' s ""The Team"" page notes, ""Darius Sanai is Editor in Chief of LUX and owner of parent company LUX Global Media. He is a consultant Editor in Chief at Condé Nast International. He launched Vogue Hong Kong in 2019 and has launched and edited more than 25 media brands for Condé Nast over the past 15 years."" I see no indication on their website that ""They accept contributions from whomever, you just have to email them"". Would you provide a source for that? Even without the Lux Mag article, there is sufficient coverage in the other sources for Kevin Xu to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says, ""multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"". Cunard ( talk ) 22:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cunard Sorry but looking through the Lux magazine website really does not inspire confidence with regard to editorial independence. To answer your question, the quote from the ""About"" page says: ""Lux welcomes pitches. Send a short email outlining your idea and why you’re the one to write it to pitches@lux-magazine.com."" The publication also explicitly states that it ""creates content for branding"": ""We create content, concepts and events for our partners and advise on strategic direction and brand...Our studio and our sister company Quartet Consulting offer a full suite of media and personal branding services, with a focus on UHNWI individuals and significant figures in the business, art and luxury space...We also offer services adding value to brands and individuals around the world and creating enduring and effective strategic partnerships through our contacts in art, luxury, wealth management and philanthropy."" It's quite clear that a lot of the feature articles on ""philanthropists"" are vanity pieces. Pretty photographs and presentation, though. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 23:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for the explanation. I am striking this source but maintaining my position supporting retention as the remaining sources are enough for Kevin Xu to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria . Cunard ( talk ) 00:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree, and a reliable source also mentioned that Xu Kaiwen was elected as the co-chair of this year's San Francisco APEC hosting committee. APEC 2023: Gwen Stefani, Canadian prime minister, Indonesian president among VIPs at Pres. Biden gala at Exploratorium - ABC7 San Francisco Exitdent ( talk ) 01:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Assessment of recently discovered sources would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak This seems ok [18] but trivial. The Lux discussed above seems a non-RS. I'm unsure about the rest. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The translated Chinese article in the second source seems ok, but I don't think these are enough for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Oaktree b ( talk · contribs ). Here is another Chinese source that provides biographical information about the subject: Zhang, Bing 张兵 (2021-11-08). ""徐鹏：助中医药打开世界朋友圈"" [Kevin Xu: Helping Traditional Chinese Medicine Open Up the World's Circle of Friends]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-25 . Retrieved 2023-11-25 . The article notes: ""眼前这个1988年出生的小伙，8岁就旅居国外，多元化的生活环境混合出他更独到的见解，他更善于找到中、西交融的切合点。2015年4月，美宝集团创始人、美宝集团董事会前主席徐荣祥在美国意外逝世。... 在父亲葬礼上，徐鹏收到两封手写的信，一封来自美国前总统克林顿，一封来自美国前总统奥巴马，... 一年后，徐鹏在山东济南出生。8岁时，徐鹏被送往美国学习。 ... 在2015年接手经营美宝集团之前，美国加利福尼亚州州长布朗就授予徐鹏顾问一职，助推加利福尼亚和中国之间的经贸往来。"" From DeepL and Google Translate: ""The young man, born in 1988, has been living abroad since he was eight years old, and his diverse living environment has mixed with his unique insights, making him more adept at finding points of convergence between China and the West. ... Kevin Xu graduated from the University of Southern California, majoring in neuroscience. He is currently the Vice President of China Foreign Trade Council, Director of China Trade and Investment Commission, Chairman of Global Greater Bay Area Strategic Health Committee, and Chairman of the Board of Mebo Group. ... At his father's funeral, Xu Peng received two handwritten letters, one from the former U.S. President Clinton, one from the former U.S. President Barack Obama ... A year later, Kevin Xu was born in Jinan, Shandong. At the age of 8, Kevin Xu was sent to the United States to study. ... Before Kevin Xu took over the management of MEBO Group in 2015, Governor Brown of California, USA, appointed Xu as a consultant to promote economic and trade exchanges between California and China."" The combination of Li 2023 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLi2023 ( help ) , Li 2021 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLi2021 ( help ) , and Zhang 2021 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFZhang2021 ( help ) is enough for Kevin Xu to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says, ""multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"". Cunard ( talk ) 23:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I do not think the ""translated article in the second source"" referenced by Oaktree b (Li 2021) counts as independent coverage in a reliable source. Every interview-driven article needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and in this case there is nothing in the article that isn't something that Kevin Xu obviously said about himself, his father, his personal opinions, or recapping his CV, and it comes across as oddly self-promotional. On that basis, though, the article that actually seems better than it did at first glance is the San Francisco Standard article (which is tempting to dismiss because of the Wikipedia article about the publication but taking a closer look, at least the publication itself currently has a strong statement of editorial standards). What I would highlight in the San Francisco Standard article are all the statements made which are things Kevin Xu obviously would not have offered about himself or which have a slightly different interpretation compared to what he told other interviewers: ""At the age of 27, the younger Xu was not ready to take over an international corporation, but he received much help and encouragement from mentors to help him get through the transition...In the Chinese-speaking world, MEBO faces many controversies involving Dr. Rongxiang Xu, with critics calling him a liar for claiming he developed the technology for so-called “human organ regeneration.” In response, MEBO’s official website posted an interview in which Rongxiang Xu denied the accusations and stood by his patent."" So for me, the strongest two articles contributing to the WP:BASIC standard of notability are the LA Times article about the lawsuit against Kevin Xu and other co-owner(s) of LA Weekly and the San Francisco Standard article pointing out the controversy about the MEBO ""human organ regeneration"" patent. Another article which puts some of the MEBO controversy into perspective, is ""Snubbed for a Nobel?"" in The Scientist , in which Kevin Xu explains why his father Dr. Rongxiang Xu decided to sue the Nobel Prize Committee for ""excluding"" him from the 2012 Nobel Prize for Medicine which was awarded for research in regenerative science: ""Xu’s son, Kevin, told The Scientist that those discoveries have since allowed 20 million burn victims to restore their normal skin, and according to the MEBO website, the treatments may have much broader applications, including regenerating organs and curing cancer...Xu’s son says his father did not submit his results to mainstream peer-reviewed journals because “he did not want to spend a lot of time writing articles for publication.” Xu did, however, publish in a journal he edits, called The Chinese Journal of Burns Wounds & Surface Ulcers, and with two other doctors, he wrote a book on MEBO techniques in 2004. For the past two decades, his findings were touted in online press releases and news stories in Chinese newspapers; a short 1992 documentary features his research; and at least one US company sees promise in Xu’s treatments. Botanical drug development company Skingenix, also based in Los Angeles, is sponsoring Phase II clinical trials to test whether MEBO products help heal foot ulcers and burns. These studies are not designed to shed light on whether MEBO and stem cells share anything in common, however, and Skingenix declined to comment on this story."" I am striking my previous ! vote as I still really don't like the article (it has the appearance of ""reputation laundering""), and a lot of the other independent coverage is more about the controversy about his father rather than about him, but if it is kept, I will try to help fix it. On that note, I would ask Kevin Xu fans to please consider whether it is really worth ing this article. He is obviously an individual who wants to tight control over his own narrative and always talks about himself (his father and CV and donations and emotions) rather than about his actual business decisions, results he has led his company to achieve, or directly addressing the controversies around MEBO and LA Weekly (except for The Scientist interview). If you read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY , you will see that it says about articles that have been requested by the person: Anything you submit will be edited mercilessly to make it neutral. Many autobiographical articles have become a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community, and in several instances their original authors have asked that they be d – typically unsuccessfully, because if an article qualifies for deletion the community will typically do that without prompting, and an article won't be d just because its subject is unhappy with it. There are many other websites besides Wikipedia which would allow for more control for Kevin Xu to publish a more positive biography about himself and to continue to promote MEBO and Dr. Rongxiang Xu in a positive light. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 06:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am striking my previous ! vote as I still really don't like the article (it has the appearance of ""reputation laundering""), and a lot of the other independent coverage is more about the controversy about his father rather than about him, but if it is kept, I will try to help fix it. – thank you for reevaluating the sources and striking your previous vote. I've rewritten the article to remove promotional content and to make the focus more on him rather than on his father. I've tried to make the article as balanced as possible in touching upon the company's controversy with his father but not spending an overwhelming amount of ink on it. I hope the rewrite makes it easier for you to support the article's retention. Cunard ( talk ) 11:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also saw that Keivn Xu also established the Kevin Xu Initiative on Science, Abhilash Mishra is a member of the Initiative, and has published an article in Science magazine with the theme of ""changing the status quo of American science"". Abhilash Mishra, Director, Kevin Xu Initiative on Science, Technology and Global Development , Science's new frontier | Science Ransacked like 1776 ( talk ) 16:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . There are also new discoveries. He gets involved in many fields and is also a board member of UCI Esports. Esports Leadership Board — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ransacked like 1776 ( talk • contribs ) 22:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions . Cielquiparle ( talk ) 04:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Social Income : Only one source (Borgen Magazine) appears to be secondary with SIGCOV. PROD was removed with the addition of an interview and a promo piece repeating what the NGO does. At present, does not satisfy WP:NONPROFIT or the WP:GNG , happy to withdraw if SIGCOV, secondary independent reliable sourcing can be shown. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 14:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Africa , and Switzerland . Goldsztajn ( talk ) 14:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Random Institute and its head, Sandino Scheidegger, founded the Social Income organization. The organization's name makes it difficult to find sources establishing notability, but we have enough to include it as a section in the older organization's page. Owen× ☎ 14:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear @ OwenX – while both entities were indeed founded by Sandino Scheidegger, it is important to note that they are distinct, separate legal organizations, each with its own unique mission and operational focus. The Random Institute primarily functions as an art institution, whereas Social Income is recognized as an official NGO and is registered as a tax-exempt entity in Switzerland. Merging these pages would not provide added value to Wikipedia users. Instead, it could potentially lead to confusion, as the separate identities and missions of each organization are significant and merit individual recognition. Keeping the pages separate ensures that Wikipedia offers clear, accurate, and comprehensive information about each entity, allowing users to understand their distinct natures and contributions. Thank you for considering this perspective in your decision-making process. DanielBallo ( talk ) 22:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand the distinction between the two organizations, and it certainly made my decision more difficult in arriving at my suggestion to the two. The alternative, however, is to the article about the Social Income organization, as it doesn't meet our standard of notability by itself. Opting for the lesser evil, I recommend we some of the contents as a section in Random Institute , while highlighting the fact that the two are different organizations with different purpose and structure, but with common founders. If and when there is enough significant coverage about Social Income to establish notability, the article can be spun off and revived from the , with your old version serving as a starting point. Owen× ☎ 23:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear @ Goldsztajn – I wish to address the concerns raised regarding the potential deletion of the page. It's important to consider the variety of sources that have covered the subject, including the coverage in Borgen Magazine, which, as you've already noted, is a noteworthy source. Notable among other sources are P.S. Zeitung ( Wikipedia Link ), where Min Li Marti , both editor-in-chief and a member of the national council, has featured content relevant to this topic, and Das Lamm , a prominent Swiss online newspaper. Additionally, there are offline sources such as Freundin Magazin, with an available PDF of the print version , and local reports (West Africa) from Hidden Voices Salone ( PDF ). It's also worth noting the distinct nature of the initiative discussed on the page. Although a registered NGO with tax-exempt status in Switzerland, it operates uniquely as a civil solidarity movement driven by volunteers. This aspect is particularly relevant because it differs from traditional NGO structures, which actively seek press coverage, whereas Social Income does not follow this approach. Despite this, the initiative has successfully raised a substantial amount for a universal basic income pilot. This effort has not only been recognized by the Stanford Basic Income Lab but is also listed on the main UBI map, a detail that is mentioned in the article. As well as it is part of an open source movement which is also recognised by GitHub as one of seven meaningful open source initiatives, as mentioned in the article ( third party source ) and is supported by the official Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation , with a confirmation letter linked in the article ). Furthermore, the initiative's focus on Sub-Saharan Africa contributes to its notability. This region is frequently underrepresented in the global news cycle, especially in the Global North, making the achievements and impacts of the initiative more noteworthy. In light of this information, I believe the page in question fulfills Wikipedia's notability criteria and offers valuable, well-sourced information that enhances the platform's diversity and richness of content. Thank you for considering these points. DanielBallo ( talk ) 23:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ DanielBallo - any subject which appears in Wikipedia must be supported by significant coverage in mutliple reliable sources . What any of us think about a subject, its unique status, its importance etc is not relevant to a discussion of notability, all that matters is the existence of reliable sourcing. So, in terms of the sources presented other than Borgen Magazine, there does not appear to be any sourcing otherwise that reaches the criteria to be classified as reliable. Of the ones mentioned above: Freundin Magazin - this is not SIGCOV, it is a short quarter page promotional piece, simply repeating what SI does. Hidden Voices Salone - this is not independent, it is a publication of the Jamil and Nyanga Jaward Foundation one of Social Income's partners in Sierra Leone. Das Lamm - this is a promotional interview. PS Zeitung - same interview content as Das Lamm, credited to the same author. Github Blog - a passing, promotional mention on a blog about SI's use of software. DEZA/DDC/SDC - this is a primary source, it can used to confirm the existence of the organisation, but provides no indication of SI's notability. Aid agencies fund thousands of organisations world-wide, receiving ODA funding is not in itself an indicator of notability. None of these sources provide secondary, independent SIGCOV. Unfortunately, SI's notability cannot be established with these. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 04:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ Goldsztajn - I appreciate the clarity you've provided regarding the sources for Social Income. To further contribute to this discussion, I'd like to point out an additional article on the Flanders Arts Institute's website , which offers additional insight into what Social Income represents. While I understand and respect your viewpoint on the nature of the sources previously cited, I'd like to offer a different perspective on a couple of points: 1. Interviews in newspapers: My understanding is that interviews can provide valuable insights into an organization's work and ethos. The interview in question (Das Lamm, PS Zeitung) offers substantial information about Social Income's activities and impact, which I would consider a valid source for understanding the organization, rather than merely promotional. 2. Funding and recognition by government bodies (DEZA/DDC/SDC): The fact that Social Income was selected for funding and expertise support by a government agency might be indicative of its significance in the field. While I acknowledge that receiving funding alone does not establish notability, the selection process and the consequent support could be a testament to the organization's impact and relevance. DanielBallo ( talk ) 15:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC) the problem with interviews, and why they are generally discounted in Wikipedia as a reliable source, is that they offer no *independent* assessment of the subject; it is what the subject wishes the audience to hear. As for an official government aid agency's assessment of those they fund - there are all sorts of criteria that they use to determine how to allocate funds, but none of them are the same as Wikipedia's guidelines on WP:NOTABILITY . Again, there's a problem of independence, all aid organizations will wish that the organisations they fund are seen in a good light, which is why, to reiterate, primary sources are discounted as a means to establish notability for Wikipedia. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 00:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 04:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 06:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Decadent (band) : So we have a band. Formed. Disbanded soon after. Recorded an album. Nominated for an award. Didn't win. No chart placement, no enduring impact or influence. No critical reception. No notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BAND. And, yes, a WP:BEFORE shows some initial press release derived music media coverage and nothing whatsoever beyond that. Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 16:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Korea . Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 16:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC) Two of the sources in my view are significant enough coverage to pass GNG and thus make it a notable subject. Wikipedia doesn't care about how long a subject was around for or what the critical reception was. Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 17:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC) There are already reliable sources, and even if they don't win major awards, they can prove their notability by nominations. This is written in WP:MN . And they also have news that they won first place a major music competition. (Paragraph 9 of WP:MN ). Even if the band broke up after only three years of formation, the duration of their activities itself doesn't matter. (If there are sources that can prove their notability) 올해의수상자 ( talk ) 01:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait--you mean the ""the Penta Super Rookie"" award? Come on. Drmies ( talk ) 01:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is a competition hosted by Incheon . And WP:MN paragraph 8 says that even a nomination for a major award can prove its notability. But rather, I don't know why you describe it as “no award” 올해의수상자 ( talk ) 01:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And UPDATE - 2018 EBS Hello Rookie mentioned in the article is also a major competition, and there's the source that they came in third place. I’ll add this later 올해의수상자 ( talk ) 02:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Things don't become ""major awards"" just because you say so. Drmies ( talk ) 13:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know how to answer this… You know that most people here said the Korean Music Awards as a major award, right? 올해의수상자 ( talk ) 23:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC) we're not on Facebook, so that whole ""you know that...right?"" is uncalled for--thank you. You haven't mentioned that award here: we were talking, I thought, about the ""Penta Super Rookie Award"", and you brought up the ""EBS Hello Rookie Award"", neither of which appear to be noteworthy. And with that one nomination, you have a band that meets one of the criteria--and please note that the guideline doesn't say ""is notable if it meets one of the criteria"". It says may . Drmies ( talk ) 01:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, Drmies . First of all, EBS Hello Rookie is not an award, but a competition. If you're going to check that, that's no. 9, not no. 8. Of course, it should be left to each person to judge it as a major competition, but I mentioned it as a major competition, noting that it was hosted by a national institution in Korea and that the competition was broadcast on major broadcasts in Korea. And the user who originally opened the discussion said, ""This band was nominated for a major award, but it was failed in WP:Band because they didn't win,"" and I'm saying this isn't true. I know you edited the Wikipedia for a long time, I respect that part of you, and you left your opinion based on it. Anyway, the sentence that I started with ""You know"" might be a little informal, but when you said ""That doesn't change just because you said that so"" it felt like you were ignoring me (Because I didn't write it in my subjectively, but I wrote it with Wikipedia guidelines and some grounds.), and I was just saying it in a little angry tone, too. (Of course not as much as you, but I've also edited a lot of articles in Wikipedia, and I know the guidelines enough.) I apologise if my words were a little aggressive, but I would like to say to you that your were also a little aggressive for me. Anyway, I think the article meets the conditions if any one of those WP:Band guidelines are applicable, but I think three are (1, 8, 9). And there's a reason why I wrote about it earlier. 올해의수상자 ( talk ) 03:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Simply not notable. No two albums on a major label, no hits, no awards, nothing really per GNG besides minor coverage. Drmies ( talk ) 01:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC) MN . No label and no hit, you are right, but not the other two. 올해의수상자 ( talk ) 04:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom and Drmies's reasoning. To the deletion reviewer, I would be happy for a weak if there is charting on SK national chart (i.e. Circle Chart ) or on Billboard charts in SK or other countries and/or there is winning of a actual major awards of which there isn't other than absurd article creation of ""major competition"" as counterargument. — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝 ) 04:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . It appears, by sources now in the article, that WP:NBAND#C1 /GNG is met. Such sources include [1] [2] [3] . Note that it seems like the album is also notable, but since they only had one major album might as well follow NOPAGE and it all in one article. — siro χ o 22:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Looking like a No consensus closure right now. Very divided opinion on this band. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per Drmies' reasoning. The band's demonstrated notability isn't there, and neither does it seem that the awards/accolades it has are suitable enough to demonstrate its notability. GuardianH ( talk ) 04:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This band was definitely a popular band in Korea in the late 2010s, and of course, it was limited to Korea, and it is right to have a source that they were famous in order to prove that they were famous. However, I can't see why they say they're not famous even if they bring a reliable source according to the part required by WP:Band . Not everyone can have knowledge of articles, which is why there are guidelines like WP:Band . When I just say ""they're famous"" it's not credible, so I'm showing it with reliable sources. But I'm showing they're famous in South Korean indie scene, with reliable sources and awards, but it's not right to comment on deleting simply. 올해의수상자 ( talk ) 02:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I thought this was enough, but Now I've added more reliable sources. I thought everyone would say because the band's notability conditions are met, but I didn't know the discussion would be this long. 올해의수상자 ( talk ) 02:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources to add today are reliable sources (4 or 5 I think), especially in the case of Seojeongmingab and Lee Kyeongjoon are professional music critics (you can see the articles like [4] , and [5] , This article supports that they are influential critics in Korea), and they both are committee of the Korean Music Awards . 올해의수상자 ( talk ) 02:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC) I lived in South Korea during their time of fame, and I know they are a famous band in the late 2010s. So I added some reliable sources to the article today. Also, EBS Hello Rookie Contest is an major influential competition in South Korean indie (you can see it in the article), so I think this part should also be included in the WP:Band criteria. 올해의수상자 ( talk ) 03:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For everyone information, OP was the one that created EBS Hello Rookie Contest btw so Drmies' reasoning above make sense now. They can't just say it's ""major"" just because they created an article and/or an article already exists so it automatically become ""major"" lol. Just my thoughts. — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝 ) 06:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Paper9oll It's not just because the article was made. I'll talk about why this competition can be considered a major. 1. This competition is hosted by a state agency. 2. The competition is broadcast on South Korea's major broadcasting stations. 3. Every year, the competition is covered in a reliable sources, like news To sum up, it's ""a competition hosted by a public institution, broadcast live, recognised and influential."" Even if one of these conditions is met, people usually say it's a major competition. But it has all three. This doesn't make sense if it's not a major competition. 올해의수상자 ( talk ) 06:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And he didn't know much about this competition. And when he and I talked, this article itself didn't exist. Then I would like to judge again, @ Drmies 올해의수상자 ( talk ) 06:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fyi, my comments is NOT a reply to your comments. Nor did "" when he and I talked "" happened nor am I interested on such. — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝 ) 06:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC) 41, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment And, chart can't be the only criterion in Korean indie music. Korean music charts have always been criticized for not properly reflecting marketability and for being too vulnerable to hoarding and marketing outside of music. (You can find this criticism at the following these links [6] [7] [8] ) And, that's why ""K-Indie chart"" have actually been created for the indie music market since 2020 ( [9] ). Of course, I agree with that charts are also one of the reflections of popularity, so I'm not saying this is wrong, but I'd like to say that indie bands are hard to judge their reputation by just the ""charts"". That is why I am referring to reliable sources, major award nominations and major competition. It's all included in WP: Band . It is a sad reality that I have to put forward only this part to prove the reputation of indie musicians, but there is not much information about Korean indie in English Wikipedia, and I think this part should be pioneered. 올해의수상자 ( talk ) 03:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC) I'll write down a description of the source. There are major and minor references here, but I think it met for WP:Band . And I wrote the words ""major competition"" and ""prominent professional music critic,"" and I also prepared a link to them to show that they are often judged that way in Korea, not that I unilaterally claim. 1. [10] Major reference - an interview with the band. 2. [11] Minor reference - this is a critical article about rock festivals in 2019, where a very small reference of the last festival they planned just before disbanding. 3. [12] The record they were nominated for the 2019 Korean Music Awards 4. [13] Major reference - an article about them, interviews with them as well. 5. [14] Major reference - Herald Corporation article, featuring them. 6. [15] Major reference - article by webzine Weiv , and the writer Na Wonyoung is a prominent professional music critic. (link with reference to him (Na Wonyoung) [16] [17] ) 7. [18] Controversial - main or minor references depend on people's judgment. This is an introduction to Marie Claire 's 2017 Korean indie albums. 8. [19] Minor reference - article about the Pentaport Rock Festival Super Rookie final winning 3 teams performing at Pentaport Rock Festival. It's an article that the band is one of those three teams, and the reference isn't long. 9. [20] Major reference - a band-themed article. And Seojeongmingab, who wrote the article, is a prominent music critic. (link with reference to him (Seojeongmingab) [21] [22] [23] ) 10. [24] Controversial - main or minor references depend on people's judgment. One of their songs was made into a stop-motion music video, and there is an explanation about it. 11. [25] Minor reference - about the EBS Hello Rookie Contest they participated in, but not too long 12. [26] Major reference - also about the EBS Hello Rookie Contest they participated in. There's a long story about them. Of course it's up to people to decide whether to judge for a major competition, but I would say this is a major competition based on the reasons I wrote it down. (The source that this competition can be seen as a major competition [27] [28] ) 13. [29] Minor reference - this is an article about the solo career of a band vocalist. The reference to the band is not long. 14. [30] The record they were nominated for the 2020 Korean Music Awards 올해의수상자 ( talk ) 09:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC) THREE is satisfied here. First, the VOP reference is six paragraphs dedicated to Decadent's career and the evolution of its musical style. Second, there's the Herald Economy . The second half is an interview with the band, but the first eight paragraphs are an introduction written by the journalist. Third, Weiv is another piece that delves into the band's musical style to a degree significant enough that I believe meets the threshold of ""significant coverage"". This seems like enough to satisfy any concerns about notability. ✗ plicit 02:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Hannah Paynter : The three references on the page are route coverage and not exclusively about the subject. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 14:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 14:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Located significant coverage from The Day – there's also a runner by the same name that's got some coverage, e.g. Winston-Salem Journal and [43] , not sure if its the same person. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article from The Day is regarding the same rower. The article from the Winston-Salem Journal is about a different person. Ehatchman ( talk ) 16:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC) GNG . Suonii180 ( talk ) 01:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC) https://usrowing.org/sports/pan-american-games-team/roster/hannah-paynter/799 67.248.172.141 ( talk ) 17:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC) //usrowing.org/sports/2023/10/4/2023%20pan%20american%20games%20coverage%20page.aspx 67.248.172.141 ( talk ) 17:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 02:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Piercey Dalton : The best is a passing mention in a film review by The Globe and Mail . Clarityfiend ( talk ) 23:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The Vancouver Film Critics Circle is significant enough that being nominated for its awards counts as a strong notability claim. While I'll grant that there are a few actresses listed in Vancouver Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actress in a Canadian Film who don't have articles yet , that constitutes an important enough award that every actress listed in it has to be eligible for an article as soon as somebody deigns to get around to it. There can be no such thing as an actress who is listed in that article yet is somehow not notable nevertheless. Inadequacy of sourcing is certainly a valid concern if the notability claim is ""she exists""; it is not a valid concern if the notability claim hinges on one or more significant WP:ANYBIO -passing awards . Bearcat ( talk ) 23:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per ANYBIO, ""The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times"". She has only been nominated once. Further, almost no media coverage = failure of WP:GNG / WP:BIO . Clarityfiend ( talk ) 01:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC) one Academy Award nomination is enough, one Grammy Award nomination is enough, one Juno Award nomination is enough, one Canadian Screen Award nomination is enough, and on and so forth. ""Several times"" might come into play for the kind of award where it may be possible to source that a person was submitted for consideration, but the adjudicating committee reveals absolutely nothing further until they're announcing the winner, such as the Nobel Prizes — but for an award that curates and announces a shortlist of three, four or five finalists between the ""submission of all eligible candidates"" and ""announcement of the final winner"" phases of the process, making the shortlist once is enough, because being picked and named to a shortlist of finalists is already a significant distinction over and above most other peers in and of itself. And GNG is irrelevant if the person has an inherent notability claim: if an actress going for ""notable because roles were had"", then obviously they have to be shown to pass GNG, but if they're going for ""shortlisted for a major, inherently notable award"" then as long as the award nomination is properly sourced any other sourcing problems are for refimprove to worry about, not AFD. This is the same as how as long as a politician is properly verified as having held a role that passes WP:NPOL #1, their article is kept even if its current state of sourcing is otherwise inadequate — the role is important and significant enough that having some information about the person, even if there's not as much as we would wish for, is still mission critical enough that an article in that boat has to be kept and flagged for improvement and cannot be d outright. I'll grant that there are a few people in Vancouver Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actress in a Canadian Film who don't have articles yet , but that's only because nobody's gotten around to them yet — there can be nobody whose name is present in that list yet is still somehow ""not notable at all"" for some other reason. The award is notable and important enough that every actress in its article has to either already have an article now or be eligible to have an article as soon as somebody gets around to them, and there can be absolutely no such thing as ""named in that article yet still off limits as an article topic"". Every single person named in that article has to be either ""already a blue link now"" or ""will be a blue link as soon as somebody takes them on"", with no ""this person just can't have an article at all"" exceptions. Bearcat ( talk ) 12:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , Canada , and Arizona . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Vancouver Film Critics Circle award is not well-known. This is several steps below the Genie Awards , so your claim that one nomination is enough is dubious, to say the least. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 11:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Trying to quantify how ""well-known"" a film award is or isn't is a mug's game — awards that are well-known in one country can be not well-known in another and vice versa, so trying to quantify ""how well-known is well-known enough "" is not a useful debate to have at all. Even the Canadian Screen Awards (why would you backdate that to the defunct-for-a-decade Genies?) could be argued as ""not well-known"", if your baseline for ""well-known"" hinged on expecting somebody to prove that they were as famous in Argentina or Indonesia as the Academy Awards are, instead of simply whether they represent a significant and noteworthy distinction within their home country; and the César Awards in France could be argued as ""not well-known"" if you're arguing from the vantage point of India instead of France; and the Japan Academy Film Prize could be argued as ""not well-known"" if you only concern yourself with how much coverage they do or don't receive in Germany while discounting any coverage from Japan; and on and so forth. So we don't care about subjective, geolocated opinions on whether a film award is ""well-known to you "" or not, we care only about whether the award is notable and properly sourced , which the VFCCs certainly are. (It's also the only Canadian film critics association that presents ""actor in Canadian film"" awards at all — the TFCA and the AQCC both just present one overall ""Best Canadian Film"" award each and don't adjudicate individual performances within them, which means VFCC is the only film critics association award it's even possible for an actor in a Canadian film to win or be nominated for.) Bearcat ( talk ) 18:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am a Canadian, so your argument doesn't hold water. And to reiterate, one nomination for an alleged ""well-known"" award, one I can't recall ever hearing about in the media, is not even close to sufficient. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 02:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Whether this award fills some perceived gap is irrelevant; do your axe-grinding somewhere else. As for why I cited the Genies, those are the ones I actually do remember reading about in the newspapers and seeing on TV. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 02:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not grinding any axes, I'm simply stating facts. Trying to quantify how ""well-known"" is ""well-known enough "" is not a thing we do (in fact, we have explicit rules against inserting arbitrary cutoffs into notability criteria), precisely because it's too prone to ""well, it can't be well-known if I've never heard of it"" — so what we do is we follow the sources . If an award has sufficient reliable source coverage to establish it as notable, which the VFCC articles plainly demonstrate that they do, then those sources secure the award as notable whether you've personally heard of it or not — and if the award is notable, then its winners and nominees establish notability by winning or being nominated for it. The cutoff does not require multiple nominations — one Academy Award nomination is enough, one Canadian Screen Award nomination is enough, one Juno Award nomination is enough, one Governor General's Award nomination is enough, one Toronto Film Critics Association nomination is enough, and on and so forth, because these are awards that curate and announce shortlists of finalists between the ""consideration of all submissions"" and ""announcement of the final winner"" phases of the process, which means the nomination itself already represents a distinction over and above most of the nominee's peers. It doesn't matter whether you can personally recall having heard about an award in the media or not — the award's article plainly demonstrates that it has media coverage, which means that if you haven't heard about it that's because you either missed or haven't chosen to consume the media that was covering it. And that's precisely why we don't bog down in subjective debates about how ""well-known"" people think something is or isn't, and simply follow the sourcing . Bearcat ( talk ) 15:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting in the hope of getting input from other editors as well as the two contributing to date. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk ) 11:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Contrary to initial Deletion nom statement, there is further media coverage (I've added a few references since the Deletion nom). There are even a few more but since they are for work already referenced it seemed overkill to add them on top. A small article is going to have a smaller number of refs. Certainly toward the lighter end of coverage but given there's a few lead roles, with media coverage praise for her performance along with a nomination from notable award, seems worth ing to me. My first time partaking in such discussion so hope I've done it right. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck ( talk ) 14:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I don't think the additional coverage added by LooksGreatInATurtleNeck adds up to GNG. Deadline [9] has a mere-mention in a cast listing, Times Colonist [10] is another mere-mention, Flickering Myth s [11] coverage of Dalton is limited to the half-sentence [Open House] delivers a thoroughly tedious, uninspired feature debut for filmmaking duo Matt Angel and Suzanne Coote, abjectly wasting the efforts of talented leads Dylan Minnette and Piercey Dalton in the process. . Finally we have Occhi Magazine [12] , which at first glance looks like great coverage; except that they're a PR firm and say this about themselves on their website: As practicing artists and creatives, we appreciate the work and value of creatives. We know the importance the creative industries play in society and the social and economic benefits they provide. We celebrate creativity and encourage appreciation for the arts. We provide a tailored service to a wide variety of industry stakeholders, clients, and publicists but also work directly with musicians, visual artists, and creative professionals, building strategic PR and marketing campaigns across all media platforms. So it's not independent and not worth the pixels it's printed on, notability-wise. signed, Rosguill talk 03:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"List of Monday Night Football results (1990–2009) : Fails WP:LISTN . Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE . As with sources per WP:RS besides being mostly unsourced; most of those are about the game itself, others consists of WP:PRIMARY , YouTube and dead or ed pages. Barely much to help this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 08:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , American football , and Lists . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 08:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural close , all three deletion attempts of the lists of Monday Night Football games should be in a single nomination (three bites at the apple?). Randy Kryn ( talk ) 13:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I tried that previously, they never go well. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 14:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural close , I agree with Randy Kryn . These nominations would be better done together, probably along with List of NFL on ABC results . Esolo5002 ( talk ) 21:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC) NOTSTATS and failing WP:LISTN as the topic of Monday Night Football results falls under WP:ROUTINE coverage of the NFL. Conyo14 ( talk ) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I answered this at another one of these multiple nomination attempts, SpacedFarmer please combine these as everyone who has answered so far has copied their answers to all three noms and we shouldn't have to do that. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 15:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Stop bludgeoning. My ! vote is final. Also, considering that it is the nom's choice to combine them or not, a procedural close would not be a valid ! vote. Let them decide whether they want to do it or not. Conyo14 ( talk ) 16:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC) As I have commented, I've tried before but they go disastrously wrong. I cannot see what difference will this makes. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 19:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Merging multiple deletion discussions into a single AfD is a nomination choice, not a valid reason for procedural close, unless another AfD for the same page is already in progress. Please address the specific article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] a sensible way of organizing this data. As far as WP:NLIST , CBS Sports organizes information this way [3] , as do teams such as the Dallas Cowboys [4] . As far as WP:ROUTINE , that is an argument against articles for individual games, Routine events such as sports matches ... may be better covered as part of another article . Walsh90210 ( talk ) 23:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC) NLIST which states ""One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list."" Monday Night Football was a notable TV show, looked forward to every week in the era of three or four networks. It was a national event, only the best games were slated for Monday night. And it made stars of its announcers. Then per Walsh90210, who presents a good case. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 03:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Workers Party of Barbados : Needless to say, it does not meet WP:ORGCRIT . AusLondonder ( talk ) 15:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics , and Barbados . AusLondonder ( talk ) 15:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A random dude, obviously not a notable party. Reywas92 Talk 15:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Non-notable. Shadow311 ( talk ) 15:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - article expanded now. Going through what is available online, we can deduce that there was plenty of coverage of the party as of the mid-1980s, and that the fore-runner of WPB (MONALI), which from my reading could be considered one and the same organization, had gained national notoriety during the protests of 1983 Grenada invasion. We can also surely assumed that there would be coverage in Cuban, Soviet, Korean and Nicaraguan news outlets, not available online. -- Soman ( talk ) 20:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC) RS during an active conflict situation? Geschichte ( talk ) 09:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - concur with",no consensus
+"Siberia Airlines Flight 852 : Onel 5969 TT me 11:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC) 35, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jack4576 , these are different incidents involving the same plane at different times. What's the justification for merging them? ~ Kvng ( talk ) 15:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This information is going to be d otherwise; but we may be able to have an article documenting multiple incidents of this plane. Jack4576 ( talk ) 15:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jack4576 , why do you think this is going to be (or should be) d? ~ Kvng ( talk ) 16:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 45, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If notability cannot be established, I suggest ing to S7 Airlines . Alvaldi ( talk ) 20:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . It really doesn't seem to be that noteworthy of an incident, but I'm not positive. Russian news archives on the web from 2002 are practically nonexistent, so we'd have to rely on print sources to see if there was some sustained coverage. The only thing that moves the needle over to the side for me is that I did a search on newspapers.com and I saw it reported on Page 19 of the Victoria Advocate, from Victoria Texas, on January 15, 2002, so it DID receive international news coverage, likely wire service coverage because I doubt the Victoria Advocate sent reporters over there. There are probably others, but I was only searching for ""Omsk"" between January 13 2002 and January 20 2002 on Newspapers.com, which is pretty much only English language sources. My web searches found better and clearer descriptions of what happened than the really bad machine translation that this article is currently but I won't spend the time on it for now if it's just going to be d for notability. There MAY have been changes in airline policy as far as the selection of alternate aircraft, or decisions to hold flights based on weather predictions, I just don't have a good way of finding out for now, so that's just a guess. RecycledPixels ( talk ) 15:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Fails GNG, EVENT, LASTING, and NOTNEWS. per the article, ""All eight people on board survived, but the aircraft was damaged beyond repair."" no deaths, plane damaged. Minor news event, no lasting impact or coverage. // Timothy :: talk 21:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Brice Bexter : Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Morocco , France , Switzerland , and United Kingdom . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I felt there was sufficient media coverage, although some of the sources are not in English. Starklinson ( talk ) 01:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Dmitry Strashnov : LusikSnusik ( talk ) 09:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Russia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . BLP accusations are without merit: I hardly see the list of positions held to be ""promotional"". ""disastrous lack"" is due to DGAF; ruwiki has plenty of refs and the nom must be trout-slapped for lack of due diligence before nomination. - Altenmann >talk 01:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Outrageous. Trout-slapping a contributor for proposing an article that's based on one (one!) single source! I mean, even now, one month after the proposal, we still have practically nothing. Not even our slapping hopeful has proffered supporting sources here , in the English-language Wikipedia. - The Gnome ( talk ) 12:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Does read like a PROMO now, this [12] talks about him, I'm unsure if it's a RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just for my education, please explain which elements of promotion you see in the article? I see nothin that fails our guideline WP:PROMO . - Altenmann >talk 16:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Having the article in wikipedia is used to enhance search engines and search listings, which helps the individual. Higher search rankings. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article was created by a kamikaze account that's being permanently blocked since 2014 and curated mainly by an ISP that's under a 2-year block. The promotional intent of this ""article"" is evident not in the language used but from that it offers: extremely trivial bio-details (""led the Russian division of Electrolux Home Appliances""), a video of our subject visiting a local office (!), etc. Typical of efforts to create notability where there's only the usual everyday stuff. - The Gnome ( talk ) 13:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC) Страшнов, Дмитрий Евгеньевич . It's easy to run them through a translator now; many browsers even have this built-in. WP:BEFORE now says to check other wikipedias before sending an article to AfD. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The subject is yet just another businessman , trivially and distinctly non-notable. Yet, he has an article in Wikipedia puffed up with promotional stuff, as well, e.g. a video from some routine visit some time some where. All arguments supporting inclusion have so far been variations of ""he is notable in the Russian Wikipedia"" , ""it's useful to have it"" , ""he is important"" , or just plain ol' ""he is notable"" ! Wouldn't their contributors' time be better spent if used to post up sources supporting the claim to notability ? Is this some aspiration of fame getting a kick-start through a Wikipedia bio? The work of zealous acolytes? Or, my personal vote, the work of good-faith editors seeing notability where it's absent? In any case, there is little of substance out there. Wikipedia is not a list of random information . - The Gnome ( talk ) 13:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A specific analysis of the references available about this individual would be very helpful. A handwave at other language projects is not. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] multiple sources from TASS, RIA Novosty, Rossiskaya Gazeta and others specifically about this subject in the ru.wiki article, providing in depth and sustained coverage. Mccapra ( talk ) 10:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Invoking articles from Wikipedias in other languages to support notability , expressly does not offer much support in AfD discussions, Mccapra . - The Gnome ( talk ) 14:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC) OTHERLANGS . That essay states correctly that the mere existence of cognate articles in other language wikis does not demonstrate notability. I’m not doing that. I’m not invoking the ru.wiki article to claim anything. I’m saying that the Russian sources used in the ru.wiki article are good quality. If they were crap UGC sites, blogs or churnalism I’d vote , but they are top tier Russian language news sources. Nothing in the essay you pointed to suggests that we should not evaluate the sources used in another language wiki article. Mccapra ( talk ) 19:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm afraid you do not realize that simply asserting the subject is notable on the basis that the respective article in another-language Wikipedia ""has sources"" is the same as basing your argument on the fact that ""the article exists in another-language Wikipedia"" ! We need the sources you, for one, assess as being of ""good quality"" here , in the lemma of English-language Wikipedia. That's what needs to be done. Mere declarations of notability are DOA in AfDs. - The Gnome ( talk ) 12:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"KVHF-LD : This subject survived a 2019 AfD, but that was under a much different (and looser) standard of notability for television stations than what we have today. Let'srun ( talk ) 04:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Brett Cooper (commentator) : Zero independent third-party RS biographical coverage that I could find; total third-party cites are two questionable collections of gossip. There just isn't enough here to sustain the existence of a WP:BLP on the site. PROD removed without action to address the issues. David Gerard ( talk ) 11:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Television , Politics , United States of America , California , and Washington . David Gerard ( talk ) 11:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Conservatism . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] looks like there's a decent split between RS commentary on her as a child actress in TN [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] and others covering her in the context of her more recent advocacy [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] . Note that I've filtered out anything from any source Cooper has worked for, so while some of these are clearly partisan sources, at least a couple of them clearly cover Cooper in a critical manner. If this isn't kept, it's an odd case of TOOSOON, as this individual appears to be gaining prominence. I suppose a to The Daily Wire might be appropriate as an ATD, but that isn't the only thing she's known for. Jclemens ( talk ) 16:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] MMFA, opinion pieces and Fox aren't usable for notability, Insider and The Week is passing mentions - so there isn't more than the bare fact about her present career. But that's more NACTOR than I could find, thank you - is it enough to swing WP:NFILM ? Not sure it passes, but are there any more of the solid RSes? - David Gerard ( talk ) 12:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC) 21, 8 April 2023 (UTC) BLP. Fails GNG, BIO. Sources found in BEFORE and already in the article: Source eval: Youtube comments section :: 1. ""About The Comments Section with Brett Cooper"". YouTube. Fails IS, ""About the Author"" page with linked articles :: 2. ^ Jump up to:a b ""Brett Cooper | People"". Foundation for Economic Education. 2015-08-07. Retrieved 2023-03-23. Who is style promo :: 3. ^ ""Who Is Brett Cooper Daily Wire? Age, Wikipedia Explored | Business Guide Africa"". 2022-03-29. Retrieved 2023-03-23. Who is style promo :: 4. ^ Peake, Amber (2022-03-24). ""Who is Brett Cooper, the Daily Wire host with a 'younger perspective'?"". HITC. Retrieved 2023-03-23. David Gerard addresses the sources above, none of them are IS RS with SIGCOV. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per V, BLP and BIO. // Timothy :: talk 08:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC) It has multiple issues to resolve this. CastJared ( talk ) 00:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Mimi Ho Kora ( talk ) 21:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] She is a prominent YouTuber and commentator for The Daily Wire . -- rogerd ( talk ) 04:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But do we have the RSes to say anything about her? And where's the RS evidence that she's ""prominent"" as you claim per WP:ENT ? - David Gerard ( talk ) 11:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] She's rather famous, and is gaining in popularity. She also works for a very prominent news organization ( The Daily Wire ) -- AnonymousEditor95 ( talk ) 05:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd vote to because her channel has over two million subscribers. Besides, she seems to be a rising star as an actress. Dswitz10734 ( talk ) 13:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC) TimothyBlue above, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:JOURNALIST . The three short posts above for ing all appear to hinge on: the notability of her employer (but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED on Wikipedia) her YouTube subscriber count (but see WP:NYOUTUBER , as prior consensus is that this also doesn't confer notability). She could become notable eventually, but for now it's WP:TOOSOON for a separate article. No objection to User:Jclemens ' suggestion of a to Daily Wire as an ATD, and a tag of with possibilities. Uncle Spock ( talk ) 10:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC) GNG , WP:JOURNALIST , WP:CREATIVE or any other criterion. So for now, in my opinion, the best thing to do with her article is to with DailyWire, where she works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashik Rahik ( talk • contribs ) 14:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC) 51, 17 April 2023 (UTC) ILIKEIT . CastJared ( talk ) 23:40, 19 April 2023‎ (UTC) Final relist die to the late arguments Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC) 11, 1 May 2023 (UTC) 03, 27 April 2023 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Dswitz10734 ( talk • contribs ) has already cast a vote above. GNG , WP:JOURNALIST , WP:CREATIVE or any other criterion. Number of YouTube subscribers, affiliation with any network, doing acting, not strong reasons to , since there's no reliable sources to back her notability. Ashik Rahik ( talk ) 13:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC) Now have enough notability. CastJared ( talk ) 14:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC) GNG. Prominent Youtuber with 2+ million subscribers. Of course the article needs some improvements. But no reason for deletion: BabbaQ ( talk ) 14:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC) NBASIC . These include the sources about her acting career provided by Jclemens, and this doesn't appear to be a BLP1E situation. That being said, the article needs significant work to recenter it around the things that she is notable for and to actually incorporate the sources described in this AfD; the current state of the article is well below our sourcing standards for living people. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC) BASIC notability. The MMFA source (2023) has slightly, but not much more detail, noting only that she replayed another commentator's statements on her show, and was one of several commentators who ""promoted their anti-trans brand of chocolate."" Due to the lack of significant coverage about her in independent and reliable sources, it is not clear if the 2021 FoxNews coverage is about her, but it is also a brief report about one video, and would be limited support for notability. Her own opinion article published on HuntingtonNews.net also does not support notability. This article appears to be WP:PROMO and an advertisement masquerading as an article at this time. Beccaynr ( talk ) 14:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC) DOB . CastJared ( talk ) 16:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC) NOT policy, ""Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts."" Beccaynr ( talk ) 16:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC) 56, 1 May 2023 (UTC) GNG. Grahaml35 ( talk ) 17:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC) Chattanooga Times Free Press (2010) Chattanooga Times Free Press (2012) Chattanoogan.com (2012) Chattanooga Times Free Press (2012) Insider , 2022 MMFA source 2021 FoxNews HuntingtonNews.net But some are not reliable. CastJared ( talk ) 17:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC) 38, 5 May 2023 (UTC) Merging with The Daily Wire article is suggested for me. But is just an opinion. CastJared ( talk ) 12:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC) 29, 5 May 2023 (UTC) GNG or WP:NBIO . The currently cited sources are pretty questionable on reliability, and not much else can be found about the subject other than trivial mentions. Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 23:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"2023 Espoo bridge collapse : Shellwood ( talk ) 13:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"List of La Liga broadcasters : The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . No context to assert notability either. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Football , Lists , and Spain . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom, Not a tv guide. . Govvy ( talk ) 14:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relevant information and sources have been added that give it notability. [37] , [38] , [39] -- Claudio Fernag ( talk ) 01:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Worthy in an article itself but we don't need a broadcasting list so you can watch in whoever country. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 06:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] based on sourcing found by Claudio Fernag . Esolo5002 ( talk ) 15:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC) LISTCRUFT also applies. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 21:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just a reminder, that page is an essay, not a policy or guideline. L iz Read! Talk! 15:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relevant and comprehensive information with references and sources. Puente aereo ( talk ) 13:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC) 33, 9 May 2024 (UTC) ITSUSEFUL applies. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 20:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs more policy-based discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 14:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC) ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN . This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article. Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Fails NLIST. Refs in article do not discuss the subject - the broadcasters - as a group by independent sources, they are routine sports news; the list serves no CLN purpose. // Timothy :: talk 18:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC) The article is no longer just a list of broadcasters as it was in the beginning, a context has been added that gives it notability, and verifiable and reliable sources were also included. It is also one of the most important soccer leagues in the world, not the San Marino league. It has the same or more merit of existing than articles like List of NBA broadcasters , MLB broadcasters or NFL broadcasters . It has potential to continue improving, perhaps some things can be corrected but it should not be eliminated. -- Edu1388 ( talk ) 19:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC) 12, 16 May 2024 (UTC) 54, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You voted this twice already. Are you really this desparate? SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 10:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Druxy's : If you search in Google News, they only mention a few things such as an acquisition and a listeria incident. Indeed, I would even say that this coverage is merely trivial. Also, Williams Fresh Cafe doesn't even have its own article on Wikipedia. If there's any new info about its notability feel free to share it otherwise, this article should be d. Thank you. WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 16:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions . WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 16:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC) Oh, there's coverage. Food-borne illness outbreak [10] , [11] . Not strictly about the company, but their food handling got several news reports about the outbreak. Those are just the first two I pull up. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It was quite the outbreak [12] and another incident [13] . They're likely notable for the number of outbreaks that have happened alone. There's coverage in this book from 1986 about Bruce Druxerman, the founder [14] , but it's paywalled from my location. Google doesn't want to pay for displaying news, so most sites are walled off... Frustrating. VPN to the rescue. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC) NCORP requires better sourcing than a few trivial mentions here and there related to a listeria incident. None of the above sources are significant coverage about the company. You must have guts to pretend that ""A person contracted a Listeria infection after eating food sold at the ​Druxy's restaurant in Princess Margaret Cancer Centre"" or ""The sandwiches were purchased from the Druxy’s restaurant in the cancer centre"" count for something in terms of notability. -- C avarrone 08:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 16:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Kerala Gazetted Officers' Federation : A google news search found only 3 sources of routine coverage. Fails WP:ORG and GNG. LibStar ( talk ) 23:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Kerala . LibStar ( talk ) 23:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , notable organization. When you say only 3 sources, in which language did you google? Here are some results, [62] , [63] , [64] , [65] , [66] , [67] , [68] , [69] , [70] , [71] , [72] , [73] , [74] , [75] -- Soman ( talk ) 00:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] English. Most of the sources you found are local and we need wider coverage as per WP:AUD . I would caution using youtube as a source as per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources . LibStar ( talk ) 00:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As I'm sure you are aware, not all news around the world is in English. The sources here include Mathrubhumi which has a readership of 970,000 daily, Asianet (TV channel) , Kerala Kaumudi , etc. If you read WP:AUD it literally says "" Significant coverage in media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability."" If Kerala was located in the US, it would be the second-most populous state after California. -- Soman ( talk ) 01:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"We Are One (global collaboration song) : However, it doesn't meet any of those. This PROMO was created based on coverage that doesn't seem to have WP:SUSTAINED coverage. An interesting point to note is that the article claims the song features 40 musicians from seven countries, but I couldn't find coverage in RS outside Pakistan, except this and this but they're PAID placements. Interestingly, the creator also once nominated it for FA . Seems quite UPE. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 11:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 11:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and COVID-19 . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC) Source 7 is listed as a RS, I find this from a Gulf newspaper [27] and this from the UN [28] . It's a global collaboration among what seem to be mostly unknown artists, but with some minimal coverage. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is this the same song? [29] , if yes, could help notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oaktree b , This Gulf-Times coverage stems from an interview, so it's ROTM coverage. Similarly, the coverage from UN and CTV News is UNRELATED to this song. They don't even mention Kashan Adani, the producer of this song, nor any mention of Pakistan. Anyone arguing to this article must present three best sources to determine if this song passes GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 09:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems there were several songs with the same name ""We Are One"" during the COVID period. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 10:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, so we can remove the UN and CTV article, even if the Gulf article stems from an interview, it's still fairly extensive, I'm still at a ! , week , but yes. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC) V but they may not enough to meet WP:GNG as they need to meet the WP:SIRS. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 09:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC) GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Atlantic306 , Coverage in above cited Express Tribune and BOL News stories, including the one in Gulf Times, were published in late May/early June 2020, coinciding with the song's launch on 28 May 2020. However, the criteria require sustained and significant coverage to reflect lasting relevance , which I don't observe here. Furthermore, the coverage by Express Tribune and Gulf Times, based on interviews, does not meet the WP:SIRS criteria. Additionally, BOL News coverage, being a WP:NEWSORGINDIA, may not be reliable enough even for WP:GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 09:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Operation Mand : The India Today articles were reporting the news about the military operation. Following that, there's virtually no coverage. No sources to establish WP:GNG nor WP:NEVENT — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c ) 15:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Pakistan , India , and Punjab . — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c ) 15:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify to develop. User4edits ( talk ) 17:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Develop using...? — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c ) 19:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To expand and explain on this, we draftify articles which have the potential to be notable. This event occurred some 35+ years ago. If the scholarship did not appear in 3 decades, the probability in the next 6 months is miniscule. This article does not have the potential. See below. — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c ) 07:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 17:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I don't think it's a great article, but the subject exists, is referenced in RSs, has been discussed in those RSs outside the immediate timeframe, and is the subject of a film. That easily clears the hurdles of SIGCOV specifically and GNG overall. It needs a rewrite, not a deletion. My main trouble with the article as it exists is the spamming with {{cn}}. Adding a tag at every full stop (there are five cn tags in the first six sentences , in addition to five inline citations) is excessive and unhelp. It prevents the reader from understanding what value may be in the article and comes off as petulant. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC) 58, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The film is discussed in the Hindustan Times. The event is discussed in IT, two books and a Defence Review cited in the article itself. A quick search shows at least seven more sources that mention it explicitly and many, many more that reference the event without the name specified. Are you claiming that this didn't happen, or are you unsatisfied with the citations? Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 16:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you're referring to ref #10 Hindustan Times [11] , that citation failed to verify. So, please provide evidence that this Operation is the subject of a film . The Defence Review journal one single sentence. Have you found sources that talk about the Operation in detail apart from ""mention[ing] it"" with or without naming it explicitly? This is a deletion discussion whether an article is warranted given the topic has notability . Please provide sources that address the topic and prove it has significant coverage per WP:GNG or atleast that it could be considered under WP:NEVENT . — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c ) 16:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The subject is referenced in two books (cited in the article), several India Today articles (cited), and a Defence Review (cited; one sentence is still a reference). I found references to more with a rudimentary Google search, showing that someone who cares can improve the article over time. It's not my field of expertise and I'm just not interested in modern secular terrorism, so I'll leave research and improvements to editors who focus on it. As I stated above, I believe that satisfies SIGCOV and GNG. You don't agree, and that's fine. That's why we discuss AfD and don't leave it up to the whims of individual editors. I'll stick with 'Keep', thanks. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 21:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC) GNG , please read what ""significant coverage"" means I found references to more with a rudimentary Google search - I found nothing that satisfies what we consider a reliable source is. Sources like sikhiwiki.org are user-generated and are unreliable. For the sake of repeating myself, cites #2 (Link news magazine), #3 #7 #8 (India Today news magazine), #6 (Defence Review - single sentence) - verifies the content. The Line and India Today are covering the news. Wikipedia is not a newspaper - we don't create articles for every other event. From WP:EVENTCRIT - #1 there is no enduring historical significance ; #2 widespread (national or international) impact ... very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards - nope; #3 lesser coverage or more limited scope - let's see; #4 let's assume it's the case #3 here. For the WP:EVENTCRIT #3 lesser coverage or more limited scope - WP:LASTING - event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance - no evidence that this Operation is a precedent or catalyst for sth else of lasting sig. WP:GEOSCOPE - Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group - let's see Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article (emphasis mine) - the news coverage is the sole basis for this article. Outside of this coverage, there is no evidence of published material. events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group - no evidence that this has such long-term impact, even in the Mand area where the Operation took place. So, no WP:GEOSCOPE WP:INDEPTH - event must receive significant or in-depth coverage - Ref #3 India Today comes close to that. However, it is reporting the event as part of a wide event - Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally - I'll be cautious (but won't reject) here to use this India Today report to confer notability. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE - Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle - no coverage/scholarship beyond the event cycle. WP:DIVERSE - Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable - no evidence of such coverage. Also - A series of news reports by a single newspaper or news channel would not be sufficient basis for an article - this is for the 3 citations of India Today. No evidence of significant coverage from multiple sources. An alternative to deletion, if one wants to argue that the search term would be useful, would be to and to Tat Khalsa or Avtar Singh Brahma . Online/Offline sources are acceptable but not an argument that ""I found references to more with a rudimentary Google search"" doesn't cut it - especially when that particular notion is challenged. Notability requires verifiable evidence WP:NRV - and nothing of such sort was provided. WP:N 's second line reads: Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable , independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article . In conclusion, there is no evidence that an article is warranted on Wikipedia. — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c ) 07:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 11:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"World Anti-Imperialist Platform : Despite the impression given by having 21 references, there is zero independent coverage of the orgaanization much less GNG coverage. They are ostensibly a communist organization but their main thing seems to be that Russia's war in Ukraine is just and a struggle against imperialism. Of the 21 references, 7 are flatly themselves (either their website or a copy of a speech they gave) 1 is a YouTube video of an interview of one of their people which is basically another speech, 3 don't even mention them, 3 give a very brief mention of them and 7 are criticisms of them by communist organizations. I also could not find any real sources on them, and I looked harder than usual. The article is basically sourced to themselves but then does mention the criticisms. So no real sources on them means no wp:notability from which to build an article. If there were actual sources, this might be an article worth having.... for example they might reveal that this is some type of a Russia-created ploy which is trying to dupe communist organizations. But right now there is zero independent coverage of them in sources. Interestingly the organization's website has no ""about us"" or ""our history"" section, no contact info (address, phone number etc.) except a gmail email address. It's a stretch to even call it ""sourced to themselves"" because the ""about self"" info in the article (eg when it was founded) is not even on their website. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 23:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 01:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Another editor has added additional references. Some other references are newspapers and news sites, admittedly biased ones. including TASS . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 08:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I checked the new references. Nothing new regarding the main issue, still no independent coverage of the organization much less GNG coverage. I actually WANT that coverage to be found and thus for the article to exist. There are lots of critiques of them and of their positions by communist organizations. Maybe that's enough to via WP:IAR North8000 ( talk ) 12:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . A lack of independent, non-partisan coverage of the subject of this article. Although there is certainly controversy among communists over the ideological stances of this organization, this is of little relevance to readers who are not communists or otherwise familiar with the ideological positions of this group. Further, this organization is more-or-less an ideological extension of the CPGB-ML , so any criticism that does or will exist from third-parties would likely be more focused on that particular party or any other major member parties. SociusMono1976 ( talk ) 17:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. The presence of criticisms by other communist organizations suggests a level of engagement within a specific community or ideological sphere that could warrant further examination. These criticisms from within the community provide context and demonstrate that the organization has sparked discussion and controversy, which is a form of coverage and recognition. While some editors question the sources of the critiques, this is not uncommon in the coverage of niche or emerging political movements, especially those with a specific ideological leaning. The inclusion of external criticisms — even if from ideologically aligned groups — does serve to broaden the discussion about the platform beyond its self-representation. Additionally, the fact that these external sources bother to critique the organization lends weight to its relevance in its sphere. Wikipedia's notability guidelines do not strictly require that all articles at all times must have extensive media coverage. For niche political organizations, the requirement can be met through significant coverage in specialized publications or through the impact demonstrated in inter-group communications and critiques. Wikipedia's goal is to provide a comprehensive database of knowledge that includes all verifiable perspectives, including those from smaller or less mainstream entities. The existence of an article on a potentially lesser-known but ideologically significant organization like the World Anti-Imperialist Platform contributes to this goal. The community has a strong preference for improving articles rather than deleting them when possible. If the current references are deemed insufficient, the appropriate response would be to tag the article for needing additional citations from independent sources, rather than outright deletion. The inclusion of ruling political parties from countries like Venezuela, Guinea-Bissau, and North Macedonia elevates the organization's political significance. These countries' involvement is not only a testament to the platform's influence but also to its relevance in international politics. This kind of international collaboration among ruling parties inherently suggests a level of notability that deserves recognition and documentation on Wikipedia. The participation of such significant political entities justifies an argument for the preservation and further development of the article. Wikipedia's guidelines on notability do not strictly require exhaustive coverage in mainstream media if the subject can be demonstrated to have significant impact or involvement by notable entities. The involvement of ruling parties should be considered a form of significant coverage. The organization’s connections to countries with notable geopolitical profiles—especially Venezuela, known for its significant international political interactions—underscore the importance of the platform in understanding global geopolitical dynamics. This aspect alone provides a substantial basis for ing the article, as it serves as a critical piece of the puzzle in understanding international alignments and ideological conflicts. Deleting or undermining the presence of such an article could result in a significant gap in the available information about a notable international coalition that influences political opinions and actions. It is crucial for Wikipedia to represent such entities accurately and comprehensively to fulfill its mission as an encyclopedia that covers the full spectrum of human knowledge. Rather than deletion, this situation presents a clear opportunity for improvement. Encouraging contributors to seek additional independent secondary sources that discuss the platform's activities and influence could enhance the article's quality and reliability. This approach aligns with Wikipedia's principles of verifiability and neutrality while ensuring that significant political entities are appropriately represented. Castroonthemoon ( talk ) 17:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm of two minds on this. Even if it is just a mysterious front organization for Russian operatives (which is my current best guess it is and the Greek Communist party seems to hint at [34] ) then perhaps it would be good to have an article if only to eventually expose it. But to build an article we need sources to build it from and we basically have zero sources about this mysterious organization . We have them talking about themselves, we have communist organizations critiquing their stances and a few short ""we attended an event of theirs"" sources. The WP:notability requirment basically is ""we have sources which cover the subject"". Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 21:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I find it interesting that you mention that. The primary challenge with the subject material is that it’s a supranational organization composed mainly of communist parties. It’s not a centralized entity but rather a congress of 50 parties and organizations, multiple of which form or take part in the governments of their respective countries. Supranational organizations often do not make headlines, as evidenced by the noticeable lack of notable sources in the list of Political international articles. Among the notable articles covering the platform that I’ve found, I can’t use them as they are from Russia Today or other sources deemed less reliable by Wikipedia. This highlights a broader issue of sourcing when it comes to international and especially non-Western political movements. The absence of coverage in mainstream Western media should not be a default barrier to notability, particularly when the subject has a significant impact on the political or ideological landscape of multiple countries. Another issue with this organization is that it includes only a few English-speaking organizations, which explains why outlets like MSNBC, CNN, etc. have not covered it. However, this does not inherently diminish its notability or significance. The substantial opposition to the World Anti-Imperialist Platform (WAP) from other parties underscores its notability. As you mentioned the Communist Party of Greece, it's also worth noting the emerging split in the international communist context between KKE-aligned anti-Russian parties and pro-Russian WAP parties, a division that should be crucial to document. Castroonthemoon ( talk ) 20:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Again I'm of two minds of this.... . actually I sort of want this article to exist. But let me play devil's advocate on critiquing your argument. It is a mysterious organization which has gotten some communist organizations so declare thermselves members or attend their conferences. You speak as if it is some organization consisting of those members, but there is no evidence or coverage of it really being that. There is zero evidence/coverage of it being a real organization governed by those members. Even on their own website, there is nothing indicating that it is an actual organization. No leaders or officers, no mechanism of how it is governed or how the participants play into that governance. So how are we to cover this entity with absolutely zero independent coverage of it as an entity? North8000 ( talk ) 23:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe if we strip out or reword that areas where they have been used as a source on themselves this would become an edge case -able article, waiting for coverage of the organization per se by independent sources. I'll try that. North8000 ( talk ) 01:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC) 11, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm going to try that and we'll see where/how this goes. North8000 ( talk ) 14:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC) IAR basis regarding GNG notability. I did some editing to more clearly identify self-described material as such. It probably is still distorted in some sense in that it has undue stuff in it. For example, if a few representatives marched in a parade, such gets a few sentences in the article. Even if this organization is just a Russian scam regarding Ukraine, this article at least gathers together the small amount of material and sources available on this arguably or possibly impactful entity. I'd probably put a summary of this AFD discussion at the talk page. North8000 ( talk ) 18:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If I can make the time before Wednesday, I think adding more context behind the dissolution of the Initiative of Communist and Workers' Parties and the ensuing split between the European Communist Action and WAP is important to document, and adds more context and notability to the article. Castroonthemoon ( talk ) 18:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sounds great, this article better not be d before then. Charles Essie ( talk ) 17:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Recent actions by the Platform have received coverage by various independent Russian media organizations, which I have added to the article. There also seems to be at least two journal articles that cover / discuss the Platform to some extent, which I would love to access but can't [1] [2] Castroonthemoon ( talk ) 20:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Not so much inside topic of this particular international, but for now like that. Nubia86 ( talk ) 17:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Olympics on CBC commentators : Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN . Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE . As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY and announcments, not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC) Articles for deletion/Olympics on NBC commentators SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 06:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports , Lists , and Canada . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Olympics . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak I found only this so far [11] . So, maybe more exist? Otherwise it's WP:LISTCRUFT mixed with WP:OR . Conyo14 ( talk ) 16:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That source appears to be from the CBC, and as such isn't independent. I can't find much else so far. Let'srun ( talk ) 23:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This article should as a secondary option, be d with the main CBC Olympic broadcasts article. Otherwise, a lot of great effort has hopefully recently been made to provide better context and information (there are now, about 60 references that have been added) behind the extensive history of CBC's Olympic Games coverage in Canada dating back to the early 1960s and to make it less ""bare bones"" looking. Here's some additional information on CBC's Olympic telecasts of recent times: Steve Armitage retires after 50-plus years calling Olympics and more for CBC , Famed CBC announcer Steve Armitage will miss Rio Olympics over heart problems , CBC’s Devin Heroux shares how he won’t be going to Beijing after December positive COVID test, illustrating wider media concerns , With Canada’s women’s curling team eliminated from Olympic medal contention, Canadian Twitter is upset…at the CBC’s Colleen Jones? , Support pours in for CBC’s Elliotte Friedman, who’s still hard on himself , VIDEO: CBC announcer mixes up Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte during 200 IM Final , CBC hot mic catches swimming analyst saying 14-year-old “died like a pig” . Also from the CBC Media Centre , CBC'S TOKYO 2020 BROADCAST TEAM , CBC'S OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES BEIJING 2022 ... . A ""full"" list of CBC's television personalities can be found here . BornonJune8 ( talk ) 08:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC) PRIMARY . Anything supporting this list is doing nothing for it. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 09:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Concur with this analysis. Let'srun ( talk ) 11:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC) BEFORE check. ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC) BEFORE check. I already debunked the new sources above. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 23:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: 62 sources have been added since nomination. WP:HEYMAN . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC) This does not meet the WP:LISTN as the group isn't discussed in non-primary sources or really any RS whatsoever. The sources are either YouTube links, press releases, blogs, or are from the CBC. Another example of WP:REFBOMBING . Let'srun ( talk ) 15:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"List of largest companies in Pakistan : Possibly or . HistoriesUnveiler ( talk ) 11:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of companies of Pakistan as lacking a clear selection criteria. BrigadierG ( talk ) 13:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC) The topic is significant enough to have a stand-alone article for it. Sutyarashi ( talk ) 13:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Should be improved with more sources. Afus199620 ( talk ) 15:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: ""Should be improved with more sources"" is true for every article on the project. I'm more interested in knowing what sources do exist that caused your opinion to Keep, or this article? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Fails WP:LISTN . 103.148.128.126 ( talk ) 09:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Bader Pretorius : JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's this and this along with other coverage in South African and European media. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 08:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 04:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Not seeing enough sustained coverage to justify GNG, including in the links above. JoelleJay ( talk ) 21:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I am satisfied the subject meets SPORTSPERSON with at least one article which directly details the subject (Rugbyfan22's news24.com source). The rest, while all routine sports business coverage (rosters, games), supports notability. This is WAAY more sourcing than most sportspeople I come across in these processes. BusterD ( talk ) 14:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Aiden Pearce : Detailed issue has been shared at the article's talk page already by other user. I'll suggest it by merging/ing it into Watch Dogs (video game) . 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 01:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Video games . 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 01:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment have you tried merging this into a Characters of Watch Dogs article? Jclemens ( talk ) 03:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Watch Dogs (video game) exist. 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 03:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] An article for the game itself existing doesn't disqualify the idea of a characters list. Now whether enough coverage for the other characters exists or not is a different story. λ Negative MP1 15:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This wouldn't be a bad idea, but looking at the article of the first game, it looks like Watch_Dogs characters (main or side) are not particularly beloved by critics. I can't even find any specific characters mentioned in that GA outside of its uncited plot section, which really suggests to me that characters of this franchise are not subject to much analysis. I have not done a dive for sources though; if you can find any sources specifically about Watch_Dogs characters, that would be interesting. It seems like a difficult project either way. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC) There is news sources showing wider coverage, some of which have been provided on the talk page and are in the process of being incorporated into the article. This is by no means the least notable of it's kind so a deletion discussion so soon seems like a rash decision. This can be, at worst, made into a characters of Watch Dogs article like Jclemens has already suggested. TheBritinator ( talk ) 11:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV , but I understand that you're still quite new to WP:VG 's notability. This is not like other fictional characters; when there are reliable sources, it does not mean they are automatically notable, unless the character was really discussed by multiple reliable sources. 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 11:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Not seeing any significant coverage here, and the article is primarily sourced entirely to reviews. Not showing independent notability from the subject. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 12:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – If we disregard GameRant for Notability determinitation (which I believe we should), the only reliable source focused specifically on the character listed here is The Washington Post . Because Aiden Pierce is the lead character of the Watch_Dogs franchise, I think it would be easy to have a complete description of the character there without running into undue weight issues. Criticism of Pierce is criticism of Watch_Dogs as a whole, hence why most of the reliable sources used in this article are full-game reviews. The Appearances section largely recounts the plot of the games (at length, using almost exclusively primary sources, ugh), which also shows the strong overlap. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral after more sources have been dug up. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Maplestrip. Someone can always expand on the main character's backstory and reception at the main game article. There isn't so much good coverage that it meets WP:SIGCOV . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 19:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But his hat is so iconic ! per Mable. None of the reliable sources are focused solely on the character, but rather discuss him in the context of a review of the game as a whole. No development info. Axem Titanium ( talk ) 18:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per nom - the reception is largely trivial mentions pulled from reviews, rather than discussing him alone as a character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 00:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV , I found a few articles on the character on numerous sources [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] ( [43] small section) and theres this short guide from IGN which I'm not sure counts and the GiantBomb one looks like an actual review. MK at your service. 08:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For reference, see Nilin (Remember Me) , the character's reception mostly uses the game's reviews, and the appearances section uses lines from the game to reference it. Some articles do exist on the character, which are mentioned in the concept and development section. MK at your service. 08:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC) BEFORE and not because of that game reviews. Comparing other articles isn't helpful. 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 08:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure why are you pulling out more game reviews, plot content-like sources, and unreliable sources/wiki/game guide articles. 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 08:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Let's go through these. (1) Game Industry News is currently listed as non-conclusive, and Michael Blaker does not seem particularly experienced. Article praises the character and repeats that he gets ""reintroduced"" in this novel, but there's nothing else here. (2) ScreenRant I would not count for WP:N. (3) IGN , this looks like a really good one! (4) Tassi on Forbes is a senior contributor, which I think is a good sign? This article is actually about something. (5) GameInformer review with a focus on what Pearce represents and such. (6) Petrick Kepleck ( GiantBomb ), despite looking like a wiki editor, is indeed a proper reporter . Proper reception and emotional significance on Aiden. (7) NME , I have to be wondering if all this stuff is just part of Watch_Dogs: Legion reception specifically. There's some stuff here but not much. (8) Yahoo review that does not add to WP:N. All-inall, still zero development information, which makes me hesitant, but there's a lot more here. Shame none of it was used. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] IGN is more like a game-guide content;but there's no need to expound more since its not gonna survive AfD. 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 07:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] IGN does both, and it's important to separate the articles from the gameguides from the user-generated stuff. Joe Skrebels seems to have been a professional news editor at IGN . Confusingly, when I open this article, it s me to a Dutch translation with a different author. Annoying, but the effort of translation may suggest that IGN considers this a good article. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, I think I worded it incorrectly oops. I mean't the IGN that was brought up here as a sourcd not IGN in General is just making game guide content. 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 07:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Jumping in here, but Forbes contributors like Tassi are generally recommended not to use as Forbes doesn't apply editorial oversight to their works. Tassi also has some infamy in journalistic circles which doesn't help. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 12:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC) 50, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Most ! votes seem to be at least partially based on None of the reliable sources are focused solely on the character . That, however, is explicitely not required to establish notability according to WP:SIGCOV : Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Of course something meaningful and fitting for an encyclopedia on the article's subject still needs to be contained in those secondary sources with a different main topic like e.g. the game as a whole. Daranios ( talk ) 15:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC) WHYN and therefore WP:N , even though the plot probably needs trimming to balance. In addition we have the Vice web article , which incidentally does have Aiden Pearce as its main topic, and more secondary sources have been listed and sorted above. Again, some of the do have the character as the main topic. In addition, there's a brief paragraph of commentary on Aiden Pearce in this academic publication . Daranios ( talk ) 15:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Vice is the only situational source that could be a bit decent. However, I don't think we already have a ""reasonable reception section"" because of article being bloated with game reviews and plenty of game-guide content? 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 18:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] About being bloated, I guess we agree that the plot summary content currently is not balanced with the reception section. But that's a problem that can be solved by normal editing and is therefore not a reason for deletion. And we do have a reception section which in my view does not consist of game-guide content. The fact that the sources making up the reception section are mostly game reviews does not invalidate their use, as the content which has been taken from them here is direct commentary on the character, i.e. the topic of the article. Daranios ( talk ) 19:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One problem with ""Per X "" ! votes is that if X changes her opinion mid-discussion, as happened here, those Per X ! votes become ambiguous or ill-defined. Please stick to substantive arguments. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My own ! vote has moved to ""neutral"" after more sources were dug up, but I still think the sources are weak. I would like to know if @ Shooterwalker : and @ Axem Titanium : still think so too, as per the relisting comment. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm willing to adjust my vote to neutral , with a chance to revisit this discussion in the future. I am still not sure if there is WP:SIGCOV but I admit there are some improvements, which I hope will continue. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 18:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm still staying by as my vote. I feel the subject matter on its own is too weak, and there's really nothing here that can't be discussed in the body of the main article. While there are some characters with single game appearances, one needs to consider if what's being said illustrates them separate of that work or not, and that's not being indicated here. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 00:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I am also sticking to here, the provided sources don't convince me that the article passes GNG. The best sources here are Giant Bomb and Vice, and that isn't really sufficient. Plus, most of the commentary is just ""Aiden Pearce is bad"" which doesn't offer much nuance you can't put in the main game's reception. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] but pretty marginal case I will concede. I managed to find these sources which I think could be incorpated to just about scrap GNG: [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] . Spy-cicle💥 Talk ? 22:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You almost brought the same sources that was apready provided above. The first source is unreliable. 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 00:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I struck my first source. Collectively, all the sources presented on this AfD page, in my opinion, provide enough coverage to meet GNG. Spy-cicle💥 Talk ? 17:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"United States v. Strong : The coverage in reliable sources seems sparse at best. I do not count the likes of salon.com among reputable sources an encyclopedia should be based upon. I struggle to find anything in national news, and what I do find hardly seems like in-depth coverage . Any input is appreciated. Surtsicna ( talk ) 17:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , United States of America , and Maine . Surtsicna ( talk ) 17:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm the author of this article and I believe that the case is notable. I've gone over the sources and gone over which ones support WP:GNG . I admit that Salon as a source isn't the best but it isn't doing the heavy lifting in establishing notability and at least as it stands now there is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. WP:SALON.COM . Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? United States v. Strong WP:PRIMARY , content is judges ruling on this case an opinion by a judge on the case s not independent of the case theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs ) (she/her) 18:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC) PRIMARY WP:PRIMARY ✘ No Portland Press Herald Local news paper WP:NEWSORG Source appears to be reliable Article goes in depth about the case ✔ Yes ABA Journal Published by the American Bar Association Author is a lawyer and was a former new researcher Article is on the cases appeal ✔ Yes Portland Press Herald Local newspaper WP:RSEDITORIAL Source appears to be reliable, the article is an editorial but it conveys facts about the case Article is only about the case ✘ No Salon Author and publication do not have ties to the people in this case ~ There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. WP:SALON.COM Article covers only the case ~ Partial Sun-News Republished from a news agency WP:NEWSORG Short description of the case and includes facts ~ Part of a few short strange stories ~ Partial FindLaw Author and site both do not appear to be connected to the case ~ This one is kind of hard, this source is a blog but it's part of a news-ish organization. So I think it could honestly be either WP:NEWSBLOG or WP:USERGENERATED Article is only about the case and is more than a passing mention ~ Partial FindLaw Author and site both do not appear to be connected to the case ~ This one is kind of hard, this source is a blog but it's part of a news-ish organization. So I think it could honestly be either WP:NEWSBLOG or WP:USERGENERATED Article is only about the case and is more than a passing mention ~ Partial New York Daily News Newspaper that does not appear to be connected to the case Considered to be generally reliable as per WP:RSP Article is primarily about this case and is more than a passing mention ✔ Yes This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Points to consider . Looks as if the sources satisfy GNG but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should have this as an article. The article content seems written in the style of a news report and may fall foul of Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NEWSPAPER . The article topic needs context to have encyclopedic merit. The only analysis of the case seems to be in blogs not in the newspaper articles presented (The Portland Herald is paywalled so unable to judge, therefore open to contradiction on this point). Although the article is not a biography, I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place to publicise Strong's bowel problems, so on grounds of privacy, I'm wondering if anything in WP:BLP1E or such like applies here or whether because he's been convicted any privacy consideration is anulled. Rupples ( talk ) 02:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey @ Rupples , I went though and cleaned the article up and removed some of the content that wasn't really needed to move the article along. I reviewed other cases that cited this case and added the legal principles that cited this case ( Constructive notice and De novo review ). As for the privacy concerns that was something I did take into account. The only reason I felt publishing this article was acceptable was because the article covers the appeal case. I figured if you got sentenced for pooping in public it shouldn't be an article here even if it had significant coverage, these are real people and we should give them a bit of grace. But going forward with a multiple year legal appeal in federal court and being cited in other cases to support legal principles made it ok. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC) ) Seriously, what might help here is a sub-heading on media reaction. I seem to recall in the sources, mention made of a 57-page judgment and criticism of the depth of this as a waste of taxpayers' money. Commentary on the case from uninvolved parties, as opposed to mere reporting, would likely overcome a 'Wikipedia is not a newspaper' argument. Rupples ( talk ) 23:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] mmm that's a good idea, I'll try and knock that out after dinner thanks @ Rupples ! Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dr vulpes significant commentary on the case would change my vote from to . Need some sort of proper analysis of the legal principles, not just the weird facts. MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 04:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC) 20, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - My goodness. In all my years as a lawyer, nothing has quite disgusted me as much as the facts of this article. Just putting it out there. Now, moving on to why I am ! voting . I do not like to have court cases removed, and so I make this with a heavy heart. However ultimately this is an encyclopaedia. When we consider which court cases to write articles on, they need to meet WP:GNG. I am not really sure this article meets that standard. Yes, there is some coverage of the case. However we need to look into what is reported here. The question of law is not examined in the coverage, only the weird and disgusting facts. This case was not reported on because it had some legal merit or a serious question of law to be determined. It got attention because it is unique and yuck (ie newsworthy). Wikipedia is not a newspaper and I consider the coverage of this only to be related to news. It is not a significant case that has attracted (so far as I can tell) widespread attention from legal journals or been cited elsewhere by higher courts. It is a run of the mill case that got a few clicks because some may find it funny. Almost everything within the article is focused on the Facts of the case, and that to me is not notable. Analysis of the legal reasoning behind the decision is required for me to consider a case notable. I have omitted to create many articles for cases I've come across before due to this reason. MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 04:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with this analysis. The article currently focuses too much on a few attention-getting descriptions and quotes, rather than discussing the legal arguments underpinning the case...so it leaves readers with the question, ""What's the point?"" The few sources that do cover the case actually do mention legal reasoning on both sides (if very superficially), so I would strongly recommend going back and adding those points in. (What I have been struggling with all along though is whether this is really sufficient reason to ! the article. For this reason, I am abstaining from !voting.) One further recommendation is to rename the article to something like United States v. Ronald J. Strong as there certainly seem to be quite a few other (more prominent) cases referred to as United States v. Strong ...so I doubt the current article title will be stable long term. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 18:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cielquiparle yeah, if it stays we should discuss a rename for sure. This is one AFD I actually regret reviewing. That case is putrid. Eurgh. MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 09:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC) it does not answer any difficult aspects of law and I cannot find where it has been cited as precedent. The only thing of interest here is the feces. Lamona ( talk ) 00:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC) GNG . I see a variety of content objections here, but fundamentally the subject of the article has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Suriname0 ( talk ) 18:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Suriname0 , do you mind pointing to this coverage? Surtsicna ( talk ) 18:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC) Surtsicna , I looked at the reliable sources in the table created by User:Dr_vulpes . Suriname0 ( talk ) 23:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I have been wondering if there are WP:BLP considerations here, even though the article is not a biography and even though the conviction was upheld, and even though Wikipedia is not censored. Even if the article is kept, does it really need to contain all this vivid detail? I would point out that the ABA Journal news article manages to summarize the key points of the case without overly WP:GRATUITOUS detail. I understand this issue is strictly speaking not a matter for AfD, yet I can't help feeling that it is the real reason there is such a strong objection to this article, so I thought it was worth raising here. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 01:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update I've tightened up the article a bit to remove the extra unneeded material. Also I created a section that includes legal analysis. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC) HEY . (1) Fewer than 100 cases are decided by SCOTUS annually, so many Circuit cases are still notable. (2) Pardon the pun, but the crap has been cleaned up and a fairly clean start of an article remains. (3) Court cases are usually notable because they are precedents, but that's not the only reason. (4) This is a classic candidate for both WP:ODD and an April 1, 2024 article of the day. Bearian ( talk ) 14:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Unfortunately, the ""Legal Analysis"" section doesn't help. Yes, the Straker case is mentioned in the court proceedings but the transcript is a primary source. The comparison between the two cases needs to be commented on in a secondary reliable, independent source to help with notability. Newspapers.com appears not to have page B6 of The Portland Herald of July 26, 2013 in its inventory — it may have helped here. Not convinced by Bearian's reasoning. (edit: — seems tenuous. ) Rupples ( talk ) 19:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If anyone wants to read the July 26, 2013 article in the Portland Press Herald I was able to find it on their website and it goes into more detail. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unable to come to a conclusion so remain neutral , however the article is 'improved' from when it was first put up in this AfD. Rupples ( talk ) 16:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . While it is quite difficult to find coverage of the subject, the analysis done by Dr vulpes did indicate that some of the sources are legitimate enough to let this article pass WP:GNG . Policy-wise, there does not seem to be a reason for removal. Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 02:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Santiago Rublico : Onel 5969 TT me 12:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Philippines , and Spain . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC) 43, 30 April 2023 (UTC) 41, 2 May 2023 (UTC) GNG due to lack of SIGCOV. A case of WP:TOOSOON . Of the sources in the article, [34] (same article is also linked as [35] ) is SIGCOV, [36] is a database listing, [37] is minor article on his teams website and thus a WP:PRIMARY source, [38] does contain some information but not nearly enough to be the second best source in a GNG pass, [39] is a match report with couple of trivial mentions, [40] is a primary source from the Philippine Football Federation that mentions him once in a lineup listing, [41] is a Q&A interview with little prose, [42] is a database listing. If editors can present other significant sources, ping me. Alvaldi ( talk ) 14:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC) Depth of sourcing hasn't been addressed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC) 29, 7 May 2023 (UTC) 07, 7 May 2023 (UTC) 29, 7 May 2023 (UTC) 49, 7 May 2023 (UTC) 27, 7 May 2023 (UTC) GNG , while ignoring the source assessment showing that it does not, is not the same thing. Onel 5969 TT me 20:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC) 51, 7 May 2023 (UTC) onel5969 would suggest that a disagreement over whether some sources are GNG, makes a comment non-policy, when everyone seems to agree that there is one good GNG source (especially when WP:SPORTCRIT is met for this recent and very young player). Nfitz ( talk ) 23:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 56, 14 May 2023 (UTC) Notability (sports)#Interplay of NSPORTS and SPORTCRIT ! Nfitz ( talk ) 00:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC) 43, 7 May 2023 (UTC) //vietnam.postsen.com/local/268637/The-defeated-general-of-Vietnam-Tel-suddenly-summoned-Atletico-Madrid-defender-urgently.html . KatoKungLee ( talk ) 21:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC) BIO and WP:GNG with sources pointed out in the article and presented by KatoKungLee. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP ( talk ) 03:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC) 02, 13 May 2023 (UTC) MrsSnoozyTurtle , the source analysis by Alvaldi is over 10 days old, and doesn't, cover either one and two which both appear to meet GNG. Alvadi themself agrees that Sunstar meets GNG. Nfitz ( talk ) 22:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 02, 16 May 2023 (UTC) 27, 16 May 2023 (UTC) MrsSnoozyTurtle , and he then called one (aka 7) promotional. Do you agree that one is promotional? Nfitz ( talk ) 00:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Kokoeist quietly added to the article after the source analysis without commenting here. Looking at KatoKungLee's source above, 1, 5, 7, and 10. 1 is the Sunstar article. 7 is the article the unassessed article that Kokoeist added that I think is GNG. 10, Alvardi dismissed as an interview, and I agree with that. That leaves 5, which Alvadi says ""... does contain some information but not nearly enough ...""; I disagree, I think that article is sufficient. So I see 4 GNG sources (from 3 different publications). Nfitz ( talk ) 22:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 02, 16 May 2023 (UTC) 30, 15 May 2023 (UTC) NYOUTH - and I don't know what this is referring to. Nfitz ( talk ) 01:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC) YOUNGATH . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC) 29, 15 May 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON as the available coverage in independent reliable sources is not in-depth enough to satisfy WP:GNG . I agree with JoelleJay about the SunStar source, and in any event it's insufficient by itself to meet the GNG. The two Deportivo Mundo articles contain some information, but it's not as in-depth as I would expect if this footballer was notable. The overall theme of all of the coverage is this footballer looks promising and might have a future, but until there is more written about his exploits (beyond a couple of friendlies defeats - which he apparently did nothing of note in) I don't see this passing. Jogurney ( talk ) 17:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Comments Source Questionable, based mainly on a subjective interview. 1. ""Rare talent"". SUNSTAR. July 23, 2014. Retrieved April 22, 2023. Database page 2. ^ ""Santiago Rublico Colminas"". Liga MX (in Mexican Spanish). Sub Internacional. Archived from the original on April 1, 2023. Retrieved April 22, 2023. Duplicate of above #1 3. ^ Jump up to:a b c ""Rare Talent"". SunStar. July 23, 2014. Retrieved March 26, 2023. very brief article with very brief coverage of subject, not SIGCOV 4. ^ ""Santiago Rublico es nuevo jugador del Atlético Madrileño Juvenil A"". September 15, 2022. Retrieved March 26, 2023. very brief article with very brief coverage of subject, not SIGCOV 5. ^ ""El canterano Santi Rublico da el salto a la absoluta de Filipinas"". March 19, 2023. Retrieved March 26, 2023. Mention in article about game 6. ^ ""Philippine Azkals bow to host Kuwait in friendly"". March 25, 2023. Retrieved March 26, 2023. Not SIGCOV, promo 7. ^ ""Santi Rublico, de ser internacional absoluto con Filipinas a entrenarse con Simeone"" (in Spanish). April 1, 2023. Retrieved May 6, 2023. Mention in article about game 8. ^ ""Philippine Men's Under-22 Squad for the 32nd Southeast Asian Games"". April 29, 2023. Retrieved May 1, 2023. Mention in article about game 9. ^ ""Indonesia Gilas Filipina, Bek Atletico Madrid Debut Buruk di SEA Games"" (in Indonesian). April 30, 2023. Retrieved May 6, 2023. Interview 10. ^ ""Santi Rublico: «El Rayo, más que un club, es una familia que ha estado ahí siempre en todos los momentos»"". Retrieved March 26, 2023. Database page 11. ^ ""Santi Rublico - Global Sports Archive"". Retrieved March 26, 2023. WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). // Timothy :: talk 21:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree with some of these, and two (7 and 9) are very misleading. 1) does include material that would be from an interview (I'd question any newspaper article where no one is asking questions!), it isn't an interview. 5) is over 200 words, and is not too short. The example in GNG of something being too short is 14 words. I'm aware of no standard that sets it over 200! 7) you say is promotional - can you look at that again, because that looks like another 200+ word article. I see no promotion. 9) (from CNN) you dismiss as a match report - but it's far more than this, primarily discussion Rubico (mentioning him 10 times!) while only mentioning a single other player (once). A) Furthermore, you didn't address the Vietnamese source discussed above that isn't in the article; it is also GNG, with 5 of the 7 paragraphs directly addressing the subject. 4) is self-published - I think you may have pasted the wrong text here, User:TimothyBlue - and yes, not GNG. Nfitz ( talk ) 04:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC) Sources 1, 5, 7 and 10 indicated by Alvaldi are reliable, and so is the one indicated by KatoKungLee . That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG . ASTIG 😎 🙃 01:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think anyone was suggesting SunStar or Mundo Deportivo were not reliable sources. Matagigantes.net also appears to be a reliable source (it claims to be an independent media outlet with its own group of editors). The problem is none of those sources provide sufficiently in-depth coverage of the subject of the article (and in the case of matagigantes.net, the source isn't independent of the subject as it's a publication of an interview with him). Jogurney ( talk ) 03:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC) GNG . So, don't you dare argue with me. My """" stands no matter what. ASTIG 😎 🙃 04:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC) Jogurney you are forgetting about WP:BASIC in WP:NBIO , which states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability . Taking the SunStar reference and combining the pair of the Mundo Deportivo references, with the CNN reference (9) and the Vietnamese reference discussed above, does give multiple independent sources that can be combined to demonstrate notability. Nfitz ( talk ) 04:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You forgot to quote the rest of that line, which states trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability . BilledMammal ( talk ) 04:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC) BilledMammal ? I believe they are all far more than a trivial mention that can be combined to demonstrate notability. Nfitz ( talk ) 04:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that SBKSPP asked Superastig to help save some articles at AfD [43] . JoelleJay ( talk ) 01:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that the articles that were discussed (days earlier) were for ""a few stations and TV channels"". There was no mention of this article. Nfitz ( talk ) 03:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SBKSPP linked to the Philippines delsort, which this AfD is categorized in. JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Really? Someone draws someone else's attentions to some other AFDs about TV stations, and then they noticed this AFD from looking at those, and that's enough to cast aspersions about User:Superastig ? Will you go after me next, because Das osmnez was on my talk page just before this nomination, discussing poor nominations last month? Nfitz ( talk ) 03:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Nfitz , JoelleJay loves to make an issue out of something small like this. It's been a few months since the last time I participated in deletion discussions. All their accusations against me are just sheer hissyfits. I wasn't asked specifically on what article I should vote in. I only picked a handful that I believe are worth being kept. Therefore, I don't consider that canvassing. Not canvassing at all. And it's the truth (and nothing but the truth) no matter how judgmental JoelleJay is. ASTIG 😎 🙃 04:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC) 03, 19 May 2023 (UTC) GNG . BilledMammal ( talk ) 04:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC) BASIC tells us that multiple reliable sources can be combined to demonstrate notability. As the sources in question are far more than trivial, then the reliable sources DO demonstrate that GNG is passed. Nfitz ( talk ) 04:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC) 43, 16 May 2023 (UTC) 25, 16 May 2023 (UTC) 29, 16 May 2023 (UTC) 16, 17 May 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV ; all it says is that we can combine sources that are less than substantial (with the example of being substantial being a 200 page biography), not that we can combine sources that are less than significant. BilledMammal ( talk ) 08:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC) 04, 19 May 2023 (UTC) 24, 16 May 2023 (UTC) 58, 16 May 2023 (UTC) Dougal18 . The article is primarily about the player, mentioning him 10 times. That a single sentence is sourced to a Vietnamese newspaper doesn't make it unreliable. Though I'm not sure why we would consider Tiền Phong unreliable simply because it (like all media in Vietnam) is government-owned. It's not listed at WP:PRP as a problematic source, and even then in similar situations when they are listed, the guideline is to use with caution. I don't think a minor negative comment about a player's performance is an issue; and even if it were, there are 9 other references to him in the CNN article that are not referenced to Tiền Phong! Nfitz ( talk ) 00:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC) PRP or not. Dougal18 ( talk ) 15:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC) ROUTINE tells us that this doesn't make the match significant. It doesn't preclude match reports being GNG sources for other types of article. I was wrong (sorry) about the attribution to Tiền Phong - it's significantly more than one sentence. I don't see how that's an issue though - it's a major publication. We should also reference the original Tiền Phong article ; you will notice that it's only about 250 words, and that CNN supplemented the article from Tiền Phong with additional information about Rublico. Nfitz ( talk ) 03:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC) ROUTINE in NSPORT if we are not supposed to apply the definition/examples of ""routine"" used there to the types of coverage NSPORT considers ""routine""? The same material considered routine for notability of events is considered routine for notability of biographies in NSPORT: Individual games: A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game SPORTBASIC: must provide reports beyond routine game coverage NSPORT also explicitly includes match reports in its definition of ""routine"" in multiple places: repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries , or other WP:ROUTINE coverage and substantial and prolonged coverage that is: (1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. [...] The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries , statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability. The relevant portions of ROUTINE linked above are: Per Wikipedia policy , routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine . Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches , film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. JoelleJay ( talk ) 18:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC) 09, 20 May 2023 (UTC) 59, 25 May 2023 (UTC) 31, 25 May 2023 (UTC) 08, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 11, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 10, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 23, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 44, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 48, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 02, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 07, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 54, 26 May 2023 (UTC) BASIC . Resonant Dis tor tion 07:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC) GNG further subject is 17 years with an ongoing career. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC) Available sources might not be intellectually independent of one another due to government control. I think some of the above arguments miss part of the point of WP:BASIC . What's important is the independence of the source , i.e., the publisher, not interviewees in those publications. My analysis is this: Of the available references in the article, 5 constitue SIGCOV: 1, 5, 7, 9, and 10. These articles are from 4 distinct sources, and there is no indication that any of them are particularly unreliable. Yes, WP:BLP has a high standard for sourcing, but it should be remembered that the claims being made are not particularly contentious. They hardly go beyond ""this footballer exists and he plays for this club."" With 5 references to articles devoted to either the player himself or his individual performance in a game, WP:BASIC is more than satisfied. This media coverage has also been sustained in the sense that it does not relate to a single event, and it is likely to continue as Rublico continues to play football. I really don't see any reason why this subject would fail the notability criteria. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 13:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC) ; edited 08:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC) 59, 29 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SPORTCRIT establishes that local sources need to be evaluated with particular care for independence and routine coverage, but none of the sources I have pointed out are routine coverage under WP:ROUTINE . The nature of the CNN Indonesia article with regard to this could be debated, but I would argue that it is not routine coverage as it focusses entirely on one player. I also don't see any reason to believe that they are not independent of the subject, again setting aside the interview for this argument. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 11:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC) YOUNGATH , which states High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is: (1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. The first clause excludes all school papers and school websites that cover their sports teams and other teams they compete against. The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability. The other issues with the CNN Indonesia article are that a) it is derived wholly from a news source under absolute control (*) by the Vietnamese Communist Party, and b) it is 100% negative coverage of Rublico. Using it as SIGCOV would result in our article spending a lot of prose strongly deploring his performance at one U22 match of the 2023 SEA Games, based on the analysis of an unnamed reporter in a newspaper owned by the National Communist Youth League and explicitly described as ""anti-West"". JoelleJay ( talk ) 20:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Every Tuesday, the editors of the media that answer directly to the party’s central organs – including VTV, VOV, Nhan Dan, Quan Doi Nhan Dan (People’s Army), Cong An Dan Nhan (People’s Public Security), Lao Dong, Tien Phong, Thanh Nien and Phu Nu – and the heads of the provincial departments of propaganda and education have to attend a briefing in Hanoi chaired by the heads of the party’s Central Department of Propaganda and Education. During these meetings, the Department of Propaganda and Education tells the media what can and cannot be reported and the way each story should be handled. On Wednesdays, the heads of the provincial departments of propaganda and education go back to their provinces and organize similar meetings with the editors of the local media. The local branches of the Department of Propaganda and Education also give their own instructions to the local media and obviously monitor them. Prevention and guidance are the lifeblood of propaganda. JoelleJay ( talk ) 20:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The government of Vietnam's control of the news is completely irrelevant, and more than any other one-party state. If the article was about a politician, yes take with a grain of salt. But it has no bearing on GNG, and it's wrong to assume that they are publishing bias about minor foreign athletes. There was nothing published there that doesn't jibe with many other sources. Vietnam has been a relatively stable country for years, since they rid themselves of various colonial powers; do we ignore sports media from other similar, but friendly countries, like Cuba? Nfitz ( talk ) 21:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know much about Indonesian government control of the media, so I'm just taking what has been said to be true here. The problem is that this means the sources are not intellectually independent of one another, which is necessary to establish notability. Again, independence from the subject is clear and the coverage does go significantly beyond routine coverage, so YOUNGATH does not seem to be a problem to me. But if all our sources are under control of the same government, they're not intellectually independent. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 08:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Timothy's analysis above. Quite simply, the sources in the article at present are not sufficient to construct any sort of meaningful article on this subject, several are primary and others are too short. — Amakuru ( talk ) 07:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Sigi Wimala : Sciencefish ( talk ) 16:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , Beauty pageants , Fashion , and Indonesia . Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fairly meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple notable films. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC) Sigi_Wimala seems to have some extra sources and content, which might be possible to be used from someone who knows the language. -- Konstantina07 ( talk ) 18:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Grigori Chernozubov : No reason for this article. Kingsmasher678 ( talk ) 00:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , and Russia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC) The page on Russian Wikipedia seems to be more in-depth and has more sources. Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib. ) 10:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is still no notability, and one ""brief"" biography isn't really enough to build an entire article. Kingsmasher678 ( talk ) 13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . He has a plaque dedicated to him, and streets namead after him, should be expanded with transation from Russian version F.Alexsandr ( talk ) 23:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You seem to speak the language, I will be happy to withdraw the request if you can bring it up to snuff. Kingsmasher678 ( talk ) 00:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per comments above. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: On the one hand, there is no support for deletion. On the other hand, the argument is not strong. Let's hear some more thoughts on this before passing a verdict. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 00:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can see multiple Google books refs in Russian. Mccapra ( talk ) 07:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Same as previous relisting comment. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . We simply have no sources . ""Mentions in books,"" which one sporadically will encounter , amounts to very little; significant references in independent, third-party texts are required . And the one live link found takes us to a privately curated website. The Russian lemma is no help, either: It only offers a typical "" listing of generals by seniority ."" The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Ju Ju Wilson : Australian search engine trove comes up mainly with small 1 line mentions. Does not meet WP:ARTIST . Hardly any articles link to this. LibStar ( talk ) 23:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Women , and Australia . LibStar ( talk ) 23:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - LibStar, I think there is a possibility that this Indigenous Australian elder artist is notable. She is in the collection of the National Gallery of Australia (added that info + citation to the article.) We need more than one notable collection to pass NARTIST, but I'm also finding a few hits on her work as a director. Not ready to ! vote yet without deeper inquiry. Netherzone ( talk ) 02:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions . Netherzone ( talk ) 02:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 02:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC) Also mentioned in this book [15] but it's a snippet view. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the National Gallery of Australia holdings and other sources (and as an author and television appearances). Randy Kryn ( talk ) 15:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Need more discussion over sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Elizabeth Young, Lady Kennet : She fails WP:GNG today and is unlikely to garner more substantial coverage in the future due to her being so dead. JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 05:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Authors , Women , Poetry , Politics , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I have added in reviews of two of her publications. She wrote under the name Elizabeth Young, which makes searching for discussions of her work a challenge. I suspect there is more coverage of her work, but it requires sifting through articles about similar people. DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I find reviews for multiple books. I also added back some of the text that had been removed prior to the AFD nomination. While this text needs citations (and is now marked as such), it is useful to know in order to find the sources needed. DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 12:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC) BASIC . This is not an easy pass -- her books have a relatively low citation count but she has had an impact. Old London Churches seems to have been regarded as a significant work and has been cited quite a bit in the context of for conservation efforts received a number of reviews which are not available online. She got obituaries in the Independent and Telegraph which I think counts for a lot. Here are the sources I think taken together are sufficient: this book review [33] this obit in the Independent [34] this obituary in the Telegraph [35] minimal discussion about her in her husband's biography [36] this obituary, albeit in a low-circulation paper [37] this entry showing that her papers are now held under supervision of the UK national archives [38] One note: immediately prior to bringing this AfD the nominator removed more than 4K of text from the article including removing her extensive biography. I'm not sure how that is justified - surely if the books exist they are sources, although whether they count for notability may be another matter. I wholly agree with @ DaffodilOcean 's decision to reinstate them, and to identify additional cites. Oblivy ( talk ) 01:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Ilyas Vasipov : I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 29 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 23:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Meets WP:GNG as a person ""influenced a whole generation of St. Petersburg journalists"" and the publisher of an iconic newspaper. Evilfreethinker ( talk ) 23:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Russia . Shellwood ( talk ) 23:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 06:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Cranes of Great Britain : The article currently is just overly detailed statistics about the common crane's breeding in the UK. It's not like cranes are particularly special in British culture, the way they are in East Asia, so no real reason to have this article. AryKun ( talk ) 15:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal , Lists , and United Kingdom . AryKun ( talk ) 15:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC) it has qualitative information about behavior, history, and conservation. It is also well-sourced. HenryMP02 ( talk ) 15:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That much information could be added to literally any article about a bird in . My point is that there is no cultural or ecological significance to the population of British cranes that parallels for example the reverence for cranes in Chinese mythology. The conservation efforts section is exactly what I’m talking about when I say trivia; it’s a blow by blow account of basically every change in crane population in the UK. AryKun ( talk ) 15:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm, you are right. While I would still argue that some of the content of the article is good (bad being the tables and year-by-year population remarks), I do see now that the subject itself (Cranes in Great Britain ) is not so special as to warrant its own article. Whatever good content there is could be d into the respective species articles. I will strikethrough my old comment and favor Partial per Elmidae. HenryMP02 ( talk ) 18:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Partial One resident species plus two rare vagrants? This is ""Common crane in Great Britain"", and as such should form a subsection of Common crane - some of it, definitely minus the tables. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 16:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The topic of ""Cranes of Great Britain"" very clearly meets WP:GNG by sources existing in the article ( British Birds , BBC , Birding World , Yorkshire Post , and more). This is classic WP:NOTPAPER , and rests comfortably within the First pillar of Wikipedia : Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. This quotation from pillar 1 directly contradicts the nomination rationale of no real reason to have this article . Later discussion above mentions ""trivia"" however this does not fall afoul of WP:TRIVIA or even WP:HTRIVIA . Within the scope of this article, and especially the section it's contained under (""Recolonisation of Norfolk Broads"") the detail is not overly excessive, note that much of that coverage is specifically about conservation and thus populations and changes thereof are highly relevant. If any editor feels it is too detailed for comfortable reading, please improve upon it or discuss it on the article talk page. — siro χ o 17:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC) howling out of the gate with ""strongest possible "" on the base of weak arguments damages your credibility and gives you zero room for discussion. These things aren't decided on the base of who makes the loudest chest-thumping display. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 18:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry. I do generally try not to do that. Seeing the progression of the discussion I wanted to make it clear I thought there was a mistake underway. I don't feel my arguments are weak. GNG + NOTPAPER + 5P1. — siro χ o 19:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have changed the wording of my ! vote. Acknowledging here for you and also below in a new comment. Apologies again. — siro χ o 20:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’ve written for a specialised encyclopaedia whose only purpose is to provide extremely comprehensive coverage of bird species, and they would never publish an account that includes this much information on the status of a species in a tiny part of its worldwide range. Nearly every “charismatic” species with small populations in a Western European country will have this much country specific conservation information, doesn’t justify having an article on it. AryKun ( talk ) 18:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate the work you do on the encyclopedia and don't mean to disparage that in the slightest. Honest question, though, from a policy perspective, why should we this? This isn't adding overly detailed information to the more general article of Common crane . It's relatively well referenced, and the topic itself meets GNG based on sources already in the article. — siro χ o 19:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's exactly how all conservation publications work; most organisms that are well-studied and of conservation concern in a country will have plenty of sources discussing the history of their conservation in that country. Using that standard, we should have an article for wood storks in Florida . AryKun ( talk ) 06:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (with or without a very selective ) to List_of_birds_of_Great_Britain#Cranes . There's just not enough to set this apart via GNG. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Apologies for the ""strongest possible "" wording which I've chosen to remove above in place of a standard . I realize now that came across as overly aggressive, which I did not intend. Apologies specifically to those who felt put upon, that was not fair of me. Here's a source assessment table for the topic of ""Cranes in Great Britain"". There are other sources available that I haven't evaluated in full, but I think this makes more than a sufficient case for the article as it stands. — siro χ o 20:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC) NOTPAPER rationale. WilsonP NYC ( talk ) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) prepared by User:Siroxo Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? BBC [12] 290+ words dedicated to the topic of cranes in multiple places in Great Britain ✔ Yes British Birds ""The occurrence and recolonisation of common cranes in Scotland"" [13] [14] journal article that covers history and conservation in part of Great Britain ✔ Yes British Birds , ""Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2009"" Multiple articles over multiple years each seems to have 100+ words specifically on crane conservation focused on Great Britain. There is other relevant coverage with these as well. We'll count the set as one source ✔ Yes Yorkshire Post [15] 438+ words of the article entirely dedicated to cranes in Great Britain including both history and conservation efforts ✔ Yes Birding World ""The Cranes of Broadland"" ? Seems reliable based on topic, but unsure for this out of print magazine ? Seems very likely, multi-page article, title related topic of cranes in region of Great Britain, publication dedicated to birdwatching in Great Britain ? Unknown This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . My point (and that of AryKun above) is not that the topic is not ""notable"" - obviously there is enough coverage to write a certain amount about it, and in consequence to meet the letter of GNG - but that there is no benefit in presenting this separately from the main article, and that localized detail often is excessive for our purposes. Look at Sandhill_crane#Mainland_North_America - that is more information than is contained in the entire article under discussion here, comfortably contained in the species article in context . There is no benefit in making the reader chase around multiple articles just for the fun of having those. It's not always about notability, but often about practicalities of presentation. As suggested above, for most well-studied bird species with wide distribution it would be trivial, and unproductive, to break out regional sub-articles. I could pop out "" Mallard in Arkansas"" within a day or so, because I have twenty field studies sitting right here that happen to have been done in that region, but the added localized detail would be of minimal encyclopedic benefit. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 12:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you wanted to write a quality article about Mallards in Arkansas, I think that would be fine. If someone else writes it and it's not of interest to you, that's also fine. This pattern is not uncommon across Wikipedia, we have the entire WP:SS guideline and related stuff for this. I'm not at all opposed to having a section in Common crane about Common cranes in Great Britain, perhaps with a {{main article}} section hatnote, if appropriate. My main objection is the idea that we start with this article that contains information that may be of interest to some readers, but isn't of interest to some editors in this afd discussion, then we do a to Common crane , and then we lose much of that information. I do agree with you that a full isn't appropriate. It mixes topics and also has UNDUE information for the common crane article. The solution that can satisfy both desires here is to leave this article for the people who desire this level of detail, and to include a summary in Common crane for people interested in that. — siro χ o 16:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The subject is notable on its own. It may not require . Srijanx22 ( talk ) 06:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Partial per Elimidae and AryKun- just because you can doesn't mean you should, and there isn't anything particularly noteworthy about the cranes of Great Britain specifically that would warrant and entire separate article, which makes this a fork and trivia. -- SilverTiger12 ( talk ) 13:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC) 32, 30 August 2023 (UTC) Just want to note in case this is closed as ; List_of_birds_of_Great_Britain#Cranes would be a better target than Common crane , because the UK is a very small portion of the common crane's Afroeurasian distribution, and so having any more than one or two sentences on its status in the UK at Common crane would probably be UNDUE. AryKun ( talk ) 09:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC) 36, 5 September 2023 (UTC) 35, 5 September 2023 (UTC) 39, 5 September 2023 (UTC) 42, 5 September 2023 (UTC) Still divided between those arguing to this article and those editors advocating at least a partial Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 17:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC) 29, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Philopoemen Constantinidi : No articlre improvemebt since it was tagged in April - Altenmann >talk 06:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Greece . Kpg jhp jm 07:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON. Freinland ( talk ) 07:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] notable per collection at Centre Pompidou and Benezit encyclopedic entry. Article needs improvement Hermann Heilner Giebenrath ( talk ) 10:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This looks like the article on in Hellenica World The site looks so old, that it might precede the Wikipedia article. https://copyvios.toolforge.org/? lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Philopoemen+Constantinidi&oldid=&use_engine=0&use_links=0&turnitin=0&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hellenicaworld.com%2FGreece%2FPerson%2Fen%2FPhilopoemenConstantinidi.html So sorry. Hellenica World was copied from Wikipedia and says so. Looking for a citation for death date. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 22:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC) ARTIST . Very close paraphrasing of parts of Benezit . -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 02:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC) Relisting, can we please have arguments based in policy and guidelines that focus on whether or not notability can be established? Please be specific and avoid general statements. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC) ARTIST for purposes of being included in Wikipedia. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 22:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment : No sources found meeting WP:SIRS , nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth . Article does not indicate any engagements in which the unit was notable. Source eval table: Comments Source Blog post/timeline, fails WP:RS, does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth * https://civilwarintheeast.com/confederate-regiments/north-carolina/6th-north-carolina-infantry-regiment/ Enthusiast website, fails WP:RS * https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/6th_nc_volunteers_regiment.html Troop register, fails WP:IS, SIGCOV. Government troop registers do not show notability * https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/Register_of_North_Carolina_Troops_1861.pdf Fails WP:IS, WP:RS, Memories written down in 1901 source states, ""WRITTEN BY MEMBERS OF THE RESPECTIVE COMMANDS."" * https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/Histories_of_the_Several_Regiments_and_Battalions_from_NC_in_the_Great_War_Volume_I_Walter_Clark_1901.pdf Troop register, fails WP:IS, SIGCOV. Government troop registers do not show notability Register of North Carolina Troops, 1861, by John Spelman page 13. Duplicate of above ref Capt. Lawson Harrill on April 9, 1901, page 786-808 in the ""History of the Several Regiments and Battalions from North Carolina in the Great War-'65-Volume 1. Ping me if IS RS with SIGCOV are found. // Timothy :: talk 17:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC) You might find more sources if you search the 16th North Carolina, which is apparently what this regiment was reorganized as in June 1861. The 16th doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article, which is interesting given its combat history (Antietam, Gettysburg, Fredericksburg, and others). It might be worth rewriting the article for the 16th North Carolina, noting its origins as the 6th Volunteers. Intothat darkness 00:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC) This sounds like a good solution. If @ PaulusHectorMair : feels this is a good solution and wants to pursue it, I will support drafting as ""16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment"" or another appropriate title. The author is new, I'm not sure they know this discussion is taking place, PaulusHectorMair if you could reply here with your thoughts, even if it is just to let us know you are aware of the discussion. // Timothy :: talk 00:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC) - Let's hold up a minute on this. There's a conflation going on here - the ""6th North Carolina Volunteers "" was the unit that became 16th Regiment per this but there's also a separate 6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment. Per this brief NPS listing it had quite a bit of fighting, and the State of North Carolina published an entire book on this 6th Infantry. Hog Farm Talk 01:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC) This article (as currently written) is about the unit that was reorganized into the 16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment. Its currently named ""6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment"" but it was actually the ""6th North Carolina Volunteers"" There is another unit ""6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment"" that is unconnected to the current article or the 16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment. Let me know if I've got something wrong. // Timothy :: talk 01:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Hog Farm , I thought about pinging you, but didn't want to run into the whole canvassing thing with AfD. The ACW isn't one of my major fields, especially Confederate units, so I just did a basic search. I wondered about the Volunteer/Infantry thing, but I've seen it used interchangeably with other units. I of course defer to your expertise. Intothat darkness 12:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello. I am indeed aware of this discussion and have been checking it every few hours or so. I would be open to pursuing an article on the 16th, as this was my original goal. I should have realized sooner that the two regiments were different, and frankly I am questioning my competence for such a silly mistake. PaulusHectorMair ( talk ) 01:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC) ) // Timothy :: talk 01:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Now that the unit confusion is sorted, is there sourcing for this unit? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Ankur Sharma : No sourcing for GNG or NBIO. Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India . Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC) BASIC from English language coverage though. I am not sure if a is sufficient, due to how common the name is, so I'll suggest convert to disambig . I've created Ankur Sharma (disambiguation) that could be used for this. — siro χ o 08:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep/Redirect (party page) being an Indian I see it at the personal level this person seems notable as he’s founded political party which does have seats being the party president/founder he gets to have an article on the Wikipedia under politics project on wikipedia, but He doesn’t have independent articles as everything in the news for him comes along with his party. Autograph ( talk ) 07:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also the creator of this article seems highly experienced, also I have added 2 new sources. Autograph ( talk ) 07:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . He hasn't held any political position that would constitute an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL , but the article is not referenced to anything like enough coverage about him to claim that he would pass WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies : The reliability of those sources is also not clear. The other sources are either WP:PRIMARY , WP:SPS , or entries in rankings (not SIGCOV). Previously soft-d ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies ). Actualcpscm ( talk ) 15:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and India . Actualcpscm ( talk ) 15:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . While some sources are available, they do not meet WP:SIGCOV . Fails WP:NSCHOOL . 33ABGirl ( talk ) 16:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This is not a notable school. No WP:SIGCOV . CastJared ( talk ) 17:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , or perhaps ""Merge"" to a suitable list of undergraduate business school programs in India. Why do we having AFDs about schools in India, when surely they can/should be covered in list-articles, at least? Out of context, i.e. without them being properly listed (say with notes about accreditations, etc.) it is hard to evaluate a single new article. I see there exists List of MBA schools in India which is a pretty poor list with no explanation of its membership criteria (e.g. it is not defined like in the U.S. there could be a list of what was once termed AACSB -accredited programs), but I don't see a list of undergrad programs. More articles about business schools in India will coming, if a relevant list is not created and developed. This claim in the article seems significant: SSCBS was ranked #92 among (all) colleges in India by the National Institutional Ranking Framework in 2023 [1] and #1 among BBA colleges in India by India Today in 2021. [2] References ^ ""MoE, National Institute Ranking Framework (NIRF)"" . www.nirfindia.org . Retrieved 2023-06-15 . ^ ""Business Acumen | Best Colleges in BBA"" . India Today . Retrieved 2023-06-15 . Or is it deceptive, that "" BBA "" means Bachelor in Business Analysis, if that is something non-standard, vs. in the U.S. I think a Bachelor of Arts (BA) in Business Administration would be the most common terminology? Hard to say, without a table to compare it to others. Or maybe that ranking framework is a bogus one, I have not even read its article, but at least there is an appeal to something like an accreditation. Note, it is not required that a good target be available, for the AFD to call for creation of such a target and suggest that an article be d. Obviously (to me) the topic of bachelors levels business programs in India is notable, and we can/should have a list of them. --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 18:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FWIW, there is a List of business schools in Asia , and now List of business schools in India s to India's section, and I began organizing it by location. It has no tabulation of ratings or accreditations, or any other information about the named schools, however. If there was a table and ""Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies"" was one row, then Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies could be ed to a row anchor in that row, using an ""id="" field in top line of the row. I suggest this AFD be closed, and some editing initiative to address Wikipedia coverage of business schools in Asia, or at least India, be started. The corresponding List of business schools in the United States is better and has a table which provides a model for something better for India (altho I am confused about it mentioning 3 accreditations existing yet showing just one Yes-No column). --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 19:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd just like to point out that this isn't a matter of targeting Indian business schools. If an article is unlikely to meet the notability criteria, there will usually be an AfD discussion about it; that's just part of the process. In my opinion, the analysis ""We too many articles like this"" is much more a personal opinion than a policy-based argument. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST . I'm also not sure what you mean by the article having a ""significant claim""; if it didn't have a WP:CCOS , I would have nominated it in accordance with WP:CSD instead. However, again, this argument fails to address the actual problem here; there aren't any high-quality sources that establish the notability of this organization. I'm not sure about the either, because the problem with the lack of reliable sourcing remains for this college. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 09:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC) , edited 12:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Colleges and universities in India are ranked by the NIRF by the Ministry of Education , Government of India . According to that, this college comes in the top 100 colleges of India. According to India Today , the most widely circulated English magazine of India, this college was ranked #1 among BBA (bachelor of business administration) for two consecutive years - 2020 and 2021. After addition of new references, article should now meet WP:SIGCOV. As for accreditation, it is accredited Grade A by NAAC ( National Assessment and Accreditation Council ), the accrediting body of Govt. of India. Rajanarora95 ( talk ) 12:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 16:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"2007 Montgomery mayoral election : Yoblyblob ( Talk ) :) 16:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 5 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 16:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Alabama . Owen× ☎ 17:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Non-notable mayoral election (in fact, this is the first I ever heard of it). TH1980 ( talk ) 01:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC) POLOUTCOMES . I tried several searches and yet found nothing at all. In the past, we have generally ed individual non-notable candidates to the election article, and I see no reason why we can't do vice-versa to Bobby Bright . Bearian ( talk ) 14:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear more points of view on whether the proposed and its target article are acceptable. I've never come across an election article being ed to a candidate's page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] only one source and it's an excel file, only a city election, nothing to ATD here. SportingFlyer T · C 01:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I noticed that other mayoral elections in Montgomery have articles, thus I suggest all these articles should be Merged to a new election overview article, Mayoral elections in Montgomery, Alabama . Possibly something similar to Mayoral elections in Chattanooga, Tennessee or Mayoral elections in Evansville, Indiana ? Samoht27 ( talk ) 19:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC) ) 13:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to a newly-created Mayoral elections in Montgomery, Alabama as that's the general practice for mid-sized American cities. Elli ( talk | contribs ) 02:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist, or ? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette Edit! 05:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Airbiquity : Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 16:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Computing , Software , Transportation , and Washington . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Lean very difficult to find under all the regurgitated press releases but the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has done a couple of more substantial pieces on the company, [1] [2] which looks to have been more prominent in the 2000s. (I don't think the articles are still available online – if anyone would like me to email the full text to review, let me know). I'm not yet fully convinced of notability – we would want to see decent coverage from more than one source – but the situation is not quite as bad as it looks. – Tera tix ₵ 06:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Cook, John (21 October 2005). ""Ex-startup Airbiquity experiences a rebirth"". Seattle Post-Intelligencer . ^ Cook, John (22 January 2008). ""Airbiquity rebounds with funding, deals"". Seattle Post-Intelligencer . Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 17:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I opened all of the refs, they are routine press releases, 404, tangential and such. Nothing to establish notability. A 1997 startup that had 50-100 employess before being bought up recently and has now disappeared. Desertarun ( talk ) 19:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Did you look for sources that weren't in the article? – Tera tix ₵ 04:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Week the page seems to be notable, and the routine coverage is not so bad, while better sources should be added by the locals or those who know the topic better. 扱. し. 侍. ( talk ) 08:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or , perhaps to connected car as an AtD. I did do a reasonable BEFORE, and I don't see anything outside of routine business news, including the sources presented in this process. I agree with the source analysis by Desertarun. I see nothing which directly details why this failed startup is remarkable inside of its field. The rest is just fundraising and rewritten press releases, including links provided in this process. BusterD ( talk ) 13:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Solitaire : It should be a disambiguation page. Onceinawhile ( talk ) 14:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions . Onceinawhile ( talk ) 14:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a very strange nomination as the lede of the article is one of the dictionary definitions of the word meant to define the article, and there have been very many books published on solitaire games throughout the years. If there's a problem with the article, that can be fixed by editing, but I'm really surprised that this was nominated at all given its notability. SportingFlyer T · C 15:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC) thanks for your comment. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Misplaced dictionary entries . Regarding your statement very many books published on solitaire games , please could you provide links? The ones I can see which describe multiple versions of ""solitaire"" all refer to Patience (game) . Onceinawhile ( talk ) 15:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your link says multiple distinct meanings, while this topic is on one specific meaning of the term, and also If the article cannot be renamed, d, or rewritten into a stub encyclopedia article about a subject, denoted by its title, then it should be d. which is not the case here. Books include [23] and [24] . Note those are the first two that came up, I have spent very little time on a source search. SportingFlyer T · C 18:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC) those links include only card games - i.e. versions of Patience (game) , thus proving my point that no sources cover the purported scope of this article. Onceinawhile ( talk ) 20:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So you're saying we can only have this article if there's an article that discusses [25] in the same breath as those card games, even though the lede is a valid definition? That's ridiculous. SportingFlyer T · C 20:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC) Yes, that is a fundamental principal of this encyclopedia: WP:SYNTH (part of WP:OR ). The opening of the article here is wrongly suggesting, without a source, that all one-player tabletop games are a genre of games called solitaire. Many traditional one-player tabletop games, such as Jigsaw puzzle , Solo whist , Tangram or Labyrinth (marble game) , are not games of solitaire. So perhaps the article is really trying to say that all one-player tabletop games with the word ""solitaire"" in their names are in fact a genre of games, which is again untrue and also unsourced. The article contravenes WP:OR. Onceinawhile ( talk ) 21:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, it's just applying the primary definition of the word. See: a game played by one person alone, as a game played with marbles or pegs on a board having hollows or holes. at [26] . SportingFlyer T · C 10:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That link is to a dictionary, whilst we are building an encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Major differences – card solitaire, Mahjong solitaire and peg solitaire are excellent examples of topics which have similar names but should not be grouped together just because of their name. We would all support an article with the scope of “one player games” or even “one player tabletop games” if we have sources with the same scope, but it would look completely different to this one, and it would not be called Solitaire, as most one-player games do not have that word in their name. The scope of this article is “one player tabletop games with the word solitaire in their common name”, which is not a single subject according to any external source. Onceinawhile ( talk ) 15:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC) NOTDICT , and this article is distinct. You're trying to claim that the common definition of the term is SYNTH, which is clearly incorrect. SportingFlyer T · C 16:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And places like BoardGameGeek use the tag Solo/Solitaire to refer to a ""single player game"". [27] SportingFlyer T · C 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No. I am saying that the definition used in the article is SYNTH – i.e. that there is a special genre of “one player tabletop games with the word solitaire in their name”. “Solitaire” is simply French for “solitary person”; the use of the term in the title of the game is completely irrelevant. If you want an article on One-Player Tabletop Games, that is fine. But that is not what this article is. Onceinawhile ( talk ) 19:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At no point in time does the article say that it's a special ""genre"" of game. I'm not sure what you think this article is. I think it's pretty clearly on games that the word ""solitaire"" refers to. SportingFlyer T · C 19:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK. Per WP:WORDISSUBJECT , for an article about the word, we need the word or phrase in and of itself [to pass] Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources . Onceinawhile ( talk ) 20:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC) Ambiguous subjects by Shooterwalker . Onceinawhile ( talk ) 21:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Solitaire is a very well known genre of one-player tabletop games, especially cards, but also other types of game. Should definitely not be d. Bermicourt ( talk ) 19:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC) card solitaire , Mahjong solitaire , and Peg solitaire are as much a ""genre"" of games as writing instrument , musical instrument and surgical instrument are a ""genre"" of tools. Instrument is a disambiguation page, and so should solitaire be. Onceinawhile ( talk ) 20:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They're not the same at all. Solitaires are all forms of game played by one person; whereas those instruments have nothing in common apart from the word ""instrument"". Bermicourt ( talk ) 15:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC) “a mechanical tool or implement, especially one used for delicate or precision work”. Instrument is a disambiguation page because no external sources other than a dictionary cover this wide range of mostly unrelated topics in one place. Onceinawhile ( talk ) 15:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom and move either Solitaire (disambiguation) or Patience (game) here. The definition is made up, i.e. SYNTH. There are card games and there are other types of games (not necessarily ""tabletop""), admittedly all with the same general goal of removing cards, tiles, stones, etc. However, none of the sources, as far as I can tell or have been able to find, indicate they are lumped together. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 02:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's literally part of the definition of the word. [29] a game played by one person alone, as a game played with marbles or pegs on a board having hollows or holes. SportingFlyer T · C 10:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SportingFlyer is right. No way is this SYNTH. Here's another definition by American games authors Wood & Goddard in The Complete Book of Games : ""Solitaire...properly applies to any game that one player can play alone."" Bermicourt ( talk ) 15:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC) ""there are excellent games of Patience for two or more players; but most... are designed for one player… Solitaire...properly applies to any game that one player can play alone."" So it is explicitly describing a subset of Patience (game) . Nothing to do with Mahjong or peg solitaire. Onceinawhile ( talk ) 15:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The only word missing from my quote is ""which"" ""... Solitaire, which properly applies to any game that one player can play alone."" It's a games book and they are referring to any ""game"", not any ""card game"". Bermicourt ( talk ) 20:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The top of the quoted page (p.241) literally says ""The Patience or Solitaire Group"". They are talking about card games (i.e. Patience). Onceinawhile ( talk ) 21:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's just your assumption. Bermicourt ( talk ) 21:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC) ""By definition, a solitaire is any game for one player..."" He goes on to describe subsets played with cards as well as the game of Peg Solitaire. Bermicourt ( talk ) 21:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The title of the book is The Penguin Book of Card Games ? Almost all of Parlett's books are about cards. Please could you provide the full quote so we can see how he incorporates Peg Solitaire? Onceinawhile ( talk ) 21:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't believe what I'm reading here. Of course its notable . Anyone who thinks otherwise should have no part in building an encyclopedia. I'm sure there are are some venues that welcome pedantry, but this is not one of them. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 22:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Careful. You're on the verge of violating WP:no personal attacks . Also ""of course its notable"" is hardly a convincing argument. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 10:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC) SKYBLUE i.e. obviously notable. Which, frankly, it is. Which is why authors like Roni Bird, in describing a numbers game for two or more players, can say without need for qualification or explanation ""this can be played as a solitaire game"" i.e. one person can play it. Bermicourt ( talk ) 12:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If it's so obvious, why are people arguing? Obviously it's not obvious. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 01:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is obvious to anyone qualified to write an encyclopedia. Hence my comment above. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 18:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not an encyclopedia article. The lead is just a dictionary definition, the history section only covers card solitaire, the other section serves the same purpose as the disambiguation page, and the article does not even have a well-defined subject, as shown in discussion here. Also, this opinion most certainly does not make me unqualified to write an encyclopedia. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - solitaire games as a category encompassing the full range of the dictionary definition are discussed in [30] and [1] , in addition to the wealth of literature on each individual variety. signed, Rosguill talk 05:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC) thanks for your comment. I just read both links – the letter in Science is explictly describing only card solitaire (and all his footnotes refer only to card solitaire too), and the paper by Sousa and Silva are using the term solitaire as shorthand for the generic term ""one-player"" (""…our proposal analysed the most popular modern board games with solo game modes""). So neither supports the scope of this article. Onceinawhile ( talk ) 06:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ]",no consensus
+"Miss Iraq in America : -- فيصل ( talk ) 16:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Both Rappler and Albawaba seem to be broadly considered reliable sources, based on a search of the reliable source noticeboard archives. I'm less confident about Pukmedia but don't see an obvious reason to consider it unreliable. Overall, this doesn't look like a very major event, but it does appear to have sustained coverage in multiple reliable sources, even just looking at English-language ones. — Moriwen ( talk ) 16:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 08:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Brazil at the 2023 Pan American Games : Per WP:CRYSTALBALL , it's a bit too early; maybe there are some sources about the teams and plans, but they're not in this article. Per WP:TNT let's it. It could be moved to draft, too, until the event is closer and the content is more viable. Note that the topic has existed in this state, slowly gaining more empty sections, since June of 2022. Mikeblas ( talk ) 12:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following related pages for the same problems. Really, the best solution is probably to draftify but I don't think there's a direct draftify process: Puerto Rico at the 2023 Pan American Games ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Peru at the 2023 Pan American Games ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Haiti at the 2023 Pan American Games ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Guatemala at the 2023 Pan American Games ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Ecuador at the 2023 Pan American Games ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Barbados at the 2023 Pan American Games ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) El Salvador at the 2023 Pan American Games ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Bolivia at the 2023 Pan American Games ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Dominican Republic at the 2023 Pan American Games ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Barbados , Brazil , Ecuador , El Salvador , Guatemala , Haiti , Peru , and Puerto Rico . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC) ATD . What a horrible nomination for deletion. At best these should be ed to 2023 Pan American Games . The nominator could have easily ed as an WP:ATD . I will try to check for sources later! I am assuming the nominator has not done a WP:BEFORE based on their nomination rationale. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 13:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Brazil: [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , Puerto Rico: [35] , [36] , [37] . Peru: [38] , [39] , [40] , [41] , [42] , [43] , [44] Guatemala: [45] , [46] , [47] Ecuador, [48] , [49] , [50] , [51] For Barbados El Salvador, and Haiti, a drafting or at this moment would be the best option. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC) CRYSTALBALL , as are the rest of them. -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 14:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] all We are less than four months away from the 2023 Pan American Games, and most of the items in the articles have updated sources. I've just had a look at some of the articles and added new sources, so I can't understand why articles that bring official references from Pan American Sports Federations have to be d. Felipe.moraislima ( talk ) 23:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] premature is premature. them now, and remake if you want at such a time when there would be sourced content to actually put in them. TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 08:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What makes you consider it premature? I checked again all the articles nominated for deletion. Here are my impressions: in most of the sports there, we have official qualification lists from each sport governing body, as you can see in the cases of fencing, karate, sailing, racquetball, surfing, weightlifting, taekwondo, archery and cycling. In team sports, we have articles from credible sources reporting the results of qualifying tournaments. So, I totally disagree with deleting the articles, since they're verifiable, related to a multi-sport event and are made respecting Wikipedia rules. Felipe.moraislima ( talk ) 11:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would you consider moving them to draft space until they're viable? -- Mikeblas ( talk ) 16:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC) Added Bolivia and Dominican Republic. -- Mikeblas ( talk ) 12:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bolivia and Dominican Republic . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to get more clarity on Draftification or Redirection. If you think there should be different outcomes for all of these articles, please specify what you would prefer to see happen with each one. I understand this takes more time with 10 articles nominated but it shouldn't be up to the closer to guess which to and which to Redirect. Thank you. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Barbados, El Salvador, Haiti, drafting is the best option. For the rest, . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 20:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC) CRYSTAL does not apply as even though the event hasn't happened yet, the articles are about an event that will almost certainly occur that is only four months away. There's no need to them. SportingFlyer T · C 23:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC) 32, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"StatMuse : Only the 2 techCrunch are reliable, but doesn't somehow talking to StatMuse directly. Looking at WP:BEFORE , it has nothing more. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 04:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How does it fail GNG? Also, how would the Fortune source not count as reliable? Also worth noting this was the 3rd article I created that was nominated for deletion by the same nominator in an 11-minute span ( 1 , 2 )... I do not have the time or energy to give an honest and equal effort trying to patch up all 3 at the same time to be honest. All were given the same looking at WP:BEFORE gives nothing more reliable type of vibe, so I don't think too much thought went behind these nominations and even if they have merit (I will always AGF, so they do imo have merit), the nominations seem to be unfairly rushed in a spam-adjacent manner (""spam-adjacent"" sounds harsher than what I'm trying to say, but can't find a better way to articulate that right now). Soulbust ( talk ) 04:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC) 1 2 3 4 5 6 . Soulbust ( talk ) 04:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Sports , Websites , and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC) Subject has good enough sourcing in the article to pass WP:GNG as it currently stands. In addition, the sources provided by Soulbust appear to be WP:SIGCOV . User:Let'srun 14:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC) NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* . ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject . I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the references meet the criteria since they all rely entirely on information provided by the company and/or regurgitated PR/Announcement. Fortune's ""Meet the Startup"" is PR and a puff profile. All of the information about the company is provided by the company or people connected with the company (e.g. customer). Fails ORGIND. This Venturebeat article comes a few months after this Forbes article but the information is largely the same and has been provided by the company. There is no ""Independent Content"" in either article in the form of opinion/analysis/investigation/etc that is *clearly attributable* to a source unaffiliated with the company. Fails ORGIND. This Springfield News-Leader article as well as This TechCrunch article are based entirely from PR and a follow-up interview to allow the founders utter OMG sounds. Fails ORGIND This TechCrunch article is based on a company announcement on the same day , fails ORGIND This from Business Insider is based on a funding announcement and an interview, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH NFLPA article is PR, fails ORGIND This TechCrunch article is based on PR, fails ORGIND SBCAmericas is PR, fails ORGIND Gaming Americas is PR, also fails ORGIND None of these sources meet the criteria for establishing notability, just based on company PR and announcements and the usual marketing you'd expect from a startup. HighKing ++ 15:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC) Based on the significant coverage shown by Soulbust. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Chun Ge : Meets the criteria of policy 6. Neologisms, it is recommended to . SU YIQI ( talk ) 05:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Popular culture , Internet , and China . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chun Ge participants: Piotrus ( talk · contribs ), Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ), Harrz ( talk · contribs ), and The person who loves reading ( talk · contribs ). Cunard ( talk ) 05:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I suggested this to be d a few months back, saying sourcing is poor and article is confusing. Folks said 'sources exist in Chinese', without citing any or improving the article. At best I think we should move it to a draftspace or userspace if someone wants to work on this; otherwise, deleting this is no big loss, given how poorly written this is - it can be recreated from scratch if someone cares, with proper sources ( WP:TNT ) later. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I don't think anything has really changed since the last nomination. There's extensive sourcing at zh:春哥 which seems to be enough to meet GNG. As I said last time, the article could certainly use work, but it's an okay starting point and doesn't need TNT. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 23:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Notability#General notability guideline as demonstrated by the numerous sources at zh:春哥 such as 1 , 2 , 3 , and 4 . The article has room for improvement, but like Mx. Granger, I also think it is a good start and don't think TNT applies. The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be d if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion , this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required : Wikipedia is a work in progress . Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles . Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard ( talk ) 11:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI : BangJan1999 18:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Computing , and California . BangJan1999 18:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral — I disagree with the argument that this article is not news, given that articles such as dismissal of James Comey exist. The nascency of an event does not determine its notability. There are sufficient references to sustain an article, but the question remains if an article is necessary at all. This is a question I mulled over several times before determining that this is an event with reaching implications and sustained coverage, including extensive coverage in The New York Times , Bloomberg News, and Axios ; the jostling for information contributes to this article's vitality. It remains to be seen if this will be resolved within days or hours, which will help reach consensus here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I would like to mention that, according to this article , Sam Altman has been reinstated as OpenAI's CEO. Thank you for your mentioning of the event's coverage by the New York Times, I simply would wish to contribute what I find is contradictory to the entire article as a whole. -- Typedex01 ( talk ) 13:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC) NOTNEWS . The page is a collection of well sourced references to a developing situation at an consequential company. – Nirvana Today t@lk 21:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC) NOTNEWS applies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site (regarless of how well-sourced). -- Zim Zala Bim talk 22:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC) 38, 22 November 2023 (UTC) 46, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As long as an article is created it exists, and the template is most often used on new articles. In fact, two out of three of its current transclusions are new articles. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 00:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're correct that Wikipedia is not a news site. The page isn't developed as a news source. The page contain a timeline of developing situation at ""$80 billion"" company and firing of its CEO – Nirvana Today t@lk 21:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into Sam Altman . Per WP:NOTNEWS - a lot of readers, if not most, won't even know who he is. This is internal tech news specific to Altman, and shouldn't be a stand-alone. — Maile ( talk ) 22:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC) When almost every employee of a major tech company/non-profit threatens to resign, this is definitely way beyond “niche tech news”. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 15:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Now that Altman & Co. have returned, this indeed fails SUSTAINED a bit. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 14:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC) NOTNEWS ; concur with Maile . Also, there is no stand-alone article on Steve Jobs’ removal from Apple, which is comparable in its significance. The Madness of Joanna ( talk ) 23:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Articles are not real estate; we are not making comparables whether one should exist based on the existence—or lack thereof—of another. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into both OpenAI and Sam Altman . I agree that this doesn't fall under WP:NOTNEWS , but I don't see why it can't be written about in the OpenAI article. Unless we get a significant amount more news, those articles wouldn't become too long either. — Panamitsu (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , I am now satisfied that there is too much content to into the OpenAI and Sam Altman articles. — Panamitsu (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC) ASZ ? Size doesn't matter, bro. Policies matter. — kashmīrī TALK 20:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC) NOTNEWS is not justified. There is sufficient sourcing to exemplify this event from standard oustings à la Travis Kalanick. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to OpenAI . Agree with BangJan1999 that the creation of this entry "" Violates WP:NOTNEWS and does not meet WP:NEVENT . "" Cfls ( talk ) 04:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC) 20, 20 November 2023 (UTC) 39, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to OpenAI . The thing is, this is a comparatively small event in relation to OpenAI and/or Sam Altman. It is likely that with the current state of affairs, there will be only a few additions to this subject. Also this event was already covered in detail in the OpenAI article, although I also believe that this information would be relevant to Sam Altman as well. Zenulabidin2k ( talk ) 08:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This event has stunned the tech world and is notable, especially as it relates to such a powerful technology. Wjfox2005 ( talk ) 09:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as historical event that affects much more than Sam and OpenAI. I agree that it won't be well covered if d with other articles. I disagree that lack of article about Steve Jobs’ removal is relevant here, as pace and short-term aftermath of these two events is not comparable. RussianNeuroMancer ( talk ) 12:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC) PAGEDECIDE seems directly applicable and may be useful in the discussion. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to OpenAI and Sam Altman as above. Obviously both OpenAI and Altman are significant players in the tech space, especially given the involvement of others like Microsoft, so the decision to remove him will have wide-reaching implications; however, I believe much of those implications in turn stem from the implications on Altman and OpenAI, and those should (at least at the moment) be d into those respective articles. (Separate comment : The WP:FULL protection on Altman's page definitely complicates the matter, and I hope that the situation with that page can be resolved quickly without needing to that protection level for as long a time as it's been set.) Andrew11374265 ( talk ) 17:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as this is a notable event that merits its own article with deeper detail, added as the story develops. There are more details that would be appropriate to discuss at length outside of the OpenAI or Sam Altman articles. My only suggestion would be to rename the article to something like Dismissal of Sam Altman rather than ""removal."" – Avigl ( talk ) 17:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article is too long to fit comfortably in either of the two main articles, so a separate article is appropriate. Regarding WP:NOTNEWS , it is not routine at all. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Routine coverage is just one of the examples given by NOTNEWS. The crux of that policy is that not everything that makes it to newspaper headlines should have its own article. InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 17:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC) NOPAGE , WP:10YEAR , WP:NOTNEWS , etc. This will all blow over, everyone will go back to their lives, and this topic will no longer be relevant. Corporate drama happens all the time. There's nothing here that couldn't be d into OpenAI and Sam Altman . InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 17:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment — The arguments for notability and significance have been established. The question is, and remains, if a separate article is warranted. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC) 56, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ ElijahPepe Can you clarify whether you want the article d, kept or d? By the way, notability has not been established – most commenters here have challenged the notability claim as not fulfilling WP:NEVENT . — kashmīrī TALK 10:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the ensuing drama will not be relevant in a few weeks. this in Altman's and OpenAi's articles. Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 18:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC) 04, 22 November 2023 (UTC) NTEMP . 2.100.129.89 ( talk ) 22:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC) no opinion on ing, but this should absolutely be d or ed somewhere. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 00:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into OpenAI . An investors dispute related to staffing in a company is precisely the type of news that we do NOT run. To be included in an encyclopaedia, standalone events must be permanently notable per WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTTEMPORARY , whereas here nobody will recall this short-lived staffing news in five years from now. — kashmīrī TALK 00:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Too much info to be included into other articles, too big of a company, too big of an issue, too big of consequences. Artem S. Tashkinov ( talk ) 06:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Really, you say it's too big for a deletion ? Volumes can be written about a single event or a hire/dismissal. Yet Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a celebrity gossip or diary . — kashmīrī TALK 10:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To the contrary, Altman's removal is unheard of and its consequences are still continuing. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (1) No such words in the listed source, and (2) we disregard opinion pieces anyway. — kashmīrī TALK 16:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How would you analyze an impact outside of an opinion piece? While the piece does say the exact opposite of unheard of, it also claims the impact will be great Aaron Liu ( talk ) 16:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My opinion, in turn, is that the impact will be negligible, as I believe that several dozen implementations of AI will be on the market in three years from now, the scene will grow exponentially, and nobody will care about internal staff management problems in one of their developers of years ago. As you can guess, my crystal ball has precisely the same value as Peter Coy's crystal ball. — kashmīrī TALK 17:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To some extent, we have no choice but to crystal-ball for recent events nominated shortly after creation. So long as 1) we definitely want to some events (e.g. an earthquake killing thousands); 2) we definitely want to some events despite meeting GNG (e.g. an individual game between two sports teams during the regular season with nothing special happening); and 3) there is no objective standard for how much an event needs to go beyond GNG to qualify for a standalone article: we have to draw the line somewhere, and that somewhere can only be determined through guesswork and subjective evaluations of impact. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC) //www.reuters.com/technology/openais-board-approached-anthropic-ceo-about-top-job-r-sources-2023-11-21/ . I think this amount of information is unusual and thereby require its own article Pere Orga ( talk ) 12:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into OpenAI . Doesn't meet WP:NEVENT. A year from now, it'll seem funny we were even debating this. Owen× ☎ 16:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Funnily enough, I actually suspect the opposite; when all the memoirs and documentaries about OpenAI are published in 5-10 years this article will probably be recreated with new information. But that's not relevant now . Mach61 ( talk ) 20:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC) NOPAGE . An ousting of a CEO does not necessitate a separate article, regardless of the news reporting. Natg 19 ( talk ) 02:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into OpenAI, at least for now. It will probably be notable enough to qualify as an event in the future in all likelihood, especially of OpenAI implodes because of it, but until those major knock-on effects actually happen it can't be it's own article just yet. And, as of now there are still rumors that Sam will just join back with the company and make this all a blip. G5bestcfb ( talk ) 04:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC) 55, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The reinstatement of Altman does not assume a conclusion to sourcing or information, and there is still plenty of information that has yet to be included in this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak to OpenAI . and categories. ― Justin ( ko a v f ) ❤ T ☮ C ☺ M ☯ 07:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - With Altman now reinstated this 5 day incident isn't notable enough for a dedicated article. The background section overlaps existing pages, aftermath is largely obsolete, and reactions are now less notable. If not d this will likely morph into an article about the resulting board shakeup as news coverage shifts focus. Jamedeus ( talk ) 07:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into OpenAI. Looks to be something temporary since it's been reported that he has been reinstated to OpenAI, therefore per WP:SUSTAINED it doesn't warrant its own article. Hzh ( talk ) 11:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into the articles as stated above. WP:TOOSOON at best, and the amount of immediate splash an event makes isn't necessarily the best determiner of notability; after all we don't have an article about Will Smith being slapped. Fermiboson ( talk ) 11:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident . Natg 19 ( talk ) 19:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC) 03, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into OpenAI and Sam Altman per all above. At least currently a WP:RECENTISM . Brandmeister talk 15:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Pretty much just a investors dispute. This really only merits maybe a two sentence mention in Altman and OpenAI's articles. DarkSide830 ( talk ) 16:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It definitely warrants way more than two sentences with the Microsoft danger and almost all employees nearly resigning. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 16:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Eh, maybe, but that's the sort of fluff CYRSTAL-ish stuff that we don't exactly need. Altman never became a Microsoft employee and those employees didn't in fact resign. Personally, I think this is a complete nothing-burger as it appears now. Altman is still the CEO and we can't deduce if the board composition changing will have any real impacts. DarkSide830 ( talk ) 03:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC) 40, 26 November 2023 (UTC) NOPAGE , which aptly notes that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context . This is one of those times; it was a moment when Altman was removed from OpenAI's leadership for what appears to have been less then a week, and employee reaction was notable. But Altman's been reinstated, and it may well be better to simply cover this in the history section of Open AI , and/or in a new section on the company's unique corporate governance structure. But I don't see a need for a standalone article at this time, particularly when context on the broader corporate pages would help readers better understand this incident. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Major notable event with lots of coverage. The article has considerable length and will make the d page too long. Anyway if merging is suggested a request with a specific target should be made rather than a request for deletion. In general pages that are d cannot be d, see Wikipedia:Merge and . 2607:FEA8:E31F:D2C6:D015:105D:EDE4:A952 ( talk ) 22:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While it indeed has a lot more detail, the meat of it is in the § Removal and § Reinstatement efforts. Maybe also mention the changes in share price and the reactions listed under § Technological industry. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 22:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC) NOTNEWS . -- Zim Zala Bim talk 22:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into OpenAI per NOPAGE and NOTNEWS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 06:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC) Notable enough to be a standalone page. Supergrey1 ( talk ) 08:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into OpenAI and Sam Altman . This article should never have been created, much less nominated for ITN. Significant corporations certainly deserve to have their stories told here, but we don't need a separate article just for this one event. This is suffering from editor myopia to a noteworthy level - this would not be happening if the company in question were Nike, Lego, or Cadbury. GenevieveDEon ( talk ) 17:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC) NOPAGE . Celjski Grad ( talk ) 20:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to OpenAI , same argument as Red-tailed hawk. DFlhb ( talk ) 20:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] — As more articles continue to be written about Altman's removal, I am shifting my position to ing this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Open AI and Sam Altman . Traditional and ordinary business drama without even a medium-term impact. _-_Alsor ( talk ) 23:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to OpenAI and content there, with no prejudice against splitting it back out at a later date if it turns out to have been a historically significant event. Getting a lot of coverage doesn't really indicate that something is significant as a topic in its own right, and OpenAI is a very hot company so there's going to be a lot of coverage of whatever random crap happens there. We could, for example, have Sam Altman in 2021 and Sam Altman in 2022 and Sam Altman in 2023 etc etc, there's coverage of that, but it's not clear that there is really that meaningful of a difference between the topics. jp × g 🗯️ 23:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (for now) . This article needs a heavy rewrite, but it is the most significant breaking tech news story in over a decade. One might consider renaming the article, since (for now) he seems to be back. Also note that as of Tuesday night, they had only reached an agreement in principle (perhaps because of the pressure of the Thanksgiving holiday). Also, there is still backstory to come out as to what caused the board to remove Sam Altman, which may be noteworthy (see the Q* news). Even as time passes and the events settle, this will likely be considered a seminal event in the history of Artificial Intelligence, Silicon Valley, and corporate governance. Long term, perhaps in several years, it can be d, but that is not current state as we still figure out what the fallout is. Jenny8lee — Preceding undated comment added 02:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you are reasoning backwards -- it doesn't make sense to write huge articles about breaking news stories on the hunch that they might at some point end up having mattered a lot. If that happens we can restore the article from the old revision in five seconds. But it might not happen -- what's to say OpenAI doesn't reach scaling limits, or that open models don't catch up quickly, or that none of a million random things that would stop this from mattering randomly occur? jp × g 🗯️ 03:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] it is the most significant breaking tech news story in over a decade ... Poor me, I thought that the first working quantum computer , functional AI, Starlink or 6G were amongst the most breaking IT stories of the past decade. Alas, it was a human resources crisis in an American nonprofit. ROTFL. — kashmīrī TALK 10:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's getting wall-to-wall coverage because many see this as among the most consequential battles in history, as it revolves around OpenAI achieving AGI and AI safety / avoiding globally catastrophic AI aftermath scenarios . Deletion will soon seem about as appropriate as deletion of Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand or Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan . -- RudolfoMD ( talk ) 12:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That sounds very crystal-ball... Neither OpenAI nor Microsoft have created any AI in control of infrastructure yet. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 14:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC) OR and WP:CRYSTAL . This sums up much of the arguments here for ing this article, and it is completely against the nature of an encyclopedia. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 14:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd say there are two camps. 1 is ""very significant"", which includes this ! vote; 2 is ""notable already and too long to "". Aaron Liu ( talk ) 14:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC) those Wikipedians who believe that this article runs afoul of several Wikipedia policies and who have therefore advocated for a . — kashmīrī TALK 20:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two camps for the support side, if that somehow wasn't obvious enough. ZimZalaBim said This sums up much of the arguments here for ing this article . Aaron Liu ( talk ) 20:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To compare this boardroom scuffle to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is an absurd hyperbole - a classic example of the small reference pools and narrow frames of reference that often trouble this site. But even if it somehow proved to be so in the future - you can't demonstrate that right now. That's what WP:CRYSTAL is about. It's not reasonable to argue that we should preserve this extremely specific treatment of the topic because it might one day be of earth-shattering importance is silly. Maybe this event brings about - or prevents - some unthinkable far-future robo-basilisk empire, but we can't know that. We can only go with the situation as it is now, and as I said above - we simply would not be doing this for a similar contretemps at many other larger corporations with much wider markets. GenevieveDEon ( talk ) 09:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC) NOTNEWS . - Indefensible ( talk ) 21:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] at least for now. Major and complicated event best covered in one article rather than as an indigestible fork to two other articles. Ultimately, it might become a section to another article but for now we should it. HouseOfChange ( talk ) 21:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC) 03, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Red-tailed Hawk. I don't think any of the four bullet points at WP:NOTNEWS apply, but ultimately there's not that much new here once you strip out all the context. Mach61 ( talk ) 19:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Delete given that this has calmed down since a lot of these responses were made, I think its now pretty clear this will go down as an unusual but relatively trivial bit of corporate nonsense. I see no reason this would gather long term coverage or have an ongoing lasting impact that would have it need a standalone article. EoRdE6 ( Talk ) 04:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Jason Benade : I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . I am only seeing passing mentions in match reports, lineup changes, etc. 1 , 2 and 3 . JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is difficult to find information about domestic rugby in Namibia hence the shortness of the article. However Jason Benade has featured for the national side of Namibia numerous times including at the World Cup, the biggest stage in the sport. Curtis82 ( talk ) 20:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak I think there's enough here, if Namibian offline sourcing is included for a weak here, especially given he is featuring in a current World Cup. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 01:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] has featured in the World Cup multiple times as said above. It’s a matter of improving since there are multiple sources for the WC. I don’t know enough about the domestic leagues to say whether or not there is significant coverage there but there will be for the national side. REDMAN 2019 ( talk ) 14:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If these sources have in-depth coverage of the subject, I will happily withdraw the nomination. JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Serfdom in Tibet controversy : The entire article plays out as a tit-for-tat ""China says this"" vs ""Tibet exile/apologist says that"" and there isn't really an attempt to actually frame anything within the context of ""what actually happened"". It's understandable to say ""the issue is contentious"" but when the entire article becomes a matter of paraphrasing different POVs, there's very little that a reader can actually take out of the article. The only ""real"" encyclopedic piece of work I can see is ""Tibetan welfare after the Chinese takeover"", which itself does not seem particularly germane to the question of whether serfdom existed in Tibet prior to 1951, other than, perhaps, insinuating that the Chinese government does not care about Tibet or rather that the Tibetan social structure is so rigid that reforms have only been partially successful. Regardless, it does not feel as if this segment is appropriate for inclusion as a matter of historicity. The same topic is covered to some length in the article Social class in Tibet , which approaches a similar topic from a perspective much more aligned with the standards on Wikipedia. I understand that approaching an article entitled ""Controversy"" is understandably difficult, but articles like Investiture Controversy and Controversy in Russia regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATO expansion handle their respective topics with substantially more grace and include the proper historical context instead of devolving eventually to namedropping entities and/or historians and assigning respective quotations without any contextualization as to what they mean. Augend ( drop a line ) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Philosophy , History , Buddhism , Geography , Social science , Asia , and Central Asia . Augend ( drop a line ) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak & rewrite. Regardless of whether serfdom has or has not existed in Tibet, the topic has gained enough traction and is notable. A quick search of ""serfdom in Tibet"" on Google Scholar brings up loads of articles: [30] . Social class in Tibet is a suitable article, but I think this topic deserves its own page. That being said, if this article survives AfD, it will need to be significantly rewritten. Definitely don't make WP:POV forks out of it, but then I agree that there must be significant effort to compare POVs into a coherent article. We can also jettison the ""Human rights in Tibet"" section. Cheers, -- The Lonely Pather ( talk ) 23:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] & rewrite. I'd mostly agree with The Lonely Panther's position here, that the debate itself deserves its own article, mostly even just to track of all the perspectives on the issues. The 'serfdom controversy' is significant enough on its own, as seen by the size of the literature, to deserve a separate article from Chinese administration in Tibet and the controversy over that. Potential rewrite could for sure use a lot more definitions and information on the structure, prevalence, and development of class structures throughout Tibetan history. Additionally more detail on exactly which historical events contain 'competing versions of Tibetan History', such as the disagreements over the nature of the 1959 Tibetan Uprising, is vital. Literal sun ( talk ) 18:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions . Cunard ( talk ) 12:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 04:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Shivkar Bapuji Talpade : These non-existing claims are limited to non-RS fringe sources while the subject has received minimal coverage from actual WP:RS only for disputing the idea of his unmanned airplane following the release of the movie Hawaizaada . That's why I think we have a case for deletion. When I attempted to search details about this person from the period before propaganda wave, I could find nothing. [56] It was mainly after the release of the 2015 movie, Hawaizaada that he started receiving substantial coverage. My research has been also confirmed by this source:- "" Among the believers of the Hindu right, this absence of evidence is attributed to British control over the media, which seemingly edited Talpade’s invention out of history. But reports of the flight that do exist began proliferating just over a century later, in the 2000s, at the beginning of the fertile, ongoing period of the expansion of the economy and the reinvention of the Indian past. "" [57] Editorkamran ( talk ) 13:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Aviation , India , and Maharashtra . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the article accurately debunks the claims, so what's the issue here? Better it in it's current state and put it on watchlists than it and wait for some nationalist to come back, create it, and fill it with fringe-POV. 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431 ( talk ) 13:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is not for fact-checking. The only claim for which reliable sources exist is that this person did not invent airplane. But for that we already have Hawaizaada movie article. This person is not notable and inherited little notability from that movie. Editorkamran ( talk ) 13:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See the pre-movie version [58] there are sufficent pre-movie sources to establish notability. Doug Weller talk 14:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've delved all the way back to the beginning now and I don't see a reason to try to salvage this article even if possible. I guess it's possible that there are some sources after the movie was publicised that have researched his history, but unless those are found... and even if they are, they'd probably be better off in the movie's article. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Vanamonde93 has convinced me about the sources he mentioned and the need to have this article. The Deccan Herald is not a fringe news outlet, WP:HISTRS is irrelevant here. Being published after the movie was released is irrelevant and not policy or guideline based. It certainly meets WP:GNG . @ Editorkamran : I don't need or want a reply. I think you've made your point clear. @ Doug Weller : See my review of all of those sources : 1st source is a Deccan Herald article, it fails WP:HISTRS . It claims "" As the world rightly honours the Wright Brothers for their achievements, we should think of Talpade, who utilised the ancient knowledge of Sanskrit texts, to fly an aircraft, eight years before his foreign counterparts. "" It is unreliable and also WP:FRINGE . 2nd source is Sentinels of the Sky. Air Headquarter, Indian Air Force p. 2, 1999, which says "" Based on these instructions, a fly - worthy machine was reportedly reconstructed by a native of Maharashtra Shri Bapuji Talpade and a demonstration of manned flight was conducted in Mumbai sometime in 1895. "" [59] But it was unmanned right? This source also fails WP:HISTRS and it is promoting WP:FRINGE views. 3rd is Asia: Asian Quarterly of Culture and Synthesis, American Asiatic Association, Published 1942, Page 40 but I cannot find this source anywhere. 4th source is A flight over Chowpatty that made history [60] which says "" In 1895 an Indian pioneer flew what is said to be the first Indian plane in the air. The centenary year of the first successful flight, by the Wright brothers, was celebrated from December 17, 2003. But our own pioneer from Mumbai, Shivkar Bapuji Talpade, made an aircraft and had flown it eight years earlier. "" Again, the violation of WP:HISTRS and WP:FRINGE . 5th source is ""Pratāpa Velakara, Pāṭhāre prabhūñcā itihāsa: nāmavanta lekhakāñcyā sas̃́odhanātmaka likhāṇāsaha"", by an unreliable publisher . 6th source is ""A flight over Chowpatty that made history,"" which I already analyzed above. 7th source is "" Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Volume 69. The Institute. 1989. p. 365. "" but the source does not support the information. [61] [62] [63] 8th one is Mukunda, H.S. (1974). ""A critical study of the work ""Vyamanika Shastra"""" but this source only says "" Dr. Talpade (of Bombay) tried to make models under the guidance of Shastriji, but that he was not successful in making any of then fly. "" [64] This is just a passing mention. 9th and the final source is Rosen. 2010 but this source is published by far-right publisher Arktos Media . This book is merely repeating the debunked claim thus it is not reliable. [65] None of these sources satisfy the requirement of WP:GNG . The subject has not received ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "" Editorkamran ( talk ) 15:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC) 41, 19 August 2023 (UTC) FRINGE enters into this discussion at all; indeed it's interesting that the subject has, for a change, more coverage debunking the claims than endorsing them. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 21:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC) 02, 19 August 2023 (UTC) GNG because all of the coverage constituting more than a passing mention comes from fringe unreliable sources before the movie was released. The reliable sources that have provided more than a passing mention to this subject are only focused on disputing the idea of his unmanned airplane following the release of the movie. Historians are still unwilling to provide any coverage to this subject but this absence cannot be overlooked since this is a historical subject. The subject can be limited to Hawaizaada , where it is already described that this subject lacks authenticity. Editorkamran ( talk ) 01:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC) 46, 20 August 2023 (UTC) , as it's one of the rare occasions we disagree; I feel the movie article cannot cover the entire narrative (including the history of its supposed discovery and debunking) in as much detail as is warranted; and we have sources, linked above. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 02:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC) HISTRS as required for this historical subject. They were created in the light of the movie Hawaizaada for rejecting the false claim that the subject invented an airplane. 1st source is Business Standard which is rejecting the false claim following the news of "" a film on Talpade's efforts, called Hawaizaada, directed by Vibhu Puri, will release later this month "". [69] 2nd source is New Republic, which is also dedicated to debunk only the disputed claim, was also created after "" Bollywood film Hawaizaada, released a few weeks after Bodas’s paper was presented "". [70] 3rd source is Open The Magazine which is also rejecting the false claim and was created after the "" Bollywood film on the subject, Hawaizaada, releases this week. "" [71] The subject is not notable and has inherited little notability from the movie. Any coverage before this movie was not more than a rejection in passing mention when it comes to coverage in reliable sources. Editorkamran ( talk ) 03:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC) 08, 20 August 2023 (UTC) 09, 20 August 2023 (UTC) FRINGE as already analyzed above. They cannot be used for establishing WP:GNG . Editorkamran ( talk ) 05:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC) 08, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Not really. It exists at Hindutva#Ahistorical premises, separatism . Specific examples wouldn't be needed because of WP:INDISCRIMINATE . Editorkamran ( talk ) 05:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC) There are some places where disinformation and pseudoscience are discussed. The issue is that for any such article to remain reasonable in scope, it cannot delve into detail into specific events; moreover, sources covering the entire topic do not investigate individual instances in detail. There is a specific ahistorical narrative here that has been debunked, and the entirety has received substantial coverage. I believe due weight is better served by a detailed article on a small topic, with summaries and passing mentioned elsewhere as necessary. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 17:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC) 03, 20 August 2023 (UTC) I would have no objection to such a reframing; minus a couple of biographical sentences that really aren't terribly important, it'd be the same content. Titling it as a biography is so much easier though; what would you call it? Talpade heavier-than-air flight myth? Vanamonde ( Talk ) 20:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC) I think you are looking for Claims to the first powered flight . There is no mention of this subject there thus it is clearly possible to ultimately the needful details to that article at ""Other claims"" section. Editorkamran ( talk ) 08:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC) and I believe the degree of detail included in the sources makes a r inappropriate. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 17:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC) RS only for disputing the idea of his unmanned airplane following the release of the movie Hawaizaada "". It is merely citing the fake invention as an example of Hindutva fake history instead of making any biographical coverage of the person. Dympies ( talk ) 04:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC) 19, 20 August 2023 (UTC) 55, 20 August 2023 (UTC) 49, 21 August 2023 (UTC) 20, 21 August 2023 (UTC) 45, 21 August 2023 (UTC) 23, 21 August 2023 (UTC) 52, 21 August 2023 (UTC) 27, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or or somewhere but don't standalone article. The Wright Brothers are the inventors of the plane that could be controlled by the pilot. Since every other ""claim"" is false, there is no distinction among the claims at the end of the day. CharlesWain ( talk ) 05:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia explicitly allows for articles about hoaxes or false narratives when they are supported by reliable sources , which is the case here. Your comment has no basis in policy. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 15:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Only fact is that Wright brothers are the inventors. Rest of the claims are false. You are saying this article on Talpade is so fringe that it does not need to be mentioned along other false claims but at the same time you are saying it needs separate article when we have articles on both his movie and alternative claims on invention of powered air flight. I don't find sense in your argument. CharlesWain ( talk ) 08:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per ScriptKKiddie. Or otherwise it to Claims to the first powered flight per WP:ATD . Shankargb ( talk ) 13:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I hate having to post this many times at an AfD, I really do. But Claims to the first powered flight exists because there are a handful of claims that have grounds for legitimacy (for instance; not using a rail like the Wrights did) that aren't accepted but are taken seriously. The examples listed there are all manned , powered flights that actually happened, even if they weren't first in any sense. Merging Talpade's legend there is a flagrant violation of NPOV and FRINGE: we don't have a single reliable supporting the claim that he even flew an unmanned aircraft. If this is d anywhere, it should be the article about the film, but I still strongly prefer a standalone. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 17:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC) GNG as already evidenced from analysis of the sources. or it anywhere but this cannot be kept as a stand alone article. Abhishek0831996 ( talk ) 13:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 02:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] seems notable historical figure. Though not many but source is still there. - Admantine123 ( talk ) 17:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Not really. This is subject is just an example of Hindutva fake history and earliest mention of this subject comes from Vaimānika Shāstra (written in 1952). The coverage is limited to the claim about his fake invention. Dympies ( talk ) 02:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To the movie page. I agree that stand-alone page can be too much but can be still preserved. Srijanx22 ( talk ) 18:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] subject meets GNG with sources provided. GNG is about coverage; not about the achievement of a person. If there are false claims or disputes; this can be described in the article. 109.37.131.169 ( talk ) 08:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand the concerns over having separate page but this can be still d or ed to the articles about the claims or the movie. Azuredivay ( talk ) 08:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Han Willhoft-King : Sources in non-major footballing country are not adequate for notability. Subject plays for an English football club, Tottenham Hotspur F.C. , but is not in the first-team squad, is not even in the under-21s and is only in the under-18s. He is a long way from club or international debut. Article is ""too soon"". LenF54 ( talk ) 16:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and England . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON , refund if/when he makes it. SportingFlyer T · C 18:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - whether or not he “makes it” is irrelevant. He meets GNG with significant coverage in Indonesian media. Also, “The player section of this notability guidance has been superseded by WP:Notability (sports), and is included below for information only as a record of the previous guidance that the Footy project came up with.” We no longer use WP:NFOOTY in terms of footballer notability. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk ) 01:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC) YOUNGATH . Being a notable youth football player isn't enough for notability - nothing to do where the sources came from. SportingFlyer T · C 22:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough, I’ve replied further below giving my reasoning as to why I think he does, and I’ll leave it at that. If consensus is that he is not notable, I understand. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk ) 23:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC) 30am so my brain is not working as usual but I’ve just realised that you said, quote, “Sources in non-major footballing country are not adequate for notability.” Excuse me? How incredibly exclusionary and dismissive of nations with established and growing footballing cultures. It’s a ridiculous comment to make, and just because a nation may not be particularly strong in football, it does not take away from the passion that goes into their support and journalism. Football is Indonesia’s second sport behind badminton, but it is still a huge sport there, and their first division league gets attendances similar to that of League Two (clearly a very notable league) in England ( Liga 1 (IDN) , League Two (ENG) ). Regardless, Indonesian media cannot be dismissed simply because you don’t think they enjoy football, and most of the sources in the article are fleshed-out, independently researched articles on Willhoft-King. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk ) 01:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment/reply - if the player appeared regularly in a minor league or in a league in, say, Ireland or Wales, he would not necessarily be regarded as sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. The passion of the fans for the sport is irrelevant. He plays for the under-18s only and, as I have suggested, is a long way from making his professional debut. From WP:Notability (sports): ""The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level."" On this occasion the player has not achieved success yet. LenF54 ( talk ) 15:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, that’s what I’m saying, it doesn’t matter what the player does with his career, so long as he meets the basic standards of inclusion - which Willhoft-King does. There are players who never made a professional appearance in football, but the coverage on their careers is still enough to warrant an article (see Sonny Pike and Carlos Kaiser ). Any player in any league in the world can be notable, whether it’s the Premier League or the Botswana Third Division. If they meet the basic requirements for inclusion, they warrant an article. If we only created articles for players who “have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level”, then we’d only have articles for World Cup and continental tournament winners. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk ) 16:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draft I find this nomination a little concerning, as Davidlofgren1996 pointed out from the nomination, Sources in non-major footballing country are not adequate for notability. This is utterly ridiculous, sources should not be assessed to where they come from. That is a xenophobic comment, and we have no place for that on wikipedia. As for the article, it's possible this can be assessed to WP:BASIC , but in all actuality unless he plays it's running WP:CRYSTAL . Govvy ( talk ) 10:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC) YOUNGATH . Sonny Pike at least had follow up articles written very specifically on him and Carlos Kaiser was a con man. SportingFlyer T · C 22:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify as above. Giant Snowman Comment - I’ll make one further comment, mostly just for my own understanding of notability on Wikipedia - from my understanding of the notability criteria, I thought that Willhoft-King would meet the requirements. Firstly, all of the coverage is secondary and independent of the subject, and there is a considerable number of sources provided, in case the coverage in each is not enough. This should be enough for WP:BASIC , no? Secondly, it is not just a case of “This is Han Willhoft-King, he is of Indonesian and Chinese descent” in each article, though it is a common theme throughout the sources. I’ll review each source in the order they appear in the article, for simplicity’s sake: The first Sohu.com source is about his mention in The Guardian as Spurs’ “best” player in his age-group. The indonewstoday source is pretty routine coverage of how HWK is of Indonesian descent, but this is expected as it’s an Indonesian article about him. The okebola source is brief, but discusses the possibility of HWK receiving a Indonesian passport. The Guardian source itself does not count towards notability. The HITC source again covers his coverage in The Guardian, talking about his career prospects. The LaiTimes coverage is again about his potential naturalisation, this time to China. The second Sohu.com source is about HWK signing a contract extension, and covers his appearances for Spurs and the England U16 team. The Indosport article is similar to the indonewstoday source in that it is routine coverage. The CNN Indonesia source is about his failure to become naturalised to Indonesia, and withdrawal of the U17 team call-up. I feel the article highlights different moments of his career so far, and I feel that Willhoft-King currently meets GNG, despite not having made a professional appearance in football. Please let me know if I’m missing anything. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk ) 23:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is about lasting notability, and while this young athlete has received some coverage, it's because he is of a couple different nationalities and is training at a major club - not necessarily front page stuff. There's not coverage demonstrating that he'll be notable if he doesn't make it. That's exactly why we have WP:TOOSOON and WP:YOUNGATH - it's probable he will be notable at some point, even quite probable, but in my opinion he hasn't received the requisite level of coverage needed to justify an article above and beyond WP:YOUNGATH (which is more written for American sports but I think the general principle still applies here.) SportingFlyer T · C 08:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per Davidlofgren1996. Young player with ongoing career already with lots of coverage/sources that meet notability imo. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 20:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Yes, he's a young player with no senior caps yet, but the coverage found is already enough to warrant an article in my opinion. At worst, draftify. Sgubaldo ( talk ) 16:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , coverage is significant. We've made our bed that GNG is the end all be all, so we have no option but to . -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 03:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC) NOT , and we're clearly in a position where WP:YOUNGATH and WP:TOOSOON apply which would an article out of mainspace even if GNG is technically met. SportingFlyer T · C 09:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify or . Fails SUSTAINED and YOUNGATH. Almost everything about his career is speculative. JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Further comment . The question of whether or not to seems to have been renewed twice because there is no clear consensus. WP:NOT says Wikipedia is not a democracy, which implies that it is not just a matter of counting votes. Tottenham Hotspur youngsters Will Lankshear and Josh Keeley had their pages d (despite sources) so I do not wish to simply withdraw the proposal. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Sports personalities says “A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor” (without a definition, and other articles seem to suggest making a first-team debut is sufficient) and it is unfortunate that Wikipedia:Notability (sports) does not have criteria specific to association football. Perhaps guidelines need revisiting. LenF54 ( talk ) 16:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] With respect its for the closing admin to assess notability not for proponants in the discussion to try and shape the framework for the close Spartaz Humbug! 21:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Herwig Zahorka : Single source in article is a memorial written by a family member, fails WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth . BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth // Timothy :: talk 03:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , History , Czech Republic , and Germany . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC) GNG and has no WP:SIGCOV Philipnelson99 ( talk ) 12:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] -- 5 books, 250 articles and a decoration by Germany suggest notability. I agree COI is an issue, but should not be decisive. This makes me wonder how comprehensive nom's investigation was. Peterkingiron ( talk ) 18:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm willing to change my position but I didn't think quantity of work determined if a subject is notable. Philipnelson99 ( talk ) 18:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - Article is poorly-written, but can be cleaned up if anyone is available to do so. CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 19:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. A lot of editing has happened in this article since its nomination and a review of the article and its sourcing would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral Changing my position based on the changes that have been made to the article. I'd like to see more references in the article before changing to . Philipnelson99 ( talk ) 19:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Our Lady of Fatima Senior Secondary School, Aligarh : No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL . LibStar ( talk ) 10:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , Christianity , India , and Uttar Pradesh . — Karnataka talk 10:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. -- AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 14:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC) 27, 1 Aug 2023 (UTC) Mainly a primary source, perhaps, but it seems to be an important school for Aligarh region, dating from 1961, which in Indian school terms is old. I suggest giving more time for people to include references and citations, particularly given most secondary sources in this part of the world are unlikely to be online. Also if the same criteria were used, how many schools would have to be d, see for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Welsh_school_stubs . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagmanst ( talk • contribs ) 06:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC) OTHERSTUFFEXISTS . LibStar ( talk ) 23:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While a few articles with similar issues existing is not reason to a page, when there are whole categories of western schools with similar issues, one does wonder what should be the appropriate level of notability (a subjective metric), and whether the same criteria should be applied uniformly to non-western schools. Nonetheless I found a media article from Aligarh that does show it is one of the top schools in the district, in terms of the number its students who are placed among the top 10 ranks in a district of 3.6 million+ people. That should help meet notability criteria in wikipedia space. (Though I personally was convinced on the balance of probabilities it was an important school in the real world from the primary sources, and wanted some leeway given to the article creators to find secondary sources). Jagmanst ( talk ) 00:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are misrepresenting the source; it lists a handful of names and that's it. It does not show that this is one of the top schools in the district; just that the school itself reported that a half dozen of its students placed highly on a standardized test. One-liners do not constitute WP:SIGCOV , and neither do self-reported results, and whatever notability accrues to the students is not inherited by their school . Beyond that, the requirements and criteria of the WP:GNG pertain to all schools, whether they are in Massachusetts or Morbihan or Maharashtra. Ravenswing 12:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you misunderstood the source. The source is reporting students who came in the top 10 rank in the board examinations for the entire district. The newspaper said they did not receive the scores directly from CBSE the examination board, but reached out to the schools in the district to provide them the data. Based on the data they received from all the schools in the district they published the list of top performing students in the district. The methodology to me seems perfectly legit, and I have no reason to doubt it. My point is that a large number of the students in the top 10 rank come from this school. This is evidence that it is leading school in the district. It is clear from my other searches that for people within this region, Aligarh, it is a famous school. Jagmanst ( talk ) 12:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC) that the data came from the schools themselves. While I agree that doesn't mean that it's inaccurate, that makes it a primary source, and thus couldn't contribute to notability even if the article did provide significant coverage to the school, which of course it does not. Drawing conclusions from that list likewise has no place in an article. As to the clarity of your ""other searches,"" if you have other sources, present them. Lacking any evidence of those sources, exactly what proof of your assertion did you find? Ravenswing 20:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The source is well known newspaper Amar Ujala . It is by definition a secondary source. It uses primary sources, i.e. data from the various schools, to make a report. That is what secondary sources do (hence the name). The article provided significant coverage to school by ascribing affiliations to the students on the list. Anyway I am convinced that on balance of probabilities this is important school for the people of Aligarh. I leave it to editorial community to decide what to do about the request for deletion. I have nothing further to add. Jagmanst ( talk ) 20:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In short, that was the only source you found; you found no others, and your conviction is based on zero actual evidence. Fair enough, so stipulated. Ravenswing 22:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC) that the data came from the schools themselves. While I agree that doesn't mean that it's inaccurate, that makes it a primary source..."" No it doesn't. The newspaper collected data from schools and made an analytical and editorial judgment about the date. That's the definition of a secondary source. Jahaza ( talk ) 17:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Additional secondary sources have been added to article, including peer-reviewed articles and sociological studies of which the school was a subject. Jagmanst ( talk ) 00:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (specifically, without prejudice against a second AfD in 3–6 months ). Yes, other stuff exists is not a reason to an article, but Jagmanst raises a valid point that many Western secondary schools don't have any better sourcing than this—and further that the sources may exist but are not online—or are online but not in the Roman alphabet—which limits a monolingual en.wiki user's ability to search for them. At the least, I'd like to this article for a few more months to allow for further development. But if the community really feels that this article is not worthy of mainspace, then I'd request it be draftified to allow incubation. — C.Fred ( talk ) 12:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You do realise English is an official language of India? We don't give a free pass to articles in case sources may exist. LibStar ( talk ) 12:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC) N guide does say ""If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. "". Jagmanst ( talk ) 04:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Provide evidence of sources then. WP:MUSTBESOURCES . I presume in the time spent commenting here you actually searched and found nothing. LibStar ( talk ) 04:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""it is important to realize that countering the or arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged ""- from your linked source. I.e. Linking WP is not an argument. Please try again. As I have discussed on this page, there is sufficient evidence to believe this is an important school in this district. Not least given it is disproportionately represented in among the district rank holders . Jagmanst ( talk ) 05:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is that the best coverage you can find? It seems WP:ROUTINE at best and doesn't meet the requirements of WP:ORG . Translated from Hindi: CBSE has declared the results of class 10 and 12 exams. There is no toppers list released by CBSE. After the declaration of the result, the schools sent the list of their toppers. After which the top 10 names of the list of estimated toppers in Aligarh district have been revealed so far. LibStar ( talk ) 05:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You have failed to engage with the discussion. a) The school is located in area where sources are unlikely to be online. b) We have evidence the school is top performing. c) Putting links to a policy is not a discussion nor proves anything. These are guidelines, not mathematical algorithms, and need to be interpreted contextually and with common sense. I have nothing to add. Jagmanst ( talk ) 05:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""The school is located in area where sources are unlikely to be online"". Why? Is there no internet available in Aligarh ? You may provide evidence of offline sources like newspapers that are offline by stating the name of the paper, date of publication and page number. LibStar ( talk ) 05:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Local news in India is predominantly non-online and in regional languages, as already explained. I was not in involved in this article creation nor edited it before RfD, and I don't have access to local archives. Editors should take this into account of time for the article to be updated, by those who have the resources, particularly since we have good reason to believe this is an important school. Jagmanst ( talk ) 05:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Being what you call ""important"" is not the same as notable in Wikipedia. LibStar ( talk ) 05:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The guideline is pretty vague on what is'notable' actually- it says ""worthy of notice"". GNG is the recommended method, very broadly defined, to determin it. Jagmanst ( talk ) 06:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC) BEFORE searches and that you turned up nothing in the course of your searches for sources? — C.Fred ( talk ) 13:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Correct. LibStar ( talk ) 17:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC) per nom. There is no evidence that the subject meets the GNG, and we do not articles based on airy suppositions that somewhere, somehow, sources might exist; they must either be demonstrated to exist or an article cannot be sustained. That many Western secondary schools lack adequate sourcing is not an argument to this article , but a good reason to tag/PROD/AfD those other articles as well. (And with that, to suggest that online sources are tough to find for India, one of the most wired nations on earth with a vast English-language media, is curious.) Ravenswing 12:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Less than 7% of the population in UP speak English. To expect a large online English news coverage for this area is curious. Jagmanst ( talk ) 18:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Uttar Pradesh is the most populous non-sovereign political entity in the world; just 7% of its population is equal to half the population of Canada, over twice the population of Ireland, a third of the population of the UK, two-thirds the population of Australia, and more people than all but three US states. To expect that it doesn't have significant English-language news coverage is curious. With that, we don't require that sources be in English. You're more than welcome to draw our attention to the non-English sources you've found. (You did find such sources providing significant coverage to this institution before advocating Keep, yes?) Ravenswing 11:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Local news, i.e. pertaining to state and districts is overwhelmingly in my understanding in regional languages and traditional non-online media. English media sources are typically national media, for which it isn't reasonable, imo, to expect coverage of school news, however, important the school may be to local communities. Jagmanst ( talk ) 13:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC) ORG . At best, is one article in Hindi which is a very routine report on student performance. I stand by my nomination. LibStar ( talk ) 05:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC) The position is that there are strong reasons to believe this is a major school in the community it serves, the 3+ million people in the district of Aligarh. The school is is heavily represented among rank holders in the district . That 6 of the 22 highest performing students in this district in the year 10 examination came from this one school heavily suggests this is no ordinary school. While there are some online sources attesting its reputation and significance(for e.g this ), the best sources are likely to be non-online archives of local media, hence some discretion should be used to allow more time for editors to improve the article before considering deletion. Jagmanst ( talk ) 05:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""School is likely important to the community it serves, the 3+ million people in the district of Aligarh"" These are not criterion for notability . Many schools are important to their community but they don't necessarily warrant a Wikipedia article. LibStar ( talk ) 06:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC) 49, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article was created sixteen years ago. Especially since it should never have been created in the first place if the editor was not prepared to adequately source it, that is ample time and more than ample time for someone to step up and do so. For that matter, you have had time to do so. It is explicitly the responsibility of those editors who want to preserve information to come up with the sources to verify it, when challenged. You're the best judge of your own time, of course, but the only alternative to deletion is for those sources to be produced. Ravenswing 13:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article."" That the original editor did not do a satisfactory job is irrelevant. Th Jagmanst ( talk ) 14:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ravenswing, the article was perfectly within SNG for school at the time it was created. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools Graywalls ( talk ) 18:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Last April, when a beloved bursar from this school passed away, a local news channel livestreamed the entire funeral . - This further undescores the importance and significance of this school to the community. - This is significant media coverage. - This is also indicative that there are likely more sources (which are difficult to extract for reasons already given). - Finally, notability criteria applies to the topic, not the content of the article, hence this reference does not need to be added to the article. Jagmanst ( talk ) 07:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC) This article does not meet sourcing or coverage required under WP:NSCHOOL . WP:LOTSOFSOURCES giving either passing mention, or primary/affiliated ones giving more mention. JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 22:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC) https://www.amarujala.com/uttar-pradesh/aligarh/our-lady-fatima-senior-secondary-school-sister-stenslos-died-aligarh-news-ali223939991 Jagmanst ( talk ) 04:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This isn't very in-depth coverage of the school. It's in-depth coverage of people. JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 05:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Umm. Its an article about the first principal and her efforts to start the school. Can you give an example of what an in depth coverage of a school looks like? Jagmanst ( talk ) 05:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Funeral of first principal covered in major newspaper School given permission to offer class 11 and 12 Bonafide media coverage of school winning a sports competition. Other significant media coverage not added to article: School inaugerating a garden gym receiving to celebrate its 60th anniversary Quite a nice story about school waiving fees during covid Note: ""Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article."" Jagmanst ( talk ) 06:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Appears to be sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC) This article does not meet sourcing or coverage required under WP:NSCHOOL . Mostly passing mentions, related or trivia. The Banner talk 11:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are at least 6 media articles by major newspapers cited that are fully about this school. This is a school that frequently gets attention in national and local media. The funerals of its staff members get livestreamed by local media and receive coverage in major newspaper. Jagmanst ( talk ) 15:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC) GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per Libstar and Ravenswing's research (and argumentative ability). Though, weighing in for myself, half of the references seem to come from the school themselves, and the other half being passing mentions (WP:SIGCOV). I also see little reason that this school should be able to pass WP:NSCHOOL, just as those above me have determined. IncompA 04:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you list which sources you deem to be passing mentions. Since many of them to be fully about the school. Jagmanst ( talk ) 05:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This article was created in 2007. Until February 2017, a high school was basically assumed notable under NSCHOOL SNG if it existed if the mere existence as a valid high school can be verified. This article predates the criteria change and it met the criteria. Whether to let it stay with notability criteria that was in place at the time of creation of to retroactively evaluate it under NCORP is something I don't have an answer to, but I would say for now until the community figures out how to handle high school articles created well before February 2017 but do not meet current GNG-NCORP based guidelines. Graywalls ( talk ) 08:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV . -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Last relist - we are almost entirely numerically tied (and within relist-bounds whether or not 1/2 poorly policy backed !votes are counted or not). Discussion has generally moved past community importance/existence of sources elswhere to sources now in the discussion and article, but there is a major disagreement as to whether the non-primary sources meet SIGCOV, or not. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk ) 14:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not seeing coverage about the school itself, only about things it's been involved with or mentioned in articles about a different topic. I mean, the sources are reliable, but trivial coverage. I don't see this as being an important school, no more than any other high school in India. 64.16.24.247 ( talk ) 15:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Argh, I posted that, but the vpn here at the office isn't playing nice today. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC) SCHOOLOUTCOMES is no longer enough for inherent notability, the fact still stands that most high schools are notable. So ""being no more important than the average high school"" is not a reason for deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Some of the sources provided by Jagmanst (the coverage of the principal's funeral and COVID fees) seem to be independent, reliable sources of significant local coverage. The article's coverage of the school's historical importance needs better sourcing outside of primary sources. The article needs improvement, but as it has some good sources (particularly its use in academic studies), I believe the subject is notable. pinktoebeans (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Guardians of Divinity : The article currently is a list of events the group has been associated with protesting, because the group is only mentioned in news articles where it's mentioned they were attending. They weren't the only groups there, so it's ""and this group was there"" throw-away mentions. There is no in depth coverage of the group in reliable secondary sources to fill out any additional information - who is the group, what is their history, do they have a mission? This also falls under guidelines for WP:BLP1E - the protests are more notable than the group itself and WP:BLPCRIME - there have been a arrests at protests with no follow up coverage, I can't determine if charges were ever brought against the people arrested. Denaar ( talk ) 12:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] -- First of all, the sources already in the article are sufficient to satisfy the GNG. Second, nom's deletion rationales are inapplicable. This is not a BLP, so BLP1E can't possibly apply. Even if it were a BLP it wouldn't apply because multiple events are involved. Also the mentions aren't passing. The NYT article alone has two paragraphs on the background and origin of the group. For the same reason BLPCRIME doesn't apply -- this is not a BLP. Again, even if it were the criterion wouldn't apply since the article doesn't purport to be about the crimes, so why would it matter if there were continuing coverage of them? Central and Adams ( talk ) 12:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC) GNG 's significant coverage requirement: ""Significant coverage"" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. "" Right now, we only have trivial mentions, there are only 66 results in Google News so it's a pretty short list to go through, and there is a video game with the same name and not all those results are related. Denaar ( talk ) 14:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC) 14, 26 July 2023 (UTC) BLPCRIME seems applicable here, because this part of the policy emphasizes the serious consideration needed before including material—in any article that suggests any nonpublic figure has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured ; at minimum, this policy consideration seems to emphasize the limited sustained coverage available about the group generally and various arrests reported specifically within the article; I also think it is a relevant consideration during a selective process, if that occurs. Beccaynr ( talk ) 14:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics , and New York . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC) 43, 26 July 2023 (UTC) GNG here, even if the sources in the article itself were lacking, which, judging by the other !votes, they are not. I would add that having clear aims or a large track record are not requirements for meeting notability guidelines.---- Licks-rocks ( talk ) 16:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC) I found a June 2023 Institute for Strategic Dialogue report with several paragraphs focused on the group at pp. 11-12, describing them as ""The leading group behind anti-drag activity in the state of New York"" and comparing the group to other groups The January 2023 Anti-Defamation League report , ""Online Amplifiers of Anti-LGBTQ+ Extremism"" cited in the article has a one-sentence mention in the Blaze Media section, ""At one such event, Stein was seen promoting “Guardians of Divinity” member David Nieves..."" The NYT coverage in the article, Foes of Drag Queen Story Hours Invade New York Councilman’s Home (Dec. 20, 2022) notes ""at least 141 protests, attacks or “significant threats” against drag events in the United States so far this year, according to a report published by GLAAD"" and also discusses ""the Guardians of Divinity, a far-right organization"" as ""believed to be behind many of the protests in New York"" and briefly mentions its origin ""opposing pandemic-era vaccine and mask mandates,"" and states the group has ""shown up at several Drag Story Hour events in Jackson Heights, Queens, and they also disrupted a community forum in Astoria hosted by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. "" A variety of sources in the article focus on the Dec. 2022 event, e.g. Vice (Dec. 20, 2022, does not mention Guardians of Divinity); AMNY (Dec. 20, 2022, does not mention Guardians of Divinity); The Advocate (Dec. 24, 2022), Guardians of Divinity association attributed to a belief by Bottcher); WP:DAILYBEAST ( Dec. 28, 2022 ), citing WP:NYPOST to identify Guardians of Divinity involvement. Other sources in the article do not mention the group, e.g. Astoria Post (Jan. 18, 2023); Patch (Feb. 2, 2023); Upper East Site (Feb 1, 2023). The article includes TimesLedger aka QNS coverage on Dec. 30, 2022 , ""Proud Boys protest drag story hour event at Jackson Heights Library"" and Jewish Telegraphic Agency coverage ""These Jews are defending Drag Story Hour against far-right protestors. Here’s why. "" ( Jan 6, 2023 ) - this type of coverage seems to help support a to where protests and counter-protests can be presented with appropriate context, per WP:PAGEDECIDE . This local organization with coverage that appears to begin in December 2022 may become ""nationally well-known"" (per WP:CLUB ) in the future, but at this time, there does not appear to be sufficient support for a standalone article (e.g. with ""national or even international notice"" and ""widespread attention"" as described for non-commercial organizations ). Beccaynr ( talk ) 17:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC) 25, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the first report offers more in-depth coverage than other sources, but also helps identify the group as a local organization and as one of several groups that ""began to pivot to more anti-drag activity"" since late 2022 - this report also states, ""as vaccine mandates and lockdowns fall out of the news cycle (and public attention), anti-drag activity may become a more consistent mobilizing force"" and this is part of why I suggest a (and to preserve the article history) - the ISD report indicates the group is part of a trend that has broadly received attention and continues to be monitored. From my view, it seems possible that WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the group may exist in the future, but for now, we appear to have more sustained and in-depth coverage of the broader context that also predates coverage of this specific group (See e.g. the Nov. 21 2022 GLAAD report cited by the NYT ). Beccaynr ( talk ) 17:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] selectively to Drag_Queen_Story_Hour#United_States per rationale of Beccaynr. Sal2100 ( talk ) 20:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] selectively for the reasons presented above. As a stand alone topic it's not clear this is notable. Springee ( talk ) 17:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 17:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm ( talk ) 17:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] parts to Drag_Queen_Story_Hour#United_States per the information provided above. Attention whore ( talk ) 22:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC) 46, 15 August 2023 (UTC) 48, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not seeing a full article about them, only passing mentions. Mostly about stuff the group has done. I don't see a as being valuable. I'd say this is PROMO, but it's neutral in tone and rather helpful as a description, but the group doesn't seem notable, at this time. Should US politics continue down the same path, we'll likely see more from this entity... Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Francois Esterhuyzen : All I found was this routine news piece and a few interviews in Russian-language media ( 1 , 2 , 3 ). JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , South Africa , and Russia . JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"List of Iranian dynasties and countries : WP:OR / WP:SYNTH , fail WP:LISTCRITERIA (the lists equivalent of WP:NONDEFINING ), and long series of precedents confirming that language family is WP:NONDEFINING for countries, territories, dynasties, and individual people. Many users at the ""Turkic"" AfD urged me to nominate the ""Iranian"" list and similar lists as well, so here they are. Additional suggestions are welcome if I have missed anything. I'll file the categories separately because it is a different procedure with different criteria, but the fundamental issues are the same, and I'm mentioning it for everyone's information. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 08:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Geography , and Lists . Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 08:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maintaining such content on Wikipedia under overarching categories like 'Germanic dynasties and countries' can inadvertently fuel ethnic nationalism, leading to prolonged debates and contentious issues between Iranian Wikipedia users and users from other communities. What we need to understand is that these peoples and states were not brothers but rather distant cousins, many of them were unaware of their connections during their respective reigns. Instead of allowing Wikipedia to become a battleground for historical disputes and ethnic nationalism, our focus should be on fostering an environment of mutual respect. In line with recent deletions, it appears that Arab and Turkic dynasty lists have also been removed. It seems that Arab and Turkic dynasty lists have also been d. Deleting such things might create a more peaceful atmosphere. Akatziri ( talk ) 12:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC) Germanic empires , Category:Germanic rulers etc. for deletion a few months ago. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 13:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. -- HistoryofIran ( talk ) 09:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 12#Berber dynasties , also involving Category:Iranian Muslim dynasties , Category:Kurdish dynasties , Category:Former Kurdish states , and the latter's 4 subcategories. This is a separate procedure, your comments and votes here don't ""count"" for the categories, so please (also) participate in the CfD discussion if you have an opinion on what should happen to the categories. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 10:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure I see the problem here - List of Kurdish dynasties and countries is well sourced, for instance, as is List of Pashtun empires and dynasties . I don't understand the LISTCRITERIA argument either as some of these lists have very clear criteria, and the WP:OR argument requires that no sources have discussed these articles. I'm not a topic expert, but's not clear to me why the WP:OR has been levied for some of these articles. I can understand the Iranian one a little bit, but it still seems like it could be a potentially valid list under WP:LISTN . So there's something here I'm clearly not understanding about these nominations apart from the fact the Iranian article could be cleaned up. SportingFlyer T · C 10:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, what was ""Pashtun"" about Hamidullah Khan (r. 1926-1949), for example? His entire article doesn't mention it. He was an ""Indian Muslim"", and it seems like English and/or Hindustani were his native/professional languages. So why should we consider him part of a ""Pashtun dynasty""? According to the scope of List of Pashtun empires and dynasties , states, princely states, empires and dynasties in the regions of Central, Western and South Asia which were founded by rulers of Pashtun ancestry are automatically ""Pashtun"" in their entirety. In the case of Bhopal State , some Pashtun soldier named Dost Mohammad of Bhopal became a warlord and founded Bhopal State in 1707. This is an ancestor of Hamidullah Khan , whose family over the course of 200 years became significantly Indianised. Although he was still a Muslim, there is not a trace of ""Pashtun"" heritage. WP:COP-HERITAGE also says The heritage of grandparents is never defining and rarely notable. Identifying every descendant of A as ""Pashtun"", no matter how many generations, just because A was a Pashtun, is quite a stretch and WP:NONDEFINING / WP:OR / WP:SYNTH . Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 13:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hamidullah Khan also isn't listed in the List of Pashtun empires and dynasties, either, but ""Pashtun dynasty"" brings up a decent number of hits in scholarly sources, so there are definitely dynasties that are defined by being Pashtun. Whether that includes the entire dynasty or not isn't really a notability issue, but a content issue for the talk page, and certainly isn't an argument for deleting the entire page. I would suggest nominating each of these individually over time so we can have a discussion about them, as these articles are not closely related enough to them as a group. One may be WP:SYNTH but I see some decently sourced, potentially valid articles here. SportingFlyer T · C 13:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe you're right. I've already made Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arabian Houses a separate AfD (see ""Update"" below). The Pashtun list turns out to be a bit more complicated than I expected, and cannot lean on the language family argument because Pashto is a single language. There is disagreement about whether there is 1 or multiple Kurdish language(s). A similar problem exists with the Mongol states, which were Turkicised over time, but many probably began with the same common language of Middle Mongol . I assumed that ""Maratha"" referred to language family, but it can mean Maratha (caste) and Marathi language . I guess I've been (uncharacteristically, hopefully) careless with this AfD. Perhaps I should withdraw this bundled nomination and start over, only nominating List of Iranian dynasties and countries again for now... Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 14:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong for Kurdish emirates . Plug the term into Google Scholar to see why. Srnec ( talk ) 12:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Royalty and nobility , Middle East , and Iran . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Actually, I'd suggest close this car crash of an AfD as the lists cited are so wide and disparate, you're never going to get agreement on deleting the whole lot in one fell swoop. The list of Arabian Houses is not my favourite thing, but I see no reason for its deletion and certainly fail to see how discussing its deletion in among this whole other bunch of nominations is constructive. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 13:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arabian Houses . Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 14:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw (as nom) I've been a bit careless in bundling these pages together in a single nomination (more details in my reply to SportingFlyer). I'm glad people pointed this out. I'll withdraw this bundle and start over by nominating the pages separately after more thorough preparation. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arabian Houses is still on. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 14:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nederlandse Leeuw , as there is an editor advocating Delete, this AFD can't be closed as even with your withdrawal of the nomination. L iz Read! Talk! 03:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh so as soon as anyone has ! voted for any particular outcome, withdrawal is no longer possible? I didn't know that. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 13:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] List of Pashtun empires and dynasties , but it should be worked upon to add more reliable citations. Noorullah ( talk ) 14:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC) Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries and weak the rest. Aintabli ( talk ) 06:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The Turkic one had an issue of being very little defined and as well as disputed. Pages like List of Pashtun empires and dynasties are very clear especially in the pages description that said dynasties were Pashtun in origin. @ Aintabli See the point above in the discussion between SportingFlyer and Nederlandse Leeuw. Noorullah ( talk ) 20:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Noorullah21 I have revised my vote. Aintabli ( talk ) 12:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC) Kurdish emirates , Neutral on List of Mongol states , and the rest per the previous AfD. I think the Kurdish emirate one is fine for notability as it was a unique and linear circumstance that has received scholarly attention, while the Mongol states one is different enough than the others to warrant a separate discussion. Curbon7 ( talk ) 22:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] for the Kurdish dynasties which is apparently well sourced and as to my knowledge had the collaboration of some well respected editors. The Kurdish emirates I'd as well, not all of them have their own articles. On the rest I have no opinion. Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 22:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC) The and votes are often not meant for all articles. Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 22:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good point. It seems that some of the nominees will get enough votes for a , while others will get enough votes for a . This is gonna be a complicated tally. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 07:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the list of Iranian dynasties and countries . As for the rest, please start individual AfDs. Sutyarashi ( talk ) 01:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] all Lists. and expand/improve Kurdish emirates . -- Mann Mann ( talk ) 02:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Petia (singer) : Not a single thing is properly verified. None of the things in it will make her automatically notable--a few TV appearances, a photo shoot or two--and I cannot find the coverage in Google News or Books that would prove notability by our standards. Note that the creator is blocked for a user name problem, and has an obvious conflict of interest. Drmies ( talk ) 01:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Unless she plays in a brass band [58] , there is no coverage for this particular entertainer. for a lack of sourcing, long way off to get to GNG. Prior AfD (see below) was kept, with a Billboard article, but it's a brief mention. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note there appears to have been a prior AfD in 2013 for this person, but I have doubts if it's the same individual based on the comments made there... See the article's talk page for the link. It's been tagged since 2010; if nothing has popped up in the 14 years since then, likely we won't find much else. Happy to be proven wrong, as always. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment if she had a hit in her country with "" Obscenely Delicious "" and it got to no. 5 in the Top 100 then that leans towards notable. And according to the page, it nibbled the Greek Top 50. I think the Wikipedia article is mostly correct. However, it seems that she had a brief run of fame prior to 2010. That would make her notable. So the article should be improved with referencing. It needs work!!! What makes it difficult is getting chart stats from East European countries. Karl Twist ( talk ) 05:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] comment/ Hi, landed here in search of a song details 2 days ago, since edited Wikipedia in the past I thought I can help. So, I edited the page and added sources from BG language. I also think that her work is past internet and its true that we can't find online for people who were notable at that time. She is on the covers and shows plus on top charts as said above by another user, the page also exists in multiple languages. Oh, and I removed all promotional sentences and words. Thanks FemaleStuff ( talk ) 22:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not an area of expertise of mine, but @FemaleStuff seems to be familiar with the topic and has convincing arguments. Just because someone is not so notable in the Anglosphere doesn't mean they may not be notable in another country/language. Vontheri ( talk ) 17:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] it's the lack of coverage we're concerned about. I couldn't find any and they didn't post any further sources. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Bulgarian version of the article lists five sources. Sources don't have to be in English, nor do they have to be from the internet. Difficulty in finding sources [in English and online] should not make us default to ""they must not exist."" The article isn't really causing any harm by being there until it can either be properly sourced or proven to not be notable, is it? Vontheri ( talk ) 12:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Her personal website, an IMDB profile, two profiles and a tv show, none of these are useful. Rest are social media links. Again, there are no stories in media that extensively cover this individual. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What's been added such as the dnes.bg articles are barely a few paragraphs each, I wouldn't consider them extensive. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ FemaleStuff , who seems familiar with the topic of the article, said that most of her work was pre-internet or at least early days of the internet, so looking on the modern English-language internet for information about her is a bit like looking for a tropical rainforest in Antarctica. You're looking in the wrong place. What harm could possibly be caused by leaving the article to give someone with access to the relevant information time to find it and add it? Someone who speaks Bulgarian would probably be the best sort of person to help with this, perhaps first by writing more from Bulgarian language sources on the Bulgarian version of the article and then translating it to the English version of the article. Vontheri ( talk ) 13:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] you would want to send it to draft then, that's really what should be done. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] By the way, @ Oaktree b , you mentioned earlier that you weren't sure that the original AFD was in regards to the same person as the current article is about. Is this AFD what you were referring to? It sounds like it's about the same person to me, but do you mind if I ask specifically what makes you think it may be someone else with the same or similar name? Vontheri ( talk ) 23:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Petia_Pavlova lists quite a few sources. Were these evaluated? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I hadn't looked in depth at the sources from the previous AFD. Thanks for pointing our attention to them, Liz. The sources listed by @ Michig from the previous AFD strengthen my view that the article should NOT be d. While I am only able to read it by machine translation, this source mentions that one of her songs was in the ""top 50"" of MAD TV (TV channel) , which sounds like it meets the criteria ""Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network"" and probably also ""Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart"" from WP:MN . I hope no offense to anyone, but some people seem so hasty to articles... I like saving articles. Vontheri ( talk ) 15:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Brokenteeth : A quick search on Naver didn't return anything helpful with Google/Bing even worse. I also couldn't find the subject charting on the Circle Chart , South Korean national chart. — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝 ) 12:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , and South Korea . — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝 ) 12:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC) Notability (music) . 올해의수상자 ( talk ) 15:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 02:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The two Korean sources identified by sourcebot as green (khan.co.kr and Newsis are trivial mentions), the rest aren't much help. I'd suspect there would be more coverage of his TV show, but Korean sourcing isn't my expertise. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Following the 2017 Discussion , Sputnikmusic's ""staff reviews"" were determined to be reliable sources, and we can confirm that reviews from source is also staff review. Also, Visla Magazine is also an online magazine that is officially established as a company, and I think the official article here is also a reliable source. 올해의수상자 ( talk ) 06:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC) Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added two reliable sources to this article, is it not enough? Then I'll search for it more. The paragraph of a reliable sources is in the policy of WP:MN 올해의수상자 ( talk ) 11:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC) GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Thomas Koorilos : Google search (string:""thomas koorilos"") turns up no usable sources what-so-ever, mainly profiles and name-drops. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Christianity , and Kerala . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Diocesan bishops of major denominations have generally been held to be notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC) BLP also applies here! — Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC) CLERGYOUTCOMES illustrates the consensus. BLP is irrelevant as to his notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] BLP is, however, relevant to what sort of content the article can have. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Though a weak per WP:SIGCOV slight, the subject meets WP:SNG for religious related. A metropolitan Bishop is notable and there is possibility of sources about him. Clean up is not deletion pls! Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 15:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Souleye (hip hop artist) : I found no significant coverage discussing his music. He has an AllMusic page , but it only has five of his albums, no ratings from users let alone critics, and no bio. He doesn't even have an Album of the Year listing. If his sole notability is as another person's husband, I think his name should to her page instead. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 00:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 00:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems ok, usual mix of celebrity stuff, US magazine is ok. This [38] is directly about him. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC) 33, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That Kotaku piece is about a different musician with the same name. Notice that article mentions that the composer's real name is Magnus Pålsson, while this guy's name is Mario John Treadway. The Source article, however, is the right guy. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 01:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ QuietHere I have added in some additional sources to substantiate Souleye's career outside of his marriage to Alanis Morissette. Souleye was recently profiled by one of the leading hip-hop magazines, The Source, about his lengthy musical career as an independent hip-hop artist. The magazine called him ""one of the most inventive hip-hop artists of his generation."" https://thesource.com/2023/03/18/with-latest-album-disguised-as-tomorrow-genre-bending-rapper-souleye-cements-legacy-as-one-of-most-inventive-hip-hop-artists-of-his-generation/ I also added in another feature profile on him by men's magazine Swagger, which focuses on his career and partnership with visual artist Rob Prior, which is here: https://www.swaggermagazine.com/entertainment/when-visual-art-and-music-collide-an-interview-with-genre-bending-hip-hop-artist-souleye-and-acclaimed-visual-artist-rob-prior/ Stevenlevine1 ( talk ) 20:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. We really need a few more editors to participate here and review the available sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Bizarre. I was under the impression that The Source was a generally reliable publication and one of the leading hip-hop magazines as stated by QuietHere , but the profile of Souleye almost makes me inclined to believe this was some kind of sponsored piece. If not, it is abysmally poor journalism. ""Souleye is one of the most prolific, impactful and creative hip-hop artists of his generation with a staggering 12 studio albums and dozens of singles and EPs throughout his two-decade-long career."" Yet I am struggling to find any critical reception? No awards, no other profiles other than this one, no tributes and shoutouts from other artists? ""His acclaimed new album, Disguised as Tomorrow, released just last month, features meditative and spiritual elements that “reflect a relaxed, introspective, reflective period after the globally traumatic experiences of the pandemic."" Souleye says. "" An acclaimed new album with no reviews? With songs averaging a few hundred views on Youtube? Souleye is not notable as a musician. He cannot inherit his wife's notability. What little coverage exists seems to be sponsored content/churnalism. Mooonswimmer 13:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Alanis Morissette or . notability is not inherited , and all of the coverage here is targeted at Morissette. There's only trivial and routine coverage on this individual, certainly nothing that is going to pass WP:NMUSICBIO . Jacona ( talk ) 17:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mooonswimmer I have identified a corpus of additional press placements pertaining to Souleye predating his marriage to Alanis Morissette, as well as some following it, such as Naluda Magazine. Several of these articles date back to the year 2003, 7 years before his relationship. Will the incorporation of these sources serve to substantiate the subject under discussion? https://www.steamboatpilot.com/explore-steamboat/mc-souleye-pens-lyrics/ https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/mi-blvds-lead-vocalist-souleye-at-red-lightning-beats/2101964/ https://jambands.com/news/2010/03/26/souleye-leaves-blvd/ https://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/hip-hop-homecoming/ https://bandblurb.com/souleye-hip-hop-medicine/ https://www.sacramentopress.com/2009/07/23/blvd-bring-dance-party-to-beatnik/ https://music.newcity.com/2008/07/10/preview-tipper-blvd-mc-souleye-anasia-mo2/ https://www.naludamagazine.com/interview-with-sf-based-hip-hop-artist-souleye/ https://www.sandiegoreader.com/events/2008/sep/20/blvd-and-souleye/ https://www.thereporter.com/2010/01/28/music-review-blvd-breaks-boundaries-by-blending-musical-beats/amp/ https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2008/sep/28/live-music-shack-opens-its-heart-heartles-20080928/ https://www.rapreviews.com/2008/11/blvd-music-for-people/ Stevenlevine1 ( talk ) 18:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Bahawalnagar incident : Should be either d or d. Event doesn't require its own article. Wikibear47 ( talk ) 19:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 19:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC) 10, 4 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Military , Police , and Punjab . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC) This easily meets WP:GNG as the incident has garnered significant press coverage, which has continued even a month after its occurrence. Moreover, the lasting impact of the incident is evident as the government has initiated an investigation to look into the matter. — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 14:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That was a minor clash, with no casualty. Resolve by both parties on the same day. You may move the content in Bahawalnagar , Bahawalnagar District or the Controversies section in Punjab Police (Pakistan) . You can also consider List of cases of law enforcement brutality in Pakistan . -- Ameen Akbar ( talk ) 17:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Three different Redirect/Merge target articles have been mentioned, we have to get that down to one suggestion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC) GNG , WP:EVENT , This is a WP:NOTNEWS event that received a brief wave of coverage with no fatalities. Such events occur commonly; for example, see similar incidents [22] , [23] . War Wounded ( talk ) 02:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Harry Dunn (defender) : There doesn't seem to be much of any WP:SIGCOV outside of this local newspaper coverage. I'd like to see what consensus is here, as it feels like a """" for me, but I'm curious what others think. Anwegmann ( talk ) 17:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. Football figures whose playing and manager career is mostly confined to small clubs do not have exact material to support WP:GNG . ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC) 13, 2 June 2024 (UTC) 42, 3 June 2024 (UTC) 04, 4 June 2024 (UTC) 15, 9 June 2024 (UTC) Looks like , but out of respect to the previous relister who sought a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus, this should have one final relisting to allow for some additional discussion, any at all. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC) -the ever present Harry Dunn -competent, reliable and dependable -a calm presence on the field -a gentleman on and off the field – everything that was needed for a team captain to lead Scarborough Football Club to the success it enjoyed and particularly to those Wembley victories."" Also some briefish pieces on him: [15] [16] [17] [18] . Kind of expected more... BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Final relist to assess newly found sources. Otherwise a to a players' list might be appropriate. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 17:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The three sources in the article and the interview linked by BeanieFan are enough, in my opinion, to meet the GNG. Add to this an excellent claim to notability, far beyond what I'd expect for a run-of-the-mill football player stub that gets taken to AfD. I don't have access to British Newspaper Archive, but those links at least show there's some ""offline"" coverage, as would be expected. Toadspike [Talk] 09:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Simon Hansford : Fails WP:BIO . LibStar ( talk ) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Australia . LibStar ( talk ) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Non-notable bio which only has two sentences about his ministry. The rest is about his education and family background. — Maile ( talk ) 12:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Notable as an important faith figure in New South Wales’ third biggest Christian denomination. All Moderators of the Uniting Church should be profiled rather than deleting them so we have record of church leadership. hSproulesLane ( talk ) 10:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No inherent notability in his position. Where are the sources to meet WP:BIO ? LibStar ( talk ) 16:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As a well known deletionist LibStar has made his point so I hope he will allow other editors to have their say without harassing them to accept his view of a minimalist version of an online encyclopaedia … please let others contribute without your bullying. SproulesLane ( talk ) 09:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC) BIO , which you have failed to do. LibStar ( talk ) 18:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I’ve added references from The Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, The Northern Daily Leader and the NSW Government indicating his activities in resent years. SproulesLane ( talk ) 10:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for adding sources. The SMH one is a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV . The NSW government one is him merely making a statement on behalf of the church and also not SIGCOV. LibStar ( talk ) 16:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC) PRIMARY source. LibStar ( talk ) 18:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Jane Willis : The article was created by a WP:SPA back in 2008 and seems to have slipped through the cracks of review. GuardianH ( talk ) 08:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This page should not be d. To be the subject in a well-known book, Bringing Down the House, and movie, 21, as Jane was, seems to be cause enough to this page active. The movie and book are both significant. In particular, the IMDB profile for Kate Bosworth, mentions her role in 21 (Kate plays Jane in the movie), and the movie is still talked about in gambling circles, making Jane a subject of continues public interest. In New York, there’s general interest in Jane’s marriage to Richard Davey, who is leading Metropolitan Transit Authority (buses and subways). There are many spouses of government officials who have Wikipedia pages, so Jane’s relationship with Rich should factor in ing the page. Coolbeans221 ( talk ) 11:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It isn't based on her, it's based on a team collective. She has no widespread coverage of secondary sources even then. GuardianH ( talk ) 17:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC) https://hls.harvard.edu/today/how-one-lawyer-went-from-being-a-shark-at-the-blackjack-table-to-a-shark-in-the-courtroom/ https://nypost.com/2022/05/07/jane-willis-was-member-of-mit-blackjack-card-counting-team/ https://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2008/04/21-qa.html https://gothamist.com/news/like-byford-before-him-mtas-new-city-transit-chief-starts-in-a-time-of-tumult https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2010/10/11/focus15.html https://www.law360.com/articles/1076426/innovation-economy-drives-massachusetts-powerhouses https://www.law360.com/articles/1078119/massachusetts-powerhouse-ropes-gray Coolbeans221 ( talk ) 23:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Prob - the sources are not great, but feels like there is enough to meet the usual notability standards. JMWt ( talk ) 10:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC) Nothing for a lawyer, there is an actress with a similar name. for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Salaga Senior High School : WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - There are many reports of one event where a teacher at the school shot at students and injured one. E.g. [32] , but this is very much a single event. However this research paper [33] studies knowedge of cervival cancer amongst school students. This one uses the school as a case study for sculpture technique [34] , PDF available here [35] . This one recruits 330 of the schools students for a mental health study [36] . This study of high school student/teacher conflict may have been predicated on the above incident. [37] and there are a few other related papers. That's a lot of published research carried out at this school, and some of it (especially the conflict study) speaks to notability of the institution itself. It has an enrolment of 1800 students and has been established for 50 years. It can be hard to find information in English on schools in some locales, but that does not mean they are not notable. The state of the article is indeed parlous, but deletion is not for cleanup. I fully understand why the nom. brought this, but it is a for me. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Predictions of Vladimir Putin's death or incapacity : Yes, all these can be documented. No, none of it mattered even three days later. People obviously hope that Putin goes away somehow, but again, that's not an encyclopedic subject. Any actual event of consequence belongs in Putin's biography, not sequestered in a list such as this. They do not belong anywhere here at all. Mangoe ( talk ) 13:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Russia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC) CRYSTAL and WP:NOTSCANDAL . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think the article is needed. It is more like speculating and trying to predict the future. Cwater1 ( talk ) 14:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC) IDONTLIKEIT . Further, our WP:CRYSTALBALL policy (an argument that OP did not make it) does not apply as that policy refers to predictions of future events. This is an exhaustively WP:RS -sourced list of past predictions that received WP:SIGCOV for the act of predicting this subject (in other words, sources are largely third party reporting on the sociological phenomenon of predicting Putin's death, versus the originally published predictions). This is not unlike our long-established articles: Predictions of the collapse of the Soviet Union , Predictions of the end of Wikipedia , Predictions of the end of Google , List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events , 2011 end times prediction , List of predictions , Predictions and claims for the Second Coming , and a thousand others. Chetsford ( talk ) 04:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That lots of these articles get created is only evidence that plenty of people have no idea what belongs in an encyclopedia. Yes, pundits predicted the end of the USSR over and over; that shows that these sorts of predictions are worthless, and really there's no argument made that these predictions were important. Ditto for the Google and Wikipedia article. These articles get created because they don't require a lot of work, not because they are valuable, and the message of these (which is really common knowledge in the fields of pundit-reading) is that these predictions are usually bunk— which is why most of these were flashes-in-the-pan which were forgotten about when pushed aside by the next news cycle. As for 2011 end times prediction , it should have stayed in the main Harold Camping article, along with all his other manifestly false prophecies of the end times that in the end everyone forgot the specifics of. You're making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and in the end you've simply directed me to more articles that ought to go. Mangoe ( talk ) 07:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC) OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument"" Mangoe - with all due respect, you're not making any argument at all. You haven't cited any relevant policy in your nomination or in your latest comment; ""none of it mattered"" is not a reason covered by our deletion policy for the removal of content. In my ! vote I actually had to come up with a policy to argue on your behalf (i.e. CRYSTALBALL) just so I could respond. Chetsford ( talk ) 08:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Anything that passes GNG belongs on Wikipedia. ★Trekker ( talk ) 19:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's categorically incorrect. Notability is necessary but not sufficient. Failing WP:NOT is one reason something that is notable might not belong on Wikipedia. TompaDompa ( talk ) 21:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If something is NOT then it can't pass GNG. ★Trekker ( talk ) 21:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure it can. Passing WP:GNG merely requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject . There's nothing stopping something like that from running afoul of WP:NOT in one way or another. TompaDompa ( talk ) 22:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nothing listed on that page can really have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject . ★Trekker ( talk ) 02:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure it can (if not it would of course be entirely superfluous). How-tos and game guides are one example. Unverifiable speculation is another. Genealogies are a third. If we want to go really silly, today's weather certainly receives significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. TompaDompa ( talk ) 03:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . While many predictions received extensive coverage in media, there's no indication that any of them had lasting significance required by WP:EVENTCRITERIA . PaulT2022 ( talk ) 06:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""there's no indication that any of them had lasting significance"" Hmmm. That doesn't appear to be correct. This [52] 2015 Vox article covers the history of predictions made in 2012. This [53] 2023 New Statesman article covers the history of a prediction made in 2022. This [54] 2022 report from the Center for European Policy Analysis covers the history of predictions from 2003, 2005, and 2021. This [55] 2022 New York Times article mentions predictions from 2017 and 2020. etc., etc. I can listing these, unless you'd prefer to just read the entry? Chetsford ( talk ) 07:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first three sources are opinion columns and blogs. The NYT article doesn't discuss predictions in depth – it reports a few opinions about Putin's health itself without thorough analysis. It's a WP:PRIMARY source and it isn't focused on predictions. I don't think an article speculating about the health based on rumours would meet WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS . As it stands, the article mainly addresses predictions , and the sources provided don't satisfy WP:EVENTCRITERIA in my opinion. Most publications that touch on predictions cover a handful of specific contemporaneous predictions, rather than addressing the phenomenon of predictions holistically. Additionally, upon reviewing the linked NYT article, WP:FRINGE might be a more suitable rationale for deletion if the article in question presents rumours circulated by journalists and bloggers that contradict assessments from MI6 and the CIA as reliable expert opinions. PaulT2022 ( talk ) 09:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""The first three sources are opinion columns and blogs. "" No, that's completely incorrect. Are you reading the right article? In any case, I realize I've posted several responses so I'll limit my comments here to this one item to avoid bludgeoning: CRYSTALBALL doesn't apply here. CRYSTALBALL discusses predictions of future events . This article is a historical timeline of past predictions and is about the predictions themselves as historical events, not the content of the predictions. If this article discussed predictions of Putin's death occurring in the future then it would be covered by CRYSTAL. But there isn't a single example of that (perhaps it would be better named ""Past Predictions of ...). Chetsford ( talk ) 18:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC) 52, 14 August 2023 (UTC) that the predictions themselves are insubstantial rumors. The articles refer to past instances as examples of how they are not notable because they never amounted to anything. I just don't see how this supports a of this article. There is clearly a place in Putin's bio for the persistence of rumors about his health, but it needs to report the substance of the references given, rather than burying the story in a mass of detail whose only relevance, according to the analysts, is that no single prediction is important because all of them are wrong. Mangoe ( talk ) 03:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC) 53, 17 August 2023 (UTC) 15, 21 August 2023 (UTC) 16, 20 August 2023 (UTC) 57, 22 August 2023 (UTC) 38, 25 August 2023 (UTC) 32, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Paul is dead"" is about the phenomenon, a specific urban legend which is documented as such. It was widely reported on at the time and later. It happened, and it was a notable rumor which got notable coverage. This is not the same. Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 02:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. for the sheer entertainment value of the rumors. Yes, I believe it is in the same ballpark as ""Paul is dead"", and even ""Elvis is alive"" being turned into a humorous moment in the movie ""Death Becomes Her"". Putin doesn't give us much to laugh about. Let us have this. — Maile ( talk ) 03:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maile66 , while I see your point, I don't think I've ever seen the argument in an AFD that we should an article for its entertainment value. Wikipedia, after all, is a very serious place. L iz Read! Talk! 22:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Liz - Ah ... well. — Maile ( talk ) 23:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would have to concur on this. We have areas for entertainment (see WP:Department of Fun , but it's nearly always in the userspace or occasionally Wikipedia namespace (see Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-man , an older ""official lunacy"" and one of my personal favorites). While I would support the inclusion of this article, I don't support it for this reason, and I would recommend all humor and entertainment on Wikipedia be in userspace. Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 02:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ; in addition to previous arguments made regarding the impact of his death, I personally believe that we should not have to worry about CRYSTALBALL if multiple clearly reliable sources are making these predictions. If all we're doing is covering the world's theories as stated by reliable sources, then I don't think we're doing anything wrong. Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 17:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Obviously they aren't reliable if the predictions don't come true! Mangoe ( talk ) 03:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Nkosazana Daughter : The other charting such as ""number 3 in South Africa"" is also streaming and not a major chart so would fail WP:NMUSICIAN in that regard. WP:GNG is also not met as while she has done some collaborations, the references are mentions, routine, blogs, or otherwise non-reliable sources. CNMall41 ( talk ) 07:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 08:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music . dxneo ( talk ) 10:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC) Subject was nominated for Soundcity MVP Awards Festival (and also as a featured artist) here , and for SA Dance Music Awards here , and for two categories at the SA Amapiano Awards here which I believe satisfy #8 per WP:MUSICBIO . Haven't done a full research and also can't access RiSA website at the moment. dxneo ( talk ) 11:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC) 23, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is this a song by Nkosazana Daughter or a collab? Being on a song that received such status does not make everyone associated with it notable. Otherwise, we could create pages for everyone involved. I believe the certification for the song is for the main artist. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 03:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC) NMUSIC noticeboard but could not locate the ones listed on the page. I started a discussion to determine if these are major awards. Note that I did not inquire about the South African Music Awards"" as this page shows ""pending"" as opposed to ""nominated"" or ""won.""-- CNMall41 ( talk ) 04:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC) NMUSICBIO because it is self-released ), featuring guest appearances from big names across Africa but somehow didn't make the news, chart, receive nominations, nor certificates. Until SIGCOV is presented, I'm leaning towards weak . dxneo ( talk ) 04:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC) NMUSIC . She obviously isn't your run of the mill WP:GARAGEBAND based on some verifiable content so maybe the awards will allow the page to get over the hurdle. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 04:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC) MUSICBIO states that "" Subject may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria "", emphasizing may . This is a close call (as she was nominated in not one but three award ceremonies), which I can't can't really decide to either weak or weak . I guess we will see what other researchers present as time goes by. dxneo ( talk ) 04:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC) per Dxneo, satisfies #8 per WP:MUSICBIO . -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 16:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC) Even if she satisfies MUSICBIO, I couldn't find independent, significant coverage in RSes, and I agree with CNMall's assessment of the references in the article. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC) 24, 6 November 2023 (UTC) MUSICBIO states that the subject may be notable if they at least meet one of the following criteria: 1 . Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself: Subject has had a fair share news and passing mentions here & there . 2 . Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart: I could not find any recording(s) where the subject is credited as the primary artist that charted. However as a featured artist she has charted multiple times here peaking at no. 1 on The Official South African Charts and here on Billboard South Africa songs with ""Sofa Silahlane"" by Master KG , and again peaking at no. 1 here with ""Dali Nguwe"" also by Master KG, and that is just to mention a few. 3 . Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country: There is no record of the subject receiving any sort of musical certification as a primary artist, as a featured individual she received not one but two with ""Nomathemba"" and ""Yini Sdakwa"" . 4 . Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country: Subject had a show outside of her birth country in Zimbabwe , not sure if that counts. 5 . Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable): Clearly it is non-negotiable that the subject ultimately fails this criterion as they released only one studio album of which is self-released . 8 . Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award: Subject was nominated for Soundcity MVP Awards Festival (and also as a featured artist) here , and for SA Dance Music Awards here , and for two categories at the SA Amapiano Awards here 10 . Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album: As a vocalist often featured by record producers, she performs quite a lot. She performed on Channel O multiple times here and here , not sure if this counts. And while doing rounds on this site I noticed not only Nkosazana Daughter ""claims"" notability through their collaborative works, but also Nia Pearl and Kyla Reid , the latter featured on "" One Dance "" by Drake . In conclusion I think it's safe to and rewrite the article to maintain neutrality in accordance to our guidelines. dxneo ( talk ) 08:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC) NMUSIC ? My contention is that if she is truly a ""musician of some prominence,"" the media would have taken notice. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC) 57, 7 November 2023 (UTC) 05, 7 November 2023 (UTC) 32, 7 November 2023 (UTC) AGF . As far as the example, Kyla is a false equivalence . She's notable as she charted for "" Do You Mind ,"" a song she both wrote and recorded. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 05:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC) MUSICBIO and #1 per WP:ANYBIO despite you clinging on ""featured artist"". dxneo ( talk ) 06:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC) 35, 8 November 2023 (UTC) 53, 11 November 2023 (UTC) 37, 13 November 2023 (UTC) MUSICBIO through her awards nominees and a fair share of news coverage. Oh and logic also applies to music producers such as Southside , TM88 , and 808 Mafia just to mention a few as they are not primary artists and not even featured artists but they are notable for the recordings they worked on. dxneo ( talk ) 09:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC) 17, 14 November 2023 (UTC) 45, 14 November 2023 (UTC) OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument (twice) and I pointed out why those arguments did not apply to this situation. I have already stated my reasoning for deletion several times and even reached out for feedback on the award (so far, only one response). If it helps, I will reach out to WP:RSN as I have never heard of the other references being cited here. If they can be used for notability, then by all means the subject would pass WP:GNG .-- CNMall41 ( talk ) 04:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC) = 4, Delete=1. Just observing, not personal. Peace and kind regards. -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 15:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC) 40, 19 November 2023 (UTC) INSULT . Which by the way, is more of one towards @ Rosguill : who is the admin who extended the discussion. I am not ""looking for more votes"" as you say. AfD is not about vote count, it is about consensus.-- CNMall41 ( talk ) 03:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC) 08, 20 November 2023 (UTC) BATTLEGROUND but it needs to stop. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 05:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC) 20, 21 November 2023 (UTC) WP:BLP is the policy that applies to this article, and it requires strong sourcing. The sources above are mainly name mentions in lists, I did a source eval table of the first 8 cites above, the remaining are more of the same promos and mentions in lists: Comments Source Name mentioned in list https://thenativemag.com/tg-omori-soundcity-mvp-2023/ Name mentioned in list https://www.iol.co.za/sunday-tribune/entertainment/dlala-thukzin-kabza-de-small-and-skye-wanda-lead-2023-sa-dance-music-awards-nominations-7c695b4e-8991-4313-83ad-589020e2bca1 Name mentioned in list https://www.musicinafrica.net/magazine/sa-amapiano-awards-2023-all-nominees Info about album, nothing WP:SIGCOV about subject https://www.risa.org.za/website/certification/certifications/?artist=Nkosazana+Daughter&title=&label= Promo interview https://www.timeslive.co.za/amp/tshisa-live/tshisa-live/2023-08-28-listen--amapiano-helped-me-find-my-voice--nkosazana-daughter-reflects-on-her-career/ Name mention, no WP:SIGCOV https://theofficialsacharts.co.za/the-hottest-local-music-radio-chart-in-south-africa-week-15/ Name mentioned in list https://www.risa.org.za/website/certification/certifications/?artist=Nkosazana+Daughter&title=&label= Promo from publisher, fails WP:IS https://groove-africa.com/apple-musics-latest-africa-rising-recipient-is-amapiano-singer-songwriter-nkosazana-daughter/ I stopped adding because it is plain the votes above do not understand WP:BLP or MUSICBIO. Comments based on MUSICBIO are depending on a ""may be notable"" guideline and sources do not bear this out and WP:BLP applies. Ping me if WP:THREE sources are found from WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth (a mention in a list is not indepth SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 08:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC) MUSICBIO ? That the subject has made the news ever since her breakthrough? Or that she is an award-winning/nominated individual? See this and this all RS (green sources), from what's written there and other other source (including that she has passed MUSICBIO) tell me that you can't sum up SIGCOV. Saying we don't understand WP:N is a low blow. MUSICBIO say may be notable if they pass at least ONE ..., how many did the subject pass? dxneo ( talk ) 11:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC) The difference between policies, guidelines and essays ; it should be clear that policy takes precedence over guidelines. You also need to read WP:BLUDGEON . // Timothy :: talk 12:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC) 08, 21 November 2023 (UTC) 14, 21 November 2023 (UTC) 32, 21 November 2023 (UTC) BLP is policy, it requires strong sourcing . It requires WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth . I've stated I do not think the sources above meet this requirement. The sources you recently provided, [2] , [3] , [4] , the subject is named in a list, this is not WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth . [5] is your strongest source, however since the source is also the publisher of the music and they are promoting them as an artist there is a problem with WP:IS , however I recognize others might disagree, as they have above. If you provide sources that are independent of the subject WP:IS, meeting WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and indepth and you will have my vote. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON . ' // Timothy :: talk 14:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC) V (policy) and it is not particularly a WP:BLP concern. The analysis here suggests that living musicians must meet a much higher notability standard (BLP, almost NCORP as worded here) than dead ones (who would just have to meet WP:MUSIC). I don't think that's a healthy way to think about notability. Chubbles ( talk ) 15:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV, which is why I think this is probably just TOOSOON. I seriously doubt this discussion will result in a . // Timothy :: talk 15:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] TimothyBlue , what did you mean by ""the source is also the publisher""? You still did not answer my above questions regarding reliability and promotional concerns about this source . Your review is not about the subject at all, awards/noms, certifications, and charts does not cover the significance of the musician which cancels out that review. dxneo ( talk ) 15:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Detailed analyses of the sources claimed to provide SIGCOV would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde ( Talk ) 23:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC) I see that this discussion is still open. I read @ Timothy 's arguments and citation reviews, but he has left out commenting on the better articles. He states he gave up checking all. This is not a good vote IMO. He needs to check all citations. See 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , etc. Royal88888 ( talk ) 20:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC) 44, 26 November 2023 (UTC) 05, 26 November 2023 (UTC) 08, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 : Tar nis hed Path talk 09:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions . Tar nis hed Path talk 09:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. There are no legitimate reasons I can think of to have two articles on the same subject. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 10:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC) POVFORK of Origin of COVID-19 . The first sentence, for example, is SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, was first introduced to humans through zoonosis. Also, it seems to spend quite a lot of space refuting some features of SARS-CoV-2 that have been proposed as 'evidence' by conspiracy theories ('furin cleavage sites' etc.) which its parent article does not do (and perhaps should). Perhaps someone can point out where this article diverges from the mainstream consensus, or contradicts or undermines the parent article (preferably without mentioning blocks or sanctions against the original author ). In fact, the structure of this article looks a lot like the 'Zoonosis' section of the Origin of COVID-19 article should look. Perhaps we should move Origin of COVID-19 to Chronological history of investigations and reactions to investigations into the origin of COVID-19 , then move Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 to Origin of COVID-19 , and add the unlikely theories like lab leak and the other kooky stuff to the bottom? Tewdar 12:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science , Biology , COVID-19 , and Medicine . Tar nis hed Path talk 12:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Tewdar has a point that this article includes a few details that the parent article does not. However, that does not justify the existence of this fork article, and certainly does not justify turning this into the primary parent article. A retains the information we need, and then any formatting & layout concerns can be brought to the remaining article. — The Hand That Feeds You : Bite 13:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think there is more than enough here to warrant its own article. I don't see this a fork at all, but a fuller discourse on the subject. Graham Beards ( talk ) 13:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If anything, some material from the Origin of COVID-19 article should be moved here. The Origin of COVID-19 works well as an overview (""Main"") article, and specific sub-subjects should have their own article. Abiogenesis similarly is a carryall ""Main"" article with a number of separate articles on various theories for the Origin of Life. This article would become massive and unwieldy if d. Jaredroach ( talk ) 14:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - having now reviewed the article, I can find no evidence that this is a (POV) fork, and I can't really see how it could be, since its 'parent' would probably be better titled ' Chronology of Investigations into the Origin of COVID-19 '. Per Graham Beards, this article appears to be a fuller discourse on the subject which probably couldn't reasonably have all its relevant content d with its supposed parent. Incidentally, there is no good reason not to have a more detailed child article just because an overwhelming majority of scientists believe something: some article groups don't even seem to have a parent article, even though there is one theory that near-completely dominates competing theories, e.g. Recent African origin of modern humans vs Multiregional origin of modern humans (but no Origin of modern humans parent article, which is a to Early modern human#Age and speciation process ). Tewdar 15:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is a Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic currently. Perhaps we should prune any chronological details from parent and move before a . 2600:8804:6600:4:E857:BFEB:7B9A:9779 ( talk ) 18:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is a chronology of the pandemic, not a chronology of investigations into the origin of the virus. Tewdar 22:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Good point, should we use it as a template for Timeline of the COVID-19 origin investigation ? 2600:8804:6600:4:4C95:F6C6:D097:4C8B ( talk ) 16:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Whether it is a POVFORK, a non-POV fork or just a spin-off article, it does not seem necessary to have two articles. A reasonable estimate of the size of a d article would be a little over 6,000 words. That's not big enough to require a WP:SIZESPLIT . One could argue that, while we would not split it if it was already d, it is unnecessary effort to it given that it is already split. That's arguable but I feel that having one less COVID article to protect from the interventions from cranks would probably justify that effort in the long term. -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 18:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How have you arrived at this estimate of 6000 words? I make it ~7307 words. 5247 (prose size of Origins of COVID-19 article ) - 374 (current Zoonosis section in Origins... article, assuming 100% duplication in the other article) + 2434 (size of Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 article) = 7307 words, for which WP:SIZESPLIT does not tell me 'What to do'. The article has had 6 edits, and 428 views, in the last 30 days, so protecting it from interventions from cranks does not appear to be a pressing concern at the moment. And, if having two articles is a problem, we should probably Origins of COVID-19 , not this one. It only has four paragraphs in the Zoonosis section, and is mainly a chronology of investigations into COVID origins. Perhaps it should be moved to a more suitable title. Tewdar 19:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . There are currently two theories regarding the origins of covid: a lab leak and zoonosis. Even though zoonosis is the mainstream theory, for some reason its page is only the third of the size of the lab leak theory page. For balance I think it would be a good idea to the zoonosis page instead of merging it. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To be clear, these theories are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they cannot be. Whether or not anything happened in a lab that contributed to the pandemic, whatever happened before the lab was zoonotic. Not that this nuance is terribly relevant to the / discussion, but it may not be widely appreciated. Jaredroach ( talk ) 15:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jaredroach , ""whatever happened before the lab"". Can you clarify what you exactly mean by that? Tar nis hed Path talk 04:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pinging @ ජපස , @ Sennalen , @ DFlhb , @ MisterWizzy , @ Aquillion , @ Bon courage , @ Generalrelative and @ Novem Linguae as editors who were all involved in a previous discussion which seems to have gone nowhere. Apologies if I missed anyone. Tar nis hed Path talk 05:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think there was agreement to , and it's on my (long) TODO list. But there's an amount of fiddly busy work to be done reconciling the citation formats, so it's not just a cut and paste job. Bon courage ( talk ) 07:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Bon courage , it seemed to me that there was consensus for a , however that seemed to have gone stale so I thought it best to raise this especially considering I couldn't find a template? Tar nis hed Path talk 07:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] seems fine to me. I am sympathetic to the complaints that there ought to be more real estate to this explanation than the lab leak flights of fancy. jps ( talk ) 11:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Might I suggest that the end result for this reconciliation process should be a well-organized bibliography section that uses sfn, like the Zoonotic origins... article, rather than just shoving the references in any old how at the end of a sentence with <ref name= scattered all over the place, like the Origins... article. Tewdar 09:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] into Origin of Covid-19 . This was created as a WP:POVFORK , and efforts to salvage it are a solution looking for a problem - everything here is simply the origin of COVID-19 and should be covered on that article. -- Aquillion ( talk ) 06:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC) 8804:6600:4:D29:B065:C6ED:8647 ( talk ) 22:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Updating to TRIPLE Reverse after reviewing comments below it seems best to move content to this page and retire Origin of Covid. All theories that have no scientific basis should be contained to Covid-19 Conspiracy Theories because they rely on broad accusations of conspiracies perpetrated by scientists or governments. 2600:8804:6600:4:C85E:667E:14B1:53B ( talk ) 00:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Talk:Zoonotic origins of COVID-19#CFORK or POVFORK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinker78 ( talk • contribs ) per Jaredroach and Graham Beards. - SchroCat ( talk ) 17:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . This content would work best in the origins article; in the unlikely event it ever gets too big it can be spun out again. Bon courage ( talk ) 20:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] TRIPLE … The COVID topic, including its origins, has unfortunately fallen victim to over-politicization. My 'triple' remark is intended as a light-hearted joke, albeit one that may not translate well through text. However, setting jest aside, nobody here has disputed the fact that this article outshines the main COVID origins article in terms of its organization, composition, and fidelity to the source material. While I certainly don't claim expertise in this field, I find it noteworthy that editors with proven knowledge, including Jared Roach and Graham Beards , have overwhelmingly supported its retention. XMcan ( talk ) 18:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] nobody here has disputed the fact that this article outshines the main COVID origins article That's an incredibly hyperbolic statement that does not match what people have said. At best, there are some facts in this article that can be d into the main one. — The Hand That Feeds You : Bite 12:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC) the Origins of COVID-19 article is not an article about the Origins of COVID-19. It is a chronological history of investigations and reactions to investigations into the origin of COVID-19, with four pathetic paragraphs about the mainstream Zoonotic origins theory, two lousy paragraphs about 'Unlikely scenarios', and a whopping 50+ paragraphs about investigations and reactions to investigations into the origin of COVID-19. In short, in my opinion, this article outshines the main COVID origins article and should probably be the basis for that article. Also, the referencing system used in the other article suuuuuucks . Tewdar 19:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per my reasoning in the earlier talk page discussion. DFlhb ( talk ) 08:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and other content into this article as needed. This article is higher quality than the other COVID origins articles, particularly in NPOV. Better to raise the other articles to this standard than to lower it to theirs. - Palpable ( talk ) 06:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You've not given an argument for why this article is more NPOV. PS, reference formatting isn't it. Tar nis hed Path talk 13:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For a start, the 'Investigations' section of the Origin of COVID-19 article is massively undue for an article purportedly (according to its title, at least) about the evolutionary pathway of the virus and the manner of its transmission to humans. This section, which is comparatively massive, is heavily dependent on relatively low-quality news sources. The level of detail about controversies surrounding the various investigations is ridiculously undue in such an article. The chronological summary style also results in undue weight for the lab leak theory (""an investigation found lab leak unlikely "", ""another investigation found it unlikely"" ""a third investigation found it unlikely"", ""ooh, this investigation found it plausible"", ""oh look, this one doesn't rule it out either""...) This is not how to write an NPOV encyclopedia article on the Origin of COVID-19. Also, I'd like to take this opportunity to once again give my opinion on the terrible reference formatting, which is just thrown together, much like the rest of the article. Incidentally, nobody has given any argument for why this article is a WP:POVFORK , despite this being the original reason given for why this article should be d/d and despite me asking if Perhaps someone can point out where this article diverges from the mainstream consensus, or contradicts or undermines the parent article and even putting this request in bold font. Zero Zip Zilch Nada. Tewdar 15:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if you don't recognize the house style, the discussion history makes it clear that the Origin of COVID-19 article is proudly and unashamedly polemic. - Palpable ( talk ) 15:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - These articles are apples and pears. This article describes what it says it does, looking carefully at the hypotheses and explaining as it goes, whereas Origin of COVID-19 tells us more about the investigations than the actual origins of the virus. So, if we had to only one, I would say it should be this one, and we should the other article into here, largely as a kind of addendum about the investigations and politics. Or we could both, and perhaps signpost between them. This is clearly not a POVFORK. There is no POV here. It could be classed as a content fork, but forks are acceptable as long as they are not a WP:BADFORK . If not a POV fork (and again, it isn't) then the other BADFORK is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK . But it isn't redundant. There is plenty on this page that is not on that one. So not a bad fork, and no case for deletion. What about ? Well that is an available outcome at AfD, but in this case the AfD was started during an unclosed discussion, and the discussion may have foundered because there is a prima facie case it was backwards. That Origin of COVID-19 should be d here. Nevertheless the discussion is ongoing and this AfD is thus out of process for that discussion. Better that this is closed as and then the discussion can then proceed. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 16:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm intrigued by this 'reverse ' idea which will effectively shut down Wikipedia saying the origin of SCV2 was anything other than zoonotic. Maybe people are getting more sensible here! Bon courage ( talk ) 16:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The four pathetic paragraphs about zoonotic origins and the two lousy paragraphs about 'Unlikely scenarios' in the other article can quite easily be d into this one. Then Origin of COVID-19 can be moved to a more appropriate title, like Chronological history of investigations, controversies surrounding investigations, politicisation of investigations, email correspondence regarding investigations, and architecture of buildings used to carry out investigations into the origin of COVID-19 or something like that. Tewdar 19:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"2022 Philadelphia shooting : News story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS . Fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:EFFECT . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 02:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , and Pennsylvania . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 02:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - It is painfully difficult to find sourcing for one particular mass shooting event in Philly for obvious reasons. That said, I can find nothing that suggests either WP:SUSTAINED or WP:EFFECT for this event, so it fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT as WP:NOTNEWS . Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 13:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] another routine shooting, in a city that's become known for such types of crimes. Three people is about what you'd expect from such an event. The last part reads like a memorial, which really isn't suitable for wiki. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC) DEL-REASON . Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with The ed17, these are not reasons to justify deletion. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does not meet Sustained,NotNews particularly. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC) GNG with lengthy stories that are directly about the topic in a variety of news outlets, including The New York Times . Thebiguglyalien, from your posts at WP:ITNC I get that you have far-out views on NOTNEWS, but this isn't it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sadly, current policy does not consider lengthy stories that are directly about the topic in a variety of news outlet as a stand-alone reason for inclusion. You also need to satisfy the rest of WP:NEVENT like WP:EFFECT , WP:PERSISTENCE , etc. This simply does not meet the minimum policy guidelines. Sorry & Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Literally the first bullet point in NEVENT references GNG. And if you really want to go down the persistence road, I've just added a source that looked back on the event one year later . Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And here's another . Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The ed17 , the logical conclusion of your argument is that just about anything ever published in newspapers is worthy of its own article. You can't use primary sources like breaking news to say something meets GNG. If you have an issue with that, then you need to propose a change to WP:GNG , not make a policy-ignoring ! vote. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 16:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please don't put words into my mouth. WP:GNG is the north star, and that says "" A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject . "" (emphasis in original). This topic ticks every one of those checkboxes thanks to in-depth coverage from gold-standard reliable sources. WP:SBST gives additional guidance, and there are sources used here that contain coverage which is far more than just routine. (Also, news reports are almost always secondary sources. For something like this, witnesses are the primary sources. See our article on secondary sources and WP:PST .) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC) RSBREAKING : All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution: see Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources , Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources § Examples of news reports as primary sources . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 17:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A fair point, and I apologize for misremembering and therefore overstating the case for them. It doesn't undercut the main thrust of my argument, as the NYT source in particular is one that takes a step back and looks at the wider picture, and I've shown that there has been additional coverage of the shooting well after it happened. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC) NEVENT , specifically WP:EVENTCRIT . Yes, WP:GNG is mentioned, but as part of a longer sentence, Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline... (emphasis added). I just can't see enduring historical significance in this. Were major news laws enacted specifically due to this event? Did society change in some way that sources attribute to it? I don't see that in sources. The follow-ups articles you cite are not interpretation[s] of primary source material (emphasis in original) as discussed in WP:PRIMARYNEWS as strong sources for notability; they are adding new primary material about how locals feel about the event a year later. If anything, they show that the impact is localised both geographically and over time which argues against a stand-alone article. Also, WP:NOTNEWS really applies strongly here in that most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. There just is not a policy way around the fact that this particular mass-shooting event does not meet the clear policy criteria for inclusion. Sorry & Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 18:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "" Were major news laws enacted specifically due to this event? Did society change in some way that sources attribute to it? "" I've never seen that guideline applied with that high of a bar, but if you believe that's the case, I look forward to your nominations of many more of Wikipedia's event articles in the near future. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC) NEVENT . There are many other ways to reach historical significance. If you can explain to me how this particular mass shooting has the historical significance as mentioned in policy, fine. But I can't see it. With the sources presented, it simply cannot pass the policy threshold. Sorry, Last1in ( talk ) 23:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We'll agree to disagree then, particularly with how that policy is actually applied in practice. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per GNG and The ed17 above. Entry needs a bit of work, but I see no reason for deletion at this time. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Ed. Pennsylvania2 ( talk ) 16:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:SUSTAINED . WWGB ( talk ) 03:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC) ROUTINE . As such, it fails WP:NOTNEWS . -- JBL ( talk ) 17:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC) NOTNEWS . The claim of WP:SUSTAINED coverage is based on two retrospectives in local news sources, resting on brief comments from local traders/residents on how the street/area has ""picked up"" after the shooting. This seems to be the only/main impact. There's no analysis of why the shooting happened. The shooting's mentioned in the South Street, Philadelphia article. Maybe some of the content into that article as an AtD? Rupples ( talk ) 04:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC) 21, 10 September 2023 (UTC) 26, 15 September 2023 (UTC) SUSTAINED and its not really news in the traditional sense, so failing WP:NOTNEWS as well as WP:DEL14 . It is just another generic example of the gross and blackest evil that is allowed to exist in America, assuming you believe in that sort of thing. scope_creep Talk 12:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC) 00, 15 September 2023 (UTC) CIVIL ; if you don't want editors to cast ! votes on articles you work on, check to make sure they meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENTCRIT before you work on them. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 16:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC) 36, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They're has been 470 mass shootings in America this year already. I don' see crime articles as being particularly notable, since each event is so generic in terms of its commonality. The same thing happens everywhere all the time. There is very little that differentiates them and the reporting is exactly the same in almost every instance. Ultimately folk on Wikipedia who create these articles are not interested in the special and unique, instead decide to record the mundane and common. Lastly, I never knew this was an article that Another Believer's wrote. But either way, it is just another generic crime article that is exactly the same as all the others. scope_creep Talk 16:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC) scope creep , don't you look at the page history when evaluating articles for AFD? L iz Read! Talk! 01:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No I never look at article contribution history, there is no value in it. The first thing I look at is the article content, then the references, then do a WP:BEFORE to see if there is anything else that can support the article. To repeat the message above. I've no interest in Wikipedia of becoming a directory of shooting's or crimes, which it seems to be starting to do. It puzzles me why folk seem to latch onto individual instances of criminal events, as dreadful as they are, and think that somehow that because they are heavily reported that somehow make them notable. It doesn't. All crimes are heavily reported, even when they are identical. At best it makes them instances of a single type of a crime event, that crimologists don't even look at over historical time, never mind historians of crime and its effects. At the end ,we will end up with reams, 10000's of crime articles that are almost identical in there nature, while the real articles, academic articles that examine crime and history of crime don't get written. Instead its this low-hanging fruit. Its junk really. scope_creep Talk 06:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC) NEVENT , which no one else seems to read, much less follow. The word, 'and', appears to be of particular difficulty for many editors: have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, is the big one, as echoed in the Background section. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). Attempts to explain any of that ends with (at best) a perfunctory 'agree to disagree' as you can see above. Since policy arguments are seen by most closers as no more persuasive than emotional pleas, we are ending up exactly where you say, with many thousands of articles on shock news. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 12:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Scope creep , I wish I could just copy-and-paste this for my justification whenever I nominate a non-notable crime article for deletion (there are many more that I would've liked to have nominated, but I try not to clog up AfD). Replace a few words and it also applies to accidents, disasters, ""incidents"", etc. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 22:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC) RAPID as rationale, while admitting they were within the remit of NOTNEWS. My thinking was that if in a year's time nothing much had resulted from or been subsequently reported on the incidents, I'd likely go for in a follow up AfD. Brief particulars of this shooting are listed in List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 , though why such comprehensive listings of these shootings are being maintained is itself questionable. We're already up to 23 separate US mass shooting articles for 2023, which looks like a record year in terms of numbers. This one from 2022 being gang related, suggests little or no political impact, so a year later we no longer need a separate article, the brief note in the list covers the main aspects, but on balance it was acceptable to publish an article on this immediately after the incident. Rupples ( talk ) 00:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Ed's well thought out logic and rebuttals. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 13:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per NOTNEWS and SUSTAINED. A burst of coverage at the time, then crickets. Only local coverage afterward on the one-year anniversary. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 23:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This article passes the WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED . The case to appears rooted in WP:IDONTLIKEIT for which prove of WP:SUSTAINED is brushed aside. gidonb ( talk ) 18:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC) SUSTAINED , please? Other than two retrospective articles that are more about the community reactions a year later, I couldn't find anything. If you could add your sources, that could sway the conversation. Also, please remember that events have special guidelines under WP:NEVENT that are equally important. Lastly, all but one ! vote specifies a policy objection, so could you expand on the WP:IDONTLIKEIT point as well, please? Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 19:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC) The sustained coverage has been identified, yet it is brushed aside. If anyone else wants to support my opinion they are also welcome to it! gidonb ( talk ) 17:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with Gidonb, not to mention court proceedings will continue. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC) what WP:SUSTAINED sources are you talking about? They aren't on this page, and they aren't in the article. The only ones here are local mentions of the fact that the event happened with no analysis or integration, nor mention of any WP:LASTING impact... or even lasting interest. In fact, the articles themselves explain why this event cannot pass WP:NEVENT (emphasis added in all): Despite last year’s violence, she wasn’t shocked to learn that it had happened. “ There’s constant shootings. And it’s like, ‘Oh, there was one only two blocks from us. Oh, this is a carjacking.’” and “ family and friends mention it,” he said, “but South Street is still packed every Thursday through Sunday.” and ""It slowed down dramatically because the traffic slowed down, but as of now it's picking up to where it used to be ,"" Maverick said. Sarah Cowell from the South Street Headhouse District told FOX 29 no businesses closed as a direct result of the South Street shooting, and 38 new business have opened since 2022. This is the poster child for a terrible crime that, sadly, is simply not notable. I would also still appreciate some sort of explanation of your WP:IDONTLIKEIT assertion. It seems the only people who are providing policy specific are the deletionists (a group in which it is extremely odd to find myself). Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 13:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with you that the two sources produced to support SUSTAINED don't cut the mustard. Those two sources are local media reports so don't contribute to notability under WP:GEOSCOPE . For the article to be retained I'd want to see coverage outside Philadelphia. However, User:Another Believer may have a point on the court proceedings, which could feasibly be reported more widely. That's why I'm uncertain as to what's the best course of action at present and have refrained from ! voting. Rupples ( talk ) 14:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm sorry to prolong this AFD but I see No Consensus, leaning Delete. It seems to all rest on WP:SUSTAINED here. Is a a possibility? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC) 6 in favour of Keep. Since there is no consensus (to ; this is a discussion) then surely the default is . WWGB ( talk ) 05:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC) NOTNEWS . I think it might be more productive to have a community discussion to more clearly define WP:NCRIME on which cases meet on notability and which do not, looking at List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 for other examples. Also, it might be worth moving articles such as this over to Wikinews instead. - Indefensible ( talk ) 05:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would definitely support either option, a into List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 or movement to Wikinews. The subject and sources meet policy for either (or both). Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 12:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose to list (most of the entries there are a single sentence) or move to Wikinews. I agree with WWGB here. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It doesn't look like an article in Wikinews would get the level of readership and exposure as one here, based on page views. Don't see much point in merging to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 , other than to add the outcome of the court case as the salient facts of the shooting are already mentioned there. A to that article or to South Street, Philadelphia would however be appropriate and is preferable to outright deletion. If the page history is retained, the article could always be 'resurrected' should anything of significance result from the court case. It would maintain the integrity of NOTNEWS/SUSTAINED/GEOSCOPE which in my view this article is not compliant with, notwithstanding it passing GNG on sources. Rupples ( talk ) 14:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does pageviews really matter that much? The main point is the content lives somewhere across Wiki rather than just being d. The main suggestion I gave above was actually to improve WP:NCRIME which is largely useless right now. Once better thresholds are defined, it would become much clearer which articles meet the criteria for inclusion and which do not so that we do not have as many of these split decisions that end in no consensus. For the cases which do not meet, we could simply move the content to Wikinews and then cross-link it on the list page. - Indefensible ( talk ) 16:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to South Street, Philadelphia or . Not convinced by the arguments, none of which have addressed WP:EFFECTS . WP:EVENTCRITERIA asks us to consider whether an event has longstanding or historical impact and the scope of coverage. This has not been demonstrated. Indeed, as User:Last1in has astutely pointed out, the retrospective 1 year anniversary sources lately added to the article imply the opposite. Police presence in the area increased for a few months, then returned to normal. Trade diminished in the aftermath, then recovered. Locals naturally scared to venture out, but confidence has largely returned. In summary, no lasting, significant impact and any temporary impact confined to the immediate neighbourhood, so WP:GEOSCOPE another indicator of notability is not satisfied. That's why I suggest a to South Street, Philadelphia as an AtD — a bit more detail of this incident could be added there, but a full would give disproportionate weight to the incident. Also consider WP:DEPTH , yes, sources report the incident but where's the analysis that gives context to the shooting? Failing support for , on policy grounds, it's . Rupples ( talk ) 03:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per NOTNEWS and SUSTAINED. AryKun ( talk ) 13:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Given the response to my relist, I'm leaving this discussion for another closer to handle. L iz Read! Talk! 04:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Mahmoud Eskandari : Article had significant promo issues, but author requested AFD. Removed promo material. Unable to determine validity of claims. UtherSRG (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Military , and Iran . UtherSRG (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Besides confirmation of him flying, the sources don't prove notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC) GNG . I believe that original creator doesn't understand notability as this is one of a number of their articles that has come to AFD recently. Mztourist ( talk ) 04:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC) 51, 11 July 2023 (UTC) GNG even with the sources in the article. 2 sources add-- Patricia (Talk) 12:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And I've added two more - British sources in English fwiw. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 09:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per new sources added by @ Phil Bridger . Okoslavia ( talk ) 16:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It looks like we may have a case of WP:HEY ; in addition to seeking further editors' input, editors who have argued for deletion are invited to reaffirm or revise their ! votes in response to the new sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I'm going to say on the basis that there appear to be Persian references that support the idea that he is/was a prominent Iranian aviator and that this would be enough to show inclusion if he had a different nationality. That said, some more tidying is necessary to ensure a neutral tone. JMWt ( talk ) 09:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: What Rosguill said. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:V also. Àvî Râm7 (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC) see the Persian (Farsi) article for more potential refs: fa:محمود اسکندری . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC) 58, 28 July 2023 (UTC) :added two refs: in english:no: 3:here and no. 4 here -- Patricia (Talk) 11:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
+"Ri Un-il: Simione001 ( talk ) 00:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 00:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 00:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 00:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – no coverage available. Idiosincrático ( talk ) 17:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Measuring principle: WP:BEFORE search was unsurprisingly all over the place with things that seem unrelated to whatever this is. Gnomingstuff ( talk ) 22:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Mathematics . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unsourced, incomprehensible article created in 2008. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 10:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wow, that's a mess. It's beyond salvaging; there's no coherent topic here. XOR'easter ( talk ) 12:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - The principles of RADAR, SONAR and similar systems are included in their respective articles. This is not only unsourced, but entirely superfluous. -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 16:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dynamic Diagrams: Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully it can now be resolved. Boleyn ( talk ) 17:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Rhode Island . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 18:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC) SELFPUB website. I can't find anything online, maybe it's due to the generic name, but I doubt it meets WP:GNG . TLA (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Niki Heat: Sourced to promotional content and/or press releases. KH-1 ( talk ) 12:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . KH-1 ( talk ) 12:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Cameroon-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm newer on this wikipedia. I try to modify as english wikipedia recommandations. The aim of wikipedia is not to but to add knowledge and to ameliorate if there are mistakes. I hope that you (admins) could help in this. -- Bile rene ( talk ) 04:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So it's beauty salon, a studio that records Christian music and a broadcaster? Um, that's a strange combination. I'm not seeing GNG and the article appears PROMO. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fails GNG and NCORP. Promo sources, but nothing else. If this is a due to found sources, it needs drafting, I was not able to identify what the subject actually is until I looked at the sources. // Timothy :: talk 15:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC) NCORP and WP:GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 00:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bea Proo: No sources found to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL . Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas , closed as procedural due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 04:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Politicians , Women , and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A worthy citizen but no evidence of notability apparent. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 07:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC) . Fails GNG The source (the only one) doesn't elaborate and fails SIGCOV. The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 15:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 01:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC) ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN . Shaws username ( talk ) 16:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Seeds of Hope Publishers: The only references not published by the organization itself is a trivial mention in the NYT and a profile of the editor, Katie Cook, in bpfna.org, who was (at the time) an editor of bpfna.org as well. While there is a list of articles under the ""Further Reading"" section, one of the articles was written by a student newspaper, one from Baptists Today, and the others all seem to be limited to the Waco Tribune-Herald. They are mostly from the 1990s- and I have been able to find no significant coverage since. This is the second deletion debate this article will go through- but editors should note that the only two """" votes came from new accounts that did not edit anything but their own user page and the deletion discussion. While that has no bearing on the organization's notability, new Wikipedia editors will want to read the policies on canvassing and recruiting people off-Wiki before they contribute. (Unless you want to provide more sources- please, if you have them, I would like them very much) GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk ) 05:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Christianity , and Texas . GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk ) 05:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Full of primary sources and only 2 gnews hits which is surprising for an American organization. Fails GNG. LibStar ( talk ) 08:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, C avarrone 08:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . No evidence of notability. A mixture of references, including sourced published by Seeds of Hope Publishers, at least on not mentioning the company at all, ones which are only just mention it, and so on... JBW ( talk ) 20:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Quiz Show Q: Tagged for notability since 2013. Donald D23 talk to me 12:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Games , and South Korea . Donald D23 talk to me 12:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC) Fails WP:GNG and could not find much significant coverage searching Google and Naver searching in both English and Korean. Furthermore, it is sourced only by Allkpop which is considered unreliable per WP:KO/RS#UR Lightoil ( talk ) 11:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Andorra women's national ice hockey team: I had moved this to draft, but user moved it straight back. No evidence of any notability for this national team of a very minor sport in a very small country. Fram ( talk ) 16:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Sports , Ice hockey , and Andorra . Fram ( talk ) 16:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC) This isn't a hoax, as was my initial impression; Andorra is an IIHF member, and has a record of a women's team from the country playing in a single international competition back this fall. But this falls far, far, far short of notability by any standard, and reliable sources discussing the team in detail don't exist. I'd be able to find considerably more sources for any given women's high school hockey team in my area. Ravenswing 20:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] just because it is a ""national-level team"" doesn't automatically make it notable. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 21:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - little bit amazed that there isn't enough coverage of a national team, but I can't find any. Fails WP:GNG . Onel 5969 TT me 18:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Found what looks like a short piece discussing it here . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lance A. Slatton: As always, Wikipedia is not a free LinkedIn alternative on which people are entitled to have articles just because they exist -- meeting our inclusion test requires passing WP:GNG on third party reliable source coverage about their work in order to establish its significance. But the main notability claim here is that he exists, eight of the nine footnotes are primary sources (staff or contributor profiles on the self-published websites of companies or organizations he's directly affiliated with, directory entries, press releases, etc.) that are not support for notability, and the one footnote that does come from a third party source is a fluff piece in a minor local-interest magazine that reads more like an advertorial than a real piece of objective journalism, and thus is not sufficient to singlehandedly vault him over GNG all by itself if all the rest of the sourcing is garbage. Nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Michigan . Bearcat ( talk ) 14:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC) Nothing found for this person. Gnews has an article about an Elvis impersonator, a man that attacked people with a sword and stuff about crop production levels. None of which help here. What's used for sourcing in the article is primary or promotional. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] fails NBIO, found little to no third party coverage. - KH-1 ( talk ) 00:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per those above. The article on his podcast All Home Care Matters should probably also be d given it is referenced by press releases and non-independent sources. Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 13:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Astha Agarwal: Does not satisfy GNG or NACTOR, and the closest to a significant role is for the show Kya Haal, Mr. Paanchal? where it is of one of the five wives of the titular character. She is also a beauty pageant winner. But while we have two articles on the Mrs. India pageant ( Persona , Haut Monde ), the one that she won in 2014 - Gladrags Mrs. India had its article d in 2015 with no assertion of notability . The actress article was created and majorly edited by an SPA who may have a COI, or may be AUTOBIO. I did ask at the user's talk page but got no response. The image at the article was uploaded and linked by a sock (see investigation ) whose first edit was also to the actress page. I would recommend deletion. Jay 💬 16:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , Television , Beauty pageants , and India . Jay 💬 16:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC) After the article was d at the first AfD two years back, an editor in what was his only edit, highlighted the deletion at the Teahouse, where it turned out that the AfD nom and the supporter had been blocked as socks. This led to a DRV , where, while there was some support for deletion, the AfD close was vacated and article restored because of sock reasons, for it to be renominated, however it was not renominated. Jay 💬 16:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC) This is certainly an interesting story for an article. Based on the lack of GNG sources and failure to meet the thresholds of NACTOR, I think it's a fair (lack-of-)notability . Actualcpscm ( talk ) 17:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Insecurity Insight: Preliminary BEFORE does not reveal obvious passing of the GNG or NONPROFIT. No concern to withdraw if adequate reliable sourcing can be demonstrated. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 10:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics , and Switzerland . Goldsztajn ( talk ) 10:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Benoît Allauzen: Theroadislong ( talk ) 09:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions . Theroadislong ( talk ) 09:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hong Kong and France . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 10:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . prominent French sommelier - it's borderline WP:G11 . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 10:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is all there is [9] . Pure PROMO, non-notable and no sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ariel King: Little other independent information can be found. The recent removal of the ""Controversies"" section per a discussion at WP:BLPN , removed what little independent sourcing existed. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 21:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Health and fitness . WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 21:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not notable. #prodraxis connect 21:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was unable to find significant coverage of her in any reliable sources that are independent of her. Cullen328 ( talk ) 21:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can't find any significant coverage in independent sourcing either. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 23:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete' per others. Daniel Case ( talk ) 01:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There does not seem to be any significant coverage about this person. Flutter Dash 344 ( talk ) 02:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per others. When researching the discussion about the ""Scrutiny"" section of the page, it became clear there just isn't that much out there. -- AntiDionysius ( talk ) 11:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not notable, can't find any independent coverage about King, articles just link to work that King publishes herself The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Melissa Delgadillo: Despite the wrath of sources, there is a lack of WP:SIGCOV here. Article was originally created by an SPI who only ever edited the article for this subject. Let'srun ( talk ) 00:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Beauty pageants , and Texas . Let'srun ( talk ) 00:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] meets notability requirements for beauty pageant contestants. McFilet O' Fish Fan ( talk ) 01:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What are these ""notability requirements for beauty pageant contenstants"", and where are they recorded? Actualcpscm ( talk ) 09:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC) Wikifamous has not been subject to an SPI investigation; what do you mean by this? Actualcpscm ( talk ) 10:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies. Thought I saw they had. Will strike that. Let'srun ( talk ) 10:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Won multiple pageants pre-internet era and more coverage exists. KatoKungLee ( talk ) 14:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 2007-2011 is pre-internet era? And where is this coverage? Let'srun ( talk ) 14:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 01:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No coverage other than the Miss International win, nothing notable career-wise found. No hits in Gnews, Gsearch goes straight to social media for various individuals, likely not all for this person. Not meeting GNG. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: If there is more coverage that is not apparent in the article, please provide it in this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC) 42, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Parisam vaippu: These issues have been present since its creation in 2014. As such, I think that the page Parisam vaippu should be d. TypistMonkey ( talk ) 02:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism , Kerala , and Tamil Nadu . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously d by WP:PROD , ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] unless anyone is able to show sources in other languages suggesting notability. Mccapra ( talk ) 13:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Thamizh Thiyagarajan: Sources reveal nothing about the individual. The creation seems to be a part of a series of additions by the User: Sajantext to promote a single, low-key movie. Neutral Fan ( talk ) 15:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Already he did world short film donna. and he did upcoming Tamil films. or want to add more categories or links?? Little known Tamil film producer who has worked on one low-key film: Ans : yes. everything is film right. already he did world short film and worked in tamil film industry. reference: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm7133853/ Sources reveal nothing about the individual: Ans: read the Tamil Hindu thisai article about this person. Reference: ( https://www.hindutamil.in/news/supplements/hindu-talkies/1144723-the-woman-who-set-out-to-rescue-murugan.html ) @ Neutral Fan : The creation seems to be a part of a series of additions by the User: Sajantext to promote a single, low-key movie. Ans: this is not a promotional movie. movie already completed and waiting for the release. Then you should mentioned every upcoming movies like promoting right. this is not enough reason Sajantext ( talk ) 16:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC) https://www.ndtv.com/entertainment/cannes-2015-nomination-boost-for-indie-filmmakers-says-donna-director-762153 every reference is here. then why we need to this person. other wise you should help me out to improve this page. @ Monhiroe . Sajantext ( talk ) 16:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's really quite hard to understand what you mean at any point. It's not clear at all. This unknown person has made three low-key, unknown short films and has a token 'special thanks' credit in a low-budget film. There's really little defence about his supposed notability - clear, quick . Neutral Fan ( talk ) 16:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] bro we need reliable source right. everything was there bro. low key or big short everyone in public figure. enough sources already there then why we need to . Sajantext ( talk ) 16:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC) not a notable person and Too ealy to have page Monhiroe ( talk ) 16:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC) Wife appears more notable than he does, based on her article in the newspaper. This person just isn't recognized in any RS to warrant an article here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Futurism (Judaism): The article consists of two unsourced statements which partially define the topic , and two lists which aren't related to the topic . Dan Bloch ( talk ) 04:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - found some references from both Sefaria and My Jewish Learning to establish notability as reliable references. Futurism (Judaism) is a bust but Jewish Futurism has some hits. Might want to change the title of article. Kazamzam ( talk ) 12:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you provide any of these references, or the search that found them? The vashtimedia.com citation you added is specifically about futuristic Jewish literature, which is not what the bulk of the article is about. Dan Bloch ( talk ) 13:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC) Can't find anything other than passing mentions for Jewish Futurism. Shapeyness ( talk ) 14:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV -- Shrike ( talk ) 14:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since I cannot find references to support this article I have to assume it is a neologism, It should be d. Lightburst ( talk ) 23:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Alicia Victoria: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , Dominican Republic , and Florida . JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC) BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. BEFORE showed stats, promo, game news, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 23:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Deidre Enos: Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 16:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Massachusetts . Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 16:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Yoon Joon-soo: Few games on record. toobigtokale ( talk ) 01:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and South Korea . toobigtokale ( talk ) 01:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC) GNG . Just few matches in 2007–2009, poorly sourced, and no related article on ko.wiki. Svartner ( talk ) 21:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"News Bites: No notable hits in GBooks, GNews Archives, and GNews. Be prepared for a lot of false positives in your search due to how common ""News Bites"" is as a phrase. Weak to List of programs broadcast by Studio 23 as plausible target per WP:ATD . Weak as there are a lot of similarly named programs/media entities found during my Google Search. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Television , and Philippines . Lenticel ( talk ) 00:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 45, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Agafonika: Random name that fails WP:NNAME and WP:NOTDICT . No sources found outside of dictionary definitions, databases and baby name websites. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 03:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Russia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD's so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Agafonika is also a river and a titular diocese, as well as a first name for a well-known actress. See these Russian articles: Agafonika Vasilyevna Miropolskaya (1909-1996) - Russian and Soviet theater actress, People's Artist of the RSFSR (1967). titular diocese of Agafonika [[:ru: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0 Agafonikha (tributary of the Chema) Russian Wikisource: https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%91%D0%AD/%D0%92%D0%A2/%D0%90%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0 (a listing in the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia) Here's a search on Russian Wikinews: https://ru-wikinews-org.translate.goog/w/index.php? fulltext=1&search=%D0%90%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%BE%CC%81%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0&title=%D0%A1%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F:%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA&ns0=1&_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp If you suspect that an article with a Russian name is not notable, you need to look at Russian-language sources, starting with the Russian Wikipedia. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, the article already has two Russian-language book references. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 03:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are still no English language articles as of present. If someone can prove notability of said subjects and say they will create the articles in the near future then I may be content. I know deleting just to potentially un and such may increase bureaucracy but if there’s no guarantee that the articles will be written anytime soon then I’d rather not have the page floating around. And the books you speak of are dictionaries, which generally do not show notability alone. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 16:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC) 38, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I know. My point is that there are no English language articles as of present. The subjects listed by Eastmain may be notable but they have no articles right now. I still don’t think that the Russian sources for the name itself are enough for notability purposes. Even if the articles listed by Eastmain get created, it should probably be converted to a DAB, seeing as we need at least two people to meet WP:NNAME . AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 07:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 06:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Bottom line, we need more than two opinions here or this will close as No consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC) 45, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Clearfly Communications: The sources are not infact WP:RS , ref 3 links to its testimonial page. The sources I actually found are from search of ""Greenfly Networks Inc"" but again are just regular seed funding news. Jamiebuba ( talk ) 20:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America . Jamiebuba ( talk ) 20:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] it does not demonstrate sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources. The company's page is largely based on self-published sources, such as the company's own page. Additionally, the page does not show how the company has significantly impacted its industry. -- BoraVoro ( talk ) 09:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kishon Philip: I found Soccer Kakis and Sports 247 but both of these are just trivial mentions of him. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Singapore . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Snap table: I failed to find any mention of a generic use of the term in roofing. The particular tool does not seem to be notable, I have failed to locate any independent sources. Викидим ( talk ) 01:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions . Викидим ( talk ) 01:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] nothing significant there for the article to stay at main space and article is entirely unsourced . — Preceding unsigned comment added by O chawal ( talk • contribs ) 21:26, November 11, 2023 (UTC) Weak Less Resources — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAJaganaddamRJY ( talk • contribs ) 06:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The only non-commercial reference to the term I was able to find is a Merriam-Webster dictionary definition , which has nothing to do with the roofing tool. Owen× ☎ 14:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Pandolfini Italian Culinary Academy: SL93 ( talk ) 22:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Schools , and Italy . SL93 ( talk ) 23:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Doesn't meet WP:NCORP . It's actually a WP:A7 candidate - any importance of the palace is a case of WP:NOTINHERITED , and there's no claim to notability as a (private culinary) school, noting the application of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES to schools of significant size but not sizable significance. ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 06:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as per above comment, this should have been a case of CSD A7. The article does not make any claims of significance about the school. I could not find any (passing or in-depth) coverage in reliable sources to fulfill WP:GNG . Broc ( talk ) 09:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . No evidence of notability under any standard. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 18:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"James Mason (wrestler): The article is entirely cited to a wrestling stats website. I can't find any coverage online, apart from an occasional mention in relation to an event. Wikipedia isn't the place for fan pages, time for this article to go IMO. Sionk ( talk ) 12:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions . Sionk ( talk ) 12:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I will do a research, maybe I can find something. The issue is that British wrestling has been very popular in the last years, so many wrestlers get articles. Sad part, reliable sources doesn't cover them, so probably, many of them will have their articles d. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 08:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's certainly an unhelpful and misplaced level of enthusiasm to write articles on Wikipedia, but that's not matched by any strong evidence of being popular, outside of niche websites. Sionk ( talk ) 11:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 01:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC) PW, not reliable . A Google search turns up various social media hits and non-independant sources. If the references were removed, then there would be none left. Thereby the article doesn't even pass even GNG . ArcAngel (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC) Only hits on people with similar names, nothing found for this wrestler. Sourcing used in the article is mostly red, orange or not identified per sourcebot, so not helpful. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ranveer Singh Saini: Created by a user currently indeffed for sockpuppetry. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 19:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Callmemirela 🍁 talk 19:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Golf , and India . Shellwood ( talk ) 20:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Non notable individual. No sourcing in RS, sock creation as well, red flags. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The author wasn't just socking, they were in fact the sock of a long-since blocked account. This is UPE spam. Girth Summit (blether) 16:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sri Chakram: Entire articles relies on one production source quoted from the lead actress. One unreliable review (broken link). No reliable reviews/other sources. DareshMohan ( talk ) 05:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dhok Gujran: It is also all unreferenced and unencyclopaedic, so would need to be nuked either way. Boleyn ( talk ) 21:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC) WP:TNT, if the subject meets GNG/GEOLAND at some point an article can be written, there is nothing salvageable here. // Timothy :: talk 15:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Richard Moser: I couldn't find significant independent coverage of him, so I believe he does not warrant his own article per the General notability guideline . HenryMP02 ( talk ) 21:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There does not seem to be any references in the article. It also fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV . Flutter Dash 344 ( talk ) 21:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Television , and Austria . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Checking the main Inspector Rex article, it seems at a glance that all relevant info is already covered there, and I can't find much of anything else. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 22:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of proprietary software for Linux: Sources are low quality primary sources. Seems to be a collection of miscellaneous facts, which falls under WP:NOT . PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 15:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 21 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 15:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Lists . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The category is too expansive, even if limited to notable programs for which we have articles, to form a reasonable list. According to PetScan , there are 80 unique articles within Category:Proprietary software for Linux and its subcategories, most of which are not exclusive to Linux. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 20:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC) NOTIINFO . Unwieldy list of practically every third party software for a particular operating system. Ajf773 ( talk ) 21:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC) NOTDIRECTORY . The vast majority of entries either have no article, or are cross-platform software. (As an aside, Minecraft is amusingly in the 'Visual novels' section.) SWinxy ( talk ) 18:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak I disagree with the assertion that it's a collection of ""miscellaneous facts"" or unnecessarily long, any more so than any other tech list. List of Intel Celeron processors , for example. The number of columns for the parts that have been organized are comparatively concise. That said, from a maintainability standpoint, it's hard to argue that the information couldn't be conveyed better in other ways/places, such as List of Linux games , or that it isn't overly prone to mistakes, due to many editors not knowing what ""proprietary"" means. inclusivedisjunction ( talk ) 21:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC) Inclusivedisjunction above: There are other lists, such as the List of Linux games , and lists of various microprocessors, and they survive fine. The presence of the article helps to inform people who would want to migrate to Linux, away from proprietary operating systems, but who would need a specific proprietary program to run their business. The article Firefox version history survived its second deletion proposal for some of the similar reasons, and that is to inform people from a reliable repository of information, which Wikipedia is. - Mardus / talk 02:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It doesn't seem there was even a deletion debate on List of Linux games and the Firefox version history was not really a true outcome but a no-consensus (which defaults to ), so I don't think that is a particular good argument. The current article uses even worse reference quality. I agree with @ Ajf773 that this list is unwieldy. There is also no List of Microsoft Windows software because that would result in a far too big list, the same applies to Linux these days since so much software is cross-platform. PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 09:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At the time the article was created, Linux was a very niche operating system, and remains so to this day on the desktop. Android was never a consideration. The common complaint has been, that 'there's no software for it' to justify migration from Windows to Linux. Some of the proprietary titles listed might also be Linux-only, and not available for Windows. - Mardus / talk 20:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is not for convincing or helping people to switch to Linux. Android is a Linux distribution too (but not GNU/Linux). PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 09:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I don't yet want to vote for because I haven't checked this thoroughly but likely there are a) too many potential entries b) the list is missing a lot of notable entries c) it's not a list that's useful (or similar) to readers. Concerning c) and Mardus' point about people who want to migrate to Linux: they aren't looking for proprietary software that runs on Linux in specific but various specific applications or application purposes that run on Linux. For example, if Photoshop doesn't work on Linux distros, an alternative would be GIMP. But if Photoshop were to run on Linux it would be listed here instead of in a List of graphics editor software for Linux with a subsection (or sortable column) for #Proprietary software. I suggest people work on actually meaningful and useful lists that are fairly complete and/or only have relatively few potential notable items. All in all I tend towards . Prototyperspective ( talk ) 09:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC) ) PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 09:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong per Marcus. When I removed the PROD tag this week, I pointed out that this article had 802 edits by 348 editors. It’s been added to and maintained since 2006. That’s a lot of interest and effort by a lot of people. This AfD is ill-advised. Note: I encourage notifying some of those editors of this AfD - that’s a common practice that I don’t think has been done yet. — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 12:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact that people are merely interested in it and/or the article is old are not good rationales for ing information on Wikipedia, it has to be in the scope for the Wikipedia project and adhere to our other policies and guidelines. PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 13:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC) POPULARPAGE is not a suitable argument for retaining an article. Ajf773 ( talk ) 19:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it could make a valid point for the topic being notable, that guidelines (not policy) even admits article popularity is likely to correspond with some form of notability which should then be straightforward to verify . However, it only got 627 pageviews in the last 30 days which is not a lot (actually that's very little albeit the imo notable topic of pandemic prevention – a topic one may be interested in in the near-term if continuation of present civilization is of value – doesn't get much more either). Having ""802 edits by 348 editors"" just shows that the page requires a lot of work to maintain and expand (probably still missing even a lot of basic info) which should rather work on more useful lists like "" List of gaming software for Linux "" or similar and so on. Prototyperspective ( talk ) 20:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"From Six to Ten: Nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2016 Donald D23 talk to me 20:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Greece . Donald D23 talk to me 20:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per nomination. TH1980 ( talk ) 02:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . No sources cited in article. Only media coverage found were passing mentions in articles about the individual hosts. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 07:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Steven R. Carter: His publications have not held a significant influence over his field, much less in general. Not too different from the regular university professor. GuardianH ( talk ) 16:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Concur with original opinion. Aside from a singular (rather minor) award, there does not seem to be anything conferring notability to the point of having a biographical page. A MINOTAUR ( talk ) 16:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United States of America . Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . No indication that WP:NPROF is met. The American Book Award is unsourced (and the website of the host doesn't seem to list recipients of previous years), but even with that, notability isn't established. No sources to fulfill WP:BASIC either. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 16:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"1893 Western Maryland Green Terror football team: All I can find is some brief coverage, with nothing substantial present (although of note, one article I found covering the Baltimore City game says that Western Maryland lost, which directly contradicts the media guide, and also says they played a set of games on the weekend of November 4th, which is not noted in the media guide [ [63] ]. Bottom line, there isn't enough to justify ing this. Let'srun ( talk ) 00:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , American football , and Maryland . Let'srun ( talk ) 00:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Closest sign of notability I could find is to the 1891 season, their first. [64] Such early history could easily fit into the modestly-sized McDaniel Green Terror football . Also note the same arguments will apply to the article for the 1892 team . AfD page [65] Wizmut ( talk ) 18:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nick Crofts: There is some coverage of his resignation as a councillor but nothing independent about his political or professional career. Reads like a CV. Orange sticker ( talk ) 17:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom . Orange sticker ( talk ) 17:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak I tend to agree with the nominator. The news about resigning from councilor and the profile from the LGBT award provide some coverage, but I don't think it's sufficient to fulfill WP:GNG . Broc ( talk ) 20:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Francis Foster (comedian): Sources are opinion, unreliable or otherwise general fluff. See also related issue at fringe theories noticeboard . A source assessment table will follow shortly after the creation of this page. Fermiboson ( talk ) 11:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC) prepared by User:Fermiboson Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? [33] Site appears to be catalogue of people; information likely provided by the subject himself. ? N/A N/A ✘ No [34] WP:OPINION WP:SPECTATOR N/A ✘ No [35] Self-published podcast and interview WP:UGC , WP:INTERVIEW ✘ No [36] ? No apparent affiliation of publisher with subject. WP:INTERVIEW ? Podcast is no longer available. ✘ No [37] ? No apparent affiliation of reviewer with subject. ~ Reviews would normally be uncurated content and unreliable, but per WP:NARTIST 4(c) it could be significant. ~ One paragraph at the end. Normally would be a no, but since the rest of the sources are so bad some leeway is fine. ? Unknown [38] Site is a catalogue of events; information provided by subject. One would be reasonably confident that the person at least is a comedian from the page. ✘ No [39] WP:IMDB ✘ No [40] WP:UGC , WP:INTERVIEW ✘ No [41] WP:DAILYEXPRESS ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Sources in the article excluded from this article are nearly identical in nature to those listed in the table. Fermiboson ( talk ) 11:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support, I can't find sufficient evidence of notability. Crunchydillpickle🥒 ( talk ) 18:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Entertainment , Internet , and United Kingdom . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The occasional fluff listicle is not enough to base a biography upon. XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Abubakar Suleymanov: Nswix ( talk ) 22:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC) NBOX and WP:GNG . Lethweimaster ( talk ) 14:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC) NBOX as others have said. Grumpylawnchair ( talk ) 03:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Page as whole looks bad, doesn't pass general notability either. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 13:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC) NBOX and coverage seems to fail WP:GNG . No evidence of any major boxing accomplishments. The claim of a 3rd at the world championships appears to be false. The 2008 world championships the article claims he competed in was a youth tournament and no Russian is listed at winning a medal in the division claimed. Papaursa ( talk ) 15:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC) NBOX and WP:GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 17:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"The Fund of Aid for Youth: There is no sourcing in the article that is independent of the Azerbaijan government. The page appears intended to promote the Azerbaijan government. Thenightaway ( talk ) 13:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Azerbaijan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"SmartCam: Was PROD'ed before, but some random IP just d PROD without providing any reason. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , agree with the PROD from 15 years ago that this was unremarkable software, and the passage of time only reaffirms that view that this is entirely non notable. Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 18:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as non-notable. Orphaned apart from disamb. No good place to . Suitskvarts ( talk ) 10:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bouriema Kimba: Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 05:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics , and Africa . Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 05:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC) He ran on par with a quite good 17-18 year old boy. But was not a world class runner, and was only inserted into various competition because Niger had to send someone. This means a lack of sporting achievements, which translated into a lack of coverage. Geschichte ( talk ) 20:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Nothing found in Gnews, not much more turns up in Gsearch. I don't see notability based on the limited amount of sourcing given. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC) NTRACK (national record holder, presumed national champion based on selection to Olympics / World Indoors) and WP:SPORTCRIT including one piece of SIGCOV being his death announcement [34] . -- Habst ( talk ) 15:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Neither national record holder or national champion is a free pass. @ Habst It's almost disconcerting that you would call three sentences in a literal Blogspot post ""significant coverage"". Geschichte ( talk ) 18:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Geschichte , thank you for your vote and I greatly respect your work here even when I disagree. Blogspot is a content-neutral platform like e.g. Cloudflare , saying something is on blogspot or hosted on Cloudflare doesn't tell us anything one way or the other about its suitability. Despite the name, many publications on Blogspot aren't even ""blogs"" in the traditional sense, there are legitimate news organizations publishing on Blogger just as there illegitimate ones. In this case, based on the French name I assume this is a publication about athletics in Niger similar to the independent Track & Field News (in the U.S.) or Athletics Weekly (in the U.K.). Happy to discuss the sources further if additional evidence is provided. --18:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Habst ( talk ) 18:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC) RS when it is under active discussion. The need for ""evidence"" is contrary to what you think, i.e. the evidence has to underpin the reliability. Reliable media have to have a named editorial board for starters. Blogspot is more likely a means of self-publishing than not. It's not necessarily about self-publishing being illegitimate, and it can even be true, but still not reliable in Wikipedia's sense. Furthermore, you forgot to address the point about the source being three sentences long, so even if the source was a WP:RS, it is far from significant coverage. Geschichte ( talk ) 10:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the GNG. Blogspot is not a reliable source, and I don't see anything better. Let'srun ( talk ) 04:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Clearly fails GNG. Blog posts like the above violate BLP so should be removed. JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JoelleJay , thank you for your response. If you think that the source I linked is a blog post, then you are free to remove it from the article – I have no desire to violate BLP. The name of the publication is French : Nouvelles de l’Athlétisme Nigérien (Nigerien Athletics News), and just because it is published on blogspot.com does not mean it is a blog or that it is self-published. I think that as a two-time Olympian from Niger in the marquee sport at the Olympics, and their only sprinter at the 1996 edition , it is reasonable to assume that significant coverage exists of Kimba, especially as we know that he had a long career beyond his sporting accomplishments including being the Nigerien national sprint coach. We haven't even touched the surface of Nigerien newspapers to confirm this. Because we can know this coverage exists, I think the article of Kimba fulfills WP:BASIC and should be kept, but I am curious as to your thoughts about this case specifically. Thank you, -- Habst ( talk ) 23:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Blogger should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons . I won't remove it since this isn't a recent BLP, but it should be clear that it is not RS. And even if it was, the death notice is barely 3 sentences, in first-person, and thus fails both SIGCOV and PRIMARY/INDY. We do not ""know"" SIGCOV exists, that is a baseless claim. JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC) BLP does not apply as more than two years have passed since his death. I found an additional two sources from just a cursory search that tell us some more info about Kimba, and I added them to the article. We do not ""know"" SIGCOV exists, that is a baseless claim – We do know that SIGCOV exists for Kimba, here are the bases for this claim: We know that Kimba was a national champion at least two times, and was one of the most successful sprinters in Nigerien history including holding the Nigerien national record. We know that Kimba twice competed at the Olympic Games and was once the only sprinter representing Niger, in the marquee event of the marquee sport of one of the most notable sporting competitions in the world. We know that there are several daily newspapers in Niger, some of which are listed at Mass media in Niger . Looking at the list on that page, it seems like not even one of them was searched in this deletion discussion so far, so I will begin combing through them. We know that Kimba led an extremely active post-Olympic career, including becoming the national sprint coach of Niger and being the president of the Association Nigerienne des Olympiens . This is unusual even among Olympians – most of them only have limited involvement with the sport after retirement. We know that Kimba was still recognized years after his death, to the point where he received a posthumous trophy from the L'Association des Anciens Athlètes du Niger in 2014. We know that Kimba died in 2013, and that his exact date and manner (road accident) of death are known. The tradition of newspapers is to publish such information in obituaries for notable people; it is all but certain that such information would have been covered in one of the above media sources. Based on those points, we know that significant coverage exists – it's simply a matter of finding it now, and WP:BASIC allows us to the article with that knowledge in hand. -- Habst ( talk ) 00:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Source two on the German wiki might be worth looking into. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Eh, what the heck. We know this guy was one of the greatest athletes in his nation's history, and we know this guy then became one of the most prominent coaches in his country's history. Niger may be one of the worst countries (the worst?) when it comes to difficulty in finding sources; as most of even today's sources there are offline. But we do know that there are ~15 newspapers currently operating in Niger (probably some that don't anymore from his time period, as well) and that we have access to absolutely zero – repeat – absolutely zero – coverage from the time he had his most notable accomplishments. It is simply incomprehensible to assume that his accomplishments would not have been covered in his country – as he was one of their only Olympians and set national records in their most prominent sport in some of the most prominent events. Olympedia gives a biography of about ~55 words, which although short, is of note as it is extraordinarily rare for them to do it for non-developed countries and even moreso in more recent (1990s) times; he looks to be possibly the only one they do that for in Niger, indicating that he was quite prominent in his nation's affairs. Common sense indicates that this guy is notable. WP:IAR . I don't think deleting this makes Wikipedia better. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Very weak per BeanieFan11. ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 18:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Softgarden: G11 nomination got declined for some IMO obscure reasons. I also tagged this article for speedy deletion on dewiki and frwiki; there the cross-wiki spam was d in a matter of minutes, see de:Softgarden and fr:Softgarden . Icodense ( talk ) 18:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Software , and Germany . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC) Fails GNG, coverage completely trivial/routine. Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 18:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC) Is notifying the author really ""obscure reasons"" if it's in the introduction of policy here [1] and in the lead at the French Wikipedia [2] ? It's also mentioned at the German Wikipedia . [3] Sdrqaz ( talk ) 22:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a recommendation, not an obligation, so I don't see why this should be a valid reason to decline an otherwise justified speedy deletion request. In dewiki, it's definitely not even usual and I've also never encountered problems in enwiki until today without doing this. But yeah, seems to be really important here to some people to disrupt fighting cross-wiki spam, notifying about spam is more important than fighting spam in enwiki, I got the point. -- Icodense ( talk ) 23:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not the point. If there's a ""strong consensus"" for it, then notifying is the default, not the exception. We shouldn't be circumventing consensus without good reasons, and inconvenience is not one of them. Sdrqaz ( talk ) 11:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do believe the decline reason given is.. . less than ideal. Most likely, there would have been less drama if it were declined for not being sufficiently blatant to be a G11 by enwiki standards, which is also the case. Procedural notes aside, this is clearly not suitable, so . Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 09:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I hesitate to comment because of my interaction with the nominator, but I believe there's some confusion about my decline of the G11, and part of that confusion is my fault. I did not decline the G11 because the tagger failed to notify the creator. I declined it because I didn't think - and still don't - that it met the criterion. As Alpha3031 says, it was ""not...sufficiently blatant to be a G11"". At the same time, I informed the nominator that they were required to notify the creator. Putting aside the policy argument about whether that notification is in fact required, I think the nominator - and probably others - interpreted my comments on the nominator's Talk page to mean that it was a procedural decline and could be remedied by retagging it, which the nominator did, and notifying the creator, which the nominator also did. I have in the past done procedural declines of tags, but I say that in my edit summary, which I did not do here. At the point that I saw the retag, I didn't realize how my comments could have been interpreted, and I thought the nominator was retagging after a straight decline, which is prohibited by policy (and by common sense), so I reverted without comment and posted again to the nominator's Talk page, meeting the same willful resistance as before. Sorry for the long-winded explanation. Y'all can go back to your voting. -- Bbb23 ( talk ) 11:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Sources seem to only consist of routine coverage, failing WP:NCORP . ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 13:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ ""There is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and media files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination"". ^ "" Lors d'une demande de suppression immédiate, le proposant doit expliquer au titre de quel(s) critère(s) il demande la suppression, en n'hésitant pas à informer de sa demande le créateur de la page et ses principaux contributeurs. "" ≈ ""When requesting immediate deletion, the applicant must explain under what criteria they are requesting deletion, not hesitating to inform the creator of the page and its main contributors of their request."" ^ "" Da diese oftmals die Regeln und Vorgaben der Wikipedia noch nicht kennen, ist es sinnvoll, sie auf ihrer Benutzerdiskussionsseite freundlich über die beabsichtigte Löschung zu informieren – außer bei offensichtlichem Unfug – und eine kurze Begründung zu geben. "" ≈ ""Since they often do not yet know the rules and regulations of Wikipedia, it makes sense to inform them in a friendly manner on their user discussion page about the intended deletion – except in the case of obvious nonsense – and to give a brief explanation."" The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nico Rizzelli: The most I found were transactional announcements ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league , Italy , and England . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - professional rugby league footballer who played in the Super League. 6 sources. Fleets ( talk ) 20:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] He barely played, and several of the sources are statistical in nature, and some are not about him but about matches. I advise you to read WP:SPORTCRIT . Geschichte ( talk ) 20:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - One top tier appearances three years ago, no sign of taking career any further. Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC) SPORTBASIC . Making one professional appearance is no longer enough to satisfy NSPORT. J Mo 101 ( talk ) 17:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . No sourcing to demonstrate the subject meets GNG. JoelleJay ( talk ) 01:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kafuko Stanley: While he does have some media coverage because of being one of many politicians arrested, the sources like Independent , only address him once in passing, so would be trivial coverage rather than significant. The article is also an autobiography so we need to be wary of a conflict of interest. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Law , and Uganda . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC) the prominence of this person's political arrest brings them to notability to the GNG threshold IMO. These facts can be established through reliable sources. That GNG threshold is met even without the need for reliance on the SIGCOV presumption. You are correct that his role of social media administrator and digital content manager is not sufficient to meet WP:NPOL ; but that clearly isn't the reason this article was created in the first place. His notability arises through his nature as a political figure & the circumstances of his arrest; and the fact that his arrest has been covered by numerous sources. One alternative proposal would be to this article with a separate article covering the arrests of all of the members in this incident. As it stands though, that article doesn't exist and so we should for now. Jack4576 ( talk ) 11:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC) GNG the coverage is not good enough Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention - every article that mentions Kafuko Stanley mentions him only trivially. In fact, mentioning him just once is a textbook example of trivial coverage. Also per WP:CRIME , A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article and furthermore also per CRIME Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. Lastly we have WP:AUTOBIO which strongly discourages autobiographies. I can't see how this would be one of the very few that would be acceptable. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not arguing that there is a presumption that this person is notable per SIGCOV. Neither is WP:CRIME even slightly relevant to this discussion. I am arguing that this person is notable regardless, for reasons of the political persecution of this subject. This attribute of the subject, in my view, elevates him to the status of being a notable subject under GNG. Jack4576 ( talk ) 10:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . SpiderOne's analysis of (lack of) sourcing is accurate, as is the clear guidance at WP:CRIME that articles should not be created on people who may only be known for alleged crimes. JoelleJay ( talk ) 17:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the notability does not arise from a criminal issue, it is a political issue. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which source(s) establish notability? I've searched and can only find sources that mention him just once , in passing, along with a bunch of other people that were also arrested, none of whom seem notable enough to warrant their own article either. Sources added, like Nile Post , do not address Stanley in any significant detail whatsoever. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps a new page about the arrest of these persons collectively would be a better solution ? Jack4576 ( talk ) 14:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems reasonable, presuming the event itself is notable. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC) Fails the GNG; done deal. You may chalk me up, by the bye, in asserting that whether it can be argued that a subject has faced political persecution is an element found in no notability criterion on Wikipedia, and is a spurious argument to use at AfD. Ravenswing 01:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Conference on Semantics in Healthcare and Life Sciences: It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk ) 16:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Health and fitness , and Medicine . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Event fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT . A WP:BEFORE search returns only passing mentions, promotional webpages, Wikipedia mirrors and other text which seems to confirm that the subject existed (and supports some of the related text). But I can find no sources which establish any lasting relevance or any indication of significant coverage. The COI/SPA overtones do very little to help... Guliolopez ( talk ) 20:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . If it were a conference notable in its own right, I'd expect much better google scholar hits than these: [7] . -- asilvering ( talk ) 00:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, not notable, not covered in RS. Cinadon 36 16:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Thai representatives at international male beauty pageants: There is no way to improve this without starting over with real sources, it should be WP:TNT . ☆ Bri ( talk ) 14:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Beauty pageants , and Thailand . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC) The main issue is whether this is a notable grouping that has been covered by independent reliable sources. Notwithstanding that, the entire page is just a table of plain information, which should be trivially verifiable. I don't see why this would fall into WP:TNT territory. -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 10:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Looking into this article (which has been a magnet for sockpuppet and blocked accounts), it was originally at AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Thailand before it was renamed so it is not eligible for Soft Deletion. Hopefully, another relisting will bring out editors who have opinions about the value (or lack of it) for articles on national representatives at beauty pageants. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC) Articles for deletion/List of Vietnam representatives at international male beauty pageants . No evidence this set of contestants has been discussed as a whole in RIS, and the article is little more than a directory. Mccapra ( talk ) 09:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Mccapra . No evidence that these subjects are discussed in RS as a group per WP:NLIST . Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 16:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Leeds International School: Dan arndt ( talk ) 09:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Sri Lanka . Dan arndt ( talk ) 09:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This school might possibly be notable. Coverage on this two is not great, but it's start. [13] [14] . This seems to have significant coverage: [15] Carpimaps talk to me! 10:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:NSCHOOL . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 11:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC) NSCHOOL . LibStar ( talk ) 12:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lefter Koxhaj: I do see some sources but nothing that looks like in depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I would have draftified it but a draft already exists. Mccapra ( talk ) 20:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Albania , and Kosovo . Mccapra ( talk ) 20:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the draft exists, it can be moved to mainspace after being improved to proper standards. He might be notable, but the news sites I found having coverage of him are not the kind of source I would prefer to establish notability. Ktrimi991 ( talk ) 20:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC) GNG . Mztourist ( talk ) 08:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Does not appear to be notable, apart from Albanian news sources. I have not encountered him in any reliable sources. StephenMacky1 ( talk ) 14:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - useless article. Jingiby ( talk ) 18:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC) 31, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kathering Jarquín: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 04:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Nicaragua . JTtheOG ( talk ) 04:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC) GNG . HawkAussie ( talk ) 11:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of GNG-passing coverage. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 17:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Usmart Securities: Amigao ( talk ) 14:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC) PROMO. Mentioned in articles about suspending trading accounts, which are glossed over here. One is paywalled, the others aren't strictly about this firm. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC) sources 3 and 8 are about Brightsmart, which seems to be a different company. I'm not seeing how they're related to this company, unsure why they're being used for sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Hong Kong , and Singapore . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Not enough reliable sources are available. There is even a press release used. Z3r0h3r000 ( talk ) 07:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ullathai Allitha (TV series): Karnataka ( talk ) 15:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Stereotypes of Nigerians: FMSky ( talk ) 12:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unsure - I think it can be argued both ways as there are sources but they're not all talking about the same thing (for example I found one talking about gender stereotypes in Nigerian films). I'm not sure how one would write a page such as this without a considerable amount of subjective opinion and WP:SYNTH . JMWt ( talk ) 13:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Nigeria . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠ PMC ♠ (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure there are sources, but most are one-liners, then what appear to be OR refuting the claim. I mean I don't doubt that Nigerians can speak English, but it's poorly sourced... It should be fairly obvious in Nigerian English-language media, should it not? I can see the value of the article, but sourcing just doesn't help. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You'd almost need a sociology paper in a peer-reviewed journal that talks about the stereotypes, not mentions here and there from the press, to be able to make a decent wiki article... Just my thoughts. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Yerly Palma: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Cuba . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2022 Isfara missile attacks: Fumikas Sagisavas ( talk ) 13:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan . Fumikas Sagisavas ( talk ) 13:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Fumikas Sagisavas Feed those sources into a machine translator and you’ll see they say absolutely nothing whatsoever about any missile attacks. Classic WP:SNEAKY trick. The infobox and body are self-contradictory. Because there was no missile attack (let alone two). Only some shooting and shelling which is already covered by an article . The use of ballistic missile attacks in a border skirmish would be highly notable and attract coverage outside the region. Thus I decided to call it “blatant” since thirty seconds of critical reading (even without checking the sources) will indicate the highly sus nature of the page. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 13:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC) SPEEDY under WP:A11 . Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] G5 may also apply, as nom pointed out on their talk page. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 16:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"C.B. Satpathy: So I'm raising this for discussion here. microbiology Marcus ( petri dish ) 13:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India . microbiology Marcus ( petri dish ) 13:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment if the AfD process agrees it does meets notability, can I request an admin create a from Chandra Bhanu Satpathy to C.B. Satpathy per our normal policy? If it doesn't meet notability, I think we might consider following the same process on the new article page, seeing as it's just an extension of the previous attempts at promotion, now under a different name. microbiology Marcus ( petri dish ) 13:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Odisha . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC) No sourcing found, wow does this read like a PROMO for the individual. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"YMCA Camp Flaming Arrow: Editor10293813 ( talk ) 22:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - It was a big deal in its time and place (San Antonio, Texas area). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, compounded by other problems, the camp closed permanently in 2021. — Maile ( talk ) 19:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak As well as the source referenced in the article, I have also found this article from the San Antonio Report about its closure. Two reliable sources, but all they really say about the camp itself is that it existed and that it's closing due to financial issues. The articles really touched me, it seems a real shame for the community to have lost such a valuable resource, but I don't think it passes the ""significant"" part of the GNG. pinktoebeans (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Very Weak . The other source for the closing looks to be A San Antonio Express News article . I also found a listing in Texas Outdoor Adventure Guide for Kids [1] which looks like fairly substantial coverage to me. A search of newspaper archives found plenty of routine coverage and some more substantial coverage that on closer inspection is YMCA generated content on sponsored pages (i.e. adds disguised as newspaper articles). Very little of the coverage available is both substantial and independent which is a definite shame. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 05:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jack Parsons (producer): Yoblyblob ( Talk ) :) 19:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV , WP:NOTINHERITED , and WP:MILL . One sources is by definition not coverage in multiple sources. There's no major legacy here. Merely being a producer does not automatically inherit notability. Producers are dime a dozen, and for that reason we often their articles. lacks in depth coverage. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 12:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Escobar Gallardo: Spinixster (chat!) 10:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Spinixster (chat!) 10:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Nip/Tuck § Main cast ; otherwise, leave the rest to Fandom . -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 17:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. The character doesn't seem to have enough sources to establish individual notability. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 18:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC) GNG . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Vysakh Reetha: Some sources do not constitute significant coverage as he is mentioned in passing while the rest are not reliable sources. CNMall41 ( talk ) 07:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , Malaysia , and India . CNMall41 ( talk ) 07:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . WP:FILMMAKER not passing till now Worldiswide ( talk ) 04:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Silas Namatak: Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Oceania . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Neo Shifters: signed, Rosguill talk 15:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Toys . signed, Rosguill talk 15:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Concur that what we have is not good enough for mainspace; fails WP:GNG Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"John Pelloe: Middle ranking Anglican clerics do not have assumed notability JMWt ( talk ) 09:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and England . JMWt ( talk ) 09:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment What do the sources in the article--mostly offline--say about him? It'd be premature to say that this should be d when we have sources that aren't obviously improper: Someone added them to the article at some point. Jclemens ( talk ) 08:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Two are notifications of appointment, one is in a directory of all clergy. The only source which could count towards notability is presence in Who Was Who . JMWt ( talk ) 18:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Allfather (Benison) ( talk ) 06:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] unless an editor can find significant coverage of this cleric in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 ( talk ) 07:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Akbar Shandermani: Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 12:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I can’t read Farsi but he may be a GNG pass. A Google books search brings up his name in multiple publications though I can’t judge which are in-depth or independent. Mccapra ( talk ) 12:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC) BEFORE , they're mostly not about him directly but about events he's involved in or something of that nature. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Leighton van Wyk: JTtheOG ( talk ) 06:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 06:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC) GNG . No suitable per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mia Hammermann: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 06:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Europe . JTtheOG ( talk ) 06:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Page has no viable third party source thus no evidence of notability. The only source provided no longer exists. TheBritinator ( talk ) 01:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC) GNG Whitemancanjump23 ( talk ) 04:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK to . Found actual passing mentions only in what actually is routine match coverage at lie:zeit . Cielquiparle ( talk ) 21:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ranji H. Nagaswami: Fails WP:BIO as references are just press releases and an interview. Article creator seems to be WP:SPA to advertise Yale Alumni. Imcdc Contact 09:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , and Finance . Imcdc Contact 09:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC) NOTLINKEDIN . — siro χ o 09:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Subject seems borderline notable but no substantial independent editorial media coverage is here. If it exists it should be added and resubmitted. WilsonP NYC ( talk ) 21:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - non-notable subject. Very little coverage exists. Upper Deck Guy ( talk ) 19:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Organization of the New York City Fire Department: The appropriate information could be added to the article New York City Fire Department (or relevant parent article) with this as a . ... disco spinster talk 18:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . ... disco spinster talk 18:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC) I'd be more inclined to this if it had better sourcing. Very extensive, but could all be OR. I honestly can't find sources with this level of details. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since your Canadian please look at the Toronto Fire Services page to see what you think and if something like that should be done for the FDNY page? Tom950 ( talk ) 21:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see what an editor's nationality has to do with a discussion on deleting an article. If your editing, Tom950 , is based on your nationality, perhaps a neutral-point-of-view encyclopedia isn't the best place for you. Owen× ☎ 22:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] sourced portions, if any, with New York City Fire Department and Chicago Fire Department , respectively. Owen× ☎ 20:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] When it comes to the Los Angeles Fire Department page and the Toronto Fire Services page everything is on one page. Besides individuals who have an interest in firefighting enjoy reading this type of stuff. Tom950 ( talk ) 21:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are other places where this specific information might be more appropriate, such as Fandom (e.g. Fire.fandom.com ). General encyclopedias do not go into this level of detail. If you'll notice, there aren't articles about the company organization of, e.g. Apple or Walmart or other types of organizations. ... disco spinster talk 22:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] sourced portions with New York City Fire Department and Chicago Fire Department per OwenX. While this needs quite a bit of work to be salvageable, I will note that sources do exist for some of these fire stations, if not other parts of the articles - for example, many of the NYC fire stations are mentioned in the AIA Guide to New York City and the Guide to New York City Landmarks for their historical significance - so it may be worth splitting off the fire stations to their own lists. – Epicgenius ( talk ) 16:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems to need to be d unless by adding more related adequate sources; or perhaps at most, it can be d in a related page. Ali Ahwazi ( talk ) 08:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Daniel Tinley: No sufficient coverage from reliable sources to warrant a standalone article. Fails WP:NACTOR . CycloneYoris talk! 20:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . CycloneYoris talk! 20:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , for the same reason. I actually nominated it for speedy deletion like 20 seconds before you nominated it for deletion, so I think you overwrote my nomination since we were editing at the same time. Gottagotospace ( talk ) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Oops, sorry! You can go ahead and restore the CSD tag if you wish to do so. CycloneYoris talk! 21:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, I just did that! I wasn't sure if I was supposed to the normal nomination for deletion stuff though. So now there's two banners: one about speedy deletion and one about normal deletion. Gottagotospace ( talk ) 21:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I guess we should leave the tag there. If an admin decides to speedy the article, then they will likely close this AfD as well. CycloneYoris talk! 21:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC) It was originally draftified ( Draft:Daniel Tinley ) then reposted in mainspace. OIM20 ( talk ) 02:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It doesn't appear to take up that much space, and this guy is pretty notable. Why can't he have a small Wikipedia page considering his fanbase and following? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryfunkypants ( talk • contribs ) 20:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] He has 36 followers on Twitch. Gottagotospace ( talk ) 20:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 91 subscribers on youtube. Why is it so much trouble just to this one small page? There is an article for an Estonian politician with literally one sentence on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avo_%C3%9Cprus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryfunkypants ( talk • contribs ) 20:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social media site. If anyone with a small social media following was able to have an article about them on Wikipedia, then Wikipedia would become extremely bloated. If Daniel becomes a notable actor and/or streamer in the future, then great - he can get an article then! But as of now, he's at the point in his career where he does not meet notability criteria. Gottagotospace ( talk ) 21:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's cool, but you didn't respond to my initial point. Is it not already bloated with 1 sentence articles about totally random people? This guy has a following. Why is it so necessary to this page? What specifically bothers you about this page that you want to it within 1 hour of when it was created? Veryfunkypants ( talk ) 21:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Policing wikipedia must be a cool occupation, but you're also discouraging people from making their contributions, and what they consider to be notable to themselves and others. Veryfunkypants ( talk ) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't make the rules, I'm just informing you of them. Please read Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies . I bet plenty of editors (including myself) would be happy to have an article about Daniel on Wikipedia once his career reaches a point where he meets those notability guidelines. Gottagotospace ( talk ) 21:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, but he can just have this smaller, ""bare-bones"" sort of article, so his community knows. He has a pretty sizable fanbase, including me so that's why I feel this is good for him to have. He's a really nice guys and deserves a bit of recognition for his work. Thanks for the support Veryfunkypants ( talk ) 21:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC) an attempt was made to speedily dele with this discussion open. — Railroadr20 ( talk ) 21:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Struck sock. Hatman31 ( talk ) 20:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks so much for noticing. Kind of suspicious indeed Veryfunkypants ( talk ) 21:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Railroadr20 , @ Veryfunkypants - Not really. If you read the page history, you'd see that there were multiple editors putting it up for deletion at the same time. This was even talked about in this discussion thread (top) at 21:07 and 21:11. Nothing sus about it. OIM20 ( talk ) 02:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Absolutely no evidence of coverage by a reliable secondary source. signed , Willondon ( talk ) 21:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC) After this discussion got started, the apparent subject of the article requested deletion of the article about him, asserting that the page was created with malicious intent. That does make sense, seeing as the original creator mentioned multiple ""controversies"" related to the subject without proper sources to back them up. I went to Daniel's talk page and let him know he can chime in the AfD section if he wants, but I don't know if he has seen the message. Gottagotospace ( talk ) 03:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draft too, then? OIM20 ( talk ) 03:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Different IP also claiming to Daniel requested deletion of the draft too (see here) . Could be a dynamic IP. Could also not be Daniel at all. Either way, I don't think it matters much since subject does not meet notability guidelines at this time. We really don't need an article about him on Wikipedia at this time, not even as a draft. (Maybe in the future if/when his career gets to the point where he *does* meet notability guidelines, but not at this time.) Gottagotospace ( talk ) 17:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC) Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? . Commonly known as WP:Otherstuff . CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk) , Huliva 15:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] non-notable, per nom. Seems like SPI is warranted (if not already reported). -- Classicwiki ( talk ) If you reply here, please ping me . 14:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Copper City, Glenn County, California: No mention or evidence of this location has been found anywhere to show that it was populated; known only from a GNIS entry (which does not establish notability). This is one of dozens of similar stub articles on nonexistent or non-notable California locations created by the same user during a short period in 2009, based only on GNIS entries. Another user has added two references since my PROD, but neither one mentions Copper City at all. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 18:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 18:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Searching is heavily masked by the other much more notable spot in Shasta County, about which there is considerable material; in contrast, the one citation in the article which leads to anything other than listings is to a (dead) genealogical site, which cites nothing itself. The reliability of these is very dicey. Mangoe ( talk ) 02:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - There just ain't no there there. A mining camp that according to the article ""dissipated nearly as quickly as it sprung up"" is not any kind of actual community, much less one with the legal recognition required by GEOLAND. FOARP ( talk ) 13:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. I initially contested the PROD but the online paper trail as of 2023 is too thin to defend it. Au revoir, Copper City, Glenn County (originally Colusa County). jengod ( talk ) 22:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nowe Ostrowy PKP: ""PKP"" stands for Polskie Koleje Państwowe and is the initials of Polish State Railways . As can be confirmed from the satellite view, this is a railway spur/siding where it looks like coal is or was handled (note that Google Maps includes this as a place name , but they likely got that from scraping data from Wikipedia). This is therefore just a railway facility. This article was created automatically on the basis of a Polish Wikipedia article that was d some years ago. The location of the article is within Nowe Ostrowy , a village for which we already have an article. A reference is given to the TERYT database, but with out the SIMC ID it is not possible to search the database for it - however there is no listing for Nowe Ostrowy PKP in the Polish regulation of place-names . A population of 40 people is given in the article, but no source is provided for it, and I cannot find any listing for Nowe Ostrowy PKP in the Polish GUS database where census data should be available for locations where it is counted. TL;DR - fails WP:NTRAINSTATION , WP:GEOLAND , WP:GNG , WP:NOPAGE . FOARP ( talk ) 13:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland . FOARP ( talk ) 13:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . No pl interwiki, no evidence this PKP-related something has stand-alone notability. TERYT only lists the main village for that county, no related hamlet or anything else. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC) 44, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Akil N. Awan: Cordless Larry ( talk ) 17:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . Cordless Larry ( talk ) 17:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 18:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. This is straight out of a resume, we have no information about the person, only a laundry list of things they've done. PROMO. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC) Economist , Reuters , and Sydney MH , among others. On the basis of passing the SNG, I vote . BhamBoi ( talk ) 23:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Throw in History Extra and NPR , and I think this is a on notability. BhamBoi ( talk ) 00:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per the sources BhamBoi brings to the table. -- StellarNerd ( talk ) 18:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC) Per the above, as well as the pretty reasonable citation rates for their published writings. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC) This is a G11 resume. // Timothy :: talk 03:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC) 25, 21 April 2023 (UTC) NPROF C7 case -- he's consulted a few times, but I don't think it meets the ""substantial impact"" test. In particular, the Sydney Morning Herald is a syndicated copy of the Reuters, and quite brief. I would expect to find book reviews for WP:NAUTHOR , but none were apparent. The best case for notability is with WP:NPROF C1. I think that this subarea does not have such low citations, and that the citation record is below the impact we are looking for. This all brings me to (weak) . Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 10:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 03:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC) NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2032 European Men's Handball Championship: Event is 8 years away Grahaml35 ( talk ) 16:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 17:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per above. There was an indiscriminate creation of articles about upcoming sports events. Svartner ( talk ) 02:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per above. Боки ☎ ✎ 17:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Reign in Slumber: The main notability claim being attempted here is that one of its members was previously associated with a different band, which is not ""inherently"" notable without WP:GNG -worthy sourcing -- but seven of the 16 footnotes here (close to half) are the band's own self-published content about itself on their own website or Bandcamp, which is not notability-supporting sourcing as it isn't independent of them, and the other nine aren't coverage about this band, but either glancingly mention this band in the process of being about something else, or are completely tangential sourcing about people associated with this band doing other unrelated things that have nothing to do with this band, none of which helps to support this band's notability either. Nothing stated here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt them from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk ) 20:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Cambodia . Bearcat ( talk ) 20:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reign in Slumber, is truly metal music band in Cambodia. this sub genre in it's very very rare find better sourced than this to support with their action. Without fund and most people came there just looking for free music during the music in Cambodia just built-up. Ten years they're struggle to survive, without them this sub genre will disappear in Cambodia. Please consider to accept my reason. Thanks JammyKH ( talk ) 21:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If having a wikipedia article helps them survive, that's PROMO and not helping us the article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia does not exist as a public relations platform to help emerging bands build their careers — making it big comes first and then the Wikipedia article comes second, not vice versa. Bearcat ( talk ) 13:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I just improved some info and add more better sourced. Thanks JammyKH ( talk ) 22:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC) Source 22 is the only one that's in what Source Tool identifies as a RS, but it's a very trivial mention. This is about the band [15] , trivial coverage and I'm unsure if it's even a RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC) In cambodia, for a small subgenre music not getting any interest at all, Only POP, Hip-hop, Romantic and Khmer Traditional that's people acceptable. Metal in Cambodia is about to die. Reign in Slumber is real, they exist, they have the real music, real album and real performance. [16] [17] Camboculture27 ( talk ) 03:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The notability test doesn't hinge on whether or not they're real , it hinges on whether or not they have received third-party attention in reliable sources . Bearcat ( talk ) 15:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC) It appears satisfactory to me And it would be advantageous to retain this here. BPjohnathan ( talk ) 12:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC) — BPjohnathan ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] What proper reliable sourcing is making this ""satisfactory""? Bearcat ( talk ) 13:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC) They deserve to be kept here for retention purposes. JammyKH ( talk ) 12:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC) GNG -worthy reliable sourcing , of which you still haven't shown any. Bearcat ( talk ) 13:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] CU note The three ! votes above were all written by the same person using three different accounts. I've struck through two of them, and blocked all three accounts. Girth Summit (blether) 16:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"John M. Facciola: . ""not inherently notable"" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider ; very little sourcing for a biographical article Snickers2686 ( talk ) 21:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions . Snickers2686 ( talk ) 21:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York and Washington, D.C. . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Found plenty of passing mentions about this person, but nothing substantial. Subject does not pass WP:JUDGE . User:Let'srun 01:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nandor Vadas . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC) LEGALBIO. His long-term service as a United States magistrate judge, his prior roles as an Assistant District Attorney and in private practice, and his academic contributions as an adjunct professor and legal scholar all contribute to his notability. Additionally, his written opinions on electronic discovery and related legal matters, along with his recognition by the legal community, further establish his notability within his field. The references cited suggest that there is coverage of Facciola's judicial and academic work in reliable sources, supporting the case for possibly entertaining the Idea of retaining his article on Wikipedia. PD Slessor ( talk ) 10:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC) BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article and BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth . BLPs require strong sourcing. vote provided no sources to eval. // Timothy :: talk 12:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Timothy, GNG not met with sources here. BLP requires high levels of sourcing and this doesn't meet it. Daniel ( talk ) 04:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - there is some evidence that he has been ""recognized as an expert in a specialized area of law,"" and might meet my own longstanding standards for lawyers . Bearian ( talk ) 20:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"WOH S279: SpaceImplorer ExplorerImplorer 19:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC) no hits on Google Scholar ( [1] , [2] ) coverage is limited to databases etc. or Wikipedia forks/mirrors ( [3] , [4] , [5] ). Fails WP:NASTRO . Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 15:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Article briefly PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom, I guess. Seems a pity; would be nice to have somewhere to transwiki this sort of thing. -- Visviva ( talk ) 23:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ward Thomas Removals: The FT article is an interview with the founder. Wikilover3509 ( talk ) 6:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Note : I have fixed spacing in the header that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Transportation , and United Kingdom . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC) There is also a 2013 Telegraph ""SME Library"" item [60] but is also more a profile piece about the company founder. A firm going about its business but I am not seeing the claim to notability and the detailed coverage needed. AllyD ( talk ) 21:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mark Gazit: References on the article are either unreliable/primary or are about ThetaRay, not the subject of the article. Brandon ( talk ) 21:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . Brandon ( talk ) 21:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC) Can only find PR items about ThetaRay, nothing for this individual. Not meeting notability for individuals or business. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of the highest roads in Scotland: Also, 1276 feet / 389m is not that high. Rs chen 7754 04:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland . Rs chen 7754 04:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Not even 670m is impressively high. Note that none of these roads get mentioned at List of highest paved roads in Europe , an indication of how high a road needs to be to be worth mentioning. Once we start, where do we stop -- List of highest roads in The Netherlands ? Athel cb ( talk ) 11:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC) The roads being ""not that high"" or not ""impressive"" is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT . I do not see very strong sourcing in the article, which is a valid criticism, but it being dumb is not. jp × g 18:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the UK is a low-altitude nation overall. The list starts at a very low 380 meters and doesn’t even make it onto the list if highest roads in Europe. Every road in Denver is higher than this list. We should focus on global or regional superlative lists, not lists for superlatives of small countries (especially non-independent ones), because logically we would have to start making list pages for every country and territory like the aforementioned “Netherlands” list as well as stuff like “deepest lakes in Mali ” and “largest settlements in the Pitcairn Islands .” Dronebogus ( talk ) 08:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""O ye'll tak' the [not so] high road, and I'll tak' the low road, And I'll be in Scotland afore ye"" . Clarityfiend ( talk ) 21:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] — this user is attempting to multiple UK-related pages at the moment, seemingly largely unsuccessfully from the discussions. WP:BEFORE is recommended. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk ) 23:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ignoring the obvious ad hominem , I simply believe that we should be consistent in our coverage of roads worldwide. In some cases, that means ing articles about important roads that others want to . In others, that does sadly mean cutting back in regions where they have gone too far. Rs chen 7754 00:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - while there seems to be sources about the highest roads in the UK, there's none that specifically talk about Scotland. The only one I can find is https://www.dangerousroads.org/europe/scotland/10563-highest-roads-of-scotland.html but that source doesn't look to be reliable or significant enough to the article. What matters is if this article meets WP:NLIST which it does not. Onegreatjoke ( talk ) 17:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . Interestingly, the article itself got a passing mention in a now-defunct publication. [103] Not a reason to , but interesting. ""List of the highest roads in Scotland"" is one of those carefully collected and curated pages of odd information that make our British articles sort of endearing. Nevertheless, my heart may say """", but when I see that the only other country in Europe that has such an article is Switzerland, I have to admit this one should probably go. ( List of the highest roads in Wales never got off the ground.) Even though it's mostly harmless, I just don't see any utility for our readers in ing "" List of the highest roads in Scotland "". -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Numeer: The main notability claim on offer here is that his music exists, which is not automatically enough in and of itself -- but the referencing is entirely to primary sources , such as his music metaverifying itself on streaming platforms or iTunes or Genius, and/or unreliable celebrity gossip blogs like Celebuzz, which are not support for notability. Nothing stated here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat ( talk ) 13:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India . Bearcat ( talk ) 13:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Poor unreliable sources on the page. Page reads as publicity WP:PROMO and has no notability with no significant achievement or influence notable by the subject. RangersRus ( talk ) 13:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC) GNG . Ciudatul ( talk ) 09:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Freshwater Christian College: Tacyarg ( talk ) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Australia . Tacyarg ( talk ) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Having had a look at this, I agree that this article is not notable, so . Bduke ( talk ) 09:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC) NSCHOOL . LibStar ( talk ) 04:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] subject does not have enough coverage to demonstrate notability. Bradelykooper ( talk ) 08:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . This is what in the United States would be called a private school, parochial school , or independent school; it is not what we call a ""college."" So WP:NSCHOOL and relevant, longstanding rules and essays apply. I don't see any evidence of when this was founded, nor in any secondary sources, or more broadly significant coverage . There is no evidence that this school has more than 500 students, or that it's over 100 years old, or grants an International Baccalaureate, or has 2 or more notable alumni, or has 1 or more notable academic programs, major annual events, or scholastic sports. Thus this also fails my own standards for schools . Bearian ( talk ) 15:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Is this music? : Unsourced since its inception and there is nothing to find online. Anarchyte ( talk ) 07:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Websites , and Scotland . Anarchyte ( talk ) 07:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support . Cfls ( talk ) 18:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cfls why do you wish to have the article d? Voting without a rationale is unhelpful . Mach61 21:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft deletion and a lack of deletion rationale from some participants. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC) There are no reliable sources in the article. I could find nothing that resembled independent reliable sources in a web search, though they could be hidden by the name which is also a fairly common phrase. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 21:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC) Doesn't appear to have any reliable, secondary coverage or meet WP:NMAG . StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Cat Swamp: Boleyn ( talk ) 18:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC) 53, 21 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or to Providence, Rhode Island after possibly draftifying. I conducted some research on it and I believe this could warent its own article in the future per sources such as [12] [13] [14] [15] but the general lack of a suitable number of sources to develop the article makes me think it should be Deleted. Thanks! ZombiUwU ♥ ( 🌸 ~♥~ 📝 ) 23:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: or ? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex / Rational 19:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] it's not on the Providence page so a may surprise people. SportingFlyer T · C 10:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Outline of formal science: This imagined hierarchy of the sciences appears to originate wholly from wikipedia editors. - car chasm ( talk ) 19:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Mathematics . - car chasm ( talk ) 19:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Lists . WJ94 ( talk ) 11:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment ""Formal"" and ""applied"" are not antonyms. There is precedent in philosophy, and in military circles, for treating concepts, methods, and algorithms that apply widely across multiple fields of science and engineering as part of formal science, e.g., Springer link , and its pdf . Operations research , Cybernetics , Control theory , and Systems theory all fall into this category. So the inclusion in this outline seems reasonable. Part of the challenge is that ""formal science"" means different things in say mathematical culture (formal language vs semantic models) and military culture (formal method vs semantic applications). That said, the nom is correct that the outline needs much netter sourcing to establish inclusion criteria and the hierarchy given. -- {{u| Mark viking }} { Talk } 17:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC) 57, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . ""Formal science"" is a thing (surprise!), and logic, math, statistics, computer science, etc. come under its umbrella, but there's no need to list all the subfields of each one. Formal science#Branches is sufficient. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 11:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sunni Students Council: Sources are Google Maps and an insignificant press release, Google hardly finds anything on this organization. Number of members is unsourced. Icodense ( talk ) 15:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. Sk1728 ( talk ) 10:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC) GNG and does not have adequate in depth coverage. Tame Rhino ( talk ) 19:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) MILL . This is a youth organization of less than 4,000 members. Zero evidence of passing WP:SIGCOV . 16:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"FC Sparta Sollentuna: The article contains some very obscure ""accomplishments"" supported by primary sources, but the history of the club would not attract any significant, independent coverage as they played on the eighth and ninth tier. Geschichte ( talk ) 08:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] —A ninth-tier team is not notable in any country and any sport. And it will likely not get any meaningful non-local coverage unless it makes a massive, years-long run of promotions. Is there an appropriate place to ? If not, ""Delete"" is the only option. Anwegmann ( talk ) 22:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jan Jenisch: Refs are profiles and passing mentions. scope_creep Talk 14:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Thank you for the links. I'll review and see if there's a path forward with resolving this issue. I initially created this page because he's been heavily featured in the press, but I understand your perspective. -- Mr. EugeneKrab$ ( talk ) 16:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC) SECONDARY newspapers sources here. It is all either him or the companies he's working for. You will need evidence he is notable per WP:THREE . The article is just WP:PROMO with no illusion to being notable. scope_creep Talk 17:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for the guidance. Working to resolve issue! -- Mr. EugeneKrab$ ( talk ) 16:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have edited the article and added relevant sources. I hope it works. Lusa131313 ( talk ) 09:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC) SPA and a WP:UPE . scope_creep Talk 08:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Lets examine the first two block, 19 in total. Ref 1 [47] Profile, likely written by himself. Not independent as profile are generally written by the person themselves. Ref 2 [48] Routine annoucement that arrived to lecture. Not independent. Ref 3 [49] Passing mention Ref 4 [50] Routine annoucement. Press-release. Not independent. Ref 5 [51] Routine annoucement. Not independent. Ref 6 [52] Passing mention of new job. Routine annoucement. Not independent. Ref 7 [53] Same ref as above. Routine annoucment of employment. Not independent. Ref 8 [54] ""the building materials giant said on Sunday"" ""The U.S. operations were ""simply too successful to be run as a subsidiary,"" Jenisch said."" Not independent. Ref 9 [55] ""Jan Jenisch: “I am very pleased that the Board has appointed Miljan"" Not independent. Ref 10 [56] ""Holcim Ltd., the world’s largest cement maker, said Sunday it plans to separate its fast-growing North American business"" Not indepenent. Ref 11 [57] ""Our North American business is a real rock star. We doubled the company just in the last four years by strong organic growth, by acquisitions. And we have leading margins, the EBITDA margin is already above 27%,"" Jenisch told CNBC on Monday"" Not independent. I'm not going to do anymore. It is a waste of time. None of these reference constitute reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. They all come from the company. They prove he is exists and that is it. WP:BLP states ""Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. "" It fails that criteria. WP:BIO state three criteria to be notable. He fails every criteria. Fails WP:SIGCOV , WP:BIO . scope_creep Talk 16:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree & have moved on myself. Having added as much sourcing as possible, I'm not sure if there is currently anything more out there. -- Mr. EugeneKrab$ ( talk ) 16:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 03:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC) NOTPROMO And his achievements were ... WHAT? Reads like a self-promotion résumé, the kind you put out there for publicity purposes. But it lists absolutely nothing about achievements. — Maile ( talk ) 15:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] [58] is a profile page, [59] it is not in-depth about Jan Jenisch, [60] , [61] Again PR announcement other shared sources are also same. Lordofhunter ( talk ) 09:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Evil Empire: A Talk by Chalmers Johnson: The main notability claim on offer here is that it exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself without evidence of WP:GNG -worthy media coverage about it -- but the only references here are a directory entry and a book review which fails to mention this film at all for the purposes of helping to support the notability of the film. The film's subject was certainly notable enough that his article isn't going anywhere, so a to his biographical article would be reasonable, but this article as written isn't properly establishing the film as independently notable enough for its own separate article at all. Bearcat ( talk ) 20:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America . Bearcat ( talk ) 20:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, the recording and Johnson were important at the time this was filmed. As a former advisor to the CIA and government about Asian affairs, he was outspoken in books, TV interviews, and newspaper articles warning of the coming 9/11 attack, seeing it as ""Blowback"" to US policy - the name of his first book in the trilogy published before the terrorist attack. He was also just as outspoken about the mistake it was for GW Bush to go into Iraq. Johnson was prophetic - but that was then. This talk was the culmination of his American Empire Project which reviewed the points in his three books on the topic, However, the talk itself is now available on YouTube, so, I agree to it - unless just being a page for a commercially released DVD is worthy of a page. Ellis408 ( talk ) 23:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Colin Sargent: A new editor stepped in last month who said they would fix shortcomings addressed in a PROD, but their added sources are mostly WP:RSSELF . One citation is from the subject's own magazine. I can find no material from reliable sources attesting to the subject's notability, aside from a review of one of their novels that was published in Boston.com. Subject does not appear to meet the threshold of either WP:NACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR . CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 20:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 20:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , Wordy, self-promoting vani-spam. He seems like a prolific writer, but hasn't garnered critical attention, which is required for wiki. Just another working wordsmith. I can't find any critical reviews of anything he's authored. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] His novel Museum of Human Beings was reviewed in Publishers Weekly . pburka ( talk ) 21:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Maine , and Virginia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC) There is a lack of strong significant coverage from reliable, independent sources directed at the individual subject. Multi7001 ( talk ) 02:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] —even if the article needs some love, being the publisher of a notable periodical and the writer of a notable book make me lean as people are likely to be looking for info on him. BhamBoi ( talk ) 06:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey y'all, as the aforementioned ""new editor,"" I'm going to reserve my vote. However, I do want to address the issues of sourcing and notability. I've included citations to several reviews of his books including the Virginian Pilot , Denver Post , Boston Globe , The Morning Star , Kirkus Reviews , Foreward Reviews , and the Washington City Paper . Thank you @ Pburka for the lead on Publishers Weekly, as I hadn't seen that one. As far as the sources by the subject, perhaps this is a misunderstanding on my part. I was taught that citations were meant to show evidence of the claim being stated. Therefore, if someone was recorded to be an editor of a publication, it would make sense to show a connection to the actual publication where the subject was listed as editor. Maybe it makes more sense to have them as external links. Ravenandlotus ( talk ) 13:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Primary sources can be used to verify information once the threshold of notability is demonstrated, as long as the references in the article don't rely to heavily on info from the subject. BhamBoi ( talk ) 00:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This doesn’t seem like a notable person in the sense of meriting a Wiki article. The publication is one thing, but the person has not on his own earned verifiable notoriety. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 08:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC) BLP, Fails GNG and BIO, WP:NACADEMIC , WP:NAUTHOR . There are not sources to support GNG. Sources in the article are primary and promo, nothing that meets IS, RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject (the author) directly and indepth. None of their works appears to have multiple reviews from IS, RS, and they look like a normal academic, nothing that would bypass GNG. BEFORE nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). I'd love to change to Keep, so if anyone adds multiple indepehdent reliable sources about the author to the article, let me know. // Timothy :: talk 09:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per TimothyBlue. Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 19:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sekthaus Carl Graeger: However, as was the case then, I do not see CORP level sourcing here, the German article or via a before. While they no longer make their own wine, it's still produced and sourcing should be accessible if it existed Star Mississippi 01:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Wine , Organizations , Companies , and Germany . Star Mississippi 01:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article, for me lacks significant coverage in current reliable sources. The majority of the references cited are from archival sources or are dated, which raises concerns about the contemporary relevance and notability of the subject. Additionally, there's a limited amount of recent information or ongoing significance to the brand beyond its historical achievements. Also, the quality of old sources is questioned, and seems not to follow the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources and verifiability. -- Mozzcircuit ( talk ) 08:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] for now. I found a lot of old ads, a brief discussion that is in the references, a patent, but no WP:SIGCOV . This is an old and small company. A combination that can go either way. I'm definitely open to the idea that there is WP:SIGCOV out there. Just couldn't find it. gidonb ( talk ) 01:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Worldef: No sourcing found, the Forum appears non-notable as well. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Aintabli ( talk ) 20:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Algerian Cup semi-finals: 'Algerian Cup semi-finals' is not independently notable outside of the Algerian Cup and an unlikely search term. Merging may not be an option since the whole article is unreferenced. Details of the semi-finals themselves seem to be already covered in individual season articles, although for example 1964–65 Algerian Cup is completely unreferenced as well. C 679 04:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . C 679 04:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions . C 679 04:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC) SCOPE of how to construct the football content on wikipedia. Govvy ( talk ) 09:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] don't need a separate articles for semi-finals, they can be covered in other existing articles like the parent article Algerian Cup or the season articles. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC) 55, 23 April 2024 (UTC) 20, 23 April 2024 (UTC) ATD and WP:CHEAP . ~ Kvng ( talk ) 17:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 58, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Wow Air destinations: Many airline destination lists have already been d, and this list is no different. Let'srun ( talk ) 16:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Iceland . Let'srun ( talk ) 16:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Lists . Shellwood ( talk ) 17:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom and past precedent. AryKun ( talk ) 17:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ahmed Al-Oufi: I'm not sure if 2 caps for the Saudi Arabia national team are enough because I literally can't find anything else beyond the usual stats websites. Sgubaldo ( talk ) 16:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Saudi Arabia . Sgubaldo ( talk ) 16:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Isabelle Wiebach: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Europe . JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , lacks significant coverage. Liechtenstein has a population of under 40,000 so it's not like you'd expect significant coverage. Her club career is also not significant, she's in the 4th-5th tier league Swiss clubs. -- Mvqr ( talk ) 11:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Andy Byrd: I can strip away that blatently unrelated information, but I'm not able to find much on this guy to warrant even a stub afterwards. He's got an OK social media following, but doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG . Lindsey40186 ( talk ) 18:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) GNG. I think it is best to this article. Johnmarkdyer ( talk ) 18:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] nn. And I removed massive sections, seconding Lindsey40186's concern. - Altenmann >talk 19:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Christianity , and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC) I can only find podcasts or various videos about this individual, nothing we can use for notability. Seems that after the non-RS are taken out, we're left with a stub, simply confirming he exists... Nothing for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with the above editors. This appears to be an easy call to , even after the initial edit and cleanup. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 21:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The main category for this one would be nauthor, but the books do not seem to have had a wide audience (e.g. listed as #30K in the religious and spiritual category on Amazon, #300K in Christianity). One book seems to have an independent publisher (""Destiny Image"") but the other (2 volume) seems to be published by the organization Fire and Fragrance which he is associated with. Lamona ( talk ) 19:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Brandi Bae: Previously, WP:PORNBIO was the guide but it was depreciated in March 2019. Lightburst ( talk ) 17:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . Lightburst ( talk ) 17:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC) This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions . • Gene93k ( talk ) 20:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . No change in notability since the article was d at AfD two years ago. Same junk sources and still fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT . Independent search finds nothing substantial or reliable. • Gene93k ( talk ) 20:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does not appear to be significantly different from the previous version, which would make this eligible for speedy deletion. Same garbage sources. Note , please do not honor any requests to draftify this article. It appears this was done before, and the person just shoved it back into mainspace with no effort to improve. Zaathras ( talk ) 21:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ulvi Mammadov: The accuracy of the remaining information has also not been substantiated. Overall, the topic does not meet the GNG. The article has been d on Azerbaijani Wikipedia as well. Surə 🗯 13:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Someone removed the AFD, reverted their edit. This might be like the rusty pole article. Toketaa talk 17:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No supporting evidence of world championships. Dates and locations don't match up with major karate organizations and article was d on Azerbaijani WP. He is not ranked in the top 350 or so karateka in his division by the World Karate Federation, which seems unusual for someone who claims to have won a bronze medal in the last world championships. Papaursa ( talk ) 04:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As per Papaursa . Lethweimaster ( talk ) 00:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mohamed Adah: These sources are lacking in WP:SIGCOV , and some are unreliable and clearly not independent of the subject. Full of promotional fluff and stuff like that. Fails WP:BASIC too. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 21:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria . – Lord Bolingbroke ( talk ) 22:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC) Promotional non notable article. The sources does look WP:ROUTINE , and this is usually problems we have with businessmen and philanthropist. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 22:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Africa . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 22:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC) Per my checking, I found that these sources are promotional and don’t provide in-depth coverage of the subject. These sources fail to meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG . To establish notability, in-depth coverage from multiple independent, secondary, and reliable sources is required. Grab Up - Talk 05:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lighthouse Trails Publishing: There is a lack of good sourcing. When doing an internet search for Lighthouse Trails Publishing, nothing really comes up except for one article by the Christian Post, something from Moody Publishing, and the rest are links to the Lighthouse Trails website. It was nominated for deletion years ago, with it being d and then und with those caring for the article saying they would work on improvement. As it stands, there wasn't much improved upon from my perspective. I don't think notability has been established all these years since the article was created. It reads like an advertisement to me. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 ( talk ) 00:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Lacking substance is not a reason for deletion. Likewise, it reads like an advertisement is also not a reason for deletion. Both of those are reasons to tag the article for improvement, but you can't justify deletion based on those criteria. Failure to meet WP:GNG is a reason, and you need to focus your reasoning on that. See WP:CORP for specific GNG criteria for companies (which is what this is). Butler Blog ( talk ) 19:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 1 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 03:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Christianity , Montana , and Oregon . North America 1000 04:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC) GNG . Only one source appears to provide any kind of SIGCOV whatsoever, and it's just churnalism (Christian Post). Not seeing remotely enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG / WP:NCORP . — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the above written by Rhododendrites. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 ( talk ) 17:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your nomination counts as your vote so I've struck your duplicate vote. L iz Read! Talk! 04:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Didn't know but now I do! Thanks for the notification. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 ( talk ) 17:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Again, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The article is WP:PROMO , and I don't see any way this article meets WP:NCORP . The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"G. F. Zaimis: Untenable in its current state, and nominating on the basis that even if substantive sources existed, it is too advertorial to remain. Google searches pull up little except self-published sites. National Book Critics Circle ( https://www.bookcritics.org/2013/11/25/g-f-zaimis-picks-six-poets/ ) does not confer notability or provide substance re her biography/life Reviews on the back of her book, cited throughout the article (from self-hosted pdfs on Wix sites) are arguably the product of advance copies and are ultimately blurbs that do not confer notability on the subject as a writer of prominence Events at the Freud Museum, Athens Centre may indicate prominence but are promotions for speaking events and still do not provide biographical substance Even if notability were shown, the article is arrogantly editorial. No source here can assert that her ""grammatology recalls Derrida's understanding of the word"". The removal of this fluff with actual substantive sources (if there are any) would necessitate a complete rewrite. ‒ overthrows 20:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Artists , and Authors . ‒ overthrows 20:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Greece , New York , and South Carolina . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC) TNT . The fact that it has been written almost entirely by many SPAs makes one wonder if it's UPE or an AUTOBIO. Will ! vote later after examining the sourcing, however if it is kept it would make sense to trim it back to a stub until it could be crafted in a more encyclopedic manner. Netherzone ( talk ) 22:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - The vast majority of the sourcing simply links to other wikipedia articles, or to websites that don't mention her at all, or are ""sourced"" to her own writings, website or youtube videos. A few others seem to be listings of events - primary sources - but not to biographical or critical analysis of her work. With so much refbombing, it's hard to tell what is there, so WP:TNT seems like the proper route. It may-or-may-not meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR as it's hard to tell with so much cite kill . I'm also about 90% sure it's either WP:COI , WP:UPE or an WP:AUTOBIO based on the sheer number of SPA editors and non-neutral tone. I am finding zero hits on Google Scholar and Scopus, therefore fails WP:NPROF , and not finding anything to support that she's a notable photographer. per WP:TNT . Netherzone ( talk ) 22:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy , Visual arts , Architecture , and Photography . Netherzone ( talk ) 22:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] = They lost me at the opening sentence of ""polymath, thought leader ... friend of philosophy"" sourced to this person's own web site on wix.com. I also checked the last two sources, neither of which mention this person's name. Lacks independent sources and significant coverage. Elspea756 ( talk ) 23:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - could only find brief mentions here [1] [2] , neither of which support notability. Shapeyness ( talk ) 16:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the references for the article do not establish notability. Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 21:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Gransito Movie Awards 2008: Οἶδα ( talk ) 22:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC) Gransito Movie Awards 2007 ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions . Οἶδα ( talk ) 22:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Internet , and Italy . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC) If the award itself is not notable, neither would a listing of awardees per year. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 04:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , as per Why? I Ask it's the award which is obscure and not notable (eg. no idea if it still exists, and if not when it was cancelled). C avarrone 06:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The website was last up in 2009 [1] , after which it was seemingly usurped. It appears to have been the only source (as an external link) [2] , likely indicating self-promotion. No reliable, independent sources can be found on the topic, and thus it should not have a separate article (which was d 2017). These sub-articles should have gone with it. Οἶδα ( talk ) 17:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Khalil Ziade: Source #1 and #3 not working. Source #2 his website conflict of interests. Sources from #4 to #12 are unreliable and looks like paid sources. Page creator appears to have a conflict of interest with the article. فيصل ( talk ) 01:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , and Lebanon . فيصل ( talk ) 01:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Source #1 and #3 not working, but have archive links in the citations so we can still check them. I found an English-language source by clicking on the Google News link above: an American magazine called Nevada Business published an article called Family Owned Businesses 2018 on 1 March 2018. It has a paragraph on Growth Holdings (along with paragraphs on other similar size businesses such as a piercing salon, and a restaurant and bar). The magazine article seems to suggest that his brother Philippe is more likely to be notable than Khalil. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 08:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] fails GNG and I could not find any notable sources. Nagol0929 ( talk ) 12:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of bizarre buildings: Fram ( talk ) 16:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - it's a pleasing enough list, but I could compile a completely different one, of equal ""validity"". Dunmore Pineapple , anyone? The problem is that the Category - Most bizarre buildings - is essentially meaningless. Though I'm sure one could find a volume The World's 100 weirdest buildings , or some such, if one looked. But it still wouldn't have any scholarly basis. KJP1 ( talk ) 16:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] venerable list article created by the Colonel himself - even a voter concedes it's ""pleasing"". I'd concede that technically, the article may violate WP:OR, unless someone spends a good deal of time improving it with sources. But I dont think stopping articles like this was why our OR policy was created - on balance, seems better to the article due to it's pleasing and interesting nature. In my view, we can trust editorial discretion to judge whether to classify buildings as bizarre - a much easier task than balancing competing POVs from WP:RSs to comply with due weight on a controversial topic. FeydHuxtable ( talk ) 18:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC) NLIST . There are sources for a few entries, and there is also some coverage in reliable sources, like Architectural Digest , Country Living , and Architecture and Design . However, for the most part this list seems to have been randomly curated, and the inclusion criteria for ""bizarreness"" is so vague as to be nearly meaningless. For example, several of Gehry's works are listed as ""bizarre"" just because his style tends toward curving facades. – Epicgenius ( talk ) 18:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a reasonable take. I see the Colonel is currently adding sources to the article. If you were to re-check the article in a few days, you might see suffient sources for WP:NLIST compliance, & possibly Fram's OR concern may be allayed too. FeydHuxtable ( talk ) 18:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . ""Bizarre, eccentric, funky, odd, strange, quirky, weird or simply unconventional or unusual"" is too hazy, fuzzy, indeterminate, ill-defined and subjective a criterion. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 12:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per CF and others. WP:LISTCRIT says, ""Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources."" . While, yes, you can point to a source and say ""omg, this dude called this building weird! it goes on the list!"", the very nature of such a tortured, artificial way that this list is trying to maintain inclusion criteria speaks to its fuzzy nature of exactly what should be on it. Most any sort of object is going to have unusual examples. We could just as easily come up with List of unusual cars , or animals, or sports, or just about anything. But none of these would be good lists. 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 15:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yesterday this was a different list article. It now has very clear definition for inclusion: a reliable source calling it bizarre or a similar word. It now has 28 reliable sources in the article. Reliable sources cover these buildings for being unusual. All but one of the buildings listed have their own Wikipedia article, making it a valid navigational list as well. D r e a m Focus 16:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are some reliable sources with lists of bizarre buildings. Far more things appeared in a simple, quick search, but this is enough to prove it is notable. Business Insider Most Bizarre Buildings around the world Country Living Unusual Buildings in America Architectural Digest 12 of the Strangest Buildings in the World D r e a m Focus 16:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Listicles don't count. And in any case, as I said immediately above, the inclusion criteria are not clear. They're fuzzy, tortured, and unnatural. There are no reliable sources for calling something unusual or bizarre. Why are friggin' Business Insider and Country Living reliable sources for determining the bizarreness of buildings? Even the Architectural Digest one is still an iffy listicle. It's just one author's opinion. This isn't a list of bizarre buildings -- it's a list of buildings that have been called bizarre by someone . What kind of list is that? What if another author disagreed? How would we ever know? Who would ever go out of their way to call something not bizarre? 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 17:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no rule against what you call ""listicles"", counting towards notability. Reliable sources are covering unusual looking buildings, that's all that matters. And if you search for ""list of unusual"" you'll find many Wikipedia articles exist for such things. You can find some of them also at Category:Lists of things considered unusual . The article should be renamed List of unusual buildings to match the existing naming convention. D r e a m Focus 17:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Listicles are low-quality churn meant to drive clicks. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS . Just because there are some articles that should also probably be d doesn't mean this one shouldn't be d. And no, it should be renamed to ""List of buildings that have been called unusual, bizaare, odd, strange, ..."". Because it's not a list of unusual buildings; it's a list of buildings that have been called unusual. It's an inherently subjective label with no clear definition. I'll re-quote the especially important bit from LISTCRIT, ""Selection criteria [...] should be unambiguous, objective , and supported by reliable sources."" (emphasis mine). 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 18:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the list inclusion criteria seem clear and reasonable to me. FWIW, novelty architecture and Storybook architecture are part of the the subset of what you might call ""bizarre buildings,"" which as a classification clearly exhibits overall colorful, asymmetrical, and/or personalized attributes that distinguish them from say neoclassical architecture or brutalist architecture or International Style architecture. I see a lot of Gaudi, Gehry, and ""utopian ecovillage"" (Matrimandir, Habitat 67) on this list, suggesting that ""bizarre"" by another name is a form of romantic or otherwise ideological architecture, meaning that it can be clearly defined, if nothing else by what it is not, i.e. hyperrationalized, solely functional design. jengod ( talk ) 02:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The notion that somehow AD and these other journals are somehow reliable arbiters of what is and is not bizarre is at best strained. AD in particular has pushed Brutalist blockhouses and other structures that the average person in the day thought were quite bizarre. Conversely there are surely plenty of oddities of which the architectural authorities are unaware. And besides, as I am wont to say, in the 21 st century, nothing is actually weird anymore, not with (to pick one name) Frank Gehry as someone who routinely competes for projects and from time to time gets to build one. Besides the subjectivity, the subject is profoundly unencyclopedic. Mangoe ( talk ) 03:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] nothing is actually weird anymore, but criteria should include overall cultural impact; eg. some architectural awards or something like that. . (?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnmbnmbnm ( talk • contribs ) 08:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - preferably as a ""List of lists"". This article has existed for 10 years, has very few entries when it could easily have many more. The lead has its guidelines but there is always a subjective element to measuring the degree of unusualness. Several of the current entries are not even close to bizarre (i.e. very unusual), rather simply colorful facades (Hundertwasser). Then there are many hundreds if not thousands of bizarrely-shaped buildings not yet included. To reduce the subjectivity aspect, multiple list articles by category with unique criteria would be a better approach, leaving this article as a ""List of lists"": List of zoomorphic buildings, ... deconstructionist buildings, ... follies (already a basic list there), ... novelty architecture , ... fairytale buildings, ...buildings using nonstandard construction materials (coral, bottles), etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:88:8100:C270:105E:7825:C360:164E ( talk ) 09:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How about but move to something along the lines of List of unusual buildings ? Along the lines of other lists of unusual things e. g. List of unusual deaths , List of unusual minor planets or List of unusual dismissals in international cricket ? -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 10:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support proposed move to List of unusual buildings . jengod ( talk ) 16:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support move to List of unusual buildings if article is kept. Station1 ( talk ) 03:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 03:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and move to List of unusual buildings .",delete
+"Id Tech 2 (disambiguation): ""Id Tech 2"" should just to the topic at Id_Tech#id_Tech_2 , and so this dab is not needed anymore. Natg 19 ( talk ) 23:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . Natg 19 ( talk ) 23:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Natg 19 ( talk ) 23:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions . Natg 19 ( talk ) 23:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC) Id Tech 2 already s to Id Tech#id Tech 2 , which is all we need. Pam D 07:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Id Tech#id Tech 2 already handles this topic, as stated by PamD. The article doesn't disambiguate much, it just lists the game engines using said software, plus there's only 3, and one of them is a game. I'd say this belongs in a list article, but there's not much to list. MK at your service. 09:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Id Tech 2 (disambiguation) serves minimal purpose as it lists only three game engines developed by id Software , which are already covered. To avoid redundancy and improve efficiency, the page should , This follows Wikipedia's guidelines, helping users find complete and relevant information without duplication. Yakov-kobi ( talk ) 10:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC) 21, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jerry Cristoforo: Fails WP:NPROF . US-Verified ( talk ) 20:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Appears to have established notability. ""Adjunct professor"" has two possible meanings in North America: a status-only appointment, where someone does research and teaching at a university which should be recognized, but is not paid for that work; or someone who is paid by the course to teach (often badly). Even though ""adjunct professor"" does not give automatic notability, this person's accomplishments (including as a founder of a university program) point to notability. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 11:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The subject has 150 citations and an h index of 6, so does not meet NPROF C1. His appointments and awards do not approach any of the other NPROF criteria, and there is no evidence of a GNG pass. None of the reasons above are valid arguments for notability. JoelleJay ( talk ) 17:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Nothing in the article nor in his citation record suggests a pass of WP:PROF , and we also don't have any of the in-depth independent reliable sourcing that would be required for WP:GNG . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Low citation count. Doesn't meet WP:PROF . LibStar ( talk ) 04:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC) PROF and WP:GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 21:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Hirokazu Kobayashi (figure skater): PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan . Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 12:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was not able to find any sources that meet GNG. Fails WP:NSKATE . -- Enos733 ( talk ) 15:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC) BEFORE search has been conducted, let alone one that includes native language sources. I'm categorically opposed to AfDs without a proper BEFORE, so I would argue for (while knowing this is not a !vote). While I also haven't done a extensive BEFORE search but was quickly able to find an interview with TV Tokyo [46] and a feature on him in J-Sport [47] in the Japanese article. DCsansei ( talk ) 00:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] DCsansei is absolutely correct in demanding a proper review of potentially available sources before proceeding with a deletion nomination . However, the short window of time within which many similar nominations were submitted is most certainly not proof the required search was not made. I, for example, work as much as I find necessary to prepare a Wikipedia contribution. Sometimes, this involves multiple AfD's, and, when all are ready, I post them up in one go. - The Gnome ( talk ) 14:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] on account of the serious dearth of sources testifying to our subject's notability . Routine listings by the International Skating Union or interviews simply do not do. - The Gnome ( talk ) 14:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kalpataru Projects International: Also note that page was created by a paid account. Charlie ( talk ) 09:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India . Charlie ( talk ) 09:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - PROMO. Llajwa ( talk ) 14:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sean Barron: I wasn't able to find any coverage of him in reliable secondary sources. The article relies too heavily on primary sources (which can't be used to establish notability), with three of the five cited sources having been written by him and one being an article from the student newspaper of the university he attended (which is not independent of him and can't be used to establish notability). The article currently cites only one independent source, a local news article. His only claims to notability are co-authoring two books (neither one notable) and writing for a local newspaper; all of this received only minor local coverage in his hometown. Baronet13 ( talk ) 02:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I rescued the two broken references, and I think that they together establish notability. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, I don't think one article in the locals news counts as significant coverage. The Jambar article is published by his Alma Mater and is not independent of him. Multiple independent secondary sources are required to establish notability, not just one. Baronet13 ( talk ) 17:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Journalism , Disability , and Ohio . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 28, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Weak . Here is another source [69] which mentions Barron by name and discusses the content of the book that Barron wrote. I would say that this barely meets the threshold for in-depth. Adler3 ( talk ) 03:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It has one paragraph about his book. I don't think that, and a local news article, is enough to meet WP:GNG requirements. Baronet13 ( talk ) 06:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval: Comments Source Primary, fails IS 1. Barron, Judy; Barron, Sean (2002-04-08). There's a Boy in Here: Emerging from the Bonds of Autism. Future Horizons. ISBN 978-1-885477-86-6. Primary, fails IS 2. ^ Grandin, Temple; Barron, Sean (2005-11-01). The Unwritten Rules of Social Relationships: Decoding Social Mysteries Through the Unique Perspectives of Autism. Future Horizons. ISBN 978-1-932565-06-5. Interview 3. ^ Blundo, Joe (2008-04-29). ""With help, reporter broke bonds of autism"". The Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved 2009-04-12. Interview 4. ^ Tate, Ashley (2008-05-01). ""One story of autism"". The Jambar. Archived from the original on 2011-07-17. Retrieved 2009-04-12. Primary, fails IS 5. ^ Barron, Sean; Barron, Judy (2002). There's A Boy In Here: Emerging from the Bonds of Autism. Austin, Tex.: Future Horizons. ISBN 978-1-885477-86-6 – via Google Books. This [70] is a brief mention list from the subjects book. ""Sean Barron argue that it’s possible for people with ASD to learn strategies they can apply across a wide range of social situations. They note the following ten “unwritten rules of social relationships”:"". Fails SIGCOV, does not address the subject directly and indepth. I looked to see if I could find sources for the subjects work, and found the following: Book Review in NLM database: Unwritten Rules of Social Relationships: Decoding Social Mysteries Through Autism's Unique Perspective [71] , original here [72] . This is one source with SIGCOV about the work of the subject. Book review: Unwritten Rules of Social... [73] . Site does allow reader reviews [74] and this appears to be one. This is not enough to meet NAUTHOR. WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). // Timothy :: talk 00:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC) 25, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Abiyyu Fauzan Majid: Per BEFORE there is no SIGCOV article about Abiyyu Fauzan Majid. Stvbastian ( talk ) 16:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Badminton , and Indonesia . Stvbastian ( talk ) 16:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - good nomination. Appears to get only trivial coverage in the likes of Bola and Tribun News , despite winning a doubles title in Iran. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mount Zion, Red River Parish, Louisiana: I cannot find evidence that this is a notable place as it's not even included in GNIS. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 22:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Louisiana . Shellwood ( talk ) 22:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even valueless sites like Hometown Locator don't have anything about this place. I can find (low-quality) references to a Mount Zion in Linn Parish, but nothing about this place. Delete, complete waste of space. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC) U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Mount Zion, Red River Parish, Louisiana But since (a) this is the product of a sock-puppeteer with a bad track record of (being gradually d) fact-free GNIS imports, and (b) the GNIS record says that this is from ""The Greater Slidell Area Chamber of Commerce City Map"" when Slidell, Louisiana is on the other side of the state making this look like an extreme GNIS error, or a highly erroneous map; any attempt to salvage this is an utter waste of our time. . Uncle G ( talk ) 00:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Uncle G; the entries sourced to local Chamber of Commerce, real estate, etc. maps are some of the least reliable in the GNIS. TheCatalyst31 Reaction • Creation 19:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Google Earth shows nothing. Old United States Geological Survey maps going back to 1935 show nothing other than an isolated Mount Zion Church on the highway out in the country. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The coordinates pointed to the place in Winn County, but there is not much more at the Red River Parish location - a church and a cemetery, a few buildings nearby but not anything to verify this as a populated place. Peter James ( talk ) 17:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mahmudul Hasan Gunovi: No coverage beyond arrest. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 20:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Islam , and Bangladesh . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC) GNG or WP:ANYBIO . Coverage does not transcend his arrest. LocomotiveEngine ( talk ) 07:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kerala Samajam Model School: A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 12:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and India . Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 12:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Jharkhand-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC) NSCHOOL . LibStar ( talk ) 04:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC) NSCHOOL and WP:GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 16:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Shadaab–Abhik: In my initial search, I couldn't find any coverage that would qualify as GNG-worthy. AmusingWeasel ( talk ) 13:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . AmusingWeasel ( talk ) 13:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC) I can't find anything about the duo. There is some coverage about Shadaab Hashmi but not enough for notability and only mentions about Abhik Chatterjee. S0091 ( talk ) 16:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. wound theology ◈ 09:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"BK Skottfint: Modest history peaking on the 6th tier. Geschichte ( talk ) 20:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Reier Broadcasting Company: Some details about the end of the company that are here but not in the stations' articles probably should be integrated into them, which may require a nominal and/or with, say, flagship property KBOZ (AM) as an alternative to deletion . A 2021 PROD was",delete
+"Jensen Monk: Draftification would be an option, but this is a re-creation of an existing draft. JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league , and England . JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Professional rugby league footballer who made his professional debut in 2023, played the other day against fellow top level side Warrington in the Challenge Cup. Multiple sources within the article. Fleets ( talk ) 19:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources 1 and 2 are stats databases, while the next four are trivial mentions of the subject. BLPs require strong sourcing, which is why I draftified it the first time. JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Currently playing in the top tier with five appearances and will likely gain more. Currently borderline on notability for me but will likely be recreated if deleated. Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. He might be notable in the future but that would be speculating . Re-create if and when he plays a few more games and more sources are likely to exist. J Mo 101 ( talk ) 17:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Sources are exclusively namedrops, zero coverage here. Arguments to based only on his appearing in a particular league are strictly invalid per SPORTSBASIC. JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of London Broncos players . Fails GNG as there is no SIGCOV. References are routine coverage and stats databases. Frank Anchor 01:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - two further news sources added referencing academy days, move into first team, and first appearance of the 2024 season. Fleets ( talk ) 11:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 05:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC) Young player, will likely have more written in the near future, 8 refs already. Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please refrain from repeating your ! vote on a new bulleted line. Thank you. JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC) @ JoelleJay : Would y'all consider a to List of London Broncos players to be a better alternative? JTtheOG ( talk ) 02:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems sensible. I would have no problem with that. J Mo 101 ( talk ) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette Edit! 18:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"DXJC-TV: Perhaps a to GMA Network might be an WP:ATD ? MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions . ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 08:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC) Fails GNG, so , but is also a frequent UPE farm target, so and SALT. UtherSRG (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No indication of being notable. scope_creep Talk 11:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Anar Baghirov: It was recreated in 2018 and still does not meet notability requirements. It also appears to have been created by a COI account. The subject does not meet notability requirements for academics or officials. The subject is the head of Azerbaijan's Bar Association but that does not seem to give notability to the subject. Thenightaway ( talk ) 12:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 02:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC) Resume BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth . Even a brief look at the article content and sources show the refs do not meet WP:IS. BLPs require strong sourcing. Ping me if WP:THREE sources are found that meet WP:SIGCOV and are not routine mill news. // Timothy :: talk 06:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC) part of a COI/SPA campaign about Azerbaijan topics. This one fails NBIO. Owen× ☎ 21:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Five grains in world culture: I think we would need a source for that significance, rather than a list of things chosen by the author in a fit of original research . Mangoe ( talk ) 01:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Mangoe ( talk ) 01:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Lists . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC) OR . Mccapra ( talk ) 10:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . This is a wild-growth abnormality of a disambiguation page that is contrary in almost every way to MOS:DAB and while it could be fixed, there is a ""five grains"" disambiguation page at Five grains (disambiguation) , so the result would be a duplicate of that page at the wrong name—or—the page is a spectacular free-association style failure of a set-index article, and we can not and should not have such a set index article and in this respect the page can not be fixed. I am against ing because the name is nonsensical. — Alalch E. 12:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC) OR as an example, after all it's CC-by-SA so why not. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 12:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC) No original research/Examples . — Alalch E. 15:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , for reasons stated above. The article is a pretty clear case of WP:OR and a wonderful example of what not to do when writing an article. ArkHyena ( talk ) 15:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kannedhirey Thondrinal (TV series): Source 2 is a routine entertainment update on the serial starting. Source 3 is about the actress Source 4 is routine updates on two serials starting Source 5 is same as source 2 Source 6 is the serial promo on YouTube Source 7 is routine promotional fluff about the serial starting Source 8 is tabloid news on the serial starting Source 9 is routine entertainment updates on serial starting Source 10 is routine updates about the actress This article heavily relies on promotional sources that don't show the subject's notability Karnataka ( talk ) 14:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC) This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum . There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current s and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. Logs : 2022-12 ✍️ create ← 2022-06 move to → Draft:Kannedhirey Thondrinal (TV series) -- Cewbot ( talk ) 00:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Muse (Valery Leontiev album): The article was d twice in the Russian Wikipedia [27] [28] . -- Анатолий Росдашин ( talk ) 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 27 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 07:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Russia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd and at AFD before so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC) While I was researching A Matter of Taste (album) , I came across this project and I thought if maybe it is notable then it would help me find sources or chart data of the aforementioned album, but I couldn't find anything on both. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG . ihateneo ( talk ) 00:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd and at AFD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muse (Valery Leontiev album) ) so Soft Deletion is not an option. This AFD page actually has to be moved as it links to the first AFD, not its own page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Link fixed but this discussion page should be moved, maybe after it is closed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muse (Valery Leontiev album) 2 is not the standard nomenclature for a second nomination. L iz Read! Talk! 20:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC) GNG and WP:V . Svartner ( talk ) 05:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mahdi Ahmadian: also whoever created the article used lots of fake references to makes it look better. most of Persian references are referring to his brother Amin Ahmadian who is a national team player. Sports2021 ( talk ) 15:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Chino Sing: Ré union! 10:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Dominican Republic . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Seems likely to be notable via WP:MUSICBIO#C2 and #C8, but not much in the article is verifiable at the moment. — siro χ o 07:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Abhilasha (2023 film): This does not look notable; moreover the page has no About Us section. Has one okay production source and one trailer source. DareshMohan ( talk ) 19:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Karnataka talk 20:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Given there's only one review, I'd suggest a to List of Telugu films of 2023 . - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I don't think a to List of Telugu films of 2023 is the best idea considering it's not mentioned on that page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I will add reliable sources to the article. thanks. -- Batthini Vinay Kumar Goud ( talk ) 02:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:NFILM lacks significant coverage ). Batthini Vinay Kumar Goud added one citation, which other than reciting the bare facts of production, says: The trailer of this movie was released by famous actor Prithvi at Prasad Preview Theater in Hyderabad. On this occasion, he said, ""There is no difference between a small movie and a big movie. Whatever is played is a big movie. The trailer is very good. Happy to make this film with a good point. -- Bejnar ( talk ) 18:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Benika Bisht: Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please don't the article Benika Bisht as it is posted from reliable sources. . I have added many other sources as references that I could found. Please improve the article, don't it. 116.206.202.14 ( talk ) 10:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , non-notable actress that has only had minor roles in notable productions. Fails WP:NACTOR . SailingInABathTub ~~��~~ 00:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Shinichiro Ohta (musician): The reliability of source 1 is unknown and the website does not adequately describe the musician. Source 2 is his band's website. Source 3 and 4 basically mention him by name only. 日期20220626 ( talk ) 07:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC) I tried a search on Jstage ( https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/ ), nothing. I tried using only . jp sites, all you get are concert listings or bloggy type fan sites. I don't see sourcing we can use with what's given now in the article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC) completely personal interview [17] . 153.121.72.12 ( talk ) 02:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 08:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak I feel like a sufficiently dedicate Japanese speaker might be able to find more, but it seems like we have exactly one source at the moment, and that's not enough. BrigadierG ( talk ) 12:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Japanese article also has no source. 日期20220626 ( talk ) 11:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Xicheng Han: There are mentions and routine sports coverage, but no in-depth coverage. Onel 5969 TT me 10:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and China . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Have attempted to find Chinese language sources (via Google, Baidu, Sohu) and came up with nothing. I don't feel like I know enough about sports notability to weigh in on the deletion, but he seems to have few accomplishments. Oblivy ( talk ) 10:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] BLP, fails GNG and BIO. WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Thirteenth Step (band): Couldn't find anything additional, and nothing on this page suggests notability that I can see. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 01:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Kentucky . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 01:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Since I nominated the first go-round, please feel to disregard my position here. However, the last time, we got a """" mainly due to a ""ridiculous number of refs"". Well, as you can see from an analysis from the nominator (independent from me), it's not the number that's ridiculous. This band doesn't even have a listing on Discogs! As Discogs is a very thorough database of recorded music in my decade+ experience with that site, that means this band hasn't recorded anything of note. Since I nominated this article the first time, I've believed the Wikipedia is being played - we are being baffled with BS. There is practically no WP:GNG coverage of this band. It's cool they got to play on some tours, but where is the genuine secondary coverage (not just an artist roster line item) for that? Stefen Tower s among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 02:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also want to note there are myriad bands from Louisville who are clearly notable and have released recordings. This hasn't proven to be one of those bands. Stefen Tower s among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 02:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hadn't thought to check Discogs, but since you mention it I checked Rate Your Music (also quite thorough) and the band isn't listed there either. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 02:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for looking there. Another note about Discogs. I run into bands there all the time who have put out any number of recordings, and some quite nice ones, yet still haven't been considered notable for having articles here. So the idea of having an article here for a band who hasn't been proven to produce a darn thing is a head-scratcher. Stefen Tower s among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 02:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Pretty much all of those sources are primary and/or unreliable in some sort of way. This article has a disturbing amount of maintenance tags, and I just don't think anybody is going to fix that any time soon. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 16:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I actually had the tab open on my browser to address some of those tags, but it would basically involve the nuclear option , after which I would find what both 1st and 2nd noms found, that all the provided sources are routine/promo. So is best. Jdcooper ( talk ) 12:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Pasang Lhamu bus crash: No lasting coverage or effects to meet WP:EVENT . LibStar ( talk ) 01:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Transportation , and Nepal . LibStar ( talk ) 01:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC) 34, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Is This Tomorrow? : , then deprodded by StarTrekker ( talk · contribs ) for alleged mass PROD, but then reinstated by BoomboxTestarossa. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 15:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Webcomics . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 15:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per prod, unable to see any noteworthy places to to. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 16:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As an addendum the article is also confusing as the more famous Is This Tomorrow is often referred to as the name as this article. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 18:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and to 2003 in webcomics . Hiding T 12:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I am finding pretty much nothing regarding this comic in reliable sources - a few mentions here and there, but nothing close to significant coverage. I would be opposed to merging anything to the proposed 2003 in webcomics , and would in fact recommend removing its listing on that page, as it just does not seem like a notable enough example to be included there. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Hicaz Hümâyun Saz Semâisi: Boleyn ( talk ) 22:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 22:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails WP:NMG due to lack of significance. — Hello Annyong (say whaaat?!) 04:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom does not meet NMG. Tame Rhino ( talk ) 02:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bays Brewery: The business is no longer operational and permanently closed and even when open was a very small local brewery in New Zealand not notable or well known to the public (lived there for 15 years). I raised a PROD recently on this article but was not aware that there had been a previous failed PROD long before oldprods were added to talk pages, hence an AfD. Whisky and more ( talk ) 08:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Organizations , and Companies . Whisky and more ( talk ) 08:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . ""established in December 1993. It is no longer in operation."" and nothing much else pretty well says it all. Bduke ( talk ) 10:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Not notable. Not much exposure outside of the region it originated in. Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC) I believe removing this article is the best course of action. The information provided indicates the subject lacks notability. Waqar 💬 17:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Not notable and no sigcov. Alexeyevitch ( talk ) 01:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Artlist: As such, it clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH . US-Verified ( talk ) 20:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Israel . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote , but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts : {{subst: spa | username }} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed | username }} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry : {{subst: csm | username }} or {{subst: csp | username }} . - has plenty of sources, many more available. Way more coverage available than a ""trivial mention"" as in WP:CORPDEPTH . Company is still a healthy active corporation and is generating new products in the media field. Checking the stats, the page gets 150 views a day so, it is certainly notable. Could use an update and some exposition on the products but the page is protected and with all the issues, I am sure it would get flagged as advertorial. Blarneyfife7 ( talk ) 21:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC) has only made 3 edits if you include this vote. The other two were a minor grammar correction on a page and beginning a blank user sandbox. BuySomeApples ( talk ) 16:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak per nom. BuySomeApples ( talk ) 16:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC) most of the sources are repeated multiple times, and many of the sources do not include authors which makes it difficult to establish independence for WP:Reliable sources Editchecker123 ( talk ) 03:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Quick evaluation of the sources suggests they do not meet WP:SIRS . It's all routine coverage of funding, acquisitions, products on list entries, etc. The most in-depth coverage seemed to be a few quick mentions as competition for another company in LA Times. — siro χ o 08:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment Not sure if my opinion counts but, here are a couple of other sources which could be added. . https://www.archdaily.com/979398/artlist-office-switchup (architectural coverage) https://www.duns100.co.il/en/Artlist (D&B best companies) https://jewishbusinessnews.com/2020/12/17/israeli-startup-artlist-buys-american-startup-motion-array-for-65-million/ This is an Israeli company so there are a number of references in Hebrew/Israeli press as well. There seem to enough independent sources and product reviews to meet wp:nexist on the web since they provide licensed media content. 2A01:B747:131:344:28B0:D147:E5AD:F6E0 ( talk ) 22:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC) ORGCRIT for lots of explanation). — siro χ o 02:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - the company is notable, with plenty of relevant sources online, written pretty much in line with other similar companies that also have an article in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaraPMP ( talk • contribs ) 05:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC) — SaraPMP ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. //fxhome.com/news/artlist-acquires-fxhome but there are no end of online sources. There are currently sources that meet criteria of WP:SIRS but this could be improved further. Artlist is a highly regarded company in the creative space, with millions of users and growing products, so the need for representation on Wikipedia will only increase over time. KirstieT ( talk ) 08:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC) — KirstieT ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. SIRS . I believe I looked at all 30 in the article and couldn't find a single one, but I may have missed them. I've no criticism or doubt of the company itself. However, especially with companies, without such sources it's hard to uphold pillars 1 and 2 — siro χ o 08:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC) SIRS criteria: https://medium.com/authority-magazine/making-something-from-nothing-ira-belsky-of-artlist-on-how-to-go-from-idea-to-launch-3b52d675260d , https://www.creativeboom.com/resources/the-best-stock-music-sites-for-creatives-in-2022/ , https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2020-06-29/kkr-leads-48m-round-into-stock-digital-content-platform-artlist . I would also like to add independent reviews videos I found (these seem to be real users with no attachment to the company whatsoever - judging by the fact there are no affiliate links or sponsorships which make them to the best of my knowledge reliable and pristine sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=MU_hOgf93zQ , https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=WZV4BrnjCss SaraPMP ( talk ) 06:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Bold There are literally 1000's of independent reviews by content professionals available online. https://www.youtube.com/results? search_query=%22artlist%22+review&sp=CAM%253D . . Can wikilawyer all you want, you cannot deny that. 135.148.233.69 ( talk ) 18:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. Appreciate the work sourcing. Unfortunately none of these meet the requirements for WP:SIRS Authority Magazine source is fully an interview (not independent). Authority Magazine also does not seem to be independent per se (intentionally so) per their about page [5] Creative Boom link is not in-depth coverage of the company (see WP:CORPDEPTH ) Bloomberg is a press release (not independent) For the purposes of corporate notability, product reviews must be published in reliable sources that provide editorial oversight. WP:PRODUCTREV . The reviews you link may be useful to cite for attributed opinions on a product, but we cannot use them to establish notability. If you are in the mood for more reading, perhaps the essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Crunchbase would be enlightening as to the NPOV issues and such. — siro χ o 19:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I hate people who jump on bandwagon of vandals. . Since you are an established wiki lawyer we can presume you know that references only need to be out there and not in the article. There are hundreds of reviews by editorially qualified sources . . Go find them. . unless out of the 300,000 or so on the web, you are presuming they arent there? Curios what the value proposition for you faked ignorance is? 135.148.233.37 ( talk ) 01:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, i am not the one who suggested those and there are no paid placements or press releases in the article. 135.148.233.37 ( talk ) 01:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC) //sites.google.com/site/videoblocksreview/best-royalty-free-music-wesites/artlist-review https://www.musicgateway.com/blog/music-licensing/artlist-io-music-review https://thetechreviewer.com/artlist-review/ https://www.trustradius.com/products/artlist/reviews#product-details https://www.freelancevideocollective.com/reviews/artlist/ https://www.cined.com/artlist-ai-powered-stock-footage-search-launched/ When I google artlist review, these are all in the top 10.. Seems hard to believe you couldnt find them or the other 1000's that exist. 135.148.233.37 ( talk ) 02:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, siroχo for sharing some more reading. I found the essay very interesting indeed. I imagine that at this point it doesn't really matter what each of us bring to the table as independent sources, we are bound to disagree ad aeternum. However, I did start looking into other sources according to your perspective and conducted a different exercise: I took a Wikipedia article of a company with a very similar profile of this one (I am obviously not going to mention who they are as I gain nothing with putting them into trouble as well) and scrutinized the sources they use as reference. Take a look below: • A Financial Times article where they are mentioned very briefly (not in-depth coverage of the company - your opinion cited here) •A Bloomberg article (""Bloomberg is a press release (not independent)"" - your opinion cited here) •A Techcrunch article (also used as a reference in the Artlist article (""I believe I looked at all 30 in the [Artlist] article and couldn't find a single one, but I may have missed them."" - your opinion cited here) •A Reuters article (also used as a reference in the Artlist article (""I believe I looked at all 30 in the [Artlist] article and couldn't find a single one, but I may have missed them."" - your opinion cited here) • A Sifted.eu article, which at this point I am pretty sure it's not an independent source at all • We are left with a couple of local newspaper articles in a foreign language, which judging by the WP:ORGCRIT are not enough to justify the existence of the article in the Wikipedia sphere. You also agreed to it when you wrote earlier ""especially with companies, without such sources it's hard to uphold pillars 1 and 2"" In conclusion, this article from a very similar company with very similar sources has never been marked for deletion. Same niche, same sources, different criteria. I just put this out there for what is worth. My humble take on all this: since there are no doubts or criticisms about the company itself, since it has a large number of users and a growing number of products, since it has a significant number of pageviews, why not to let it live in the Wiki sphere and WP:STUBIFY it? I think this could be the most logical approach here. SaraPMP ( talk ) 06:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So first off, thanks again for your engagement in this discussion and apologies for the sheer amount of information that gets thrown at you in discussion like this. As you can see, such discussions rely heavily on policies and guidelines that people learn over time. It's very much getting thrown in the deep end. I really do appreciate your contributions. Know that these policies and guidelines derive almost exclusively from the consensus of Wikipedians and have developed over time to serve the task of building an encyclopedia. So, to address your message, the criteria for assessing sources are the same, and are meant to be applied the same way. Sources are usually assessed case-by-case. For example, the Bloomberg article you linked above is a press release, here's the original . I'm not sure about the Bloomberg article in the other article you examined, maybe it's an independent reliable secondary source with significant in-depth coverage directly of the company , maybe it's not (Bloomberg is generally considered reliable so we at least don't really have to worry about that bit). Maybe that other article should be d but nobody's raised it yet, or maybe not. Ultimately, the consensus of Wikipedians at this point in time is that we decide whether to include articles about corporations based on such sources. — siro χ o 07:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 02, 12 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.180.152.55 ( talk ) - Sources seem reliable to me, however if the WP:SIRS criteria are thought to be shaky, then it can be a good idea to WP:STUBIFY the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:FE13:8400:725A:CF6B:567F:2D3A ( talk ) 11:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . One thing you can say about Artlist is it certainly knows how to get its message out. It's not easy to see the wood through the trees. Worried by the contribution history of the article. Agree with User:Siroxo 's evaluation of the sources. Also note this page has had to have a level of protection applied. There's a couple of mentions in books but nothing indepth. Spent some time considering this and can't readily come to a formal ! vote, however weighing everything up, leaning . Rupples ( talk ) 02:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC) //sites.google.com/site/videoblocksreview/best-royalty-free-music-wesites/artlist-review https://www.musicgateway.com/blog/music-licensing/artlist-io-music-review https://thetechreviewer.com/artlist-review/ https://www.trustradius.com/products/artlist/reviews#product-details https://www.freelancevideocollective.com/reviews/artlist/ https://www.cined.com/artlist-ai-powered-stock-footage-search-launched/ The first one is a review site owned by google. . that isnt credible? How about the 5 mentions in 6 paragraphs in the LA Times Article, WiredUK, there are plenty of trades though you would need to sort through the paid ones, and all the professional reviews on youtube you would have to sort through. References dont need to be in the article, they just need to available. Also, notability doesnt fade and this article was already deemed notable. It wasnt moved into the main space by one of the paid editors, it went through AFC like it should have. All the paid editing on this page was disclosed properly. Some of these people who just siphon at people's work to make them start over hoping they will go back to Upwork is literally nothing but thieving. . Might as well be shoplifters but worse! There is no denial on the notability. I am going to these comments posted in the forum on reddit because I want people to be held responsible for their lies. There is no way anyone with any time spent editing wikipedia that would challenge this page unless there was some additional value proposition. Anyone who says any different is lying. Sorry if i ranted but it is true. 135.148.232.242 ( talk ) 08:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I'm getting pretty lost in all the unrelated posting above. Leaning , none of the sources I've clicked on in this thread seem to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH . What are the two or three best sources? Suriname0 ( talk ) 21:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Even ignoring the comments by accounts with 1 edit (to this AFD), I'm seeing ""Weak Delete"" or ""Leaning Delete"" and given the pushback from SPAs, I'd like to see a stronger consensus before closing this discussion. Of course, another closer might view things differently. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ignore the pushback. Do what feels right. :-) ArcAngel (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Deletion review for a cavity inspection. Very unpleasant. L iz Read! Talk! 07:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yikes. A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC) 14, 18 July 2023 (UTC) NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* . ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject . In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no ""Independent Content"" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing ++ 10:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:NCORP . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 11:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] not sure why no one is doing any book research. . If you select custom range since 2010, you will find nearly 20 books that cite artist as the place to go if you are in media for stock video footage. 2A01:B747:156:344:E4D0:E7C3:13BC:EF36 ( talk ) 21:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which of those books show signficant coverage? Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 07:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment How about this one which has a bolded section on P. 232 on Artist which then goes on through p.234. This printed paperback seems to have visual walkthrough on how to sign up inside. This book on instagram has section titled Artlist 2A01:B747:156:344:B9E1:C3F8:1BB3:15C9 ( talk ) 00:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd typically consider ""how to use this product"" to fall under of product instruction manuals , not sure how much analysis is in there, but I'm open to hearing an argument otherwise. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 14:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would be happy to discuss how a printed paperback on general film editing having an entire section on how to sign up for this company's service would be considered product instruction manuals? ALso, I notice you picked the weakest of the three references to point out. Do you not want to address the 3 pages in the filmmaking book or the other Artlist section on the book for making instagram content. . 64.183.24.146 ( talk ) 23:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One thing to in mind is that this is an article about a company. The SIRS sources need to provide in-depth coverage of the company. Many 3rd party ""how to"" type don't have such coverage, though some do. Of the sources the IP user above linked, the first one would look promising for product coverage, but doesn't seem to have company coverage, but it's not my native language nor can I see all the pages. Perhaps identifying a product by this company and finding some sources with in-depth coverage of the product, and writing a new article is the better approach? — siro χ o 00:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC) //www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-songtradr-music-licensing-20170822-story.html 47.153.142.52 ( talk ) 00:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC) //sites.google.com/site/videoblocksreview/best-royalty-free-music-wesites/artlist-review 47.153.142.52 ( talk ) 00:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC) //www.edp24.co.uk/news/business/20639363.well-paid-city-tech-jobs-created-software-firm-gears-growth/ 47.153.142.52 ( talk ) 00:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and this techcrunch article is way more than trivial coverage of an acquisition. . https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/29/artlist-raises-48m-led-by-kkr-for-its-royalty-free-music-video-and-sound-effect-library/ 47.153.142.52 ( talk ) 00:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Cites don't show the required significant coverage. A note to the sockpuppet accounts and IPs voting - You are wasting everyone's time (including your own) bringing trivial mentions and self published junk here. - MrOllie ( talk ) 00:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It will just be restored in deletion review or through the arbitration committee. . They can go through who's votes accurately reflect the actual notability of the company and the reasons why. 47.153.142.52 ( talk ) 00:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And let me say, this was properly disclosed editing which went through AFC and was moved into publication by a very credible editor. . Notability doesnt not deteriorate. . Someone just decided to attack this page. . This is an easy restore if for some reason we ignore every sign of notability and source. 47.153.142.52 ( talk ) 00:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and significant work and research has been done by multiple editors which deserve credit. Your issue isnt even with the creator of the article. 47.153.142.52 ( talk ) 01:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This whole PC MAG article is about the best services in different areas and 3 out of the 5 of them are their companies. . This is more than substantial as PC Mag is printed and widely available. . Also well edited and been around since the 80's. . https://www.pcmag.com/picks/the-best-subscription-services-for-content-creators Artlist, Motion Array, and Artgrid are all described in detail. 47.153.142.52 ( talk ) 01:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hardly in-depth reviews are they? Not comprehensive enough to satisfy the WP:PRODUCTREV section of WP:NCORP . This applies to all the reviews in that article, not just Artlist. Rupples ( talk ) 02:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strongest possible . TWL wasn't working for me over the weekend, so I decided to wait even though I was mostly done. At this point though, I give up . Open a case request on me, I don't care. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 02:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC) This article doesn't just fail to meet WP:CORPDEPTH , it's also written like and advert and almost all accounts contributing are either single-purpose, or are paid contributors (both banned and following the policy). It would be best to , even if notable, so that it can be rewritten without COI, and to avoid the article reading like an advert. - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs ) 17:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC) NCORP and HighKing . NB: I was going to close this as , but since I've edited the article, decided that it was preferable to let someone else do that. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk ) 21:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All this is laughable that this article could ever be recreated without using the same references or doing exactly the same work, People disguising they are paid editors and attacking a page so they can try and grab it when it goes back to upwork or to try and get them on a monthly plan. You are thieves thinking these guys want to pay three or 4 times for an article. . You are ruining your own platform and AI will soon prove without a doubt you are all doing paid editing, if it hasnt already and the network admins are just hiding it from you. This article is in a half dozen different categories. . Cant wait. . Going to suggest it to arb and the foundation, AI be used to identify admins and editors hiding UPE. Time for honoring yourself will soon be over highness. 47.153.142.52 ( talk ) 03:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Changes were made and the article has added significant references. . Let me also remind you that this will be a sure thing entry into the hebrew edition and then it could easily be moved here without any issues. . 47.153.142.52 ( talk ) 04:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact this is an Israeli startup that has made these contributions from a country so small... also makes it inherently notable. 47.153.142.52 ( talk ) 04:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Not sold in stores: -- D'n'B - t -- 11:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Advertising . -- D'n'B - t -- 11:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC) You can find mentions of the term in many articles, but that's all it is, just the phrase being used. I don't see analysis of this in any sort of retail journal or business journal. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Uses of the phrase abound, but I can't find anything discussing it as a concept. No sources, no article. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 13:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Formerly notable when mail order via television and catalog was common and items were shipped direct from the warehouse, but as that fine line has been erased with the age of e-commerce, this is an out-of-date term that is an artifact of the 80s and 90s. Nate • ( chatter ) 15:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC) WP:NTEMP states that ""Notability is not temporary"", so a ""formerly notable"" topic would still meet notability guidelines. — Ost ( talk ) 17:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Gene Grimaldi: I don't think its unreasonable to state that ""winning"" awards by preforming audio work on albums released by other people doesn't count towards WP:MUSICBIO , unless the awards are specifically for audio technicians. This Pro Sound News piece is the only good profile of this guy I could find, and it alone isn't enough to show notability. Mach61 15:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and California . Mach61 15:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC) as per nomination, also t's not entirely precise to attribute him Grammy nominations that were really for Lady Gaga and her album, not for it's mastering work. InDimensional ( talk ) 00:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] regretfully. The consensus has been that engineers and producers are run of the mill . They just don't get the coverage they deserve . Until that consensus changes , we have been deleting a lot of these articles. Bearian ( talk ) 17:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Metra Electronics: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC) There has never been (apart from a whole load of external hyperlinks back in the 2011 revisions, that are now broken except for the 1 that turns out to be a corporate press release) anything but pointers to the company's own various WWW sites here. Not a single independent reliable source cited in 12 years. (And the d revisions turn out to be company promotional blurb written in the first person.) This wouldn't meet our standards for draft articles these days, and those can get d after 6 months. . Uncle G ( talk ) 14:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"DYQC: Can be ed to Aliw Broadcasting Corporation . MarioGom ( talk ) 19:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines . MarioGom ( talk ) 19:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC) All the sources in the article are reliable. The first two source states that the station is licensed. Sources 3 to 6 talk about the station's programming. The last source talks about the station's rebrand. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG . ASTIG 😎 🙃 09:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mere primary source records are not significant coverage. Please, could you point out which exact secondary sources cover DYQC specifically are in depth? MarioGom ( talk ) 23:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources 3 to 7 are indeed secondary sources. And therefore provides WP:SIGCOV to the subject (or its programming). I have explained more than enough. And I won't respond to this post again. ASTIG 😎 🙃 10:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC) GNG per Astig's argument. Sources mentioned are reliable enough and secondary, with the ones mentioned by Astig in-depth IMV. SBKSPP ( talk ) 23:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Source eval: Comments Source 404 1. 2019 NTC FM Stations Name listed in table, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth NTC Region 7 No SIGCOV, simply states, ""its episodes are aired at 106.7 Home Radio, according to the schedules given to the students and parents concerned."" 3. ^ DepEd-7 urges school divisions to come up with other modalities No SIGCOV, simply states, ""Currently one radio station is tapped by the City Government and it is 106.7 Home Radio."" 4. ^ Hagit sa mga magtutudlo sa kahanginan Article does not mention subject 5. ^ Cebu City learners to hear ‘modules on air’ starting January 2021 No SIGCOV, simply states, ""Basaha sa ubos ang daily Radio-Based Instruction schedule nga madungog sa 106.7 Home Radio FM Station."" 6. ^ PAHIBALO SA TANANG CEBU CITY PARENTS UG LEARNERS Routine mill news about formatting change. Information from subject, fails WP:IS, fails WP:SIGCOV 7. ^ Celario, Eunice; Cambri, Susan (January 30, 2023). ""Pagbabago sa DWIZ Kaabang-abang"". Filipino Mirror. Retrieved January 30, 2023. No objection if a consensus es, but I can't find one I think is useful. // Timothy :: talk 14:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Significant coverage in various reliable and independent sources. RomanRaju ( talk ) 08:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which source provides significant coverage? Significant coverage means that a source addresses the topic directly and in detail. MarioGom ( talk ) 08:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per comments above pointing out significant independent coverage. Also I will never stop pointing out that media outlets typically do not cover each other, and this should be taken into account when assessing the notability of subjects that are themselves sources of coverage. WilsonP NYC ( talk ) 15:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC) so far, the """" votes above have essentially been hand-waving at WP:SIGCOV without really demonstrating meaningful concrete evidence of such coverage. Meanwhile, the only one in this discussion who appears to have critically dug into the sources is TimothyBlue, and no rebuttals have yet been made against their source evaluation table. Left guide ( talk ) 09:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: TimothyBlue is currently the most persuasive comment above, relisting to see if there is any response to their comment. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per TimothyBlue. I'm not convinced, not only by sources used in the article, but also by those who voted to it. I bet they will not bother finding reliable sources & add them to the article. Israel's Son 16:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment votes provide no sources to eval. // Timothy :: talk 17:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jasmina Cunmulaj: – Davey 2010 Talk 19:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. No notability or any importance. —— Notorious4life ( talk ) 04:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to support an article. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 00:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC) NMODEL and WP:GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 11:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dewayne Dwyer: Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Caribbean , and United States of America . JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kristen Onsgard: Seems like a total failure of WP:GNG . Specifically, there is not a single independent source in the article, and I was not able to find any either. From WP:GNG: ""Independent of the subject excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it"". Within bridge, ""affiliated with the subject"" means bridge federations, leagues, and tournaments - and of course also the subject herself (here, I'm referring to the Amazon page for a book.) Prolonged attempts to explain the creator what a significant and independent source is, have not bore fruit at all; a discussion of this nature might also come up during this discussion. References to a bridge SNG might also come up, which is irrelevant as long as GNG is not met. Geschichte ( talk ) 15:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Texas . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - We have already gone through this review process with this user. My account is autopatrolled, new articles I create should not have to go through the review process as I am supposed to be trusted to know what types of articles meet Wikipedia guidelines. Kristen won a North American Bridge Championship (NABC). These Bridge events are open to players around the world and many fly in, including the world's top professional players, to compete at these 10 day tournaments. Winning an unlimited event at an NABC is very prestigious achievement. I created Kristen's page, and also included a picture. Geschichte decided to move this new article to Draft space. There was discussion on this user's Talk page about this. I asked for more senior Wikipedia editors to review the submission. They decided that the page was notable, overruled Geschichte , and Star Mississippi moved the article to the main Wikipedia on April 7, asking Geschichte to take it to AfD if there was any issues. One would have thought the discussion was over, but Geschichte retaliated by adding This sports biography does not cite any sources containing significant coverage . Please help improve this article by adding citations to sources containing significant coverage . Sports biographies without significant coverage violate the requirement for such articles and may be d .",delete
+"Dance Contempra: BuySomeApples ( talk ) 03:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance , Companies , and Georgia (U.S. state) . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC) Not enuough reliable sources provided BoraVoro ( talk ) 08:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Chandralekha (TV series): Clearly does not fit WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV . Karnataka ( talk ) 20:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India . Karnataka ( talk ) 20:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC) ICTFSOURCES . 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 12:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Riaz Ahmed Kataria: — Wasell ( T ) 🌻🇺🇦 16:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians . — Wasell ( T ) 🌻🇺🇦 16:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails GNG. JoinFluffy250 ( talk ) 16:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The subject is yet another ""businessman and politician"" and the article created by a contributor who ""likes to create Articles about Politicians, Businessmans and other famous personalities"" from the same region as Kataria. The ground is already unsteady. The dearth of sources (we only have routine listings, announcements, etc) hastens our work. - The Gnome ( talk ) 20:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Sockpuppet investigations/Sazmancrpo . Wikishovel ( talk ) 14:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Amas–Darbhanga Expressway: Boleyn ( talk ) 14:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Bihar . Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"The Cryptoverse: The first Bloomberg site looks fishy, due to the font and the mention that it's published by a PR company copyright down at the bottom. Rest of the sourcing is of zero importance for notability, a combination of PR and non-RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I agree that this is not notable. Crypto companies have a strong motive to create a Wikipedia page for apparent credibility despite lack of notability. Chamaemelum ( talk ) 20:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency , Companies , and United Arab Emirates . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - this is a G11. some of the sources appear to be dubious paid promotional blogs pretending to be news outlets. I removed those and the press releases and the coverage is one Bloomberg article, which doesn't mention the article topic - David Gerard ( talk ) 08:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Failed notability requirement. Crypto platforms are quite notorious in trying to be included in Wikipedia. Noneate ( talk ) 14:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC) Very short, not notable in any way, and possibly promotional content. HarukaAmaranth ( talk ) 13:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Elke Jeinsen: Bild is sensationalist tabloid and the rest of the sources that don't cover Trump are meh. The context of notability is Trump so it should be covered as a footnote there or in a jumbo article covering DJTs alleged infidelities. Spartaz Humbug! 07:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , Beauty pageants , Fashion , Germany , and Sweden . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Items in Bild, The Sun and what looks like a Swedish tabloid. Not seeing notability based on the lack of proper RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC) This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions . • Gene93k ( talk ) 15:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and California . • Gene93k ( talk ) 15:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sent this back to Afc where some minor work was done to it, but it can't really disguise the lack of notabilty. As far as I can see there is not an indication of significance and the coverage, which is all the article and is very poor. Fail WP:BIO . scope_creep Talk 21:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Battle of Kutais: Admittedly is harder to research something that happened so long ago, but I haven't even been able to verify in an RS that this happened. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Georgia (country) . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ad with so many dubious battle articles the sources in the article are all mysteriously offline. I’ve looked at histories of Georgia in several languages (not Georgian or Russian) and find no reference at all to this alleged battle. Mccapra ( talk ) 07:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I searched for information on this battle in Russian through Google, Yandex and Google Scholar and found nothing. -- Catlemur ( talk ) 19:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Barış Kıralioğlu: Redivy ( talk ) 01:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . Redivy ( talk ) 01:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC) The cited references in the article demonstrate the subject's notability according to WP:NACTOR , highlighting their significant roles in multiple notable TV Shows and stage performances. Please note that sources such as Cumhuriyet, Hurriyet and Tiyatronline (for theater productions) are in general considered to be among the most reliable sources for Turkey-related subjects. In addition to this, there are many more references related to their roles in other productions that they contributed, which are not yet cited. @ Redivy , could you provide an assessment of the references with regard to this criteria and explain why you believe the references do not support the subject's notability? TheJoyfulTentmaker ( talk ) 02:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 09:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – This recently went through an AfD on the Turkish Wikipedia , where it was d as participants agreed that the person did not meet the subject-specific guideline. I find this important to note as WP:NBIO and its trwiki counterpart have the exact same wording when it comes to actors and their roles. Sources cited in the article are mostly namedrops and have no significant coverage on the subject, barring a few non-independent interviews. Fails both the relevant SNG and the GNG . Styyx ( talk ) 00:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Could you explain why you believe the criteria in WP:NACTOR is not satisfied? ""The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions"" . I'd like to note that the same exact question remains unanswered in the Turkish Wikipedia discussion, and many of the editors there, including the nominator, did not elaborate on any of the references brought up in the discussion, and there was nothing similar to a WP:BEFORE . For comparison, I'd like also to mention a comparable AfD discussion that resulted in a speedy on Turkish Wikipedia, due to the actor criteria that I cited, so I am really puzzled to understand why the same criteria was not used for Baris Kiralioglu. TheJoyfulTentmaker ( talk ) 03:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Because his roles are not significant enough; he is named last or at least very close to last in most of the sources listing the actors in a production. You can't have an indefinite amount of significant roles in a series so much so that every single actor playing passes NBIO. Also note that just passing NBIO is only an indication that sources might exist and that the subject still may be not notable if those are not found. Throwing every single source in the article where the person is barely mentioned instead of focusing on a few select sources where the person is covered significantly is not helping your case here either. Styyx ( talk ) 12:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, @ Styyx , for taking the time to respond. As far as I know, there is no Wikipedia guideline suggesting that the order of actors in listings can be used to determine their significance. Wouldn't it be better to leverage reliable sources for determining significance? I think this article in Hurriyet definitely demonstrates that his role in İçerde was significant enough. His portrayal of the former Turkish prime minister in Pocket Hercules: Naim Suleymanoglu was mentioned in multiple news outlets such as NTV and he appeared in the official trailer , so I believe his role there is significant as well. Also, what about all those theater plays he acted in and directed? Regarding finding sources with significant coverage: some of the cited sources are high-quality interviews with detailed introductions. Other than that, we have significant, in-depth coverage for the works that he has significantly contributed to , which establishes his notability. After notability is established, primary sources can be cited for noncontroversial biographical information for the article content. TheJoyfulTentmaker ( talk ) 14:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC) a) Istanbul has a very rich journalism culture; however, not all newspaper or periodical archives are available online. b) Kiralioglu seems to have professional collaborations with Italian artists, and we might have missed sources in Italian. c) A number of local or national Turkish news sources gets to shut down every year or so, and as a result, their archives are no longer available online. TheJoyfulTentmaker ( talk ) 03:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The order used by reliable sources is just common sense. If you are the tenth actor to be listed somewhere, then your role is not significant. I still maintain the opinion that the subject is not covered in-depth by reliable and independent sources; furthermore notability can not be based on the assumption that sources exist. I find it very unlikely that they do anyway, given that none of the sources that do exist are of high-quality, so it's an ambitious stretch to suggest that all the in-depth coverage about this person ceased to exist or exists very deep. The theater plays where he did have significant roles are not notable on their own. Styyx ( talk ) 15:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks again @ Styyx for contributing to this discussion. My final remark on ordering would be about the deletion discussion for Güzin Çorağan in Turkish Wikipedia, during which you were an administrator, I believe. I just checked the official opening credits of the show Bizimkiler , and she appeared 25th in the listing. And you had no objection for her role being considered significant there. Barış Kıralioğlu appears within the first 5 or 10 actors in these kinds of credit lists. TheJoyfulTentmaker ( talk ) 17:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My comment on that AfD was an informational note about the involvement of sock puppets to the administrator wishing to close the discussion. There is no remark on notability, nor do I remember evaluating the article in the first place (and for the record, I have never been an admin on the Turkish Wikipedia). Styyx ( talk ) 17:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC) per Styyx. Aintabli ( talk ) 17:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks @ Aintabli . I'd like to briefly recap what I would consider to be potential problems in Styyx's arguments. a) Although WP:NACTOR is very likely to be satisfied here, they don't accept it due to an unjustified argument that his name doesn't appear within the first 3-4 names on actor lists. However, major Turkish news outlets like NTV have published news stories where Kiralioglu's role in a production is even mentioned in the article headline . One could easily regard this as equivalent to being listed at rank 1. b) Styyx does not recognize that once a specific notability guideline is satisfied, it is considered highly plausible that reliable sources exists for the subject except for rare cases, even if we have not reached them yet. With it, the burden of proof for showing the absence of sources shifts to the other side. c) SNGs could function independently from the GNG (as with academics or geographical places). It's not explicitly stated whether WP:NACTOR should only serve as an indication that sources might exist or if it is regarded as an alternative presumption of notability. TheJoyfulTentmaker ( talk ) 05:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Playing a significant person does not always equate to having a significant role. The plot only covering that character briefly doesn't suddenly make it a significant role, even if it's the president, in this case. So no, one could not easily regard this as having the main role in a title. I have already stated above why I find it unlikely that sources exist. If you do, however, want proof of the absence of sources after the burden somehow fell on me, here are some additional sources I have found: __. Do I even have to say this? From NPROF : "" This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline "". In this passage it is explicitly stated that NPROF works different than other SNG's, with NBIO (which includes NACTOR) being used as an example. An SNG overriding the GNG is an exception, not the norm; NBIO is not one of those rare instances. The only other times this is the case is at NASTRO (only kind of, since it requires sources as well) and NCORP , which has even stricter requirements for sourcing than the GNG. All others use the terms ""may"" or ""likely"" when talking about notability. Styyx ( talk ) 23:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC) per TheJoyfulTentmaker. Kolhisli ( talk ) 12:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC) per Styyx. Sources are brief mentions or interviews which are primary sources. His roles are not significant enough to meet NACTOR. S0091 ( talk ) 17:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for contributing to the discussion, @ S0091 , really appreciate your time. One thing to note is that there is no general agreement about whether interviews should be considered to be primary or secondary sources, as discussed in WP:INTERVIEWS . Also, I was wondering if you could tell more about how you determine the insufficient significance of his roles in a) films like İçerde and Cep Herkülü, and b) theater plays, such as Karanlıkta Komedi, and Müfettiş. TheJoyfulTentmaker ( talk ) 18:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Styyx has already explained why Kıralioğlu does not meet the significant roles criteria so I am not going to cover that ground again other than to state I agree with their assessment. For interviews, anything he says about himself is primary, per both the policy (read both primary including note d and secondary ) and the essay which states The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source . Above, you tout this interview as ""high-quailty"" but is a Q&A with a standard introduction which is a couple sentences about him as were the others. At this point you veering into WP:BLUDGEONING the process so you might consider stepping back. S0091 ( talk ) 20:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC) Some final remarks... Firstly, let me clearly state that I have no conflict of interest with this subject, if anyone was wondering. I came across its deletion discussion on the Turkish Wikipedia, and after that, I created the English stub. It remained a stub for more than a month until this AfD was created. My questions were honest, sorry to hear that S0091 considers them to be bludgeoning. The author of the bludgeoning essay accepts that it is often misused, by the way. If it was already clear to everyone except to me that the two Wikipedians would be in perfect agreement with regards to a) significance in this context is determined by being within the first 3 or 4 actors in a listing and b) the theater works should be considered non-notable even though they have received significant coverage in the Turkish mainstream media, then I apologize for my last question. Regarding interviews, the footnote d in primary states that, whether an interview is primary or secondary is context-dependent . In the ones provided, I believe there are sufficient remarks by the interviewer throughout the interview such that those would constitute information from a secondary source. It is not easy to get an interview in Hurriyet , as one can easily guess. Also, NBIO states that if a single source is not in-depth, then information from multiple sources can be combined, so the sources contribute to notability, even if we did not have NACTOR. -- TheJoyfulTentmaker ( talk ) 21:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC) per Styyx source eval. I agree found sources are database records, name mentions, or interviews, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth . BLPs require strong sourcing. If someone finds WP:THREE sources meeting WP:SIGCOV, ping me. // Timothy :: talk 21:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Peacock Game: Esolo5002 ( talk ) 04:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Events , American football , Internet , Florida , and Missouri . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] although some of the content can be added into either NFL on NBC or a newly created NFL on Peacock article (I oppose a to either title). The game itself is not notable. The way the game was broadcast is possibly notable but that can be better covered on an article about NFL broadcasting than an article on a single game. Frank Anchor 13:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong inasmuch 1) I curated it and 2) it's a fascinating and notable NFL, business, Internet, streaming, copyright, and pop culture story, all of which intersect. How many football games are named after the rights-holder? This is a bit much to fold into another article, in my estimation. kencf0618 ( talk ) 23:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact that you like the subject and find it ”fascinating and notable” doesn’t make it so and certainly doesn’t mean it should be kept. A game being named after its rights holder (and this nickname has NOT had any mainstream usage) doesn’t mean the game is notable. There could potentially be content on this article that is useful to an article on NFL broadcasting (as I mentioned in my !vote) but this game is certainly not notable enough for a standalone article. Frank Anchor 23:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - the game itself was not particularly notable, but the broadcast (being the first NFL playoff game behind a paywall) was very controversial and seemed to get a lot of coverage. I have little inclination right now to try to dig into the coverage, but if someone wants to look for and finds significant coverage of the broadcast controversy, then the article should be kept as meeting GNG. Rlendog ( talk ) 19:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC) NSPORTSEVENT ; it's too early to tell if the game or its broadcast will have the type of legacy that would entitle it to a standalone article. For now, the information in this article should be incorporated into NFL on NBC as suggested above. Hatman31 ( talk ) 22:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - per the reasons above. There is not much information in the article currently and while this was the first playoff exclusive game on Peacock, the Bills-Chargers game back in Week 16 was actually the first exclusive game on the platform (over this game). I feel that game would be more suitable for that nickname but what do I know. Also agree that it is way too early to tell if it will have a lasting legacy for a standalone article. Maybe in the future but not at the moment. -- James161723 ( talk ) 05:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Arkansas–Arkansas State rivalry: Let'srun ( talk ) 17:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , American football , Basketball , and Arkansas . Let'srun ( talk ) 17:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC) Demirel, Evin (3 February 2021). ""Inside Story: How Arkansas State vs Arkansas Happened"" . Best of Arkansas Sports . Retrieved 17 November 2023 . — Maile ( talk ) 20:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That does not look like a reliable source. Conyo14 ( talk ) 21:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmmm. Well, then perhaps you could lend a hand and find a reliable source. — Maile ( talk ) 23:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This appears to be manufactured WP:OR . Teams from these schools were not playing each other in any sport until recently. The sources: First mentions nothing about a rivalry. Second is about a planned football game, the first ever between the two colleges, in 2025, and supposes that it will become a rivaly. Third mentions the word ""rivalry"", but in relation to other institutions. Fourth isn't a source, it's just stats from 3 women's basketball games over the years; nothing about a rivalry. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . User:SMcCandlish hit the nail on the head. The football programs will meet for the first time in two years. This is not a rivalry now, and we don't use a crystal ball to predict that one will develop when the meet in 2025. Cbl62 ( talk ) 18:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per SMcCandlish, Cbl. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs ) 20:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of current American Indoor Football team rosters: A collection of sports rosters should not be created just to need to be updated continually, when that info can be obtained elsewhere. And no sources were even cited. Andre 🚐 06:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Lists of people , American football , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC) WP:NOTDATABASE applies here. Concur with the nom. User:Let'srun 14:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Let'srun and @ Andrevan why doesn’t it apply? Leagues like the IFL and NAL have List of their current rosters? So why can’t the AIF have one? none of them have sources on them and they are allowed to stay and be verified ParkerLyme ( talk ) 01:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC) 13, 26 December 2023 (UTC) 10, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll just tag them as refimprove for now, and give people a chance to add any sources. Andre 🚐 03:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Andrevan thing is there is a whole category for lists of these types of rosters List of current AFC team rosters , List of current CFL team rosters , List of current NFL team rosters , List of current NBA team rosters , etc. Every sports league does this so I think it is just a normal practice here on Wikipedia None of them in the Category of Lists of current team rosters use references Look for yourself because by that logic you are giving me for the deletion of this article and the others I mentioned they should all be d Because there is no way to put official sources for rosters other than linking their roster websites on the templates ParkerLyme ( talk ) 03:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Er... yeah. I mean, there's WP:OSE to bear here, but the existence of these doesn't mean they don't need sources. Andre 🚐 03:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC) 37, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Consistency is not actually something that we need. We need WP:RS , and I'm quite aware of this, and it applies to all articles. Please see WP:V . If there are 33 articles that lack any kind of sources, they all need to be improved or removed, in my humble opinion. Nothing personal. Andre 🚐 04:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails LISTN, and just reproduces the (non-independent, primary) roster lists at the teams' respective websites. Unlike NFL lists where there could be some claim to navigational utility and for which secondary independent sources most definitely exist, this and many of the other lists don't serve any useful purpose for navigation (due to almost all the entries being non-notable) and don't provide info beyond that of a database. Readers are much better served visiting the league or team sites where they can see automatically updated rosters with more info on individual players. JoelleJay ( talk ) 17:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC) JoelleJay . Cbl62 ( talk ) 03:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Leanne Callaghan: Zero SIGCOV in any mainline RS, and she makes tiny appearances in any of the main climbing media (e.g. only logs of her doing a route) as per WP:NCLIMBER . Her climbing career is over now so her climbing notability will not improve. She would not rank as an important British female climber (like Alison Hargreaves ) and has no substantive climbing notability. Aszx5000 ( talk ) 16:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Aszx5000 ( talk ) 16:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] woman connected with tourism in Australia with the same name has coverage, nothing for this person found. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. No claim of notability and no substantial coverage. If I read the reference correctly, she wasn't even ""first woman to climb Neanderthal "", but the first woman to (co-)lead an expedition. Maybe, since that is so trivial an honor the source isn't sure if it is accurate. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 23:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The article makes no compelling claim for the notability of the subject. 128.252.154.2 ( talk ) 19:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 20:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Olivia Nicole Martins: PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , and Canada . Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC) GNG MaskedSinger ( talk ) 05:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 12:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG . Let'srun ( talk ) 20:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Australian Open broadcasters: Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE . As of sources per WP:RS : three of those are about announcment of deals, one is a listing of TV schedules, one just quotes the tourney in passing which has no relevance to this list. Checked WP:BEFORE which resulted in nothing. I would have no objections to a if the article was in the same quality of List of Wimbledon broadcasters . See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination) SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 11:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Tennis , Lists , and Australia . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 11:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC) Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination) and WP:NOTTVGUIDE . LibStar ( talk ) 00:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - except this one has better sourcing than the d French Open article. It needs to be tidied, but just because it's not up to a good article like Wimbledon broadcasters doesn't mean we it. Wimbledon broadcasters shows these articles can be kept and in the discussion on the ion of the French article it was mentioned that Wimbledon and Australia are much better. What's next... the US Open Broadcasters article. ? Fyunck(click) ( talk ) 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I do not feel strongly about this page, but I do find the reasons for deletion to be garbage. This is not a TV guide, neither was the French Open page or any other of the tennis tournament broadcasters pages. This statement about the page ""to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?"" I find to be the most nonsense. This page is not bloated at all. Since when is something listed in an encyclopedia only because it is popular? The whole point about an encyclopedia (particularly an online one that is not limited in size by printing costs) is that it should contain obscure information (I am not sure a listing of which networks broadcast a major tennis event is that obscure anyway). I would never request any page on wikipedia be d, as this goes against what I believe wikipedia should be about. If editors feel pages are not sourced well that is a different issue. If I feel that is the case when I look at a page, I look to find sources (in this page's case many sources may be broadcasts of finals which list the commentators). The only problematic issue with this page (and other Grand Slam TV broadcasters history pages) is that TV broadcast contracts are merging into online streaming contracts (with various limitations to customers based on location) and ing up with all the different streaming contracts may be problematic going forward. But the pages still have a value when looking back on the era when events were broadcast on TV (for the time being Wimbledon is still broadcast on conventional TV by the BBC, though maybe not for much longer). This change to streaming could easily be overcome by a simple statement ""in recent years the event has been available on a variety of streaming services"". The No TV guide wikipedia policy that the deletion proposer posted a link to says the following: ""An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable."" That clearly shows a primary reason for deletion of this article and others like it is bogus. Tennishistory1877 ( talk ) 18:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC) LISTN , but as a prose, it has more potential as its own article. If the closer determines that, then I would suggest that we consider moving this article to just be History of Australian Open broadcasts , remove the WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:OR , and the sources that actually commit notability to this topic. Conyo14 ( talk ) 21:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Very little original research in this article. Finals commentators can be known by watching the matches. YouTube videos could be used as sources for this (including from official channels). It is of interest to some to know the finals commentators. Tennishistory1877 ( talk ) 13:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC) OR . YouTube is considered WP:TERTIARY due to its unreliability. Conyo14 ( talk ) 15:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Linking to online videos can be acceptable if it is demonstrated that the content was posted by the copyright holder or with their permission."" More and more videos from long ago are being published on YouTube from official tennis sources, particularly the Australian Open (they are currently undertaking a project uploading a lot of their archive from 1975 onwards). A very good source of who is commentating on a match is the match itself provided by the tournament itself (just about as reliable as it can possibly be). And wikipedia policy seems to agree with that. The No original research policy states ""Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research."" Tennishistory1877 ( talk ) 18:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC) PRIMARY . So, basically, a source that demonstrates some significant coverage of who calls the game, commentates, reports, etc. would have to be done by a secondary source, like if a local tv station called out who was doing it. I am not saying it's a bad source, just that it wouldn't qualify for the main thing I am arguing for: WP:LISTN . Conyo14 ( talk ) 05:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not a stand-alone list. Regarding primary sources, ""a primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge"". Obviously the wikipedia policy has to be careful to ensure that, for example, an article written about a political party does not solely use as its source the political party's official website. Not relevant to a broadcast of the Australian Open, where the commentators are mentioned (incidentally there are many other videos of the same matches not posted by the official YouTube channel of the tournament which have the same commentary). What this whole thing about is one editor copying and pasting deletion requests and posting them on many pages based on bogus reasons, referencing wikipedia policy articles that he clearly hasn't read. This editor does not seem to be contributing much to wikipedia (certainly not anything to this article), and is only intent on destroying and removing perfectly valid material. And you Conyo14, seem to be acting as a tag team with this editor. In common with the original poster, you seem to show no interest in the subject matter (even admitting so in your comments here) yet despite this seem intent on giving your views on whether this article should be removed, quoting wikipedia policy articles you clearly have not read, then when your ignorance is shown up, quoting other articles. There has already been one ANI trying to ban the user posting this deletion request and there may be more if this user continues to behave in this way. Why don't both users consider spending their time more productively, creating rather than destroying. Tennishistory1877 ( talk ) 08:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey! I don't appreciate your tone here, perhaps you need to stop replying here as your accusations of a tag team are mislead as well as my interpretations of a policy that are not unfounded. You're welcome to continue your usage of your interpretation of the policy as well as mine, because as far as that goes, it won't matter until the relister does their judgment. Conyo14 ( talk ) 13:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It wasn't me that first used the term ""tag team"", it was another editor that I do not know on the ANI, but it seems a pretty accurate description to me. I read the following text that you posted on the deletion proposer's user page, regarding the mass posting of deletion requests. ""It's getting exhausting pressing copy and paste on these haha. Good work though on these. I definitely recommend slowing down a bit though. I'm not sure by how much, but one prior editor had a run going and then was formally warned to slow down in WP:ANI. You may create a user space here for the lists you wish to , that way you don't lose track of them"". Those comments speak for themselves. I have quoted wikipedia policy documents that you and the deletion proposer have quoted throughout, showing how ridiculous your interpretations of them are (not surprising really, considering a lot of the text in the posts proposing deletion had very similar text on deletion requests for many pages which vary immensely). I have nothing personal against you, Conyo14, but your interventions here and on other removal pages do you no credit. I have not commented on the vast majority of the hundreds of pages which the user has requested for deletion, because they are on sports that I have no interest in, and I have a rule that I never edit or comment on subjects that do not interest me. But I agree there is little to be gained by a protracted argument. The wikipedia policies speak for themselves, as does the edit history of the editor proposing the deletion. Tennishistory1877 ( talk ) 16:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC) 11, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Conyo14 , this discussion can't be closed as a ""Soft Delete"" as there are editors arguing for ""Keeping"" this article. Therefore, deletion is not uncontroversial and Soft Deletion is not appropriate. Soft Deletions are similar to Proposed Deletions and so if Deletion is contested, then SD can't be a closure result. L iz Read! Talk! 00:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC) Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:LISTN due to a lack of references from secondary sources discussing the broadcasters as a set. Let'srun ( talk ) 13:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Let'srun, I am struggling to see where the notability here comes from to meet the LISTN threshold. While a secondary consideration as AfD is not cleanup, there's far too much original research here for my liking too — representative in my opinion of the lack of secondary sources covering this topic, hence the LISTN concerns. Daniel ( talk ) 23:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have a good knowledge of the level of accuracy of this article (the accuracy level is high). I would not defend an article that was not accurate. There are numerous sources already, primary and secondary, but I have added more. Tennishistory1877 ( talk ) 08:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC) OR . But that is not the primary reason I believe this should be d. It is the failure of meeting the LISTN threshold through independent, reliable secondary sources that mean this should be d. Daniel ( talk ) 11:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per Tennihistory1877. The article has potential and room to be improved, and I do not see deletion as justified, considering that the article contains verifiable and sourced information. Clone commando sev ( talk ) 04:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC) LISTN is. Daniel ( talk ) 11:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"IC 3625: C messier ( talk ) 12:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC) non-notable galaxy. I didn't see any significant coverage in scholarly studies or observer's guide books. Praemonitus ( talk ) 14:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC) does not appear developable now nor in the near future. ~ Tom. Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf ) 15:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . ‹ hamster717🐉 › ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠 ) 20:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Matty Fenton: Non-notable footballer that does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC . Best I can find is a passing mention in the Northwich Guardian . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - fails SPORTBASIC and would not even have passed the old NFOOTY.... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk ) 07:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with assessment, per nom. Govvy ( talk ) 08:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Gasable: The Jordan Times reference reads more like an ad and comes from a source of questionable reliability, and the second source only mentions it in passing. I could find an article by the UN environment programme [47] , but I don't think that comes anywhere close to establishing notability. OzzyOlly ( talk ) 01:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Jordan . OzzyOlly ( talk ) 01:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions . AllyD ( talk ) 07:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC) An article about an e-business app, unchanged since it was restored at request of the article creator after a previous AfD soft deletion. Since the previous AfD, the company appears to have moved its base and broadened its operation. An article here describes the company's change in personnel / location, but this still appears to be coverage promoting a niche startup; I am not seeing the depth of coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability . AllyD ( talk ) 07:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per AllyD. Raymond3023 ( talk ) 06:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jacqueline M. Arroyo: No indicia of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 15:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California . BD2412 T 15:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was able to find only one news article of a passing mention and this fails GNG. Nagol0929 ( talk ) 15:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"CGIProxy: Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 18:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing , Internet , and Software . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 18:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Another software article from the early days; one gets the feeling that for this type of article the normal rules about references just didn't apply. I looked through Google Books but found nothing that discussed this specific program; it just seems like one of many freeware application that exist but aren't notable by our standards. Drmies ( talk ) 18:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Vipul Dhanaker: — Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 18:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , India , and Delhi . Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 18:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Both references in the article, The Hindustan Times and Times Now News , are non-independent as they're mere interviews. Otherwise, no other sources found that are WP:NBASIC nor WP:MUSICBIO -worthy, both in English or Hindi languages. ~ Tails Wx 19:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC) GNG since the references solely consist of interviews, and no sources aligning with the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO have been found. Dcotos ( talk ) 22:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 18:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bonn–Bamberg basketball brawl: Even with an expansion earlier this year, it's still a barebones article with 0 citations and 2 dead links. I believe the info described in this article would be better covered in the articles of the two teams involved. 100.7.34.111 ( talk ) 16:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC) AFD . I have no opinion of my own at this time. -- Finngall talk 17:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - As always with anything foreign, the article should be searched in its native language. I was able to find four sources in German: 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 . I also found another mention of it here 5 . KatoKungLee ( talk ) 05:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC) WP:NOTNEWS, no indication this is anything other than a news item, not an encyclopedic topic with WP:LASTING impact. // Timothy :: talk 11:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC) NOTNEWS and doesn't appear to have sustained coverage. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 11:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Aquarium (video game): Article has been tagged for notability concerns since 2013. Waxworker ( talk ) 00:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Waxworker ( talk ) 00:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Does not meet notability guidelines; completely unsourced. ""'[[ User:CanonNi ]]""' ( talk | contribs ) 00:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Surprisingly large number of Aquarium video games [76] , [77] , neither of which are this particular game. I don't see anything for a 1996 Japan-only video game. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Definitely exists, Moby has it in the database , but without a single review even there. -- ferret ( talk ) 00:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC) per above. Lionel Cristiano ? 01:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom, I couldn't find sources. 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 03:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not seeing anything. Timur9008 ( talk ) 08:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per everyone else. Still a blank slate after eleven years. HopalongCasualty ( talk ) 21:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Pusher trailer: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 12:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC) Agree with nom that this is lacking in enough sources to show notability. WikiMane (TP2001) ( talk ) 17:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jake Hamilton: The current sources are almost all WP:PRIMARY or not WP:INDEPENDENT . The rest are not WP:RELIABLE such as WP:BLOGS or written by contributors (i.e. WP:FORBESCON ). When doing a before I mostly discovered that he wouldn't say the N-word when Samuel Jackson told him to which is a WP:NOTNEWS or WP:BLP1E concern. I also found a couple WP:INTERVIEWS . TipsyElephant ( talk ) 02:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , News media , Film , Television , Entertainment , and Popular culture . TipsyElephant ( talk ) 02:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per the extensive research by the nom. Not notable under any criteria. I would add the article was created by a WP:SPA . Newshunter12 ( talk ) 22:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Michael Van Praet: PK T (alk) 17:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . PK T (alk) 17:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 28 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Western Mustangs are a university team. Does not appear to have done anything past 2012, nothing found in sources. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC . 4meter4 ( talk ) 19:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Im Ki-sun: Lack of WP:SIGCOV Simione001 ( talk ) 22:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 22:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 22:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 22:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A database entry, nothing to indicate notability. Avilich ( talk ) 18:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] agree with the nom and previous comment. Pumpkinspyce ( talk ) 05:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ben Gazdic: PK T (alk) 00:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Ice hockey , and Canada . Shellwood ( talk ) 00:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC) Couldn't find anything beyond databases, primary sources and routine coverage, and the subject played only a handful of games in a single season in a lesser-tier pro league. Fails both the GNG and NHOCKEY. Ravenswing 01:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Ravenswing. 2001:569:74E3:4000:7834:EE67:D720:48E7 ( talk ) 23:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 43 games in the EBEL, and a handful in the Croatian and Slovenian leagues was not likely enough to pass notability before that was tightened up recently, and there doesn't seem to be anything else conferring notability for Gazdic here. Kaiser matias ( talk ) 00:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"MKM Aboobakar: It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn ( talk ) 19:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC) AUTHOR or WP:GNG . Tame Rhino ( talk ) 13:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Samajwadi Pension Scheme: However, the current state government, led by Yogi Adityanath , rebranded this program as the ""Uttar Pradesh Pension Scheme."" It is suggested that the page either be d or undergo a name change, with an impartial vote needed to decide. Charlie ( talk ) 15:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India . Charlie ( talk ) 15:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner ( talk ) 19:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - per nom. ~~ αvírαm | (tαlk) 09:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Som River: Google tells me https://guj-nwrws.gujarat.gov.in/showpage.aspx? contentid=1845&lang=english should be a source, however that appears to be statistics and a dead link. Sohom ( talk ) 20:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Rajasthan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Uzma Beg: Also, when I tried to find more about the subject per WP:BEFORE, I didn't come across enough coverage to meet WP:GNG either. Plus, it's worth noting that this BLP was created back in 2021 by a SPA Sahgalji ( talk · contribs ) and has been mostly edited by UPEs so there's COI issues as well. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC) some of her roles in notable productions seem significant enough, so that she meets WP:NACTOR imv and deletion is not necessary. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mushy Yank , In which shows, if I may ask? — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 10:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For example, Chupke Chupke , Pyari Mona , Hum Tum . - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) (Again, sorry but so many Afds related to Pakistan/TV series, I might not reply here any further, should you, as I expect, not find the sources to your liking for one reason or another or if clarifications are needed; it was already challenging for me to find time to check some of them and !vote). [ reply ] It's not a matter of whether I like a source or not. It's obvious that the sources are clearly not reliable, no even for WP:V purpose. --— Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 14:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . In looking at the original article and the SPA creation & editing of this article, as well as other articles that mention the subject, it is likely this is an autobiography. 128.252.210.1 ( talk ) 16:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. I am 100% certain that this is not an autobiography. Even if it were, that is not necessarily a valid deletion rationale. UPE might be an issue though. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Inadequate sourcing fails to directly details the BLP subject. The subject is verified but in my opinion (based on applied, presented and found reliable sources), doesn't meet GNG, ANYBIO or NACTOR. BusterD ( talk ) 22:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Master of Science in Global Finance: Sargdub ( talk ) 00:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Not only is it unsourced, a quick google search reveals it isn't exclusive to one or two university. 104.7.152.180 ( talk ) 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Business , Education , China , Hong Kong , and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC) To be honest, I think this can be considered a G11 case, as it seems like a pure advertisement of HKUST and NYU on their dual degree program. Just like what the IP user above said, a simple Google search can tell this program title is not exclusive to these two universities. Regardless, I found no sources which covered this program, not even some passing mentions in articles merely by the program's name. Undoubtedly fails GNG. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 13:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"KAOB-LD: Let'srun ( talk ) 03:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas . Let'srun ( talk ) 03:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per reasons provided by nom. Llajwa ( talk ) 14:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kim Wi-man: Simione001 ( talk ) 00:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 00:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 00:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 00:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , no sources found. Ping me if there are sources. Brachy 08 (Talk) 01:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unsourced. Citadeol (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Instigator Ph: Doesn't merit an article as no publication has been made. Fails WP: BUSINESS Mastashat ( talk ) 07:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria . AllyD ( talk ) 07:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC) It's the flowery prose used in Nigerian sources that stumps me. They are RS but all sound the same... I'll not ! vote until we have more discussion around this fellow, but it's likely a from me. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC) the page of the second citation was blocked by eset, so it miiiight be fishy, but I'm not sure whether to or it. Maybe I'll change my mind later. 109.186.127.121 ( talk ) 07:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This is an example of this discussion . Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 22:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] full of advertorial publications. Ibjaja055 ( talk ) 12:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 12:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC) After reading through the citations used, I agree with everyone else that a lot of it appears to be advertorial publications, and in a few of those Anambra State Governor Chukwuma Soludo is mentioned more than Omwumelu who is only mentioned in passing. The only solid reference is the Guardian, with the same reference appearing twice in the reference list. Not enough to establish notability. TarnishedPath talk 06:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Astronauts of Antiquity: Official website no longer exists, and band seems to have been inactive since ~2017. B3251 ( talk ) 15:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . B3251 ( talk ) 15:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Few results when looking for coverage (only a couple of interviews and what looks to be a paid piece). Clearly not notable enough to have a page. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 16:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California , New York , and North Carolina . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC) NBAND and WP:GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"William Tredway (Canadian politician): Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Unremarkable person in an unremarkable office. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 11:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Nothing stated in the article is ""inherently"" notable in the absence of sufficient WP:GNG -worthy coverage and analysis about his work to satisfy WP:NPOL #2 — no, ""had a school named after him"" is not an instant GNG exemption either — but the article isn't showing anything even close to what's required, and I'm just not finding anything close to enough to salvage it on a WP:BEFORE search. Bearcat ( talk ) 13:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"A.G: Note previous deletion and salting of articles about company president and Hakawi News, which he also runs. No articles in ar-wiki about any of these entities. HouseOfChange ( talk ) 03:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions . HouseOfChange ( talk ) 03:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Good article , and after reviewing several sources, the discussion was closed and removed from deletion and installed in the public domain. GQO ( talk ) 6:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC) - Per nom. The appropriate guidelines are WP:NCORP and there are no sources that I can find that meet NCORP standards. The sourcing on the page is a terrible mess. Fully half of the sources claim to be an Arabic news site, but come up as ""account suspended"" so I strongly doubt the reliability of those, and they are unverifiable. In any case they would almost certainly be primary sources, as are all the remainder. This is a newly created page, but it is certainly not ready for mainspace. It was draftified once, but the creator promptly moved it back out of draftspace. I doubt an encyclopaedic page is possible at this time, and in view of the summary move out of draftspace, and previous deletion, I would say this should be d. The above ! vote from a new user suggests they reviewed the sources, but perhaps they are unaware of the guidelines at WP:SIRS as to what is required of a source for NCORP pages. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 14:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC) 09, 5 April 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] I am still seeing the same issues, including links that won't load. Which of these sources are secondary? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 22:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"KeWlers: toweli ( talk ) 19:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Visual arts , Organizations , Computing , and Finland . toweli ( talk ) 19:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mashallah News: I couldn't find anything at all in a WP:BEFORE independent of the subject, let alone that would pass WP:GNG , WP:SIGCOV or any other relevant guideline. UndercoverClassicist T · C 22:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa , Middle East , Iran , and Turkey . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Aintabli ( talk ) 00:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:PROMO is witnessed, I agree with OP, per nom. -- JanAminK ( talk ) 09:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dušanka Đokić: Web of Science gives h-index of 2 and Google Scholar gives 4. Being the Principal of the Pedagogical Academy in Belgrade does not satisfy NPROF#6 either: 'Pedagogical academy' is not a major academic institute. The listed educational merits are also not enough to satisfy NPROF. Jähmefyysikko ( talk ) 23:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Science , and Serbia . Jähmefyysikko ( talk ) 23:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - There doesn't seem to be a lot of reliable sources online that demonstrate her notability. Interstellarity ( talk ) 23:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] provisionally. There does not yet seem to be enough evidence for WP:Prof . Xxanthippe ( talk ) 23:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Other colleagues have already mentioned the reasons. Боки Write to me! 07:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Andras Farago: Sources on the page are primary and I cannot locate any reliable secondary sources to show he qualifies under WP:GNG . CNMall41 ( talk ) 03:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . CNMall41 ( talk ) 03:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Hungary . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . @ CNMall41 : I see several well-cited papers at https://scholar.google.com/scholar? q=%22Andras+Farago%22 Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the ping. I see papers he has written but to satisfy 1a, his papers would need to be highly cited. I do not see that here. If we created pages for anyone who has written a scholarly article, we could be creating profiles on just about anyone in his field. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 15:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 32, 22 June 2023 (UTC) 01, 21 June 2023 (UTC) There are several cited papers using Google Scholar. CastJared ( talk ) 12:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 19, 21 June 2023 (UTC) NPROF . The guidelines clearly say in the summary: Having published work does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study. This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work. There are 8 criteria in NPROF, and an academic meeting any of the 8 criteria will be deemed notable. I cannot find that this subject has met any of these 8 criteria, so correct and consistent application of policy is required, thus . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC) NPROF #1. This can be difficult to judge though because the cut-off for each academic field can be different. In this case the academic field is computer science. My impression is the NPROF AFD regulars have an idea of what the cutoffs are for each field. The papers and citation counts provided here hint to me that this person may pass WP:NPROF #1, but it is in borderline territory. If citation counts or first author counts were higher, I think this would be an easy . Hope this helps. – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 07:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So yes, citation count can help establish if The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Who is citing the paper and where is more important than the count though. In this case, I do not see how this comes close to meeting #1 of the NPROF criteria. Pertinent here is that not a single Wikipedia page on any topic talks about him and his work. If he is not significant enough for a mention in any article, this may be a suggestion that a page on the subject is undue (that is not an established criterion - it is my observation, which is that there is insufficient evidence of an encyclopaedic subject here). A friend of mine reported yesterday he had just received his 1000th citation on one of his papers - yet I would hesitate to say that he is notable outside of his specific academic field, and not notable for an article per NPROF. The citation count here is too low to meet criterion 1. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 09:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, notability is not determined by whether Wikipedia happens to cover a person's work yet. All that means is that hobbyists futzing around in our spare time haven't written about it so far. You're correct in saying that it's not an established criterion ; but it's not even a criterion that could ever be workable in principle. XOR'easter ( talk ) 15:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC) PROF#C1 . On the one hand, Google scholar does show some eight publications with over 100 citations each, which should normally be enough for WP:PROF#C1 even in a high citation field. On the other hand, there seems to be nothing of note beyond the publications. The recent NP=RP debacle [19] and the fact that almost all of his recent publications listed by DBLP [20] are in journals by MDPI and Wolfram do not inspire confidence. And the high-citation publications are mainly with Imrich Chlamtac , who is much more clearly notable. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 01:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Seems borderline. Here's the scopus profile . User:JoelleJay , this might be a good case for your in-field citation script? My intuition is that this prof is below the median R1 citation count & h-index for their career stage, so unlikely to meet NPROF#1. Suriname0 ( talk ) 16:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Based on the citation data provided by JoelleJay, I don't think he meets NPROF. In the absence of other SIGCOV (couldn't find anything myself, but their might be some Hungarian-language coverage from his time teaching their), I recommend deletion. No obvious targets. Suriname0 ( talk ) 22:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Thanks for the ping, Suriname0. Here are the Scopus citation profiles for all 76 coauthors with ≥25 papers (out of all ~140 coauthors, the average # of papers is 112!!! and the median is 31), excluding a couple high-citation people whose Scopus profiles seem to have been d with another author's. Total citations : avg: 3981, med: 2075, Farago : 1554. Papers : 207, 146, 111 . h -index : 27, 23, 18 . Top 5 papers : 1st : 433, 211, 308 ; 2nd : 238, 126, 272 ; 3rd : 171, 99, 98 ; 4th : 142, 90, 85 ; 5th : 120, 77, 63 . I don't think this demonstrates the exceptional citation record necessary for a C1 pass, and this is reinforced by his publishing in MDPI, so I would recommend . JoelleJay ( talk ) 20:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Medium-power talker: I assume a ""talker"" refers to a loudspeaker or similar device, but I can't find much info about it. Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 18:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions . Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 18:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC) DICTDEF with only one source, a military standards document (primary). Nothing else found. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , dicdef. Desertarun ( talk ) 19:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Maty Cissokho: All I found was passing mentions like 1 , 2 and 3 . JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Senegal . JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Trevor Fetter: Fails WP:SIGCOV , WP:BIO . UPE. scope_creep Talk 09:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He's a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School, not sure if that would make him notable? [14] Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Might do if he has published a good bit, if he is doing that. I don't think a lecturer position is particular notable. See what turns up. He has an award the ""2017 Henry Cohn Humanitarian Award"" which may be something. scope_creep Talk 14:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Andrey Shishkin: No notability, no significant achievements, no reliable art criticism. Cross-wiki spam. Andrei Romanenko ( talk ) 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Russia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The article seems to cite reliable sources (academic articles), but I can't be bothered to go through the steps needed to machine translate PDFS (hence, comment, not a vote). However, source analysis is necessary to prove that notability is not given here - the nom makes such a claim but does not provide analysis of sources. It may also be worthwhile to check concurrent discussion at ru:Википедия:К_удалению/14_мая_2024#Шишкин,_Андрей_Алексеевич . -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These sources are not academic in the full sense of the word. They are published in the collections of articles everybody can submit for a a small amount of money, their only author is a local schoolteacher, not an expert in art (this was the main reason for deletion in Russian wikipedia). Not a single art institution knows this painter, no exhibitions, no art criticism. Andrei Romanenko ( talk ) 10:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . What is a non-self-proclaimed painter? Is it when someone is actually not a painter, but is called such by someone's else? Isn't that called hoax then? Wojsław Brożyna ( talk ) 22:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Non-self-proclaimed painter is the painter whose works are in museums and acclaimed galleries, reviewed with art critics and art historians, published in esteemed editions. Wikipedia is for collecting information about this kind of authors. This is what the criteria of notability are about. Andrei Romanenko ( talk ) 10:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a recognized painter. It has nothing to do with self-proclaiming. Wojsław Brożyna ( talk ) 19:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] AGAINST Ты что, коммунист? что с тобой не так ?? ? << самопровозглашенный художник >> не можешь терпеть приличное искусство, настоящее, душевное искусство? ахуенный ... 98.240.113.219 ( talk ) 22:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting again due to lack of civil participation. This article seems to be about a painter but the discussion is more charged than one would expect for a borderline notable painter so I'm guessing there is more involved with his reputation than their artistic skills. A reminder, this is the English Wikipedia, please offer your opinions in English. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] very sorry sir just his name is russian i wanted to reply like this i found it to be more pertinent romanenko's remarks are laced with vitriol below the surface and betray a certain negative attitude, which he also expressed on ruwiki, where he was unfortunately successful in having the corresponding article d @ Андрей Романенко tell me that over four hundred paintings like this and reference to your work in scholarly papers is not a 'significant achievement' how can you call him a 'self-proclaimed painter' looking at the exemplars of his work ?? ? i have seen on the english-speaking internet several memes using his painting Благословение ратника this one for example https://ifunny.co/picture/how-it-feels-to-inherit-the-family-suicide-revolver-aUDIhr0PA they're hard to find by searching, because of course the name and author of the painting are not provided more professional websites where his work is posted https://www.rbth.com/arts/335686-ancient-east-slavs-art https://www.indcatholicnews.com/news/41202 https://christian.art/daily-gospel-reading/luke-2-22-40-2020/ the followers of the rabbi yeshua really like his admittedly charming depiction by the avowed pagan shishkin some private blogs https://www.livemaster.com/topic/2998743-legends-and-stories-of-the-artist-andrey-shishkin https://art-in-eastern-europe.blogspot.com/2016/09/andrey-shishkin.html not enough criticism for you ? tell me again how he is a 'self-proclaimed painter' have you painted a wall ? 98.240.113.219 ( talk ) 03:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact that someone's pictures are available in the Web at different obscure websites does not make their authors notable, neither does being mentioned in nobody knows whose blogs. No exhibtions in any known galleries, no works in museums, no art criticism in any known editions, no catalogues, no prizes, no place in professional art community, zero level of notability. Andrei Romanenko ( talk ) 10:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We have already in the article sources from academic journals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Shishkin is one of the leading figures in pagan / Slavic fantasy art in Russia, a collective body of work, and he is prominently featured in these papers, which are cited in the article. So does he not meet the third criterion ? 98.240.113.219 ( talk ) 21:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Writings of a local schoolteacher published in insignificant editions where authors themselves are paying for publication (see here for instance) are not qualified to determine whether the painter played a major role in anyhting or not. However, the author (A. Gizbrecht) does not claim anything about Shishkin at all, he just briefly mentions several of his paintings. Andrei Romanenko ( talk ) 17:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Were the authors ""local schoolteachers"" or not? And you must know that every scientific paper charges some fee to publish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_processing_charge 98.240.113.219 ( talk ) 18:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Many good journals do not have apc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I am not finding significant, reliable coverage for the subject. Fails WP:ARTIST . I am not finding indications he is in any collections, or been part of any significant exhibitions. Reading what I can of the articles, it appears the references are more about the subject of paganism in art than in discussions of Shishkin's work, with the exception of Art-Vernissage, which is selling his art. An alternative might be to to Russian Rodnover fine arts , but I don't see what information could be added to that article. The artist exists and paints. The biographical info was extracted from a Non-RS sale site. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 00:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] AGAINST The editor above (WomenArtistUpdates) is clearly biased against this article. She's part of the ""Women in Red"" wikiproject, which aims to change the percentage of biographical articles about men and women to ""reduce systemic bias"". It's obviously in her interest to reduce the number of biographical articles about men to make her ""job"" easier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.64.55.216 ( talk • contribs ) What a ridiculous claim. Aside from the personal attack, there are far too many biographies for this to make a dent in any way. Geschichte ( talk ) 21:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That wasn't a personal attack, just an observation. Nothing in the article or the referenced sources suggests this meets WP:ARTIST at this time. Elspea756 ( talk ) 14:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC) 02, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Daily Desh Rupantor: 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 12:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Bangladesh . Shellwood ( talk ) 12:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At a very quick first glance, the sources in the article appear to be news coverage. Why do you believe they should not count, DreamRimmer ? {{u| Sdkb }} talk 15:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Absurd Nominating this article for deletion is highly inappropriate. DreamRimmer You seem unable to recognize this newspaper. Desh Rupantor is a top leading newspaper establishment in Bangladesh. This article carries many strong independent sources. I will clarify by showing more references as proof. See this article 1 from BBC Bangla . See this 2 from The Daily Star (Bangladesh) . See this 3 from Government of Bangladesh. See also 4 from Prothom Alo . GNG has been fulfilling since long ago. Notability for company exists from the start. Ontor22 ( talk ) 22:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This newspaper does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Most of the provided sources focus on Amit Habib, who has served as the chief editor of this newspaper. Amit Habib was previously the editor of Kaler Kantho . Ref 1: This source solely pertains to Amit Habib Ref 2: No significant coverage Ref 3: No significant coverage Ref 4: This is a press release Ref 5: Mostly consists of quotes (invalid URL) Ref 6: Amit Habib is the main subject; no SIGCOV for Daily Desh Rupantor Ref 7: No significant coverage Ref 8: No significant coverage How does being listed on a government website meet the criteria for notability? Registration is required for every newspaper in each country, and the list of registered newspapers is made public on the website. Being listed on a government website might indicate the newspaper's legal status, but it does not satisfy GNG. Overall, all references fail to meet GNG. Hope this helps @ Sdkb 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 02:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ontor22 , You're welcome to share your opinion and highlight the importance of the subject here, but please refrain from criticizing me. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 02:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 17:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC) BEFORE were not performed at the time of induction of AFD. I have added more sources now which creates an infrastructure. There are also independent sources including primary and secondary. All sources are top level news sources, linked to their articles to clarify. The article should be reviewed before any comment or action is taken under Afd. Not the opinions of others. Everything is clear by filling WP:NCORP , WP:N . Ontor22 ( talk ) 12:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC) BEFORE , nothing was found to establish the notability of this topic, and please avoid making judgments based solely on your own opinion. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 16:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is unfortunate if the notability and sources of the article of your eyes are not caught. If so, you should bring more news company's articles under Afd because they are showing less notability than it. Not my opinion, To consider said to do as per WP:AFDEQ Ontor22 ( talk ) 05:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This article has been expanded and improved sources have been added since AFD was added. Ontor22 ( talk ) 04:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - The review of the references by DreamRimmer shows that the paper is basically mentioned along with references about the editor. Fails WP:GNG . -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 06:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if an editor can review sources added by Ontor22 and whether or not they can establish notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC) GNG , Wikipedia:Notability (media) , and Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) . There is only one article about it of any depth. [17] Sadly the information in it comes from Desh Rupantor , without any independent analysis, interpretation, or evaluation. The other coverage generally falls into four categories: (1) first anniversary party, (2) photographer who got into a scuffle during the ordinary course of business, (3) death (by stroke) of editor, (4) routine legal proceeding against newspaper that was dismissed as baseless. In each case multiple media outlets published essentially the same story, making it appear that there are more distinct sources than there actually are. In each article the depth of information about the newspaper is trivial. There is no suitable target - no article about parent company Rupayan Group , and List of newspapers in Bangladesh is explicitly restricted to notable newspapers. Deletion is not a disparagement of the newspaper's quality or editor Ontor22's hard work. It is a legitimate newspaper. It is only a few years old, and in time it may become notable. However, unsourced exaggeration in the article and this discussion like ""most read newspaper"" and ""top leading newspaper"" is unhelpful. -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 05:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC) 40, 26 August 2023 (UTC) 42, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ref added after Worldbruce's analysis. This wasn't an accurate analysis at all. It feels like canvassing when some specific editors presentation of same arguments on almost AFD over and over again. Ontor22 ( talk ) 04:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC) GNG . Worldbruce's analysis still valid. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk ) 17:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Dreamrimmer and Worldbruce's analysis. Fails GNG. LibStar ( talk ) 04:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ho Jong-min: Simione001 ( talk ) 00:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 00:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 00:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 00:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Anwegmann ( talk ) 00:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mashroom: A WP:BEFORE search did not turn up any evidence of notability. Teemu.cod ( talk ) 23:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Internet , and United Kingdom . Teemu.cod ( talk ) 23:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No claim to notability. Llajwa ( talk ) 00:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No claim to notability and no source, not even a reliable source. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of New England Revolution broadcasters: Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN . Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE . As with sources per WP:RS , only consist of a single one about the 2023 season; not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 10:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Football , Lists , and Massachusetts . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 10:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Are we just going to nominating anything related to do with television on shoddy deletion premises? At worst this should be d into individual season articles. SportingFlyer T · C 17:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per nom. Svartner ( talk ) 02:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"City of Blacktown Pipe Band: Cannot locate sufficient sourcing to indicate notability per WP:NORG . AusLondonder ( talk ) 13:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music , and Australia . AusLondonder ( talk ) 13:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , no usable secondary sources found in my search. Yes, the competitions technically make a WP:NBAND #9 case, but it seems to me that piping is an insular world, and that success in that field in no way correlates to actual coverage. Even in the three specialty sources for piping I found (pipedrums.com, pipingpress.com, bagpipe.news) this band lacked coverage. Searches in Trove, ProQuest, newspapers.com and NewspaperArchive also failed to find anything other than routine coverage, which convinces me that other offline sources probably don't exist. Mach61 ( talk ) 16:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Unreferenced, Mach61's comprehensive searches above prove that no reliable sourcing is available. Fails WP:ORG . LibStar ( talk ) 22:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) the only sourcing that exists online stem from publications about piping. WP:BAND #9 is loosely met but they aren't really major , couple of local/regional competitions, some national wins, though, but it's not only unsourced and doesn't seem notable. there's WP:OR here as well. She was a fairy 01:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Daniel Zettel: Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV . CycloneYoris talk! 09:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Film , Television , and Brazil . CycloneYoris talk! 09:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2024 Indian general election in South India: A general regional election article isn't needed as each state in South India has an article about the general election taking place in the respective state. Regional articles for India would only create more for the sake of more and would be more stats articles and wouldn't provide meaningful context. Articles about the election in each state and territory for the country is enough outside the main election article. And the creator who contest the speedy deletion tag, states article like UK elections in England is a precenident type article. However, England is not a region in the UK. It is one of the countries part of the UK thus an article for each UK member country makes sense. Regions in England like Midlands, London, etc don't need articles for each general election result as that would be overkill. Articles like these would be overkill as well. WikiCleanerMan ( talk ) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India . WikiCleanerMan ( talk ) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I don't see why this article is needed independently from the main article. Cortador ( talk ) 15:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 2024 Indian general election by state or union territory , not sure why this is needed. Reywas92 Talk 00:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Unnecessary fork of main article given we have 'by state' articles. Number 5 7 21:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose This article can kept as 2024 Indian general election may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. As this splits data for South India, which would make ease of navigation. As the election proceed there would be increase in length of 2024 Indian general election. Pagers ( talk ) 07:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Too long is generally considered about 8k words of readable prose. These 2 combined is barely half that. Me Da Wikipedian ( talk ) 12:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . No need for this page when a page for 2024 elections by different states is on wikipedia Category:2024 Indian general election by state or union territory . This is simply an overkill. RangersRus ( talk ) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Basic Education High School No. 5 Botataung: It reads like a simple fanpage/vanity article. A BEFORE search came up with nothing useable. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk ) 00:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Myanmar . Roger (Dodger67) ( talk ) 00:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:NSCHOOL , seems to be a vanity page. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 05:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL . 33ABGirl ( talk ) 14:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:NSCHOOL . Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The article doesn't meet the general notability and verifiability requirements. There are no reliable sources at all. Ertrinken ( talk ) 18:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Le Mythe de la 5ème île: The French article has only 1 source too. LibStar ( talk ) 04:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rarher . Noted for its ’deconstructionist’ approach of the reality of Comoros in this article , that has a much more developped assessment of the film than the source in the page. Quoted in a book about cinema from the Réunion. It’s 60 min long, the first of this filmmaker and he repeatedly refers to it in interviews, as one would expect. It was screened at the Tarifa festival and at the Moroni O Mcezo 2007 festival (where the audience is said to have disliked it or not understood it, at least, in the article mentioned above). — MY, OH, MY ! 09:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] on the basis of the reasons provided by MY, OH, MY . Has been screened at local festivals of significance. We should be cautious about deleting articles already parsed by AfD in this manner Jack4576 ( talk ) 07:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Consensus can change plus notability is more strict in WP than 11 years ago at the time of the last AfD. LibStar ( talk ) 07:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagree that the notability shifts affect this article, given the apparent local cultural significance demonstrated by local festival viewings. Notability has been demonstrated previously, and once notable always notable Jack4576 ( talk ) 07:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] once notable always notable absolutely false. There are some articles that have survived an AfD in the past, that have been d in a subsequent AfD. If what you say is true, Wikipedia would not allow renominations for AfD. LibStar ( talk ) 07:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Once notable always notable. See: WP:NTEMP The idea of 'once notable always notable' is entirely compatible with AfD being re-opened. ""from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion , or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable"" I don't think the above is met here. I think this film being screened at local festivals established its notability years ago; and thus we should regard the film as continuing to have notability now. Jack4576 ( talk ) 07:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are no French sources for the film that I can find, the FR wiki article is using the same single ref as here. It may have been notable, but isn't currently. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy ( talk ) 04:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC) NFILM Donald D23 talk to me 21:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Marvin Blapoh: The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found was this short piece. Everything else that came up in my searches were passing mentions ( 2016 , 2019 , 2023 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mumbai–Madgaon line: The subject does not appear to be notable . A check before the nomination turned up no useful sources that I could find, and the article currently has no sources either. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 18:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation , India , Goa , and Maharashtra . — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 18:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC) 04, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Comment - Feels like a weird argument to make that suggests a long rail line (I've seen 600km but the page says nearer 2000km) is not notable. I've not looked extensively for sources, but I'd be surprised if nothing exists. JMWt ( talk ) 20:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - on further examination, I think this page is inaccurate and unhelpful, because it is describing a ""line"" when it actually means a ""route"". The route is covered extensively elsewhere under Konkan Railway zone and Mumbai Suburban Railway which operate the connections. As the topic of the page is not really understood as being a consistent line, might be a reason why finding sources it difficult. I could be wrong so I welcome correction. JMWt ( talk ) 08:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Tony Kaltak: Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 04:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Oceania . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 04:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Vanessa Fox: Refs are a mix of 404's, profiles and blog entries for what is a WP:BLP . Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO . scope_creep Talk 14:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Women , and California . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per current standards. Jehochman Talk 16:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] all I find are articles about the CEO of Jack in the Box, who shares the same name as this individual. Nothing found for sourcing for this person. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Fails GNG, in my opinion. Carrite ( talk ) 10:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ma Jong-u: Simione001 ( talk ) 23:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 23:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 23:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 23:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC) GNG . Suonii180 ( talk ) 09:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"CCI Group: Akshith manya talk 04:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Canada , and United States of America . Akshith manya talk 04:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The company website is there as a reference, there are articles by the Vancouver Sun and Insights Success. It is a very short article about a well established company in British Columbia. As a fairly new contributor, I would be grateful for any suggestions or guidelines- like how many links are considered necessary to create an article. My focus is on the construction sector of Canada, in which I happen to work. The sector is underrepresented on wikipedia. Simplyarnab ( talk ) 17:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Besides the Vancouver Sun mention, I couldn't really find any coverage at all, let alone anything significant. Mooonswimmer 13:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Insights Success CADCR These are already there. I have added 2 more The Tribune Drishti Magazine Simplyarnab ( talk ) 19:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC) 55, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"UM.SiteMaker: Non-notable web software. SL93 ( talk ) 19:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . SL93 ( talk ) 19:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Fails notability and certainly doesn't seem to have significant coverage. Kingsmasher678 ( talk ) 20:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet , Canada , and Michigan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Little coverage. TappyTurtle [ talk | contribs ] 15:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of football stadiums in the Republic of Artsakh: This list also doesn't cite any sources and has had a notability orange tag for almost 3 years. Dan the Animator 01:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football , Lists , and Azerbaijan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) : talk 05:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC) GNG . -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC) CFORK from List of football stadiums in Azerbaijan . Doesn't seem like a useful enough search term to warrant a either. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 11:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Idiosincrático ( talk ) 02:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"It's an Honour: Sufficient information is already provided on the article Australian honours and awards system . Qwerty123 (they/them) ( talk ) 01:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . Qwerty123 (they/them) ( talk ) 01:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . Qwerty123 (they/them) ( talk ) 01:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 27 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 01:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Having managed naught but two primary sources in its 12.85 years, it. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Websites . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC) LMGTFY : australian government honours and awards ...The site is still live and merely needs a link update. Perform WP:BEFORE next time. Nate • ( chatter ) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A link to the website itself is not a source. AusLondonder ( talk ) 20:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am firmly on the side since I started this discussion. You see, the article is explaining a website that the Australian honours and awards system page can easily provide all the information for, and the website has changed so the content is not very accurate. I do not think that this article satisfies any of the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (web) . The website is not explained in an encyclopaedic manner, with little elaboration on much of the website. This guideline I have outlined states that the website an article is written about should have multiple independent sources backing up the information, I can hardly find any news pieces or similar. I do not think this article is particularly notable in terms of sourcing. Qwerty123 (they/them) ( talk ) 10:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) Zero sources that establish notability under WP:GNG . GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 09:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . No reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Fails WP:RSS . Spinifex&Sand ( talk ) 03:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fails GNG. LibStar ( talk ) 22:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sand Springs, Apache County, Arizona: I could not find coverage for it on Google and Google News Archive. Also comes with a complimentary bit of WP:OR : It is one of two locations in Arizona with this name, the other being located in Coconino County. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 01:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona . बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 01:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Our only sources are GNIS and a GNIS mirror. Nuff said. Not notable. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 02:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I too cannot find any mention of the populated place on Google Maps. The closest I get is Sand Springs Drive, which is only a road, not a populated place. Thanks, Wikieditor019 ( Talk to me ) 17:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC) The only thing there on satellite is a few sparse residences located within a mile of the given coordinates, but nothing else but desert can be seen for miles. No evidence to suggest this is a ""community"" of any sort. Fails WP:GEOLAND . Streetlampguy301 ( talk ) 22:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Aryen Suresh Kute: All three sources cited appeared to be a distributed paid content and an independent search to determine the subject's notability returned negative Noneate ( talk ) 13:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India . Noneate ( talk ) 13:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PROMO, only PR and pay to publish website listings found. I swear we've had someone that looked like him before in AfD... Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . (Note that I published the article from AfC, which now seems like a misjudgement to me. Self-trout feels appropriate.) I based my evaluation of the sources on discussions from WP:RSN , also found at WP:NPRSG . Ater looking a little further into them, I agree that these are not the high-quality sources required to establish notability, particularly for a BLP. Since there seems to be a lot of agreement on this, I would suggest a brief discussion at RSN to reclassify these sources for future convenience. @ Noneate @ Oaktree b what do you think? Actualcpscm ( talk ) 14:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree, but someone would have to nominate it or create the discussion there at RSN, I'm not sure how to do that. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC) PROMO only. I'd suggest returning to draft space, but I don't think this has a six-months chance at improvement. I agree that the sources should be added to a discussion at RSN. UtherSRG (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [8] [9] [10] - UtherSRG (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Obvious self-promotion. Deb ( talk ) 14:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC) GNG . Edwardx ( talk ) 12:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 11:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All sources are sponsored. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 07:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC) GNG. AmusingWeasel ( talk ) 13:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kajona: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – fails notability guidelines. No relevancies in Gnews, Gbooks and scholar. Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 19:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC) I don't see any sources to establish NSOFT. Owen× ☎ 22:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC) very little source online, just the software website. She was a fairy 02:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dewi (2019 TV series): Nothing in article or BEFORE showed IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth Source eval: Promo event :: 1. ""Pemain dan Kru Sinetron Dewi Gelar Syukuran dengan Anak Yatim"". iNews. ID (in Indonesian). November 18, 2019. Retrieved April 4, 2023. Promo announcement :: 2. ^ ""Sinetron Dewi RCTI: Ada Ririn Dwi Ariyanti dan Ashraf Sinclair"". www.popmagz.com. Retrieved April 4, 2023. Part memorial, part promo about an episode, nothing SIGCOV about the subject :: 3. ^ Media, Kompas Cyber (February 19, 2020). ""Ririn Dwi Ariyanti Unggah Video Terakhir Ashraf Sinclair Usai Syuting"". KOMPAS.com (in Indonesian). Retrieved April 4, 2023. Listed, not SIGCOV :: 4. ^ ""Asia Contents Awards Nominations 2020"". asiacontentsawards.com. Retrieved April 4, 2023. Listed, not SIGCOV :: 5. ^ ""Reuben Elishama Hadju Masuk Nominasi 2nd Asia Contents Awards Busan International Film Festival"". iNews. ID (in Indonesian). October 19, 2020. Retrieved April 4, 2023. Listed, not SIGCOV :: 6. ^ ""Asia Contents Awards Winners 2020"". asiacontentsawards.com. Retrieved April 4, 2023. Nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 13:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have found no sigcov of this tv series. Nagol0929 ( talk ) 13:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 13:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Saga Petroleum LLC: Zero secondary sources. No evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:ORGCRIT . AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Colorado . AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - my own search came up with nothing establishing notability. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . There's something in the Wall Street Journal , May 11, 1999 - Norsk Hydro Offers $2.23 Billion In Stock to Buy Saga Petroleum - By Bhushan Bahree Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal . ... There's something about the company here involving legal action which we know would generate other news, Casper Star-Tribune , Monday, June 14, 2010 - Page 26 .... and DEQ , March 16, 2018 - Montana Air Quality Permit #2770-11 a transfer to Blue Sky Energy. Something here on Casetext , 11-12-2015 - Nucor, Inc. v. PetroHawk Energy Corp. . ... And there's CMI - Chr. Michelsen Institute, 2000 - The Snorre Field and the rise and fall of Saga Petroleum - Hildegunn Kyvik Nordås (2000) . At the very least there's a good reason to consider a . The problem is that we rely on Google and often it's a case of ""If it ain't in Google then it don't exist"". Well, I've often found that to be the case with how some folk look at things. In the past I've been given mineral and mining publications. Not exciting stuff for most people but within the industry they were relied upon for valuable information, and we sometimes have to look at things in a different perspective. When you go to the physical then there's content there that makes a whole world of difference. Karl Twist ( talk ) 12:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC) I have just been looking at the sources you have provided. The first source is about Saga Petroleum , a Norwegian company of the same name. The second source appears to be a classified advertisement placed by a government official, which does not establish notability. The third source is a letter from a government department, obviously doesn't assist. The next source is a primary source, a legal case not even directly involving Saga Petroleum LLC. The final source is again about the unrelated Norwegian company. AusLondonder ( talk ) 13:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Article needs a great amount of improving. Karl Twist ( talk ) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC) CORP -- Devoke water 22:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Big 12 Championship Game broadcasters: Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE . Of the sources per WP:RS ; nearly all of these are about the game or are broadcasting schedules with one leading back to its homepage. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 07:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , American football , and Lists . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 07:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC) the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN . This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article. Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mr. Pete: Being in the AVN hall of fame is swell, but we have no coverage in RS talking about the individual. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Nevada . Shellwood ( talk ) 20:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mr. Pete has been performing regularly since 23 years ago. According to IAFD.com he appears in over 3580 titles as a performer and 98 titles as a director. In addition, he has been awarded by AVN, XRCO and XBIZ, the most relevant adult film companies at the present moment. Finally, he has wikipedia pages in french, italian, spanish and swedish among other foreign languages. Therefore, I do not get your point when you say Mr. Pete is a non-notable pornographic actor. cantarach ( talk ) 22:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He has no coverage in reliable sources, see the links posted above under the nomination. Wikipedia notability. He isn't discussed in the New York Times or books. We can't articles that aren't discussed by other individuals. IAFD is not a source we recognize. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And your Mr. Pete article has already been turned down three times, per the discussion links on your talk page. You should fully understand why it's not notable at this point. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I posted those links because I thought that obviously, they would be more interesting to Wikipedia. cantarach ( talk ) 23:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I said, you can find articles on Wikipedia about Mr. Pete in different languages, for example french, italian or spanish. They look very similar to the one I wrote and I cannot understand why you do like those articles mentioned but not mine. cantarach ( talk ) 23:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources in those Wikipedia articles are unreliable and unacceptable for biographies of living persons. IMDb biographical information is user-generated content. The Spanish Wikipedia page cites IMDb and Who Dated Who (also unreliable). The French Wikipedia page is translated from the Italian page. That one cites self-published aiwards.com. Even if the sources were reliable, the awards roster listings don't constitute significant coverage. The Russian page appears to be a translated from the English-language page d in 2022. Swedish: no sources. Unacceptable in all cases. • Gene93k ( talk ) 03:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Currently this article is linked to the main companies. I did that originally, because I thought that it would be more interesting to Wikipedia. cantarach ( talk ) 23:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We don't need to discussing it at this point, we'll let the process play out. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions . • Gene93k ( talk ) 02:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Sourcing in the article is exceptionally bad. Searching for independent RS coverage comes up with nil. Failure of WP:BASIC and WP:ENT . Pretty much the same problems as the 2022 deletion. • Gene93k ( talk ) 02:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Almost half the sourcing is Imdb is crowd sourced, i.e., the bio subject could have edited the source himself. Much of the other sourcing is questionable. Most of the awards are not sourced. Only two sourced for all three main sections. There's a reason this is a stub article - not much content or substance. — Maile ( talk ) 22:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] GNG not there, nothing changed in notability since last deletion. WikiVirus C (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Incubate Debate: The reliable sources are generally about the National Speech and Debate Association , with only passing mentions of Incubate Debate. ~ A412 talk! 06:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , and United States of America . ~ A412 talk! 06:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Would have to agree with nom. The sources I am finding are mentions and do not pass WP:ORGCRIT or are not WP:CORPDEPTH . -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 22:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the coverage I've found doesn't establish the organization's significance in a way that meets Wikipedia's notability requirements for organizations. Dejaqo ( talk ) 00:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Andrea Martani: The closest I found to WP:SIGCOV were a few sentences of coverage interspersed throughout an interview . JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and Italy . JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . No suitable per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC) As per my check, I found nothing that can establish notability to the subject, the subject totally fails WP:GNG . Grab Up - Talk 16:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Vion Pharmaceuticals: Cannot find any other sources. Darcyisverycute ( talk ) 13:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Medicine . Darcyisverycute ( talk ) 13:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC) An article created then later updated by the WP:SPA VPInc regarding the progress of their drug trials then in progress. The FDA rejection and subsequent Chapter 11 bankruptcy of the firm do not provide attained notability . AllyD ( talk ) 17:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kurds of European ancestry: Earlier signs of this problem are also evident in one of the edits of the creator , where they altered sourced information (the table below), while adding another reference (that also failed verification). Another example is Headbomb’s check , where they couldn’t find any such source listed in the article. This is a very clear instance of WP:CUCKOO . Seemingly random page numbers and sometimes random titles, random sources. Now, with the cuckoo content removed, the article is not coherent anymore and much of the remaining unchecked content will also probably fail verification. I thought of how the article could be improved. The only relevant information regarding who ""Kurds of European ancestry"" might be is the table, but we already have the page Chechen Kurds , which refers to Kurdified Caucasian immigrants. The original version of the article discussed Balkan immigrants to Kurdistan, but I was unable to find any sources on that. Even if there were such sources, this article wouldn’t be appropriate, since it had to be renamed as something like ""Balkan immigrants in Kurdistan"" or with any term popular among the sources. ""Kurds of European ancestry"" in itself is not appropriate since none of the sources include this term and is thus a WP:OR / WP:SYNTH grouping. The research papers on genetics are placed after very general statements and are more appropriate in a page or section about the genetics of Kurds. Overall, I can’t think of how this article can be improved. Aintabli ( talk ) 05:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Europe . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . A content fork. Not even worth a because there are just a couple of thousand of these people and nobody will ever search for them. Desertarun ( talk ) 12:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Semsûrî ( talk ) 22:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that is this not really worthy of a separate encyclopedia entry. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 20:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kenneth P. Green: Unable to find out much about him, apart from a Guardian story saying that he offered to pay scientists to write articles questioning global warning when he worked at the American Enterprise Institute . I think that's BLP1E, and that his career as an advocate and writer doesn't show notability. There are some hits on Google Scholar, but https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep33348.pdf is from a Fraser Institute publication rather than a mainstream independent peer-reviewed journal. It has some citations, but possibly not enough. See also the previous AfD. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Environment , Canada , and United States of America . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The nom's search for notability is not promising. Looking at the article itself, it's very promotional. It encompasses a professional profile, and beyond that, relays way too much of the subject's own voice. — siro χ o 09:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On reconsideration, I withdraw my request for re-instatement. Feel free to leave the page in d status. No need to waste more time on the issue. 24.121.19.234 ( talk ) 18:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , however suggest letting this run despite the IP/subject's change of heart so we have consensus v. a PROD to fall back on. Star Mississippi 02:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I'll ! vote on climate change deniers with reasonable claim of notability, but that seems to be absent here. Little sign of WP:NPROF , and while there are one or two passing mentions in news articles, I'm not seeing anything approaching GNG. Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 10:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , does not pass GNG or NPROF. -- hroest 18:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Henry Foster III: They have to pass WP:GNG or at least WP:ANYBIO . This subject lacks in all, the sources presented in the article and from WP:BEFORE can not be used to the establish notability of this subject based on GNG. Sources are either lacking in independence or mostly in significant coverage of the subject. Most are WP:ROUTINE coverages which provide nothing but an announcement of Foster winning the seat or what have we, while some are result sheets, etc. Nothing to establish notability here. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 15:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC) ONEEVENT - all we have is that he ran for a local office and won. The only personal details are from non-independent sources (his campaign web site). Everything else is routine local election stuff, and those articles are quite short with little information about him. Lamona ( talk ) 05:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - while I am sympathetic, I think the consensus is that the city of San Diego isn't big or prominent enough to convey automatic notability to all its public officials. He won with less than 9,000 votes. Bearian ( talk ) 15:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Promine: Only dependent on two sources which a large part of the article left totally unsourced since 2016. Jamiebuba ( talk ) 13:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada . Jamiebuba ( talk ) 13:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC) ORGDEPTH . I have to agree with Jamiebuba on lack of conformity to WP:SIGCOV as well. Not my best work, I agree with proposal for deletion. Ruminater ( talk ) 14:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. All I can find is one iffy source, the Mining Suppliers Trading Association . Clarityfiend ( talk ) 02:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nicholas Weise: He is a lecturer with a reasonable but not exceptional number of publications, won one university-internal non-funded award (of which a bunch seem to be given [13] ) and was nominated for two more, and did some outreach. This doesn't get us to either GNG or NPROF level. Newish academic (PhD 7 years ago) at the beginning of his career; WP:TOOSOON . -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 18:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 18:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC) NOTCV . At best WP:TNT but i doubt WP:ACADEMIC is met. — siro χ o 22:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . He has a promising Google Scholar citation record, but not a strong enough one to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 . And local awards that are not even university-wide, but only from his faculty within his university, with 10 winners/year, are far from the level of significance that could contribute to #C2. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 00:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Umbrella title: Dawkin Verbier ( talk ) 14:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions . Dawkin Verbier ( talk ) 14:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 15:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Most of the sources use the word ""umbrella"" exactly once, and none appear to discuss this as a broad topic. LittlePuppers ( talk ) 22:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of failed SpaceX launches: No one besides the article author (who got blocked with two accounts for vandalism) linked to this list and two other users have questioned the use of this list on the talk page before. We don't have such a list for any other company, and we don't have a list of only successful launches either. mfb ( talk ) 07:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions . mfb ( talk ) 07:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . — Karnataka talk 07:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC) nomination + the intro alone is a mess, and articles are only as well-written as their leads — the Main Logan ( t • c ) 09:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC) this is an unhelpful list. There's no context as to how these fit into the program overall. It's more meaningful to combine successes and failures in one list per craft in chronological order. This shows overall development and any patterns of failure. Preferably, I'd like to see such lists embedded in the main articles if not too long. A list can always be collapsible if it's only ""long-ish"". For longer lists of good and bad launches for a particular craft, use a separate list article. Finally, if almost all launches are good, you could follow the example of many aircraft articles and list only problems, not successful launches (example: Boeing 767#Accidents and incidents ). Just as importantly, we don't need forks. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC) 50, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . How about merging to the List of SpaceX launches , that just contains only successful launches? Suitskvarts ( talk ) 10:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As non encyclopaedic unnecessary compilation list. 175.107.224.105 ( talk ) into List of SpaceX launches . Mason ( talk ) 13:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into the appropriate subpages of Falcon 1#Launches , List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches (2010–2019) , List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches , and List of SpaceX Starship flight tests . Merging to List of SpaceX launches does not look appropriate based on the current structure of that page. - Indefensible ( talk ) 19:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually this list might be entirely duplicated on those pages already, in which case it can just be safely d. - Indefensible ( talk ) 19:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: We're almost evenly split between and . Relisting for some more input. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 20:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Removed my vote but and are practically the same outcome in this case. Actually would be fine leaving it as well after further consideration. No strong opinion either way. - Indefensible ( talk ) 20:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC) POVFORK that just duplicates content from List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches and Falcon 1#Launches . SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Darlene Jones: Fails WP:GNG Hirolovesswords ( talk ) 14:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and United States of America . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 15:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Sportspeople , Women , and Texas . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Unfortunately, the Concho Valley piece is best here, but is relatively limited. Others are passing mentions, failing WP:GNG . Some claims aren't sourced. TLA (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC) Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG . Let'srun ( talk ) 13:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ryan Howe (wrestler): Just worked on independent promotions (one exception, when he appeared a few times in TNA). No in-deep coverage sabout him in sources, just WP:ROUTINE results. HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 09:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Wrestling , and Indiana . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Belgians: gidonb ( talk ) 01:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Belgium . gidonb ( talk ) 01:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Belgium is a densely populated country of 11.7 million people. Category:Belgian people cannot be counted by PetScan, and a large share of the articles are not about Belgians, but there are likely tens of thousands articles about Belgians in Category:Belgian people . Category:Belgian scientists alone contains 1038 articles , more than enough to support a standalone list of Belgian scientists . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 02:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC) Belgian people by century contains 4569 results . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 02:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree the scope of such list is too broad. But as WP:ATD , this list could be transformed in a list of lists following the example of Lists of Americans , by splitting into sub-lists. However, I tend towards as I don't see the value in having lists of people for which we already have categories with thousands of entries, unless said lists have more stringent criteria than the categories themselves and are heavily curated. Otherwise we end up having patchwork lists of dubious worth. I am looking forward to reading the opinions of fellow editors. Broc ( talk ) 04:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC) The article is way too vague, as it includes people who were citizens of Belgium for at least some part of their lives (which could include a small portion of their lives), people who weren't Belgium at the time but were born where Belgium is now (which I don't think should qualify as ""Belgian""), and even fictional characters whose citizenship isn't even know. There are way too many leaniant parameters for what qualifies as ""Belgian"". I think @ Broc 's solution to turn the article into a list of lists could work, but I think deletion or making stricter qualifications for what ""Belgian"" means would be better suited. Mjks28 ( talk ) 04:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . A list on its own is far too broad and unwieldy. Possible alternative is a list of lists in a more specific sense. Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ettore Casadei: All the sources I could find, apart from transfer reports, stats reports and non-independent sources from the clubs he played for at the time, are about him being the boyfriend of some minor starlet in 2021 [34] and little more [35] , none of which are either independent enough (including article sources) or covering the subject in thorough detail to be defined as WP:GNG . Angelo ( talk ) 11:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football . Angelo ( talk ) 11:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Italy and Florida . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Player with an ongoing career, off the back of a good season in the United States at college level and the potential to continue his career there. Has a decent amount of coverage, especially for the level he's played at, and this interview, and especially this one are independent and decently in-depth. At worst draftify. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk ) 12:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first one you've cited is barely one paragraph long... The second isn't much longer. Interviews don't count towards notability as they are primary sources. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Having the ""potential"" to continue his career indicates he's not at notability, but perhaps in the future. TOOSOON applies. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC) the user above is the author of the article. That said, the sources you came up with are nowhere close to WP:SIGCOV (they are either non-independent, or are not secondary sources). Angelo ( talk ) 15:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The second one is literally a Q&A interview, those never count towards notability. JoelleJay ( talk ) 18:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Match reports from Old Dominion University I find, some limited coverage in Italian media. TOOSOON and should be ! d for lack of extensive sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC) per all forementioned reasons above. Lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG . -- 12:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) . Zero independent sources to support GNG. JoelleJay ( talk ) 18:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ron Fish: Boleyn ( talk ) 21:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak ; he seems notable and has worked on quite a few critically acclaimed games, but it seems to be fairly hard to find reliable sources on him. Darling ☔ ( talk · contribs ) 22:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Note that all three sources currently in the article are dead (at least for me). Mr. Fish is visible at various video game fan pages such as [20] , but I can find no in-depth and reliable coverage of his video game work. Therefore, the article is serving as a basic resume and is not supported by notability. As for Mr. Fish's connection to Dick Dale , he is not mentioned at Dale's article and he appears to be much younger than Dale, so he was probably a late-period sideman when Dale went on non-notable nostalgia tours. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Tartu Rugby Klubi Lelo: I can't see any passing of WP:GNG here and a rugby club simply existing does not automatically make it notable. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and Estonia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC) GNG , doesn't appear to be a suitable here per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 10:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Barbegazi: The Fantasy Encyclopedia cited in the original article does have 1 mention of this myth (I accessed it through the Internet Archive ), but it seems to be the only mention I can find, with no sources cited. Although it is possible to Google the term and see many articles on Wikia and blogs about them, as well as a children's book published in 2018 , a model of mountain bike tyre, and another (semi-related, but not the same) creature from The Witcher series, I believe the creation of this Wikipedia article in 2005 has led to these other pages making content about this myth. I can't find any mentions of the Alpine legendary creature ""barbegazi"" online in a historical context in reliable secondary sources that document folklore, or academic papers on mythology/folklore, in both English and French (from searching barbes glacées ). I would appreciate help searching for this term in French sources as my French is limited. This is what the Fantasy Encylopedia cited in the article writes about barbegazi, if you are not able to access it through archive.org: The barbegazi are dwarves who live in the Alps in France and Switzerland. Their name comes from the French barbes glacées which means ""frozen beards"". Their white fur clothes, as well as the icicles in their hair and beards, make them very difficult to see in the winter. In the summer they hibernate in caves and tunnels in the rocks and do not come out until the first snowfall. Their greatest excitement is surfing on avalanches, although they will give low whistling cries to warn humans of the danger and will do their best to dig humans out if they become trapped. pinktoebeans (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology , France , and Switzerland . pinktoebeans (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've not heard of them. [39] and [40] are trivial mentions, but that's about all I can find. Winter festival using this name [41] Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I tried . fr and . ch websites, they seem to be mentioned in a kids book or two, but they aren't widely know. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These are mentions from the 1990s that predate the creation of this wiki article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Gallica only hits on an aqueduct [42] , nothing for these creatures. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Invented for Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were (1985) p. 52 ? fiveby ( zero ) 17:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC) Is the Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were a collection of existing myths, or does it make them up? I think source-wise, barbegazi are probably notable, as there are also entries in Encyclopedia of Giants and Humanoids in Myth, Legend and Folklore , published by McFarland & Company , which should be reliable, right? And Nuevo inventario de criaturas fantásticas , A natural history of the unnatural world : selected files from the archives of the Cryptozoological Society of London , The Dictionary of Mythology , the mentioned Fantasy Encylopedia , and more. It is curious, though, that so far there seems to be no source earlier that the Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were , though. Daranios ( talk ) 19:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The book by McFarland and Co seems legit, has source citations under each entry. I'll revise my ! vote. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For ease of future reference, the sources given in McFarland and Co ( Conway's The Ancient Art of Faery Magick and Maberry's Vampire Universe) date from 2005 and 2006 respectively, so still don't predate the Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were . pinktoebeans (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak based on the sources given above. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] for now. A number of secondary sources on the topic have been collected, establishing notability. Some of them predate our Wikipedia article from 2005 here, excluding WP:Citogenesis from that side. The doubts based on Talk:Barbegazi and the - so far - absence of any sources earlier than 1985 remain a problem. But we do have sources on the topic, and only educated guesses and no sources on the doubts. So what's to be done in such a case? The least bad solution I can think of is ing the article, putting up a Template:Disputed , and documenting the doubts on the talk page, until sources substantiating (or alleviating) the doubts show up. Daranios ( talk ) 15:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Great research, this seems like a fitting solution and I'm more than satisfied these are a notable concept. I'm interested to know if any editors with expertise in folklore/historical research are able to find sources older than 1985. pinktoebeans (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Daranios . Excellent research and impeccable logic, especially on doubts=OR note. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 18:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and add a disputed tag, per the sound reasoning of Daranios above. – Michael Aurel ( talk ) 20:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] none of these fantasy bestiaries are reliable sources for folklore. The authors of Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were are by no means qualified and they admit to some invention in their introduction. This also could be the creation of comic book writers and illustrators Pierre Dubois or René Hausman as there is an appearance in La Grande Encyclopédie des lutins but can't find a copy online and don't see anything likely in Spirou ""Grand fabulaire du petit peuple"" . fiveby ( zero ) 14:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That could explain the appearance of the barbegazi with the Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were . But then what about the Encyclopedia of Giants and Humanoids in Myth, Legend and Folklore by McFarland & Company, The Dictionary of Mythology and the Larousse Dictionary of World Folklore ? Daranios ( talk ) 15:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of those authors appear to have any relevant academic credentials, or provide any source or evidence which would validate this as folklore. I sure haven't seen anything trustworthy yet. fiveby ( zero ) 16:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've tried a Quebec newspaper search from 1920 to 1987, nothing turns up. [43] , to be fair, I can only find mentions of term from 2013 forwards in this database. A Swiss newspaper search has nothing [44] , nor a Swiss German language magazine [45] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm almost thinking these things are made-up [46] is not a reliable source, but a Czech store that sells curios, saying they're an Inuit word... Inuits are in North America, nowhere near France or Switzerland. Made up for he book in 1985? Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reaffirming Having done some more searches, regardless of whether the myth is traditional folklore or not, I don't believe the current sources available are enough to warrant inclusion of barbegazi in Wikipedia. Michael Fitzgerald Page , the author of the Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were , is not a reliable source for folklore as he has no relevant credentials or history, much like the authors of the other encyclopedias. With regard to legitimacy of the myth (I know, WP:OR ...), it may be worth noting other amateur folklorists have been unable to find sources pre-1985 as well (see [47] and [48] ). Currently looking into finding Swiss/French sources, but haven't managed to find any mention of barbegazi in anything so far. pinktoebeans (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a recent invention, not a legendary creature. Reliable sources are lacking. There is a small entry for Barbegazi in Encyclopedia of Fairies in World Folklore and Mythology , but not enough to establish notability. I checked the cited sources in that book they are all modern. This has no real basis in folklore and it is not cited in academic or scholarly works on folklore or legends. Psychologist Guy ( talk ) 13:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] it seems likely that this was something that was invented that other authors included in compendia. In principle, this could make a fantasy beast notable if, for example, it gained traction beyond such lists. But if it is just a pro forma retelling of the same claim over and over again without any addition, we are not really in the realm of standalone inclusion here. Just too far out on the limb of WP:INUNIVERSE to be a reasonable argument for ing an article . There are probably ways of including some information related to this on other pages. But that's a different question than the one posed here and I see no cogent argument for any merging, for example. jps ( talk ) 13:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per ජපස. Seems to be something that someone made up and others repeated. – dlthewave ☎ 15:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"The Bombsters: The notability claim on offer here is that they exist (or existed, because a lot of the information here is very outdated), and the referencing is entirely to primary sources (music sourced to its own presence on iTunes or YouTube, etc.) that are not support for notability. Nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt them from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat ( talk ) 20:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada . Bearcat ( talk ) 20:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , definitely unnotable. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 21:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC) No coverage in RS and the band appears to have fizzled out. Their youtube channel only has 300 something subscribers... There is no news about them, other than a few places to stream their music. I doubt they were ever notable by our standards, even less today. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Enterprise Wolves Basketball: In my WP:BEFORE search, only routine coverage shows up regarding game recaps; the article's actual subject matter – a Utah high school's boy's basketball program – is non-notable. Enterprise High School is not a national powerhouse a la The Patrick School (NJ), Mater Dei (CA), IMG Academy (FL) etc. SportsGuy789 ( talk ) 23:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Utah and Basketball SportsGuy789 ( talk ) 23:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC) Articles for deletion/Enterprise Wolves Baseball . SportsGuy789 ( talk ) 23:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC) NOTDIRECTORY . – Muboshgu ( talk ) 23:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC) 27, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nominator. Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 00:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The article states names, dates, and information that is factual. The information is referenced to the Deseret News, which is the oldest continuously operating publication in the American west since 1850. It also references the Utah High School Activities Association, which is the governing body of Utah high school sports and s all the sports information and sports record book in the state of Utah. The article summarizes the basketball history of Enterprise High School in a clear and concise way. People have said thank you for creating the page. Yotejonga ( talk ) 02:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It might be factual, but it isn't a notable subject. High school sports association record books are primary sources and local coverage of local high school sports is not really notability-lending. To further SportsGuy789 's rationale, not even high schools like IMG Academy or Oak Hill have independent articles for their sports programs regardless of their success. Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 12:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] IMG Academy and Oak Hill should have independent articles for their sports programs, as well as Enterprise. I don't believe there should be a limit on the number of independent articles out there. Wikipedia is a great online encyclopedia where people search for this kind of information. Why not have Wikipedia be THE Source for where ALL people can obtain the information and knowledge they are searching for. Yotejonga ( talk ) 02:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Because that is very much not Wikipedia’s purpose. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable topics, what you are describing is a database of indiscriminate information, which is explicitly against Wikipedia’s mission and against policy. GPL93 ( talk ) 03:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC) Agree with nominator regarding GNG and is not notable otherwise. Seems to be some fandom going on here. User:Let'srun 16:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 21:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Carl Berger (cinematographer): Fails WP:NFILMMAKER UtherSRG (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , United States of America , and California . UtherSRG (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - here is one possible source Marineland . There is also a mention in White Zombie: Anatomy of a Horror Film . SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting for a second go around Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 01:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV , including the sources from SailingInABathTub above. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 04:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nabakhsh: Hongsy ( talk ) 08:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran . Hongsy ( talk ) 08:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC) GEOLAND : Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Hongsy ( talk ) 08:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Flynn, Oregon: Only source is GNIS, and no other information could be found. Satellite images suggest this is just an industrial area on the outskirts of Philomath, OR. Apparently there was once a Flynn Covered Bridge in the area: [147] , which might be notable, but nothing about a ""community"" of Flynn was found, so this is a failure of WP:GEOLAND . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 02:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Oregon . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 02:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If there was ever a time when this wasn't right on the outskirts of Philomath, it's before topo coverage. And curiously, it doesn't show up as a label until the industrial spur into the lumberyard also appears, and a short siding shows up as well. That rail point seems to be what the label is for, when it first appears. At any rate the lack of a clear characterization of the spot is reason for deletion. Mangoe ( talk ) 04:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can find no additional sources than presented already. I add that the Bridge was short lived, and while it's plausible that it was at this location, I couldn't prove it. James.folsom ( talk ) 21:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Danylo Safonov: My own Ukrainian searches found nothing better than Kramatorsk Post , a hyper local news source that only mentions him once. I have checked the Ukrainian Wikipedia article and all of the sources used are database sources, so don't confer notability. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Ukraine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Gheorghe Bantîș: Best sources were FMF and NOI , both trivial mentions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Moldova . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Mbdfar ( talk ) 17:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC) GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney ( talk ) 03:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Blisk (web browser): Hence, it currently fails WP:GNG . I did a quick search and didn't really find any sources more notable. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 22:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC) A lot of the sources I found were press releases or overly promotional, but with the reviews from Mashable, Fossbytes and Softpedia, (both a little questionable but at least they have actual authors and ratings), and coverage of the data breach in Zdnet I think it can be kept. Weak because it only got coverage when it released and when it had a data breach and nothing really in between or after. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ StreetcarEnjoyer On 2 December 2023‎ the user Lotje has removed almost the whole article with lots of sources. I'm asking to revert the majority of changes. The software works and gets released constantly. Let's discuss on how to rewrite the features and press releases. Can you help with this? And85rew ( talk ) 08:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, I am against including that content. The article does not need ""features and press releases"". The content that was removed is contrary to policy. I will remove it again if it's readded. If you have specific additions in mind, it's best to suggest them on the talk page. And if you have a conflict of interest, please disclose it. — Alalch E. 09:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you please explain why features are not needed? The features describe the software. The article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome names the key features (User interface, Built-in tools, Desktop shortcuts and apps, Extensions, Speed, Security, Privacy). Why cannot this article list the features of the software? And85rew ( talk ) 09:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article will never be the way it used to be. The misuse of Wikipedia at this page has been put to an end. It lasted for a while, but that time has come and gone. Disclose your conflict of interest. See the edit history of the article where the reasons for removal are stated in the edit summaries. — Alalch E. 09:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The experienced editor Alalch E. is correct here. The article in its prior status was exclusively cited to primary sources and violated the Wikipedia guidelines of not being a blatant advertisement. Features listed in other web browser pages like Google Chrome and Firefox are (mostly) cited to independent, reliable sources, have enough coverage in independent sources, and were given by other editors who generally do not have a conflict of interest. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . In all likelihood, I find the initial flurry of coverage to be almost certainly based substantially or entirely on press kit, i.e. WP:CHURNALISM . The Fossbytes article is especially obvious, I mean hell, that second last sentence: You can go ahead and try our Blisk for Windows right now. Did they even bother paraphrasing the email they got before publishing it? The state of available sourcing is unacceptable, it fails independence requirements. Other, more exhaustive software directories (like, I don't know, Softpedia , where it's already at) may be an appropriate home for this, but Wikipedia is not that . Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 12:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC) I'd like to change my vote. Frankly the sourcing available is bad and sourcing a web browser entirely to ""it was released and had a data breach once"" is not a good idea. All the sources not about the data breach do sound like press release churnalism, even the Mashable article. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Shivaharkaray: As per criteria 6 and 7 of WP:DEL-REASON —it appears this place does not even exist. Completely imaginary! Jovian Eclipse 04:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions . Jovian Eclipse 04:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Not a HOAX, at the least . Saqib ( talk ) 19:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC) This edit from the Hinglaj Mata Temple page by a sockpuppet account predates the Tribune article by years and simply by looking at the lead, I think it is pretty obvious that the author has plagiarized from Wikipedia. I have particularly highlighted that edit because it was the precisely the one establishing for the first time that there are three Shakti Peethas in Pakistan. Older revisions have two. I would also like to make another point that this supposedly revered pilgrimage site not only has absolutely zero visitor accounts in the internet era, but no picture of it is available anywhere. It does not even receive the slightest mention in the books of scholars on Shaktism, who have otherwise produced detailed works on both Hinglaj and Sharada. Jovian Eclipse 21:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Jovian Eclipse , But there are Indian RS confirming the existence of three Shakti Peethas in Pakistan, which includes Shivaharkaray such as The New Indian Express , The Economic Times . Plus, there are books that mention it too. You can just do a quick search on Google Books to check it out. — Saqib ( talk ) 07:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC) This is supposed to be a very well-regarded shrine for Pakistani Hindus, for at least a century just as the other Shakti Peethas are. Every source you listed has come into existence after the aforementioned edit on 18 June 2021, which makes it blatantly clear that their reference was nothing other than Wikipedia (the ET article even explicitly says so). The books are all self-published ebooks, not academic works from well-reputed presses. The NIE article refers to a place called Karavipur where the temple is located, and it is again supposed to be near a railway station named Parkai. A quick 5-minute online research will reveal that none of those two exist anywhere in Pakistan. Also note that every ""source"" is either about the Shakti Peethas in general or about Hinglaj, but none about this temple itself. That also makes it fail WP:N . Jovian Eclipse 09:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No votes yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 13:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: An evaluation of sources would be useful here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 16:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 05:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC) While the place may indeed exists, it does not meet WP:GNG and does not have WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources for a standalone article. The article itself does not contain comprehensive detail about the shrine, but about the goddess and the legend connected to that goddess. Prof. PMarini ( talk ) 06:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"DZVG-TV: Perhaps a to GMA Network might be an WP:ATD ? MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 10:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Golam Rabby: Also, it doesn't have WP:SIGCOV that could pass WP:GNG . — MdsShakil ( talk ) 12:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , Journalism , and Bangladesh . — MdsShakil ( talk ) 12:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - per nom. Doesn't pass GNG as it lacks significant coverage. PhilKnight ( talk ) 16:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There seems to be No Reliable Sources. Untamed1910 ( talk ) 14:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - not notable. Llajwa ( talk ) 20:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Doesn't pass WP:GNG . -- আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk ) 20:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC) 52, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Guzema Fine Jewelry: Some of the sources are about the person for interviews. I think this article is promotional and we need to demonstrate that it is notable per WP:NCORP . A G11 by a previous reviewer was declined so I will leave this for the community to decide. Lightburst ( talk ) 17:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Fashion , and Ukraine . Lightburst ( talk ) 17:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per good reliable sources and significant coverage in Elle, Vogue and local magazines and news papers. Added some sources -- Assirian cat ( talk ) 08:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC) The First Lady of Ukraine Dressed With Pride to Meet President Biden passing mention]. Elle Elle Style Awards 2017: winners and party passing mention We have a few routine announcements and interviews or interest articles about the Ukrainian owner. like this and articles about the founder but I do not think we get to the kind of RS needed for a notable company. V$ Bloggy looking site with no editorial overbite that I can see. I am happy to withdraw if I am wrong. Lightburst ( talk ) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Fails GNG and NCORP, nothing found in article or BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth by independent reliable sources. // Timothy :: talk 23:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Forbes article is by a contributor but I see no evidence that the article is not independent. The National Jeweler and the mentions in articles in the New York Times should suffice as English language sources. Since I cannot read the Ukrainian source I am taking on faith that those are substantial. Lamona ( talk ) 02:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Forbes contributor articles are red-lined on perennial reliable sources WP:FORBESCON . Lightburst ( talk ) 22:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] in addition to the mentioned references I’m adding the following good sources with significant independent coverage. Here is a good long read in KyivPost [15] , a Space Magazine publication representing the jewellery industry showed the company in depth here pages 61-63 [16] . Also, here is a success story in the local top newspaper and TV channel ICTV [17] and here is an in-depth coverage from the other local newspaper [18] while here is the in-depth coverage from a business-oriented and highly reliable in Ukraine AIN.ua news site [19] . Here is also a good coverage from Vogue in English [20] . Also I’ve found a significant coverage in Polish version of Glamour [21] . Also worth mentioning is Vogue Singapore [22] and L’officiel Mexico [23] -- Riva Pola97 ( talk ) 17:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC) NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* . ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject . In addition, the topic of this article is the company - references that focus on a product (reviews, mentions, etc) or interview a company exec (e.g. a puff profile) do not establish notability (unless the reference goes on to provide in-depth Independent Content about the company- which they never do). For example, this in Kyiv Post is a puff profile on the founder based entirely on information provided by the founder and containing no in-depth information on the company - fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Or this in cn.ua mentions the company briefly in passing and contains no in-depth Independent Content about the company, also failing CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Or similarly this in Vogue , same reasons as above. If Valeryi is notable in her own right, then write an article about her, but these references do not establish notability of the company and I'm unable to identify any references that do. HighKing ++ 12:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Natural Insight: Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk ) 15:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] nothing that could help to save the page, poor media highlights, etc. Johnpaul2030 ( talk ) 08:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Asmex Digital: Fails WP:CORP . A search in google news yielded little. LibStar ( talk ) 02:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Australia . LibStar ( talk ) 02:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . No coverage besides some brief coverage of their acquisition of a part of Invigor Group, the sources of which contribute more to the notability of that company than this one anyways. ~ A412 talk! 18:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . very weak news coverage. Perfectstrangerz ( talk ) 01:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC) ROUTINE as well. TLA tlak 04:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Katie Brusseau: The attempted notability claim here is that she released her first five-song EP a few months ago, which is not a notability pass per se in the absence of significant WP:GNG -worthy coverage about her music -- but there's no sourcing about her music shown here at all , and instead the footnotes exist entirely in the context of her also having been a lighting designer in local community theatre. But that doesn't satisfy any Wikipedia inclusion criteria either, and two of those four footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all , while both of the other two are reviews of the theatre show by high school students in minor community hyperlocals, which both briefly mention Brusseau's name without being about her in any non-trivial sense, meaning that isn't enough coverage to magically vault her over WP:GNG either. Nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a much stronger notability claim, and much better referencing for it, than this. Bearcat ( talk ) 16:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Virginia . Bearcat ( talk ) 16:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Likely PROMO. all I can find is this [7] , she was in a high school play? I'm not even sure it's the same person. There is nothing found for this musician. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The sources listed are not independent and also do not support notability, and certainly not notability as a musician. Bensci54 ( talk ) 16:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Taiwo Ogunwumi: Sources are either passing mentions, dependent, or primary. BEFORE makes no difference. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 13:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Environment , Social science , and Nigeria . Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 13:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Angels–Mariners rivalry: This topic does not pass WP:GNG based on the below source analysis table. Article reads as WP:FANCRUFT and the only sources available on a WP:BEFORE search are routine mentions or fan blogs. Frank Anchor 16:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC) Frank Anchor Source assessment by User:Frank Anchor Source Comments LAA vs. SEA WP:ROUTINE list of head-to-head records N Seattle Mariners Tailgating Brief 60-word blog that suggests a rivalry between the two teams in name only, but fails to describe any animosity between the teams and their fan-bases. The page however also goes on to describe a possible ""rivalry"" between the Mariners and most of the other teams in their division. N Rivalry renewal WP:LOCAL coverage (though not directly affiliated with either team). Article suggests an ""on-and-off"" rivalry between the two teams but also recognizes the teams lack geographical proximity and ""bad blood"" generally found in a rivalry. N The Mariners have a new rivalry Blog posted in ""Lookout Landing,"" which describes itself as ""A Seattle Mariners community,"" therefore lacks independence. Also, the article calls this series a ""new rivalry"" and fails to describe any animosity between the teams and fan bases, a basic attribute of any sports rivalry. N Here's each team's fiercest rival -- right now Non-independent posting on MLB.com. Article has one sentence of coverage that reads ""There may be no team in baseball with a less obvious rival than the Mariners,"" suggesting the Mariners don't have a ""rival"" at all. N Looking at MLB's 19 combined no-hitters Non-independent posting on MLB.com. Coverage of a game in which Angels pitched a no-hitter against the Mariners. Does not even attempt to establish the two teams as rivals. N Seattle sets sail for AL playoffs Routine postgame coverage of a tiebreaker game between the two teams. N Trout puts on historic power display in Seattle Non-independent article on MLB.com which summarizes an impressive series Mike Trout had against Seattle. This article does nothing to establish a rivalry between the two teams. N Trout cements place as all-time tormenter of M's Non-independent article on MLB.com which describes success Mike Trout has had against Seattle throughout his career. Article uses the term ""rivals"" once in a way that any two teams in the same division can be described as rivals. N Mariners, Angels personnel differ on what sparked brawl Coverage of a brawl between the two teams with differing opinions of what caused the brawl. One opinion is due to the fact that the teams are divisional rivals who have played eight games in an 11-day stretch, and that is the only mention of teams possibly being ""rivals."" N Ranking the Seattle Mariners' 8 Biggest Rivals Blog that suggests the Angels as one of many rivals for Seattle. Probably the closes source to establishing the two teams as ""rivals"" but this alone would not pass WP:GNG and there are reliability concerns surrounding BleacherReport. ? Eight ejected after wild brawl between Seattle Mariners, Los Angeles Angels Routine coverage of an in-game brawl between the two teams. Coverage does not describe teams as ""rivals"" N MLB announces 12 suspensions for mass brawl between Seattle Mariners and Los Angeles Angels Routine coverage related to discipline from aforementioned brawl. Coverage does not describe teams as ""rivals"" N Angels pitcher goes to IL after falling out of dugout during Mariners brawl Routine coverage of a pitcher suffering an injury. Refers to a ""rivalry"" in the first sentence but the article does not describe any ""rivalry"" between the two teams. N Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions . Frank Anchor 16:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . Frank Anchor 16:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions . Frank Anchor 16:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC) Angels personnel differ on what sparked brawl Coverage of a brawl between the two teams with differing opinions of what caused the brawl. One opinion is due to the fact that the teams are divisional rivals who have played eight games in an 11-day stretch, and that is the only mention of teams possibly being ""rivals."" N The actual quote from the article is: Angels interim manager Phil Nevin chalked the brawl up to the teams’ rivalry and the number of games that were played in such a short span. The Angels and Mariners playing eight games against each other in 11 days. So the manager of the Angels calls it a ""rivalry"" (not a ""divisional rivalry""). Looks like a "" Y "" to me. PK-WIKI ( talk ) 18:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the manager of an involved team calls a series a rivalry, then it is not independent and therefore not GNG-appropriate. N Frank Anchor 19:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A reliable independent source wrote a story on a notable brawl between two baseball teams. In their independent reporting they got a quote from the manager of one of the clubs who blamed the brawl on the rivalry (not ""divisional rivalry"") between the teams. WP:GNG ""excludes works produced by the article's subject"". That is very different form this situation, which is an independent reliable source reporting that the manager of one of the clubs believes a rivalry exists between the teams and that said rivalry was one of the direct causes of a bench-clearing brawl . Y PK-WIKI ( talk ) 21:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And the fact that the manager of one of the clubs is the one calling it a rivalry makes that part of the source not independent, not the source in its entirety (as Fox is an independent publication and a leading authority on MLB coverage). However the only mention of teams being ""rivals"" is taken from the opinion of an employee of the Angels, making the source not independent (and therefore not GNG-appropriate) for the purposes of establishing a rivalry. Frank Anchor 12:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two teams play each other often, moreso when they're in the same division. This does not make them an actual ""rivalry"", in spite of some fancruft put out by Bleacher Report and others. – Muboshgu ( talk ) 19:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In 2007 the Seattle Times wrote an entire column describing the rivalry in detail . By their reporting the rivalry *absolutely* existed in 1995, with the AL West divisional playoff race culminating in a one-game playoff between the Angels and Mariners. The Seattle Times reports that ""three things can create rivalries in sports — proximity, head-to-head competition, and/ or bad blood."" The Mariners/Angels rivalry is ""fueled on the field, just as it was in '95"". They say that the rivalry ""pretty much died after '95"" but that future events (post 2007) could ""nudge the rivalry out of hibernation"". The rivalry has been low-key due to both teams' lack of success in the last two decades. But the rivalry is consistently mentioned every time there is an incident between the teams. The 2014 Fernando Rodney arrow incident drew ""rivalry"" reporting by both the Seattle Times and the Los Angeles Times . The 2022 bench-clearing brawl was described by the manager of the Angles as stemming from the ""rivalry"" between the teams. The reporting in reliable, independent sources over nearly 3 decades of play shows that there is a rivalry between the teams, albeit with long periods of dormancy. PK-WIKI ( talk ) 19:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Seattle Times article is a good find. That alone isn’t enough for GNG but a good start. As already explained, the pieces describing the brawl only reference a rivalry as quoted by an employee of one of the involved clubs, so that does not pass GNG for the purposes of establishing a rivalry between Seattle and LAA. Frank Anchor 22:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found this source talking about the rivalry. I also will note in NFL articles, division opponents usually means article (that might not be the same here.) I’d learn towards , but if not kept, to an articles on rivalries. 75.99.8.58 ( talk ) 22:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also this source . 75.99.8.58 ( talk ) 22:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first does NOTHING to describe the teams as rivals outside of using the term in the title as teams possibly becoming a rivalry. The second was already discounted in my source analysis because it is a blog from an organization that literally calls itself “a Seattle Mariners community” (therefore not independent) and title calls this series a ""new rivalry"" and fails to describe any animosity between the teams and fan bases, a basic attribute of any sports rivalry. Frank Anchor 18:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC) THREEREFS . Also, a brawl in a way does indicate a rivalry - just look at Avalanche–Red Wings rivalry . A article on the brawl can be created, or left as a section of this article. The yahoo sports article does mention a growing rivalry which can be used to meet GNG. It’s hard to get the same level of coverage from this as say the Mets-Braves rivalry because the two teams are not as good, with the mariners 2022 playoff north their first since 2001, and the angels not making the playoffs since 2014.-- 96.57.52.66 ( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A brawl most certainly does not indicate a rivalry. Brawls happen several times a season and if a small number of brawls between two teams constitutes a rivalry then there would be articles about pretty much every pair of teams in MLB. The Yahoo page does not mention a ""growing rivalry."" It mentions that they might play some meaningful games against each other, which hasn't been the case in over a decade due to poor performance by at least one team during that time. This can not meet GNG for the purposes of establishing a rivalry. Frank Anchor 16:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, the Avalanche-Red Wings rivalry has, and I cannot stress this enough, reliable sources! If this article has the historic importance of those that have articles already, then it deserves to stay, but Frank Anchor makes the good point that you need to fulfill WP:GNG to have any article exist. Conyo14 ( talk ) 05:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. The 1995 race to the playoffs is too little to hang a significant rivalry on. The sourcing is pretty weak. Also, contrary to what 75.99 claims, being in the same division (NFL or MLB) doesn't guarantee a rivalry article. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 02:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The league in its rivalry listings has thrown mention at the Angels being the most heated rival of the Mariners. [1] PontiacAurora ( talk ) 21:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not really saying much. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST , but ... that list includes the Blue Jays-Orioles (no article), Orioles-Yankees (no article), Indians/Guardians-Twins (no article), etc. ""Most heated"" doesn't automatically mean particularly heated or notable. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 10:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC) GNG . And even if that was not the case, this article has just one sentence of coverage: There may be no team in baseball with a less obvious rival than the Mariners , suggesting the Mariners don't have a ""rival"" at all. Frank Anchor 12:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ ""Here's each team's fiercest rival -- right now"" . Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌) 🔥 02:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom and source analysis provided, there is not enough SIGCOV to pass GNG. Only the Seattle Times source above is SIGCOV of these teams as rivals and GNG requires multiple sources. Carson Wentz ( talk ) 01:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A to the 1995 playoff game is a reasonable ATD (per PK-WIKI below) on the condition that the link be removed from the navboxes for the two teams and the MLB rivalries one. Carson Wentz ( talk ) 02:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are hardly any sources from prior to 2022 on this, no newspaper readings, no books. At best a rivalry like this does not deserve its own page. A brawl can begin a rivalry, but the historic importance of a rivalry defines whether it gets its own article or not. Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC) I found this paywalled source describing the rivalry from the New York Times from 2019. Not sue if it meets GNG, but something to consider. 108.170.68.186 ( talk ) 15:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can access the full version. It does nothing to describe a rivalry between the Angels and Mariners. It only describes a history between Angels player Shohei Ohtani and Mariners player Yusei Kikuchi, who both played in Japan. Hard no for me. Frank Anchor 15:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Player rivalries exist. It does not speak to the validity of two teams having a rivalry. Conyo14 ( talk ) 16:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am still a due to the significant coverage of the rivalry in the Seattle Times article plus brief rivalry mentions in the other articles. However, rather than , I'd suggest a to 1995 American League West tie-breaker game . This game and the 1995 division race is well supported in the Seattle Times article as the major factor of the rivalry. PK-WIKI ( talk ) 17:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I oppose this suggested . It could set an unnecessary precedent of ing any ""Team A-Team B rivalry"" title to a tiebreaker game or playoff series between those teams. Plus the article on the 1995 tiebreaker game is about the game itself, not the (relatively insignificant) history between the two teams. Frank Anchor 12:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see a problem with such a precedent. If a rivalry is primarily represented by a single game or series and is a possible search term then it makes sense to readers to the game that represents the primary extent of the rivalry. Rlendog ( talk ) 19:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Marcus Younis: My own WP:BEFORE does not find any sources compliant with WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC , both of which require significant coverage to come from sources that are completely independent of Younis. Searches will likely yield Football Talent Scout , which appears to be a decent source at first glance but fails WP:RS requirements as the article is written by a guest account, so is no more reliable than Wikipedia itself or any other WP:UGC . Source analysis to follow. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Australia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC) Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://wswanderersfc.com.au/squads/adra6wrtnrz7de6pmaf1ugm50? slug=adra6wrtnrz7de6pmaf1ugm50&competition=300ig4lfofmkh3u971h34pbf8&teams=6h553bwfqkoxayuv80uikkn42&selected=MEN This is his employer This is just a profile page on his own club website ✘ No https://wswanderersfc.com.au/news/younis-meteoric-rise This is his employer Contains detail about him but the source is not independent of him at all ✘ No https://mens.nplnsw.com.au/2022/12/17/western-sydney-wanderers-ready-for-the-big-league/ per SPORTBASIC ""Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players."" Mentioned twice ✘ No https://up.com.au/a-league-men/fixtures/western-sydney-wanderers-vs-melbourne-city-15-01-2023/ Mentioned twice ✘ No https://wswanderersfc.com.au/news/younis-pens-two-year-scholarship-deal This is his employer A basic contract renewal announcement with some quotes ✘ No https://www.footballaustralia.com.au/news/australian-u-18-squad-face-some-europes-best per SPORTBASIC ""Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players."" Mentioned once ✘ No https://www.fpf.pt/pt/News/Todas-as-not%C3%ADcias/Not%C3%ADcia/news/40386/contextid/182 Mentioned in the squad list and yellow card confirmed. At no point is Younis addressed in detail. ✘ No https://aleagues.com.au/news/australia-a-leagues-socceroos-england-football-news/ Probably debatable as to whether this is independent or not but I'll give benefit of the doubt. The coverage is trivial anyway. Mentioned only 3 times inside the match report ✘ No https://www.socceroos.com.au/news/subway-young-socceroos-squad-named-marbella-week-football per SPORTBASIC ""Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players."" Squad listing only ✘ No https://footballtalentscout.net/2023/03/01/marcus-younis-australias-rising-star-by-jake-mcghee/ Written by a guest account. Anyone can write an article on Football Talent Scout. More than a trivial mention of him ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . and SALT - per last AFD, what has changed? Giant Snowman 18:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per source assessment, I couldn't find anything else. NotAGenious ( talk ) 16:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Hidenori Yoshimizu: Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , and Japan . UtherSRG (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Simon Wakelin: It could / to his wife, Tia Carrere , but I am not convinced it would be appropriate. Claims to notability seem to be be married to and working with and on notable people and projects, but notability is not inherited. Boleyn ( talk ) 15:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Photography , United Kingdom , and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 09:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Gary Nader: While some sources discuss the subject, only one appears to be independent and most are actually about the art gallery he runs (which I believe may actually satisfy notability for an article of its own) and only mention him in passing. (A possible solution might be to to an article about the art gallery if such an article were created.) Lenny Marks ( talk ) 01:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Lenny Marks ( talk ) 01:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note There is also a strong suspicion of COI as the article was created and edited by a user with the same name as the article subject. -- Lenny Marks ( talk ) 01:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC) 54, 3 September 2023 (UTC) 56, 3 September 2023 (UTC) 05, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm ok with a ! if it ends up going there. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Visual arts , and Florida . Skynxnex ( talk ) 19:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , seems to have good GNG coverage as an art collector, plus is an author and publisher. His fields of collection are highlighted on the page and in his bibliography. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 02:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article does not have sources that show notability. He seems to be a very rich guy who has his own gallery and then the LAAM Latin American Art Museum. The first three sources are puff pieces https://www.larryslist.com/artmarket/the-talks/gary-naders-vision-for-the-miami-art-world-latin-american-art/ https://issuu.com/acc38/docs/planet_v_s_-_hs5_-_nader https://www.azureazure.com/personalities/gary-nader-and-the-power-of-art/ Various mentions in the Miami Herald about his auctions or coverage of a break-in at this gallery. WP:PROMO . The publications listed are mostly catalogues he published for his gallery. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 20:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Wolfgang Baer: Mostly expounds his crackpot theories and lists his fringe publications. Reference 5 looked at first sight to give him a sliver of notability, but it turns out its a newspaper column written by himself. Tercer ( talk ) 12:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . Tercer ( talk ) 12:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . WP:FRINGE researchers need in-depth mainstream sourcing on their fringe work to satisfy our requirement for a WP:NPOV . We have none in this case, and no evidence of notability for non-fringe work (which in any case would require refocusing the article on that work). — David Eppstein ( talk ) 13:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The existing text is unsuitable in just about every way, and there's no reason why this article should exist in the first place. XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Oof. I was skeptical about ""unsuitable in just about every way"", but no, that's about the right of it. -- asilvering ( talk ) 00:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment His ""Conscious Action Theory"" book can be found using Gscholar above, it appears to be published be Routledge, a reliable publisher. That said, there is nothing in Jstor or the NYT about him, Gscholar doesn't pull up much. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak The book was reviewed here [37] and here [38] , which seem to be a serious review of the work and the concepts it proposes and some discussion of the person behind them. This is not in my field of expertise, but it doesn't read like hokum to my untrained eyes. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neither of those links counts for anything. The first is in a fringe and unreliable journal and the second is not a review but rather a researchgate page on the book itself. In any case, even with better reviews, one book would be unlikely to be enough. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research is hokum, pure and simple. And even if it weren't, one review of one book isn't going to pass WP:NAUTHOR . XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Execution-style murder: PatGallacher ( talk ) 13:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or userfy. See WP:TNT . This is right now a WP:DICDEF , but could be written as a book. Bearian ( talk ) 17:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC) //www.google.com/search? client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Execution-style+murder#ip=1 . KatoKungLee ( talk ) 00:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] unsure - think it is possible/likely that this topic is notable (in the sense that paramilitary, gangs and mafia etc might kill people) but I'm not sure I'm seeing a way to write the page which would meet the quality standards of an encyclopedia. As it is written it seems almost anything could be included. JMWt ( talk ) 19:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC) OR . The most obvious way to expand this would be to create an even longer list of famous execution-style murders, which IMHO would not be a worthy project. : per Bearian, per WP:DICDEF . // Timothy :: talk 08:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bowling Green, Kansas: There is a source saying there was a post office that closed in 1870. Otherwise, I can't find any evidence of this town existing. See also: Hackett, Kansas ; McCandless, Kansas ; Pansy, Kansas ; Shermansville, Kansas ; Dennison, Kansas ; Forrest Home, Kansas ; Pleasant Hill, Kansas ; Garlington, Kansas ; Coburn, Kansas ; and Greenwood, Kansas . Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 20:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kansas . Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 20:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC) Garlington, Kansas Village, per Gannett 1898 , p. 93 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGannett1898 ( help ) , which only gives gazetteer details, however. Pleasant Hill, Kansas Hamlet, per Blackmar 1912 , p. 482 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBlackmar1912 ( help ) which gives a few facts. Pansy, Kansas Hamlet, per Blackmar 1912 , p. 441 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBlackmar1912 ( help ) which gives a few facts. Bowling Green, Kansas Documented rural post office. It's in Dallas 1880 , p. 258 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDallas1880 ( help ) . The source does not state that it is anything more than a post office. Shermansville, Kansas Documented rural post office. It's in Dallas 1880 , p. 257 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDallas1880 ( help ) . The source does not state that it is anything more than a post office. Coburn, Kansas Foster Dwight Coburn is notable. But this is a largely undocumented claimed rural post office. Zero sources found indicating any sort of population centre, or a connection to Foster Dwight. Hackett, Kansas Largely undocumented claimed rural post office. Zero sources found indicating any sort of population centre. Reuben Hackett is notable. This is not the site of the Hackett farm, however. Dennison, Kansas Largely undocumented claimed rural post office. Zero sources found indicating any sort of population centre. The Woodlief post office synthesis is not supported by the source in the article, and I've found no connection to the probably notable William H. Woodlief whom I found biographies of in two history books from two different centuries. McCandless, Kansas Largely undocumented claimed rural post office. Zero sources found indicating any sort of population centre. Forrest Home, Kansas Largely undocumented claimed rural post office. Zero sources found indicating any sort of population centre. Dallas, E. J. (1880-03-29). Kansas Postal History . Collections of the Kansas State Historical Society. Vol. 2. Topeka: George W. Martin. Blackmar, Frank Wilson (1912). Kansas: A Cyclopedia of State History . Vol. 2. Standard publishing Company. Gannett, Henry (1898). A Gazetteer of Kansas . Bulletin. Vol. 154. Washington: United States Geological Survey . Uncle G ( talk ) 02:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're my hero today, Uncle G . Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 03:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC) NRV James.folsom ( talk ) 23:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Bowling Green . The only remaining source states it was a postal site for less than two years, and my research has been fruitless. No evidence of a community here. The remaining places ""bundled"" here probably shouldn't be bundled, as the Wikipedia community has previously rejected mass-bundling of geographical sites at AFD. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Topia Rameka: Non-notable person who now had some coverage because of allegations. Coverage before this event was sparse, and wouldn't have warranted an article. To create one now because of allegations goes against WP:BLPCRIME . Fram ( talk ) 08:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New Zealand . Fram ( talk ) 08:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per nom. Clearly fails GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs ) 08:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He's an influential figure within the public service. The page will cover his public service as well as his latest issues. The page has literally only been up for a few hours, it's churlish to be so hasty. Aubernas ( talk ) 10:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC) BLPCRIME . As for the above comment about what the article creator would like to include, well, it already needs to be covered in reliable secondary sources to be viable content. This person does not appear sufficiently notable outside of this to justify having an article. Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 11:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC) BLPCRIME is completely irrelevant. He's not been accused of any crimes at all. It would make just as much sense if I mentioned WP:BRAR . Why is everyone here so officious all the time? Haven't you got better things to worry about? I made this page and I think it serves a purpose. Only one of you is from New Zealand, and yet you're all making these judgements about relevance. I actually think both Rameka and Jeremy Lightfoot should both have articles. Just forget about this - more news is going to come in over the following days, and I'll finish writing the article I started. Aubernas ( talk ) 02:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, , and . This is an important development. Several major newspapers and news sites in New Zealand have written about it. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/corrections-deputy-chief-topia-rameka-quits-amid-concerns-about-conduct/452KUV2TNBCZZJRMLXLWBTLG5U/ https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/08/15/corrections-deputy-chief-exec-resigned-amid-conduct-allegations/ https://www.newsroom.co.nz/corrections-deputy-left-after-behaviour-claims https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300950316/inappropriate-behaviour-allegations-before-corrections-leaders-shock-resignation Aubernas ( talk ) 02:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC) BLP1E . Some sources but WP:GNG likely not met since they are WP:ROUTINE . SportingFlyer T · C 11:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Would a deputy chief executive of the correctional service be notable? I'm unfamiliar with the NZ civil service, seems trivial to my eyes, but I'm not ! voting yet. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's not enough. Some do, such as Simon Murdoch , Warren Tucker , Bruce Ferguson , Ashley Bloomfield , and Una Jargose . Jeremy Lightfoot should have his own page. This is catch-22. How can we be told that we can't make articles about public servants because there aren't enough, despite the fact they get d any time anyone tries to make one? Aubernas ( talk ) 02:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – the nominator's deletion rationale is right on the button. To answer Oaktree's question, CEOs of the main government departments would generally get enough coverage for GNG to be met, but none of the departments would be big or important enough that deputies would generally get over the GNG hurdle. The biggest department of them all would be MBIE but when I look at the 2018/19 deputies , I'd say none of them would be notable. Schwede 66 03:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] based on the explanation above. Non-notable career otherwise; supposed crime that did or didn't happen isn't helping notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have you read any of the articles? He's not been accused of any crimes at all . WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply here. Aubernas ( talk ) 20:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Behavioural claims suggests something done to another employee that violates the employer's harassment policy, which may or may not be a criminal matter. That's why we used the work ""supposed"". Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Obij Aget: Only sources are promo pieces for subject opening an ice cream shop. BEFORE showed nothing that meets GNG or BIO. BLP requires high quality sources. // Timothy :: talk 17:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Basketball , and Africa . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC) NBASKETBALL either. zoglophie •talk• 18:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Peter Berlin (lawyer): Sources are either unreliable, not independent, or provide significant coverage. GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 13:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , United States of America , and California . GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 13:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . No indication of notability, notwithstanding the ""Top 100 Trial Lawyers"" and ""Super Lawyer"" pseudo - awards . TJRC ( talk ) 18:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously d by WP:PROD , ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong . The creating editor makes nothing edits here and there, then lo and behold, they create the page in one foul swoop. Make a few more edits that day and that's that. Smells of WP:PAID . — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaskedSinger ( talk • contribs ) 05:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Tiffany Dover: I'm not seeing BLP, or simple GNG. Her fainting event was non-notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: COVID-19 and Tennessee . Shellwood ( talk ) 20:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - this story was giant news and covered in the big media. Here on MSNBC Chris Haye's show. [3] . This was beyond being ""hounded by antivax people"". Sgerbic ( talk ) 23:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not a very RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] this is BLP1E. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 00:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. I agree that she is mainly notable for one event, but WP:BLP1E is a tool for deciding between an event article or a biographical article, so the correct conclusion to the BLP1E test is to this as an event article. I think there is plenty reliable sources that cover her fainting. CT55555 ( talk ) 00:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, the correct way to use ""the BLP1E test"" here is to the article. From WP:BLP1E: Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met . Walt Yoder ( talk ) 01:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC) BIO1E and read the first line, it makes it abundantly clear what the guidance is about When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both and you'll note the three possible outcomes. CT55555 ( talk ) 01:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. - I don't see how you can read that page and think it supports the argument that low-profile individuals tangentially involved in one event (by being harassed) should have more coverage here. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 15:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC) LOWPROFILE . See: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/misinformation/tiffany-dover-conspiracy-theorists-silence-rcna69401 There is nothing sensationalist about articles that disprove misinformation. That is the opposite of sensationalism. I see that you don't follow my argument. That's OK. Let's agree to differ, let others opine, and let who ever closes the discussion judge our arguments on their merits. It's time to give space to others, so I hope we can leave this with an agreement to disagree, noting WP:BLUDGEON . CT55555 ( talk ) 16:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've struck my , having been persuaded by @ Beccaynr 's comment below. CT55555 ( talk ) 20:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Fails BLP1E. BilCat ( talk ) 01:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please . BLP1E employs the concept of "" low-profile individual "" (criteria 2) for exclusion. I believe Dover no longer meets that criteria, as she started to proactively interact with the national media two weeks ago. Re-reading the guidance, I see the policy is meant to protect people who don't wish to be in the limelight. Given the amplitude of the coverage by RS sources over more than two years and the different angles the story took (initial event; her own reaction and the hospital's; the increasing number of people affected over time; Dover talking about the story 2 years later), I think we have a wikipedia article. Part of the difficulty is naming the article after the person rather than an event, but I wasn't able to find something more satisfactory. I fiddled with ""Tiffany Dover affair"" and others, but none of the sources provide alternatives. Robincantin ( talk ) 02:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , but I suggest renaming to something like Tiffany Dover vaccine death conspiracy . When",delete
+"Alvino Kusumabrata: Also, the article created by sock known for making non-notable BPL. Proposed for PROD earlier but blocked by IP editor (possibly sock) Ckfasdf ( talk ) 06:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Indonesia . Owen× ☎ 07:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Authors . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Did my own BEFORE, and came up with nothing proving that this person has significant coverage sufficient to prove notability. Justarandomamerican ( talk ) Have a good day! 17:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC) WP:TOOSOON . Lacks significant, non-local coverage. The main source of biographical information is an interview. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 17:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Blaine Golden: The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC) GNG . Created under the now defunct WP:NRU guidelines. No suitable per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC) GNG MaskedSinger ( talk ) 08:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Tom Bowl: Was nominated for deletion back in 2005 and was kept as it had ""at least a modicum of mainstream media coverage"", however our notability requirements have become much more well-refined since then. funplussmart ( talk ) 00:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . No evidence of significant coverage and there’s lots of cruft. Also, the article needs to be blown up and rewritten to fulfil the holy manual Brachy 08 (Talk) 00:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Michigan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Looks like some kind of advertisement, and lacking reliable sources as well. Plus, the article is written in third person view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geko72290 ( talk • contribs ) 20:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE . ✗ plicit 00:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - No live sources come up in multiple search attempts using different search engines. -- Eastview2018 ( talk ) 16:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Gharanai Khwakhuzhi: Source found are self publications or mentions. Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 17:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions . Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 17:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And it was mostly created by a single editor , who only edited Khwakhuzhi-surnamed articles 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 17:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Bilateral relations , Politics , and United Arab Emirates . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] a vanity article and possible self promotion. Fails WP:BIO . LibStar ( talk ) 12:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 21:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC) 26, 25 March 2024 (UTC) NOTHERE. — Maile ( talk ) 18:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Garcha Hotels: The existing sources mostly consist of interviews with its founder, routine coverage, or mere name drops, with many not even mentioning ""Garcha Hotels."" A Google News search yielded similar results, failing to establish notability according to WP:CORPDEPTH . GSS 💬 18:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore . GSS 💬 18:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Failed to find reliable source coverage. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV and the subject doesn’t seem to meet WP:GNG . Contributor892z ( talk ) 13:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"TriTech Software Systems: ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject . I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 16:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies . HighKing ++ 16:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Police , Software , and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The only thing I found other than brief entries on sites that list companies is this , and it is about how this company/software using a separate bit of software for customer service. It does include some info about the company but I don't think it meets NCORP. As mentioned on the talk page, most of the sources in the article have gone 404. I'll check back to see if anyone finds good sources. Lamona ( talk ) 01:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I should mention that this source from the article is still live and is not bad, but still probably not near NCORP. Lamona ( talk ) 01:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Cuba, North Dakota: The oldest topo labels a building (no longer extant) as ""town hall"", but that's not really good enough. Searching is heavily masked by a trade deal but got nothing. Mangoe ( talk ) 02:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not notable, and it geolocates to a grain elevator complex. A BEFORE search found nothing significant. Flutter Dash 344 ( talk ) 03:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions . Mangoe ( talk ) 13:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Mangoe ( talk ) 13:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I haven't seen any full documents but I've seen some references to people being near there, and someone sending a recipe to a 1950s cookbook who claimed to be from there. This may require a close newspaper search since Cuba is such a common name? SportingFlyer T · C 16:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 1965 aerial photo , that Cuba School bottom and Cuba Mercantile to the right. Why not to Cuba Township, Barnes County, North Dakota ? Haven't found anything useful for any article text. The ""Cuba Incident"" ! fiveby ( zero ) 01:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Mangoe's argument against s. fiveby ( zero ) 04:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mailtraq: My WP:BEFORE search did not find evidence that this software has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. (Previously d via PROD in 2007.) Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 22:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 22:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - article seems promotional, no references to support notability or quality. - Indefensible ( talk ) 00:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] not notable, promotional, and lacking sufficient media coverage. -- BoraVoro ( talk ) 09:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC) GNG -- Devoke water 18:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Although I haven't found anything promotional in particular (and this is not a criteria of notability per se), the article doesn't show any sources, which makes it a good candidate for deletion for failing GNG . Onetimememorial ( talk ) 20:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Khalid bin Sultan bin Zayed Al Nahyan: Since they are in fact different people, I don’t think this Khalid passes WP:GNG . Uhooep ( talk ) 07:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Uhooep ( talk ) 07:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. 2601:249:9301:D570:E2:2A03:BDFF:6814 ( talk ) 02:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . As above. Celia Homeford ( talk ) 09:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC) NOTGENEALOGY . We don't create articles on people simply because they are members of a ruling/royal family. Independent notability must be established. Keivan.f Talk 21:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Erez_Safar: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , In addition to what's stated in the nomination, the article was created as an advertisement. Samoht27 ( talk ) 20:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC) PROMO begone! But seriously, there's no coverage, just fluff and personal branding. BrigadierG ( talk ) 01:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Chilaun: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 17:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , History , and Mongolia . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 17:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Only reference is a very old source and the current article does a poor job of a making a case for notability. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 17:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC) WP:ATD can be a / to his father Sorqan Shira . Curbon7 ( talk ) 22:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Alternatively spelled Chiraun . Curbon7 ( talk ) 19:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . So ""non-notable"" that pretty much every drama film or series about Genghis Khan has featured him as a character. That says something about his place in the story of Genghis Khan, surely. There appear to be plenty of references in the articles on other Wikipedias (e.g. Japanese ). -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC) OTHERLANGS / WP:TRIVIAL . The Japanese version is primarily a genealogy and secondly a summary of a thirteenth-century chronicle. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 13:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC) OTHERLANGS nor WP:TRIVIAL actually relate to what I wrote. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC) 1) that most entertainment about Genghis Khan features him, and 2) that other Wikipedias have articles on them with references in them. 1) is addressed by WP:TRIVIAL : ""In order for a subject to be worthy of a standalone article, significant coverage that addresses the subject in detail is required, to the point that original research that involves extracting information is not needed."" Entertainment about Genghis khan is not ""significant coverage that addresses the subject"", and ""That says something about his place in the story of Genghis Khan, surely"" is original research. 2) is addressed by WP:OTHERLANGS —just because interwiki articles are referenced does not mean that the references are reliable. Remember, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 01:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC) OTHERLANGS says though. It merely says that just because a subject has an article on other wikis that doesn't mean it's notable enough for English Wikipedia. What I said was that there are references on other wikis, which is a different thing. As to WP:TRIVIAL , that doesn't refer to what I said either. My point was merely that the fact he is featured in most versions of the story of Genghis Khan suggests that he is a notable figure in that story. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 09:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - very notable. Known as one of Genghis Khan 's ""Four Knights"", he was one of 4 commanders of Genghis Khan's personal guard. This Google translation of the Mongolian Wikipedia's article gives a good summary of Chilaun's importance. The article already cites as a reference The Secret History of the Mongols which is described this way: ""The Secret History is regarded as the single most significant native Mongolian account of Genghis Khan… The Secret History is regarded as a piece of classic literature in both Mongolia and the rest of the world."" Chilaun joins Genghis Khan's army in chapter 4, section 137, page 65 of this translation of the Secret History. (They're referred to as Čila'un and Cinggiss Quahan in that text). After that Chilaun appears frequently in the history. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC) RS —my rewrite of our Genghis Khan article would have been a lot easier if that was the case. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 16:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I know zilch about the Mongols but if a character has been fake news since the 13th century isn't he/she/it just notable as part of the legendarium that's grown up around the definitely real Genghis Khan? This guy sounds like an important part of the storytelling if maybe not the historical record per se? jengod ( talk ) 05:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know what you mean by this Jengod . He was not ""fake news"", he was a real person who lived in the 12th and 13th centuries. He is just not described enough in WP:RS to be notable and thus have a Wikipedia article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 04:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ AirshipJungleman29 I was thinking he was something like Friar Tuck in the Robin Hood stories. Like he's not necessarily historical but he's in most of the stories. Like if the unreliable sources are very old, and then people repeating those tales, even if they're provably incorrect or something, doesn't that myth making become notable in its own right? Like, ""he shows up in movies X Y and Z but they're just making up stuff and it's ahistorical and fictive."" The other thing I was thinking of is Sisi 's mother-in-law and their relationship which has this whole public fanfic element that's been going on since the 1950s movie that is maybe not at all what it was like. I'm so totally not a Mongol person so I shoulda probably just kept quiet but it seems like (maybe?!) this guy needs some context where we explain--he's in zero reliable primary sources on the Mongols, but here's where people are getting their ideas about him and here's where that quasi-historic de novo character who was created ex post facto appears in the next 600 years of Mongol literature. Ok now I'm shutting up sorry jengod ( talk ) 05:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I don't agree with GNG. Apparently he was an important person. I added some new sources. It didn't take much time to find them. Instead of deleting we can find more sources and modify the article. Aredoros87 ( talk ) 21:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV , Aredoros87 . Two of your ""sources"" are clearly Google Books searches for ""Dai Chopan"", whoever that is, another does not mention Chilaun, and the fourth simply says ""eles e o filho do guarda, Chilaun, eventualmente se tornaram generais de Genghis Khan"". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 04:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now it looks like ""No consensus"". A source analysis of the references cited in the article and discussion would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC) Fails GNG. There are no sources for a , no objection to a . Source eval: Comments Source About a genetic test, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 1. Wen, Shao-Qing; Meng, Hai-Liang; Li, Hui (May 2021). ""A genetic test for three historical hypotheses of the Mongolian Golden family origin of Tusi Lu's family, a response to a commentary on molecular genealogy of Tusi Lu's family reveals their paternal relationship with Jochi, Genghis Khan's eldest son"". Journal of Human Genetics. 66 (5): 551–553. doi:10.1038/s10038-020-00861-2. ISSN 1435-232X. S2CID 254116339. About a social group, does not mention Chilaun, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 2. ^ Elizabeth Emaline Bacon (1951). The Hazara Mongols of Afghanistan: A Study in Social Organization. University of California, Berkeley. p. 32. About a social group, does not mention Chilaun, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 3. ^ Robert L. Canfield, Gabriele Rasuly-Paleczek (2010-10-04). Ethnicity, Authority and Power in Central Asia: New Games Great and Small. Routledge. ISBN 9781136927508. Name mentioned, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 4. ^ ""Gengis Khan"". history-maps.com. Retrieved 2023-12-13. The votes provide opinions, but no sources to eval except an unsourced Wikipedia article [1] . BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth . No other wikipedias have sources with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 20:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Timothy, you omitted the most important ref. You noted that I provided a link to the Mongol Wikipedia article. I did not cite that as a source but rather to provide quick context for editors at this AfD without their having to read the entire Secret History of the Mongols . The reference I cited was The Secret History of the Mongols including links to a translation as well as chapters and sections. There are arguments above as to this famous piece of literature/history's reliability. As Jengod noted, that may not make a difference. The Bible is the main source of Juedo-Christian history about Abraham . Did Abraham really exist? Is the Bible historically reliable? Abraham is notable however you answer those questions. I argue that the same is true of Čila'un/Chilaun. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 21:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC) As was explained above by AirshipJungleman29, The Secret History of the Mongols is not a historically reliable source, and it does not contain WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 22:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC) 24, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You must be kidding. There is an entire academic discipline dedicated to the study of these topics . In case you are unaware A. B. , these are what we call reliable sources . The Bible is not a reliable source, and neither is the Secret History of the Mongols. Thanks TimothyBlue for doing the source analysis. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 22:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC) If your comparison was valid (the Bible with the Secret History of the Mongols ), you'd be able to show plenty of reliable sources showing notability and the discussion would be closed. I'm not taking your discussion bait on the Bible or Abraham, the discussion needs to stay focused on sources and guidelines, not speculative OTHERSTUFFEXISTS claims. // Timothy :: talk 22:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We’ll see. Right now, Timothy , I don’t think there’s consensus either way. — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 23:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , per Timothy I don't believe GNG is met, and I'm not persuaded that we should ignore GNG in this situation based on the arguments above. Daniel ( talk ) 00:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Swedish Hare: Might have more information available in Swedish under the name Sverigehare . Not to be confused with Lepus timidus which is referred to as the Swedish hare in some sources. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 04:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Sweden . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - this breed may actually exist, but this search fails to find anything usable, in Swedish (which I read) or in anything else. If you do find a Swedish source which looks usable, I'll look it over for you. But right now this is a clear Delete, perhaps TooSoon, who knows. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 15:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Cizario da Costa: Subject earned two caps for the Guinea-Bissau national football team . I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC) 39, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Azzouz Kara: BLPPROD was removed without making any effort to establish that WP:SPORTCRIT could be met. The best coverage available is a cup match preview in La Provence that is not close to in-depth. There is other routine coverage available, but nothing that suggests SIGCOV exists. Jogurney ( talk ) 14:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and France . Shellwood ( talk ) 17:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"St David's Prep: The references are all primary, brief mentions, or self-published. I did find an article in the local paper about a school concert in 1935 , but although this is a non-trivial mention of the school it is routine and run-of-the-mill information. There are or have been at least four other schools called St David's Preparatory, in Huddersfield, Didsbury, Naas and Farnborough, which makes searching more difficult. Tacyarg ( talk ) 19:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools , United Kingdom , and England . Tacyarg ( talk ) 19:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Tacyarg ( talk ) 19:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per nom. Permastub since 2007, because there doesn't seem to be anything notable about it. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 15:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Old Streetonians Rugby Football Club: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and England . Shellwood ( talk ) 11:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC) GNG . The Telegraph article brings some coverage, but not enough for a GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC) GNG . Onel 5969 TT me 18:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Cornish geologists and explorers: Dronebogus ( talk ) 18:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 16 notable people with their own Wikipedia articles, makes is a valid list. The article for Cornish people shows how they are considered distinct from others. D r e a m Focus 15:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That doesn’t answer my question of why “geologist” and “explorer” are considered related. We don’t need to every list with 3+ blue links if there’s no evidence of notability. Dronebogus ( talk ) 13:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are only two explorers listed here. They can be removed and the article renamed. When there aren't enough explorers to fill their own article, they are just kept at List of explorers . One of them is there already, I'll add the other to that list. D r e a m Focus 14:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Explorers from Cornwall has ten entries. They can be put on a separate list though, no reason to include them on this one. An article listing all the Category:People from Cornwall by occupation would be too long. D r e a m Focus 14:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Split into two separate lists, possibly the resulting content into broader scope articles like List of Cornish scientists or List of explorers if the resulting lists would be too short to have their onw pages. ""This should be a category"" isn't a valid reason to a list per WP:NOTDUPE , but this covers two separate topics (explorers and geologists) with little relationship to each other and little reason for them to be combined into one page. 163.1.15.238 ( talk ) 14:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Cornwall nowadays is just a region at the southwest corner of England. Briefly skim our constitutional status of Cornwall article for an overview why administratively it's been just another part of England for centuries and how the Cornish language faded from common usage in the 18th century. Attempts to gain autonomy for Cornwall like Scotland or Wales have fizzled due to lack of local support. We don't have lists like this for other regions or counties of England and there's no reason to believe a Cornish geologist, philanthropist or architect is going to be different from their other English counterparts. The list serves no purpose. In short, this list fails WP:NOT , specifically WP:CROSSCAT . In other words, Wikipedia is not ""non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations"". (Technically, this is a list, not a category but the notability discussion at WP:LISTN references WP:CROSSCAT and suggests the same rationale for deleting similar lists.) -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per A. B. Does not appear to be a grouping recognized in reliable sources -- or even two separate recognized groupings. One caveat: I note that a couple of items have recently been d into List of Cornish scientists (the others were already there) -- I don't think the descriptions have sufficient originality to require preserving their edit history, but the closer may want to take a closer look. If there is a need for preservation, a would do no harm. -- Visviva ( talk ) 02:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC) The other issue is that this is an incomplete list that could be accomplished with a tag, and given WP:CROSSCAT and WP:DIRECTORY 's primary message, ""Wikipedia is not a directory,"" this would fail the test. Editchecker123 ( talk ) 02:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kamal Kalai: NO FULLFILL GEN. CRITERA FOR POLITICIAN Worldiswide ( talk ) 06:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 19 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 06:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 11:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC) BIO . Fails WP:NPOL too. LibStar ( talk ) 04:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC) NPOL . Yasal Shahid ( talk ) 05:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Screw (card game): It is entirely uncited despite being created over 15 years ago and I can find no mention of it either at pagat.com or in comprehensive sources like David Parlett 's Penguin Book of Card Games (2008). Even an Internet search produced nothing concrete other than clones of this page. Unless someone can produce WP:RS to support it, it seems a clear candidate for deletion. Bermicourt ( talk ) 10:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 12:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC) BEFORE comes up empty. Possibly WP:OR . Qwaiiplayer ( talk ) 12:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sole Satisfier: The page was heavily purged of uncited material in a series of edits last year by Horse Eye's Back , and now consists only of two quotations from saints. For a Christian theological notion, it noticeably draws from Catholic sources ( WP:CONTENTFORK ?), and reads as an essay or collection of related saintly writings rather than an encyclopaedic entry. About a dozen pages linked to it in ""See also"" until I removed these links last week; they were almost universally articles of saints with no clear connection to ""Sole satisfier"". The only mainspace page that now links here is Spiritual communion , which exhibits the same problems regarding essay-style writing and sayings-collection. Motivation: I am concerned that the article might never be able to meet an encyclopaedic standard. A Google search returns very few results; ""sole satisfier"" is not even mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church quoted in the article. I am happy to be corrected by someone better acquainted with theology, but I do not think the term ""sole satisfier"" is something that has any academic foundation, and is therefore in the ""language"" of theology. The article reads like an attempt to define, coin, and discuss a specific theological notion that is not supported in reliable, independent sources; therefore, the article will violate WP:OR for as long as sources do not use this particular term. Nevertheless, the notion could be incorporated into existing articles; Desire#Religion might serve particularly well for a as an alternative to deletion, and there is some relevance for Argument from desire . (This is my first AfD nomination, so I am sorry if I am doing anything wrong!) IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 19:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity . Owen× ☎ 19:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. After looking a bit, I agree with the nominator; this simply isn't discussed as a concept in any sources. Original research. — Moriwen ( talk ) 23:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. The term ""Sole Satisfier"" seems more like an urban terminology from the last few decades of modern music - such as Sister Souljah. Made-up term, even. I have never, ever heard this term, or one even similar, tied to any Christian faith. — Maile ( talk ) 01:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Village communities: tool shows that 89.1% of the current text is the same as 1911. What initially struck me as odd was the article's complete and total focus on Europe. The 1911 encyclopedia's explanation for why it was ""sufficient to confine the present inquiry ... to nations of Aryan race"" was ""principally because the Aryan race in its history has gone through all sorts of experiences"" (it also said that it ""might also be reasonably urged"" that the Aryan race was most important, yikes). The section explaining the Aryan focus was removed from the article in 2008, [26] and since then the total focus on Europe has been unexplained. So there are the content issues, and now here is why I think the best path forward is deletion. I thought about merging Village communities into Village but I do not consider any of the info in Village communities to be worthy of inclusion. I'm disconcerted by phrases like ""we hear that"" and ""a good clue to the subject is provided by a Serb proverb"" that suggest a tenuous relationship to verifiable fact. The 1911 Britannica might be a reliable source in articles like University court or Castle-guard , which deal with old European history, but I don't think it's a reliable source here. Plus even if I were to improve it, the content would overlap with the village article. Crunchydillpickle🥒 ( talk ) 23:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC) ? I guess... This exists [27] , [28] or [29] . Simply copying the text from an 100 yr old encyclopedia is a no-no. Two of these sources are older than the Britannica, one more recent. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It looks like the Theory of Village Communities was part of the study of the history of economics in the second half of the nineteenth century - this article by Denman Waldo Ross is an 1880 review describing various sources (not all in English, and many looking at non-European cultures, albeit from a colonial perspective). Maybe we should have an article about the theory, but it'd need to be more critical and better-sourced than the current article. Adam Sampson ( talk ) 00:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Organizations , Social science , and Europe . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While an article on the study of village communities may be suitable, this article on the study of village communities is not. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 17:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . WP:DEL-CONTENT importantly notes that when editing can address the reasons for deletion, we should edit the article to make it better instead of deleting it . This discussion has turned up adequate sourcing to write some article about village communities (or the economic theory thereof), and the article should of course be improved. But deletion here seems unwise. So too does draftification, as the article was uploaded here in 2006, and sending this to the draft heap as a backdoor to deletion seems ill-advised in light of relevant policies and guidelines . — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 07:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure how this is a different topic than village (or, the history of villages). And none of the EB1911 content should be retained. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 00:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The prose is not encyclopedic and should be entirely rewritten if not outright scrapped. I also share the same concerns as the individual who nominated the article for deletion and agree that little if any information included here is worth retaining. Dobbyelf62 ( talk ) 13:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"1 Special Training Unit: I was unable to find any relevant sources. Charsaddian ( talk ) 20:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and South Africa . Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I cannot find any reliable sources that provide any detail on this unit. I would also draw editors' attention to WP:MILUNIT which provides some general guidance for the notability of military units. This one does not appear to meet the suggestion of ""Land forces units that are capable of undertaking significant, or independent, military operations"". My understanding is that it is a physical training unit. It could be covered in some detail in an article about the parent formation, which may have been a training establishment or directorate. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me ) 01:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This seems to be linked to Danie Craven , maybe some biographies of his life could be helpful sources. Park3r ( talk ) 02:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"European Society of Aesthetic Gynecology: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 01:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , Medicine , and England . Skynxnex ( talk ) 02:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"KDVD-LD: Let'srun ( talk ) 04:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Arizona . Let'srun ( talk ) 04:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, probably the right call now. While older than many non-notable diginet coatracks, it did not come on air until December 2000 and was not originally broadcasting to the Phoenix area. If it did, it probably broadcast Hispanic Television Network (HTVN), as that's who owned it, or possibly the English-language American Independent Network. Newspaper from Globe is not available. I figure I'll put this likely fact here, too; it's not named for a disc format. The station took its present call sign shortly after one of the brothers that owned it, David Primm, died in 2021. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 06:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC) Another remnant of the looser ""notability standards"" we had c. 2009 . There's not much else that can be done when an all-national-programming station doesn't get, or at least has easily-accessible, significant coverage . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC) sigcov Jothefiredragon ( talk ) 08:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Liberty Playing Card Company: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Swa Diamonds: Poor sourcing otherwise, nothing found we can use for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC) Lacking significant and reliable coverage. Guinness World Records holders are not inherently notable. Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 17:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply They have 150 stores all over India now. It's been reported by Fashion Network when they reported about their store opening in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. I have removed the sentence about the award as per oaktree b 's input. As you well know, the Guinness World Records is not insignificant(I have included the links from Guinness world records themselves, and media outlets like CNN, Fox Business, etc.). After I removed the 'Swadesh National Award', I believe the article stands. The article only has 4 sentences now, with 9 links for citation. I request you to reconsider the nomination for deletion. -- Libinthathappilly ( talk ) 05:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We don't consider Guinness Records notable, as you can pay to have them certify your ""record"". Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi. I have only added details that are factual. I believe the language is neutral. And have provided several relevant citations from- including and not limited to - CNN, Guinness Book of Records official website, fox business, International Gemological institute, and several Indian news and articles. I don't understand what the issue is, and the reason for nomination for deletion. Please tell me what it is. They are a credible start up brand from Kerala, India who created a Guinness record winning ring. A growing startup business from a small city in a small state of India, who garnered international media attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libinthathappilly ( talk • contribs ) 15:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to get more opinions. Plus, if this discussion is closed as a Soft Deletion, I imagine it will be immediately restored. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC) I left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry informing them of this discussion. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 23:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My search for reliable sources to prove notability come up empty except for that big diamond ring. Maybe we should have an article about the ring instead of the company. @ Libinthathappilly , I understand your assertion that the company should be notable - I think with 150 stores it should be, too. But Wikipedia needs in-depth coverage from reliable sources to meet our requirements to prove a business's notability. Why? It's all about reliability. Wikipedia requires that kind of in-depth reliable coverage to make sure we produce a quality, neutral article. So Wikipedia requires we prove the company is notable in order to the article. Here are the relevant rules: Wikipedia:Notability - general rules Wikipedia:Reliable sources Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Read over these. If we get good references we can this article. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 15, 12 July 2023 (UTC) Libinthathappilly , If we are to have a page about this business you need to concentrate on quality, rather than quantity, of sources which are about this business, not a publicity-stunt of a record held by one of its products. Don't include every passing mention of the company in the press and certainly don't mention that ring again. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 14:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . A Google Books search only seems to find coverage of diamonds from Namibia, which used to be known as South-West Africa (SWA). A Google News search excluding the publicity stunt just shows me one press release and two passing mentions in lists. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 14:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Electromics: Not a real thing that exists in reality. Captain Hindsight ( talk ) 14:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 16 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 14:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The article does include references, but the first one is to a journal from a publisher that might be considered predatory. The second reference appears to be from a legitimate journal (no Wikipedia article on the journal, but one on the publisher). Googling ""Electromics"" brings up a lot of instances of ""electronics"" being misspelled. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 16:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Instances of the misspellings (typographical errors) of electronics are commonplace and are readily found by Google. Given the importance of electronics as a discipline and as an industry in modern life, this is not surprising. Aguiseppi ( talk ) 21:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , only the first reference uses the term, and anyone can start a new word. We need evidence that it's caught on before we can have an article. I suspect this word won't catch on because it's not a logical extension of the 'omics family. Genomics is about looking at genes, proteomics about looking at proteins, and either can be done on subsets of organisms subjected to particular treatments, such as exposure to electric fields. Gene expression may well be changed by electric fields, but this would be an application of transcriptomics, not a new 'omics. At the very least, this is too soon, and it's more likely misguided. Elemimele ( talk ) 17:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As the few citations provided indicate, this type of work has been ongoing for some considerable time. While the term and its definition were introduced in the cited 2023 paper, with the view to providing coherence to this field of study, the practiced art is clearly not new. A parallel emerging terminology is “Electrogenetics” – the combination of electronics and genetics. See this citation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2022.102151 Aguiseppi ( talk ) 21:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia does not promote new terminology for established fields. If the terminology is good, it will be successful, and we can write about it then; not before. XOR'easter ( talk ) 00:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as COI/promotion of a non-notable neologism. (The first reference says explicitly, Here, a new term is defined, electromics .) Article was created by user account Aguiseppi, last author of first reference is Anthony Guiseppi-Elie. Article should not exist and should never have existed. XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And the article Anthony Guiseppi-Elie needs a fluff-ectomy. XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why link these engagements? Aguiseppi ( talk ) 21:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC) DUE , so it's stubified. Tempted to PROD it, but I haven't dug too deep yet on if they do actually meet notability since the fluff made extra work on that front. KoA ( talk ) 13:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As the few citations provided indicate, this type of work has been ongoing for some considerable time. While the term and its definition were introduced in the 2023 paper, with the view to providing coherence to this field of study, the practiced art is clearly not new and is well documented. Aguiseppi ( talk ) 21:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am confused by this position. User is an open, active contributor whose identity is known and not hidden behind a pseudonym. If author does not create the article, then who? Author has cited supporting literature sources broadly. Aguiseppi ( talk ) 21:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the term is broadly viewed as a term seeing wider use, someone else will create the article, as has been done with all the other articles on Wikipedia. It is highly recommended you do not contribute to articles where you may have a conflict of interest, including writing about your own work , as it appears you do here. Tollens ( talk ) 22:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This is a pretty straightforward WP:NEOLOGISM case even outside of the COI concerns. KoA ( talk ) 13:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Retain . This is an important are of legitimate scientific inquiry and practice that has been ongoing for many years but without a common definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguiseppi ( talk • contribs ) 13:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC) — Aguiseppi ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] . Most of the very small number of Google scholar hits for ""electromics"" combined with ""gene,"" ""biology,"" etc. involve misspellings of ""electronic."" The handful of papers that actually use it in the sense put forth by this article are almost all authored by the same person. Maybe the term will catch on one day, at which point it would certainly be appropriate to have a Wikipedia page on it. But at the moment, it's a textbook case of WP:NEOLOGISM . -- Tserton ( talk ) 09:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jorge Isasi: The two references are partial player stats. After searching, could not locate sufficient reliablesources. Created on 21 May 2012 and was PROD 27 May 2012 JoeNMLC ( talk ) 01:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Paraguay . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC) GNG . All that came up in searches were passing mentions ( 1 , 2 , 3 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per JTtheOG . The article does not even provide basic information about the player. Svartner ( talk ) 14:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Andrew Lam (ophthalmologist): Much of the sources seem to stem from primary sources (i.e. libraries which have published his works) or local newspapers familiar with Lam. Does not fulfill criterion (1), (2), or (4) of WP:AUTHOR , (3) may be possible, though no evidence of widespread coverage in reviews. GuardianH ( talk ) 19:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A major contributor to the article, @ Y69up02 , may have a connection to the subject. GuardianH ( talk ) 19:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Illinois , and Pennsylvania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This person has written books that were published by indie publishers and one won an indie book award. He was once given a few minutes of air time on PBS. None of the sources or books reviews are of the level that we would usually consider to confer notability. Given the number of book titles published yearly (over 300,000 in the US) mere authorship is not enough to establish notability. Publishing by major publishers and reviews in national sources, with a bonus for making a best-seller list, is needed. Lamona ( talk ) 02:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bryan Battle: Subject fails GNG as fight announcements and fight results sources are merely routine reports Subject also fails WP:NMMA for not ranked top ten in the world. As present he ranked 131 in welterweight. Cassiopeia talk 04:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Martial arts , and South Carolina . Cassiopeia talk 04:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC) GNG with significant independent coverage from multiple sources such as MMA Junkie , MMA Fighting , MMA Mania , Yahoo! , Sportskeeda , B.J. Penn , North State Journal , The Charlotte Observer and WCNC-TV . Lethweimaster ( talk ) 11:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC) to win TUF 29 is not a qualify for GNG nor NMMA. And not sources url are given. Note: Yahoo is not a source where we need to have original independent, reliable source and Sportkeeda is not are reliable sources and some of the articles in the site are written by fans - see ""SportsKeeda.com is owned by the fans. Yes, you read it right; We have placed the control of the website right in hands of the fans. As a fan,, you are invited to write an article, comment on articles and even do interviews wiht sporting celebrities. You cannot only just create your own content; you can easily shere it via social media such as Facebook, Orkut and Twitter. Today, we live in the digital age and there is no digital sport site in India which has handed over control to the user"" - see source here . Cassiopeia I know TUF does not constitute notability, GNG is number 1. I just mentioned it because fans want to read about subject because of this accomplishement and it's the reason why he gets so much coverage. I listed 9 sources, even if you remove Yahoo and Sportskeeda, subject has plenty of significant independent coverage. Subject definitely meets WP:GNG . Lethweimaster ( talk ) 08:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per Lethwimaster also fighter have 3 or more bouts in UFC also with his recent win he is more then enough notable. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 01:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Commment, 3 or more bout in UFC does not meet NMMA or GNG. Cassiopeia talk 01:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I won't change my vote. Period. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 01:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC) NMMA . Fight announcements, fight results, and MMA databases are not enough to meet WP:GNG . The number of UFC fights is not an indicator of notability. Papaursa ( talk ) 03:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC) MMA is not needed if subject meets GNG. Subject meets GNG with significant in dept coverage from different sources. WCNC-TV [40] , The Charlotte Observer [41] , MMA Junkie [42] . Lethweimaster ( talk ) 20:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first source is a local news article about him winning the Ultimate Fighter, the second is a local news report on a victory, and the third is an interview. Fight results and interviews do not generally constitute significant coverage. Papaursa ( talk ) 21:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON Nswix ( talk ) 13:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - It seems a thoroughly comprehensive and well-researched article. Wafflesvarog ( talk ) 20:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC) N . Editors often disagree, and even change their minds, so I would be interested in hearing your specific reasons for saying this subject is WP notable. Thank you. Papaursa ( talk ) 00:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON HeinzMaster ( talk ) 06:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify seems ok. Does seem like TOOSOON, likely in another year they'll hit it big. NO pun intended. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC) GNP fighter is enough notable espically with his latest win also additional source has been added. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 14:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote) [ reply ] Please strike one of your ! votes. JoelleJay ( talk ) 18:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , per Papaursa. If he's notable in the future this can be und or a new article can be created, but as it stands now he fails GNG. JoelleJay ( talk ) 18:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nicolas Lopez (Bahamian footballer): Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Bahamas . JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC) GNG . Grahaml35 ( talk ) 20:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Untouched (Angel): This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show. Previous was reverted, so bringing it here for discussion. Donald D23 talk to me 18:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy , Television , and United States of America . Donald D23 talk to me 18:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC) Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM . Source in article is an interview and BEFORE showed nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Let me know if something is found. // Timothy :: talk 01:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per Timothy's reasoning. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"The Prime Show with Aiman: None of the references in the article address the subject, or are promotional material, so there is no SIGCOV. References themselves are not IS RS for notability. BEFORE showed promotional material, database listings. // Timothy :: talk 04:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC) 43, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please don't this article, I feel very sad for the another person created this article from the threat of quick deletion. 103.119.62.56 ( talk ) 14:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 07:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jean Houymet: I don't even know for sure if he was a farmer, or just someone who owned land. The provided references seem to indicate that the only research done into this individual was done by his family members; any non-relations giving reference are from primary documents directly connected to the subject. I will admit that I make this AFD after taking a hatchet to the article (see Special:Permalink/1222951438 for the previous version) but there is no usable content in the older version either (most of it is editorialising, OR , or speculation). Primefac ( talk ) 15:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , France , and Canada . Primefac ( talk ) 15:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC) A family biography project is not suitable for wikipedia. Interesting local history, but not meeting inclusion criteria here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jacquin Jansen: I found a handful of sentences of coverage here , which I don't see as enough to meet WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 07:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 07:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC) GNG . No suitable per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of cult television shows: I bet every long enough soap opera has millions of viewers and large fanbase. - Altenmann >talk 13:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC) NOTDB . Even the wikipedia ""article"" (sub-section of a larger article) has a very vague definition of what cult media is. If there was some subjective criteria to determine whether media was cult or not, then this list might be of value. As it stands, it's just a random list of shows that someone once said has cult following, a term that is used indiscriminately in the media. --Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Cult"" is a very broad and somewhat vague term. All it means is that there are some people who really like it! That it retained popularity among some people after its release, or that it may not have a particularly broad fan base. But this is not an intrinsic or distinguishing characteristic. When the inclusion criteria here is that one person used a certain term once to describe a show, that isn't necessarily a relevant commonality or a useful description. This is simply too broad of a concept to justify us maintaining a large context-free list. Cult_following#Television could be expanded with more examples in context, but when most of these articles don't even mention what makes them cult shows, this is simply indiscriminate and not useful to readers. I see so many long-running and popular shows here, this term is so widely used it's lost some of its meaning. Reywas92 Talk 21:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If reliable sources call everything on the list a cult television show, then that's what we go by, not personal opinions. Also it gets coverage. Click the reliable source search at the top of this AFD, and you immediately see https://variety.com/2023/tv/columns/favorite-cult-tv-shows-1235833379/ https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/10-cult-tv-shows-netflix-should-revive-11275690 https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-lists/last-laugh-tracks-the-40-best-cult-tv-comedies-ever-21334/ and more. D r e a m Focus 01:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those sources are reliable in their coverage of other things, but the linked articles merely call something ""cult"" without even bothering to define the term. And that's why we're having this discussion, because an encyclopedic article needs to be built on a verifiable definition. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC) INDISCRIMINATE . The breadth of the term and wide contexts in which it may be used by sources make the list uninformative and unhelpful: 24 and Dragon Ball Z have no conceptual relation to one another simply because a reliable source or two described their respective fan communities as having a 'cult following'. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 12:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Per WP:LSC , selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. This doesn't meet the first two points. As one of the sources says, ""exactly what makes a TV show a cult classic can be hard to pin down."" The listing of several popular, mainstream shows such as Adventure Time and Family Guy along with obscure ones such as Aeon Flux doesn't help categorize it. See also WP:NOTTVTROPES . StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC) LSC and WP:INDISCRIMINATE policies have been cited properly. Putting every single thing that somebody once called ""cult"" into a vague and never-ending list is not encyclopedic. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ryan McCready: Fails WP:NPOL . Media coverage is mostly local and routine - for example, coverage that he changed parties or chose not to seek re-election. AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , and Northern Ireland . AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC) politician as he was only a councillor and has no other claims to fame. — Iadmc ♫ talk 14:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Comparison of browser synchronizers: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC) Articles for deletion/Browser synchronization . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 01:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, so Soft Deletion is not an option here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC) If ""browser synchronization"" is not a notable subject then there's no need for this list, and as nom pointed out, it's likely outdated and obsolete anyway. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Mooonswimmer 15:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The technology is effectively a checkmark for most browsers now with few requiring third-party tools to sync settings any longer, and these are for the most part depreciated tools. Nate • ( chatter ) 16:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I take issue with the claim that Browser synchronization is not a notable subject. The cited discussion had input from one other editor and they advocated a , not the that happened. Here are a few recent sources establishing notability of the topic: [16] ], [17] , [18] . The fact that the article is out of date is not a reason to it. If a list article is not desireable here, the good content in the list could be d into a restored Browser synchronization article. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 13:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I see the article was actually created to compare standalone software in 2006 when there was no sync feature in browsers but it's evolved into comparing browser features now. The thing is, it's a standard feature now and pretty much same in all browsers and there is not much to compare anymore anyway, it looks useless now. Tehonk ( talk ) 03:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Julien Hasler: The LFV source is not independent as it is the website of the Liechtenstein FA. Dougal18 ( talk ) 14:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I had prodded the article for the same reason, and the Prod was removed with the addition of the source from the national football organisation, which isn't independent of course. Playing for the national team isn't sufficient as a claim to notability when that doesn't generate the necessary coverage in reliable independent sources, and this is one of these countries where it is easier to get into the national team than to get into a good professional team. Fram ( talk ) 14:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Europe . Shellwood ( talk ) 17:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Liechtensteiner Vaterland has a paywalled article that looks like SIGCOV here . Lie-zeit has a couple of sentences about him in a match summary here . I don't know if these are enough, but it looks somewhat close. Jogurney ( talk ) 12:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mitch Cahalane: All I really found were transactional announcements ( 2015 , 2017 ). JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league , and Australia . JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC) Can't imagine a player with 93 appearances for one club and had apparently played for others has so little written about him. Should be expanded, but currently not sufficient coverage. Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC) SPORTBASIC . Unable to find anything other than routine coverage. J Mo 101 ( talk ) 16:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV or WP:GNG . Contributor892z ( talk ) 06:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kim Song-chol (footballer): Simione001 ( talk ) 01:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 01:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 01:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 01:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and North Korea . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Social construction of schizophrenia: AtlasDuane ( talk ) 11:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 12:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC) The article was contributed by a now permanently blocked editor. It is cited to some 50 scientific sources, mostly in full citation templates, but much of the text is context, and hardly any of it addresses the subject of the article, i.e. whether and how "" schizophrenia "" is socially constructed , or (per a single sentence at the end of the very short section ""Movement to reconstruct schizophrenia"") whether it ought ""to be socially reconstructed"". The article correctly says, as is discussed in other articles, that ""schizophrenia"" is historically constructed by doctors and is now considered doubtful or obsolete as a category: but that is not the subject of this article. To go through the article's chapters one by one: 1 Introduction --- context, does not address the subject 2 Themes --- context (social constructionism in general), does not address the subject 3 Movement to reconstruct schizophrenia --- call to resolve problems of definition, does not address the subject 4 Historical construction of schizophrenia --- background, basically off-topic, does not address the subject 5 Charities committed to changing public perception --- organisations that would like to change the definition, tangential to the subject 6 Science of schizophrenia and comorbid conditions --- discussion of the science, again, off-topic 7 Global moves to change the construction of schizophrenia --- international desire to change the definition. The article, in short, skirts about what ""social construction of schizophrenia"" means, barely mentions whether it actually happens or happened, and touches on various people's wishes to change something, possibly such a social construction. In the hope that the citations actually discuss the topic, and that the problem is merely poor wording in the article, I looked at a sample of the cited sources that seemed to be being used to support claims of social construction. [17], [29], [39], [52] do not mention ""social construction"" at all. [10] does discuss ""social construction"", but is only slightly about psychiatric disorder and doesn't (I think, search doesn't work on the scanned text, so it was all by eye) mention schizophrenia at all. This all looks very much like that vaguest and worst of charges, original research by synthesis. Many of the citations talk about social matters; some discuss construction[ism]; some talk about schizophrenia; I found none that did all of these at once, as would be necessary to establish notability. Perhaps some of them use synonyms for these terms, and do in fact discuss the article's topic: but if so, it was too opaque to be discernible. I think we need to WP:TNT this article as unencyclopedic, without prejudice to its being recreated in a form which scientifically educated editors can actually understand: and with any luck, ordinary readers too. The current article is not accessible in that way. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 14:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC) TNT as additional rationale. AtlasDuane ( talk ) 17:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . per TNT and essay. Mason ( talk ) 23:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"You Call This Music?! Volume 2: The only review I could find is the OC Weekly one linked, no other reviews or WP:SIGCOV found. No clear target as the record label was d for being non-notable. Last AfD (in 2006) closed as no consensus. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs , Music , and California . StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom and lack of sources; arguments from the old AfD no longer hold up. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 03:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already visited AFD before so a Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Lots of hits on the name, but none about this album. Not meeting notability requirements these days on wiki. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC) ""It has lots of Google hits, so it must be notable"" was basically the result of the last AfD, what fun times those were. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Here's the linkrotted OC Weekly review. That's not gonna do it. So, can we to Volume 1? No article. That album got a 14-word review in the forgotten pages of Punk Planet 54 and an admittedly much better review in Razorcake #2. I can't link you that one because I'm 90% sure the host for the pdf I read is violating copyright. Trust me that it's a pretty good review, but the publication is a self-described fanzine and so—despite its history—lacks the editorial control to be a reliable source to establish notability. Well, let's just it to the record label, then. Guess not that, either. Lubal ( talk ) 00:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . - The Gnome ( talk ) 17:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bitget: Not seeing in-depth coverage in reliable sources that would indicate that this company meets WP:GNG , or meets WP:NCORP . Previously d this July (2023). — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 04:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Companies . — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 04:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There hasn't been much change in terms of coverage useful for our notability standards since July. There is such a major gap between any of the available sourcing the type of coverage which would be eligible to establish notability under WP:NCORP , that the refbomb would be strongly indicative of such eligible sources not existing were I to assume the ability to differentiate. Even without that, it is still additional evidence thereof by a number of factors. Additionally, while the tone is not quite entirely promotional throughout to the point of meeting WP:DELREASON #4, it is nonetheless not suitable for an encyclopaedia, which also demonstrates the difficulty of basing an article on the questionable sources available. This is thus from me. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 13:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate the additional comments. I have since updated the content to help improve the article. WP:NCORP When I first drafted this article, I felt I had included significant coverage for a 5 year old company in emerging tech. I noted that the previous article contained press releases and primary sources so I researched independent sources that meet the reliable source standards for this new article. RELIABLE SOURCES I have included tech blogs and articles from premium media that may require access via paywall. They don't appear to be sponsored and are written by independent finance or tech writers. The sources I reference also have detail and are not merely announcements or mentions of Bitget. REFBOMB. The article is readable. Citations are only used to substantiate the content. Where needed, I have added multiple sources but have not added them for basic statements. For me it's a . WPweb3 ( talk ) 09:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which are the ""premium media"" sources you had in mind? The most reliable sources cited are SCMP, Bloomberg, and Axios, but none of those do anything more than mention Bitget in passing. They do not have any in-depth coverage of the company; not even a full sentence of coverage. — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 12:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello @ Ganesha811 , yes SCMP and Bloomberg to name a couple but now added printed publications also based on research papers sourced. You can see depth in content, not just single mentions. WPweb3 ( talk ) 06:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those are not peer-reviewed publications, they are ""studies"" and ""surveys"" conducted by Bitget itself. Even given that, the new sources appear to have little in the way of in-depth coverage. — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 12:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC) Notability (organizations and companies) We have established that the sources I have cited are 1. independent; 2. reputable; 3. secondary (some sources have significant coverage of Bitget's primary study's but I have not referred to primary sources for studies. Are you suggesting the reason for deletion is because I am missing significant coverage? The articles I recently added all cover the article subject with eg. more than a single sentence. I am referring to other tech companies like IBM for standards, interestingly they are citing primary research directly. Thanks for your feedback. WPweb3 ( talk ) 22:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Who is ""we"" in ""we have established""? I disagree with all your points. It doesn't seem likely we'll persuade one another, so I will hold off on any further comments and let the discussion run its course. — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 23:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Disappointing to see how quickly this was recreated after the first AFD decision to Delete. This AFD might close differently but this should have gone through AFC. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Clearly promotional, but might have enough notability to be worth ing. There are over 1000 results for the subject on ProQuest (although many of them might be press releases). - Indefensible ( talk ) 05:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""might have enough notability"" isn't helpful in an AfD discussion. Are you able to point out any specific references that show this meets notability guidelines? -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 07:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. I reviewed first nom, the article, and this nom and I agree with arguments in first nom and Ganesha811's arguments here. The REFBOMB is all unreliable, PR, spam. There is nothing that changes the result of first nom. Could be d as G11 or G4, or even G5, the user that created the first d article is blocked for socking, this is likely a recreation by a sock. Tehonk ( talk ) 05:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - References are all cryptoblogs or press releases. I find nothing that would be significant coverage in reliable sources. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello @ CNMall41 I created this article and I reviewed all the sources via my library research database, ensuring none of them are press releases or company-sponsored. The only ones that may seem like press releases are the ones from third parties relating to their Messi and Juventus sponsorships. Examples of notable citations include the ones from Fortune [2], Bloomberg [3], South Morning China Post [35-36], CCData is a third party market report [15], Nikkei Asia [21], Bangkok Post [29]. Have you read these citations? Some are behind a paywall. These are all in the list of Wikipedia:Reliable sources Again, I am trying to see the advertising tone/ spam you are referring to - I don't see how my article is ""blatant advertising"". I have written with no opinions, just facts or what the independent sources have stated and nonjudgmental language with sources that are not just passing mentions. Also, sorry G4 and G5 do not relate to me. I will continue to work on my other articles but yes Fintech is one of my interest areas. WPweb3 ( talk ) 10:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I never said anything about the promotional tone (although it does have it). My comment is strictly based on notability. Just because something is in a reliable source does not meet it counts for notability. I have been quoted in many publications related to healthcare tech but I would come no where near qualifying for a page. It is all about the depth, not just existing. I have looked at the references on the page and also looked for additional online. Unfortunately, my assessment that this does not meet notability guidelines wouldn't change. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 21:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ CNMall41 The promotional tone was in response to @ Tehonk and I refer to Wikipedia definitions to promotional tone of which my article is not. During this Afd, I am trying to continue to improve the article so I am asking for your feedback on specific areas in my article that you think fall into this category. Examples from Forbes [3], Bloomberg [4], CCData [15], Bangkok Post [29] are all reporting specifically on the article topic and top industry peers - not passing mention, not just a single quote. It's technology not historical subject so sources are not all scholarship or printed publications. Thanks all for your comments but I would be grateful for more specifics to help improve this article. WPweb3 ( talk ) 09:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just being in a reliable source doesn't mean that the reference itself establishes notability. It must be compared using WP:SIRS . The sources do not meet that requirement. Also, above you were asked about the ""we"" in ""we have established."" Can you address that question? -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 22:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ CNMall41 Yes, I meant ""we"" as in this thread. However you disagree. I've tried to show that all the citations are: 1. significant coverage - as per my above comment. Eg. Forbes is not a profile or writer from Forbes Contributor and meets all 4 notability requirements. 2. independent - I am and the article is written independently from article subject. Happy to answer any questions you have around this. 3. reputatable - global news sources. They may not be all be Western but I try to write with diversity and inclusion in mind. Reference to tech blogs - I have triple checked and they are not self-published sources are written by a tech or finance writer/ journo. 4. secondary - with the exception of the proof of reserves data all are not primary To avoid any grey areas that contributors may deem as promotional or trivial is their sponsorship of esports events. WPweb3 ( talk ) 23:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What is the context of the Forbes article? Is it about Bitget or does it mention it in context with something else? See WP:CORPDEPTH . -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 00:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, one is Forbes.com and the other is Forbes Advisor UK and they both write about Bitget specificities. The UK Editor article has multiple reports on Bitget in the cryptocurrency sector, over a number of months. WPweb3 ( talk ) 11:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC) I agree. The article may be notable, but I'm far more concerned on the fact that a good amount of it appears promotional and the sources are not reliable. I would think this article fails WP:NCORP . TheBritinator ( talk ) 12:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you please highlight for me which areas are promotional? WPweb3 ( talk ) 22:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC) BLUDGEONing the discussion. I've fallen into that trap before myself , and I know how easy it is to do. — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 14:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Vendor-neutral data centre: As the info here is completely unsourced it might not be right to it to the data center article. Your thoughts? Chidgk1 ( talk ) 07:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Computing . Chidgk1 ( talk ) 07:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"All in the Silence: See deletion discussions: for artist , and album Loved One . Imaginatorium ( talk ) 06:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Japan . Imaginatorium ( talk ) 06:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC) NALBUM ) with highly dubious or blatant false claims, of an artist whose article was d via AFD. -- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏ (ring-ring) 14:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Articles for deletion/Kentoverse . --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 15:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Not notable album produced by not notable artist. StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 22:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"JC Kritzinger: JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC) GNG pass. No suitable per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC) does not meet GNG/SNG and I cannot find any sources on this man outside of databases. Possible to one his teams but I am not sure about that. P,TO 19104 ( talk ) ( contribs ) 22:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"The Prime Show: Nothing in article or BEFORE showed IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Lots of promo, database listings. // Timothy :: talk 13:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indonesia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Fahim Rahim: Article itself was written by one User:Khocon , a sockpuppeteer. We also have an article for Fahim's brother which might also be worthy of deletion. - Samoht27 ( talk ) 16:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Medicine , Pakistan , and Idaho . - Samoht27 ( talk ) 16:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC) This BLP appears to be highly PROMO, written by a blocked sockpuppet, and reads more like a resume to promote themselves and their business. While the subject has won some awards, it's unclear if any of them are notable. According to ANYBIO, we may have to the BLP if any of the awards are significant. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 09:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Can we draftify the article for now? Once the promotional content is removed, it can be published again. Additionally, there is not participation to prove these awards are notable. Grab Up - Talk 15:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Grabup , I'm afraid this cannot be draftify now as it's AfD'd. See WP:DONTDRAFTIFY . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 15:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe If we build consensus then the article will be Draftify. Grab Up - Talk 15:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Grabup , You've my vote! — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 15:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC) As said before “ Once the promotional content is removed, it can be published via AfC review again. Additionally, there is not participation to prove these awards are notable.” Grab Up - Talk 15:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC) Are you willing to withdraw this nomination ? — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 15:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes. Drafification seems optimal. - Samoht27 ( talk ) 16:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Samoht27 , Thank you. Grabup , You'll have to ensure that the review cannot pass unless WP:GNG are met. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 😗 I never said that I am the person who will take all the responsibilities to publish this. Someone will do it in future maybe. Grab Up - Talk 16:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Continenttimes.com: Also see WP:NPERIODICAL . Further noting that this was previously d under a different name, see Contínent Times (digital newspaper) . B3251 ( talk ) 04:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions . B3251 ( talk ) 04:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"OSRMT (software): Logan Talk Contributions 20:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . Logan Talk Contributions 20:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article have all necessary sources and references. I think it is meeting all the Wikipedia guidelines. And should remain on Wikipedia. Problem can be fixed But that doesn't mean it should be d Mukarram ( talk ) 20:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) I couldn't find any independent coverage. Fails NSOFT. Owen× ☎ 23:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Non-notable software without any reliable sourcing or significant and/or independent coverage. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 14:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Zachary Goodwin: He is not known to have continued playing past his college career. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Caribbean , and Pennsylvania . JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"William David Volk: NinjaRobotPirate ( talk ) 14:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New York . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPROMO and the coverage of this person does not pass WP:SIGCOV . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 20:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC) For example: ""Volk has worked extensively with Activison, he designed the (M.A.D.E) game engine and was technical producer of the 1992 game Leather Goddesses of Phobos 2, Return to Zork, The Manhole, Rodney's Funscreen and other adventure games"" Two of those games in the above passage is liked to articles that specify Volk's role: Leather Goddesses of Phobos 2: Gas Pump Girls Meet the Pulsating Inconvenience from Planet X! - Programmer Return to Zork - Producer (in the case of Manhole it lists Activision as the original publisher). Additionally later on: From there he moved to Avalon Hill Game Co. where he started the quality assurance division for the Microcomputer Game Division at Avalon Hill. from 1979-1982 where he created the games "" Conflict 2500 "", "" Voyager 1 "" and "" Controller "" Conflict links to him (designer), Voyager has him listed as designer/programmer but does not link back, and Controller links back to his page. Then: In October 2019 William Volk produced and published The Climate Trail, a post-climate apocalypse game based on the classic game Links to the Climate Trail website that has Volk as the Designer/Developer on the TEAM page: https://www.theclimatetrail.com/climate-trail-team If wished, I would like to edit and take out items without references and place references in the article. VideoGameVet ( talk ) 02:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC) He is credited for The Pyramid of Peril and Mac Challenger in the GAMES section as well. VideoGameVet ( talk ) 03:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Plenty of hits in Crypto blogs or websites, which seem associated with him; this is typical of them [55] . Anything crypto is a huge red flag. This in the IBT [56] is about all there is, and it's an iffy source. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Pretty evidently non-notable, and seems to be made for promotional reasons. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 09:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Hannah Dasher: Has may views on tik tok, but no critical notice, never had a charted single and no coverage in RS/extensive coverage upon which we can build an article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women . Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 20:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] With nearly a dozen or more other articles on this site for ""viral sensations,"" I don't think your argument holds much weight. She's featured in a national ad campaign, headlining tours with major acts, written songs for others, and sang/played on other recordings, she's got enough information out there to build a case. There are similar musicians like her on this site that have never had a charted single. Where are these unwritten rules for creating an article for someone? And if there is such rules, who selectively follows them? Bluesman2383 ( talk ) 00:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC) MN . She's not appeared in published works, had two or more records/singles, has never charted nor certified gold. She likely also doesn't meet WP:BIO as we don't have multiple sources discussing her at length. Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One small biography for the scholarship, rest are linkedin, tour bios and non-RS websites. She hasn't received enough critical attention for her works. Being featured in an ad campaign is fine, but we need things that talk about her, none of which we have. Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] She's been on Rachel Ray - there's a newspaper article in their from The Tennessean and a Billboard Magazine article. Not sure those are non-RS websites. Again, feeling like you are arbitrarily nitpicking. There's many others on here with far less that remain or are considered ""stubs."" Bluesman2383 ( talk ) 23:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rachel Ray isn't a reliable source. Those other two might not be extensive. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There is a review in PopMatters (2021) of The Half Record , and a review with some interview in the The Moultrie Observer (2021) that notes her TikTok popularity due to her ""Stand by Your Pan"" cooking series in 2020, and ""she has recently been named in the Class of 2021 CMT Next Women of Country"". The CMT list has 10 country artists, and a solid graf summarizing her career through Jan. 2021. Dasher was also interviewed by American Songwriter in 2021, which includes some contextual details about her career (e.g. ""named a 2021 Fender Next Artist"", when she began releasing music, performers she has opened for). The 2021 People interview does not seem to have much independent context (but does mention ""co-writing credits on Lainey Wilson 's song ""LA"" off her 2019 EP Redneck Hollywood ""). The CMT Next Women of Country is reported on by The Tennessean in 2022, with quotes from Dasher, who is introduced as ""With hair teased to the heavens and wearing a trademark polyester bell-bottomed pantsuit, Aug. 31 showcase performer Hannah Dasher is the ideal person to speak about what CMT's Next Women of Country program means..."". A 2020 Rolling Stone list of Country Music Picks for the Week of November 23rd includes her ""Girls Call the Shots"" song; Guitar.com in 2022 notes ""In the past year, Fender have features [sic] countless female Player Plus artists on it’s [sic] TikTok account, such as Country musician Hannah Dasher..."". I think this article would benefit from some clean up for tone/ puffery and to remove social media and blog references, but there appears to be some support for WP:BASIC notability based on her TikTok and music career. Beccaynr ( talk ) 15:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC) : talk 12:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC) GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 00:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC) 48, 28 April 2023 (UTC) BASIC notability - my ! vote is weak because there is some coverage, but we do not yet seem to have sufficient independent secondary coverage to support WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSICBIO notability. Beccaynr ( talk ) 04:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - The Grand Old Opry in Nashville lists her as one of their artists. — Maile ( talk ) 22:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Due to the source analysis by Lamona and Beccaynr. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per Lamona's analysis of the referencing. Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 12:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Elyzabeth Pham: Does not meet the WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG . Let'srun ( talk ) 19:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Beauty pageants , and Wisconsin . Let'srun ( talk ) 19:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] no sourcing found for this person, unless she married Sysqo (plenty of coverage about his wife). Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Pranvera: I cannot find reliable sources for this name and it is all WP:ROUTINE databases and baby name websites. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 19:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Lists of people , Lists , and Albania . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Only one person listed and that is too non-notable. Georgethedragonslayer ( talk ) 10:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC) INDISCRIMINATE , and no current bearers of the name in Wikipedia per Special:AllPages/Pranvera . Geschichte ( talk ) 10:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Improve and expand as needed, do not . Comment Do you have any better argument to offer than ""expand, improve, do not ""? And you forgot to sign your comment, User:Bookworm857158367 . AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 01:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Name articles should have origins and etymological information and listed references. One notable person is listed with the name. Expansion would logically include listing others as they are found and finding better references. and listing others. I did a search of the name and there are several other articles that list people or characters named Pranvera in passing, including at least one politician. This strongly suggests that there are probably notable people with the name abour whom articles couldvand should probably be created. I don't have the background knowledge to do this, but someone who speaks Albanian could. I do not think the article should be nominated for deletion when references are listed. As far as I know, it is not necessarily the responsibility of someone voting here to improve the article; just to note that it probably can be improved. I know we have a difference of opinion on this subject in general. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 01:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply Except the person listed isn't notable and just ""having references"" doesn't prove notability. I am unsure of the notability of the others with the name, but the article could be resurrected in the future if biographies are made; I myself have no experience in creating biographies. Otherwise, we'd just be preemptively creating name pages because someone notable might come along in the future with the name. And you should probably sign your comment. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 01:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That’s the disagreement. I don’t see the point in deleting an already existing article that could be improved. I do think having references that indicate the information is factual is reason enough to it around until someone comes along who can access the Albanian sources and expand upon it. There is no particular urgency about getting rid of this particular article. It provides information and what it says about the name is accurate. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 02:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply The only way I can see it being improved is by adding people with Wikipedia articles who have the name, and there is no way of knowing if any will be created in the near future. I doubt there will be sufficient sources in Albanian if there is no WP:SIGCOV in English, though I cannot be sure. In any case this stems back to the main problem of notability per WP:NOTEVERYTHING . Urgency? Maybe not, but Wikipedia is not a compendium of names and there is no point in ing the article hanging around. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 04:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC) WP:IAR and related policies as I really think all the other policies being cited here are bureaucratic and have been getting in the way of maintaining a quality encyclopedia. If an article is unreferenced or factually inaccurate, that's a reason to correct it and call for improved citations or to remove the incorrect information. It isn't a great reason to immediately the article altogether. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 13:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply What I understand is that you are essentially saying that notability is bureaucratic and should be disregarded. I don't think this debate is really going to get anywhere so reply if you wish but I may not. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 00:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Depending on the article and whether it is referenced and factually accurate, yes, I think it can be bureaucratic to it instead of improving upon it. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 04:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply In some cases I agree it can be bureaucratic, but that's not really what I asked. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 04:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, it really depends on the article. Insistence on “notability” can indeed be bureaucratic and damaging to the encyclopedia when it’s a subject where there is no real urgency about deleting it and the article might be improved upon. If it is libelous or factually inaccurate or the references — i.e. the National Enquirer — are unreliable, then there is far, far more urgency about getting it gone right away. I am an inclusionist, which means I am generally in favor of ing articles and providing information that might be of use to someone, somewhere, and very much against deletion because the article doesn’t meet someone else’s standard of notability. Wikipedia has become so byzantine in the past few years that only a small percentage of editors have actually decided that policy, One person’s trivia is another person’s useful. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 20:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ervin Hasalliu: I found one passing mention in Panorama , which just looks like a squad list of every single team in the division and is not significant coverage by any means. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Albania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mampuzha Madhava Panicker: This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now get this resolved. Boleyn ( talk ) 17:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and India . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 18:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - insufficiently sourced, but Kathakali dance is an important South Indian classical dance form revived in the early to mid 20th century and winning the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award is a big deal. I think it would be a mistake to this biographical information, which is not duplicated in any other language on WP. Llajwa ( talk ) 20:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth . Normally at least leads can be found on at least one other lang wiki but here nothing. Ping me if sources are found, I'm open to a if sources can be found showing that the is appropriate. // Timothy :: talk 18:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Natalia Mitsuoka: PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , and Argentina . Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Subject meets the WP:GNG with the SkateToday article already in the article in addition to [ [43] ]. Let'srun ( talk ) 13:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Let'srun ( talk ) 14:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 12:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC) This is a living subject and the best we can find is one connected source (faph.org) and one interview (SkateToday), both from when she was a junior in high school 16 years ago? That's all? WP:SPORTSPERSON requires at least one RS which directly details the subject. Nothing close to that here. BusterD ( talk ) 23:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, I have long felt that none of this qualifies as “significant coverage” when I getting chewed out for these AFD’s. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Clearly fails NSKATE. The one SkateToday article, while impressive, is the only SIGCOV I've been able to find towards GNG. The other source linked by Let'srun doesn't count towards the GNG as it isn't independent or sigcov. Toadspike [Talk] 11:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Abdulelah Al-Zahrani: My searches in Arabic don't yield anything other than social media posts, which do not indicate notability. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Saudi Arabia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet GNG. JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV . As the athlete played for Al-Ansar for several years, if sources are located, I will change my vote. Svartner ( talk ) 04:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] no sufficient sourcing meeting BLP and other guidelines. -- Old-AgedKid ( talk ) 10:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Would have suggested a draftify, but his age suggests might have been retired. Was only finding statistics on google search Otbest ( talk ) 18:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"The Pamoja Art Society: No rth of the Zam bezi 05:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts , Organizations , and Louisiana . AllyD ( talk ) 05:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC) blatantly promotional, created by an account now blocked for spam. In fact in my opinion it qualifies for speedy deletion as promotional, but now this discussion has been started we may as well let it run its course, I suppose. JBW ( talk ) 14:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Promotional and only 1 gnews hit. Fails WP:ORG . LibStar ( talk ) 10:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"ఐ 20: 2 of the 3 sources appear to be copies of each other (I couldn't access the third), and no reliable sources were found online. Does not meet WP:NFILM . ""'[[ User:CanonNi ]]""' ( talk • contribs ) 12:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC) I have the feeling that this wasn't released on the announced date (14 June), so let's wait for release and reviews. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Could the article title instead be the English translation? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 12:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs ) 14:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the title using another script doesn't help searching; regardless, I can't find mentions of this. The sources are listed as marginal reliability per Cite Highlighter, and I don't see any others we can use. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"CorpWatch: However, it is frequently used as a source , see Newspapers.com for example. Would like to see what others think. Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 13:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Environment , and California . Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 13:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Unless we can find more sources about them, there doesn't seem to be enough to the article. This [17] , then this brief mention [18] Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This [19] ? Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Unless more work has been done to it. Micheal Kaluba ( talk ) 13:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"The Vets (company): No evidence of wp:notability. The sources are just either announcements (e.g. on securing funding) or republishing of their press releases/self-bio. Same for the content of the article,. Creator is indeffed for COI promotional creation. North8000 ( talk ) 14:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Florida . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Was originally soft-d after being nominated for failure to pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG . Coverage is limited to news about product launches and market openings that are excluded from consideration as trivial under WP:ORGTRIV . Even after refund, there are not multiple examples of significant, secondary, independent coverage. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 15:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Medicine . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Nomandbou , who created the account only for the article's restoration at RfU , assured us with sure! when asked if he has at least two deep or significant sources as per the previous AfD. Jay 💬 07:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC) ORGCRIT . See source analysis/comments below: Calcalist , TechCrunch , VC News Daily , NoCamels , Calcalist (in Hebrew) , FinsMes , PYMNTS , and Globes : WP:PRESSRELEASE -based ( WP:CHURNALISM ) routine coverage of a capital raise and thus ineligible under WP:ORGTRIV . New year's eve fireworks : More churnalism based on press releases. The Times doesn't even reference this company, it's an editorial generically talking about ""the vets"" in Britain as an industry sector. KPTV is sponsored content (read down to the bottom) and thus not independent. DVM 360 , Community Impact , Pet Age , and ABC6 : coverage of new location openings and thus ineligible under WP:ORGTRIV . Spectrum News 1 , Tampa Beacon , WFTS Tampa Bay : local news and thus of questionable value for WP:NCORP per WP:AUD . -- Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 16:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with the source analysis above, an abuse of the refund procedure, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing ++ 19:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC) 30, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sundaranarayana: Promotional. Of the four sources cited, none are RS. The article has been speedy d by A7, but I think AfD is the way to go here. Cheers, -- The Lonely Pather ( talk ) 15:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Kerala . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Clearly not notable, clearly a mostly uncited essay and clearly virtually unsourced. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 12:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - promotional material without indication of importance. Kazamzam ( talk ) 12:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Layle Delo: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV . JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC) 44, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jonathan Cherry: only database entries/wikipedia copies. Password (talk) (contribs) 08:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada . CptViraj ( talk ) 09:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Articles look like it got information from IMDb , which is a not recommended source, but the author decided not to add the reference that they did use it. See Wikipedia:Reliable Sources -⚒️ MinecraftPlayer 321 ⚒️ | 💬 23:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Clipgenerator: Graywalls ( talk ) 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products , Technology , Software , and Germany . Graywalls ( talk ) 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC) While I agree that the article is terribly sourced and reads like an advert, it can be improved by adding better secondary sources that verify the app meets WP:N . If this doesn't happen, I will advocate for . — Mjks28 ( talk ) 10:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC) , What evidence do you have suggesting this product meets WP:NCORP ? I've done the WP:BEFORE search and came up with none. The most in-depth piece I came upon was https://www.pressetext.com/news/na-20080110015.html but this is of course nothing, because it's a press release. Graywalls ( talk ) 17:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC) N , so I change my argument to . Mjks28 ( talk ) 00:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reads like an advertisement. . . Mean as custard ( talk ) 12:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd like to see more opinions here from experienced editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Facial-maschera: I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV , let alone mentions of the work in the few biographies of Henri Matisse that I have checked. This page is the only contribution of the editor. Possible hoax? Tooncool64 ( talk ) 21:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Matisse wasn't painting by 1951 other than small gouaches, so this would be an unusual work and would probably have garnered more scholarship if real. Given that there seems to be none, suggests this may be a hoax. We would need to verify the existence of the painting. freshacconci (✉) 23:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Given that the article says this work ""is one of Matisse's best examples of his use of color and form"" it should be known enough to be included in books and articles. Since none has been found so far I've removed it from the Matisse navbox pending further research findings. I notice that I questioned the paintings authenticity in 2017 and, if a hoax, is a rather long-running one (2008). The Beasts of the Sea page says ""Eventually by 1950 he stopped painting in favor of his paper cutouts"" which would call this page into question (as well as it being in the Fauvism style, which ended decades earlier). Randy Kryn ( talk ) 08:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I emailed the Getty Research Institute and asked them to check the 1988 catalogue raisonné . A picture by this name appears in a Matisse Facebook group. It appears to be a black outline of a face on a red ground. Very simple, kinda Picasso-y but lighter in spirit, not sure I'd call it fauvist at all. I presume this article should be d for lack of significant coverage even if it's not an outright hoax, but I'll circle back to vote later. jengod ( talk ) 12:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , load of OR and no indication of SIGCOV. Aintabli ( talk ) 23:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Couldn't find even mentions of it after looking it up; definitely doesn't meet notability guidelines. That Tired Tarantula Burrow 22:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I could find no evidence of notability. I'd guess it's a hoax. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 00:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as per above. The Getty won't crack a book any sooner than 10 weeks from now and then it might cost money (?!), so I'm letting that door close. Happy to see this recreated someday if someone finds sources but for now goodbye. jengod ( talk ) 08:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] for all the reasons given above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novellasyes ( talk • contribs ) : Lack of coverage and other above reasons. StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 02:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC) Everyone else's reasons for deletion, I don't have much helpful to say myself. ¿VØ! D? ✨ 18:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC) As discussed above, this would be notable if it is considered the ""best example"" of Henri Matisse. TWOrantula TM ( enter the web ) 18:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jub Kabud-e Sofla: Abadi are not notable. Hongsy ( talk ) 02:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions . Hongsy ( talk ) 02:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"MRSM Kuching: However, there just aren't the reliable, quality sources to establish it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG . Boleyn ( talk ) 15:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Malaysia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Malaysia . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 15:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , does not have any reliable sources. per nom. Iljhgtn ( talk ) 16:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"HAL School Korwa: This one fails WP:NSCHOOL . LibStar ( talk ) 03:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Schools , and Uttar Pradesh . Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC) Unable to find sources to meet WP:NSCHOOL . - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 08:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 08:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with the updated criteria, merely being a secondary school is no longer deemed sufficient to attain notability. It now necessitates the presence of credible sources that can substantiate its significance. AmusingWeasel ( talk ) 09:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Eastern Indonesia Malay: These languages do exist, but there are a few major issues with this article: The classification provided is inaccurate and doesn't appear to follow either of the purported sources (Glottolog and Ethnologue). I think it's a weird mash-up, partially drawing on geography. For example, Manado Malay and North Moluccan Malay are very closely related (""Manadoic Malay"" in Glottolog), yet they're listed separately here (owing to their different locations?). The rather mysterious Bacan Malay shows no special relationship to these languages, yet the author insists on listing it under North Moluccan Malay. (In fact, Bacan is very different from all of these languages -- it's not a lingua franca/trade language, let alone a creole.) Some of the varieties (Sula Malay, Gorontalo Malay) are underdocumented and not even listed in the two sources. People in the Sula Islands actually speak something closer to Ambonese Malay, but I don't think anyone has described the situation there. I don't think Vanimo Malay exists. Some people in the area do speak Indonesian/Papuan Malay, but I'm unaware of it being considered a distinct variety. Again, no mention of it whatsoever in the declared sources! ""Ethnicity: Malays and various other ethnicities"" -- this is very misleading. These languages are mostly used by unrelated eastern Indonesian groups, some of which have adopted them as their primary languages. The Bacan people are thought to have migrated from Borneo, but they have their own ethnic identity too. I believe the same holds true for Larantuka/Nagi. The article fails to mention that the characterization of these as creole languages isn't widely accepted (see discussion in Kluge, Angela (2017). A Grammar of Papuan Malay. Studies in Diversity Linguistics 11. Berlin: Language Science Press). Compared to every other issue, however, this isn't such a big deal. Semmiii ( talk ) 14:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Indonesia . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 17 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 14:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] unless someone can suggest an appropriate target. Mccapra ( talk ) 19:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the page Malay trade and creole languages would work as a target (but it isn't the greatest either!). Oh, and a bit of a comment: considering this edit description , I don't believe the editor is keen on remeding the problem (which would amount to rewriting a significant portion of the article). Semmiii ( talk ) 20:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or Malay trade and creole languages per nom. This is another product of an editor with serious CIR -issues and a total unwillingness to communicate (if not learn from their past blunders). – Austronesier ( talk ) 19:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC) 21, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Battle of Beit Lahia: Four unrelated list items based on social media posts. Sources do not mention a ""Battle of Beit Lahia"", most reference general events north of the area. Source eval: Comments Source Social media post 1. @ytirawi (4 November 2023). ""According to my source in North Gaza, it appears that Israeli ground forces are actively operating in North West Beit Lahia. They are launching heavy airstrikes on Masnhyya street as a mean of pressure"" (Tweet) – via Twitter. Social media post 2. ^ @ytirawi (20 November 2023). ""Israeli occupation forces shoot directly at a school just beside the Indonesian Hospital"" (Tweet) – via Twitter. Does not mention anything called ""Battle of Beit Lahia"" 3. ^ Gritten, David (21 November 2023). ""Israeli tanks surround north Gaza's Indonesian Hospital"". BBC. Retrieved 20 December 2023. Social media post 4. ^ https://t.me/sarayaps/16713 Social media post 5. ^ @ytirawi (24 November 2023). ""During the night, Israeli occupation forces raided the Indonesian Hospital in Jabalia Refugee Camp. A woman was killed, 3 individuals were injured, and 3 others were abducted to an unknown destination"" (Tweet) – via Twitter. Social media post 6. ^ ""Beit Lahia News Network"" . Telegram . Retrieved 21 December 2023 . Social media post, dead link 7. ^ “Martyr Izz al-Din al-Qassam “Reserve” Brigades"". Telegram. Retrieved 21 December 2023. BEFORE showed nothing about a ""Battle of Beit Lahia"". No objection to a consensus . // Timothy :: talk 13:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC) 40, 21 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Israel , and Palestine . CptViraj ( talk ) 13:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC) I will remove all the social media posts and replace with ISW sources which confirm the battle in Beit Lahia . - UtoD 15:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC) 46, 21 December 2023 (UTC) GNG-ing Beit Lahia fighting as separate from the rest of northern Gaza, which no source corroborates. Jebiguess ( talk ) 22:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC) 43, 23 December 2023 (UTC) 52, 23 December 2023 (UTC) SECONDARY analysis, and it is not named as a 'battle' even in primary sources. It cannot pass WP:GNG , much less WP:NEVENT . To be ready for mainspace, it would need strong secondary sources (plural) with WP:DEPTH , WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:GEOSCOPE , none of which are likely. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 22:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC) 27, 24 December 2023 (UTC) While we are discussing this page, I wanted to ask whether a similar AfD would be appropriate for Battle of Beit Hanoun using many of the same arguments. Much like ""Battle of Beit Lahia,"" the precise term ""Battle of Beit Hanoun"" does not exist in RS, including the page's own references, so it is not clear if it passes WP:GNG . (Feel free to strike this comment if it's not the appropriate place for it) SaintPaulOfTarsus ( talk ) 09:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rhona Who Lives by the River: No indication of WP:NOTABILITY and even indication of whether this will ever exist. The only source is a 2021 story that they plan to make this series. North8000 ( talk ) 13:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Television . Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per 2021 source, weak draftify until evidence of production surfaces; otherwise, . -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 07:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC) GNG Donald D23 talk to me 11:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . We have no idea how this will fare in the future. Yet, apparently, there are contributors who can see the future . Telegraphically: we have no sources STOP. - The Gnome ( talk ) 20:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC) WP:TOOSOON . TheBritinator ( talk ) 23:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC) We know that. That won't happen in the future. There is no proof. Suleeabc2 ( talk ) 07:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Frank Feys: The closest may be the role in ""La hija de un ladrón"" but the subject is mentioned just in routine listings and by Lanaja Factory, which does not appear independent of the subject (see [15] ); he is unmentioned on the film production company's page on the film [16] . AllyD ( talk ) 17:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Actors and filmmakers , Belgium , and Spain . AllyD ( talk ) 17:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"MotesBooks: Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Organizations , Business , Companies , United States of America , and Kentucky . UtherSRG (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC) ORGCRIT . -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"(This discussion is) Off the Record: Someone should search in dutch but subject might not have another name based off filmfonds.nl source in article. (pinging Mushy Yank de-prodded) Just i yaya 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Police , Internet , and Netherlands . Just i yaya 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the ping and note. I deproDed the page because I believed that what is said in Screen Daily (although presented in an interview, and brief) + screening/nomination would make an Afd more suitable. It's probably not enough. The film/piece/project are covered partially elsewhere, but it's hard to say if the IDFA grant is significant enough or if w hat IDFA says about the film can be considered independent. There are the Variety and BDE mentions (see above and article); Yahoo News has a similar mention ; there's other overage that might be judged significant and independent about the work: Then back to the algorithmic crime prevention Nirit Peled delved into. Not a futuristic AI fantasy, but something already very concrete. The latter also applies to the performance inspired by it (this conversation is) Off the Record. In front of a room full of audience, a police officer (actor Janneke Remmers, with texts from real interviews) and human rights lawyer Jelle Klaas explain both sides of this stigmatising technique. Concluding with Peled wondering where empathy has gone, and why the algorithm's checklist does not look at the children's positive traits. They have all been given a digital copy of themselves, but where have they themselves gone? At that moment, it slowly starts to become clear how we can see this beautiful animation with figures wandering across a hall-wide screen. They are people, youngsters no doubt, but all wonderfully distorted. Towards the end, one slowly comes closer and closer, and behind that bizarre, digitally animated mask I thought I could actually see a pair of children's eyes. An unexpectedly touching moment. It just makes the thought that we could all be relegated to digital files all the more oppressive. in Cultuurpeers Filmmaker Nirit Peled will introduce her extensive investigative research into the development of crime prevention algorithms in Amsterdam. Peled converts information, which is otherwise invisible, or simply incomprehensible, into narratives and images. Through her forthcoming documentary film Moeders and performative lecture Off the Record she offers a vivid account of the lived experiences and emotions of mothers whose sons have been impacted by algorithmic policing. ( Fotodok ) All in all (and maybe there's more), I'd rather this, but that's just me. There's no page about the artist so far. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the Yahoo News page duplicates the variety article I put in the nomination. I haven't seen the other two before but I don't think fotodok would be independent or significant as it appears to be from a bio of the artist. The Cultuurpeers page looks reasonably reliable and gives a fine amount coverage. Let's see we could get another source. Just i yaya 04:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun ( talk ) 15:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC) Zero coverage for this film project. The Fr wiki article is tagged for notability and it relies on mostly primary sources, so not really meeting requirements there either. I can't see anything that is in a RS; the blurb above is a brief mention. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Not independently notable. gidonb ( talk ) 18:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ayesha Singh: Bringing it here for discussion and if it closes the same way, suggest protection to avoid a return trip without AfC. Star Mississippi 20:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , and India . Star Mississippi 20:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No significant update since the last AfD from a year back. and salt per nom, and my vote from the previous AfD. Once protected, the request for unprotection would have to establish notability. Jay 💬 18:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC) N . DreamRimmer ( talk ) 19:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC) Notability Tarun Kancherla Chowdary ( talk ) 16:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Does the award listed here [11] (an Editorial Choise award for Best Actress at the Indian Telly Awards) count toward notability at all? That might put here over the top of notability if it is considered major. Otherwise I'd consider the sources no better than borderline. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 00:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The link you provided does not mention her award, but her article does mention it as Most Promising Actress , and it was already part of the article during this AfD nomination. Indian Telly Awards does not mention such a category, and the official website of the awards does not work. It may be a category introduced this year, or it may be the new name of an existing category. I could not find their 2022 awards, and there is no mention of such a category in their 2021 or 2019 awards. I would not consider it significant enough for WP:ANYBIO . Jay 💬 05:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It has been introduced this year , they even posted this on their official youtube channel as well !! I had only one article to show that she won an award under that category Tarun Kancherla Chowdary ( talk ) 15:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC) SINGLEEVENT ?? Tarun Kancherla Chowdary ( talk ) 15:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC) — Tarun Kancherla Chowdary ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ayesha Singh . Star Mississippi 16:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton: Discussion also on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen centres on the WP:NOTSTATS argument. Consensus exists that such lists are not notable, and on the argument for the Verstappen AfD is clearly made that such lists regardless of win number are not considered notable. This deletion request is to reflect the latest consensus. The same discussion has also been ongoing on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One and Talk:Max Verstappen When creating this deletion request, articles List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Michael Schumacher ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Sebastian Vettel ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Alain Prost ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Should also be included for the same reasons. It is the second AfD request for the Senna article, the original is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna . I would appreciate if someone could create this AfD as it is important for the motorsport category and part of wider ongoing discussions (please if I am unable to can this be added to the motorsport project AfD) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions . 159.242.125.170 ( talk ) 15:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC) 159.242.125.170 ( talk ) I vote per the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Damon Hill and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen — Iadmc ♫ talk 15:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Motorsport , and Lists . — Iadmc ♫ talk 15:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC) I have fixed this nomination to actually use {{ subst:afd2 }}, rather than just {{ la }} on its own. No opinion or further comment at this time. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC) CFORK and WP:LISTN . T v x 1 01:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The main difference between these drivers and the other subjects which were d is that these are all three-or-more-time World Champions who should be expected to have more wins and coverage than the others. I would personally reject WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments such as those raised by the nom and above ! voters that these drivers fall under a consensus based on the others. If these are kept, I would also support looking at taking the Verstappen list to DRV for recreation. The main difference between now the the Verstappen AfD is that he too is now a three-time World Champion. ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC) , you need to tag all of the articles you wish to bundle, not just notify on the talk pages. ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Will try, very hard to do multi-page AfDs properly as an unregistered user my apologies! I agree that Verstappen is more notable than at the time of his AfD, but the fundamental issue is that we have no way of currently defining notability. If this AfD fails, hopefully it can set that precedent, if it doesn't then we know the issue is with the format not having proven notability. You cite these are WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, but I counter that I do not point to them being d and say that because they were d these should be - instead I am pointing to the logic behind them and the comments on the AfDs where many explicitly called for an AfD against these lists also. The arguments against all of these lists were made in those AfDs, hence why I have referenced them. I do believe there should be some level of consistency in how these lists exist, and if this AfD fails I will propose the creation of any articles which would logically follow (if it is three time champions, I will try and create lists for them, if it is drivers who have X number of wins, same again) but I'm not sure that these pass WP:CRUFT , WP:LISTN and WP:NOTSTATS . The size of the grouping doesn't mean it necessitates a list - Wikipedia doesn't need a list of the list of winners of your local egg and spoon race no matter how good Mr Eggman is as the 12 time champion. Unless we can show that these articles pass WP:LISTN - ""Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists."" If we could get 3 sources for each driver where a reliable third party, such as a newspaper of record or the like, was discussing their wins (be it listing the drivers' dominance across those, or be it ranking some of their wins perhaps?) than I would be willing to concede WP:LISTN . Also I wish to note, Draft:List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Max_Verstappen was denied just 2 weeks before his 3rd title, so I'm not sure that has had an impact on my claimed consensus so far. I also remind the guidelines on WP:OTHERSTUFF do state: ""If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates."" 159.242.125.170 ( talk ) 08:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , firstly, I am disappointed that the nominator did not follow recommend courtesy, and notify substantial contributors to these articles, as suggested (but not required) in the AfD process. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies for causing your disappointment, but sadly I am not very well accustomed with the process and tried to reach out to people who had been involved in such suggestions in previous AfDs. I hope personal disappointment will not factor into this however. 159.242.125.170 ( talk ) 11:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC) Please bite the newbies I hope I am tasty ) 159.242.125.170 ( talk ) 12:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the wins by these drivers are extremely notable. Using Senna as an example: whenever another driver approaches and passes his total it is reported as a significant achievement in the press Formula1.com , Sky Sports for example. While these win are listed in the parent articles, that is only as part of their complete Formula 1 racing results, and does not give the level of detail of these articles. These lists allow interested readers to compare and contrast those victories. The lists meet the criteria for a Stand-alone list , given the length of the parent articles. The articles follows a similar style and structure to standalone lists such as List of international goals scored by Wayne Rooney , List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar and List of international rugby union tries by Jonah Lomu . I'm well aware that WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to be avoided, but the presence of these articles demonstrates that lists such as these are common across the encyclopedia, and form part of the current 'meta'. With regards to the WP:NOTSTATS argument; that says that the encyclopedia should not have ""excessive listings of unexplained statistics"": indeed, I would suggest that by having these as standalone lists means that we are better able to provide the suitable context to avoid them being ""unexplained statistics"": many of the tables in the ""Racing records"" sections of drivers articles are more in contravention of that particular guideline than these articles, in my opinion. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can see your argument for ing Senna, but few other drivers are used in such a way. As I discussed earlier in this thread, if we can find sources for these lists to be notable as a set as you have done for Senna then that may warrant their inclusion on WP:LISTN - and I would agree that the racing record section can be overwhelming but without much intention to suggest they should be removed. As for the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, I'm not sure how useful it is because for example Rooney has many independent sources referencing the goals as a set. I can't say I've seen the same for Prost, maybe not even for any driver outside of Senna. Other than the fact it is a very long list, the group of Hamilton's impressive tally is rarely talked about at which point I would compare it to creating an article of ""Letters in antidisestablishmentarianism"" which is impressive because the list is so long, but aside from that, is not notable. This is an extreme but still, just because other WikiProjects have done something doesn't mean Formula One should for example. It also raises the question as to what the notability criteria should be, if we are to these: what level of notability makes Prost worth ing? 159.242.125.170 ( talk ) 12:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These lists might allow readers to compare and contrast their victories, but not in any meaningful way. The lack any of the context required to be able to take any meaningful insight (which is why WP:NOSTAT is mentioned). The margin and grid position columns are the NOSTAT violations. The rest of the columns also exist in their racing record summary. And it may vollow the style and structure for the article you listed for Rooney, Tendulkar or Lomu but the major difference is that these wins can be viewed in the articles for the respective drivers (as you acknowledge in the third sentence of your response, the same can not be said for Rooney, Tendulkar or Lomu. SSSB ( talk ) 22:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom, ladmc and Tvx1. These all are best integrated in main articles. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 12:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom - just repeating data already presented at the home article of the driver in the career results sections. -- Falcadore ( talk ) 15:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC) SIZESPLITs of their respective articles, ing said articles from being too hard to navigate and read. Merging all should also be considered by ! voters, especially since SpacedFarmer's rationale is basically a ! vote, not a ! vote. But again, we're risking making these articles too long and clunky (per WP:NOMERGE ). The LISTCRUFT essay does not apply here when these are split from their respective articles, not standalone. ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These are not valid sizesplits, because they were not split. You are the only person who has suggested that we should be merging, mainly because those arguning for deletion (as far as I can tell by skimming the arguemnts) feel that the level of detail these articles go into (i.e. with grid positions and margin of victory) are in violation of WP:FANCRUFT and WP:NOSTATS regardless of whether they are in their own article, or in the general article about that driver. The listcruft essay does apply because this was split from the respective articles. SSSB ( talk ) 22:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France , Germany , England , and Brazil . ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All of them are the same as the many other such articles for sports people. Category:Career achievements of sportspeople If it won't fit in their main article, then a split off article is justified. We do the same when listing the accomplishments of actors and musicians, if their awards don't all fit in their main article, you make a side article to list them. D r e a m Focus 22:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The difference is that the accomplishment of thier race wins does fit in the main article, it is bundlged together with a breakdown of their results. The only unique information of the nominated pages is FANCRUFT and NOSTAT violations with a summary of their results (and by extention wins) accessible in the main articles. SSSB ( talk ) 22:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC) These are all redundant forks of information already found at the main articles for these subjects. Let'srun ( talk ) 17:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] all the articles of the respective drivers already break-down their races wins in a much cleaner and succinct way - through the race record table (e.g. Lewis Hamilton#Complete Formula One results ). The nominated articles do nothing other than specify minor details. The only parts of these articles which are unique to these articles (i.e. not already specified on the main driver page) are: date, circuit, grid position and margin which are all either WP:FANCRUFT, WP:NOSTAT or both (e.g. margin and grid position lack any of the context required for this information to be worth anything meaningful. These articles serve no purpose other than to offer irrelevant and/or contextless data. SSSB ( talk ) 22:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Provincial Institute of Teacher Education Nawabshah: I don't see it passing WP:ORG either. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 09:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 09:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Thea Hail: However, the same issues still apply, so I am simply going to copypaste their nominating rationale, ""Non-notable WWE wrestler. Article contains only two primary references, one is from the WWE, and the other is just a database profile. Per WP:NSPORT , wrestlers are classified as entertainers and not sportspeople. This WWE wrestler has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, TV shows, performances, or productions. Nor has she made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. There is also no significant coverage in any reliable, secondary sources. All sourcing I can find is linked directly to the sport of wrestling and routine in nature. There is no mention of this subject in any media not linked to her time at the WWE, and as wrestling is not a recognised sport for notability purposes, she fails both the applicable WP:ENTERTAINER criteria, and the general notability guideline which requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject."" Onel 5969 TT me 13:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Wrestling , and Pennsylvania . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per my own rationale provided by nominator. To add to this, the author who recreated this previously d article has had countless other articles nominated for deletion per their talk page MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 14:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's some coverage on Fox Sports [33] , but most is related to the Rock's daughter, I think they wrestle as a team together. Nothing found for sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of investments by Microsoft Corporation: There is no other article titled ""List of investments by..."" Most companies make a fantastical number of investments, since that it is the very nature of business. We oughtn't be in the business of tracking that business. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 23:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 23:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as an abandoned draft. The attention paid to Microsoft's investment in OpenAI suggests this could be a topic of interest. But the current article is too incomplete to . Walt Yoder ( talk ) 20:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Major investments can be added to the main article, but not every single one. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 01:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. LISTCRUFT. // Timothy :: talk 17:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 04:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Beside violating WP:LIST , it's a WP:FORK of another list. Bearian ( talk ) 15:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"José Jorquera: Spanish Wikipedia and my own WP:BEFORE does not show that any decent sources exist. Even a Chilean source search did not seem to yield anything decent about the Chilean goaler of this name. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Chile . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC) GNG . Grahaml35 ( talk ) 20:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC) GNG per my BEFORE search. Jogurney ( talk ) 13:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ron Thaler: The article states ""Many of his personal & professional references are often citations of other self-generated web-pages, & content."" Clarityfiend ( talk ) 13:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians . Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC) bad sourcing, individual isn't notable, and this article reads more like a personal attack than something encyclopedic. Darling ☔ ( talk · contribs ) 20:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC) 00, 5 December 2023 (UTC) 38, 7 December 2023 (UTC) 57, 5 December 2023 (UTC) 45, 5 December 2023 (UTC) 59, 5 December 2023 (UTC) I'm going to add though, I still feel as if Thaler isn't notable, and the page creator (who replied to this AfD with a long rant about cancel culture) does seem to have a clear personal connection to the subject; this is the singular and only page this user has created, a good portion of their edits have been adding Thaler to other pages, and the only photos they have uploaded to Commons are both only of Thaler and literally the only pictures of Thaler on Commons at all. I still kind of feel like this article is more promotional than encyclopedic, and I have doubts about his notability minus his alleged production on other albums. Darling ☔ ( talk · contribs ) 20:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC) 47, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Nothing notable, no sources that discuss him at length. Sourcing used now is pulling at straws and this is overly wordy, when it doesn't really say much. It's an extended CV. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning . This is a professional profile , I can't see a reasonable path towards what we have here meeting NPOV without stubifying , which is probably not worth it given other editors' assessments of notability. No prejudice towards recreation of a neutral article if notability is established. — siro χ o 19:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Andrew Glover (composer): 141 Pr { contribs } 15:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There is a list of sources without in-line citations. If someone with access to these articles could evaluate them, a clearer determination of notability could be made. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 01:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Paschal Ekeji: The most I found was a few sentences of coverage here . JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , Nigeria , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC) GNG relevant, but not really enough. No suitable per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mona Przanowska: This is a case study for WP:BLP violations. Kleuske ( talk ) 20:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions . Kleuske ( talk ) 20:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Women , Royalty and nobility , and Poland . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The unsourced fantasy claims of holding long-extinct noble titles and mostly-redlinked genealogy have to go. And if all you can say about her academic career is the vague and unsourced ""professor at multiple schools in Sweden as well as in the United Kingdom"", then that's not good enough for WP:PROF either, and Google Scholar turns up nothing relevant. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 21:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I get more hits Googling myself (3,160) than I do for the Grand Princess (406.) I tried to find any scholarly articels or papers she may have published but got nothing. Pascalulu88 ( talk ) 22:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC) V . Two of the three footnotes don't even mention the subject and the third one is some self-published page saying only that someone with the similar name Mona Perzanowska paints watercolors. Google suggests that someone with a similar name is a Swedish high school teacher. Google has zero hits outside Wikipedia for the spelling of the name used in the article. For all I can tell this could be a hoax by a Swedish high schooler centered around the name of their teacher. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 01:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Not seeing how this meets NBIO, seems like some version of nobility WP:FANCRUFT with WP:OR issues. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Definitely not notable on own merits, and no meaningful sourcing of the multiple nobility/royalty titles, even disregarding that notability is not inherited . Also, most likely WP:COI issues; for example, the photo in the article is claimed to be the creator's ""own work"", based on subject's old passport photo. Creator has also recently added lots of dubiously sourced information to related articles, such as the subject's ancestor supposedly being an illegitimate child of Alexander I of Russia . Hqb ( talk ) 13:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Swedish news sources return nothing. The subjects own homepage linked in the bio gives no hints of anything conferring notability. Draken Bowser ( talk ) 08:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 09:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of career achievements by Larry Bird: Let'srun ( talk ) 00:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists . Let'srun ( talk ) 00:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwight Howard , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Carmelo Anthony , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Chris Paul and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwyane Wade (2nd nomination) . Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions . North America 1000 07:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] indiscriminate list of stats with no added encyclopedic value. Broc ( talk ) 09:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] but prune (e.g. game winners aren't particularly noteworthy). Bird is one of the all-time greats of basketball, with many notable achievements. (No offense to the others whose lists have been d, but Bird is in a different league.) Clarityfiend ( talk ) 11:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Bird is a Hall of Famer, but these achievements are a bit of a stretch (e.g. 49 points, 14 rebounds, 12 assists and one blocked shot in a game). Not a lot there that warrants a standalone list. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 11:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - just FYI to everyone. List of career achievements by Jack Nicklaus was kept after AfD discussion a couple weeks ago. The result was a unanimous . - BeFriendlyGoodSir ( talk ) 05:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC) OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not generally a convincing argument. Let'srun ( talk ) 11:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I agree. But I will continue mentioning it every time since WP:OSE (Howard, Anthony, Paul, Wade) is being shared above on the deletion side of things. - BeFriendlyGoodSir ( talk ) 17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Except the other listed AfDs are just links, are to the same sport and league, and dont explictly mention their outcome. — Bagumba ( talk ) 01:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC) TOOBIG was the major reason cited there, which doesn't apply to Larry Bird . — Bagumba ( talk ) 11:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC) CONTENTFORK packed with WP:UNDUE , indiscriminate mentions of trivial statistical cross sections. Major, defining achievements should be captured in the main bio. Also fails WP:NOTSTATS : Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing The page is a pure stats dump. — Bagumba ( talk ) 03:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per nom, don't need such lists especially said achievements can be placed in the player's own main page in an accolades, or legacy area. Will also copy paste this to the other aforementioned lists. Noorullah ( talk ) 05:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Yosmeli Cabarroca: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Cuba . JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no GNG-passing sources to be found. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 17:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"H M Khoja Complex Nawabshah: AriTheHorse talk to me! 18:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 18:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Fails to meet WP:NGEO and WP:GNG , no significant coverage and have passing mentions in the refs. M.Ashraf333 ( talk ) 17:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Citizens of the Czech Republic: Nagsb ( talk ) 08:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE . ✗ plicit 12:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions . Nagsb ( talk ) 08:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The corresponding article in the Czech Wikipedia has been d four times. https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ob%C4%8Dan%C3%A9_%C4%8Cesk%C3%A9_republiky Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 21:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC) CSD#A7 . No content, no assertion of notability, no coverage. – filelakeshoe ( t / c ) 🐱 10:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not notable. Vejvančický ( talk / contribs ) 08:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - No evidence that this meets GNG. WJ94 ( talk ) 11:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mathematical growth: The sources are to a high school textbook, community college course notes, and StackExchange. The content itself is little more than a compilation of the ledes of the relevant main articles, where they exist, and OR (even if obviously factually correct) where they don't. Fermiboson ( talk ) 02:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions . Fermiboson ( talk ) 02:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC) OR and/or WP:SYNTH , just describing mathematical models that ""grow"" or ""decay"" (which is literally every mathematical function other than a constant). It's well-written so I guess I could accept a to Function (mathematics) but there is nothing here that isn't better covered in other articles. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 03:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , very hard to see what the purpose of this article is, but basically it's just describing mathematical functions that, um, grow. Possibly monotonically, or possibly not. If we have to make this a I won't object but the article doesn't say anything that isn't said elsewhere. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 12:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Not only is this an OR/SYNTH student essay, it's an incorrect one at that. The Fibonacci sequence is an exponential one, with an exponent base of *Phi*. There's nothing here worth merging. If turning this into a , I'd rather have it to Fast-growing hierarchy or even Ackermann function . Owen× ☎ 22:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As stated in the article's Talk page, the intent of this article was to address the many incorrect descriptions of growth in the media and elsewhere, and to provide an overview of the types and terminology of growth, with helpful examples. Such an summary is not available on Wikipedia or anywhere else, to my knowledge. I believe many Wikipedia users would benefit from this kind of simple, non-technical description. Pbergerd ( talk ) 17:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you very much for your civil participation. This article is not suitable for inclusion for some of the following reasons: - WP:NOTTEXTBOOK . Wikipedia does not exist to instruct or teach, it records information of notability or importance, and definitely not to address inccorrect descriptions of any kind . - If we ignore that for a moment, the article is still of questionable value. As others have pointed out, the article appears to attempt to list significant (by some definition) examples of monotonically(?) growing functions. We don't have articles on every type of thing that could ever exist, and there is no real reason why these functions, which may be individually deserving of an article, belong in this paticular list rather than, say, ""List of real-valued functions"" or ""List of functions which are integrable on an open domain"" or ""List of functions with a finitely terminating Laurent series"", etc. In summry, the scope is not well defined, and can never be well defined. - The fact that these functions ""grow"" are not considered particularly important by any significant sources (sure, everyone agrees that they do grow, but at most a sentence or two is devoted to the fact that it does). The concept of growing functions, as a whole, is also not that important on its own (it is important as a precondition for other properties, such as Sandwich theorem , or as part of a narrower class of functions such as Monotonic function ); you won't be able to find a scholarly article of any sort describing the ""properties of growing functions"". Fermiboson ( talk ) 16:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Fantasize (Ariana Grande song): ""Fantasize"" is not a confirmed song title, all of the sources say ""fans called it 'Fantasize"". None of the sources nor the artist confirmed that the song was ever intended to be included on Grande's 7th album. The information contained, promotes leaked music which is an infringement of the artist's right to copyright. Furthermore, the claims of Spotify charting are unsubstantiated and non-significant per WP:SINGLEVENDOR . Overall its full of speculation and WP:SYNTHESIS >> Lil-unique1 ( talk ) — 21:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . >> Lil-unique1 ( talk ) — 21:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I've culled a bunch of the unsourced and original research. There's not a lot left, and the more I look, the more I see wrong. Leaning , though the attention/streams it's achieved in its unofficial release is quite the feat. I'm wondering if a passing mention could be worth it somewhere on her article. Sergecross73 msg me 21:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The trouble is, we don't know where this song was intended to be. Its best mentioned on the artist's page as we don't know what album or project it was intended for or when it was recorded. Its not that unusual, ""When Love Takes Over"" was leaked by David Guetta and Kelly Rowland. A bootleg version with a different production and different vocalist was rush-released and uploaded to streaming websites. Its also impossible to verify spotify streams as they're not static. When a deletion conversation is active, you shouldn't change/remove info from the article. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk ) — 22:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The artists page is what I had I mind. You're incorrect on that last bit though. The article shouldn't be eliminated , like in a or a type action, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with adding or removing content during an AFD, as long as you've got proper grounds for the removal. (Info being unsourced, original research, incorrect, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC) Articles on leaked music aren't inherently copyright infringement, see New Body , LA Monster , Pissy Pamper , etc. Furthermore, the song title being unofficial is not a reason to , there do seem to be quite a few reliable sources covering this song so the HAMMER essay doesn't really apply. I'm leaning , but unsure as of now. ULPS ( talk • contribs ) 23:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC) NSONGS and avoids any WP:MERGEREASONs . Sergecross73 msg me 01:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not having a confirmed title matters massively. We generally don't articles or have for bodies of work that are unnamed. For example ""Upcoming Seventh Album"" wouldn't be a viable page. Given that the name of the song is not confirmed, this page should be titled ""Leaked Ariana Grande song"" which would not be classified as encyclopedic content. As Serge said too, there's WP:V and WP:NSONGS issues too. Some coverage from a variable quality of sources, single vendor chart (which isn't reliable for inclusion) and being named by fans doesn't equal official title. The information would be notable for inclusion on the artist's page but not as a standalone topic. And while a leaked song itself is not promotional/copyright infringement, when the artist has spoken unfavourably about the leak and confirmed it was unfinished, and the article was written like fansite/promotional tone, there is reason to ask why its on Wkipedia. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk ) — 11:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We generally do not because they are unlikely notable, but it's not against any guidelines. Look at Upcoming Ariana Grande album or Upcoming Playboi Carti album . Many artists have spoken about hating leaks, to go back to my earlier examples look at Kanye West, many of his leaked songs get articles, and even a leaked album had a page before being d. Just because they don't like it, we shouldn't . The NSONGS issues are the only ones ing me from saying , I'll do some more thinking. ULPS ( talk • contribs ) 16:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The thing is, I did state that “Fantasize” was a fan-made title. A note next to the song’s title saying that the song was not named before leaking could work— But, I do think that the page should exist though since well, the song was illegally uploaded to streaming services and was able to chart on various Spotify Charts and “ apparently ” has been played on radio too. LUVGALORE ( talk ) 23:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC) SINGLEVENDOR . Additionally, those chart positions cannot be verified. And we shouldn't call a topic by the name fans have given to it when its a body of work and its actual title doesn't exist/isn't known. That's WP:SPECULATION and not verifiable . >> Lil-unique1 ( talk ) — 11:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and relegate it to a passing mention in the Ariana Grande article. FWIW I think Teen Vogue and Uproxx are the only reliable publications used in the article, and right now, the topic does not have enough coverage in enough RS to warrant an article. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "" Will you call me? "" 📝 "" Will you hang me out to dry? "" 00:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC) As noted above, the song has limited RS and it does not appear to meet WP:NSONG . Underclass King ( talk ) 04:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] for now, per my arguments above. There's too little sourcing or (verifiable) content to warrant a stand-alone article being split off like this. Not opposed to a sourced mention at the parent article, but due to unofficial title and unwieldy disambiguation needed with it, I don't think even really think a is plausible. Sergecross73 msg me 21:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC) I agree with the above discussion. The topic does not meet WP:NSONG . I do not think a would applicable in this case per Sergecross73's comments. Aoba47 ( talk ) 14:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Don't agree with all arguments of nom as stated in my comments, but after searching a little its evident there isn't enough coverage to justify a separate article, perhaps a mention in the album it was originally meant for (not sure what this is, I'm sure someone with more knowledge could figure this out) and/or a mention in Ariana's page. ULPS ( talk • contribs ) 01:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Brawlers (Brawl Stars): Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE , not notable. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists . soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Yeah, no. One reliable source in the entire article (unsure about the usability of ""Young Posts"" so best to not use for notability in my opinion) makes this a blatant GAMEGUIDE. Something like this should only exist if it's a list of in-game characters that are actually notable or if the game's competitive scene is of incredibly large scale (ex. List of Super Smash Bros. series characters ). Negative MP1 20:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC) While I don't mind the listing by rarity, I was unable to find any sources that significantly covered these characters outside of routine announcements. There is also not really any information included to justify it as a spin-off from the main article. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 20:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is not a game guide. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . WP:GAMECRUFT . Ajf773 ( talk ) 21:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Seems to be fine to include in the article about the game. No discussion given in this list, just a long wall of text. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Oaktree b , I don't think there's anything to . A list of non-notable characters are to be avoided in video game articles. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 03:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] is ok too if it goes that way. Oaktree b ( talk ) 10:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Wikipedia is not a game guide. This article is a game guide. Brachy 08 (Talk) 04:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC) GAMECRUFT , we generally don't even want this as a section, let alone a stand-alone article. Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC) 53, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"SEC Newgate: Brochure article. Refs are routine annoucements and PR. scope_creep Talk 12:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC) Ref 1 [12] Routine coverage. Not independent. Ref 2 [13] Press-release. Not independent. Ref 3 [14] Press-release Ref 4 [15] Interview with founder. Also a profile. Not independent. Ref 5 [16] Another press-release. Ref 6 [17] Another press-release. Not a single one of the first 6 references pass WP:SIRS in the frst block. It fails WP:NCORP . scope_creep Talk 12:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC) An article describing the rebrands, office expansions, acquisitions, AIM-listing and -delisting of a PR firm. All of these are events which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH , and press mentions of periodic research studies by a firm falls under dependent coverage . (I note that when first created, both this and an AfC-declined draft article about the company founder, authored by the same editor, carried COI declarations.) Neither the present article text, nor anything that I can see on searches, is indicative of attained encyclopaedic notability . AllyD ( talk ) 15:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"A. K. Khan Tower: CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC) NOTCRYSTAL , as I see no evidence, eight yeas later, that this building was even started, much less that it will ever be completed to specs. Mangoe ( talk ) 03:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Angelo Calfo: Joeykai ( talk ) 06:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Corey Rozzoni: References all mention him a single time as a former member of said band and I could find no other sigcov. Sgubaldo ( talk ) 16:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . Sgubaldo ( talk ) 16:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Wisconsin . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I'm not finding sigcov either. -- asilvering ( talk ) 21:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Phone Up Studios Inc: The creator is possibly an undisclosed paid editor, as blocked user MilesJ22 ( talk · contribs ), who was associated with Abtach/WikiProfessionals was also trying to create an article about this company. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 01:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Companies , Fashion , and United States of America . Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 01:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hemiauchenia , I appreciate your diligence in scrutinizing contributions to Wikipedia. Firstly , I want to emphasize that I am not a compensated editor, nor am I directed by any external entities to contribute to Wikipedia. My involvement in editing Wikipedia articles is solely driven by a genuine interest in sharing accurate and relevant information with the wiki-community. Regarding the association with @ MilesJ22 , the blocked user connected to Abtach/WikiProfessionals , I want to make it clear that I have no affiliation with either the mentioned user or these organizations. Any similarity in the attempt to create an article about Phone Up Studios Inc . is purely coincidental. I recently became interested in editing content related to Phone Up Studios Inc. due to their significant acquisition of a town. This event caught my attention, and I believed it would be valuable to contribute to the documentation of such a noteworthy development. my intent is to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith, providing accurate and unbiased information to the best of my abilities. I have no personal or professional connections to Phone Up Studios Inc. or any individuals associated with the articles I create or edit. - Thank you Bizarre90 ( talk ) 01:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Did you generate this response with ChatGPT? Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 01:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, I did not. I wrote my response in a respectful manner? Bizarre90 ( talk ) 01:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG . The sources are promotional junk, and utterly fail to meet WP:RS standards. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 01:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To add to the above, it should be noted that back in January 2023, Phone Up Studios Inc issued a press release where it describes itself as a ""Multi-million dollar company operated by a Middle School Student"", and further states that CEO Vasquez established the company ""at the age of 13, with over 65,000 employees according to records in January 2023"" It seems I cannot link the press release, as the host, issuewire.com, has just been placed on our blacklist. No doubt Google will find it if anyone is interested. While we don't cite press releases as WP:RS (or at least, not for anything regarding notability, etc), we can certainly use them as bullshit-detectors. There seems precisely zero possibility that a company of that size, even if founded by an adult, would attract no comment whatsoever in credible mainstream business sources. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 05:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Pure PROMO spam, this is the only thing I can find, PR item [11] . What's used for sourcing isn't useful. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC) NCORP . I conducted a search for appropriate citations which didn't compose of anything substantial from WP:RS . KangarooGymnast ( talk ) 03:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE . ✗ plicit 01:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Entertainment , and Texas . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no trace of notability here. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 12:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC) GNG. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 01:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of online grocers: Apart from advertising a specific service, this page serves no discernible purpose. Kleuske ( talk ) 09:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies , and Lists . Kleuske ( talk ) 09:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know of any major store that doesn't deliver things to people. Not a defining characteristic. D r e a m Focus 23:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dream Focus Really? That seems like a very present-ist argument. When the article online grocer was first started, there weren't that many of them. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 06:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC) I know of several grocery stores in the U.S. that don't provide delivery services, such as Trader Joe's , for example. North America 1000 10:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC) RECENTISM , and illustrates why the race to create these articles is misguided and results in unencyclopedic content. Now, nearly every chain is a online grocer, and things get pretty vague around the edges: is nuts.com an example? Mangoe ( talk ) 03:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC) RECENTISM which has to do with breaking news and such. It took decades for online grocers to become feasible. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 06:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC) NOTTEMPORARY , there is nothing special about online grocery anymore. In 2014 it was a novelty (I guess; don’t really remember or care what the state of online shopping was in my tweens); then in 2020 is was OMG COVID CHANGING THE WAY WE LIVE FOR EVAR; now it’s hard to remember when this wasn’t a thing. In 1910 an exhaustive List of automobiles would have made just as much sense, but even just 10 years later it’d start to look ridiculous. Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I think the most salient point is that this list is already adequately captured by clicking on the Category ""Online grocers""; there's no need for a duplicate list that has to be updated manually. I do wonder if there are sources cited in this list that could be referenced in the main article for online grocers (which could use a bit of TLC), but maybe these references also have a short shelf life. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 14:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pun intended? Dronebogus ( talk ) 00:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Online grocers to reflect this. Adding an edit notice stating this as a requirement would the article in check. The list would be a great deal shorter, but it would provide valuable info for readers. North America 1000 10:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why would that be a defining characteristic? Whether you started with a single physical location or online, does it make any difference? Why not just list those who only have online groceries, no physical location at all? What about those who sell other things online besides food? D r e a m Focus 11:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I actually think you are on to something @ Northamerica1000 , but pragmatically I think we need to fix the main article for online grocers first, and then consider whether the re-creating the List page (with some kind of narrower criteria) makes sense. In any case, online grocers needs a complete rewrite (there are parts of it now that make no sense, completely understandable given that this was history being made as the article evolved over time). Cielquiparle ( talk ) 23:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Zsolt Kosz: PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Romania . Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 12:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC) I don't know much about WP:NSKATE but for WP:SPORTSBIO and WP:GNG , this is not notable. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 01:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC) Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG as a BLP. Let'srun ( talk ) 18:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kaizen Academy: A BEFORE also doesn't help but turn out profiles, etc. NAN and Guardian Nigeria pieces are obviously press releases. Also, generally fails WP:GNG . Thus, non-notable entity. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 18:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Business , Education , and Nigeria . Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 18:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . very weak news coverage also some sources unreliable. Perfectstrangerz ( talk ) 01:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ivan Katchanovski: His sole claim on public attention is as the origin of a WP:FRINGE theory that the Maidan massacre was a false flag operation. The conspiracy theory has subsequently been disseminated by Russian propaganda sources. The biographical article on Katchanovski is a WP:COATRACK for this contentious political viewpoint, and should be subsumed into the main article on Maidan casualties , should anything be worth rescuing. Nangaf ( talk ) 17:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This article has been re-nominated for deletion as previous discussions did not reach consensus. Since those discussions, further developments have rendered Katchanovski's conspiracy theory even more dubious: most notably, that a Ukrainian court has determined that 40 of the 48 dead were shot by the Berkut, and that causes of the remaining 8 deaths cannot be conclusively determined. Nangaf ( talk ) 18:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC) SCHOLAR as it is widely cited in academic studies. I show below the most cited: Quoted in Google Scholar 1664 times, with h-index 22 and i10-index 36. [6] "" The separatist war in Donbas: a violent break-up of Ukraine? "" Cited 151 times. "" The paradox of American unionism: Why Americans like unions more than Canadians do, but join much less "" Cited 133 times. "" Regional political divisions in Ukraine in 1991–2006 "" Cited 95 times. "" The future of private sector unions in the US "" Cited 85 times. "" Divergence in growth in post-communist countries "" Cited 84 times. "" Cleft Countries. Regional Political Divisions and Cultures in Post-Soviet Ukraine and Moldova. With a Foreword by Francis Fukuyama "" Cited 80 times. Widely quoted in Google Books. [7] Widely quoted in Google News. [8] Over the past year, he has been the main source for the Yaroslav Hunka scandal , and has been quoted all over the world. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] All important Western sources mention him frequently: The Guardian [22] [23] The New York Post [24] Reuters [25] Al Jazeera [26] Associated Press [27] The Washington Post [28] CBC.ca [29] The Nation [30] [31] France 24 [32] Radio Free Europe [33] [34] Radio Canada International [35] [36] Le Figaro [37] [38] The Forward [39] National Post [40] The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles [41] Courthouse News Service [42] Die Weltwoche [43] La Razón (Madrid) [44] CTV News [45] [46] [47] CP24 [48] Panorama (magazine) [49] -- Mhorg ( talk ) 11:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC) Katchanovski does not meet any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC . (2) Press citations are not evidence of notability: this is a biographical article, yet none of the pieces you mention are about Katchanovski himself. Nangaf ( talk ) 22:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Yes, his work was cited, although not necessarily ""favorably"". Does it mean he is notable enough? This is a replay of previous nominations . There is only one difference right now: the subject of the page has strongly expressed dissatisfaction with the BLP page about him. Well, if he feels this page should be d, I think it would be fair to agree and . But if he wants to it, let's . I know, this is not really a policy-based argument. Personally, I do not see anything wrong with ing or deleting this page, whatever. My very best wishes ( talk ) 19:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC) BLPDELETE which discusses the wishes of the subject as being a consideration. Such wishes can be used as a tie-breaker, much the way you are arguing, if I understand what you are saying. jps ( talk ) 22:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I see. This is Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Relatively_unknown_subjects : Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as . Based on that, I would encourage the subject (who currently edits as an IP) to request to """" or """" their BLP page, whichever they prefer. My very best wishes ( talk ) 04:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If this discussion terminates without consensus once again, then that could come into play. Personally, I do not doubt that the IP user is who he claims to be. Nangaf ( talk ) 18:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Based on his comments, he will want to the page to promote himself and his ideas. My very best wishes ( talk ) 20:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My Very Best Wishes and Nangaf deliberately flood my biographical Wikipedia article and talk page with deliberately false and libelous information against me as a Ukrainian scholar in retaliation for my peer-reviewed article that mentioned their systematic whitewashing of contemporary far-right, including their involvement in the Maidan massacre, and whitewashing of Nazi collaborators and mass murderers in Ukraine. They libelously and falsely call my peer-reviewed articles “conspiracy theory.” They deliberately omit my peer-reviewed studies and their favorable reviews by over 100 scholars, experts, and media. They deliberately and fraudulently misrepresent findings of the Maidan massacre trial verdict even after I provided specific parts of Maidan massacre trial verdict and media sources showing specific parts of the verdict confirming findings of my studies. They libelously and falsely link me to Putin. None of my information and reliable sources that I provided was included in the article and none of the false and libelous claims were removed even after I provided all the sources. Nangaf responded saying “sue us.” In addition to been libelous, such deliberate misrepresentation and manipulation of sources qualifies as fraud in academia. They also d any favorable information, such as my prediction of the Russia-Ukraine war and my calls for EU membership of Ukraine. The article also deliberately omitted my role in in the SS Galicia veteran in the Canadian parliament scandal, my previous affiliation with Harvard University, that I one of the most cited political scientists specializing in Ukrainian politics and conflicts, and that mt research-based interviews, publications, and comments appeared in thousands of media reports. Either remove the libelous and false information about me or my article immediately. I always told my students to never use Wikipedia for such reasons. Ivan Katchanovski — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.47.71 ( talk ) 02:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, I actually removed ""conspiracy theory"" in my recent edit [50] , even though it is indeed a theory about a conspiracy allegedly committed by Maidan leadership. My very best wishes ( talk ) 02:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Libelous and false claims calling my academic studies ""a conspiracy theory"" were posted on my article and talk pages and various other Wikipedia pages, and remain there with the exception of this edit. The article deliberately includes only all the negative sources that they could find. 174.92.47.71 ( talk ) 03:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You claim to be Katchanovski. You have requested that the article be d, if various criteria are not met. These facts may be relevant to the current discussion. The accusations you have made are not, and may contravene Wikipedia policy. They have been reported. Nangaf ( talk ) 04:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Meh . Here's another one of these discussions where h-index and Google search arguments are thrown around without much contextualization. I really don't care for how many Google Scholar hits someone has: if one can prove that a scholar is cited a few times and indicate how that citation takes place, then there's an argument, a much stronger one than ""oh this guy has 1664 hits"". Look at those hits closely, and one finds that (as is frequent in for instance sociology) these citations are just that--citations in long lists of other citations (the usual boring literature review), with no actual work being cited or assessed. Sure, he's cited a bunch, and those citations prove he's got a job etc., but if he's going to be notable via NPROF you can't just say ""he was cited"": you have to prove that his work was meaningful. That really goes for passing the GNG as well. Drmies ( talk ) 02:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Bog-standard citation index--if this counts as notable for academics then almost anyone at a research university is getting a Wikipedia article. AugusteBlanqui ( talk ) 10:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - No evidence given this subject satisfies NPROF or GNG. Per the above comments, a list of Google Scholar hits without any context doesn't prove much. Also of note is that the WP:BURDEN for establishing verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material and I would argue, in this case, wants to a BLP about someone who probably isn't notable. I also want to add that what the article subject himself wishes isn't especially pertinent to a deletion discussion, and we don't BLPs just to spite the article subject when they are angry with us and making demands. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 18:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Matt Larsen: Nswix ( talk ) 00:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Martial arts . Nswix ( talk ) 00:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PROMO out the wazoo, with podcasts he hosts as sourcing, this is far off from GNG territory, soldier. Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Clear vanity article. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 21:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Modern Army Combatives . Larsen is the creator of an original martial art style and the author of a reference book on the subject, therefore clears both ""Founder of notable style"" and ""Author of significant book(s) on their style"" in Martial artists notability . In addition he's a black belt hall of fame inductee, the creator of a dedicated school, a tournament and a belt system (former UFC fighter Tim Kennedy being one of the first promoted). I do agree though that it is badly written and referenced and that it sounds like a vanity project, but please follow Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and ""consider whether the article could be improved rather than d"". There enough RS out there to fix this one up. Best, Lewolka ( talk ) 19:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC) edited Lewolka ( talk ) 19:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC) MASK to me. There are plenty of better known instructors (countless members of Gracie family and people with better known students) who still don't meet notability. Nswix ( talk ) 03:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Nswix I agree that it is a vanity article but we still need to follow GNG and he is the founder of a notable style. I have changed to as I have found a link to the style and per WikiProject Martial arts/Notability ""even if an artist is notable - if there is only one paragraph or so of material about them, then that should be included in the article about their style or school if that is notable,"" Lewolka ( talk ) 11:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC) GNG with massive CoI/vanity/promo issues. Mztourist ( talk ) 07:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Xhersild Haka: The latter explicitly states that articles such as this must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources , which does not seem to be met here. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Albania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even in Albanian there is no source providing any significant coverage of this player. Ktrimi991 ( talk ) 17:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC) GNG . Jogurney ( talk ) 12:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC) GNG . Suonii180 ( talk ) 09:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Tiger Reth: He's been in teams of several performers at the openings of national sports events, but this doesn't bring him over the line for WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Couldn't find any significant secondary coverage of him in English or Khmer, just passing mentions and social media. Declined three times at draft. Wikishovel ( talk ) 15:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Cambodia and Sportspeople . Wikishovel ( talk ) 15:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] hello sir Tiger Reth he is an actor, martial artist he play his role around more than 10 film the international film has 2 ( First they kill my father and jailbreak ) and now he is filming upcoming international film in cambodia( Phnom Penh Ground Zero ), You can check film list in tiger reth page wikipedia. Thank You. Songha Mao ( talk ) 07:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] — Songha_Mao ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Papaursa ( talk ) 01:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no indication of WP notability. He has no major acting roles that would meet WP:NACTOR , no martial arts accomplishments that would meet WP:MANOTE , and lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG . Database entries, passing mentions, and being part of large performances at Cambodian athletic events (although not a competitor), fail to show significant independent coverage. Papaursa ( talk ) 01:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Cheetham Tenants' and Residents' Alliance: Mccapra ( talk ) 21:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England . Mccapra ( talk ) 21:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fails GNG. Lack of coverage due to being relatively new. LibStar ( talk ) 08:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC) ORGCRIT . Besides, the article itself seems to be promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorann Gencov ( talk • contribs ) 19:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mileo: Fails WP:NMUSIC - the only coverage I can find in a reliable source is the VG article about his song sparking some outrage. Rest of sources are just Facebook/ WP:SELFPUB /interviews with the artist which are excluded under NMUSIC, and the closest in terms of chart notability is ""Echo"" which placed 202nd in Russia's charts, a far cry from notability. Any coverage he has received is because of his participation in Melodi Grand Prix 2024 (Norway's Eurovision pre-selection event), which brings WP:BLP1E into play, and even that has just been mentioning his name or song in articles about it, so doesn't meet sigcov. ser! ( chat to me - see my edits ) 10:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music , Norway , and Australia . ser! ( chat to me - see my edits ) 10:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC) This blog is all I find for coverage [16] , not quite enough. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC) To me, this clearly seems like the SPA was made seemingly by Mileo himself to get himself a page, or it was done by a large fan of his. Does not meet notability requirements as mentioned above, and so no reason to have the page. Wikidaddy42 ( talk ) 18:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC) — Wikidaddy42 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Whether the creator of this page was originally an SPA or not is irrelevant, the article is clearly of a notable musician that has been in current media a lot especially recently. Margaretrox ( talk ) 22:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC) — Margaretrox ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] You are also a SPA. Wikidaddy42 ( talk ) 21:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The editing history of this page isn't from just a few users but many who are aware of the subject. i'm concerned this user has a personal issue with the artist in question, the figure is publicly notable in Norway. Margaretrox ( talk ) 22:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC) pre-Melodi Grand Prix sources: [17] [18] Skybly ( talk ) 22:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Both of these are just articles in a local newspaper and do not confer notability. The COVID-19 one appears to be an interview, which is excluded by WP:NMUSIC per other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves . That leaves one local newspaper article, which is nowhere near enough to meet WP:NMUSIC . ser! ( chat to me - see my edits ) 22:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC) if the issues are with the references on the page then just update the references, there are many sources https://www.nettavisen.no/5-95-1592809 the artist is still notable NorHux ( talk ) 07:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC) — NorHux ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 01, 31 January 2024 (UTC) BLP1E . ser! ( chat to me - see my edits ) 13:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mentioning a program the song appears on doesn't warrant a disregard of an article, the article's purpose is a debate on the controversy surrounding lyrics of a recent musical release, not a show it appears on. NorHux ( talk ) 23:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ryan Pallotta: Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 04:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC) MILL and WP:BLP . We need much better sources than IMdB and the like. Bearian ( talk ) 15:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mordva (slur): Such opinion indeed exists, but it's a fringe one, and no reliable dictionary marks those words as ""slurs"". The article is mostly unsourced; the only source in the article that might be reliable is the 1990 discussion on whether the titular word may be pejorative or not (both opinions are represented). Other than that, there's only an entry from the 19th century Belarusian dictionary describing a homophonic word that was used as a pejorative term for Jews, but it's clearly unrelated to the main topic (Mordvins don't have anything to do with Jews). Overall, I don't think the word on its own is notable enough for a separate article: a section in Mordvins about the etymology and perceived connotations of the term would be enough. Finstergeist ( talk ) 20:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Belarus , and Russia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. A single reliable article directly discussing the topic is not enough to make this notable. I also nominated a related article Mordvins (term for Jews) for deletion. Jähmefyysikko ( talk ) 13:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and History . Curbon7 ( talk ) 19:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 02:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC) SNOW , and as noted. One mention at an academic conference is by definition WP:OR . Bearian ( talk ) 16:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jim Thorpe Classic: Let'srun ( talk ) 18:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , American football , Colorado , and Virginia . Let'srun ( talk ) 18:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] . I'll leave it up to others to decide either way. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs ) 19:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Was unable to find any SIGCOV on this. A short lived preseason venture that lasted two games. Alvaldi ( talk ) 10:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Aggelos Zefkis: An English-language search reveals no substantive sources. A comprehensive Greek-language search was able to produce the following sources: [20] Routine transfer announcement with minimal coverage regarding the player. [21] Announcement of the renewal of his contract, evidently just copied from the club's announcement. Overall there is no evidence of significant coverage that would be sufficient to merit an article. GGT ( talk ) 08:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Cyprus . GGT ( talk ) 08:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC) 31, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Cinadon 36 08:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC) GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney ( talk ) 12:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mannadiyar: Considering the edit wars and kerffufle which the conflation of these three distinct topics has resulted into here i.e. a poor article with no legs to stand on, this should be blown up. Anyone who wants to make an article on any of these topics should start anew (better be with a disambiguating title). Gotitbro ( talk ) 20:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups , India , and Kerala . Gotitbro ( talk ) 20:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I'm not convinced that any of these possible topics are notable, so I'm not sure this is a WP:TNT so much as a regular-old ""it just isn't a notable topic"" . Existing similar articles we have (eg Madampi (Nair title) ) tend to be very poorly sourced. I've seen several of these come through AfC and don't believe I've ever seen one accepted. They end up being fought over by various POV-pushing editors, to no obvious end. If someone has seen otherwise, please ping me, I'd love to know. I know our notability guidelines tend towards ""typically topics like x are found to be notable"" rather than ""typically topics like y are found to not be notable"", but... -- asilvering ( talk ) 22:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Michel Shamil Orloff: Essentially a WP:MILL business person. No SNGs apply here and there is no independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. A Google search only returns his Linkedin and a Google News search returns nothing at all. I've manged to find one 2008 NYT article (referenced in the article) which trivially mentions his name once in a quote/interview and that's it. C F A 💬 17:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Switzerland . Shellwood ( talk ) 17:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. See this discussion at SPA article creator's user talk , and their subsequent good faith disclosure at their user page . Initial version was full of original research, apparently sourced only by discussion with the client Mr. Orloff, which I cleared out three times. Wikishovel ( talk ) 06:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Douglas Rosenberg: The only sources available mention him because he donated/invested a large amount related to research on Alzheimer's disease. I don't think this could satisfy notability and the coverage was not sustained . Bendegúz Ács ( talk ) 11:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Even the coverage described by nom is in local sources only. No grounds for notability. — Moriwen ( talk ) 15:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Fails WP:GNG and fails WP:SIGCOV . Contributor892z ( talk ) 21:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Only of local relevance. -- Melchior2006 ( talk ) 09:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC) NOTRESUME . In 2007, I would have excused this gently , but in 2024, everyone knows that we are not a free web host . Bearian ( talk ) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mr. Pregnant: Gulte , GreatAndhra , tollywoodtimes , tupaki , mirchi9 , and teluguvision are all unreliable sources. The film was previously d along with other films at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bootcut Balaraju (ctrl-f Mister Pregnant ). Good option would be to draftify if the film is notable after release. DareshMohan ( talk ) 10:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fails . LibStar ( talk ) 23:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC) NFILM — Mgp28 ( talk ) 22:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Man on the Hill: mwwv converse ∫ edits 15:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada . mwwv converse ∫ edits 15:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2023 Chicago memorial day weekend shootings: A normal weekend in Chicago. Last year's Labor Day weekend had virtually the same number of casualties. https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shooting-labor-day-weekend-shootings-violence-crime/12203033/ Lettler hello • contribs 17:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , Firearms , and Illinois . Lettler hello • contribs 17:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - this is a local story, not passing GNG or NEVENT. The shootings are multiple events on multiple days and other than them all occurring in Chicago that weekend don't have any relation to each other. WikiVirus C (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] it appears to be a series of random shootings over the long weekend, nothing related or targeted. Sigh. More gun violence. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . See the article's talk page. Suggested (in the discussion) to move the title to the one that reflects the spike of violence in Memorial Day Weekend shootings in Chicago. I've been working on that and I am about to enter that information to highlight both 2022 and 2023 are higher than the previous few years' Memorial weekend casualties. Give me a minute. Petra0922 ( talk ) 18:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Updated the article (per the talk page discussion)- already added a section to show the historical trend and the surge in violence during the public holiday. I am proposing to move the article to, ""Memorial Day Weekend shooting in Chicago"". That way the scope is not limited to 2023, and could be expanded as events occur. Petra0922 ( talk ) 18:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails WP:EVENTCRIT , no WP:SUSTAINED WP:SIGCOV . I thought it was bad when people made articles for individual crimes simply because they were reported in the news. Now we're using this argument to make articles for individual crime statistics ? Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 18:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is about crime surge during the Memorial Day Weekend holiday. Title can be moved. Petra0922 ( talk ) 19:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These accounts just trying to push the ""Chicago is the worst place in the world"" narrative (and 'all crime needs an article here') just need to stop already. These are hardly unusual crime statistics at all for a holiday weekend. 5/16 sources being local (a few to partisan or usergen sources) is beyond unacceptable. To add to TBUA's policy cites... WP:BLPCRIME , and a heaping helping of WP:OR ; we should not be drawing conclusions from statistics on our own. They need sources. Nate • ( chatter ) 01:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Almost forgot... WP:POINT . Nate • ( chatter ) 05:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have you read the article? The statistics are from Chicago Sun Times and also from Bloomberg. Petra0922 ( talk ) 19:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Bloomberg isn't a local source, and we tend to take a dim view of Fox News current day as a source, along with the Washington Examiner . Nate • ( chatter ) 22:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC) GNG . The person who loves reading ( talk ) 02:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , or at least with Crime in Chicago . Coverage about shootings trends over Memorial Day weekends commences before this 2023 event occurred. When the mayor's office and police start predicting shootings like weather forecasting, and start issuing safety warnings in advance, something else is happening in the public safety environment that I think Wikipedia should take note of. Rather than just react to crime, police in Chicago appear to be using historic statistics to predict when crime is going to occur and issue public safety warnings in anticipation of the crime occurring, or are taking other steps to prevent this crime happening. WP:SUSTAINED notes that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability and doesn't seem to recognize anticipatory coverage of an event that is yet to happen might be notable, once seen in the light of post-event coverage that the predictions were accurate. - Cameron Dewe ( talk ) 09:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Why on this year in particular, and why should we even create a consensus for this every single year for every single holiday weekend in one city? A large city has much more crime than say, your Raytown, Missouri or Minot, North Dakota , especially on a holiday weekend. I hate to use this for crime, but for a large city, these stats are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and downright expected, and the only reason it's being written about more is there are non-local sources as mentioned above using trying to define their own narrative of Chicago, and the CPD itself has one to push (which is why neutral sources should be used over unquestioned police statistics from their or FoP 's PR releases). We're as far from a Detroit Devil's Night or 1989 Miami riot situation where call-out is appropriate as possible. Nate • ( chatter ) 01:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC) I think you misunderstand the point I am trying to make. While having a healthy suspicion of the credibility of crime statistics is a good thing, the Chicago Police and Mayor's Office appear to believe they are sufficiently credible to issue public safety warnings in advance of this Memorial Day holiday weekend, and also employ a number of people, who are not Police officers, tasked with preventing crime. While the statistics might be run-of-the-mill , the policing approach is not. Perhaps the City of Chicago is applying some form of evidence-based policing in an attempt to prevent crime. Something different is happening here, compared to your run-of-the-mill police department. - Cameron Dewe ( talk ) 10:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC) 09, 13 June 2023 (UTC) LASTING . Another typical day in gun-crazy America. There are shootings every day of the week there. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 10:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC) per WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS / WP:NOTNP . CastJared ( talk ) 10:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC) 59, 15 June 2023 (UTC) . jp × g 22:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Chancellor Miller: The article only cites an IMDB page, and my Google searches could not find any major SIGCOV. Per the notability guideline for entertainers, Miller does not seem to have played substantial roles in any notable pieces of entertainment based on his filmography section. Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 19:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , and Kentucky . Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 19:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. SmartSE ( talk ) 01:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , no evidence of GNG coverage. JoelleJay ( talk ) 20:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ayberk Erkay: Near-complete lack of sourcing in the article, including why the subject is notable/relevant. I'm also concerned that the article seems to be a copy-paste translation of the Turkish version , with little regard given for ensuring accurate English grammar/style. The Kip 02:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Turkey , and People . The Kip 04:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No indication of notability. Fails to meet criteria of WP:GNG . Not enough sources to confirm intrinsic value of an article. ContributorMix ( talk ) 22:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Have there been any notability-related discussions or proceedings on Turkish Wikipedia? RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 07:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Doesn't appear so. The Kip 17:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Could not find any sources in which he is more than just a passing mention/citation/reference as the author, translator of some works without any explanation on who exactly he is. The sources used in this article are brief biographical entries. One is from a publishing press website and another is a website that sells tickets/lists theatrical plays. No indication of notability. Aintabli ( talk ) 20:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"CCTRL: Was PROD'ed in 2007 but the creator quickly removed the PROD tag. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 18:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 18:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Unable to find anything indicating notability here. Fails the WP:GNG . Let'srun ( talk ) 19:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC) It exists [23] but no sourcing is used I can't find much of anything to say why this string of characters is important. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rachid Aliaoui: Dougal18 ( talk ) 11:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and France . Shellwood ( talk ) 11:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC) GNG and is a database entry, which is not allowed . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC) 59, 27 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC) GNG ; unfortunately someone introduced misleading information (and an inaccurate reference to the article) recently but there is no significant coverage of Rachid Aliaoui (born 1986 in Arles). There is plenty of coverage of Rachid Alioui (born 1992 in La Rochelle), and the Le Télégramme reference covers that footballer. I couldn't find anything useful at all on the Aliaoui born in 1986. Jogurney ( talk ) 02:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Manoj Tiwari (film director): Came here to remove a reference that falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and found that out of all the references on the page, only one would be considered reliable and it is about a film, not in-depth about the director. An online search founding nothing better. CNMall41 ( talk ) 02:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , and India . CNMall41 ( talk ) 02:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Uttar Pradesh . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC) Although some of their later works appear to be notable, they themselves don't seem to have garnered much media attention, based on the sources of the article at least. The sources discuss about his work (film reviews), but the articles focus is not him. Obviously, sources about a film director will definitely discuss their work, but to meet notability, some of the sources need to focus mainly on the subject, then discussing their works. This is not the case here. So, for now. X ( talk ) 18:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC) ing to any of his last two sole directed films would be ideal AnkkAnkur ( talk ) 20:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] so we can deal with the constant attempts to remove that ?? No thanks. If is an acceptable WP:ATD I would recommend protecting the title from creation. Also, welcome to Wikipedia. Strange you found AfD so quickly with only your third edit. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Meets WP:DIRECTOR with at least 3 notable films directed (that received coverage mentioning him) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Curious which references you feel count towards notability that do not fall under NEWSORGINDIA. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 23:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails notability. The director has not made a remarkable or significant achievement, enough to deserve attention. A search on his name would bring up more result on different Manoj Tiwari, a politician. The sources on the page do not have coverage on the director himself to pass WP:BIO . RangersRus ( talk ) 13:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC) GNG , there are no much reliable secondary sources found where the subject got in-depth coverage. Grabup ( talk ) 07:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Graham Sandercock: Subject does not fulfill notability requirements, neither per WP:NAUTHOR , WP:POLITICIAN or WP:SINGER . Broc ( talk ) 13:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , Bands and musicians , Politicians , and England . Broc ( talk ) 13:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC) Zero hits for the person. Running for an election isn't notable, not sure being the head of the geography department at a boys school is notable enough either. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC) Does not satisfy WP:NPROF . Being the head of a school is nowhere near that mark. Qflib ( talk ) 17:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"English Jamaicans: This should be d OR ed to British Jamaicans . What little info is on here is likely already in that article. Omnis Scientia ( talk ) 09:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups , England , and Jamaica . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 09:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or possibly . No good reason for this fork. JMWt ( talk ) 10:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC) 37, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Too short and not enough reliable sources. Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: or ? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex / Rational 17:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC) one is about people in the UK, and the other is about people in Jamaica. They aren't claimed to be synonyms, so we shouldn't make a that says they are. And this article really says nothing about people of English descent in Jamaica, so it needs to go. Mangoe ( talk ) 20:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to British Jamaicans would be the best option. TH1980 ( talk ) 02:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Mangoe is correct in stating that the term as currently used on Wikipedia isn't a subset of British Jamaicans . Going by a cursory search, it doesn't appear to be commonly used in that sense either, so it doesn't make sense to there. ― novov (t c) 07:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Nothing useful here. Will only cause confusion if ed to British Jamaicans because, what about Jamaican Americans ? They are also ""English"" I must say. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 20:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Veronika Raquel: I've conducted a quick Google search and haven't found any reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 02:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions . Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 02:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , Sexuality and gender , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC) NBASIC and WP:NENTERTAINER . I did not find significant coverage or any reliable secondary sources on the subject. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 16:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Fairfield Preparatory School: It has been tagged as needing more citations since 2018. The citations I have found only verify the fact of the school's existence and that the building is listed, so I don't think this meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG . Tacyarg ( talk ) 13:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Education , Schools , and England . Tacyarg ( talk ) 13:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Adding that I have also nominated the article about the collective the school is part of, Loughborough Schools Foundation , for deletion. Tacyarg ( talk ) 13:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC) GEOFEAT . The building is listed. If necessary, the article can be repurposed and retitled to Fairfield House, Loughborough , although it is actually listed by Historic England as Fairfield Preparatory School . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Yes, I noted the listed status, which is why I added it to the list of Architecture AfDs - but I think I must be reading WP:GEOFEAT differently to you. I see that ""Artificial geographical features ... [with] any other protected status on a national level"" are notable, so if the building is an ""Artificial geographical feature"" it is notable, despite being at Grade II. But I read the following bullet point, ""Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability"", as meaning that buildings are not ""Artificial geographical features"" as discussed in the first bullet point, and that listing does not make them automatically notable. We could consider a to Loughborough to retain the information about the building? Tacyarg ( talk ) 10:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, they are. The second bullet point means they may be notable even if not covered by the first. Listed buildings have always been considered to be notable. We do not a single building to a largish town. That would be silly. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC) 41, 31 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as 57 bytes of cited material does not an article make. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC) GEOFEAT . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Notability (geographic features) ? However, that page says, Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage , or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC) 19, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, I saw the citation to Historic England ; it is (a) only used to cite the school's historical listing, and (b) furthermore containing not but simple statistical information. The current state of the article is currently demonstrating its failure to meet both Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) . — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe you didn't click within the link to get the further information? And I reiterate, the ""current state of the article"" is utterly irrelevant to the notability of the topic, which is what is addressed at AfD. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC) 18, 11 May 2023 (UTC) 30, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fails GNG and ORG. Sources in the article are two database records with no information about the subject. // Timothy :: talk 21:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 08:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Loughborough Schools Foundation could be added to Loughborough#Education . This can then be made into a disambiguation page - there's nothing to as no sources are cited. The listed building would probably be enough to the article, but it's another Fairfield Preparatory School, in Suffolk; the school there closed in 1996.( https://get-information-schools.service.gov.uk/Establishments/Establishment/Details/124871 ) Peter James ( talk ) 13:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are correct. This is a different school. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Autoflower Cup: It appears that a sock of User:Expertwikiguy created this. Chisisi Handal ( talk ) 15:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 17 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 15:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Spain , and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am the creator of the page. The subject has enough coverage to meet the WP:GNG policies of Wikipedia. Googleboywonder ( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 08:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This deletion should be struck because this nominator is a sock. Obviously a new user would not know how to immediately nominate a page for deletion and have so much knowledge of Wikipedia policies, so he must be a sock. And yet he is accusing me of being a sock of a random other user without providing any details on how he came to this conclusion. He even posted a message on my talk page, as if he is a super experienced editor, maybe impersonating admins. He only opened his account to get this page d. Googleboywonder ( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Comment struck as user has been blocked for block evasion. - Bilby ( talk ) 04:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Googleboywonder , do you have a COI related to Autoflower Cup ? - Indefensible ( talk ) 01:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] for PROMO. All links to this thing are PR items, including Yahoo Finance [8] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] possibly TOOSOON. The international contest is only 3 years old and the US one was first held this year. I find no independent sources that are substantially about the event. This is a bit hard to judge because nearly all of the sources are from the cannabis industry and even those are pretty immature. I did not see any that I could say fit our vision of a ""reliable source."" Lamona ( talk ) 04:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article refers to dubious websites or press releases. At times, the text looks like an advertisement. -- Wyndhan Han ( talk ) 11:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"IC 158: C messier ( talk ) 13:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination, as it is not notable. ‹ hamster717🐉 › ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠 ) 16:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC) yet another galaxy that is not notable. - Parejkoj ( talk ) 17:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sabrina Salvati: Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 16:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Massachusetts . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Zero sourcing in RS that i find, what's used for sourcing now in the article are all red per source rater bot. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Honestly that's fair. I created this page because she's been working in proximity with and directly with a lot of prominent political figures, but I agree that there isn't enough surrounding information around her to make this page relevant by Wikipedia standards unless someone else can find other sources. It's additionally difficult for someone like her because everything anyone has said about her exists on Youtube and not in written articles... Paco Markon ( talk ) 19:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Current sources are unreliable and quick search shows insufficient depth of coverage to meet WP:NBIO . ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 17:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Chloee Kleespies: Lots of search results, but none are WP:INDEPENDENT , all media related to her high school or college. A412 ( Talk • C ) 20:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , and Pennsylvania . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 20:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] College athletes are generally not notable, and with pretty much all sources here just being results statistics or routine player roster profiles, I see no basis for an exception here. I also request the author learn how to use the past tense ; I'm astonished by the 42 instances of "" would "", which is a modal auxillary word used for future of the past, not regular past. Reywas92 Talk 02:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , there are some GNG sources I found from a brief search at e.g. [30] [31] [32] . Being local or college newspaper media does not preclude a source from being independent, a more specific rationale needs to be provided for each of the available sources. -- Habst ( talk ) 02:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] First one is ""The Official Website of Georgia State University Athletics"". I don't think this is even a ""college newspaper"", the website for an athletic program an athlete plays for is not independent. Second one is borderline. It's better, it's not literally the athletic program, but I would give it serious audience-size concerns. Third one is plainly a trivial mention. It's one paragraph in a list of 24 athletes. That's one borderline GNG source out of the three. A412 ( Talk • C ) 03:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Never mind, I looked more deeply into the second source. That's ...not even a newspaper. That's the ""News"" section of the UToledo website. That's not a RS; there's no editorial policy, it's not independent of the university. A412 ( Talk • C ) 03:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ A412 , thank you for evaluating the sources because it's important to scrutinize our references. Can you please speak more to the Chester County Press source? It is a newspaper, presumably independent, and an entire section of the article with prose is devoted to the subject. If the mention was just one sentence, I would agree that it is trivial, but in this case it is an entire section. Also, even if not independent, the first two sources can still be used to add information to the article per policy. -- Habst ( talk ) 15:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Vanessa Robitson, the Avon Grove High School athletic director, led a presentation on 24 student-athletes who excelled in their respective sports-and in the classroom"". This article goes on to list all twenty four of them . There's no editorial independence here. ""an entire section of the article with prose is devoted to the subject"" -- there's six sentences. It's not that local media can't contribute to notability, but even local media didn't think she was an important enough person to write more than a few sentences, let alone an entire article about. A412 ( Talk • C ) 18:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And actually local media can't contribute to notability of young athletes! JoelleJay ( talk ) 06:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC) ROUTINE coverage ; which it states excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications , but not all . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Zero evidence of SIGCOV. The Chester County source has a blurb on the subject as it does on all the other 23 student athlete honorees for the fall season at Avon Grove HS. The blurbs were almost certainly only lightly adapted a submission by the school's athletic director, so likely not independent. Regardless, it's not SIGCOV and decidedly fails the requirement that coverage of HS athletes go way beyond local news reports. If this was all we needed to meet SPORTCRIT then all 24 of these high school athletes would merit articles (as would I!). JoelleJay ( talk ) 06:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC) Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV . Of the sources provided in this discussion, the first 2 are not independent, as they originate from the school the subject attended, while the last one does not provide us with the significant coverage needed. None of the sources in the article itself are any better. User:Let'srun 14:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"95 Bulls: All coverage in the article are trivial interviews or advertisements of small local shows. Grahaml35 ( talk ) 20:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON . They do have some local coverage in Brooklyn, but it is largely in the form of brief mentions when opening for someone else, and the interviews are informative but softball/promotional efforts. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above, and as follows. They have essentially no social media presence: three (3) followers on X, and fewer than 4,000 on Instagram. They opened for another NN band , King Congo , last New Years Eve. Bearian ( talk ) 15:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Vietnamese teams in the League of Legends World Championship: This article is full of unsourced cruft and tables of statistics with no accompanied commentary. There are no sources that indicate that the subject of ""Vienamese teams at the World Championship"" is a notable topic. There is no reason to this article to any of the World Championship articles, as its simply statistics. – Pbrks ( t · c ) 16:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Vietnam . – Pbrks ( t · c ) 16:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While eligible for soft-deletion, this has been recently edited and so a soft-deletion is unlikely to 'stick'. Relisting for further consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Merely statistics, no notable results in the championship. Using Ctrl+F on the main article, 'Vietnam' is only used four times in the prose, indicating there isn't enough content to be d. Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 00:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is simply not for just parking tables. REDISCOVERBHARAT ( talk ) 13:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"JDVM Inter College: Fails WP:NSCHOOL . LibStar ( talk ) 23:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] fails NSCHOOL, lack of independent, secondary, reliable sourcing. -- Prodraxis talk contribs (she/her) 23:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uttar Pradesh . AllyD ( talk ) 05:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] couldn't find any GNG-level source. The single source in the article is a bare-mention. Fails WP:NSCHOOL . - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 07:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] fails NCHOOL. AmusingWeasel ( talk ) 09:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC) GNG. 5.42.92.163 ( talk ) 16:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC) NSCHOOL . Maliner ( talk ) 17:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC) GNG . Alex-h ( talk ) 08:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"J. Paul Lanza: The creator of the article, User:Klanza16 , has a username that suggests a possible relationship to the subject (see WP:COI ), and previously created J Paul Lanza , which was speedily d under WP:A7 . — Bkell ( talk ) 17:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Connecticut , and Massachusetts . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Vanity spam, nothing found for this person; a contractor who builds homes isn't terribly notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kajal Arefin Ome: The individual was not considered an important figure in his field and his work was not widely cited by teammates or legacy. The individual is not considered to be the originator of any significant new ideas, theories or methods. The person's work - (a) has not been placed as an important monument, (b) has not been part of an important exhibition, (c) has not attracted significant critical attention, or (d) has not placed his work in the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum. He is only known for a TV series, about which there is a separate article . Can be ed to that article if desired. → Tanbiruzzaman 💬 17:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . → Tanbiruzzaman 💬 17:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Television , and Bangladesh . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk ) 13:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Foundation for MetroWest: Coverage is mainly local and not wider as per WP:AUD . Only one article links to this. LibStar ( talk ) 01:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Massachusetts . LibStar ( talk ) 01:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If coverage is ""mainly"" local, then it is ""at least one non-local"", which is all that AUD requires. This appears to be a community foundation , and my inclination is to it into MetroWest (=the geographical area it serves). We probably could find sources to demonstrate separate notability, especially since one of the already-cited sources is about ""National Recognition For Rigorous Philanthropic Standards"", but I think that merging it up will help people understand its purpose. WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 04:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . This Boston Globe article was the best thing I could find. It's less about the organization and more based on the subject of the organization's report. I think if there was more of this type of coverage, you could make an argument for the article, but all the other news coverage is routine press releases about board members and local newspapers. I am not in favor of merging as it is not clear how much information there is to enhance the target article. Would it just be one sentence about the existence of one particular charitable organization? Malinaccier ( talk ) 02:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"John Prabhudoss: Of the 5 sources cited on the page, 1 is his organization's own website and 3 are news articles that only mention him in passing. The Christian Post article is the only one that goes in-depth on him, and Christian Post is not exactly a high-profile news outlet. I've looked on Google and can't find anything much better. It seems like his only claim to notability is leading the Federation of Indian American Christian Organizations, an organization that doesn't even have a Wikipedia page of its own. I don't see how he passes WP:GNG . BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 20:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Christianity , and Virginia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment as The Christian Post is most definitely a major news outlet capable of conferring notability through SIGCOV. Since the primary hasn't happened yet, notability might be contingent on a future event ( WP:CRYSTAL ). As such, I don't feel comfortable putting in an ! vote. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 21:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll admit the Christian Post is more high-profile than I realized, but it's still a niche online publication. Also, that's not how it works--the goal of this discussion is to determine whether Prabhudoss meets the notability requirements right now. And even if he did win the Republican primary, being the Republican nominee for a U.S. House seat wouldn't automatically make him notable. See WP:NPOL BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 23:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC) I just said that I'm unwilling to ! vote because of the reasons you repeated. Also, The Christian Post is not a niche publication. It's on roughly the same level as the Chicago Tribune in terms of establishing notability (speaking of which, here's a passing mention). Right now, I'm most inclined to ! vote towards deletion. I want to see if anyone finds something else first, though. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 03:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak this feels like a hard choice to make. Mr. Prabhudoss is notable enough to be mentioned in publications going back 20+ years as shown above. The article however, is severely lacking in additional sources. Three sections have none at all. I did find this article from India Today from last Summer where he was mentioned. And here from Al Jazzera briefly. So I can see an argument for why he should have an article. He's a notable enough person that reputable publications want or will publish his input on a specific matter. I can also see the argument for why he shouldn't have an article because he's not a notable person in the general sphere. As of now I'm leaning towards a weak . The issue Mr. Prabhudoss advocates for is a niche one. Yes reputable publications have quoted him when they do cover that specific topic. But that doesn't entirely make someone notable enough for their own article. And when he is quoted it's usually on behalf of the organization he represented. Which I do believe is notable enough to have it's own article. FIACONA is covered far more extensively than Mr. Prabhudoss has been. I am willing to change my vote if someone is able to convince me though. Or he could end up winning his election making all this irrelevant. - ThisUserIsTaken ( talk ) 01:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of the sources are covering his organisation, not him specifically as an individual. It's likely his organisation would meet notability requirements, but having a BLP instead isn't helpful, especially given whole sections of this article are completely unsourced. AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC) NOTINHERITED . The sources barely cover the organization of which he is part, and more the issues he espouses. That is not enough for WP:SIGCOV . Bearian ( talk ) 16:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Erjon Beu: All I found in my searches were transactional announcements ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , etc.) and trivial coverage in match reports ( 1 , 2 , 3 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Malta . JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It fails GNG . Though there are a few sources on the web from a selected number of reliable media but most of the sources are just trivial mentions. Cruzdoze ( talk ) 19:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC) @ GiantSnowman : Note that a user has added this source to the article, which does include four or five sentences of independent coverage on the subject. JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One source of that nature is insufficient. Giant Snowman 22:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak – The article itself tends to be d, but the athlete in question is the record holder for games in the Malta league. Is there really nothing else about him? An athlete with so many matches in a league (even if it is a minor league) tends to have an inherent notability at least. Svartner ( talk ) 16:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . @ Svartner , it's the goalscoring record in Malta's second highest league. Now this is a tiny league. In 2015–16 the total attendance was given as 25,200 spread across 183 matches , yielding a crowd of 137 per match. Geschichte ( talk ) 10:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Vicky Goswami: HarshalDhotre06 ( talk ) 15:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Kenya , South Africa , Gujarat , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy on BLP grounds. Wholly inadequate sourcing for an article that exists solely to discuss someone as a criminal. Star Mississippi 15:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"GoldenDict: Onel 5969 TT me 09:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC) Not seeing anything which would show meeting GNG nor NSOFTWARE . Ping Shenlebantongying who requested this be und. C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 20:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are so ___MANY___ softwares on wikipedia pages mainly citing the main website marked as something something something. What's wrong with that? Unless there are a lot of dramas involved with the software, then all of them won't have a lot of citations from else where. There are a lot of mentions on web and some papaers on google scholar, but they are mostly unrelated to be part of wiki. Why you are so hurry? Not everyone have time to edit wiki like you. Just wait. slbtty ( talk ) 01:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well it's been 5 days and still no updates. I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh ( talk ) 18:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pure PROMO. Best source I could find was the MacRuorsForum, which isn't acceptable sourcing, then it falls off a cliff. for lack of any kind of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2019 Liberal National Party of Brisbane leadership election: I propose its deletion. An article like this should exist instead with the results of a list of LNP mayoral leadership elections, if there are sources for it. (Also, the ""Liberal National Party of Brisbane,"" not a thing.) J2m5 ( talk ) 14:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Politics , and Australia . J2m5 ( talk ) 14:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as per nominator. There really is not much to write about for this topic, and this article is part of a broader pattern of Totallynotarandomalt69 treating local government as if it were a state government or federal government. . Steelkamp ( talk ) 04:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] pretty unfair comment there - BCC is pretty widely treated as a large government which is why there are very in-depth articles for its elections, even by-elections and wards get pages But I think the initial @ J2m5 comment is fair so I'm happy to support and maybe re-direct to a more expanded section on Schrinner's page? Totallynotarandomalt69 ( talk ) 06:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The current wording ""Liberal National Party of Brisbane"" wouldn't be good because that's not an official name in use. So I would prefer a straight rather than a under the current article's name J2m5 ( talk ) 08:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC) 34, 17 January 2024 (UTC) POLITICIAN . Mayors and councillors are not notable most of the time. Tar nis hed Path talk 04:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC) PRIMARYNEWS ), merging is not a good AtD, and there is no clear target for a in any case. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 18:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Following on from WP:POLITICIAN that mayors/councillors are rarely notable, I fail to see how an article about the preselection of them is notable. Tar nis hed Path talk 04:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC) can't find anything that suggests notability -- Devokewater | (tαlk) 19:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Syed Mohammed Saeed Raza: Just a father of notable person does not make him notable. -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 09:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , India , and Bihar . Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 09:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Poetry , and Islam . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 13:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC) POET & WP:AUTHOR . ~~ αvírαm | (tαlk) 14:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC) ATD , where subject is mentioned. — siro χ o 04:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC) //drive.google.com/file/d/1Ng8nTWw2b_QH3524KdjWklaHuFN9RzB6/view Kindly Refer to page 14,43 of the 1953 edition Magazine St. Xavier's College, Bombay [38] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HV75Oa18EosMmsQkNknn7a-oMMXoCtgt/view Bpldxb 10:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Subject does not have too much coverage. Royal88888 ( talk ) 02:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 15:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC) 40, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Karo people (East Africa): The article consists of original research advocating for the 'Karo' name over Bari. I can find no reference for its claims. The three references provided were all published years before the events described in the article were alleged to have taken place. I was able to retrieve the full text of two of them (Seligman and Yunis) and found that they did not contain the word 'Karo' at all. Confusingly, there does appear to be a Karo ethnic group in East Africa: the Karo people of Ethiopia , but they are not the Karo (Bari) people described here. ATDT ( talk ) 07:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions . ATDT ( talk ) 07:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa , Democratic Republic of the Congo , Sudan , and Uganda . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Johanna Purdy: PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , and Canada . Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Unable to find more than some trivial mentions, this fails to meet the WP:GNG due to a seeming lack of WP:SIGCOV . Please ping me if significant coverage is found. Let'srun ( talk ) 14:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 12:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC) I am certain that this article didn't meet WP:GNG , WP:SPORTSCRIT and sources. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 10:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ricky Guillart: Only roles so far have been one episode of an animated series, and three uncredited roles, and it's not clear yet how big the roles are for the two upcoming films. I can find no evidence that he won a BET award. Google search for ""Ricky Guillart"" results in one screen worth of hits, mainly social media and film directories, but no significant discussion of the individual. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON . ... disco spinster talk 02:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , United States of America , and Texas . ... disco spinster talk 02:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, according to the information provided you can see that it is an article by a person who has been recognized very recently, super reliable sources are shown and the arguments are Well reformulated, no errors found, I propose that your nomination be canceled and this article removed until more references are obtained from more relevant media. Let us remember that not every user can create an article on Wikipedia, and we have also seen the support of several collaborators such as User:Slgrandson , User:AnomieBOT , User:Onel5969 , User:Certes , User:GoingBatty , among others. Also that all the information has been provided in recent months, that is, if we give time to get more information to verify this article, we can leave this call open, while you fix the errors you found and try to remove the payroll deletion notice from the item. Also if someone else would be interested in helping with the collaboration of such an article, it would be much better for everyone, also since I have been able to observe that there are some articles with only 4 references and they are not nominated for deletion, I thank you very much for your supervision, this helps me a lot to improve when it comes to creating articles, but please let's wait until I can fix this error , I thank you a thousand times for your notification, while we correct the error, your alert could be removed from the article. Thank you Michellelopez1234 ( talk ) 04:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My collaboration was limited to replacing a link to Model by a more specific one to Model (person) . I didn't assess the subject's notability. Certes ( talk ) 09:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Similarly, my one edit before today was to remove overlinking. This edit (or the copyediting I did today) should not be considered when evaluating if Guillart meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Yes, there are many articles that are poorly referenced, and these should not be used when evaluating if Guillart meets Wikipedia's notability criteria per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS . Feel free to improve them or nominate them for deletion if appropriate. GoingBatty ( talk ) 18:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC) However, the number of references that failed verification could be used in this discussion. GoingBatty ( talk ) 18:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] •More relevant information has been added to this article, with references verified, and errors have been updated for the better. Michellelopez1234 ( talk ) 02:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC) GNG . Additionally, I am concerned regarding Michellelopez1234's use of ""we"" in their statement which implies it is a possible shared account (not to mention reads like AI). Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 21:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Looking over the article, I'd like to suggest draftification if that is okay with the nominator. Otherwise I see this as a Soft and I imagine this article will be restored and back into main space soon enough. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC) Trivial acting roles, one voice over in a series, perhaps not notable yet. The award nomination is not notable. Still young, could be TOOSOON. Regardless, nothing for sourcing we can use. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - non-notable article created by an editor with an inappropriate conflict of interest. Furthermore, this AfD was ""closed"" by a Cuban IP with the deceptive comment: The result was Nomination withdrawn Thanks for the sourcing, Since we have access to offline resources and results, as your notoriety was established, I withdraw this nomination and close this debate. -- The AfD tag on the article was removed with this edit summary: This notification is canceled because the nomination debate for deletion was closed and its result was to cancel the nomination, it can be verified in the debate article, thank you These edits upset me because they seem abusive of this website's openness and trust. I feel the use of a logged out IP and deceptive comments about the AfD are blatant indications of bad faith editing and I recommend the closing admin ""salt"" this article. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd be open to placing light protection on the article title but I think full protection is overkill if it is only due to the actions of an IP account who is obviously unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies. I also think heavier protection is warranted if an article has been created multiple times which isn't the case here. Of course, we might run into a CSD G4 situation but that can be dealt with. L iz Read! Talk! 04:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - This person doesn't yet have the in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources needed to establish notability. Early in their career, so possibly WP:TOOSOON . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neiltonks ( talk • contribs ) 12:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"MSPoweruser: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi. I'll make it more objective then. But will this alone help meeting the WP:NWEB criteria? DGital ( talk ) 11:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Not notable, per searches. This newly create page claims it is a publication of Reflector media, which is not itself a notable company, but does exist and has a website. Even Reflector media's website does not list this title - see the ""our brands"" section here [31] which lists a couple of titles but not this one. If even the publisher doesn't see this as worth a mention, it is clearly not notable for a page of its own. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 09:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Sirfurboy🏄 . Will adding the publication to the Reflector Media's brands page change your opinion? DGital ( talk ) 11:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am afraid not, no. It would not be an independent source. I merely drew attention to that lack to point out that even the publisher does not provide information from which a page could be created. But to be notable for an article, it needs to have significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. At this stage, none appear to exist. If you are in a position where you could change Reflector media's coverage of this on their web page then it is likely that you would have an undisclosed conflict of interest. See WP:COI . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 11:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per user above, not notable to be on this project. Normanhunter2 ( talk ) 13:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Technology , and Computing . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 14:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Not notable standalone. IgelRM ( talk ) 20:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Emmanuella adaolisa: Best, Reading Beans ( talk ) 22:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria . Reading Beans ( talk ) 22:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] no real claim of notability, just a bit of transient media gawping. Mccapra ( talk ) 05:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . SPA-created article that makes no claim of notability. 128.252.154.2 ( talk ) 20:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC) There is no need for this article. Easily fails WP:GNG . Nagol0929 ( talk ) 13:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Vladimir Cheptenari: Passing mentions like ESP and FMF were all that I could find. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Moldova . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – Zero references, and his club career seems to have gaps. Svartner ( talk ) 17:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC) As happens often in Eastern Europe, one has to get creative in finding sources. The Russian version (over 40% of Bălți residents are Russian speakers, according to the 2014 census) of his name gives a few hits from sports media in Moldova, these two being on the extensive side: [13] [14] Apparently both are linked to an incident where he injured another footballer during a match. Here he is briefly mentioned as missing next game due to having amassed too many yellow cards, while here he is listed on account of having scored an own goal. By this time he was playing for FC Grănicerul Glodeni in the Moldovan second tier. Furthermore, he appears to have had a parallel career in local politics, which included alleged death threats from the mayor of the town, a former political ally: [15] [16] [17] [18] There is likely to be more, but I don't have time to look around, nor have I looked at these in depth. I do not know if this enough to save the article, either, and while I'd say it might be worth ing, it would take someone to be willing to add information to the article, as well as filling in the gaps in his career using stats sites. Cheers. Ostalgia ( talk ) 20:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's probably enough to build a biography from, to be fair. I'd have said his football coverage probably just falls short of GNG but the politics stories seem to be enough. Since only 4% of Moldova is Russian and his name looked Romanian to me, I just presumed he was of Moldovan ethnicity, so presumed he wouldn't have much in Russian, but I was wrong clearly. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No shame there, it was a reasonable assumption - you are most likely right about his ethnicity after all. Cheers. Ostalgia ( talk ) 08:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The two pure Q&A interviews 1 2 contribute nothing. The politics articles have very little info either--his picture among many 3 ; a story mostly about accusations from his wife towards the Balti mayor where the only secondary independent coverage is In 2015, Vladimir Keptenari entered the Municipal Council on the list of Our Party. On January 15, 2018, he even took part in a hunger strike , which was then announced by PP advisers in protest against the pressure on advisers from the ruling PDM party. 4 ; a blurb on his municipal councilor candidacy alongside 26 other candidacy blurbs 5 ; and another piece on his wife's accusations that has no coverage of him 6 . Nowhere near enough coverage to meet GNG, let alone NPOL (which considers a lot of candidacy coverage routine). JoelleJay ( talk ) 01:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Papaya CMS: Has only had a single source (its GitHub repo, which doesn't contribute to notability at all) since its creation in 2010. The previous deletion discussion was closed with no consensus, including a comment that the German article has sufficient sources to establish notability. That doesn't appear to be the case. Greenman ( talk ) 17:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Couldn't find many sources that weren't first-party or simply ""how many websites use..."". I'd say it fails WP:GNG Lewcm Talk to me! 23:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – could not locate sources that would make this notable. -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH ) 23:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC) 26, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"John Walter (filmmaker): UtherSRG (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Texas Bowl broadcasters: Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE . Of the sources per WP:RS , all but one is a press release, one of which is a 404. That source that is not a press release is a dead link. All the ESPN press releases is about the Bowl games, not just this. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 06:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , American football , Lists , and Texas . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 06:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC) WP:LISTN is not met as these broadcasters are not discussed as a group in secondary sources. Let'srun ( talk ) 23:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC) the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN . This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article. Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mister Nicaragua: There was no consensus at the AfD 3 months ago, mainly because of low participation. After 14 years in CAT:NN , I hope we can now get a good discussion and resolve this. Boleyn ( talk ) 17:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Beauty pageants , and Nicaragua . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Definitely doesn't fit WP:Notability guidelines, and I'm pretty generous about it. Just not enough coverage about it, and not much potential to be informative for readers. Professor Penguino ( talk ) 05:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Geschichte ( talk ) 19:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Zameen.com: The content is very promotional NortonAngo ( talk ) 15:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote , but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts : {{subst: spa | username }} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed | username }} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry : {{subst: csm | username }} or {{subst: csp | username }} . , there are 61 sources and they all look reliable to me. Where in this article are there any promotional content? It's all written from a neutral point of view . Dylan | ✉ | ✓ 15:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Websites , and Pakistan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC) PKRS ). For example, The Express Tribune , Business Recorder , Daily Pakistan , The News International . Passes WP:GNG . Insight 3 ( talk ) 17:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC) MILL. The content has a bit of a promotional tone to which the nominator refers: Today, Zameen.com offers exclusive sales and marketing services to real estate developers to generate revenue. 200.8.181.39 ( talk ) 20:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC) — 200.8.181.39 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. eeehh. Can't call it promotional. That seems to be there business model. Yes, Tone can be improved. I vote and urge you change it as well. Kmugal ( talk ) 12:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC) GNG . A simple search for Google news references provides ample and up to date, lasting coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammadrs ( talk • contribs ) 11:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC) Fulfills WP:GNG There are more than 50 sources from Pakistani News Papers like Express Tribune, The News, Daily Pakistan etc. Seems legit to me. A tiny touch of promotional feel but not enough to be d. Fareehaaus ( talk ) 12:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC) It follows WP:GNG . There are multiple references in Pakistani print and digital media, and looks fine to me. I don't think it should be d. Thekhubaibiftikhar ( talk ) 16:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm of the view that articles that are borderline notable and in which the subject consistently tries to add promotional content should be d (it is necessary as they become a major time sink for volunteers). This appears to be the case here, as some newbies are trying to influence the discussion. On a side note, it seems that Zameen.com's parent company, Emerging Markets Property Group , is more notable than this topic. BookishReader ( talk ) 10:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a little suspect tbh but I haven't had the time to review this one. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 03:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Keep: Recent edits have made the page notable to a good extent. Overall feel is encyclopedic and promotional content is no more an issue. On the lines of WP:GNG for now. Shahramsherazi ( talk ) 15:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Reopening and relisting the AfD to enable further discussion. The comments by blocked sockpuppets have been struck. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pax:Vobiscum ( talk ) 19:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Still succeeds WP:GNG . CastJared ( talk ) 21:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Shows SIGCOV with many sources but not notable. Classic WP:MILL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 ( talk • contribs ) 06:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC) per Insight 3 . Passes WP:GNG JunitaWorker ( talk ) 18:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I haven't finished reviewing all the sources yet, but it's not clear to me that any of them will pass even a GNG level of scrutiny. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 04:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . 21 pages of results for zameen.com, 14 for ""Emerging Markets Property Group"", a couple of variations for zameen ""property portal"", ""Zamzama Property Group"", ""bproperty.com"", etc, but not a single one of them suitable for GNG except maybe ""Hacker defaces Zameen.com, leaks database online"" in The Express Tribune , which I would rate as somewhat routine (so depth is maybe ), but maybe somewhat less so and at least it's independent and not PRSOURCE. Given the coverage and article both focus on it as a business entity and not, say, a website, ORGCRIT is more appropriate than WEBCRIT, and by that standard ORGDEPTH is failed by a fairly wide margin, and ORGIND is also questionable. ""Company does company things"" like rs and acquisitions, expansion, having products or merely existing is in no way significant coverage under any of our criteria. Can't find one, much less three, and the ""61 sources"" in the article before it was trimmed down are about the same quality as the ghits. In one word, it would be MILL. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 05:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Its a company and will do company things. The links are from prominent newspapers of the country they are based in. These do not seem like paid articles. The Express Tribune, Business Recorder, Daily Pakistan, Newsweek Pakistan, Khaleej Times, Aurora Megazine and TechAsia as prominent newspapers. Tone of independent articles cannot be controlled. Passes WP:GNG 203.99.55.210 ( talk ) 14:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC) — 203.99.55.210 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] BookishReader's found one source below that's usable for GNG at first glance, care to find another two to round things out? See WP:ORGCRIT for more details, but it's necessary to focus on quality, not quantity. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 02:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and hope that this article will stay neutral. I found one in-depth article . BookishReader ( talk ) 12:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good reference, meets GNG/NCORP. We need another one at least though. HighKing ++ 19:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 02:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] not enough reliable sources and too much promo here. Edit.pdf ( talk ) 08:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Drifting to a no consensus, but still active; one more relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aszx5000 ( talk ) 18:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The only RS per the source bot is the last one, Aurora magazine. Some are iffy, while most don't even turn up. I can't find quality sources for the website, only simple property listings and the like. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC) The reference quality is relative to the region. Need to look at the overall quality of the articles in Pakistan. Cannot hold these sources to the same standards in North America or Europe. The references seem to be relevant to the region. Follows WP:GNG 202.142.187.204 ( talk ) 13:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are there any non-english sources, in your opinion? Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 14:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I found another in-depth reference about this website [16] . BookishReader ( talk ) 12:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This fails ORGIND, unfortunately. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 14:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree, this relies entirely on information from the company/execs and has no ""Independent Content"" as per NCORP criteria. HighKing ++ 19:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC) NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* . ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject . In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified or reworded. We appear to have identified one good source but multiple is required. If we can't identify another, my ! vote is to and I'm unable to locate another. HighKing ++ 19:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] non-reliable sources. Only 1 passed NCORP. Toom much promotion and paid -editors here. 188.96.64.166 ( talk ) 08:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC) MILL coverage, feels more like a vanity page than anything, no evidence of meeting NCORP/GNG ( talk • contribs ) 09:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Martin Ferreira: JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC) GNG pass. No suitable per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Pia Mellody: Fails WP:SIGCOV . Potentially passes WP:NAUTHOR but can't find reviews. Fails WP:BIO . scope_creep Talk 10:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Medicine , and Arizona . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 13:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 08:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC) This in Texas Monthly [67] and two book reviews in Publishers Weekly [68] . First isn't enough for GNG or BLP, 2nd isn't enough for AUTHOR. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe the clinic has notability - she does not seem to meet requirements. She is an author and was involved in a semi-public scandal, but does not have significant coverage. Llajwa ( talk ) 20:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Steven Cerio: Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 20:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and New York . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 20:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC) CREATIVE and is an autobiography WP:AUTOBIO , with most of the unreferenced text added by the subject of the article, added on 28 March 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Steven_Cerio&oldid=601622625 WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Butler–Drake football rivalry: Joeykai ( talk ) 05:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Indiana and Iowa . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] fails GNG. We have far too many of these synthetic rivalry articles... SportingFlyer T · C 07:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Subject does not meet the WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV about the rivalry itself. The current sources is essentially a compilation of reports of non-notable individual games and database sources glued together here on Wikipedia in a way not done by any outside sources. User:Let'srun 18:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per all the above. As far as I can tell, all of the sourcing available for this matchup amounts to primary sources, statistical databases, and run-of-the-mill sports reporting of individual games and seasons that lacks the requisite overview-level coverage of the matchup/rivalry as a whole cohesive topic needed to establish notability. Left guide ( talk ) 01:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Not finding WP:SIGCOV , i.e., in-depth coverage about this as a notable rivalry. What we have is two FCS programs that (a) meet regularly because they're in the same conference, and (b) share the same team nickname 'Bulldogs'. What we don't have is the needed SIGCOV or other objective indicia of a notable rivalry. Cbl62 ( talk ) 20:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Germany–Switzerland football rivalry: There are a few brief mentions, but I don't think there's enough for a standalone article here. An alternative to deletion could be a selective to History of the Germany national football team , though most content here is already covered and cited there. Complex / Rational 17:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football , Germany , and Switzerland . Owen× ☎ 18:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In more or less every sport the German–Swiss rivalry is the most important rivalry for Switzerland and also very important for Germany. As of new as today there is a new article of this rivalry in the three main team sports in Switzerland. Also article from 2020 . 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 ( talk ) 20:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – No significant rivalry, there is total disparity between the teams. Switzerland appears to have much more rivalry with Serbia, for example. Svartner ( talk ) 23:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a direct translation from a German article so I cannot change the actual information. KatieMowat ( talk ) 09:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC) As long as you provide attribution for the translated version, which you did on the talk page, there are no restrictions to editing the English article in order to ""stay true"" to its German counterpart. It's quite normal for different-language articles about the same subject to have significantly different content, and inclusion guidelines also vary across different Wikipedias. Complex / Rational 14:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as unproven. If exists or existed, our coverage should have started elsewhere. gidonb ( talk ) 22:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Zafar Mehmood Mughal: Lacks significant coverage to meet WP:GNG criteria. HistoriesUnveiler ( talk ) 22:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock 48, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Law , and Pakistan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per MNewnham. Nothing appears in WP:BEFORE search. 41.99.221.13 ( talk ) 20:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Per nom. The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 10:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Michael Millerman: Hardly merits an article. Ostalgia ( talk ) 20:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 20:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 20:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This is his profile on Google Scholar and it says that he has 41 citations and h-index of 3. I believe it's too small to meet WP:NACADEMIC . Doesn't meet WP:GNG too. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 20:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for adding the categories - I'm not sure Politicians and Canada applies but I guess Academics does, even if this person is super obscure and unaffiliated with any institution. Ostalgia ( talk ) 20:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ostalgia , yeah, I meant to include it in the ""Politics"" category, not ""Politicians"" since he's not a politician. I'll fix it now. And since he's Canadian, I also included the discussion in the ""Canada"" category. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 20:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to be absolutely clear, I was not complaining. I appreciate the help, it's my first time starting an AfD. Cheers. Ostalgia ( talk ) 20:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 20:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy , Conservatism , and Internet . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC) Too soon . Xxanthippe ( talk ) 21:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] . He appears to be a fascist apologist rather than a mainstream academic, so WP:PROF might not be the right standard to use. Regardless, that's a thing that it's possible to be notable for, with in-depth sources. His article lists two published books, so WP:AUTHOR would appear to be the best shot at notability, but I didn't find the published reviews that would let him pass. The Commonweal piece helps, but it's not enough by itself. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 22:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC) RS that describes him as a fascist apologist? If not, the comment should be struck. Regardless, notability is not attained. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 23:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] I don't think there are any RS that do, but there really aren't RS covering this guy at all (otherwise we wouldn't be here!). However, in David's defense, Millerman's doctoral supervisor (they had a very acrimonious split) called him out for running w[ith] the fucking fashy [sic] grifters [6] , which comes really close. It being social media, it's not something we'd use to source an article, but I'd say it sort of excuses DE's comment. Ostalgia ( talk ) 07:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was basing my comment on the Commonweal reference, which is titled ""just call it fascism"" (referring to Dugin) and says of Millerman that he ""has the dubious honor of having done more to popularize Dugin’s ideas among English speakers than anyone else"", ""defended Heidegger and Dugin without drawing attention to their glaring moral and political failings"", ""treats Duginism with an alarming lack of critical scrutiny"", and ""popularizes modes of far-right and fascistic thinking"" and that his book is ""is one of the more ambitious whitewashing efforts I’ve ever read"". Although I did not plagiarize the exact wording of the review, I think my wording is an accurate summary of the picture the review paints of Millerman. Whether it is actually an accurate summary of Millerman is not the point: we can only go by what reliable sources say, and that was the only source I found that appeared to have any reliability. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 08:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , doesn't pass NPROF, NAUTHOR, or GNG as far as I can tell. -- Mvqr ( talk ) 12:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC) 27, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per GNG/NAUTH. SportingFlyer T · C 02:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Easy call. Not notable or credible. Delete. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 18:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] doesn't meet NACADEMIC. microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 15:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC) NPROF and WP:AUTHOR , with no signs of passing any other relevant standard. XOR'easter ( talk ) 16:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Edwin Sass: The most I was able to find was this profile. JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC) GNG pass. No suitable per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sina Alam: I see it was d from fawiki numerous times as not notable [11] [12] [13] and even salted at some point: [14] , so if people who speaks this language natively and who can evaluate the sources better think he's not notable, I think he's not notable. Tehonk ( talk ) 03:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , and Iran . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC) G5 . TornadoLGS ( talk ) 02:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"John Cornfield: Could not find SIGCOV about him, though there are mentions of him in various sources. Natg 19 ( talk ) 06:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Music , and United Kingdom . Natg 19 ( talk ) 06:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC) Category:Albums produced by John Cornfield . Natg 19 ( talk ) 06:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC) All mentions in RS are of this person in relation to the musician they've worked with [48] . Nothing that helps establish notability here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sorcerer (operating system): Anwon ( talk ) 21:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - cant find anything on web or google scholar either. Bluethricecreamman ( talk ) 22:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the article is unsourced, and makes no claim of importance or significance. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 15:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC) Unable to find adequate sourcing for this Linux Distro, doesn't meet WP:GNG . Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Battle of Banas (1300): We do not invent names for military conflicts such as ""Battle of X"" or ""Siege of X"" unless they are mentioned in reliable sources WP:RS . As a result, the article fails to meet naming criteria. Moreover, the military conflict is part of Alauddin Khalji's invasion of Chittorgarh and could potentially be d with the Siege of Chittorgarh (1303) as a prelude. The conflict appears to be more of a skirmish than a full-fledged battle and is only briefly mentioned in scattered lines within sources, primarily as part of the Siege of Chittorgarh. Consequently, the article fails to meet the criteria of Wikipedia's general notability WP:GNG and naming standards. Imperial [AFCND] 09:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , History , Military , and Rajasthan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ ImperialAficionado the battle isn't a part of siege of chittorgarh 1303 . Allauddin sent the forces to defeat Hammiradeva , and the battle took place at Banas Khilji sultans in Rajasthan Thus Ulugh Khan marched with an army of 80,000 to plunder and lay waste the Chthamana country. When the armies, of Islam reached the river 'Varnansa' (Banas), they found it difficult to march through the pass leading to Hammira's territory. Ulugh Khan, therefore, encamped therefor some days and burnt and destroyed the villages of its neighbhbourhood. When the misdeeds of the Muslim army were brought to Hammira, was then engaged in religious rites, for he has not yet completed this 'Muniverata.'2 That Hammira at the moment was busy in the performance of some religious rites has also been stated in the Surjana Charita. So Hammira could not personally take the field and instead sent two of his generals, Bhimasimha and Dharmasiraha, to drive away the invaders. They gained a decisive victory over the Muslim hosateBanas a and large number of the Muslim soldiers were killed inction Narook ( talk ) 10:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As long as there is no mention of ""Battle of Banas"". We can't it. Thanks. Imperial [AFCND] 10:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm inclined to say since it seems to fail notability guidelines. But, if it can be d with the wider war/effort/offensive that it was a part of, that would be better. If not, . --Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The information about the battle comes from the Hammira Mahakavya , whose historical reliability is debatable. The salvageable content is already part of Alauddin Khalji's conquest of Ranthambore#Death of Bhimasimha . utcursch | talk 14:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC) 15, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Yonatan Goitum: Fails wp:gng . By the way, according to the external link, the last name is Goitom, not Goitum. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 04:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Africa . Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 04:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC) NSPORT . Only two pages of sources, all I'm seeing is name on name lists and minor references that won't be SIGCOV. Karnataka ( talk ) 07:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bimala Devi: Possible to Adi Parashakti . - UtherSRG (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions . UtherSRG (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are two citations in the article (each is cited twice giving the illusion that there are four). [28] is a Bengali Wikipedia article. [29] tells a mythological story about Shiva , and mentions in passing the temple at Vimala (which is also mentioned in passing in the Wikipedia article). In real life there is a place called Bimala Devi; a Google search produces a few results concerning it, but the present article is on a religious subject. Nothing would be lost if the present article were d. It is possible that the topic might be notable under a different name. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Viva Van: She worked on small independent promotions. She had a few matches with big promotions, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED . Most of the sources are just WP:RESULTS with no in-deep coverage of the wrestler HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 10:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Wrestling , and California . Shellwood ( talk ) 11:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC) Just not enough in RS to the article; this is all I can find [13] , rest are match reports. Tried using a search listed under Wiki Wrestling [14] , none turn up. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC) Viva Van currently works for Ring of Honor & AEW so that should be enough notability for her page to stay, it could also be in the hopes of her someday capturing a ROH TV Women's title or a AEW Women's or AEW TBS title or even a New Japan Women's or New Japan Strong Women's title or Wonder Ring Stardom Women's title while still in the indy's if given enough time or she could even soon or someday sign with WWE , so I think that that should be enough for her page should stay around. Because she also is still a very active indy wrestler today. (She also was trained by Rikishi and probably is apart of the Samoan / Polynesian Heritage / Bloodline . Which could do good if she we're to someday join WWE as well. She was also apart of the ROH TV Women's title tournament, so that should also be enough notability for her page to stay.) 71.65.161.223 ( talk ) 11:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC) RESULTS, with no focus on her. Most of the article looks like wants to present the wrestler as notable by comparation. ""made her debut for Thunder Rosa's Mission Pro Wrestling in May 2021 in a Triple Threat match against Impact Wrestler Masha Slamovich "", ""Van was defeated by CMLL Veteran Estrellita."" ""June 2019, Viva teamed up with WWE wrestler MVP"", like namedropping. Also, Reddit is not a valid source. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 22:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But she has returned to take on Willow Nightingale & Lluvia for the CMLL World Women's Championship it was announced today and she also tried out for WWE in 2020 & in 2022. Hopefully with those two things now added to her page could change something or could make her page stay. 71.65.161.223 ( talk ) 22:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC) Not seeing enough independent and significant coverage to meet the WP:GNG . The vast majority of the sources are match results, blogs, interviews, or are non-RS. Working for a certain promotion does not grant inherent notability. Let'srun ( talk ) 02:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Don Emilio Macias Memorial National High School: Unless Filipino-language sources can be found, article does not seem to meet WP:NSCHOOL . ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me! 18:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines . ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me! 18:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC) 11, 1 September 2023 (UTC) Agree with nom in whole. Does not pass WP:NSCHOOL or any other notability guideline. User:Let'srun 20:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Nothing came up in my searches either, seems to not meet WP:NSCHOOL per above. Utopes ( talk / cont ) 07:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC) 02, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Chidera Anthony: The article claims that ""He is regarded as one of the top artists in his area."" but no proof of this. No evidence of WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG . This article was moved out of draftspace prematurely. A previous version was already sent to draft by Liz under the name of Draft:Luckystarzs . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC) 32, 10 March 2024 (UTC) Entirely fails WP:ANYBIO . Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 18:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC) Zero coverage for this individual found. And this version of article appears to be an unfinished template. PROMO, very much spam. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per nom- does not meet notability requirements. Editing84 ( talk ) 09:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC) I recently declined AFC submission Draft:Luckystarzs with same content as this article. The mastermind behind both articles is named user:Luckystarzs , a clear/possble vandal/sock. ANU writes 18:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The article creator has move this article to Draft space and then removed the AFD tag. They have been blocked for self-promotional as all of their articles involve them and their career. L iz Read! Talk! 03:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - blatant example of self-promotion with no coverage whatsoever. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 06:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ana Griselda Vegas: Non-notable person, fails WP:NBEAUTY , having not won one of the Big Four beauty pageants , fails WP:NPEOPLE and WP:GNG as well. Sources found no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources . v/r - Seawolf35 T -- C 03:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Beauty pageants , and Venezuela . v/r - Seawolf35 T -- C 03:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC) 17, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC) Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary coverage. Let'srun ( talk ) 22:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ak47 (rapper): I can't find any reliable sources that discuss him in any significant way. (Apparently there is more than one rapper that goes by this name.) The original article gave his real name as Ibrahim Kouacou, of which I can also not find any significant discussion. ... disco spinster talk 21:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Switzerland . ... disco spinster talk 21:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Ivory Coast-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Do not confuse with another rapper of nearly the same name in Do or Die (group) . --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - In agreement with the nominator. I can also find nothing informative about this rapper's one album or the record company that he supposedly founded. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 18:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Attila Császár (footballer): I am not seeing any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC being met. Best sources seem to be Csornai SE , which is not WP:RS , Dunaújváros , a mere squad list mention, and Papa ma , which is trivial match report coverage. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Hungary . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC) BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). // Timothy :: talk 16:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC) GNG . Jogurney ( talk ) 18:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"The list of Political Repression Related Event: Sadads ( talk ) 21:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 22:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC) as WP:SYNTH. I don't see much point in ing to Political repression , as the title is a very unlikely search term. Owen× ☎ 22:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] not a notable topic in itself, not a helpful navigation aid, and lacking clear inclusion criteria. Mccapra ( talk ) 23:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename . In fact, the main article had these contents at the beginning, and these were regarded as the ""Gallery"" part. However, as the editor, I believe that these examples do not have any partisan bias. -- Hzt0208042508415531 tw ( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Hzt0208042508415531 tw I don't think you are understanding our arguments. We are not discussing the current scope of the article, but rather if its notable in a persistent, lasting sense: unfortunately political repression events or political repression related events is not a clear scope - -and the current list emphasizes that, its a random mix of murders, genocides and intelligence operations. Its impossible to maintain this list without causing conflict, where we have plenty of other lists that use more concrete definitions, such as List of genocides and the examples integrated in Political murder Sadads ( talk ) 12:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You have a point. I think the ""constantly updated"" template should be added to this form. Hzt0208042508415531 tw ( talk ) 14:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC) SYNTH The article is unsourced and rambling too. TH1980 ( talk ) 01:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] -- This is random list of conflicts, mixing up assassinations (normally one person), the suppression of insurrections, and other sorts of political persecution. I do not see how it can be rescued. Peterkingiron ( talk ) 17:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Aabs Animals: It has one reliable review from Push Square : [32] . The review is partially a joke review, as the game consists of rotating 3D models of cats. The game has minor commentary on how it was characteristic of practices that prompted Microsoft to review its achievement and gamerscore standards: [33] But those articles lack any commentary on the actual game too. Largely because there hardly is a game to discuss. So I pawsonally don't think this article has furry much notability at all. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 09:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 09:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC) GNG . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 10:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. ‍ Relativity 21:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Fitch Law Firm: None of the secondary sources actually mention the firm itself, rather they are quotes from the founder about some cases and issues. Let'srun ( talk ) 20:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Ohio . Let'srun ( talk ) 20:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC) NCORP . My search for references found nothing that would meet either. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 04:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC) CORP due to a lack of significant coverage. Steven Walling • talk 01:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:NCORP . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 00:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Alex Heckler: He's worked for some notable politicians, though I can't find reliable, secondary sources in a WP:BEFORE search to confirm many of the unsourced claims made here. All I can find is passing mentions of him in articles about Florida politics. He may well have worked for some US presidents and senators, but on Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. Wikishovel ( talk ) 16:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politics , and Florida . Wikishovel ( talk ) 16:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC) I don't find much coverage about him, he's mentioned in a few sources given already in the article, but these aren't enough for notability here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Source 3 seems to be about him, but that's all there is that's sigcov. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Massachusetts , and New Jersey . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . No WP:SIGCOV . Is a lawyer, a party hack, and a fundraiser - none of these are actually notable, though. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] His notability does not derive from being a lawyer, but from his influence and political activism, of which fundraising is a part. Uppagus ( talk ) 11:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree with the claims made here by Wikishovel and others. The subject has an entire Wall Street Journal profile about him and is mentioned on the White House website when he was appointed to serve last year on the US Holocaust Memorial Council. Not to mention he has been deputy national finance chair for the Democratic National Committee and Biden Victory Fund for many years. Also look at the awards section. It is clear these items sufficiently demonstrate notability. Andrewjacobson6 ( talk ) 06:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Being named to a planning council for a government project doesn't get you notability. Rest is routine political work. Deputy finance guy for a national campaign is office work. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Sigcov is demonstrated by source 3 and 11. I also see that he was cited as a top fundraiser for President Biden and was part of a team that hosted him in Miami recently. Andrewjacobson6 ( talk ) 06:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC) — Andrewjacobson6 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] I wrote this on my talk page, but maybe it should be here. I thought the article was coming along well - also thanks to your help - and I am really surprised that you suddenly decided it should be wiped out altogether. I started the article because his name comes up often in certain circles and I didn't see any write-up about him on Wikipedia. I came up with quite a bit of material about him, and the sources looked reliable to me, so it is hard for me to believe you say he is not notable. If he was profiled in the Wall Street Journal, his appointments have been noted by the White House, and his work has been covered in all the Florida newspapers, it is hard for me to understand the arguments cited above about not being worthy of a Wikipedia article. Strange. Also the fact that the person who wants this article d worked pretty hard to make it better. There is always room for improvement and as I have learned since starting to edit here, Wikipedia articles are a work in progress. When more information and sources become available, they can be added. But I can't see a reason why this article should be d altogether. -- Hazooyi ( talk ) 08:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mostly because there aren't many extensive stories just about him. Doing those things shows he COULD be notable here, but we need sourcing. We don't have enough for sourcing to the article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - His fundraising and activism has made him influential both in state and national politics, all this besides his official and presidential appointments, mentioned in the article and reiterated by the editors above. Uppagus ( talk ) 11:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Keep"" - Notable and definitely of interest to readers following American politics today. Developer19801 ( talk ) 18:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Pass notability for coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yigal1746 ( talk • contribs ) Per Developer19801, and Since the us elections are getting closer, the role of Alex Heckler in the Democratic campaign is not insignificant. HaOfa ( talk ) 07:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC) GNG . Almost all of the coverage is self-promotional, the rest is mere mentions. Inclusion in a ""Top 100"" list does not count, unfortunately for the person claiming source 3 is good, and the WSJ profile was from 2007 and while I can only access the top part, seems like an interview/man on the street type of article. Even if it's not, it would stand alone. SportingFlyer T · C 10:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Heckler is a Known attorney, political fundraiser and philanthtopist. He was an intern at the White House under president Bill Clinton and Chair the Governor's Cabinet of the Democratic Governors Association (DGA). Mhagay ( talk ) 10:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, that's all in the article. Being a ""known attorney"" or fundraiser or philanthropist doesn't make someone notable, though? Being an intern to Bill Clinton might make you notable if there was WP:SIGCOV of what you got up to while in the White House, but usually doesn't... Are there any policy-based reasons for ing this article? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC) It should be noted that of the seven 'Keep' ! votes, most don't present policy reasons for retention, all have under 1,000 edits, one has less than 200 edits, four have less than 100 edits, one has less than 10 edits. It's a little odd that all would find their way to a random enough AfD of a little known party activist? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The point is, he is not a little known party activist. Being from Ireland does not necessarily indicate an expertise in American politics. If editors have responded here, it's probably because his role in American politics is not a secret. Hazooyi ( talk ) 09:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. I see no reason why to this article. From what I could see, Heckler's activities extend far beyond just being a simple lawyer. He is the Managing Partner & Founder of LSN Partners LLC, a bipartisan consulting firm, including government affairs, regulatory matters, economic development, and ency management. His roles include serving on the Biden-Harris 2020 National Finance Committee, the Democratic National Committee, and the United States Conference of Mayors ( https://www.usmayors.org/ ). He was appointed to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council ( https://www.ushmm.org/information/about-the-museum/council ), where he continues to fight against antisemitism. In the context of public universities dealing with contentious speakers on campus, Heckler has advocated for viewpoint-neutral policies. ( User:Shulelevin ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shulalevin ( talk • contribs ) @ Shulalevin : I'm curious: what prompted you to post here today, after three months of inactivity? Wikishovel ( talk ) 15:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Wikishovel , well, I was I am curious why would you ask that and whether you ask other editors such questions. Shulalevin ( talk ) 15:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Andrewjacobson6 , whose post above was their first edit, five minutes after account creation. My guess is that there's an online discussion forum or social media thread someplace, where this AFD was mentioned. There's nothing wrong with your having posted here on that basis, but if someone involved with editing the article was WP:Canvassing for support there, then that would be a problem. Wikishovel ( talk ) 15:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We ask because we care about wikipedia's reliability and standards, this isn't a ""game"" to be won. We treat every article fairly and in a neutral fashion. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, the point of this page is to cite relevant policy justifying that the article in question be retained, or d. All of what you've written above is contained in the article body. We already know what it says. There's no point in just copying it over here, too. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Getting it back on the log, comment TK Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . This individual has been significantly covered by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events (i.e. this individual easily passes WP:GNG / WP:NBASIC ). Such sources include a ~2,250-word profile in The Wall Street Journal from 2008 and coverage in The South Florida Sun-Sentinel from 2004 and also from 2008 . There is also some less substantial coverage of him in The Miami Herald (regarding his non-political work), NBC News ( 2003 , 2013 ; each regarding his role as a fundraiser), The Tampa Bay Times (regarding his appointment to Chair of the Governor's Cabinet of the Democratic Governors' Association), The New York Times (with coverage of his 2007 wedding , as well as more passing mention in 2011 regarding fundraising). Appeals to WP:NPOL are a bit spurious; his notability does not come from holding or running for public office, and he himself is not a politician in a plain sense. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure I agree the coverage is as significant as you make it out to be beyond the WSJ article, though there are a couple articles that are paywalled for me. It's not enough for me to change my vote, though. SportingFlyer T · C 16:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm also not sure of the significance of those references. Most are from at least 15 years ago, and passing mention of being appointed to an administrative position of a body for which he does not qualify for membership (the DGA ) also does not signify notability. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC) Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alex_Heckler re: the edit conflict, I have relisted it for further discussion. Thanks! Star Mississippi 03:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC) 59, 21 February 2024 (UTC) 01, 21 February 2024 (UTC) 49, 21 February 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV and WP:GNG given the coverage outlined most granularly by Red-tailed hawk above, including citations that are not yet listed in the article itself, such as coverage by the New York Times of his wedding, suggesting he is a notable figure. These items make clear he is not just a lawyer or fundraiser but a figure recognized by both the political and media establishment. Andrewjacobson6 ( talk ) 08:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) Andrewjacobson6 struck. We all get to post a recommendation once at an WP:AFD , and then comment on the recommendations made. A reply would also be helpful from you, and from article creator @ Hazooyi : : was there a discussion about this AFD elsewhere, online or offline, that prompted you to create an account and immediately post here? @ Shulalevin : has also not yet answered a similar question above. Wikishovel ( talk ) 08:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC) 28, 21 February 2024 (UTC) Andrewjacobson6 and User:Shulalevin responded. Wikishovel ( talk ) 16:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC) 07, 21 February 2024 (UTC) Andrewjacobson6 and User:Shulalevin to reply to my questions to them above. Wikishovel ( talk ) 17:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC) 56, 21 February 2024 (UTC) You are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others. If you ask me, you have no right to interrogate anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazooyi ( talk • contribs ) I'm not interrogating you. I'm asking you if you mentioned this AFD elsewhere online: on social media, maybe? Because that would explain User:Andrewjacobson6 and User:Shulalevin showing up and posting as they did. If you did that, because you didn't know it was against Wikipedia's rules, then that's OK. I just want to know. Wikishovel ( talk ) 18:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC) RESUME Lindsey40186 ( talk ) 18:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC) The ""Keep"" votes, on the other hand, are laughably transparent new-account sockpuppets from a UPE farm, and if this guy Heckler didn't pay someone online to create this article and make an effort to see it not d, I'll eat my hat. Fred Zepelin ( talk ) 23:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please strike your over-generalization about ! voters. I'll AGF that you overlooked the fact that",delete
+"Summit Public Radio: This is not ""inherently"" notable in its own right -- it isn't an originating broadcaster for the purposes of satisfying WP:BCAST , but simply contracts to help other broadcasting companies extend their signal service areas, so we would have to see passage of basic WP:CORP or WP:ORG criteria, specifically a depth and range of reliable sourcing that would get it over WP:GNG . Bearcat ( talk ) 16:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America . Bearcat ( talk ) 16:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC) http://www.sprtv.org/summit/ PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 19:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom; despite the name of the organization, this is just an operator of translator stations and not a separate public radio network of its own. (Also, despite the article title, it does operate TV transmitters in addition to radio, but that's neither here nor there.) I can't see much reason why it would or could get the requisite significant coverage to meet the GNG , much less the slightly-more-stringent NCORP or ORG . The call signs for their stations — which aren't even mentioned anywhere in this article, anyway — appear to to their actual parent stations (or at least the parent entity of one such station) if a title even exists as a page at all, which is generally the correct practice for translators. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Transformers comics characters: Most sections consist solely of brief summaries of these comic-exclusive characters, if they include any summaries at all. PanagiotisZois ( talk ) 18:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 20:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 16 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 20:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You forgot to tell the creator of the page that you nominated it. That would be User:JIP who made the page back in 17:32, 9 April 2005‎. D r e a m Focus 22:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC) //www.cbr.com/best-comic-transformers-ranked/ that gives coverage to ten of them found only in the comics. Any reviews for this comics or notable arcs would've mentioned some notable characters such as Rung. D r e a m Focus 02:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Of these, none are non-Transformer characters, and only five appear in the Marvel Comics titles in the first place. However, the source could be of some use at the main article about the Marvel Comics title. J I P | Talk 08:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC) INDISCRIMINATE as an indiscriminate list. It could potentially be a viable list, but would require a full rewrite to accomplish that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC) INDISCRIMINATE - Character lists can be viable spinouts, but they still need to be sourced and have some kind of inclusion criteria enforced. This current list is not that, and is just a list of every minor character that appeared in the comic, most of which have zero context outside of a name. Rorshacma ( talk ) 17:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC) INDISCRIMINATE . There are already other lists of transformers, and this one is completely unsourced. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 20:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Major Street-basketball Foundation: Close to G11-worthy. I'm stunned this article has managed to stick around in this state since 2006 and even gets a link in Index of Australia-related articles . Only bringing to AfD since it does get a paragraph in the Sydney Morning Herald The only other sources I found were short pieces in local newspapers that fail WP:AUD . I'm happy to email full text to anyone who is interested, but they really weren't adequate. – Tera tix ₵ 03:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Basketball , and Australia . – Tera tix ₵ 03:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . close to no presence in the internets. - Altenmann >talk 03:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Sources don't establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP . GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 08:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] poorly sourced, in any case fails GNG. LibStar ( talk ) 03:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Vishnu Venu: Monhiroe ( talk ) 07:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No reliable references talking about the person. I agree with the nominator that being the producer of 2 small movies does not impart any notability. Fails WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 13:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Aquaveo: Article only includes affiliated references or ones that don't even mention the company's name, proving perhaps that the company exists but falling short of offering evidence of its encyclopaedic notability. Accounts of article creator and contributors have been alleged to be affiliated with the company. (Redacted) — kashmīrī TALK 16:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software . — kashmīrī TALK 16:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Utah . Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC) I don't know about the creator of the article, or any of the other contributors, but I haven't ever been paid to work on the article. It's just found within one of many topics I find interesting (I've edited a fair number of river and lake articles over the years, and Aquaveo's software is used by a lot of people writing academic papers analyzing rivers and lakes). All of my contributions have been working to improve the article by adding references, removing marketing speak, and expanding it based on references I found (pretty much what I do for every other article I work on). As it stands right now, it's pretty much on the border of notability, and it could go either way. The Deseret News article is definitely a solid source. As the nom noted, most of the others are more informational references that (taken together) might push it over into notability, but also may not. So, I could go either way. If it is decided to the article, I'd request it be userfied so I can work on it. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan ! 16:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC) COMPANY . Those attributes are irrelevant to notability. As my previous comment noted, the only thing relevant is whether the company has been given significant coverage in multiple, third-party (independent) secondary sources . The Deseret News article is one such source. None of the others used in the article are likely helpful there. So, at least one additional such source would likely need to be found. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan ! 18:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC) SUSTAINED notability; especially that it... does not mention Aquaveo. I guess the argument will be that it's insufficient. Please note that this is an article about a company and its notability per WP:NCOMPANY , not about any of its products which may or may not be notable per WP:NSOFTWARE . — kashmīrī TALK 19:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Deseret News article talks about ""Environmental Modeling Systems"", which is a previous name of Aquaveo, as mentioned in the article here. ""Environmental Modeling Systems"" isn't a product, but a former company name. I made no comments about its products, so please don't try to put words in my mouth. I'm very well aware that notable products don't equate to notable companies. And I never argued that a single reference in DN is sufficient evidence to make Aquaveo notable (in fact, I said the opposite). ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan ! 19:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, the 25-year-old article in local newspaper indeed mentions Environmental Modeling Systems, i.e., the business that was taken over by Aquaveo a decade later. Wikipedia still needs sources on Auqaveo specifically that would offer evidence of in-depth, lasting coverage of the company. Will you be able to find them? — kashmīrī TALK 19:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As far as I can tell, EMS wasn't taken over, but rather became Aquaveo since, as far as I can tell, everyone who was working with EMS went on to work at Aquaveo and EMS ceased to exist when Aquaveo started up. As for ""Will you be able to find them?"", it's not on only me to find sources. I'm not even arguing one way or another. However, as nominator, it's on you to do your due diligence to make sure there aren't any articles or other reliable, third-party sources that could be used in the article. I've already given you my thoughts (only the DN article helps toward establishing notability). Please stop harassing me, especially when I'm not even necessarily disagreeing with you. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan ! 20:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Please note that on the English Wikipedia, Harrasment is covered by policy . It is strictly defined and not necessarily synonymous with broader global English-language usage. If you think Kashmiri has harassed you, then WP:DWH applies; dispute resolution is suggested. Conversely, WP:AOHA also states that, Making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory... It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment . So, moving forward, please lodge your accusations against Kashmiri at a noticeboard, or retract them as unfounded. Perhaps an apology is in order; your conscience must dictate. Happy editing! ——Serial 20:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Please note that on the English Wikipedia, writing a hostile comment and ending it with ""Happy editing!"" is considered by some [ who? ] to be somewhat impolite. jp × g 🗯️ 02:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JPxG We're having a case of an administrator who has for years edited while having an obvious COI, when finally caught avoided answering questions and baselessly accused others of harassment – and the only thing that you, a fellow admin, show concern about in all of that is that someone may not have been sufficiently polite to him? Seriously? — kashmīrī TALK 08:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC) It's actually been something a lot of admins have been discussing for a little while now. Polite signatures can come off pretty badly when giving someone a warning despite being made with the best possible intentions. Some people, especially noobies or those who aren't familiar with a user with a signature like that, can take it the wrong way. That's all, not a big deal. My comments on the accusation you're making will be at the relevant board. ... Happy editing? Hey man im josh ( talk ) 00:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, ok, so one of those discussion about how to survive without offending someone somewhere? Damn this young generation... — kashmīrī TALK 15:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pretty much, yeah. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Z – the Offended Generation. Good luck, man. — kashmīrī TALK 21:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you have a source for ""everyone who was working with EMS went on to work at Aquaveo and EMS ceased to exist when Aquaveo started up""? This needs verification and please see WP:BURDEN . - The literary leader of the age ✉ 23:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As I wrote above, As far as I can tell... . The few people mentioned as working at EMS in the DN article (and anything else I've found) also worked at Aquaveo when it first started. My comments certainly do not need sources as they are my own comments. WP:BURDEN applies to articles, not discussions such as this since I'm not claiming anything that needs any sort of proof. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan ! 23:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC) I don't think that was exactly the question. It's relevant to the outcome of the AfD, so I'm going to ask you directly: Are you, or have you ever been, employed by Aquaveo? Sojourner in the earth ( talk ) 21:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, though not until well after I made the majority of my edits there. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan ! 22:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] After reviewing the dates, it appears I was mistaken in my remembering of when those edits were made. They were made shortly after I began working at Aquaveo, though (as mentioned before), I was never paid for making those edits or asked to make them by anyone at Aquaveo. Additionally, while WP:COI strongly discourages editing by those with a potential COI, it does not forbid it as long as the edits are done within the guidelines and policies governing editing of any article here. All of my editing of any article on Wikipedia is by my own choice and at my own whims. I haven't ever been paid to edit any article here. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan ! 18:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""by my own choice and at my own whims"" and for your own benefit, because it's your own employer whose article you improved (from here to here ), along with your employer's products, SMS , GMS , and WMS . Did you similarly improve articles about your employer's competitors and competing products ? No? That's fine, you're totally allowed to, by your own choice and at your own whims, only improve articles about your employer and your employer's products, but as you know, you have to disclose it when you do that. And as you also know, it doesn't matter if your employer paid you or asked you, because you benefit from it either way. That's why WP:COI is not the same page as WP:PAID . Levivich ( talk ) 21:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How is it for my own benefit? I seriously doubt, given the niche category of software, that any of my edits have done anything to financially (or otherwise) benefit me or Aquaveo. In the time since my first edits there, I've edited thousands and thousands of times, and barely touched those articles. They were all created long before I had anything to do with them. All of my edits to them were trying to clean up the mess they were before I did anything there. I certainly haven't ""only improve[d] articles about your employer and your employer's products"" since my first edits there in 2015. Those adits likely aren't even 1% of what I've edited during that time. I seriously doubt any of the articles about Aquaveo or its products has helped them (or me) in any way). ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan ! 17:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To be blunt, I don't believe someone with your level of experience and sophistication is unaware that a high-quality Wikipedia article helps boost a company's reputation, which helps boost a company's financials, which is good for the company's employees. By ""only,"" I meant ""only your employer and not their competitors,"" I didn't mean that this is the only thing you've done on Wikipedia. Anyway, I was happy to read your post at AN, thanks for that. Levivich ( talk ) 20:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for confirming. Sort of dead end if the article ends up userfied... — kashmīrī TALK 22:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There has been an off-wiki challenge of this timeline. You might want to revisit that, just in case. Carrite ( talk ) 04:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC) or the arbcom email instead of on a public articles for deletion page. Sagflaps ( talk ) 18:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC) and @ 42of8 : , though it appears neither account is active. Sagflaps ( talk ) 20:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know who those editors are. I have never edited as either of those accounts, I did not create either of those accounts, and I don't know who did. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan ! 18:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Nihonjoe Would you be able to provide the approximate date when your COI started if you recall it? Thanks :) — kashmīrī TALK 21:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No. I don't think it's appropriate for you to be digging into my personal life, thank you. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan ! 21:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No worries. I thought you'd prefer to assist the community in identifying edits made while having a COI, as this tends to work out better on Wikipedia long term, especially if accompanied by a plausible explanation or self-reverts. Ultimately, it's a question of trust in your judgment and words. But, naturally, don't feel compelled. Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 22:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Feel free to scrutinize any of my edits. Outside of those when I first began editing in 2005 and was learning the ropes, I've done my best to be very neutral in all of them. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan ! 23:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As you wish. You surely know it's not about WP:NPOV (nor about WP:PAID ) but about WP:COI . Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 23:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (or userfy per Nihonjoe's request). The Deseret News source is decent, but I can't find any additional sources that I'd consider as contributing to notability. I've tried searching under all the company's previous names. Also tried searching newspaper archives; the only result was this passing mention (TWL access only). I'm open to reconsidering if better sources are found. Sojourner in the earth ( talk ) 21:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails WP:NCORP , which requires multiple significant and reliable sources. I tried looking under both company names and could not find any other than the Deseret News one. popo dameron ⁠ talk 22:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Only one source potentially contributes to notability here and it's about another company that was taken over by the subject company. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:SUSTAINED. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 23:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - This deletion nomination is a proxy for taking action (be it no more than a warning or a slap on the wrist) for an editor holding advanced permissions allegedly doing undisclosed COI editing. This is unfortunate. My reading of the sources shown in the footnotes, without taking the first step onto the internet to sniff around, is that this is a GNG-pass. It is a well-constructed and useful piece as well. Let's not throw the baby out the window just because daddy may or may not have been less than forthcoming. Carrite ( talk ) 18:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you alleging that this is a bad-faith nomination? — kashmīrī TALK 18:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, I'm sure you believe what you believe and it is a close call. But it's clearly taking the form of a proxy for something else. Carrite ( talk ) 18:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, and the spin out articles here. This isn’t a hugely notable company, but it’s an academic spin out and there’s enough coverage of it and its products to make something of. We should at least try that first, rather than have teh dramahz. Guy ( help! - typo? ) 12:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, the vast majority of content has been created by employees if off-wiki evidence is to be trusted. Who do you want to maintain this article for this micro business for which the last and only in-depth sourcing worth its name dates to 1999? — kashmīrī TALK 15:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - doesn't pass NCORP and nobody has even tried to put forward NCORP sources. Levivich ( talk ) 13:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Does not meet NCORP, which is ultimately the only thing that matters in ing this article in mainspace. JoelleJay ( talk ) 20:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Admiral's Arms: Newspapers.com had no hits, Google did not have anything more than the briefest of passing mentions. The SandDoctor Talk 14:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . The SandDoctor Talk 14:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] English Gsearch goes straight to Bandcamp and streaming sites, the French search on . fr sites is about the same [41] . Nothing for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Keivan Zokaei: The attempted notability claim is that he won a minor special-interest award for his writing a decade ago, which would be fine if the article were properly sourced but is in no way ""inherently"" notable enough to hand him a ""no sourcing required"" inclusion freebie -- but the only source being cited here at all is a piece of his own writing being circularly cited to metaverify its own existence, which is not the kind of sourcing it takes: we need WP:GNG -worthy coverage and analysis about him, in third-party reliable sources (media, books, etc.) independent of himself, not just technical verification that he exists. Bearcat ( talk ) 01:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom . Bearcat ( talk ) 01:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. subject has a fair number of citations in business/supply chain-related topics. [2] — siro χ o 03:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. per WP:NPROF : While Zokaei is cited in some reputable publications, these references are largely tangential or self-written. Additionally, the vast majority seem to reference only a single publication by Zokaei. Together, I believe these facts would broadly rule out criteria 1 of WP:NPROF , the only criteria I can see possibly applying. KJGinger ( talk ) 05:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Business , and Wales . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC) BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. BLP requires strong sourcing and none is in the article. BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject (the individual) directly and indepth. [3] shows they are cited, but none of these address the subject diretly and indepth . If someone finds SIGCOV about the subject ping me. // Timothy :: talk 16:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Cornell 100+ MPG Team: [Should note that I attend Cornell, but have no connection to this project team] Eddie891 Talk Work 03:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , Environment , Transportation , and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] God that's ridiculous – sponsors and all the divisions? This is a prime example of why we tend not to have articles on individual student clubs. Reywas92 Talk 15:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC) NOTWEBHOST applies as well. SportingFlyer T · C 21:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dimitrianos Juliou: Sims2aholic8 ( talk ) 18:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Cyprus . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON . Svartner ( talk ) 20:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: or draftify? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC) BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article are database records and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth . BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 17:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lesní stadion: Chris Troutman ( talk ) 14:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Czech Republic . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 14:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Article claims it was home to the football team from 1957 for a long time, but their current stadium has been in use since 1966. Even the club's own website doesn't mention that it used Na Lesní as a permanent home. C 679 10:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC) 27, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dream Publisher: No sources on the page and a search for sources finds nothing that would meet WP:GNG or NCORP. CNMall41 ( talk ) 05:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Slovenia . CNMall41 ( talk ) 05:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] at this point. Yes, they exist, but not under the name Dream Publisher, this is Založba Sanje. And all other names seem to be rough translations that are not used in practice. There is a chance that notability is demonstrated but it is better that the article is completely rewritten from scratch. -- Tone 08:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC) TNT , continue under title Sanje (publishing house) or similar. A09 | (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC) GNG , but the article is a bit WP:PROMO at the moment. WP:TNT is right play. . TLA (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lists of Celts: Most of these people will speak English (a Germanic language) in they daily lives, or French (a Romance language) in the Bretons' case. (Well, not all of them. One tiny village ... or one great song ...). The very opening sentence is riddled with issues: This is a collection of lists of Celts who tend to be most associated with a modern Celtic identity . ""who tend to be most associated with"" is just an opinion. If this were a category, it would be d per WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:OPINIONCAT WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH . In modern times, identifying as a ""Celt"" or ""Celtic"" is up to individuals. It is not up to Wikipedia to categorise all inhabitants of modern countries or regions as ""Celts/Celtic"" by default just because they ""tend to be associated"" with modern Celtic identity . We just can't mix up language family and nationality/ethnicity like this. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries for a long list of precedents. Similar categories and lists involving ""Germanic"", ""Celtic"", ""Slavic"" and other language-family WP:CROSSCATs have already been d (most recently ""Category:Celtic clans"" ). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 23:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Language . Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 23:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups , Ireland , Scotland , and Wales . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC) ARBITRARYCAT . This reminds me of a discussion I had with an editor, some years ago, about applying unspoken/subjective/""in own head only"" criteria to categorise otherwise random modern people into Category:Gaels . Notwithstanding that corollary, it seems bizarre (at best) to assume that all members of the List of Irish people or List of Welsh people or List of Scots (sub)lists are ""celts"". Arthur Wellesley , Laura Ashley and Khalid Abdalla are included in these respective (sub)lists. Are these people ""celts""? By what measure? (Frankly think this ""list of (less-than-related) lists"" causes more problems than it solves, and that deleting it is probably for the best. Certainly I cannot conceive of an alternative use of the title. A (to where?), DRAFTIFY (to what end?)...) Guliolopez ( talk ) 20:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC) Ancient People or Modern Invention? ) and historic (maybe the person buried at Vix would have called herself a celt but we have no way of knowing) this isn't something we can really get into. ©Geni ( talk ) 20:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC) I don't think the nature of the term Celt (as others have covered above), which is very much a modern back-projection, is inherently compatible with a list of this sort. UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 17:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC) 44, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Greg Hunter: No WP:SIGCOV to be found. Article was likely made by either subject himself or someone close to him. Three of the five sources in the article are Discogs, which is unreliable. Cheers, atque supra ! Fake scientist 8000 01:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England . Cheers, atque supra ! Fake scientist 8000 01:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , found 0 reliable sources talking about him. Other wikis that have him also have 0 reliable sources. Appears to be a nonnotable person who lacks any significant coverage whatsoever. Heart (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Tricky one. Not a massive amount of coverage and the current article is not good. But there are some sources including bios of him and his groups: Collaboration with The Egg (band) has these sources: God is in the TV ; Essentially Pop , Decoded Mag ArtistInfo Bio - reliability of source questionable - looks crowdsourced. Bio of Hunter's band Cloudcycle on Resident Advisor Song review Resident Advisor again: Butterfly Studios is also where he met Greg Hunter, AKA Dubsahara, a sound engineer on The Orb's first two albums. Hunter mastered Temple Of Sonic Peace and co-wrote ""Shantiman (Basoa Dub),"" where his guitar and synth programming, coupled with Sangita's ambient dub, are placed beautifully and intricately alongside the vocals of Haradhan Das Baul interview - but seems an advert promo for hitnmix Bio on a Japanese clubbing site - includes link to international tour of Japan Allmusic has a credits page but no bio: [41] As Dubsahara, he has a collaboration project with notable musician Simon Posford called Dub Trees : [42] ; [43] ; [44] Hunter very much exists, appears to have an extensive career well over 20 years working with notable musicians, and has attained some notability as a non-mainstream 'counter culture' artist in his own right including touring internationally - whether sufficient for WP remains to be seen. If kept article will need work. Resonant Dis tor tion 16:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs more evaluation based on recent sources found. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC) MUSICBIO . Resident Advisor is a WP:EMRS and has critical and bio coverage. The collaboration with the Egg has some critical review&coverage which appears independent. The Clubberia Bio looks independent and has evidence of international touring. I will intend to improve the article and add sources if it is kept. Resonant Dis tor tion 06:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SWinxy ( talk ) 02:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . I'm not convinced the sources are enough for notability. The Egg collaboration is probably the strongest point, but that's still not much. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO collaboration with the Egg is not sufficient. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 09:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Universality and quantum systems: It seems to be vague but articulate enough to seem to introduce a topic without using any important keywords. For a ""universality"" article it is not clear how general this notion is. It can be seen from this talk, that this article should have never been considered to be moved into the mainspace. The article also has been an WP:Orphan since 2015. Let me discuss the sources: Stanley 1999, refers to ""universality"" to talk about universality class , which already has an article. J. Avery's book, has no entry on universality on its index. S. Gupta beamer is not a valid source, and its calculation seems to be the base for the second section of the article. P. Lepage arxiv is also not a valid source, or at least not enough to prove notability. Additionally, It seems to be related to effective theories and never uses the word ""universality"". I have not been able to verify the notability of this article, thus I propose deletion. A Universality (physics) article could be considered given things like lepton universality , universality principle , universal conductance fluctuations , universality (dynamical systems) , universality class but I have never seen such an inclusive treatment. If somebody can clarify what it is about then maybe it can be d somewhere else. ReyHahn ( talk ) 15:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC) This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 15:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions . Qwaiiplayer ( talk ) 16:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Undecided . This is probably an WP:ESSAY if what the currently-cited sources contain are any indication. However, I did find some papers from significant academic journals, ""Universality in Quantum Computation"" and ""Thermodynamic universality of quantum Carnot engines"" , just from a Google search with the phrase being specifically the title of the Wikipedia article. A Google Scholar article also finds several academic articles primarily about the connection between universality and various quantum concepts, so... maybe an article like this could exist? User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 20:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment ""Universality"" is a technical term in statistical physics, referring to how sometimes the behavior of a large aggregate can be independent of the details about individual pieces. We see the same bell-shaped kind of curve all over the place, for example. ""Universality"" has a different technical meaning in quantum computation. There, it's basically the quantum counterpart of the idea that you can implement any truth table you want by combining AND, OR, and NOT gates. The ""thermodynamic universality of quantum Carnot engines"" paper linked above is using the word in yet a third sense, referring to how all Carnot engines have the same efficiency. Throwing the title into a search engine will inevitably bring back a horrible mix of all these meanings , which is pretty much useless for determining whether we need an article with this title and if the present text is anywhere near what it should be. XOR'easter ( talk ) 22:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Man, if it were not for this darn brain fog I have had for several months, I might get some of those technical terms. ""Gates"", ""truth tables"", ""third sense"". User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 14:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's a solid introduction to logic gates and truth tables in Larry Gonick 's Cartoon Guide to the Computer . I don't know of a comparably straightforward introduction to the quantum version; the idea is covered in Mike and Ike , but nobody really picks up that book without at least a couple years of a physics degree first. XOR'easter ( talk ) 23:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, I've read it, gone away, and read it again. I don't think there's an encyclopedia topic here, nor any material worth trying to salvage. This reads like someone trying to write a textbook, which we aren't ... while being too confused about the actual ideas to do that. XOR'easter ( talk ) 02:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The introduction discusses Kadanoff's definition of universality, but then says that it not quite the kind of universality this article is about. We are left with a very vague notion of what the topic of the article actually is. To me, the selection of topics seems very much inspired by the last reference ( https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.nucl-th/9706029 ) which, however, does not mention universality, but is about effective low-energy models ( effective field theories ). One could interpret effective field theory as being the topic of this article, but since the author avoids the that term, and instead replaces it with that vague notion of universality, this article falls into the category of original research . Jähmefyysikko ( talk ) 07:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, per ReyHahn. An article could be written on this, but it's not this article. TNT is the only option. Headbomb { t · c · p · b } 23:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Universality and quantum systems . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Said discussion has been copy-pasted to this AfD's talk page . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 02:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Raktabeej: Unreleased films are only notable if production itself satisfies general notability . This article says nothing about production, and reads like advance publicity. This article has already been draftified twice and moved back to article space twice, by User:Skarmory and by User: Tanbiruzzaman . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 06:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 06:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] When I draftified the article, the article looked the exact same, except it had 0 citations – it now has 8, primarily Bengali-language sources. A few of them are from no consensus or generally unreliable sources, and the rest seem to just be parroting the fact that the film has started production without too much unique content. Meanwhile, in its current state, the article doesn't really have any content past just being a cast and crew listing for a film that is in production. I'm not familiar whatsoever with film notability debates, but I don't think this currently passes WP:GNG , so I'm going to say , or draftify if the creator (or someone else) seems willing to work on it in draftspace despite moving it to mainspace twice. (Also, I removed what I can only assume to have been a spare ""Raktabeej"" that was above the nomination.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC) NFF Donald D23 talk to me 12:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Skarmory Carpimaps talk to me! 12:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jocelyn Kapumealani Ng: Hitro talk 09:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Women , and Hawaii . Hitro talk 09:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Brief coverage with only four hits in Gnews, but nothing extensive that would help meet notability. Sourcing in the article isn't useful, 3 and 4 are red per Cite Highlighter, with 5 being marginal. On the whole, we don't have notability for this artist. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"The Preserve at Sharp Mountain, Georgia: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 04:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment , United States of America , and Georgia (U.S. state) . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 04:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC) I don't see any reason for it's AFD. Seems historic and pases WP: PLACEOUTCOMES and generally, WP:NGEO . There are sources but as per WP: BEFORE seems notable and historic. Otuọcha ( talk ) 20:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Otuocha , which sources allow you to make that conclusion? Whether it ""seems"" notable is irrelevant. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 21:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Otuọcha , fix ping. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 21:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - non-notable neighborhood. Lady of Shalott 14:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In reply, it is a notable neighborhood, property and homes owned by people from California to Florida. A safe place to live in the mountains. Gamountainhiker ( talk ) 21:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC) The article has some problems (e.g., in-line link: ""owners website members.sharp-mountain.com"" which is a members-only link that is not available to Wikipedians in general), but on the whole, it is unremarkable from an encyclopedia standpoint. While the community is one of the most notable in its region, it may not rise to sufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. ⁃ Fire wall 04:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not notable in it's region. James.folsom ( talk ) 01:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The owners website was removed for reason noted. This page has been there for years, used by many people. Gamountainhiker ( talk ) 21:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is basically advertising that needs to be d. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The first reference is linked to wrong issue of the magazine. James.folsom ( talk ) 01:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The offending reference was removed, could not find where the original creator found it. The preserve is a popular place to live as North Ga., it has become recognized as far away as California. Gamountainhiker ( talk ) 15:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well I grew up in North Georgia, and I hadn't ever heard of it. James.folsom ( talk ) 00:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] no it is not advertising, as some one that lives in the Preserve, it is a growing community, over 20 homes under construction at this time. I removed the offending link not available without a userid and pw. This area of North Ga is growing as a good place to live. Gamountainhiker ( talk ) 15:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, In a time of people moving for crime ridden cities, the North Ga mountains offers a huge advantage, this article has had a high hit rate since it was posted. It offers a different view of life as opposed to high density areas! """"The Preserve at Sharp Mountain, Georgia - Wikipedia"" Gamountainhiker ( talk ) 21:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC) — Gamountainhiker ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] it's not a neighborhood, it's a planned community. Significant portions read like the real estate listings they're also a part of. They're great for that, not an encyclopedia article. I can't find sourcing on which to build a neutral article as coverage only exists to sell it. Star Mississippi 15:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] unless someone can provide multiple references to reliable sources completely independent of The Preserve at Sharp Mountain that devote significant coverage to this development. This is not a neutrally written , properly referenced encyclopedia article. Real estate marketing brochures are not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 ( talk ) 20:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom and just blatant advertising. Theroadislong ( talk ) 22:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nii Atakora Mensah: Mccapra ( talk ) 07:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Ghana . Mccapra ( talk ) 07:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC) per nomination, appears to fail WP:BIO as only citation #1 seems reliable. Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 14:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Yuri Lushchai: He is unfortunately but one of many war casualties. Projectify as an obit might be an option? Star Mississippi 00:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ukraine . Star Mississippi 00:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC) Deceased Wikipedians/2024 . He was one of us, and he should be remembered. — Maile ( talk ) 02:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Poetry , History , and Military . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC) NOTNEWS). Finstergeist ( talk ) 20:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC) UPPERCASE problem. Are you thinking of the "" Wikipedia is not a newspaper "" and does not engage in original reporting part, or the ""most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion"" part? WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 19:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC) BLP1E ). Finstergeist ( talk ) 12:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - if final vote is , someone should this article, or post an archive link to his user webpage. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC) //web.archive.org/web/20240413164446/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Lushchai https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:%D0%AE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87_%D0%9B . . Sad situation, but unless coverage can be found other than in death notices, passing mentions, and Wikipedia itself, this belongs elsewhere rather than as a Wikipedia article. Persingo ( talk ) 01:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC) Is there a potential WP:NAUTHOR pass here? Curbon7 ( talk ) 03:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the others above. A summary of his current Wikipedia article could be copied to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2024 . Some1 ( talk ) 23:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC) Deceased Wikipedians#Yuri Lushchai . Jay 💬 07:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC) my saddest vote to date (maybe ever) but nothing to meet WP:42 (yes, he was 42). RIP ♡ . . what a legend! FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 13:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2022 SGP3: microbiology Marcus ( petri dish ) 16:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . microbiology Marcus ( petri dish ) 16:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Poland . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Catalogue entry, no evidence of significance, reception, etc. No pl wiki interwiki, references are just catalogue/database reports. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a new competition in the Speedway world and it is extremely likely that the riders listed in this event will go on to become World or European champions in the future. Therefore the article page will become increasingly relevant over the coming years and references will increase significantly as the riders move up to the U19 and U21 age groups. Pyeongchang ( talk ) 14:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia does not exist to predict the future. See WP:CRYSTAL . ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 06:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC) ROUTINE news reports; nothing that has any significance. ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 06:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm confused as to why Wikipedia would not want an article on a sporting event that is covered live on TV in multiple countries throughout the world via Eurosport and Discovery+. It's a feeder competition for SGP and SGP2, in a similar vein as MotoGP3 and MotoGP2 is to MotoGP. It's an annual event for which there is already a main hub page. Johnny2hats2 ( talk ) 22:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It still needs references to demonstrate its notability. I don't believe being on TV is considered notable by Wiki standards? KeepItGoingForward ( talk ) 21:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources don't demonstrate significance and searches by wiki users have not been able to find sources demonstrating significance that are not listed in the article. KeepItGoingForward ( talk ) 21:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some of the information on the URLs has changed since the page's creation. I have now added the relevant news stories for each meeting to try and establish notability. Johnny2hats2 ( talk ) 14:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia articles require independent secondary sources with in depth coverage of the subjects. None appear to be here. Kathlene Smoot ( talk ) 00:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some of the information on the URLs has changed since the page's creation. I have now added the relevant news stories for each meeting to try and establish notability. Johnny2hats2 ( talk ) 14:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] both. Fails GNG, sources in article and BEFORE showed routine brief news and database style pages, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject directly and indepth Above provides no sources to evaluate. // Timothy :: talk 19:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Marianelys Pérez: The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this interview. There's a few quotes from her here as well, but everything else is just passing mentions. JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Dominican Republic . JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC) GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 20:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Fsn (file manager): Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not notable enough. killer bee 12:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC) N -- Artene50 ( talk ) 23:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jayme de Amorim Campos: SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , and Music . SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions . 𝘚𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘈𝘺𝘩𝘢𝘯07 16:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC) BIO or WP:MUSICBIO . LibStar ( talk ) 06:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Moussa Muryango: Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Timeline of the 2006 Lebanon War (September–October): No material is notable enough to include in the Hezbollah-Israel conflict article for the inter-war periods. GreyShark ( dibra ) 20:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Israel , and Lebanon . Shellwood ( talk ) 19:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 22 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and improve - It is notable to have an orderly timeline of the war. However, the article should be worked. Perhaps a tag on the top of the page asking for verification is what's necessary. Article should be expanded. Homerethegreat ( talk ) 10:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article doesn't describe a war timeline, but long after it ended. It is WP:SYNTH . GreyShark ( dibra ) 09:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. The following apply: WP:SYNTH , WP:TNT , and WP:NOTNEWS . NOTNEWS applies for the article as is, albeit not for topic. gidonb ( talk ) 13:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. I think there could be an article on the aftermath of the conflict, but it doesn't exist. If someone wants to use this as a starting point for a proper article, I would agree to draft under a proper name. Its not a suitable . // Timothy :: talk 14:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"European Cricket Network: Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions . Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC) After revision deletion there is no way that this organization is notable at the slightest; the only source provided is likely promotional. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 18:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Europe , and Switzerland . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Not noteable. -- AAonlyA ( talk ) 20:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per HarukaAmaranth. This organisation has no governing remit over cricket in Europe. StickyWicket aka AA ( talk ) 06:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - makes no odds if it ""lacks remit"" or ""lacks jurisdiction"", the criteria for notability and inclusion is being noted in reliable sources. That's the only point to discuss. I've been able to find a few sources that could be discussed for reliability including 1 and 2 and 3 . I think there are probably more. JMWt ( talk ) 07:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Although there is some sourcing, I don't believe there is enough here to suggest notability. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Despite some sources, the organization's lack of governing remit over European cricket, alongside insufficient evidence of notability, supports its removal. -- Rodgers V ( talk ) 13:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Karen Wolstenholme: 2 of the 3 sources are primary. Fails WP:BIO . LibStar ( talk ) 05:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Bilateral relations , Korea , and United Kingdom . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC) appears to have received specific media coverage from both foreignpolicy.com, as well as an telegraph.co.uk article regarding her having been identified as personally riding a rollercoaster alongside the DPRK's Supreme Leader. The status of her diplomatic posting and this reporting of what occurred during per posting; reported on by independent and reliable sources lead me to tend toward over . Jack4576 ( talk ) 08:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC) BASIC . Diplomats are not inherently notable but there are multiple in-depth, and independent sources on this diplomat. -- User:Namiba 18:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval: Comments Source Who's Who 1. ""Wolstenholme, Karen Suzanne, (born 16 Oct. 1962), HM Diplomatic Service, retired; Ambassador to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, 2011–12; FCO Services, 2013–16"". Who's Who. 2011. doi:10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.253944. Article is about ""Barnaby Jones works as a junior diplomat at the British Embassy"". Only content about subject is, ""The British Ambassador to North Korea is Karen Wolstenholme."" 2. ^ ""British diplomat takes roller coaster ride with North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un"". www.telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 9 May 2023. Primary source - Foreign & Commonwealth Office 3. ^ Jump up to:a b ""Change of Her Majesty's Ambassador to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea"". Foreign & Commonwealth Office. 27 September 2010. Archived from the original on 8 March 2011. Government annoucement about appointment, info is from government, not IS 4. ^ ""Appointments: Ambassador to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea"". The Times. ISSN 0140-0460. Retrieved 9 May 2023. Two sentences about a government annoucement regarding an appointment 5. ^ ""Woman tapped as next British ambassador to N. Korea"". The Korea Times. 29 September 2010. Retrieved 9 May 2023. Government report about a government employee, not IS 6. ^ House of Lords (2012). The Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). : House of Lords official report. H.M. Stationery Office. Government report about a government employee, not IS 7. ^ Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). : House of Commons official report. H.M. Stationery Office. 2010. One of several individuals interviewed about life in North Korea; interview, not IS; brief, not SIGCOV. 8. ^ Lynch, Colum (22 November 2021). ""The Life of Diplomats in North Korea"". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 9 May 2023. Primary source - Foreign & Commonwealth Office 9. ^ ""Change of Her Majesty's Ambassador to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea"". Foreign & Commonwealth Office. 25 June 2012. Archived from the original on 7 August 2012. The two votes above did complete BEFOREs, but were unable to find any sources to present other than those already in the article. Jack's comment here [17] , specifically ...as well as an telegraph.co.uk article regarding her having been identified as personally riding a rollercoaster alongside the DPRK's Supreme Leader. is completely false. This is a BLP and this incident at the theme park was a serious diplomatic scandal. There statement is completely false: The subject of the article was not the person photographed as the source clearly states. [18] Jack clearly didn't read the source before their spam and in the process attributed a diplomatic scandal to an innocent person. // Timothy :: talk 20:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . Very small article about a weak notable diplomat supported by reliable references. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 01:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - on further reflection, I believe BLPs require a high degree of documentation than regular articles. Weakly referenced BLPs watched by few editors are especially vulnerable to malicious actors. This person's job as a diplomat makes this even more of a risk. If this were not a BLP, I'd stick with my earlier ""weak ""-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 20:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC) BLP as a far as I can see. It needs real secondary sources to prove the person is notable. I know I harping on about this, but it does need to be absolutely notable for a BLP. I think this is probably below borderline at the moment. I never signed up to 1 is ref is good. WP:THREE has always been best practice for proving an Afd. scope_creep Talk 10:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Stephen L. Fowler: None of the provided citations assert any notability. Much of the article is unsubstantiated and uncited Vertigo Acid ( talk ) 08:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Engineering , and South Carolina . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 08:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I couldn't find any additional sources with the standard search tools. There are some false hits for a historic supervisor of Sonoma County, California and some articles this Stephen Fowler may have written but nothing ""about"" him. Nothing in the article or that I can find online suggests that he is notable as either an academic or media personality. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 01:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Alexandra de Blas: A mere 2 google news hits. and google books hits are 1 line mentions. Fails WP:JOURNALIST . LibStar ( talk ) 23:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A low controversy. long career, respected environmental journalist who used to host a radio show on a national radio broadcaster. My Google search returned 19,000 hits. MNewnham ( talk ) 18:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC) GOOGLEHITS is not a reason for ing. LibStar ( talk ) 22:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Totally agree, but you emphasized 2 hits as if this person was invisible on the internet which is clearly not the case. My other points are much more relevant though. MNewnham ( talk ) 01:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 2 google news hits. LibStar ( talk ) 02:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV and establish notability? LibStar ( talk ) 02:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Journalism , Environment , and Australia . LibStar ( talk ) 23:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC) There are multiple issues. Wikipedia is not a venue for resumes . As a BLP sourcing requirements are more stringent. Maybe I am location biased hamstrung but couldn't find sources that are not resume related. At 19,000 hits there would certainly appear to be enough to cite sources on the article that would advance notability . I didn't get that return. Wikipedia demands a ""high degree of sensitivity"" on BLP's and the second lead paragraph of WP:BLP repeats WP:BURDEN. This feels like a person being elevated to notability while lacking sources that actually advance notability. Most people in the world would love a Wikipedia article so much they will pay to have one created. Lack of sources means the entire lead section would need to be removed as I must have missed sourced coverage in the article body so that the lead would be a ""summary"". The lack of such sources does indicate the article Fails WP:JOURNALIST . What we usually see is the author, or another editor wishing the article kept, providing some sources on the article that we refer to a HEY . The difference between a resume (job listing) and a Biography : Detailed description of a person's life. It involves more than just basic facts like education, work, relationships, and death; it portrays a person's experience of these life events. Unlike a profile or curriculum vitae (résumé), a biography presents a subject's life story, highlighting various aspects of their life, including intimate details of experience, and may include an analysis of the subject's personality. The article lacks significant and independent coverage in reliable sources for a BLP. -- Otr500 ( talk ) 01:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC) //trove.nla.gov.au/? keyword=alexandra%20de%20blas is interesting to see, regardless of whatever the comments above might infer, or whichever direction... JarrahTree 14:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC) To JarrahTree . I am surmising you are showing a Trove ""search engine"" using Alexandra de Blas but I cannot read the old pages shown and I would have to see if I have access. Also I see a key word of ""Alexandra"" being offered but not ""Alexandra de Blas"". However, a ""search engine"", at this point, does not help to show me anything particular to, from, or about the subject to advance notability and this is a BLP . If the subject did have articles listed in Trove, meaning there might be original articles somewhere, this might offer evidence of such notability. I saw that three of the authors articles were d as well, as was one that was a draft. If I am not mistaken all of them were because of sourcing , so to repeat, there needs to be significant coverage in reliable and independent sources to stem notability concerns. I have been trying to add sources I find to some of the authors articles because apparently it is almost a year since the last edit (March 3, 2023) so I found no help in the source. Maybe someone would have better luck -- Otr500 ( talk ) 00:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC) https://trove.nla.gov.au/people/484872 - or indeed call it strange names: Trove is an online aggregator - and should be utilised in afds involving Australian subjects, as google based systems do not necessarily collect aspects of Australian material JarrahTree 03:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Like",delete
+"Martin Brown (fighter): Not having WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS , WP:RS where by the subject is talk about i length and in dept and not passing mentioned for WP:V . Sources talking about announcements and results of fights are considered routing report and can not be contribute to the subject notability. Cassiopeia talk 23:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Boxing , Martial arts , and Florida . Cassiopeia talk 23:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC) no coverage other than autogenerated/boilerplate profiles. Hi! ( talk ) 10:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC) NMMA requires. Appearing in multiple databases and an article on one of his fights does not constitute significant independent coverage. I found nothing that shows he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO or any SNG. Papaursa ( talk ) 18:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sourcing I find is largely match reports. What's used isn't enough for notability. This is typical of what I find [1] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC) GNG , WP:NMMA and WP:NBOX . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 20:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Alexandra Maksimova: Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of ing this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Skating , and Belarus . Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC) Unable to find the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:GNG . Let'srun ( talk ) 15:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC) I found nothing beyond routine mentions. Owen× ☎ 22:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Whittaker family: My thoughts on this are fairly simple, so I'll just quote the proposed deletion: ""This article consists entirely of primary sources, tabloids, and podcasts. I can not find any RS covering it. See WP:SBST"" Cpotisch ( talk ) 21:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 15 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 21:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 23:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC) Biography of living persons demands a more immediate requirement for sourcing on this, not the weaker requirement that the content could be sourced. It's currently sourced to several YouTube videos, the Daily Star , the Daily Express , and the New York Post . All of those are on Project:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as bad sources that should not be used. Uncle G ( talk ) 02:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you have a stance on deletion then? Again, I can't find any RS to replace those junk sources, so in my view this points pretty strongly towards that. Cpotisch ( talk ) 21:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC) here from WikiProject West Virginia. This seems like tabloid exploitation and little else; arguments about ""inbreeding"" point to pseudoscience—it would be relevant only if there were evidence of specific genetic traits or abnormalities being concentrated or magnified to cause the members physical difficulties, but here all that is alleged is that they're ""inbred"" and grotesque. I'd say it seemed defamatory, but I suppose if family members were voluntarily interviewed, then it's only defamatory to peripherally-associated people—perhaps West Virginians or Appalachian folk generally—which wouldn't violate BLP. Even if we take the sources at face value, verifiability does not demonstrate notability, and the only evidence of notability is a high number of YouTube views—which might just be due to the volume of the channel. But since the YouTube channel also seems to be of marginal notability at best, I'm not convinced that these views demonstrate notability any more than clickbait does. I'd like to say """", but I don't feel completely impartial due to my feelings about what this story says about West Virginians. Would like to hear from more people, perhaps from outside the project. P Aculeius ( talk ) 11:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] -- Outside the tabloid notariety, I can find no sources that give secondary, analytical treatment to this subject. On a non-policy note, it's an extremely distasteful and derogatory treatment of the subject. The latter is not a reason for deletion, but the lack of RS and lack of GNG are certainly valid reasons. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed. It's crass and exploitative material based on a crass and exploitative YouTube series. Cpotisch ( talk ) 22:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Since this was PROD'd before (please next time state this in your edit summary), it is not eligible for Soft Deletion. Lots of critique here but only one editor specifically advocating Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC) I'd say it's pretty clear all three of the editors who've weighed in so far think this subject is not notable and not supported by particularly good sources. I only held back from voting because I was concerned about my ability to be impartial, since I'm a West Virginian and I think this article plays up stereotypes about West Virginia. The proposed deletion was noted in the nomination, and the editor who deprodded it gave no explanation and has not participated in this discussion. So it seems unlikely that holding the discussion open will produce any different result. P Aculeius ( talk ) 23:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed. Maybe @ Cullen328 could close and it? Cpotisch ( talk ) 02:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"UCCU Crosstown Clash: Let'srun ( talk ) 21:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC) - women's soccer noted as crosstown clash in headline, https://www.deseret.com/2017/9/23/20620085/uvu-soccer-wolverines-drop-uccu-crosstown-clash-to-byu-3-0 noted as crosstown clash in headline, https://www.ksl.com/article/46394883/byu-pressure-too-much-for-wolverines-in-uccu-crosstown-clash noted as crosstown rival in story, https://www.ksl.com/article/50722528/baileys-brace-powers-no-7-byu-womens-soccer-to-6-1-win-over-utah-valley - women's basketball noted as rival in story, https://kslsports.com/507606/byu-womens-basketball-lauren-gustin-utah-valley-game-recap/ - men's basketball noted as rivalry in story, https://www.ksl.com/article/50534753/utah-valley-holds-byu-to-36-shooting-for-2nd-straight-win-over-cougars noted as crosstown clash in headline, https://kslsports.com/473875/utah-valley-upsets-no-12-byu-in-overtime-crosstown-clash/ noted as rivalry in subheadline, https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/against-utah-valley-no-12-byu-faces-second-straight-rivalry-game/ noted as crosstown rival in story, https://www.abc4.com/sports/utah-valley-upsets-byu-again-75-60/ noted as rival school in story, https://news.yahoo.com/former-byu-guard-tanner-toolson-163057123.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeppsna ( talk • contribs ) 03:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Baseball , Basketball , and Utah . Let'srun ( talk ) 21:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The sources provided by Jeppsna above, in the order given: Local news ( Deseret News , Salt Lake City), uses term ""Crosstown Clash"", but has nothing about rivalry, and has no in-depth coverage of a rivalry/clash, just highlights from a particular game. Local news (KSL-5 TV, in SLC), uses term ""Crosstown Clash"", but has nothing about rivalry, and has no in-depth coverage of a rivalry/clash, just stats on a particular game and lots of quotoids from coach and players. Local KSL again, does not use ""Crosstown Clash"", does claim rivalry, but there is no in-depth coverage of rivalry, just stats on a particular game. Local KSL again, , does not use ""Crosstown Clash"", does claim rivalry, but there is no in-depth coverage of rivalry, just stats on a particular game, and some discussion of a team's seasonal highlights. Local KSL again, does not use ""Crosstown Clash"", does claim rivalry, but there is no in-depth coverage of rivalry, just highlights from one game, and some player and coach interview material; this one is of more interest than the others because it quotes a player saying ""rivaly"". Local KSL yet again, uses term ""Crosstown Clash"", does not mention rivaly, and has no in-depth coverage of clash/rivalry, just highlights from one game. At last, a non-local source ( CBS Sports ): does not use ""Crosstown Clash"", does claim rivalry, but there is no in-depth coverage of rivalry, just stats on a particular game, does quote a coach using the term ""rivalry"". More local news (ABC4 TV, Provo, Utah), does not use ""Crosstown Clash"", does claim rivalry, but there is no in-depth coverage of rivalry, just highlights from one game. Finally, Yahoo! News source that looked like it could have been national, but nope, it's Deseret News again being republished; does not use ""Crosstown Clash"" and does not mention a sports rivalry, but uses the term ""rival"" in a different sense (of schools in the same area competing for enrollees). The other sources already cited in the article are similarly weak. I can do a run-down of them like the above if anyone really wants it. The short versions is they are either all local news, or are organizational sites being cited for material unrelated to a rivalry, and none of them provide in-depth coverage of the rivalry as such. The closest to this is this one , which covers a three-game series. Another is almost in the ballpark; it's regional coverage and compares the writer's personal experience of two ""Clash"" games five years apart, but is really about him and the particulars of the two games, not about ""the rivalry"". What we can gather from all the source material is this: There is a manufactured ""sports rivalry"" between these schools, consisting of a series of non-league (exhibition) games sponsored by a local credit union. Locally it is sometimes (but not consistently) called ""Crosstown Clash"" (this may actually be an official name provided by the sponsor; that's not really clear). One national-level source (not using the ""Crosstown Clash"" name for it), has said there is such a rivalry. But there is no in-depth coverage of the rivalry, even in the local news. The near-total lack of any significant national coverage indicates this is a local-interest matter. Ergo, this is not an encyclopedically WP:Notable topic and cannot have its own article. Some of the material should probably be d in WP:SUMMARY style into the school articles under their athletics sections. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some info should be included in the school program articles, but given SMcCandlish's analysis the sources don't indicate the notability required for a standalone article. funplussmart ( talk ) 06:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Brunei–Spain relations: voters saying relations exist and sources would be available, I find no evidence of WP:SIGCOV of these relations. The article is still largely based on a primary source. LibStar ( talk ) 05:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Brunei , and Spain . Kpg jhp jm 07:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Per lack of significant coverage. Yilloslime ( talk ) 15:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) GNG . Many of the ! votes in the last AfD were based off of the fact that relations exist, which doesn't necessarily mean notability. Some of the ! votes mentioned a war between Spain and Brunei in 1578, however as Curbon7 said at that AfD, there has been little diplomatic interaction since. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 23:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Quintin King: I don't have an opinion either way J2m5 ( talk ) 10:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . J2m5 ( talk ) 10:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. Hunter region ( talk ) 22:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC) — Hunter region ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] . ""Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."" from WP:POLITICIAN . But the subject of the article doesn't satisfy WP:GNG . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC) NPOL . Created by a single purpose editor so possible self promotion or promotion. LibStar ( talk ) 22:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC) Fails WP:NPOL . Additionally this reads like campaign advertisement material and should be removed per WP:NOTADVERTISEMENT . Tar nis hed Path talk 01:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Wikipedia is not a venue for self promotion or a political campaigning platform. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 07:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the inclusion test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while unelected candidates get articles only if either (a) they were already notable for other reasons that would already have gotten them into Wikipedia anyway regardless of their success or failure in the election, or (b) the article shows credible evidence that their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater notability than everybody else's candidacies. But neither of those things are in evidence here. Additionally, the existence of campaign coverage is not sufficient to claim that the candidate passes WP:GNG instead of having to be measured against NPOL — every candidate in every election always gets some campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then every candidate would get that exemption and NPOL itself would be meaningless and unenforceable. So campaign coverage still gets an unelected candidate around NPOL only if it supports one of the special conditions I outlined above. Bearcat ( talk ) 18:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of significant tornadoes by calendar day: The article name is highly misleading as one would expect every tornado that occurred on each day to be listed (which is impossible). Dates on this page have mention of certain tornadoes or outbreaks without any mention of multiple other tornadoes or outbreaks of equal or greater significance occurring the same dates. Since not every tornado event can be included, this article is misleading and should be d. United States Man ( talk ) 03:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC) United States Man ( talk ) 03:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment No reason has been specified for deletion. Noah , BSBA Talk 03:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Stand by. I gave a reason but it seems that was not carried over into the discussion for some reason. United States Man ( talk ) 03:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The title probably should have been changed ages ago. I changed it to reflect how it should read. I know it will get d anyway, but I’m still trying to plead my case. I wish I could be given the opportunity to fix this page - with a deadline - instead of it just being d entirely. Dym75 ( talk ) 15:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Lists . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC) LISTCRUFT . I don't understand why we need to know what day of any particular year a tornado occurred. Ajf773 ( talk ) 09:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as utterly inane. Tornadoes don't have any correlation to specific calendar days (except for there being fewer on February 29). Clarityfiend ( talk ) 10:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Except it’s not “utterly inane” … if it were fixed, this could be an excellent reference for people looking to see if there was a significant tornado or outbreak on a given day. Dym75 ( talk ) 15:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with the rest, this list fails the criteria for a list on wikipedia in several ways, one of which is that it's arbitrary, another that it's an unmanageably large set. -- Licks-rocks ( talk ) 12:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom and others. Noah , BSBA Talk 12:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Also disagree that no reason was provided for deletion. Abhishek0831996 ( talk ) 13:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Check the history. It was blank before. Noah , BSBA Talk 13:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. This list does not need to exist at all. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 15:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It honestly feels like a sort of ""fan-page"", and really doesn't contribute much to the actual encyclopedia. Tornadoes don't follow a by-day pattern each year, and if say for ""May 30"" the 1999 F5 popped up, what about the May 30 F0? There are no criteria. MemeGod . _. ( My talk page , my contributions and my creations! ) 15:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rather than outright deleting it, perhaps it could be moved to the weather portal, for the weather events by day? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC) LISTCRUFT and also WP:NLIST . As MemeGod pointed out, there is no pattern for day-by-day tornado events. Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] for all reasons previously covered. wxtrackercody ( talk · contributions ) 18:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC) 1. It was proof that tornadoes can happen on every single day of the calendar year. People think that they can’t or don’t happen in certain months, but they do. 2. It was proof that tornadoes can happen on six of the seven continents (if there’s been one on Antarctica, then correct me!), trying to get away from being too America-centered since folks don’t realize how many places are affected beyond Tornado Alley, Dixie Alley, etc. I found more info on tornadoes that happened in Africa, South Asia, Australia, etc. 3. I had no intentions of making this a “fan page” - which sounds odd, anyway - but for educational purposes. I was trying to find tornadoes with significance, including all the EF5 tornadoes, the most significant EF4 tornadoes, the deadliest, the costliest, and so on. I was trying to include tornadoes that happen in states where folks least expect them (New England states, Hawaii, etc). 4. The whole point of continuing the page was for the folks who may stumble upon it and learn something. It would dispel myths which is incredibly important. The ignorance outside the weather community is astounding. Knowledge can save lives, right? I’m going to copy all the code/info and such because I spent days upon weeks in the past trying to fix this page, but work, health, and my elderly Mom have gotten in the way. If all else fails, and you folks just it anyway, I’ll just create my own website with this information. Stinks if I had to do that, though… dym75 16 May 2024 You cannot use Wikipedia for personal gain. Knowledge here has to be reliable, notable, and significantly covered. Feel free to find educational sources and ping them here. Conyo14 ( talk ) 02:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Personal gain? I don’t understand. Also, every source has been reliable, all tornadoes listed are notable, and… significantly covered? Dym75 ( talk ) 14:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You specialize in hockey/sports pages? Why are you part of a discussion about the deletion of a weather article? This is so confusing… Dym75 ( talk ) 14:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Because he can be? Anyone can be part of a discussion, no matter the topic. Heck, I write mainly galaxy pages! MemeGod . _. ( My talk page , my contributions and my creations! ) 17:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Way to make me feel inclusive. I have plenty of knowledge in all facets of Wikipedia, whilst continuing to expand my wisdom. That being said, the sources listed are WP:ROUTINE to a normal, yet typically catastrophic, weather event, but are not induced to the specific day of the week or day of the year. There are better arguments for the month they occur recognized with tornado patterns. Also, if people were curious about a date it happened, they can review List of tornado events by year and go from there. Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Half of that didn’t make sense. I literally don’t know how to ask for clarification. Dym75 ( talk ) 02:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It has nothing to do with knowledge and saving lives. The article is non-encyclopedic. You could add 700,000 bytes to the page, and the article still would be AfD because it isn't needed. I hope you Mom gets better! :) MemeGod . _. ( My talk page , my contributions and my creations! ) 11:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for saying that about my Mom. I guess I don’t understand why someone didn’t nominate this page for deletion years ago. It’s been around for well over a decade and god knows I certainly wouldn’t have bothered doing loads of research and trying to improve upon it. There is/was criteria for selecting the tornadoes I did. They were EF5s or EF4s, they were historically significant with regard to advances in meteorology, how tornadoes were recorded. They were culturally significant because of the people or places affected, the loss of life or property. They were proof of significant tornadoes on other continents. I dug up information from a variety of other Wiki articles, from NOAA databases, major news stories, other sources. I was trying to it relevant on a worldwide scale with as many other major tornadoes from other continents as possible. You folks will probably boot me from Wikipedia forever for changing the title, but I did anyway: “List of significant tornadoes by calendar day.” That was the idea behind my edits. Actual significance and not a fan page - still don’t understand what that means. (And I know folks may have added a bunch of random events between May and November or during other times of the year that didn’t line up with the standard I was trying to create for the page. That certainly doesn’t help my case.) Dym75 ( talk ) 14:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't worry, nobody is THAT harsh (although I will say some crazy people are on here). Even if it was renamed, it's all good. :) MemeGod . _. ( My talk page , my contributions and my creations! ) 17:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC) From WP:NCLIST : Best practice is to avoid words like notable , famous , noted , prominent, etc. in the title of a list article. jlwoodwa ( talk ) 19:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, aren’t encyclopedias supposed to be about learning, gaining knowledge? Dym75 ( talk ) 14:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dym75 , given the arguments expressed thus far, this article will likely be d. Your time should be spent saving the content you want to transfer to your own website so you aren't asking for it to be restored later so you can do this. Read the room, no one is supporting Keeping this article, if you want to be preserving your work, you should be doing that now as the tide is not going to suddenly turn in the opposite direction and save this article. L iz Read! Talk! 03:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I did that three days ago. Thanks for your concern. Dym75 ( talk ) 03:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not a topic that lends itself to a list format, and as a result this list comes across as rather arbitrary. The seasonality of tornadoes is probably something that should be covered somewhere on Wikipedia; File:US daily tornado probability.png serves this purpose way better than a list of raw data does. It's the difference between Climate of London and List of rainy days in London , more or less. The list also does not have any proper WP:LISTCRITERIA —""Tornadoes on this list were included because of extraordinary or extreme characteristics (e.g. strength, damage, fatalities) or historical or cultural significance (including special scientific or human interest stories)."" is not unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources . TompaDompa ( talk ) 16:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC) NLIST . Georgethedragonslayer ( talk ) 05:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of types of businesses using the ""as a service"" business model: I have used my discretion to relist here and am neutral . I would encourage contributors here and the eventual closer of this discussion to read the previous AFD first. Stifle ( talk ) 09:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . Stifle ( talk ) 09:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Lists . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 09:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - basically serves little purpose as there are relevant categories for navigation and another index page with better layout. If someone really was searching for as a service they'd find better pages so I don't see what this page could possibly add. JMWt ( talk ) 09:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I agree with JMWt . We already have Category:As a service and As a service . Why would we need another article for this? Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 09:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - The original page was an unacknowledged copywithin from As a service . This has been expunged but the copyvio wass still not repaired in page history (but I have just done so). During the DRV it was belatedly changed to a set index article (SIA) but by then As a service had itself been transformed into (a more complete) set index article. This article name does not lend itself to a useful SIA. The other article is the better SIA and the better landing point for one and this was always a WP:POVFORK of that one. As a list article it fails WP:LISTN and although an SIA is clearly useful, this one is now entirely redundnant. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 09:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Partially repeating my comment in the DRV, the as a service article has been converted into a SIA after the previous AfD that includes all the entries in this article, plus some additional entries and information. Therefore, this list is now redundant, so it should be d. Liu1126 ( talk ) 11:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm not sure how neutral one can be when they open an AfD. If anything, a discussion of deletion can be placed into the talk article. One of the ! voters should have opened this. Conyo14 ( talk ) 18:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC) DRV closing admin is simply executing a relist. Looks neutral to me. Deletion discussions happen at WP:AFD , not article talk pages. This helps them get seen by more than just the article's watchers. Hope this helps. – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 22:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate the clarification, thank you Novem. Conyo14 ( talk ) 06:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem with a outcome is that someone did a copy-paste during the previous AfD. This creates an attribution problem which is technically solvable by an administrator performing a history -- but that's a laborious and time-consuming procedure. We could avoid that by one of the other methods described in WP:PATT but it's likely a lot less work for the closer if we decide to and add a {{ r from }} to the page. — S Marshall T / C 08:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC) RIA yesterday with a dummy edit. Is that not sufficient? And as the original copyvio was replaced with new content, wouldn't a revdel fix this? I am not really clear as to why ing is a better option than deletion when a page was created by unattributed copywithin. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 09:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you saying material has been copied from List of types of businesses using the ""as a service"" business model to as a service requiring attribution? If so, what content? If the copy was in the other direction, deleting this article will solve the problem; a d article doesn't need attribution. Stifle ( talk ) 09:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, yes, I misunderstood. If the copy had been from this article to As a service then this would need to be kept and ed. In fact, the content on this page was copied from as a service to create this page. During the DRV, As a service was improved, but without copying from this page. Material was already on that page, as it was the source. Thus, I believe there is no reason attribution here needs further repair (even bearing in mind that d pages still exist somewhere). Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 10:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, I had this backwards! My sincere apologies. I have no remaining objections to a outcome here. — S Marshall T / C 15:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC) REDUNDANTFORK , as there are two set index articles of this type and the other one is more developed and better named. — Alalch E. 13:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Milroy Goes: He has directed several non-notable films, ad films, and music videos, including Welcome M1LL10NS , a non-theatrical release whose notability is questionable. The currently cited sources offer nothing beyond passing mentions, and a Google News search yields no helpful results. This fails to meet the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:BASIC . GSS 💬 04:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , India , and Goa . GSS 💬 04:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions . GSS 💬 04:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Based on my check, I found no in-depth coverage from multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. This means the subject completely fails to meet WP:GNG . The majority of the sources are around his films. Grab Up - Talk 05:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Significant coverage in independent (although some articles include interviews), reliable sources. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC) DIRECTOR ). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC) GNG as it requires in-depth coverage from multiple sources. The cited sources seem unreliable to me or are full of quotations from connected individuals. It fails WP:NFILM as no reviews were found and WP:NFO because the film only received coverage at the time of its release. To pass, it requires “publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film’s initial release.” I can nominate that article anytime soon. Grab Up - Talk 09:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mushy Yank, could you point out sources that provide ""significant coverage""? WP:SIGCOV requires coverage that ""addresses the topic directly and in detail."" Unfortunately, as mentioned earlier, almost all the sources are merely name drops. Additionally, I agree with Grabup that the film they directed appears to be non-notable as it lacks the coverage required by WP:GNG and shows no evidence of notability under WP:NFILM . Regarding your claim of meeting WP:NDIRECTOR , it is weak for two reasons: first, the film is likely not notable, and second, there is no coverage that discusses the subject in detail. WP:BIOSPECIAL states that ""If neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but the person meets one or more of the additional criteria: the article into a broader article providing context."" However, this is likely not possible due to the weak notability of the film. GSS 💬 09:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Perhaps the film producer with the most interesting experience is Milroy Goes whose film Welcome Millions is being shown on Amazon Prime in Europe and America after being dubbed in the local language. It is expected to be available for viewership in India shortly. Made in three languages and shot in Goa, Punjab, and the UK, the movie was meant to have its premiere at the IFFI 2019 but was turned down because it had been one of two Indian film selected by the Oscar committee. ( https://www.heraldgoa.in/Cafe/It’s-time-to-go-‘Over-the-Top’-for-Konkani-cinema/161417 ) In 2012, director Milroy Goes brought about a whole new change in Konkani cinema by introducing his digital theatrical film, (as was mentioned in the Afd about The Victim) ( https://www.heraldgoa.in/Cafe/Good-days-ahead-for-Goan-cinema/108329 ) Pervis Milroy Goes, known better as Milroy Goes is an Indian film director from Goa. He hails from the beautiful village of Cuncolim in South Goa. He ventured into the Film Industry in 2007 with his first short film “Vengeance”. Milroy gained a lot of recognition as a film director soon after the release of his second short film “Unexpected” in 2009. Milroy was mentored by a French film enthusiast named Anthony Coombs-Humphreys, who not only believed in Milroy’s potential as a filmmaker but also assisted him in producing a remake of his short film “Unexpected” for the international audience. The movie, which was titled “Expect the Unexpected”, featured a Bollywood actor named Deepraj Rana. The movie was released in 2011 and received very good reviews. Milroy Goes’ film “Welcome Millions”, which was released in 2018, was eligible for the Best Picture Award in the General Entry category at the 91st Academy Awards (Oscars) in 2019, but was not nominated. Milroy Goes is credited with being the person to introduce digital cinema in Goa with his debut theatrical film “The Victim” (2012). Besides filmmaking, Milroy Goes also has various other business ventures including a coffee shop, an artist management firm and a Portuguese passport consultancy firm. ( It's Goa ) These are just examples, it's +- short but significant imv, and there are many of those. If really everyone agrees this is not enough, nor for the film(s) nor for him, may I suggest a for all of them to Konkani cinema (another guideline might apply if one considers the regional scope), that might help add prose to the page, which is very listy. I'm not that interested in this filmmaker, to be honest, and will probably leave it at that (I am not watching this), Best, - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don’t think Heraldgoa’s covarage can establish notability. And Itsgoa is a self-proclaimed blog based site according to their about us page. As it says “ ItsGoa was started in 2015, with the aim of becoming the premier portal for all things Goa. Today with thousands of visitors a month from across the world, our blog based website has transcended the virtual space, with the ItsGoa magazine – a sought after resource for visitors to Goa. ” Grab Up - Talk 11:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC) A blog, yes, technically, but not a personal one and that is what matters ( WP:EXPERTSPS ). As for O Heraldo , not sure what you mean, but it's one of the (if not the , in English) main newspapers in Goa!! Again, a to Konkani cinema might be considered. Really no time to make any further comments, sorry. Decide what you think is best. Thanks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's Goa is not only a blog, but the article you mentioned above is an interview, and such articles are not accepted for establishing notability. Additionally, there is no evidence of who runs that blog or their background, nor are there details on their editorial policies. Such sources fall under WP:QUESTIONABLE . The section ""The Folks Behind The Jokes"" on their about us page states, ""Our writers come from all walks of life, and through our social media handles,"" confirming that they lack real editorial control. They also encourage people to send in their stories and experiences, share their events and happenings, or create discussions around the articles they post, further undermining their reliability. The other two sources you mentioned are just passing mentions and are not even close to WP:INDEPTH . GSS 💬 12:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support Redirection as it looks like the sourcing doesn't hold up for scrutiny. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC) I don't even think ion would help, almost TOOSOON. If his film was eligible for the Academy nomination, but didn't make the cut, it could represent the start of the notability journey, but nothing yet. Sources as explained above aren't helpful Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Although the film came out in 2018, it's had enough time to get critical coverage; that nothing has been found in the last 5+ years is proof of non-notability for this person, likely also for the film. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Insufficient evidence of in-depth coverage even though there are many references that disguise it as such. The sources aren't reliable enough. Haruka Amaranth 14:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC) This may need rewriting but doesn't meet our WP:SIGCOV . When an article is WP:MILL , there are more or less no substantial edit to make it notable. Also WP:LOTSOFSOURCES cant help either. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 08:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Charles Pickering (footballer): Two of the sources in the reference section are from Facebook. The article also provides little context other than that he was on some teams. Shadow311 ( talk ) 13:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople . Shadow311 ( talk ) 13:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Philippines . Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] -- I draftified the page to give the page creator more time to look for sources. The same user moved it back to the mainspace after adding a stats database and a Facebook link to the page. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT . JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per @ JTtheOG . Since the incubation time as a draft wasn't respected, it's up to deletion. Svartner ( talk ) 20:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC) 35, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ross McNicol: JMWt ( talk ) 15:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC) non-notable artist; hits are social media, sites to buy artworks, then peter off... Nothing in Gbooks GScholar; name is too common, you get hits on all kids of people. Lack of sourcing and not meeting notability criterial for artists or authors. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fails notability per nomination. I am not finding anything useful in WP:BEFORE . -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 02:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC) The subject received mentions in coverage of the opening and closure of The Wallis Gallery, including a 2007 mention that ""McNicol was recently taken up by Hugh Allen, who works with Damien Hirst"" [10] , but I am not seeing sufficient to demonstrate that any of the notability criteria are met. AllyD ( talk ) 16:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC) RELIABLE and WP:INDEPENDENT , there exists only passing mentions. TLA tlak 02:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Zeh Badi: From WP:GEOLAND : Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Hongsy ( talk ) 08:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran . Hongsy ( talk ) 08:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Interdimensional being: I have not attempted to assess notability as a literary trope or as a Spiritualist belief like that connection to the IH suggested in the Jeffrey J. Kripal source at the IH article. I brought this to AfD after a user raised a concern at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Single_top_for_interdimensional_hypothesis/being that the article is also too similar to Interdimensional hypothesis , which is the claim that UFOs are interdimensional phenomena. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 15:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Paranormal . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 15:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I mean, it's a ""thing"" in literature. Using Buffy as a ref is, well, novel. Nothing I can find beyond DICDEF in sources. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The book is an academic analysis about Buffy the Vampire Slayer . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 18:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] …so? That doesn't make it a good source. This is a literary trope at best. If you want to frame it as that, then no problem. But to try and portray it as a serious phenomenon, the old adage of ""extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"" rings true. TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 12:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oaktree b's comment was a bit misleading as worded, and it is unclear what you mean by ""try and portray it as a serious phenomenon"". The article does not seem to support, or even discuss, fringe theories related to its topic. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 14:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment What we have is a dictionary definition (plus an example farm). Would a soft- to wikt:interdimensional be reasonable? Walt Yoder ( talk ) 21:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . While there's a small chance this could be a notable concept, the current execution (contents, references) are very subpar. WP:TNT applies. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and add template at top {{lacking overview}}. Agree the article needs improvement and expansion from its current state. The topic fits in with other alleged beings that have articles at List of alleged extraterrestrial beings . 5Q5 | ✉ 12:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , no notability, just several examples from fiction that have nothing in common. (Really, mice, beings from Flatland, and somwthing from Buffy all bundled together?) Artem. G ( talk ) 20:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looks to be just different meanings of the word ""dimension"" thrown together. Not even TV Tropes. XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"The Design Society: Needs a review to decide on notability. UtherSRG (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Engineering , United Kingdom , and Scotland . UtherSRG (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Al-Rahim Mosque: Possible / to Dubai Marina , but could unbalance that article. Boleyn ( talk ) 16:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2022 Liga 1 U-14: Utterly insignificant within the football world, fails WP:SIGCOV . Geschichte ( talk ) 19:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Indonesia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - of no interest to anyone other than the parents of those taking part, really. No SIGCOV found. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Spiderone . Svartner ( talk ) 03:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Govvy ( talk ) 09:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC) 14, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] References ^ Susetyo, Gatot (2022-09-22). ""Juara Elite Pro Academy U-14, Debut Indah Dewa United di BRI Liga 1 2022 / 2023"" . bola.com (in Indonesian) . Retrieved 2024-05-25 . ^ Wulandari, Syifa Ayu (2022-09-20). ""PERSIB Terpaksa Terhenti Di Semifinal EPA U-14 Usai Lawan Persis Solo"" . Sragen Update (in Indonesian) . Retrieved 2024-05-25 . ^ Samodra, Adi Surya (2022-11-21). ""Libur Hampir 2 Bulan, Persis Solo U-14 Kembali Berlatih, Coach Winaryo Puji Antusiasme Pemain"" . Tribun Solo (in Indonesian) . Retrieved 2024-05-25 . ^ Yerimon, Petrus Manus Da' (2022-09-23). ""Bantai Persis Solo di Partai Final, Dewa United Sabet Gelar Juara EPA U-14 2022"" . Indosport . Archived from the original on 2022-09-23 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 . ^ ""Barito Putera Siap Berlaga di EPA U-14"" . Klikkalsel (in Indonesian). 2022-09-06 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 . ^ Hamdi, Tarmizi (2022-09-07). ""Elite Pro Academy U-14 PSSI: Persikabo 1973 Telan Kekalahan Perdana"" . JPNN Jakarta (in Indonesian) . Retrieved 2024-05-25 . ^ ""EPA Liga-1 U-14 2022, Bhayangkara FC Raih Juara 3 Kalahkan Persib"" . detiknews.id (in Indonesian). 2022-09-23. Archived from the original on 2022-12-05 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 . ^ Prasetya, Mochamad Hary (2022-09-22). ""Tumbangkan Persis Solo, Dewa United Juara Liga 1 EPA U-14 2022"" . Bolasport (in Indonesian) . Retrieved 2024-05-25 . ^ ""PSSI Lengkapi Kompetisi Usia Muda, dengan Menggelar Elite Pro Academy U-14"" . PSSI (in Indonesian). 2022-09-04 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 . ^ Prabowo, Ronald Seger (2022-09-12). ""Hasil EPA U-14: Persis Solo dan PSIS Semarang Kompak Petik Kemenangan, Persija Jakarta Tertahan"" . Suara Surakarta (in Indonesian) . Retrieved 2024-05-25 . ^ Laeis, Zuhdiar (2022-09-24). ""Dias Angga ingatkan pemain Dewa United U-14 tak cepat berpuas diri"" . Antara News (in Indonesian) . Retrieved 2024-05-25 . ^ Bram, Damianus (2022-09-23). ""Persis Solo U-14 Jadi Runner-Up EPA 2022"" . Radar Solo (in Indonesian) . Retrieved 2024-05-25 . ^ Wiharto, Tri (2022-09-22). ""Persis Solo Juara II Elite Pro Academy U-14 2022, Kalah dari Dewa United"" . Solopos (in Indonesian) . Retrieved 2024-05-25 . ^ ""Laga Perdana Grup C Elite Pro Academy U-14 Telah Dimulai"" . PSSI (in Indonesian). 2022-09-06 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 . ^ Adnan, Rais (2022-10-03). ""Elite Pro Academy 2022: Jadwal, Hasil, dan Klasemen Lengkap"" . skor.id (in Indonesian) . Retrieved 2024-05-25 . ^ ""Bhayangkara FC Juara Tiga EPA Liga-1 U-14 2022"" . Berita Jatim (in Indonesian). 2022-09-22 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 . @ GiantSnowman WC gudang inspirasi ( Read! Talk! ) 10:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All looks rather routine to me. Giant Snowman 10:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "" 'Routine coverage' is not a disqualification for notability and may indeed be significant enough to surpass the general notability guideline. "" It was a national U-16 championship organised by the Indonesian Football Association . WC gudang inspirasi ( Read! Talk! ) 12:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article says U-14, not U16, and what you have quoted from is an essay only. WP:ROUTINE is an actual guideline which says ""routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article"". Giant Snowman 14:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Right, sorry, I meant to say U-14. WC gudang inspirasi ( Read! Talk! ) 00:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even having read those sources, I am still satisfied that enough coverage is at Elite Pro Academy that we don't need a separate article just to essentially act as a web host for the league tables and results for this under-14 competition. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The page is now being attempted stored in draftspace, which in light of this discussion seems more like an attempt to use Wikipedia as a web host. Geschichte ( talk ) 14:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Alexee Trevizo: No indication the virtual court case, which happened subsequent to the first AfD, has made this unfortunate incident nor the folks involved notable. Star Mississippi 12:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Crime , and New Mexico . Star Mississippi 12:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC) ONEEVENT . Graeme Bartlett ( talk ) 22:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC) ONEEVENT . Major BLP fail. -- Tagishsimon ( talk ) 19:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Philip Masi: Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , New York , and Virginia . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – fails notability guidelines. No reliable sources found to establish notability whatsoever. Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 16:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This was originally a to Phil Masi , who was a baseball player. It may be better to restore that . Drowssap SMM 19:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of wealthiest historical figures: I agree that this article is WP:OR and WP:LISTCRUFT . The stated amount of the wealth is broadly inconsistent among the low quality sources that provide coverage to this subject. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk ) 04:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The last nom was in 2009, so this isn't a frivolous renom. A list like this is inherently unworkable. Estimating the net worth of historical figures is fraught with uncertainty, and it's not clear that you can meaningfully compare the net worth of people who died hundreds or even thousands of years apart. The criter for what qualifies one to be on this list is also very unclear. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 04:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC) Honestly, the sheer breadth of time involved makes this type of list unworkable. Furthermore, the fact that the sources evidently do not agree is another severe issue with listing historical figures by wealth. ― Susmuffin Talk 07:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unlike lists such as those of the tallest mountain, oldest living person, etc., there is no possible way to make anywhere near accurate estimates. That's abundantly clear for historical figures where not only are there almost insurmountable problems to convert what we think is their wealth to current values, we often cannot be sure we have sufficient evidence. Even with living people it's difficult to determine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller ( talk • contribs ) 08:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment in its current state, the list is clearly unworkable. It attempts to give extensive information on each individual, which means it's going to have to find an unreasonably tight criterion on richness to avoid being huge. And the inflation-adjusted wealth values are pretty meaningless as one goes back into the mists of time. But , I think there is a case for a simple navigational list, made up only of article-names, pointing to articles of historical figures who are particularly noted for being outrageously wealthy (e.g. Croesus ). This is clearly a reasonable encyclopaedic question that a reader might ask, and they can browse the articles on the individuals themselves. It would also be easy to define (must have an existing article, WP article must cite multiple references mentioning enormous wealth specifically; usually wealth would feature in the Lead) and it wouldn't need to address quantitatively wealth-in-modern-terms (that, if estimates are available and deemed useful, belongs in the target article). Elemimele ( talk ) 08:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Hemiauchenia . This just devolves to guesswork. 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , History , and Economics . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 17:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as necessarily requiring original research . If you find a list that is well-attested and agreed to along with criteria that is rigorous, by all means let us know. But Wikipedia cannot create that list. jps ( talk ) 21:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per all the arguments given above. I concur with Elemimele's comment- there might be a case for something like a ""list of historical figures noted for their wealth,"" but this article as it stands (the ranking and equation stuff) represents an untenable project, and it's impossible to imagine a version of it that avoids OR, SYNTH, etc (unless it's just reproducing a list given in an RS). Yspaddadenpenkawr ( talk ) 15:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] because the list of such figures is ambiguous (pre-Industrial Revolution wealth is nearly impossible to precisely measure), seems to heavily include English nobility but not that of many other European countries or regions, and is dynamic--new discoveries could change the numbers. I would or note the Industrial Revolution magnates, whose wealth is less ambiguous and can be adjusted for inflation though in a separate article. JohnAdams1800 ( talk ) 00:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mary Ikoku: Per Before gave articles linking only to her campaign like this one although have no results nor passes WP:NPOL . SIGCOV is also a problem and judging from the media aspect, the subject fails ANYBIO. All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk ) 15:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria . All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk ) 15:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women , England , and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 21:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Fails WP:GNG . Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 23:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Georgios Mikellides: Likely socking. This could all be fixed if he were notable, but there's nothing to indicate this doctor and PhD student is. None of the creators will accept draft space, so we're here for consensus. Star Mississippi 13:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC) ETA : aware of Fellowship, but still not sure it's enough. Star Mississippi 16:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Medicine , Cyprus , and England . Star Mississippi 13:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Badly needs a rewrite, this is PROMO. One source [12] mentions him, but nothing substantial. Appears to have published a few papers, but these are used as primary sourcing. Nothing in RS about this person, only things by him. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Only mentions in Gnewspapers are for a port master [13] from 1995, I don't think it's the same person. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not a promo he is famous in Cyprus appearing on various national tv channels and newspapers. Here in this article https://avant-garde.com.cy/articles/prosopa/o-ethnikos-mas-psyhiatros-panta-tha-legetai-mikellidis the reporter stated that the national psychiatrist would be always called Mikellides — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.159.188 ( talk ) 14:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] George Mikellidis sits on the ""couch"" of the Lunch Break Challenge and dives into the depths of the Cypriot soul it's an interview, so it does not help for notability one bit. Please log in and use only one account. Star Mississippi 14:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. He has lead an innovative research study which is the first in the world and compares Ketamine vs rTMS treatment in treatment resistant depression[35] rTMS has a major breakthrough in neuropsychiatry as an innovative therapy He is well-known to the public in Cyprus as a TV pundit and has also been elected to the board of directors in Anorthosis Famagusta FC. [4][5][6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.159.188 ( talk ) 14:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC) 29, 17 August 2023 (UTC) BIO to understand what is required for notability, specifically WP:SIRS . And please log in to your primary account. Star Mississippi 14:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC) 21, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Note that being a Fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists is far more notable than being a ""PhD student"". Fellowship (as opposed to membership) of a Royal College is only granted to those who have contributed substantially to the profession. To quote the RCPsych itself: We award Fellowship as a mark of distinction and recognition of contributions to psychiatry. I'm not saying that this makes him automatically notable, but just pointing out that his notability is not based on just being a doctor and PhD candidate. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Were you able to verify that @ Necrothesp ? I'm imagining there's some transliteration concerns but the search returns no results. His university profile just says member. Star Mississippi 15:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC) 00, 17 August 2023 (UTC) 06, 17 August 2023 (UTC) //www.rcpsych.ac.uk/members/public-members-list he is a fellow 213.207.186.31 ( talk ) 16:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No. Unfortunately the search page doesn't work for anybody, so I'm assuming it's broken. And you're right that his CV just says he's a member rather than a fellow. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 16:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC) 10, 17 August 2023 (UTC) //loop.frontiersin.org/people/1336469 213.207.186.31 ( talk ) 16:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC) 08, 18 August 2023 (UTC) //media.licdn.com/dms/image/D5622AQHNhW_zHp4_iA/feedshare-shrink_1280/0/1670949355632? e=1695254400&v=beta&t=LCrjAP2f2YXmbaAEktKjNIDJP1jmpBdG6tG3ERXiNAI 213.207.186.31 ( talk ) 16:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC) //media.licdn.com/dms/image/D5622AQHNhW_zHp4_iA/feedshare-shrink_1280/0/1670949355632? e=1695254400&v=beta&t=LCrjAP2f2YXmbaAEktKjNIDJP1jmpBdG6tG3ERXiNAI 213.207.186.31 ( talk ) 16:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] because he is a Fellow of The Royal College of Psychiatrists in the United Kingdom and a television pundit in Cyprus. [14] A. Landmesser ( talk ) 16:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC) //www.philenews.com/kipros/kali-zoi/article/570658/protoporiaki-erevna-gia-tin-katathlipsi-stin-kipro/ 213.207.186.31 ( talk ) 16:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC) //www.cadth.ca/ketamine-adults-treatment-resistant-depression-or-post-traumatic-stress-disorder 213.207.186.31 ( talk ) 16:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I do see that he's a fellow, and will update my nomination, but I'm not sure that's automatically notable either per Necrothesp's point. IP 231, this doesn't work as it's not a reliable source, nor do the dates match up with RPC's fellowship so a better source will likely be needed especially if this is kept. I'm going to remind you again to please log in and edit with your account. Star Mississippi 16:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC) //www.rcpsych.ac.uk/members/public-members-list and type his surname mikellides, there is the only one mikellides psychiatrist who is a fellow He is also famous in Cyprus as a TV pundit. 213.207.159.188 ( talk ) 17:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have struck your second vote and turned it into a comment as you're only to ! vote once. Please log in to your account. Star Mississippi 17:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC) 43, 17 August 2023 (UTC) 50, 17 August 2023 (UTC) the article is written more like a not-so-neutral tone, and not enough reliable sources in English, there are but are mostly Greek. signed, 64andtim ( chat ) 04:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 64andtim , it's not a factor that sources are not in English. That should never be a factor in favor of deletion. There is no requirement that sourcse need to be in English or be online. L iz Read! Talk! 07:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC) The article is being updated, but each edit appears to add more and more airy peacock-feathering and writing clearly not in a neutral tone. GraziePrego ( talk ) 04:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC) This article is badly written and is not in Wikipedia tone. It needs lot of rewrite. As some voted and claiming it notable, I suggest to move this in draft where it can be rewritten. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️ ) 04:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC) I tried to rewrite, but it needs copyediting and referencing because there is lot of information which is not referenced. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️ ) 05:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It was in draft, and they would not accept that, which is how we ended up here. The SPI will hopefully stop some of the disruptive editing so a neutral article can e. I'm still unable to assess whether he's notable given sourcing. Star Mississippi 14:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have many doubts about notability. I rewrote the article to facilitate a more straightforward evaluation of the information. However, the issue of notability still persists. I'm now awaiting responses from other editors. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️ ) 17:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Editors commenting here need to realise that (a) AfD is not cleanup and it is the notability of the topic that is relevant not the quality of the article, and (b) sources do not have to be in English to be valid. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] but redraft. The article is written like a resume, not a biography of a living person . That is not a reason to the article. Looking at the article history, it once had 37 cited sources, which has now been cut down to less than 8, after being severely rewritten while this discussion has been going on. However, deleting the article because it is badly written isn't going to address the question of notability. The article needs to be totally redrafted according to the Manual of Style , not d because people don't like it . Once redrafted, perhaps notability will be more apparent. - Cameron Dewe ( talk ) 02:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Sockpuppet investigations/Abbasshaikh124 . It's not a G5, technically, as Bastien moved but didn't create it, and there are solid arguments for potentially ing the article. But hopefully the disruption here and at the article will stop to allow for productive editing and notability assessment. Star Mississippi 12:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - the fellowship and national visibility certainly count for sonething but I don't think it is enough; there are many fellows of that society (whilst it is for senior psychologists, there are many of those around), there are many doctoral students in psychology and there are likely quite a few clinical lecturers (albeit possibly not many in Cyprus). So in my view we are left with trying to assess these together with the TV punditry. To me, it sounds like he occasionally comments when asked questions on the TV news. Maybe I'm wrong, but if that's the case I don't see that this is enough as there are obviously many people who give opinions on the TV news. JMWt ( talk ) 07:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2026 South American U-17 Women's Championship: Way too early yet for this article to exist. CycloneYoris talk! 02:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Football . CycloneYoris talk! 02:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and South America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , essentially a placeholder/template. There is a need to stamp out the practice of creating of event articles so far ahead of the event that nothing substantial can be said about it. Geschichte ( talk ) 08:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per @ Geschichte . Svartner ( talk ) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Sadustu Tau ( talk ) 18:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON . Anwegmann ( talk ) 00:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON . Maybe drafting it may help a little. - Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 21:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - way too early. Giant Snowman 09:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Claes Nobel: The organisation's website protests (I think too much) that it is ""not a scam"", but see sample complaint: https://www.bbb.org/us/ga/brookhaven/profile/educational-consultant/the-national-society-of-high-school-scholars-0443-12000946/complaints Also very strange to show a photo with Kento Masuda , an obscure musician, added by an editor with a (deliberately?) difficult name in Georgian script, who has been blocked for paid-for editing. Imaginatorium ( talk ) 16:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators . Imaginatorium ( talk ) 16:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The main source for the article is a paid family obituary whose verifiability is somewhat tarnished by claims like ""Claes, a native of Sweden, was born in Copenhagen"". In any case it is not independent. Neither is the ""World Peace One"" page. I suspect the WKI page is not, either, but it's hard to tell because I see no mention of him on it. The NYT article namechecks him but has no depth of coverage. That leaves only family connections and a press release about an apparently non-notable award. None of these convey any WP:NBIO notability. I found this through the academic deletion sorting list but founding an organization that claims to be not a scam is not the same thing as being an academic, and there is no hint of a pass of WP:NPROF notability either. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark and Sweden . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 22:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Killer symbol: I can't find anything else that demonstrates sufficient notability. Deauthorized . ( talk ) 00:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software . Deauthorized . ( talk ) 00:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As noted above, the term ""killer symbol"" only appears in one of the cited articles. Otherwise, the articles discuss a few bugs that caused devices to crash. A quick Google search doesn't seem to bring up any sources either -- only information about the Zodiac killer. Significa liberdade ( talk ) 01:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . These separate bugs don't appear to be treated as a singular concept; the title itself isn't notable under WP:WORDISSUBJECT ; and the material would be too trivial to anywhere. I found no sources besides passing news coverage. DFlhb ( talk ) 19:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Philodoppides: Neither do Callimachus frr. 439-40 or Maciver. The two important modern reference works ( Oxford Classical Dictionary and Brill's New Pauly ) carry no hint of this supposed poet. Everything points to this article's being a hoax and as such it should be d. Modussiccandi ( talk ) 18:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Literature , Poetry , and History . Modussiccandi ( talk ) 18:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per @ Poimenlaon and @ Modussiccandi . Jahaza ( talk ) 19:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why do people do these things? ★Trekker ( talk ) 22:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC) why they decided to do this? ★Trekker ( talk ) 09:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC) aside from the reasons already given, it is suspicious that this poet should be from Messenia, which during this period was controlled by Sparta and its inhabitants effectively enslaved. (And, for completion's sake I checked Laura Swift's recent Companion to Greek Lyric, in which he inevitably does not feature) Caeciliusinhorto ( talk ) 22:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (ec) per talk page comment; non-existent in the most comprehensive reference works. Somewhat cleverly put together, unfortunate the effort was not put into creating an actual page. – Michael Aurel ( talk ) 22:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . It's a fake . No corresponding article in RE either. Ifly6 ( talk ) 02:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC) List of hoaxes on Wikipedia , this page was created at 16:38, 11 May 2020. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 04:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Found absolutely nothing on him in Greek language. ǁ ǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 ( talk ) 13:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and indef the creator. Srnec ( talk ) 20:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I rechecked five of the references: they are well chosen, but all are false, including the Callimachus. The quoted Greek and Latin is nearly all grammatical but without any spark of life: I selected several phrases from these quotations, searched on Google, and found that none of them occurs anywhere on the Web except in this article and in a few Wikipedia mirrors. Agree with @ Michael Aurel : . Andrew Dalby 13:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC) the list of hoaxes linked above suggests that we save some well-crafted ones, and this one seems to have slipped under the radar for a while—it's definitely well-crafted. But I could be misinterpreting what I saw. If they can be saved, it obviously shouldn't be in article mainspace, as I understand the terminology (which is barely). What exactly are the criteria, or procedures involved, to the extent that there's at least an informal process? Or is it so informal that there really isn't a ""process"" per se ? P Aculeius ( talk ) 12:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ P Aculeius I don't understand what you're trying to ask. This right now is the process. You're in it. -- asilvering ( talk ) 21:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dvojka: Integer Sequences ( talk | contribs ) 08:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . Integer Sequences ( talk | contribs ) 08:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Slovak article is likewise unsourced. CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 14:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Article is very short and has no sources. I do not see any notability. 🛧 Layah50♪ 🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！ ) 19:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Loudsauce: Source 4 on the page is a blog post and source 5 is a medium post, so those are WP:SPS . The other 3 are just announcements. Just two paragraphs on FastCompany.com, Metropolis is not independent, there is a single one sentence passing mention in Courier international. So no sources meet WP:SIRS and additional searches do not find any WP:CORPDEPTH sources. Fails WP:NCORP . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 14:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Companies . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 14:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't mind it being d. Nowa ( talk ) 15:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Business Insider is a usable source not currently in the article, although it does heavily rely on the founders. There are also a few sources discussing specific Loudsauce campaigns: a Greek campaign covered in the The Telegraph and NYT , a failed Romney campaign in Politico , a domestic-violence campaign in ABC13 (but consider WP:AUD ), and Occupy in The Atlantic , Der Spiegel and HuffPost . Gets a general mention in this Atlantic interview . Crain's Detroit Business has some reasonable coverage but might not meet WP:AUD . Still lean – I don't see any slam-dunk sources that convincingly pass NCORP, just a pattern of promising coverage – but I wouldn't lose sleep if this was kept. Comparison of crowdfunding services could be a viable target but would require some work, see the talk page. – Tera tix ₵ 13:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC) (amended 09:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)) [ reply ] Upon reflection I am moving to outright . There is not enough independent coverage of Loudsauce itself, as opposed to specific campaigns using Loudsauce, to justify an article. – Tera tix ₵ 13:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC) NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* . ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject . I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 13:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per HighKing and Teratix. Sources exist, yes, but they do not specifically center around loudspace but other stuff that features loudspace. passing mentions do not warrant notability. X ( talk ) 19:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sonic Violence: Possible WP:ATD is or / to Peaceville Records , though it may unbalance that article. Boleyn ( talk ) 18:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no claim or evidence of notability. Llajwa ( talk ) 16:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Travis Mager: Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Maryland . Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Since it has already been PROD'ed, it is ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 21:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC) 13, 29 April 2024 (UTC) NSKATE and WP:GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 21:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Hutniki: As it says on the PL Wiki article , this is an ""unofficial settlement"" of the village of Przeborowo ( nieoficjalna osady wsi Przeborowo ). This is not listed on the TERYT database (despite the TERYT database being listed as the source...) nor is it listed on the Polish regulation of place-names . From the over-head satellite pictures you can see that this is just a couple of random buildings in the middle of nowhere . Fails WP:GEOLAND since there is no legal recognition, nor evidence of an actual population. FOARP ( talk ) 16:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland . FOARP ( talk ) 16:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Not in TERYT. Article claims it is a ""woodland area"", so was this even a populated place, or just a name for some nearby forest (unofficial at that?). I nominated it for deletion on pl wiki (article there has different sources, but first one does not mention this entity, and I can't access the second one). Just in case, it may be good to wait till pl wiki discussion is closed and monitor it for arguments: pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2023:10:19:Hutniki . -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC) 41, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"CapoeirArab: I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 11 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] too narrow field of work and coverage. to Damascus or some sports related pages in Syria topic. -- NiLok223 ( talk ) 09:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC) The city it operates in, at least in this case, is too distant of a connection in my opinion, so it should not there (or anywhere ekse). None other article appears to include information that is relevant to this organization, so if someone actually searches this term, they will be ed to a page that includes no useful information. This topic does not have much WP:SIGCOV , and so the article should just be d. Aintabli ( talk ) 18:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 03, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Richard Osborne (singer): A WP:BEFORE search turned up only music blogs, and the local news story cited here. He's worked with a few notable musicians, but on WP, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Wikishovel ( talk ) 06:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England . Wikishovel ( talk ) 06:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC) there is a music historian, Dr. Richard Osborne, I don't think it's this fellow... for lack of sourcing. What's used in the article is orange or red per source tool. I can't any sources. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Matthew Gay: the only news about any ""matthew gay"" or ""matt gay"" I can find in the past 10 years are about a footballer with that name, not a basketball pro. There's no secondary sourcing or news coverage about Gay being signed to FIATC Joventut or his play with them. The original article as created only says ""Gay helped FIATC Joventut in 2011 play for a championship"" which is just one year of play, and has somehow never been reported anywhere, no evidence of Gay being on their roster ever. Further, it looks like the article was created by a SPA named ""Matt"" that also included a number of purported autobiographical details of that person's family leading me to believe it's a WP:AUTOBIO problem. lizthegrey ( talk ) 21:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions . lizthegrey ( talk ) 21:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC) GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV . I did find a mention of a Matthew Gay playing for Rochester College's junior varsity [3] in 2009 which likely is this guy. In 2011, Joventut was the runner-up in the Catalan Basketball League , which is a pre-season league, but nobody with that name played for the team at least in the semi-final and final. Furthermore, Joventut is a major Spanish team. Snowball chance in hell that they would even look in the general direction of a guy who hadn't played on a higher level that JV ball in junior college. Alvaldi ( talk ) 23:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spain and Florida . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above, fails GNG. Other than the newspaper mention above, I couldn't find other newspaper clippings or sources. ProQuest doesn't bring up anything either. There's a LinkedIn profile that's likely him but the source obviously isn't reliable. Tails Wx 17:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC) GNG . Kierzek ( talk ) 00:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails GNG per nom and Alvaldi. Cbl62 ( talk ) 02:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC) 39, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Saberov Ruslan Yuryevich: In any event, Saberov Ruslan Yuryevich does not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG , WP:SIGCOV , or WP:MUSICBIO . BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk ) 09:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC) GNG 1keyhole ( talk ) 09:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Russia . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — qualifying for a Wikipedia article requires them to be the subject of WP:GNG -worthy reliable source coverage in real media, verifying that they pass one or more criteria listed in WP:NMUSIC . But this cites no GNG-worthy sources at all (it's based entirely on primary sources , like Spotify and MusicBrainz and PR from his own record label, that are not support for notability at all), and says absolutely nothing about his career that would be ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sourcing than that. And the nominator's allusion to the removal of maintenance templates from the article continued even after this discussion was opened — I found the page miscategorized without the template on it, noticed the deletion nomination in the edit history and readded the template, only to have it almost immediately reverted back off the article by the creator again — to the point where I've had to apply partial page protection to shut it down. And then they tried erasing most of the content in this discussion to replace it with the MusicBrainz link below, which is also not acceptable behaviour. Bearcat ( talk ) 13:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC) //musicbrainz.org/artist/7fc25c29-a869-4887-88ad-82fa67fef547 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slavik0gree ( talk • contribs ) strike sock-- Ponyo bons mots 16:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] MusicBrainz is not a notability-supporting source. Bearcat ( talk ) 13:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - He appears to be one of those journeyman musicians hanging around the edge of his country's rock scene, getting gigs on nostalgia tours, filling in for someone who's sick, helping out in studio sessions, etc. But at least under this spelling of his name, he has achieved nothing beyond credits in the works of others. Not enough for an article here. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC) Per Bearcat and a quick search for RSes...or anything besides MusicBrainz, Spotify, Amazon, Fandom, SoundCloud, or Facebook. Slavik0gree (the creator) has also created this at the English Wikinews . Heavy Water ( talk • contribs ) 15:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NOFXXX812 . One of the socks was globally-locked as an LTA on May 3rd, so any creations after that are G5able . -- Ponyo bons mots 16:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kadhum Auda: The current archived reference seems to only be a single sentence database entry, and a WP:BEFORE search revealed only similarly trivial mentions/database entries. As an aside, I believe that this is the first article I have nominated for deletion, so please let me know if I have missed something here. All the best, ‍—‍ a smart kitten [ meow ] 01:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Iraq . ‍—‍ a smart kitten [ meow ] 01:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 04:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"VINAStech: Fails WP:CORP . LibStar ( talk ) 23:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Computing , and Uganda . LibStar ( talk ) 23:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Coverage in IRS appears to be approximately zero. Being a brochure doesn't help here either. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 09:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC) NCORP lacks sources. Dowrylauds ( talk ) 16:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Franyeli Brazobán: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Dominican Republic . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bongofari: Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 16:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Artists , Bands and musicians , Africa , and Ghana . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 16:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 16:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ravens Košice RC: Broc ( talk ) 11:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Rugby union , and Slovakia . Broc ( talk ) 11:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC) GNG , no suitable here either per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 10:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Darryl Glenn: Since then, he has still not received consistent, in-depth coverage from national news outlets. Of the 6 cited sources, 2 are election databases and the other 4 are routine coverage of his political campaigns by local news outlets in Colorado. Being a county commissioner and a party's nominee for U.S. Senate doesn't inherently establish notability. Seems to violate WP:GNG . BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 19:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Colorado . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC) NPOL . Jeffrey Beall (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] city council members are not de facto notable, and failed political campaigns are not de facto notable, and there's nothing showing otherwise. SportingFlyer T · C 09:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"InFORM Decisions: Let'srun ( talk ) 02:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Computing , Software , and California . Let'srun ( talk ) 02:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - No secondary sources cited and a search didn’t produce evidence that any exist. WilsonP NYC ( talk ) 03:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC) GNG and WP:NCORP . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 11:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lara Aishah: Niafied ( talk ) 04:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Malaysia . Shellwood ( talk ) 08:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Helsing Junction, Washington: I've had some free time so I've kinda beat this dead mule to death, and will pass the carcass to AFD. Helsing Junction is a railroad junction, and like many of these it had a post office. The article itself has two sources: GNIS (no contesting it unreliablity) and Thurston County Place Names, which states it is a rail junction and mentions settlers but avoids committing on whether they live there. There is a picture of ""Independence Rail yard at Helsing Junction"". I can certainly understand how an editor in a hurry could turn this entry into a town. It's entry also adds ""See Independence"" implying this is in that place. In terms of what the local newspapers say: This news article (2002) from the talk page discussion [6] describes it as the place that Rochester used to be known as. The reader will need to lift a little here as I'm unable to provide a readily available link. The above article is about a church's 100th anniversary, and a similar article was also written about this church on the occasion of it 70th(1972). [7] It states the church was built about 3 miles from Helsing Junction which it says is at Independence. Just based on this, this article ought to be d/ed with Independence or Rochester, I'm leaning toward Independence. But that should be a discussion in this AFD. Here is a temporal sampling of some further articles that I think show this is only a junction: 1964 [8] , [9] ; 1923 [10] mentioned in a news report from Independence. James.folsom ( talk ) 21:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions . James.folsom ( talk ) 21:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] GBook hits are almost entirely rail-related, except for a few having to do with geology. The cited placenames work his a picture of the station, but nothing indicates it's in a town. Mangoe ( talk ) 03:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This junction is in Independence, Washington , so I wanted to say just there, but really Independence is barely more than a named rural community that itself should probably be d or d. I suspect that the later church news clip assigned it to Rochester because by then they had forgotten Independence existed. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Doesn't appear to be a legally recognised place. Desertarun ( talk ) 11:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of attacks on civilians attributed to United States government forces: Per WP:NLIST, "" list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources,"" which this list has not. Besides, the items here are covered with further depth and proper context in United States war crimes . Longhornsg ( talk ) 22:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Also, by the criteria specified, the Kent State shootings , the Waco siege and practically every police incident of note would have to be included. It also defines ""government forces"" as including NATO forces for some (non)reason. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 02:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Lists , and United States of America . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. This is clearly WP:SYNTH , and is an untenable topic for an article given the vague scope (the current content includes deliberate attacks authorised by the US government, accidents and unauthorised and criminal acts by individual military personnel). Including attacks by ""North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces under U.S. control"" is odd. The article also duplicates the superior United States war crimes article. Nick-D ( talk ) 01:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per nom and all of the above. The list is unwieldy and somewhat patchy too. TH1980 ( talk ) 01:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC) 57, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with a bang; not a whimper. A list of atrocious uselessness. - The Gnome ( talk ) 11:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - A useful article might exist in just the military events that had significant civilian casualties, but the list as formulated is unworkable and unencyclopaedic. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 16:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Robert D. Williams: None of the sources provided are about him, but rather about NPR. PK650 ( talk ) 00:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . PK650 ( talk ) 00:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I was unable to find any significant coverage. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 23:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC) GNG . Onel 5969 TT me 12:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Extrajudicial killings in Lebanon: Fram ( talk ) 08:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Lebanon . Fram ( talk ) 08:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not an article, it's a disambiguation / . I'm OK with it being d if it's not a page others think is useful? But I think this is the wrong deletion template to use. MWQs ( talk ) 08:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The second page should mention Lebanon, possibly it needs updating or expanding. The more detailed page List of Israeli assassinations includes at least 3 examples in Lebanon. MWQs ( talk ) 08:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a topic that probably should be covered somewhere, but there's currently not much here to actually link to. MWQs ( talk ) 12:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Disambiguation page that doesn't disambiguate. gidonb ( talk ) 22:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Based on your feedback I changed it to be a to the most relevant of the 5 pages on the revised list i made earlier today. I checked that the new target page includes several Extrajudicial killings in Lebanon. MWQs ( talk ) 10:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems like a poor to me, equating the title to things done by Israel, while it seems that there may well have been such killing by e.g. Syria or internally during the civil war. I think it is better not to have a page (disambig or ) for this at all. Fram ( talk ) 10:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with Fram. Plus please do not singlehandedly decide for the WP community what the outcome of a debate should be. gidonb ( talk ) 10:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Meantime, I undid the improper . The disambig is POV, possibly an ATTACK page, and the worked the same way. For good and bad, after an AfD was started, we need to debate this until a resolution is reached. gidonb ( talk ) 18:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Gidonb , I'm not sure what you are referring to? The notice I followed to get here said: ""Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed."" So if you mean we are not supposed to edit it during the discussion, maybe it's got the wrong notice showing? MWQs ( talk ) 03:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Edits are certainly OK, even encouraged, change into a or rename not. These are AfD resolutions that we should leave for a community decision once an AfD has started. Hence I restored the version after your additional edits and before the . gidonb ( talk ) 03:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry I misinterpreted. MWQs ( talk ) 06:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But I didn't think any other options were on the table? It seems to be an inappropriate use of a disambiguate? And nobody seemed keen to turn it into an article? So a was all that's left? did my smaller edits help? are there other edits that could be made to turn it onto an acceptable disambiguate? I don't feel particularly strongly about ing it. Just it seemed I'd misused the disambiguate concept and I felt obliged to try and fix my error. If nobody has any good ideas for something to turn it into we should probably just it? MWQs ( talk ) 06:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note; the same editor has now made Extrajudicial killings in the West Bank . Fram ( talk ) 09:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment some number of pages have {{ World topic | prefix = Extrajudicial killings in | noredlinks = yes }} on them, which has resulted in the {{ incoming links }} maintenance tag being added to the disambiguation page. Something about this situation feels incorrect. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 18:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not a disambiguation page. But the real purpose of this page is unclear to me. The Banner talk 23:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Cornell Capital: Drmies ( talk ) 14:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , coverage is trivial or inherited from the companies that the subject has acquired. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 09:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 15:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Gnews only sends back PR items, nothing for the company otherwise. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lew Baldwin: Paul W ( talk ) 19:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Paul, I've added missing citations to the article. Is there anything else needed to the article from deletion? HermanDF ( talk ) 14:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Sorry User:HermanDF , but the added citations are only fleeting or passing mentions, not significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Paul W ( talk ) 20:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, which parts need to be removed to the article from deletion? or which parts qualify as independant/scondary? In other words, how do we this article on wikipedia? HermanDF ( talk ) 15:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Hi, User:HermanDF . Any significant assertion which cannot be substantiated by at least one reliable source could/should be removed. Reference 1 appears to be a self-penned press release; refs 2, 3, 5-7 and 9 are routine/passing mentions; refs 4 and 10 are from IMDb - which ""is user-generated, and the site is considered unreliable by a majority of editors"" (see WP:IMDB ); which leaves ref 8 (seemingly brief mentions in a book, which I cannot verify). The subject therefore fails WP:GNG - it is not suitable for a stand-alone article in Wikipedia as Baldwin has not ""received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject "". Sorry, but, in short, I don't think this can be kept on Wikipedia. Paul W ( talk ) 15:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for your help in clarifying Paul. I've removed the majority of the sources and added a reliable source that is independent of the subject. HermanDF ( talk ) 17:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Hi, User:HermanDF . The key GNG requirement remains significant coverage. Paul W ( talk ) 17:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Would any of the references I removed be significant enough? Or what is required to qualify as significant ? HermanDF ( talk ) 20:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Hi, User:HermanDF . Thanks for asking. I should have explained. WP:SIGCOV : ""Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."" Basically, 'significant' is an assessment of the depth or extent of coverage; it will give detail that extends beyond routine or passing mentions. As previously discussed, several of the sources previously used for the article were passing mentions. Paul W ( talk ) 10:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Captain Raju, I've added missing citations to the article. Is there anything else needed to the article from deletion? HermanDF ( talk ) 14:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Paul, I've added missing citations to the article. HermanDF ( talk ) 14:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is there anything else needed to the article from deletion? HermanDF ( talk ) 14:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I'm not seeing the depth of coverage needed to show that WP:GNG is met or to justify a WP:BLP . -- Kinu t / c 19:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC) Agreed with nomination, person fails to meet WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. 1keyhole ( talk ) 03:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC) No coverage for this person that I can find. Being quoted in a book isn't the stuff of notability here and as explained in the comment above, most are trivial mentions. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Damilola Adeparusi: TheLongTone ( talk ) 12:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wanting to set a record is perhaps notable after you actually do it. There is no coverage of this individual, chef or otherwise. Appears PROMO. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I mean there is coverage [9] in a RS, but it's a ""get to know the person"" article, very much celebrity fluff. Coverage is all similar. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I was thinking WP:BLP1E before I did my source search. I found sources covering the original record attempt, plans for a second record attempt, and articles about needing bodyguards, so a bit more multi-dimensional of a person than I was expecting. But sadly these news articles seem quite WP:ROUTINE . They are lacking depth. For this reason I do not think she is currently notable. – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 13:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - this is not the Wiki Book of World Records. Hilda Baci is notable for other ventures; this chef attempting to break her record is not. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 16:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] this one actually made me chuckle. Doesn't even get near notability. Nswix ( talk ) 02:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Clear WP:BLP1E / WP:BIO1E . I don't see coverage of this individual outside of the context of that single event, so a standalone biographical entry is advised against. And, that event is non-notable , so I don't see any good place to this to or this with. For those reasons, deletion is warranted. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ben Bodé: Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , United States of America , and California . UtherSRG (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Zero hits for this actor in any source. I'm amazed it's been around this long in wiki. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"T. V. Mohandas Pai: The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:N . The sources are also promotional or unreliable. Ratnahastin ( talk ) 05:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Some of those sources may have looked reliable years ago but now we know they were only publishing paid articles. Azuredivay ( talk ) 04:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Some Bare URL link sources and others are poor to unreliable and has no significant coverage to pass WP:BIO . Page is WP:PROMO on living person. Nothing notable here. RangersRus ( talk ) 12:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Se-lib: BrigadierG ( talk ) 19:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . BrigadierG ( talk ) 19:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you please explain further? What do you mean by secondary coverage? Can you give an example? Mudcap ( talk ) 21:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC) GNG - significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For software in particular, there's discussion of the most likely forms that would take at WP:NSOFTWARE . BrigadierG ( talk ) 21:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC) SECONDARY explains secondary sources. Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 21:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Have added references from additional sources independent of the subject. Included explanations that the library was funded for development, is used regularly in the classroom in multiple classes, on research projects, and is the subject professional training venues. I could add more instances. These should all qualify. Thank you for the improvement suggestions. Mudcap ( talk ) 02:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Unfortunately, none of the sources in the article seem to be independent. For example, this tutorial was taught by a lead developer of the library. Coverage from the organization funding the project is not independent either. Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 06:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes it was taught be a developer, but the tutorial was sponsored by the independent International Council of Systems Engineers, San Diego Chapter. They decided to run the tutorial for the sake of its members, spend resources for it, and it is the listed on their website. Doesn't that qualify as independent? Thanks. Mudcap ( talk ) 19:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC) IIS BrigadierG ( talk ) 19:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC) Any of the sources used aren't reliable or are passing mentions; I don't find anything extra about this software package, other than where to download it. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC) 52, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Multitude (podcast collective): Article is written neutrally, but the in depth sourcing is simply not there. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 14:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment , Companies , and New York . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC) N or WP:NCORP . The article was previously draftified for similar reasons (see Draft:Multitude (Podcasting company) ). The only reliable and independent source currently cited that contains more than a trivial mention is the Hot Pod source written by Nicholas Quah . I don't think that's enough to meet the expectations of WP:CORPDEPTH . TipsyElephant ( talk ) 17:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi! Thank you @ Shushugah : and @ TipsyElephant : Please note. I made this comment on the previous draftified version and did not receive a response. I have added several citations in reference to your comments Re: WP:NOTABILITY and independent sources and re-submitted the article with the (podcast collective) edit to the name. Please see the following. Several more independent sources here other than ""hot pod."" Including: Citation to reference to Multitude produced “Pale Blue Pod” by the New Yorker. Citation to AV Club review of Multitude produced and hosted show “Spirits” episode. Citation to Polygon article re: Join the Party podcast Citation to “Games and Feelings” via Lifehacker Added citation to McLaughlin’s 30 under 30 (which yes, is a Forbes article, but NOT a WP:FORBESCON article and as such is explicitly cited as an acceptable and notable reference. It was written by four staff editors at Forbes. Reference in The Verge re: Hot Pod Summit Further: Multitude is and was mentioned at the time of initial submission in articles at Netflix, WFMT (studs Terkel), WBUR in Boston, NPR’s flagship station. These sources sufficiently meet WP:INDEPENDENT and did exist previously prior to the article being moved to the draft space. These seem to have been overlooked. Vincent Wedge ( talk ) 19:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The New Yorker ""Pale Blue Pod"" does not even mention Multitude, and even if it did, it wouldn't help establish notability. The other sources are similarly...promo, and not in depth about Multitude collective. If a specific podcast show is notable, that can be an article itself, but showing that it merely exists in real life (I have no doubt about that) is not the same thing as extensive coverage. Please share the two single best article that discuss Multitude specifically. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 21:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"W36EX-D: Fails WP:GNG . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 01:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Illinois . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 01:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ [35] ] is the best I could fine. Not enough to meet WP:GNG . Let'srun ( talk ) 19:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC) We've tightened our notability standards over the years (especially since 2021 , at least in this topic area), and it's hard to imagine a small religious station, even if it has been around since around 1995, getting the sufficient significant coverage needed (and the only coverage under this call sign indicates the only other potential future for a page at this title is a to NewsNet , but I think that would be premature for now ). (It has a license in the class A television service , implying some local programming is—or at least was—supposed to exist, but Wikipedia requires verifiable evidence of that.) Note that this station used to be W50CH-D (and, in the analog days, just W50CH) before the FCC eliminated television channels above 36 a few years back; based on searches, it appears the only coverage of this station on Stltoday , the website of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch , are some passing mentions of the channel change that could not possibly be construed as significant coverage of the station itself. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Archibus: Sources in article are non-reliable (self-published) or press releases . Potential sources are similar press releases and are also not reliable, and thus don't indicate notability; others are simply not WP:RS . Article currently seems to serve as a advertisement of the company's services (""made a strategic growth investment"", product catalogue). Searches for other sources are only of one-word passing mentions (such as ""software like Archibus, , , etc."") and do not contain any significant coverage . WhoAteMyButter ( 🏔️ talk │ ❄️ contribs ) 04:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies , and Products . WhoAteMyButter ( 🏔️ talk │ ❄️ contribs ) 04:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC) 26, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Can't find a source with significant coverage that is not PR. popo dameron ⁠ talk 17:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nicola Rosenblum: Fails WP:GNG . Uhooep ( talk ) 07:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Bilateral relations , Brunei , and Australia . ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC) I don't find anything beyond press releases or her appearances at various events, not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC) BIO . Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar ( talk ) 03:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I ran searches against Aussie newspapers and got nothing. This is clearly an accomplished government employee who has held significant posts (of which Ambassador is not the only one). Google returns a number of documents but they are all interviews or articles about her by the agencies that employed her, so not independent. I'll check back in case someone with better access to Oz sources finds something. Lamona ( talk ) 15:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of programs broadcast by TV Azteca networks: Article is a giant list of programs ""formerly and currently, and soon to be broadcast"". Most of it is either unsourced or wikilinked to other articles that have info on the show but nothing about it being broadcast on TV Azteca. Most entries have no context or information. The few notable original programs are mentioned on whatever particular channel they were created for, nothing to . // Timothy :: talk 05:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Lists , and Mexico . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Once again, a large list only sourced by four articles altogether which is more complicated to navigate than a Mexico City Metro map, along with complete falsehoods like The Twilight Zone and Alfred Hitchcock Presents being distributed by Disney, with the latter broadcast on CBS, along with The Good Doctor (which is actually a Sony production). WP:TNT it. Nate • ( chatter ) 17:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as unreliable. If anyone wants to recreate a properly-sourced and verifiable list, great. Mccapra ( talk ) 00:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Karthik Naralasetty: I was going to PROD this article until I found that it not only has been PROD'd but has had two previous AFDs, one closed as Delete, the second as No consensus. The article on his company, SocialBlood was Soft Deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialblood . I thought it was time to reexamine this article and consider whether it meets the stricter standards of today's Wikipedia. L iz Read! Talk! 01:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and India . L iz Read! Talk! 01:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC) The 30 under 30 description is here [48] , that's about the best one find. We don't consider them as a RS. I don't see anything else we could use. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Andhra Pradesh , and New Jersey . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and salt Not notable yet. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 02:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] Weak – No need to salt for sure. Forbes India appears to be written by a staff, but the publication as a whole doesn't have the strongest reputation? There's also some coverage from the Business Journals and Dawn I found – they include interviews but there is just enough that is useful. Also some information from Entrepreneur . TLA tlak 13:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC) GNG and isn't helped with WP:SPIP GoggleGoose ( talk ) 12:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Joel McGregor: zoglophie •talk• 19:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and England . zoglophie •talk• 19:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] until he makes his league debut, which is relatively standard practice for young players on the cusp of first-team minutes. Anwegmann ( talk ) 02:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC) AtD , but deleting seems reasonable too. Svartner ( talk ) 14:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Pestom sagar: Chaotıċ Enby ( t · c ) 19:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions . Chaotıċ Enby ( t · c ) 19:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC) should obviously be moved if kept. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 23:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC) moved where? microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 20:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] MicrobiologyMarcus , Pestom Sagar . Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 20:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ahh, of course. The simplest answers are the most elusive. Thanks, microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 20:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. More participation here would be welcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Agree with nom. I'm just getting real estate listings when searching - nothing that motivates a really deep source check. -- asilvering ( talk ) 02:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kazakh-Cossack War (1709–1724): Kazman322 ( talk ) 17:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . Kazman322 ( talk ) 17:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Kazakhstan , and Russia . Shellwood ( talk ) 20:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Without more info, this seems to be a rush to deletion . The article is a week old and appears to have valid, sourced info (I don't read the languages in question). Sources should be hammered out by nominator and other editors in the article and its Talk -- a Talk that is currently completely blank , so no real attempt has been made. If proponents cannot overcome the objections of the nominator, then come back to AfD. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 18:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC) With more info, this is a very strong for WP:OR and WP:SYNTH . In fact, considering the distortion of facts uncovered by Kazman322 and Kges1901 , I am extremely concerned about the potential lack of WP:GF with an eye toward WP:V , WP:HONEST and WP:NOTFALSE . Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 00:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can analyze the sources cited in the article 1) Erofeeva, who does not speak about the whole war of Kazakhs and Cossacks, only mentioning the raid of Abulkhair as a separate fact. 2) The second source already uses the term Kazakh-Cossack war (Казахско-казачья война), Its author is a certain professor Abdirov. At the same time, a cursory search on Google Scholar or Google Books does not give any results. We can safely assume that the term is an invention of Abdirov and the separation of clashes into a full-fledged war is not popular in historiography. Abdirov himself, judging by the second source, is biased towards the Dzungars and from somewhere he takes the fact of Russia's military assistance to the Dzungar Khanate. At the same time, in historiography, the invasion of the Dzhungars in 1723 does not in any way come into contact with the attack of the Cossacks from the west, this is a strange compilation. 3) The fifth source is a book, no pages indicated, just a book. 4) In the last source, Abdirov says that the Kazakh-Cossack war lasted 200 years (I remind you that this is his personal term, which is not mentioned anywhere else), but the author takes a strange time frame of twenty years and inserts it into the title. From which we can conclude that the article is an excerpt from the works of Abdirov, who coined a term that is unpopular anywhere, called minor clashes a full-fledged war, and the author of the article simply retold his vision of the world. And the author also compiled some other events of these collisions. Note that the article contains the term Kazakh-Russian war which is not mentioned at all in the sources. Kazman322 ( talk ) 19:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if you pay attention to the content of the article, the intervals of clashes are several years, that is, all these are separate incidents that are not distinguished in science into a single conflict. Kazman322 ( talk ) 19:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The author of the article realized and changed the time frame of the war to another random date, that is, the article and its concept are invented before our eyes. Kazman322 ( talk ) 10:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Abdirov appears to be a credible historian , but parts of the article disort the sources to record events as a Kazakh victory. Source four is a Kazakh eighth grade textbook that says Abul Khair's forces were driven back with significant losses by Russian troops, the opposite of the article's claim. Roudik (source 5) doesn't support what he is cited for, and actually describes the ambush of a Russian peace expedition to Khiva, while not mentioning Kazakh actions at all. Judging from Abdirov's work, there was definitely conflict, but we don't need an article that blatantly distorts sources to exaggerate Kazakh successes. Kges1901 ( talk ) 03:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Social Spirit: The sources don't validate ""social spirit"" as a unique concept in philosophy; instead, this essay appears to represent the author's own views. Given a lack of BEFORE references to ""social spirit"" in the context of this article I can't figure out a way to improve this that would allow it to stay. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 15:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Spirituality . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC) GNG as a notable topic. Probably it needs to be renamed ""Social spirit"" and any WP:OR / WP:SYNTH should be removed, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP . Psychastes ( talk ) 01:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This article is not an essay because it is written based on reliable sources. Here we should also mention the “Handwörterbuch der Soziologie”, compiled by Götz Briefs , in 1931. The concept of “social spirit” was presented in that dictionary as known one. This also justifies the mention of him on Wikipedia, even from the point of view of the history of sociology. There were other works in German in the twentieth century, but due to the Second World War, research in this direction was complicated. This article appears to be an essay because there are no sources on this topic in English. But in general in science, this concept has its place. Russian articles contain abstracts about social spirit in English. Никитааа ( talk ) 06:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] GNG is not just about sourcing. It’s a two-part test, and the second part is: “It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.” My (valid) deletion rationale was WP:ESSAY and WP:OR, which are both aspects of that policy. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 10:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC) GNG ? because if you believe there are other perspectives that should be included in the article that's not exactly compatible with deleting it. I'm also changing my vote to Speedy as it's plain that no coherent deletion rationale has been given. Psychastes ( talk ) 16:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I added the tag during New Page Review because it very much appears to have a narrow perspective on a concept covered elsewhere encyclopedically on Wikipedia. I absolutely do not concede that this means it meets GNG, see above. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 10:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The statement that “examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with Russia” is untrue, or at least a misunderstanding. On the contrary, this article deals only with examples from ancient and European history and sociology. This article does not contain even a single example from Russian history precisely because the idea of ​​a universal tripartite social structure is very rarely found in Russian sources. The editor of this tag is probably motivated not by objectivity, but by the ""canceling of science"". 95.10.7.132 ( talk ) 16:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Every single source that refers directly to ""social spirit"" is in Russian. The other sources in the article refer to other concepts like ""geist"" and ""national spirit."" That's why the article reflects a Russian perspective. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 21:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But still, the article does not contain a single EXAMPLE dealing with Russia. This is the untruth in the tag. Or is the problem that Eastern European authors are considering a Western European retrospective? And one more question: if you admit that the article refers directly to reliable sources, why do you think that this is an essay? 88.250.24.46 ( talk ) 14:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Essays can refer to reliable sources. The problem isn't the sourcing, the problem is that this is pushing a particular intellectual theory in an unencyclopedic manner. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 14:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To be precise, not all of the authors of these sources are Russian. For example, Lazarev is Jewish by origin, but only Russian-speaking. And these are two big differences. So this is also not a completely correct statement about exclusively Russian perspectives in the article. Никитааа ( talk ) 16:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First of all, the tag says the ""perspectives in this article deal primarily with Russia,"" not exclusively. And what could you possibly mean constructively by saying that Russian-speaking Jews can't represent a Russian perspective? Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 16:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Primarily, perspectives in this article deal with science. 176.220.242.60 ( talk ) 04:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. I hope more editors will come, evaluate the article and sources and participate in this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] a poorly-translated version of Никитааа 's (also-mediocre) ruwiki article, that doesn't understand English idiom well enough to claim that ""social spirit"" is a concept in English. Geist would be the only plausible target. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 22:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Firstly, it is not a translation, but a text written by one author, and in one case it is in his native language, and in the other it is not. Secondly, Wikipedia is an international project and its rules do not limit the participation of foreign-language authors in writing articles. Thirdly, perfect articles in Wikipedia are usually created by collective efforts, in constructive collaboration. Fourthly, it is probably wrong to assume that the number of concepts in English has already reached its limit and there are no prospects for its development. 176.41.175.117 ( talk ) 18:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC) OR and WP:NOTESSAY . Whenever a page here relies on a single author, it is de facto original research, especially when it is written as an essay. Wikipedia has never published original research . Bearian ( talk ) 14:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not an essay or original research because it is written based on reliably sources. All Wikipedia articles begin with one person writing them, and only then do others take part. 88.250.24.46 ( talk ) 07:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Muhammed Mu’azu Mukaddas: I'm not sure it meets WP:GNG however. Os ari us 15:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Os ari us 15:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article has a reliable source I improve the references. Ogoos11 ( talk ) 16:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC) 47, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That doesn't help the PROMO aspect. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . As per nomination, the article is indeed very promotional. His regional position as Executive Secretary at Kaduna State is not enough per se. As government official, these rules apply WP:POLITICIAN and a major local political figure should have received significant press coverage. ""Significant press coverage"" includes in depth, independent and multiple news articles by journalists, something that is not totally guaranteed in the current or other sources found online. There is a sense of PR in almost all references. WP:GNG , WP:ANYBIO cannot be validated. Chiserc ( talk ) 17:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] """" the article has a reliable source is notable he is the executive secretary of Kaduna state. Ogoos11 ( talk ) 14:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 10:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] all sources I find are him talking to the public about various things, nothing focused on him. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Ukrainian officials dismissed during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive: It is similar to List of Russian generals killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine , which was once AfDed. It was kept on the basis that there were reliable sources discussing the phenomenon of many Russian generals dying during the invasion. Here are some of them, you can see they indeed discuss the general topic by reading their titles [3] [4] [5] [6] . About this article though I haven't found such types of general sources, they all discuss individual cases of dismissals and do not connect them nor associate them to the failed counteroffensive. See for example these articles [7] [8] , they discuss the collective dismissal of six commanders but explain they are rather due to corruption rather than anything related to the counteroffensive and do not mention previous dismissals. In the absence of sources like the ones I described it becomes apparent this article is a WP:SYNTH mash-up, possibly with the so far unverifiable point of view of arguing that failures in the counteroffensive led to dismissals of officers. By the way, Russian-language sources don't discuss this as a phenomenon either. I made some Google searches and it was mostly about Zaluzhnyi's possible dismissal. Ukrainian-language sources also don't discuss this. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 11:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Russia , and Ukraine . Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 11:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I can see the utility of this list. Certainly a matter of ongoing news coverage. Useful compilation. Carrite ( talk ) 00:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you then cite an article titled something like ""Ukraine has dismissed many military officers during/due to the counteroffensive""? Such articles would exist if it was a matter of ongoing news coverage. What we have so far is a mix of sources talking about dismissals that happened to take place during the counteroffensive, excluding any dissmissals that happened before or after it, without sources making a connection between these specific dismissals and the counteroffensive, this connection is made by this list's author instead. This is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH . Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 22:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC) 20, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Article isn't titled List of Ukrainian officials dismissed during anti-corruption measures . Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 09:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Worse, article is from months before the counteroffensive, so completely unrelated and actually evidence for the """" side, showing that sackings happen all the time and the ones during the counteroffensive are in no way exceptional. Fram ( talk ) 09:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I can see the utility of this list too. A matter of ongoing news coverage. [9] [10] [11] As for Ukrainian official sources, WP:MANDY applies here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Russian sources don't treat this specific topic either. The first source you linked is Zaluzhnyi's dismissal. That is most definitively not during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. The other two sources don't talk about the topic itself of dissmissals during the counteroffensive. I will show the titles of the articles I mentioned above that helped the list of killed Russian generals be kept to show the kind of source that I think should be brought here. How the Russian officer elite has been decimated in Ukraine — here are the generals and top commanders killed in action . Which Russian generals have been killed? The key military commanders Putin has lost in the invasion of Ukraine . These Top Russian Commanders Have Been Killed So Far, According to Ukraine . Russian generals face peril as Ukraine invasion intensfies . These actually talk about the topic itself, rather than say X general died at X date for us to synthezise into a list. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 09:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC) OR ( WP:SYNTH ), implying that the dismissals have anything to do with the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive instead of being a normal group of unrelated changes. E.g. the source for the first entry [12] doesn't discuss the counteroffensive, but on the other hand makes it clear that such dismissals had happened often before this as well. Unless sources are provided which treat this combination (sackings / counteroffensive) as a real related notable phenomenon, we shouldn't be the first to suggest such a connection. Fram ( talk ) 09:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] None of the 12 sources currently in the article make a connection between the dismissals and a wider pattern in regards to the counteroffensive. In fact, on the contrary, one of the sources , instead of the counteroffensive, mentions the ""several scandals related to the procurement of equipment and supplies for Ukrainian soldiers"" in regards to the defense ministry. Until we find sufficient RS's to make this connection from the dismissals to the counteroffensive, this is OR. Even if we do find sufficient sources, I am not convinced that it can't be covered in the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive article itself. 2G0o2De0l ( talk ) 01:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] with 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive . I think we can deal this within the article 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. Many media dealt the problem with changing officials so often in Ukraine, so it can be described in the article. Wendylove ( talk ) 01:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] like others above have said, there's nothing that shows a connection between dismissals and the counteroffensive. The Reuters article about six deputy defence minsters explicitly points out that ""such moves are common after a new minister's appointment. "" Without anything to show a clear link between the dismissals and the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive they're just concurrent events and WP:SYNTH . Shaws username . talk . 20:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC) per args above. In addition, I don't think this has utility for readers under WP:CLN . I dont see any good or target, seems to only option. // Timothy :: talk 03:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Maha Abouelenein: The subject appears to be a consultancy influence type who has received no coverage in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not intended to be a platform to promote subjects or make them notable. Thenightaway ( talk ) 11:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women , Egypt , and Minnesota . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. Kablammo ( talk ) 13:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Legendary Ventures: Doesn't pass WP NCROP Edit.pdf ( talk ) 08:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Companies , and New York . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC) https://www.socaltech.com/spacex_gets_investment_from_legendary_ventures/s-0080383.html https://startup-weekly.com/Legendary-Ventures-invests-in-Elon-Musks-SpaceX/ https://www.alpha-week.com/legendary-ventures-partners-girl-scouts-usa I have also added a few new articles. BTW, I think this nomination is done in bad faith by a new and inexperienced editor with less than 33 edits. Amberj1985 ( talk ) 02:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You've only been active since last November, you can't be a wiki expert in 6 months either. Please review what we consider reliable sources. Then you can revisit and understand why what you've listed ins't useful. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Startup Weekly and Alpha Week are not reliable sources, spammy blogs. We can't use them as sources. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC) NCORP . Kakara69 ( talk ) 08:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] where? Edit.pdf ( talk ) 15:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] we discuss the article notability, not the persons. Edit.pdf ( talk ) 15:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am leaning towards . The article is very promotional and has the whiff of paid editing. And the coverage is mostly press releases about run-of-the-mill investments. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 17:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The ""sources"" used aren't RS. You'll want a New York Times report on the company, not some random website. There are none, so we must . Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC) Fails GNG and NCORP. Notability is not inherited from their clients. Source eval: Comments Source from article Routine, promo, about SpaceX 1. Kamau, Pie. ""Legendary Ventures invests in Elon Musk's SpaceX"". Startup Weekly. Retrieved 2022-11-28. Routine, promo, about SpaceX 2. ^ Fonseca, Mariana (2021-01-08). ""De Epic Games a SpaceX: os negócios que receberam mais investimentos de venture capital no mundo em 2020"". InfoMoney. Retrieved 2022-11-28. Routine, promo, about SpaceX 3. ^ ""SpaceX Gets Investment From Legendary Ventures - socaltech.com"". www.socaltech.com. Retrieved 2022-11-28. Article about largest raises in Los Angeles (I am not on the list btw). Not SIGCOV about subject 4. ^ ""Here Are the Largest Raises in Los Angeles in 2020"". dot. LA. 2020-12-21. Retrieved 2022-11-28. Article not about subject, mention 5. ^ ""Live From net.Marketing: J. Crew Online Tracking Produces 5% Lift"". Chief Marketer. 2002-05-07. Retrieved 2022-11-28. Directory 6. ^ ""Startup and Investor Directory. Legendary Venures"". startups.columbia.edu. 2022-07-31. Retrieved 2022-11-28. If you stop the popup before it loads, you can see this is not about the subject, but mentions the subject 7. ^ ""That's a lot of face time"". Crain's New York Business. 2009-02-06. Retrieved 2023-02-02. Routine, promo, about investment client 8. ^ ""ToyBox: What Happened To Kids 3D Printer After $150,000 Shark Tank Deal"". 2paragraphs.com. Retrieved 2022-11-28. Routine, promo, about investment client 9. ^ Meisel, Natasha (2020-12-14). ""Announced! Top 12 Startups to Watch in 2021"". TechRound. Retrieved 2022-11-28. Routine, promo, about investment client 10. ^ Dorbian, Iris (2020-10-20). ""Legendary Ventures backs Toybox Labs"". Venture Capital Journal. Retrieved 2022-11-28. Duplicate of #1 above 11. ^ Kamau, Pie; Weekly, Startup. ""Legendary Ventures invests in Elon Musk's SpaceX"". Startup Weekly. Retrieved 2022-11-28. Duplicate of #2 above 12. ^ Fonseca, Mariana (2021-01-08). ""De Epic Games a SpaceX: os negócios que receberam mais investimentos de venture capital no mundo em 2020"". InfoMoney. Retrieved 2022-11-28. Duplicate see above 13. ^ ""SpaceX Gets Investment From Legendary Ventures - socaltech.com"". www.socaltech.com. Retrieved 2022-11-28. Duplicate see above 14. ^ ""Here Are the Largest Raises in Los Angeles in 2020"". dot. LA. 2020-12-21. Retrieved 2022-11-28. Routine, promo, about investment client AlphaWeek"". www.alpha-week.com. Retrieved 2022-11-28. Routine, promo, about investment client 16. ^ ""Gemist gets investment from DeBeers to grow its 'try-it-at-home' jewelry brand"". bizjournals.com. 2020-07-17. Retrieved 2023-02-02. Routine, promo, about investment client 17. ^ ""足不出户就能买到私人定制珠宝？ 互联网珠宝品牌「Gemist」获 De Beers 投资-36氪"". www.36kr.com. 2020-07-23. Retrieved 2023-04-08. Duplicate of #1 above 18. ^ Kamau, Pie. ""Legendary Ventures invests in Elon Musk's SpaceX"". Startup Weekly. Retrieved 2023-02-02. Routine, promo, about investment client 19. ^ ""当酒品牌开始打女性的主意"". tech.sina.com.cn. 2020-08-20. Retrieved 2023-04-08. Routine, promo, about investment client 20. ^ Dorbian, Iris (2022-03-04). ""Legendary Ventures backs XFrost"". Venture Capital Journal. Retrieved 2023-04-08. from above Routine, promo, about investment client https://www.socaltech.com/spacex_gets_investment_from_legendary_ventures/s-0080383.html Routine, promo, about investment client https://startup-weekly.com/Legendary-Ventures-invests-in-Elon-Musks-SpaceX/ Routine, promo, about investment client https://www.alpha-week.com/legendary-ventures-partners-girl-scouts-usa BEFORE showed nothing but more promo, mentions such as the above, but nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 14:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a company therefore GNG/NCORP criteria apply. Excellent work by TimothyBlue above which shows the article is refbombed with promo links. I'm unable to locate a single reference that meets our criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 17:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Afarin Kids TV: Searching for the channel online in both the Latin and Arabic scripts did not return any usable sources. signed, Rosguill talk 18:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Iraq , Syria , and Turkey . signed, Rosguill talk 18:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Aintabli ( talk ) 04:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"JJ (Trainee A): KH-1 ( talk ) 12:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan . Shellwood ( talk ) 12:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , no indication of notability. Dekimasu よ! 13:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - If this article is kept, its title will have to change because Trainee A is a band in which he was briefly a member. A better title would be something like JJ (Japanese singer) . --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 22:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON , while none of WP's notability guidelines have been met. A search for his Japanese and Korean names reveals a fair number of hits in the media of those countries, but they appear to be universally unreliable gossip and self-promotional sites. JJ has done little of note beyond a gig as a backup dancer and his career is just getting started. Good luck to him as he promotes himself, but Wikipedia must not be part of that effort. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 22:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Subodh Patnaik (disambiguation): Shellwood ( talk ) 20:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Hardly makes sense, such a disambiguation page is absolutely unnecessary! Ekdalian ( talk ) 14:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Yesha Camile: PRmaster1 ( talk ) 16:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC) NACTOR . GNews has articles which mention her as part of a cast for a television series but nothing in-depth about her. No hits on GNews archives as well. It's probably also a bad idea to have an poorly referenced article for a minor. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 04:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak She was winner of Promil Pre-School i-Shine Talent Camp and bagged only 2 leading roles on TV . Can't find anything else beyond that, but it's close to meeting WP:ENT IMV. SBKSPP ( talk ) 06:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC) BLP, fails GNG, BIO. This might be TOOSOON, but BLPs should have solid references. BEFORE showed promo and primary, nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). // Timothy :: talk 06:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON for a child actress in reality shows. In a pinch, I could reach out to my niece in Manila for sources. Bearian ( talk ) 01:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Doug Storer: The only claim of notability being attempted here is that he existed, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of WP:GNG -worthy coverage about his work in sources independent of himself -- but the only ""reference"" cited here is an archival fond of his own personal papers, which is not independent of himself, and the article has existed in this state since 2008 without ever having even one other source added to it. Nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt the article from having to say more than just ""he existed"", or having to cite more sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk ) 18:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Radio , and United States of America . Bearcat ( talk ) 18:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Murder of Louise Smith: A Google search for ""Louise Smith Shane Mays"" for results after 1 January 2021 (days after the sentencing) reveals only two main events which are both routine: the appeal to increase the sentence was rejected [12] in February 2021, and a review in January 2022 [13] found that the victim received no support after reporting an unrelated rape a year earlier. While it may sound callous to say, there is little that points to any lasting notability of this crime, which occurred in a year of 594 homicides in the UK . When I see the other few crimes in Category:2020 murders in the United Kingdom , they received heavy coverage for wider issues or unusual aspects: the Murders of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman involved racist and sexist gross police misconduct and a truly senseless motive; the murder of Matt Ratana was of a serving policeman in his station by a handcuffed man who then became severely disabled in a suicide attempt; the killing of Emily Jones was a stranger attack on a child and involved mental health and immigration controversies. Again, it may sound callous but females being killed by men known to them is not unusual and the lack of extensive coverage besides news updates shows that Unknown Temptation ( talk ) 11:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC) LASTING effect. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 12:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. Note that this is not the same crime described in the now-d Draft:Murder of Louise Smith , which was briefly in the mainspace under the same title in 2017. Mackensen (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] agree with the nomination. Such is the risk of creating articles on events as they happen ProcrastinatingReader ( talk ) 15:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Textbook example of a newsworthy tragic incident that isn't a suitable topic for a general encyclopaedia. Would be suitable as a mention in a Crime in Havant , Murders in the United Kingdom in 2020 or similar article but not worthy of inclusion as a standalone subject. W a g ge r s TALK 08:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Horrible horrific event that seems to be NEWS. RIP poor girl. ★Trekker ( talk ) 19:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Alphonse Teste: In this context, I bring it for community evaluation. Sturm ( talk ) 04:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Animal , Medicine , and France . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Thomas Darwood: As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles on that basis per se -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates must either (a) have a valid claim of preexisting notability for other reasons independent of their candidacies (the Cynthia Nixon test), or (b) show a credible reason why they should be seen as special cases of significantly greater and more enduring notability than other candidates (the Christine O'Donnell test). But the only real claim of significance on offer here is the quirkiness of his platform, which is not of enduring importance in and of itself (a lot of ""oddball"" candidates run on platforms that could be seen as weird), and the referencing isn't really cutting it in terms of getting him over WP:GNG : four of the seven footnotes are just raw tables of election results (which aren't support for the notability of losing candidates at all), and two more are Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person (which are acceptable as supplementary sourcing for stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by third-party coverage, but are not in and of themselves bringers of the GNG as they aren't independent of the subject.) So there's only one footnote that represents a journalist writing about him in the third person, which isn't enough coverage to get him over the bar all by itself. Bearcat ( talk ) 13:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom . Bearcat ( talk ) 13:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC) GNG . If you take a look at the cited references, four of them are recent articles exclusively about him, namely the Vice, EssexLive and two BBC articles. One of the BBC articles is indeed solely a first person interview, but the remaining three contain substantial content referring to him in the third person. The remaining tabular articles are used solely to support numbers for election results, and do not count for notability. So that leaves three articles that count toward WP:GNG. — The Anome ( talk ) 15:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Vice is also an interview. Of the four BBC citations in the article, three of them are merely tabular results, and the first-person interview is the only BBC hit that's anything else. EssexLive is the only thing that actually constitutes independent third-party coverage about Thomas Darwood, and that's not enough. Bearcat ( talk ) 21:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] failed political candidates will always generally get a spat of coverage for being candidates, and while repeatedly failed candidates might be notable, there's nothing here demonstrating he's made any sort of a major impact as a continually losing candidate. I also agree with Bearcat's source analysis on GNG that the currently presented articles are not independent enough of the subject. (There is one that is not an interview with him, but it's routine campaign coverage.) Easy . SportingFlyer T · C 18:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not seeeing significant coverage of the subject. As a perrenial candidate, there is not an obvious target. -- Enos733 ( talk ) 00:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sunday Alhassan: There is some coverage in Football Made in Ghana but it's little more than a basic transfer announcement, although it does mention how many games he played for King Faisal and that he had a few injuries. Modern Ghana has a trivial mention. In any case, even if Football Made in Ghana is considered to be good, one decent source does not equal a GNG pass. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Ghana . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - The FMIG source mentioned by the nominator looks and reads exactly like a club press release, and is unlikely to be secondary coverage. In any case, it's not in-depth coverage by itself and the other sources available are woefully inadequate in terms of meeting WP:GNG . Jogurney ( talk ) 22:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Historical sizes of railroads: It's a list of those railroad companies in North America which in 1948 had 1000 or more steam locomotives. It might be sourced. It's definitely not encyclopedic, and I don't see how it could be. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steam locomotive production , a similar article of the same vintage from the same author. Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Lists . Shellwood ( talk ) 01:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. A strange remnant indeed. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 01:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC) The title is misleading. This is essentially a list of North American railroads by number of steam locomotives in 1948, an impossibly niche criterion for a list. I would not oppose an article resembling Timeline of largest passenger ships , except of course it would be something like Timeline of largest North American railroads by mileage or something like that. But the title is vague and the article seems all but abandoned, since there were no edits at all between 2012 and 2020 (and no non-minor edits between 2007 and 2020). This vestige of early Wikipedia is pointless. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 01:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Whatever the original intent, this seems a very short and incomplete list. There are numerous railroads/rail lines in the United States. Looks like the editor just went by info in the two books listed, but there are no details of which pages, etc. — Maile ( talk ) 23:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC) This list of steam locomotives seems like a niche curiosity, and it's not really the kind of in-depth information most readers would expect from an encyclopedia. Waqar 💬 17:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is clearly not an encyclopedic subject, much the same as the former steam locomotive production article Mackensen mentions (I happened to be the nominator for that AfD). Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 13:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per NOTDB. Did consider a yet the name is too confusing. gidonb ( talk ) 23:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Raewyn Murphy: Contested PROD. JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Scotland . JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Subject totally lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG . Let'srun ( talk ) 15:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Norman Anderson (footballer): Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 03:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Belize . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 03:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 07:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ivana Varagić: All that came up in my searches were passing mentions ( 1 , 2 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 04:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Montenegro . JTtheOG ( talk ) 04:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . No coverage that meets WP:SIGCOV , just WP:SPORTSTATS . -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Syed Yaqub: References are based on local folklore. Jaunpurzada ( talk ) 15:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh , India and Islam . -- Jaunpurzada ( talk ) 15:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Local folklore can still be a valid subject assuming the sources are suitable and the information if verifiable. Do the existing sources not check out? The figure is a little hard to search for as it's quite a generic name. There is of course the possibility of alternative spellings, as well as further local language sources. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 17:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There does seem to be coverage of his reputed shrine in local media . 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk ) 16:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC) The existing coverage of our subject seems to always be in reference to the location/holder of tomb. As notability is not inherited , it cannot be shown that our subject is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia as an individual and not as a tomb resident. Jaunpurzada ( talk ) 16:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Your opinions on what should happen with this article are welcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with the caveat that there might be foreign language sources I don't have access to, I cannot find anything that demonstrates Yuqub himself is notable; anything I found was as mentioned by Jaun above relating to the tomb itself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per nom lacks indepth references. Lankanrhino ( talk ) 22:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bendancer: Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No indication of being notable. Coverage is typical of a performer who is at the beginning of their career. Fails WP:SIGCOV . scope_creep Talk 08:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC) PROMO , WP:UPE and created by a WP:SOCK and fails WP:RS and WP:GNG . Could be G5 'able as well. Wesoree ( Talk ) 13:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Hamid Ibrahim: MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation , Uganda , and United Kingdom . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC) 42, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 10:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC) 14, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bernard Chong: By himself, there's not enough for a biographical article. In its current form it's largely a puff piece, with claims that the subject is visionary, etc, which I unsuccessfully tried to tone down. But even if all that were to be removed (again), there isn't any real notability. BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk ) 03:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC) RS that names him is the Rappler story. Though not mentioned in the WP page he did make the national news after being charged in an alleged methamphetamine trafficking scheme although he was subsequently cleared. [64] [65] The PhilStar article (#2) is pretty good for biography and involvement in esports and doesn't mention him being involved in content production. I just don't know enough about esports to say if he's notable for that. Oblivy ( talk ) 03:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would like to include contributions in the Lords Mobile and Clash Royale Mobile Game community, as he is really an icon in Esports Industry in the Philippines. akosiken ( talk ) 16:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Philippines . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] no evidence of notability from RS coverage, repeated attempts to spam this article - see also Bernard Chong . Salt both. At best, to Bren Esports - David Gerard ( talk ) 11:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How come it's a spam article, how can i discuss other companies he invested or even those movies or animations he produce? Those things are no longer Bren Esports related. akosiken ( talk ) 16:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One start would be to find reliable sources showing he is known for this other activity. Those sections of the article link to content that doesn't mention his name. May I ask if you have a connection to the article subject? Others have mentioned WP:COI and your edit history shows you have recently only focused on this article and Bren Esports Oblivy ( talk ) 02:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Does not satisfy WP:NBIO . NPOV issues smell like a COI as well. – Pbrks ( t • c ) 14:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom, and salt all variants to prevent recreation. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions ) 01:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC) G11 ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.147.67.216 ( talk ) 07:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and salt per nom and possible COI issues. ParadaJulio ( talk ) 10:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ajit Menon: The subject fails to meet WP:GNG . — Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 18:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , Journalism , and India . Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 18:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Paid media per WP:NEWSORGINDIA . Aronitz ( talk ) 13:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Looks like a recent campaign of NEWSORGINDIA. Including this , this , and this . Unable to find anything better online. Fails WP:GNG and also likely falls under WP:PAID . -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 06:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is free content, and contributors must reveal their intentions to be paid creating or editing articles. Also, it appears to be promotional and sourcing is not adequate. Therefore, this article. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 15:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2022 Madrid explosion: Gas explosions occur everyday all over the world, nothing particularly notable about this one. FatCat96 ( talk ) 01:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Spain . FatCat96 ( talk ) 01:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , agree that this seems to be a tragic but with little notability and a non-lasting event. GraziePrego ( talk ) 02:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Re'john Ene: Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Bahamas . JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 44, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Aja Aja Tayo! : Donald D23 talk to me 23:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC) Added independent sources. Not great but the Jeju part seems to have received significant attention. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC) Fails GNG. Source eval: Comments Source Facebook 1. ""AJA AJA Tayo on Facebook"". Facebook. Archived from the original on April 27, 2022.[user-generated source] ""Donny join reality show"" - promotional mill news, fails WP:SIRS 2. ^ ""Robi, Donny join reality show 'Aja Aja Tayo Sa Jeju', make Korea happy"" . INQUIRER.net . March 10, 2021 . Retrieved May 12, 2024 . Promotional mill news, interview, fails WP:SIRS 3. ^ ""Filipino reality show hosts discover real, raw Korea"". koreatimes. March 15, 2019. Retrieved May 12, 2024. Youtube, Promotional mill news, fails WP:SIRS 4. ^ ABS-CBN Entertainment . ""Aja! Aja! Let's Go To Jeju Trailer"" . YouTube . Retrieved March 4, 2021 . Promotional about finale, fails WP:SIRS 5. ^ """"Ang Sa Iyo Ay Akin"" finale, ""Huwag Kang Mangamba"" and ""Aja Aja Tayo sa Jeju"" will be shown first on iWantTFC"" . ABS-CBN Corporation . Retrieved March 10, 2021 . Promotional mill news, interview, fails WP:SIRS 6. ^ ""Donny Pangilinan proud to be part of new Filipino-Korean variety show 'Aja Aja Tayo sa Jeju'"". push.abs-cbn.com. Retrieved March 3, 2021. Promotional mill news, interview, fails WP:SIRS 7. ^ ""Robi Domingo and Donny Pangilinan talk about travel and new reality show ""Aja! Come on! Let's go to Jeju!"""". ABS-CBN Entertainment. Retrieved March 12, 2021. Promotional mill news, interview, fails WP:SIRS 8. ^ ""Donny, Kristel, Shine, and Robi take viewers to South Korea in 'Aja! Aja! Tayo sa Jeju'"". ABS-CBN Corporation. Retrieved March 17, 2021. Promotional, fails WP:SIRS 9. ^ CC, JE (March 22, 2021). ""REVIEW: Aja! Aja! Let's go to Jeju! Fun and Thrilling South Korean Adventure"" . LionhearTV . Retrieved May 12, 2024 . Promotional must see tv type article, fails WP:SIRS 10. ^ ""Five reasons why Aja aja Tayo is a must see for Filipino viewers - Oppa Is Life"". July 22, 2018. Retrieved May 12, 2024. Nothing found in article or BEFORE meeting WP:SIRS. // Timothy :: talk 12:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC) 20, 15 May 2024 (UTC) The article fails to meet the standards of WP:GNG , and the sources appear promotional in nature. Furthermore, according to WP:RSPYT , content on YouTube can’t establish notability. Similarly, Facebook can’t establish as it's user-generated. Grab Up - Talk 12:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC) to call ""promotional mill news, fails WP:SIRS"" every source is easy. But it's also easy to open them and to see that, although not great, some cannot be described like that. However, if judged insufficient for a standalone page, a List_of_TV5_(Philippine_TV_network)_original_programming#Others , where the program is listed, should be considered anyway. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . as per nom it fails WP:GNG . Sanwalniazik ( talk ) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Gorsi clan: Originally prodded for failing WP:GNG and because the creator allegedly used a large language model , it was deprodded by a user who suspiciously deprodded three other articles created by Hanshingling, and who didnot make any actual improvements. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 12:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , History , and Punjab . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 12:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, sir thanks You so much for replying and giving your precious time for the discussions. I will follow the Decision and Guidelines of Wikipedia and will not make any changes to these articles until the Discussion of Deletions of these articles not finish. Bensebgli ( talk ) 12:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)}} Sock . Abecedare ( talk ) 18:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - as per nom. Also, there is an open SPI investigation as well. Onel 5969 TT me 14:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - per nom. // Timothy :: talk 21:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bill Fitzgerald: BD2412 T 03:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Alabama , and Virginia . BD2412 T 03:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC) Not much there, aside from self-generated publicity regarding a departure from a news network and the hosting of a political debate [40] , [41] , [42] , as well as subtle passing mentions in books [43] . No significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. Multi7001 ( talk ) 03:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Romell Gumbs: No indication of notability. Despite playing in England, I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , United Kingdom , and Caribbean . JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . No SIGCOV. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 08, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Murder of Carrim Alli: Non notable individual - bio article stub based on single event. — User:Mccapra 21:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Removed PROD after renaming article. I agree that as a person he is not, but as a event it may be notable and has sustained coverage — User:MarkZusab 06:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC) article lacks information and sourcing, is not relevant enough for wikipedia page to exist — User:BusterBuster123 18:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC) – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 02:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Crime , Events , Police , and South Africa . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 02:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Odd, I get zero hits in Gnews. I suppose it's not notable then. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm going to recuse myself from voting here, because he was a (very distant) acquaintance. A small amount of Googling for ""Carrim Alli murder"" reveals that case received coverage over a period of years in multiple WP:RS , indicating it meets WP:GNG . WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:WORLDWIDE apply as well. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] . I'm surprised that there are no hits on Google News, but that's more a reflection of the Google News algorithm than anything else: the main Google search seems to bring forth a lot of information. Also found an academic article that mentions his murder [26] in the context of Whistleblower protection in South Africa, and another that discusses his murder in the context of police corruption. [27] . A South African Police newsletter states that the ""whole country was shocked by Capt Carrim Alli's brutal murder"" [28] (whether that newsletter is an RS is open to debate, but it does capture the level of coverage of the murder). Park3r ( talk ) 06:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I added some links on to the page and i think we can this article page, the event is very significant and it doesn't happen much, am sure it went down in the history of South Africa's police department. Nenerue ( talk ) 11:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Murders of non-notable people are almost never notable. All WP:SIGCOV of this event is based on breaking news and updates . This is a textbook example of an event that saw coverage while it was ongoing but did not generate WP:SUSTAINED sigcov after the dust settled. If someone can find retrospective articles that analyze the sequence of events after the fact, or maybe a book about the murder, then I will change my ! vote. An event like this is better suited for an article like Timeline of Pretoria , where I've just added it. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 18:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m not sure if “timeline of Pretoria” is the the appropriate place for a murder of a South African police captain, since South Africa has a national police force, not local forces like the US. He happened to be killed in Pretoria, but the killing was not specifically related to Pretoria, it was related to a probe into large-scale corruption in the South African Police headquarters [29] . I also specifically provided two academic articles above that discuss his murder in the context of whistleblowing and police corruption in South Africa. At some point, despite WP:OTHER being a thing, one has to wonder why articles like Shooting of Ralph Yarl are deemed notable, but an event like this murder (that was, unlike most such incidents in South Africa, covered over a period of years by multiple RS) is deemed non-notable. Park3r ( talk ) 21:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I seriously considered nominating Shooting of Ralph Yarl for deletion when it was created, but people tend to get really huffy is you nominate a non-notable event for deletion shortly after it occurs, so I didn't. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 21:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC) EVENT the Yarl shooting probably fails, but it would be hard to argue that it doesn't meet WP:GNG , and any nom would probably fail for that reason. Which is why I mentioned GNG above in the context of the Alli killing. Unless GNG is to be tacitly disregarded for events, or events outside the Core Anglosphere. Park3r ( talk ) 23:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability requires sustained secondary coverage. News reports covering the event as it is unfolding do not count toward notability. I agree that any nomination would likely fail, but it's because several ! voters would come in and disregard that requirement, and no closer would be brave enough to handle the backlash of discarding those erroneous ! votes. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 03:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC) GNG . Where does it come from? Park3r ( talk ) 04:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Notability . It requires sustained secondary coverage. Developing news reports are not that. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 04:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm curious about your of a secondary coverage, and why news reports aren't that. It sounds like you want coverage from tertiary sources? In any case, some of those sources do actually analyse the Alli case. Park3r ( talk ) 06:08, 7 June 2023 (::::::I'm talking about secondary sources as defined at WP:SECONDARY . News sources are not secondary, they are primary sources that document a sequence of events as it is unfolding. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 14:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] interesting, thanks. I would consider (and have during my time editing Wikipedia and prior to that, (probably going back to when I learned this at library period in primary school) that a primary source would be something like a court transcript, a press release, an interview, or an eyewitness account. Your claim that “news sources are not secondary” doesn’t seem to align with WP:SECONDARY , and WP:PRIMARYNEWS is an essay that seems to have a rather elitist idea of what constitutes a secondary source. I’d be curious to know which of the 15 or so sources I added above would qualify as secondary sources in your mind. In the instance of this murder, I’d see a transcript of the murder trial or appeal, an eyewitness account from someone who saw his body, a legal judgement, a report made into the alleged corruption that led to his death, by the victim, a primary source, since those would require WP:SYNTH to come to meaningful conclusions. Not the various reports discussing the murder published in RS by journalists. I’d also be curious about what other editors think about this issue in general, and how the concept of “news sources are not secondary” aligns with exisiting site policy. Park3r ( talk ) 15:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 00:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I think we need some additional assessments of the sources added to this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 23:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV , WP:ROUTINE and WP:GNG . My opinion of the sources: Source 1 is a various mix of quotes related to the incident and the subject. There are twelve lines in total, with six being quotes by an individual related to the subject/event. Out of the six non-quote lines, only three only tell news, whereas the other three introduce a quote by an individual related to the subject/event. Source 2 is routine commentary about the court hearing. Source 3 is once again routine commentary and timeline about the court hearing. Source 4 is once again routine commentary about the court hearing. I can't access source 5, and archives aren't loading for me for some reason. Source 6 also seems to be routine coverage about this event. Karnataka ( talk ) 20:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I put up 15 sources above though, including 2 academic articles that mention the murder in the context of police corruption. But given the media coverage over an extended period in WP:RS, I’d like to know how it doesn’t meet GNG. Park3r ( talk ) 06:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Muhammad Saleem: likely autobiographical. ltb d l ( talk ) 06:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan . ltb d l ( talk ) 06:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC) Fails WP:GNG. The BLP currently relies on unreliable sources. Created by a SPA so likely COI. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 08:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . Good find. 86.130.244.141 ( talk ) 00:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Siege of Kalonoros: What little coverage these events do have in reliable sources is minor, usually just a sentence, and contradicts what is written in the articles. For example, Cilician campaign of Kayqubad I claims that ""Armenians came under the Seljuk rule again"" but the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia existed until 1375. @ AirshipJungleman29 : had previously nominated many similar articles created by these two users for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Anamur and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cilician campaign of Kaykaus I for the same reasons. Here are some remaining articles that should be removed. Here are the other articles with the same issues: Cilician campaign of Kayqubad I ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Cilicia Campaign of Baybars ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Siege of Alanya (1221) ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Seljuk civil war of 1211–1213 ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Battle of Keban (1218) ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) KhndzorUtogh ( talk ) 23:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support Thank you KhndzorUtogh for nominating these poorly researched, POV-ridden articles for deletion. -- Kansas Bear ( talk ) 01:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support - per nom. Archives908 ( talk ) 01:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per my rationale at previous nominations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 21:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (partially). I believe the siege of Kalonoros/Alanya is notable and probably the Cilician campaign of Kayqubad I also. No opinion on the rest. For the siege see this , the Medieval Fortifications in Cilicia and any number of other sources (e.g., Claude Cahen). Enough to write a short article for an important event. Srnec ( talk ) 21:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC) When the Seljuq Sultan Alaeddin Keykubad set out to conquer Alanya, then named Kalonoros, in 1221, he was unable to do so. The lord of the castle, an Armenian named Kir Fard, was bought off. This is very different from the ""successfully mounted victory"" the article speaks of. The source says nothing more of the siege, not enough to base an article on. -- KhndzorUtogh ( talk ) 22:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC) The walls of Alanya and an account of the city's taking by the Seljuqs provide clues relating to the issues of talismany and apotropaism raised above. They also return to that quality of ancient constructions—their fineness and solidity of construction—most admired by Theodore Lascaris. Alanya, on the south coast of Anatolia, had once been a great Hellenistic fortress. When the Seljuq Sultan Alaeddin Keykubad set out to conquer Alanya, then named Kalonoros, in 1221, he was unable to do so. The lord of the castle, an Armenian named Kir Fard, was bought off. Extensive rebuilding of the Hellenistic fortifications in and around the main entrance to the fourth sector of the castle and the Ehmedek, or landward citadel, point to the presence, even in the preSeljuq medieval period, of defenses that would have made a siege of the fortress difficult. The account of the siege given by the Seljuq chronicler Ibn Bibi contains one passage associating a talismanic quality with one particular kind of stone: marble. The sultan ordered that the mangonels of the besieging army be furnished only with projectiles of marble because, as he maintained, no other stone could fly as far. This order seems to have caused a considerable delay in the siege since, as Ibn Bibi rightfully reports, no marble occurred naturally on that castle rock. Remember that this is just one easily accessible source in English. And problems with the article are reasons to fix it , not it. Srnec ( talk ) 00:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC) per nom, fails GNG and NEVENT. Nothing found that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth/detail. If in the unlikely event sources are found it would still be much better to start over with a fresh article, I am not seeing anything properly sourced which is worth saddling an (improbable) future article. // Timothy :: talk 22:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Relisting to consider Srnec's objection to two of the articles proposed for deletion. This might require more digging than a simple ""per nom"" statement. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Articles for deletion/Cilician campaign of Kaykaus I that was created by the same user. The article presently does not even have a real citation. -- KhndzorUtogh ( talk ) 00:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , but I do not oppose ing some of the articles with a sound rationale (notability) as pointed out by Srnec. In any case, those we could would have to be rewritten in one way or another, because they largely rely on primary sources (Ibn Bibi, Muneccimbasi, Ayni, and so on). As they appear to be a part of a wave of problematic article creations, deleting all could save us time, and an experienced editor can recreate some of the notable ones. Aintabli ( talk ) 04:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC) HEY save on the Siege of Alanya, it's better to it. (I'm not convinced the siege itself is worth a standalone article in any case.) -- asilvering ( talk ) 23:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Muaid Moaafa: Twitter is not reliable or independent and database sources do not confer notability, so that rules out all of the references bar Shorouk News and Akhbaar24 , both of which contain minimal information on the player and are referenced to Twitter, which is not reliable or independent. The only news story that I could find that wasn't referenced to Twitter was Ar Riyadiyah , which is just a photo of him training from home, with two sentences confirming what the image shows. No significant coverage. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Saudi Arabia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No SIGCOV found, fails BASIC and ANYBIO. Timothytyy ( talk ) 08:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rinat Baibekov: Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 03:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC) ARTIST . The ""Artist's statement"" section is of no value, because an acceptable Wikipedia article about an artist summarizes what sources independent of the artist say, not what the artist says about themself. The ""Overview"" section is unreferenced, banal and uninformative. The ""Exhibitions"" section is entirely unreferenced, and is therefore of no value in establishing notability. Cullen328 ( talk ) 04:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Russia , England , and Canada . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per both above. Johnbod ( talk ) 12:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC) GNG and WP:ARTIST . - The Gnome ( talk ) 14:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards: Draftify 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC) Please read the list of AfDs and the nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards South before offering an opinion here 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Awards , and Maharashtra . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC) Copycat awards per WP:DADASAHEB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sid95Q ( talk • contribs ) 17:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This seems to be exactly the same issue discussed in the previous AfD, and the sources in this version aren't particularly convincing either. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 02:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC) DADASAHEB , an imitation award. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 14:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nominated this as draftify. I have had more time to consider. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Alan Roberts (sailor): Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth. The event they are primary known for does not have an article. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 02:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Damian London: Article asserts their most famous role was as a recurring character on Babylon 5 , but that seems to be about it. Does not pass WP:NACTOR either. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Science fiction and fantasy , and Illinois . Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - seems to have insufficient referencing to support notability and quality. - Indefensible ( talk ) 21:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"New Frontier Design: ""Best luxury tiny home builder"" in The Spruce 2020 awards is the key claim to notability presented. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP - ""A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources..."" Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 08:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , United States of America , and Tennessee . Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 08:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC) SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH -- but I'm honestly happy to see at least a single source. Note that the article needs a lot of NPOV improvement, too. — siro χ o 09:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC) prepared by User:siroxo Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? architectural digest largely an interview with founder ? ✘ No digital trends [18] this covers a specific product, with only a few words about the company ✘ No BBC company covered by interview with founder ✘ No insider heavily relies on interview ~ mostly about product not company ✘ No the spruce [19] in-depth entry in a list, meets WP:CORPDEPTH ✔ Yes business insider relies heavily on interview with founder ~ ~ ✘ No treehugger [20] ? couple sentences about company, mostly product review ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. I can't find much more about this builder. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Portuguese in Montenegro: The article is padded out with information on trade between the two countries, NATO, etc., presumably to make up for the lack of in-depth coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Cordless Larry ( talk ) 07:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups , Montenegro , and Portugal . Cordless Larry ( talk ) 07:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with the nominator that the very-recent, almost non-existent community is not notable. Further, the sourcing is almost all primary and the one secondary source I found does not seem to support the article topic in any way. The creator of this article is @ Miguel01Cruzado who appears to be devoted to promoting claims of Portuguese heritage. I've called their edits out in the past for lacking reliable sourcing but it felt like a losing battle. Oblivy ( talk ) 07:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Template style article creation along with others (Portuguese in xxx) with very little substantive content to justify the article. Possibly s to Portuguese xxx relations but quite probably ultimately not worth the effort. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 10:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC) GNG as a stand-alone topic. As others have said, the article is mostly based on tangential information and contains almost no information about the Portuguese community living in Montenegro, presumably because little to no info actually exists. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per arguments made at all the other ""Portuguese in wherever articles"". AryKun ( talk ) 15:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Geraint James (rugby union): A couple mentions here , another trivial mention there , but nothing substantial. JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and Wales . JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Played one match for Cardiff due to extraordinary circumstances. Unlikely to feature further or have any future significant coverage. RodneyParadeWanderer ( talk ) 16:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC) GNG . No suitable per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 21:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC) SPORTBASIC and no evidence of WP:SIGCOV . Contributor892z ( talk ) 16:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Brandchannel: does not meet the significance criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhyWeAll ( talk • contribs ) 18:29, July 1, 2023 (UTC) Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 3 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 15:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found SIGCOV in the New York Times but not much else. There is a lot of incidental coverage of lists, product placement tracking in films, but not much substantive. Interbrand would seem to merit an article but we lack the obvious ATD here, so unless Interbrand is created. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 00:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising , Internet , Websites , and New York . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. The article appears to be written by a small number of users contributing content without any citations and then retrofitting some unrelated sources to match existing text. Overall, pretty much no supported material. Anton.bersh ( talk ) 11:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Life expectancy (concept): However this does seem to expand upon the concept so what should be done here? Cleo Cooper ( talk ) 17:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (Speedy) A10 would seem entirely sensible here, the two are about the same concept, and this is a far shorter and less substantial text. If you think there's anything worth merging, go right ahead, but we should not have a CFORK. without a . Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 18:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC) 07, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Mathematics . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Danielaanaiza , the creator, maybe you could explain why you created this article? You put Not to be confused with Life expectancy. on this article so you were aware of Life expectancy . Is there something we're missing? Cleo Cooper ( talk ) 01:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Completely redundant to Life expectancy and very OR-ish at points, to boot. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 02:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , We shouldn't hold articles which are redundant . Samoht27 ( talk ) 16:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC) As per WP:REDUNDANTFORK . BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions ) 18:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Marlabs: Previous AfD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marlabs_(2nd_nomination) 扱. し. 侍. ( talk ) 18:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Engineering , Technology , and New Jersey . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC) RS or WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NCORP . Sourcing is limited to interviews and press releases. I was unable to find anything other than press releases/churnalism by websites such as ""PR Newswire."" Please note the Forbes article is by the CEO so it does not count as secondary coverage. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC) A new instance on a previously d topic, supported by a summary and announcement-based coverage of routine company history, falling under WP: ORGTRIV . I see no reason to set aside the previous AfD decisions. Given this 3rd AfD, plus previous G11 deletions, if this current instance is d, it also seems appropriate to salt the variant names. AllyD ( talk ) 10:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a completely different from previous versions which are so old. Now it is backed with multiple reliable secondary sources, passes GNG. Graze Wood ( talk ) 13:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Houston Scott: Of the two references here, both are dead links. After searching, I found several sources, but for other people with this same name. The article was created by a new user on 10 April 2011 (their only contribution to Wikipedia), and previously PROD on the same day. JoeNMLC ( talk ) 19:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Business , and Virginia . — Karnataka talk 19:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - since posting here, a bot rescued the first reference Okay, however the second reference Failed verification. JoeNMLC ( talk ) 01:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] only links found are for a Travis Scott, nothing for this person. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC) MUSICBIO He is one of 541 million people who have a Twitter account. This article was the only edit by the editor, most likely himself. No real mentions on a Google search. At best, harmonica playing is his hobby, not anything that makes him notable. — Maile ( talk ) 14:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"John Grant (footballer, born 1988): signed, Rosguill talk 23:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Scotland . signed, Rosguill talk 23:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak 144 games for Alloa, with some sources like Herald Scotland , The Times . Regards. Govvy ( talk ) 09:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Both articles are match reports; the first mentions his sending off, the second mentions goals scored by him. Coverage doesn't get more routine than that. The two articles do not contribute to WP:GNG being met. Robby.is.on ( talk ) 12:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC) If you're going to do that, then you need to every season article, every footballer article there is, match reports do contribute to GNG, to say they are all routine coverage is not a practical way to run wikipedia guidelines. Govvy ( talk ) 13:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC) OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rabbit hole. The mentions of Grant in the two articles are ""trivial mentions"" as explained in WP:SIGCOV . Robby.is.on ( talk ) 13:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, let's the other articles with inadequate sourcing. March OfThe Greyhounds 15:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC) BLP policy for strong sourcing, even if the subject played with balls, regardless of type. // Timothy :: talk 15:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as there is no evidence of this article meeting GNG. The sources provided aren't significant. March OfThe Greyhounds 15:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC) BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and indepth . BLPs require strong sourcing // Timothy :: talk 15:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Phalloides: If this page is d, Phalloides (disambiguation) should be d per WP:G14 . Consider adding phalloides to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names . Narky Blert ( talk ) 18:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Done! Elemimele ( talk ) 19:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organisms and Disambiguations . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm in two minds. I'm okay with on this specific list, but I think it's really important this doesn't become a campaign to (willy-nilly?!) all list articles concerning Latin words used as species names. For example, Officinalis is a well-written list of considerable encyclopaedic value, and Palustris isn't bad. The main objections to Phalloides is that it's really only useful to a handful of people interested in mycological smuttiness, and the list is too small to be particularly useful. Elemimele ( talk ) 19:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as none of these dab entries is ever referred to by just the species epithet alone. Loopy30 ( talk ) 16:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Somali Inside News: Doesn't meet GNG or NME 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 13:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Organizations . 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 13:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC) NEO is cited, let us see what it says, Articles on Somali Inside News that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly d, but in this case, this phrase is very widely cited across an enormous variety of reliable sources. The phrase probably should also be mentioned Mass media in Somalia . if anyone can tell us why it should be d. @ Rydex64 HelperWik25 ( talk ) 14:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Websites , and Somalia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: We really need a lot more editors participating in AFD discussions. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC) Per nomination, this fails WP:NME and WP:GNG as there are no secondary, reliables sources available. Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 15:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Katie Fang: Sources are primary Cossyno ( talk ) 05:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Film , and Canada . Cossyno ( talk ) 05:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Internet , and Taiwan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - No secondary sources found. Doesn't qualify Wikipedia:NBLP . – Nirvana Today t@lk 05:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC) ANYBIO Graywalls ( talk ) 08:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No secondary coverage whatsoever. Banks Irk ( talk ) 13:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Lead and portions of her Career strikes me as strangely promotional as though the article is an extension of her TikTok page. RetroCosmos ( talk ) 18:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per above; probably could even be speedy d AriTheHorse talk to me! 13:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC) @ AriTheHorse : , just a note, before suggesting speedy, it is worth remembering that articles d as CSD are susceptible to WP:REFUND claim by other users, including subject involved public relations editor whereas a full stop AfD are resistant to re-creation as it receives protection through G4 CSD to enforce AfD. Graywalls ( talk ) 09:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Singapore Business Review: It may be worth reevaluating its notability merits to stay. Donaldherald ( talk ) 12:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions . Donaldherald ( talk ) 12:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Of the three sources in the article, one is the company's Twitter page, another a page that makes no mention to the subject, and another one that may be reliable, but mostly just links a bunch of articles from the company. Other than hat, I didn't really see anything else of note. Lynch44 ( talk ) 15:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jeffry Life: Most claims are missing a source, the few sources that are there are poorly used. :ᗡ OLI (she/her) Added Jeffery Life to List of University of Iowa alumni , that should solve the problem. Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 17:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The AfD previously had invalid formatting and transclusion, which have been fixed. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as a celebrity author rather than as a scientist. There are lots of articles in reliable sources about him. He has written about his anti-aging theories in books rather than peer-reviewed journals, which makes me skeptical of his claims. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Medicine , and United States of America . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC) ANYBIO . A search at Amazon , WorldCat and Library of Congress result in the same books only, which appear to be nothing more than different editions (2021, 2012, 2013,2014) of his diet plan. The titles are a bit different each edition, but it's still his diet plan. There is just nothing I find that makes this person notable. Other than the author's books, I also see nothing that says he's a real doctor - maybe he is, but I don't find it. — Maile ( talk ) 14:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In response to comments right below this, I'm thinking that maybe the real question is if the various editions of his diet book make him notable. Other than his own account of who he was, and the subsequent updated versions of the book, there really doesn't seem to be any substantive info about him. Notability of the book would hinge on its sales figures. I've not run across anything about the sales numbers of his book, only that he later released updated editions. — Maile ( talk ) 15:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Eastman. Change to as interviews don't count for notability. There are articles from the BBC, LA Times , New York Times Magazine , and The Times in the lead, so he clearly passes WP:GNG and ANYBIO isn't relevant. I agree it's not a very good page, but it needs improvement rather than deletion. -- CohenTheBohemian ( talk ) 14:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC) The BBC and LA Times are interviews as for the other two you mentioned I don't know as I don't have a subscription for either of them. So it does not pass WP:GNG as those two are not independent, the other two may not be either but I can't check. OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, this might be an odd case of having adequate sources to establish GNG but ultimately not being suitable for a main space article. Right now, I see no consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] but rewrite. The peer-reviewed paper from 1968 would largely have been replaced by more modern theories (I think), but we seem to have enough to , perhaps as an ""anti-ageing activist""? Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC) GNG . However, article has to be rewritten according to the encyclopedia rules in order to have a value for people. ContributorMix ( talk ) 21:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC) The few appropriate references fail to support the listed facts. If this passes WP:GNG (which I don't think it does) it should be rewritten from scratch , preferably after a good read of WP:BACKWARD . - UtherSRG (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The BBC and LA Times are interviews as for the other two you mentioned I don't know as I don't have a subscription for either of them. So it does not pass WP:GNG as those two are not independent, the other two may not be either but I can't check. OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC) Qualifications are unsourced, and what is sourced is not notable enough, fails WP:GNG in my opinion. GraziePrego ( talk ) 06:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . He's only known for being a symbol of testosterone and nothing more. This is my first time particpating in AFD, so my arguments may be a bit invalid. I have removed the orphan tag from the article because I have added his name to his alma maters. For the sources, Jeffry Life is only mentioned as a bodybulider at an old age, and nothing else. Passing mention of Life, the Financial Times doesn't have that much info which I believe mentions that Life was in a commericial(?) the Time article only inclues him in an image, a quick search of Google Books and I found that Life is mentioned only once outside his own books, and there's a passing mention in this USA today article. The rest of the books are passing mentions of Life and some of them are SPS. Tarantula TM ( speak with me ) ( my legacy ) 03:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Interviews can’t be used to justify notability. Not much RS coverage beyond that. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 10:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Yusnelvis Espinosa: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Cuba . JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per the nomination. IncompA 01:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Christina Olmi: Falls into WP:BLP1E . Let'srun ( talk ) 00:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Beauty pageants , and New Mexico . Let'srun ( talk ) 00:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. A search found nothing on the subject that shows notability. Does not come even close to passing WP:GNG and is an example of WP:BLP1E . - AuthorAuthor ( talk ) 22:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"François Mathieu: Gedaali ( talk ) 02:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Arts , and Visual arts . Gedaali ( talk ) 02:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 06:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . There are other potentially notable people with this name, including fr:François Mathieu , a French senator, as well as a Quebec sculptor. I don't see an article about this painter in the French Wikipedia. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mario Gomez (politician): Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas , closed as procedural due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 04:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Politicians , and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 22:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC) NPOL Adhi2004 ( talk ) 10:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can't imagine how someone whose sole claim to fame was two years as mayor of quite a small city could meet notability requirements. Perhaps this is why the article has very little to say other than that he was indeed mayor for two years. AusLondonder ( talk ) 11:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ahmed Shayan F Rahman: I was not able to find any sources that establish notability WP:NBIO or WP:GNG — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c ) 15:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , and Bangladesh . — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c ) 15:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - sources provided do not establish notability, some are primary. Upper Deck Guy ( talk ) 15:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I agree with Upper Deck Guy . Sources have no notability in them. Fails WP:GNG The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Our Lady of Maulawin: While source #2 presents itself as an academic source, it appears to be self-published, and tellingly includes no bibliography. I was unable to find coverage on Google Scholar, Google Books, or the internet searching in English, Spanish and Filipino. signed, Rosguill talk 17:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion , Christianity , and Philippines . signed, Rosguill talk 17:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] no good hits on GNews and GBooks. GNews Archives just have a wedding and a funeral announcement that were held in the said Parish. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Liban Soleman: – Jonesey95 ( talk ) 16:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC) This article may be eligible for speedy deletion via G4. – Jonesey95 ( talk ) 16:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Africa . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as a promo page (unspecified ""key positions"", ""successfully participated"", ""unique experience"", ""comprehensive knowledge"", etc) that was already d once. Two sources are trivial mentions and others are primary (interview, direct quoted, or official web-site of affiliated organization). Suitskvarts ( talk ) 10:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Eusebio Edjang: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] unless significant coverage of this athlete can be found in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 ( talk ) 02:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC) GNG . Suonii180 ( talk ) 06:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC) 31, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Wassila Alouache: The closest thing I found in my searches was this interview. JTtheOG ( talk ) 09:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Algeria . JTtheOG ( talk ) 09:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Zuleira Abisheva: The closest things to WP:SIGCOV that I found in my searches were this 2020 interview and this 2016 interview with her mother. JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Kazakhstan . JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC) GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 14:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC) BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Ref and ELs in article is to database style listings. Nothing found in BEFORE (Зулейра Абишева) that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth , more name mentions and listings. BLPs requires strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 19:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ruth Topalian: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGYMNAST . Let'srun ( talk ) 16:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople , Women , and New York . Let'srun ( talk ) 16:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've found this [29] . Not extenstive. It seems she was the first Armenian women from outside the Soviet Bloc to compete at the Olympics [30] and a brief mention in Life magazine [31] . I'll looking. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looked in the Library of Congress newspaper archive, nothing found. Tried a NY state newspaper archive, nothing. I don't think she's at GNG. Was never popular enough as an athlete. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . A few newspapers published a photo of her with boxers Archie Slaten and Charles Adkins on their way to the Olympics, but I'm having trouble finding much more. pburka ( talk ) 16:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Just a note, Topalian was her married name. I added a couple refs that sketch in a few details. Penny Richards ( talk ) 14:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as additional work has been done on this article since nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 17:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Only found trivial mentions, using both her married and maiden names. Would prefer a to Gymnastics at the 1952 Summer Olympics or 1952 Summer Olympics . but would be fine with deletion as well. Jacona ( talk ) 19:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Reverted my close . There's an editor seeking to weigh in, which is sufficient for a 3rd relist if we may achieve consensus and potential further input. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Sources are severely deficient for meeting GNG. In the article: 1 (sports-reference.com): stats N . 2 (The Item): single-sentence photo caption on her and two others N . 3 (Palm Beach Post): wedding anniversary announcement N . 4 (Stuart News): local obituary N . Mentioned in AfD: Us Weekly: single-sentence photo caption N . Armenian Olympians: From Athens to Athens: single sentence in a self-published book N . Life: single-sentence photo caption N . It seems all details on her life are sourced to the primary, non-independent anniversary announcement and obituary, which is not acceptable. JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fails GNG per JoelleJay's source analysis. I support a if a suitible target can be found, but the two suggested above do not mention Topalian in their articles. Carson Wentz ( talk ) 02:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Air Berlin destinations: As per the subsequent AN discussion , subsequent AFDs may be nominated in a orderly fashion provided the link to the RFC is included and the closer takes the RFD discussion into consideration. As per the recent AFDs on numerous Airline destination lists, the articles on their own fail WP:NOT#DIRECTORY , and some of the nominated airline list articles such as SkyGreece and Virgin Express would also fail WP:CORP via No Inherited Notability, and to quote from WP:CORP: An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries . One other Airline destination list ( List of US Airways Express destinations ) is largely part of a defunct main carrier ( US Airways ) where some of the information may easily be covered in the related parent articles. The airline lists specifically nominated in this AFD are related to companies that have since closed down and ceased services. Many of the limited sources in the nominated articles are largely from an archived versions of the closed airlines' websites and would not pass WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:V . WP:BEFORE is not compulsory, however a lot of sources either points back to mirror websites of Wikipedia or archived references from aviation blog / community sources such as airlineroute.net or airliners.net and from the former airline's websites. As per the last AFD, I'm open to suggestions, but considering the limited sources that may rescue those articles, For now, I would suggest as the nominator. Coastie43 ( talk ) 02:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions . Coastie43 ( talk ) 02:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists , Belgium , Germany , Greece , Italy , and United States of America . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] all - all the same problems with the previous similar AfDs. As far as I can see, these are all defunct airlines and the lists claim to be destinations at the point of closure. This information could be tediously checked against published route-maps but that wouldn't be am independent source. It could be collated from various databases but that would be getting close to WP:OR , and I'm not clear how it would be possible to create a page without one or the other. Fundamentally I think there are better places to find this information and WP is not everything WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt ( talk ) 19:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC) NOT , and per WP:CORP . Articles exhaustively listing routine, run-of-the-mill services provided by a business are a straight-forward contravention of WP:NOTCATALOGUE . Articles sourced only to the company providing those services and run-of-the-mill stories in insufficiently-independent industry press fail WP:NCORP . A regularly-updated board listing the services of a company is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS . The TL;DR version is there is no reason why we should what are essentially the equivalent of a list of all the cities that Blockbuster Video had branches in on 7th August 1989. We do not exhaustively list the services of a company, still less exhaustively list the services of a company on a random and essentially meaningless date. This applies regardless of the notability of the company that provides those services. PS - JMWt I think the WP:OR point is valid but also that it would apply even if the company was not defunct. This is because these lists always include ""terminated"" destinations, but the only way that you can confirm that these destinations are terminated is to go to the website of the airline in question and see that they do not list it as a destination - that is, you have to infer something from the source that it does not explicitly state (i.e., WP:OR ). Even if a news story can be found saying that the service has been terminated, this only confirms that the service was terminated as of the date of that story , not either at the date given in the article (typically one years in the past - e.g. the Air Berlin list is supposed to be accurate as of October 2017) or at present. This is because airline services change week-to-week constantly and they may well have started serving that destination again. FOARP ( talk ) 10:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC) OR point is more likely to be important for airlines that are still running; it's possible that a RS could be found showing destinations soon before the airline closes, but almost by definition a list of destinations non-redundant airline is almost inevitably going to be sourced as I've described above. I guess I'm biased but to me I can't see why would host this information for any airline, redundant or not. JMWt ( talk ) 12:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"International School of Southern Denmark (The Cosmo): There appear to be no news stories about the school nor any suitable sources mentioning its closure. Uffda608 ( talk ) 13:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Denmark . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 14:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Google shows it as “permanently closed” and I’m not seeing any RIS that would indicate it was ever notable. Mccapra ( talk ) 16:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"John G. Wilson: No acceptable sources. Company puff piece. Fails WP:GNG . UtherSRG (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , and Law . UtherSRG (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While it is fascinating to be told that ""There is no record that Mr. Wilson ever became a member of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents."", there is also no record that he ever flew a toothbrush. There is also no record that he was ever notable and none that establishes his notability today - it's mildly shocking this article has survived since 2010 in this state, and tagged at that! Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 14:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC) Agree with nominator; fails WP:GNG . User:Let'srun 19:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , this subject is from the 19th century so let's be careful before recommending deletion. Here's some coverage on this individual [13] . There are contemporary publications to examine as well, but I don't have access to most of them. Incidentally, the somewhat humorous note above is from the firm's extant website [14] . — siro χ o 01:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Gnews has all kinds of people with this name in 19th Century newspapers, none for this fellow. Kudos on never having flown a toothbrush either. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lalitha Jewellery: Recreated so sending back to AfD for consensus. Original deletion rationale - Company fails WP:NCORP in that there are insufficient references that meet WP:ORGCRIT . Assessment of the references is below. I was going to send this to AfD a week ago when recommending the Chairman for deletion, but kept this for a possible as WP:ATD . After further assessment of the references, I don’t think that would be an option as I don’t feel the company is notable. CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC) 1. Economic Times , brief mention (one sentence). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH . 2. Hans India , interview with the Chairman of the company and fails WP:NEWSORGINDIA based on the byline. Likely a PR piece. 3. Sakshi , another interview with the Chairman and coincidentally published within 30 days of the interview listed above. 4. Economic Times , company listing similar to those found in Crunchbase or Bloomberg. Fails CORPDEPTH. 5. The Hindu Businessline , (added since previous deletion) churnalism and NEWSORGINDIA. See the byline and tone of the reference. 6 Economic Times , (added since previous deletion) business listing, fails ORGCRIT and CORPDEPTH. 7. DT Next , written by the Chairman of the company. Not independent. 8. New Indian Express , Fails NEWSORGINDIA with a byline of “express news service” which is customary with churnalism for this publication. 9. Deccan Chronicle , a number of issues including failing NEWSORGINDIA with byline of “DC Correspondent” which indicates press release or churnalism. Also is considered a routine announcement of a location opening. 10. India Today , this is the only reference that I find that comes close to WP:ORGCRIT. However, it is a news story about a robbery that happened at the store so effectively routine news coverage as it talks about the robbery and isn’t in-depth about the company. 11. Tamil Samayam , another article about a robbery. 12. Hindustan Times , article about the robbery suspect surrendering to authorities. This reference is about the robbery and not in-depth about the company itself. 13. The Hindu , another that fails NEWSORGINDIA with a byline of “The Hindu Bureau.” The coverage is also about a donation that the company made to a temple so not in-depth about the company itself. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 14. Times of India ,(added since previous deletion) routine announcement of industry award. Nothing in-depth. 15. Deccan Chronicle , (added since previous deletion) Another routine announcement of industry award. Only two sentences and likely NEWSORGINDIA. Updated the above assessment list to include the references currently on the page. Also pinging @ Wcquidditch : who was the only person who voted in last discussion. Page creator was notified via script. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India . CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Source analysis above shows there is nothing beyond routine/trivial mentions of this company; I can't find anything extra. for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC) based on the source analysis given by the nominator. Charlie ( talk ) 17:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I've gone through the sources and find the analysis presented brilliant. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 09:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Maja Dimitrijević: I found this , which is not independent of the subject. Note: not to be confused with the karateka/fitness instructor of the same name . JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Serbia . JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and SALT - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Max Silvestri: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC) Not a strong , but there appears to be sufficient notability - The sources in the article currently are not useful due to being interviews or dead links, but there are some reviews of his work that can be found with minimal effort that tend to indicate notability ( Exclaim , The Diamondback , Vulture ) - There are also interviews, Q&As and other sources, but generally they are not as strong as the 3 reviews above to establish notoriety. Shazback ( talk ) 19:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 01:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC) BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. None of the sources in the article meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, the above sources, one may meet SIGCOV. Source eval: Comments Source Appears to be part of a database of actors, questionable SIGCOV https://exclaim.ca/comedy/article/max_silvestri-jfl42_the_garrison_toronto_on_september_26 Promo, ""people to watch"" type article https://dbknews.com/0999/12/31/arc-lvfrh6zdvvdzjmqjjc3mgs7o3a/ Promo, ""people to watch"" type article https://www.vulture.com/2014/12/11-best-stand-up-specials-of-2014.html Ping me if other sources with SIGCOV are found. // Timothy :: talk 13:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC) SIRS is the correct standard for evaluating these sources, since the article is not about an organization or company. I'm surprised that a review of his show by Exclaim! doesn't attain SIGCOV. Exclaim! is recognized as a perennial source by WikiProject Albums since 2009, a view which was supported on the Reliable Sources discussion board as recently as 2020 [45] . The article is by a staff author, not an external contributor, and is well over the WP:100WORDS guideline, even after excluding the paragraph talking about the opening act. Regarding the other two articles, what makes them WP:PRSOURCE (""promos"") or on what basis are ""people to watch"" type articles excluded? As far as I can see, the Vulture article is not identified as a press release, does not appear to be churnalism (I can't find an article with similar wording) and is identified as being written by a staff author. It's short, but as Vulture is a perennial source [46] I am surprised 100+ words is so easily dismissed. The Diamondback article does not appear to be churnalism, but as it's a less reputable source & authorship is less clear (DBK Admin, incoherent publication date) I understand this one is more open for discussion. I haven't been involved in many AfDs, so more information on these topics would be useful for me going forwards. Shazback ( talk ) 13:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger ( talk ) 05:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd be interested in seeing another review of the sources in the article and this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC) I don't see any target, and I don't see sufficient direct detailing coverage demonstrated by reliable sources applied, presented, or found which put this subject past ANYBIO, GNG or ENTERTAINER. BusterD ( talk ) 20:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Choi Gwang-chol: Simione001 ( talk ) 22:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 22:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 22:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 22:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC) GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 14:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC) Can't find sigcov, not enough games to pass threshold of notability. toobigtokale ( talk ) 03:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above, although I think there needs to be a discussion about senior national team appearances meeting notability requirements. Some national teams, like North Korea and other non-Western nations, don't (and in some cases literally can't) get coverage from trustworthy media sources ever under most circumstances, which skews notability standards drastically in favor of European and North and South American players. Anwegmann ( talk ) 03:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as non-notable. I thought about ing to North Korea national football team for a sec, but he doesn't mentioned. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 20:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ibrahim Hooper: There seems to be a lot of quotes in various news outlets by the subject, but I'm not seeing much to offer towards his notability on en.wiki JMWt ( talk ) 20:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and United States of America . JMWt ( talk ) 20:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Television , Islam , Canada , Minnesota , and Washington, D.C. . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC) 10, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Yellow (Shane Eagle album): This album has not received any certification of any kind and has not received any award, further more it did not make the news. The article cites 2 sources which are iTunes (primary source) and that it hit 1 million streams which any local upcoming artist can accomplish. shelovesneo ( talk ) 06:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Itunes is a primary source, as OP said, and the MTV News is broken and just s to MTV's main page. The link has been archived three times here , but all three snapshots were apparently taken after the article was removed, leaving the Wikipedia article with no good sources whatsoever. Cortador ( talk ) 07:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On the creator's talk page , it looks like they tried producing this with fails due to lack of notability . shelovesneo ( talk ) 12:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That raises the question why this ever became an article in the first place. Cortador ( talk ) 15:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and South Africa . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ananta Group: scope_creep Talk 21:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Bangladesh . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom and possible COI issues. ParadaJulio ( talk ) 13:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Large textile company in a country where textile is the main industry and the country is one of the largest producers of textiles. What COI issue is there @ ParadaJulio ? Since I created the article, I would like an elaboration on that statement. See [ [1] ], which is in-depth and significant coverage. ; Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 16:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your the editor who created this article. That reference you have given is as good as an example of PR as I've seen that fails WP:ORGIND and not being independent fails WP:SIRS . Its total puff piece. scope_creep Talk 18:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We will go through the references. scope_creep Talk 18:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC) Ref 1 [2] Description of the company formation, including quotes taken from the company website. PR. Fails WP:SIRS . Not independent. Ref 2 [3] PWC India Case Study. It could have been a good ref, but it only three paragraphs and is not in-depth, failing WP:SIRS . Ref 3 [4] X of Y profiles article. Single profile. Not in-depth. Fails WP:SIRS . Ref 4 [5] Passing mention. Not in-depth. Fails WP:SIRS . Ref 5 [6] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH . Ref 6 [7] Press-release . Fails WP:SIRS as not independent. Ref 7 [8] Press release. Its all company financials. Fails WP:SIRS . Ref 8 [9] Passing mention from a press-release. Fails WP:ORGIND WP:SIRS All the references here are either PR, press-releases, passing mentions, or come from the company website. It fails WP:NCORP . scope_creep Talk 06:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -Articles written by journalists, named journalists, are not press releases. By what criteria are we defining press releases? Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 01:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the issue is, although they are published from named journalists, are almost entirely taken from the press releases and/or are comprised largely of interviews. Scope creep may be able to explain their reasoning in more detail. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 01:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment They are press-releases or come from press-releases and used as composite sources or come from the company website. The argument isn't really around the fact that it is a named journalist. That is an aspect of how information is presented as a journalistic story when its not, although we can talk about what the modern journalist is. It is not what it was in the 1980's before social media eviscerated the industry, although they are coming back. This is private company. All of the information that is available on this company, comes from this company, or the staff, all of it. The modern company puts out a lot of information. These stories built are composite sources where the information is available from multiple locations, indicating it has been put out as press releases or comes from the company web or company financials or people in the company. The same text is seen in the multiple places. There is nothing original in the references, that makes them either independent, indepth, or fits the defintion of WP:NCORP . As an expert in WP:NCORP and having done hundreds of Afd's, if they're was any chance the company was notable, it wouldn't made it, to Afd. scope_creep Talk 08:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . NCORP is one of the hardest criteria to meet on Wikipedia but it is that way because of the inherently - and understandably - promotional nature of business. We would need to have at least one full article (i.e. SIGCOV) by an independent quality RS (a major Indian newspaper) on the business to have a WP company article. I don't see that the refs provided meet that yet. Aszx5000 ( talk ) 16:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC) THREE . scope_creep Talk 20:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Paddy Milner: Seems non-notable Charsaddian ( talk ) 18:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . Charsaddian ( talk ) 18:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see much for mentions beyond various musical performances he's given in Gnews. Gsearch is straight to social media. Willing to revisit if someone can track down some sort of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Trevor Purt: Coverage merely confirms roles he's held or statements he's said representing his employer and not WP:SIGCOV . There are elements of an WP:ATTACK page with the controversies section. LibStar ( talk ) 05:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of biography-related deletion discussions . NYC Guru ( talk ) 08:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC) – used for tagging active AfD discussions. This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . LibStar ( talk ) 09:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC) NBIO based the two articles [49] [50] documenting the subject resigning from two separate health boards amid controversy. It seems unwarranted however to link him to other controversies that he has merely publicly commented on. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 16:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Article's creator, Rathfelder was indefinitely community-banned ] for multiple abuses, including creating attack BLPs where they had a conflict of interest. A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC) ATTACK ) would be to reduce this page to a stub - removing all of the tangentially connected information about the controversies linked to the subject. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 12:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] this was an attack page, nothing we should be ing. Hardly notable, he said stuff people didn't like. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - currently appears to be a minor C-suite executive in a fairly minor corporation. Previously a senior NHS executive. Neither, as far as I can tell, give sufficient notability. It is claimed that he has a university title (Professor) but I have not been able to verify that this is more than a visiting/honorary title. Other than that, there are fairly local controversies relating to previous public sector jobs. I can't see that any of this amounts to much. JMWt ( talk ) 08:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC) BASIC , I think the BLP issues especially with respect to the creator mean it's worth deleting history instead of trying to recover something from this. — siro χ o 09:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ryan Mitchell (wrestler): 1, he worked on independent promotions. Not enough coverage from third party sources about him for an article. 2, the article is half hoax. He never won titles on OVW, TNA Wrestling, JCW or PWG. Looking his Cagematch profile, just won a few titles. HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 19:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment looks like, months ago, an IP included Josh Hardy and Ryan Mitchell on several championships as champions, which is fake. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 19:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Wrestling , and Pennsylvania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sahab Alam: There is no SIGCOV I can find, and there is no significant achievements I can see as well. Another thing is, I see it was d from fawiki numerous times as not notable [2] [3] [4] despite socking attempts [5] and even salted twice: [6] [7] , so if people who speaks the language natively is this certain he's not notable, I think he's not notable. Tehonk ( talk ) 03:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , and Iran . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC) Sources found are for a cricket player with this name, nothing with this musician. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Israeli tanks destroyed in the second Intifada: Anything relevant can be included into the relevant Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict annual entry. Longhornsg ( talk ) 04:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC) This indeed fails WP:NLIST as no kind of list based on coverage in multiple high-quality resources; on the contrary, it is basically an aggregation of news, and falls foul of WP:NOTNEWS . Iskandar323 ( talk ) 06:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC) NOTMEMORIAL . Individual tanks and their crews? Let's get serious. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 09:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Military , Terrorism , Israel , and Palestine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC) 45, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the history section (I just added this header for ease of execution) into Armored Corps (Israel) , where operations history is missing. No objection to deleting the article afterward, as it was created only in 2022 and probably not a likely search term. gidonb ( talk ) 05:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Misriadi Didiet: The best sources found in an Indonesian search were Kutai Kartanegara , Viva and Liputan6 , all of which only mention Misriadi in passing. I could not find any WP:RS that took Misriadi to one side and analysed him in detail. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Indonesia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Zack Page: Fails WP:GNG . – 2 . O . Boxing 08:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions . 2 . O . Boxing 08:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America . North America 1000 09:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As a professional he won 21 of 68 fights. He was 1-1 as an amateur losing in the round of 32 at the PAL championships (not sure why the article says he was ""featured""). Clearly fails to meet WP:NBOX and nothing I found makes me believe that WP:GNG is met. Fight results and databases do not show WP notability and he doesn't get WP notability for his loss to Fury. Papaursa ( talk ) 00:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , fails NBOX. You're not notable solely based on your opponents. Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 00:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] HES A STILL A PROFESSIONAL BOXER, WE STILL GIVE WIKIPEDIA PAGES TO UNKNOWN BOXERS, YET THEY ARE STILL UP, WHY IS THIS PAGE BEING DELETED! THERE IS NO REASON, HE WAS A RESPECTED PROFESSIONAL BOXER. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ANY OF THIS. GET A LIFE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.184.38 ( talk ) 02:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""capslock"" Please be careful the way how you act. Kaseng55 ( talk ) 03:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ 174.100.184.38 sources? also see WP:SHOUTING Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 03:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please reconsider deletion of this page. the proper information has been added, Zack Page is professional fighter, who has fought against some of boxings toughest opponents. he is a well known respected fighter in the community, and yes. His record does not prove any significance, however the outcome of his fights do. not many fighters can go toe to toe all 6 or 8 or 10 rounds with some of the best heavyweights in the world. so I ask that you please review, reconsider and do not this page. it took me a few days to gather up all the information regarding Zack Page so that I could organize this page. There are less significant fighters, that are linked on his fighting record, who all have pages, and has fought nobody significant either. for that I see this is a little bias and unfair. So all I ask is that you reconsider your choice and avoid the deletion of this page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porfiriotorres991 ( talk • contribs ) 15:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Coverage I could find is limited to routine match recaps/previews, not SIGCOV. Doesn't pass GNG. JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lynda Ddane: The majority of the sources cited within the article appear to be primary sources or promotional content, rather than reliable and independent secondary sources Edit.pdf ( talk ) 15:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women , Radio , Television , and Uganda . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Non-notable media personality, a ""born-again introvert"" is about the best reference, and it's celebrity fluff. Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC) GNG lacks indepth coverage. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 06:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Chris Sullo: Purely written for promotion. Article's author also wrote Nikto (vulnerability scanner) - subject closely related to the article in nomination. (Note: The author ( User:Root exploit ) also self-describes themselves as ""Security Researcher"" on their userpage). -- Wiki Linuz ( talk ) 04:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . -- Wiki Linuz ( talk ) 04:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing , Internet , United States of America , and Virginia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I can find no WP:SIGCOV of Sullo, only passing mentions of his role in creating Nikto. There's significant coverage here , but it's a blog and appears to be WP:SELFPUBLISHED . I also reviewed the discussion in the no-consensus 2006 and 2007 AfDs, and the """" votes were highly unpersuasive, rehearsing the WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS already in the article and making non-policy-based arguments for notability (such as a one-word ""notable"" and citing a "" desperate wish "" to the article). I would encourage other editors to review the sources and prior discussions carefully. If after 18 years(!) sufficient WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources cannot be found, this article should not be kept. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 00:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and possibly Nikto (vulnerability scanner) probably should visit AFD as well. Neither of the previous AFDs have compelling arguments to ; this article is just an abandoned resume. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 17:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Diego Hofland: Joeykai ( talk ) 12:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Clinomorphism: In any case, Wikipedia is not a dictionary . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 22:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Health and fitness , and Medicine . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 22:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC) not a single GScholar hit. Owen× ☎ 23:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can find nothing to support this at all. What little there is, is very clearly taken from the longer 2005 version of this very article. (I excluded the very different and wholly unrelated concept that appears in translation from a Russian geologist. which does not appear to have caught on that I can see.) This is unverifiable. Uncle G ( talk ) 11:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - this should be in Wiktionary, if it is even a term in use, which is unclear. Llajwa ( talk ) 18:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - definitely Wiktionary material. Idunnox3 ( talk ) 07:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Digital Data Systems: As far as I can tell, the article has had no sources in its nearly 10 year existence. Maybe there exists coverage in print media from the time the company existed? I wasn't able to find anything online, however. Uhai ( talk ) 06:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Computing , United States of America , and Virginia . Uhai ( talk ) 06:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC) An article describing a former consultancy company and its toolset. I am not seeing anything to indicate that the company or its tools attained distinct notability . The 2013 discussion appears to have veered into the notability of CSC (which for me is clear) rather than DDS (which isn't); a to Computer Sciences Corporation is a feasible WP:ATD though I would prefer there to be some reference (even a press release) to support adding mention there of the acquisition. AllyD ( talk ) 12:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sports broadcasting contracts in Estonia: Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG ( talk ) 16:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports , Europe , and Estonia . BrigadierG ( talk ) 16:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 23:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong . Don't see any reason for deleting these articles. There is encyclopedic value to them. Also WP:NOTTVGUIDE doesn't even cover these pages, at all. ""An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events"" these articles aren't articles on broadcasters, they are articles on the rights/contracts. The rule, to me at least, seems to be there to avoid actual tv guides as in ""on this channel, this show is on monday at 8, this at 9..."" etc. which is entirely different. the pages around, if some of the country pages lack references then tag the pages for that and move along. For this page literally every entry has a reference so I see absolutely no reason for even trying to this. Shadess ( talk ) 17:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC) BELONG > every entry has a reference WP:LOTSOFSOURCES The bar here is showing that there is reliable , in-depth coverage from multiple secondary sources independent of the subject . There is not a single secondary source on this article, every single one is based on a press release and involves no secondary coverage or discussion. Further more, there are no sources that satisfy WP:NLIST - every source trivially covers some specific contract, and none of them discuss the sector of broadcasting rights in Estonia as a whole. BrigadierG ( talk ) 20:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The bar here is for you to also show why these should be d and not just tagged for improving/adding references. I'll say it again, WP:NOTTVGUIDE that you cite as a reason doesn't even cover these pages. Could you address that? Shadess ( talk ) 12:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC) ONUS . Articles are only kept if they meet either WP:GNG or one of the subject-specific notability standards underneath it, such as WP:NLIST . I can't see there's even a single source that satisfies the notability requirements set up under WP:GNG , so that's my reason for deleting it. And for the avoidance of doubt, the criteria for those sources are the last 4 bullet points of WP:SIGCOV . The issue you're gonna run into is WP:SECONDARY and WP:NLIST requiring discussion of the group as a whole, and not just individual members. BrigadierG ( talk ) 14:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 18:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. This is just a directory. Mccapra ( talk ) 21:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC) INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY . Svartner ( talk ) 08:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2023 Erez airstrike: Searching for sources finds no additional coverage. BilledMammal ( talk ) 04:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . BilledMammal ( talk ) 04:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Articles about events should not be created until WP:GNG or WP:EVENTCRIT is met. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 04:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , after over 72 hours there's not a single RS confirming it occurred. We don't have articles for every single claimed event by every belligerent, and we don't have articles for every single rocket attack, even ones that are much more notable and have numerous RS reporting on them. I don't think this article will ever escape having a single primary source which doesn't even support the claims found in the article. (Edit: Formatting) OJDrucker ( talk ) 15:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Israel , and Palestine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Non-notable incident. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Originally thought that a was possible, but it turns out that no sources could be found at all. Timothytyy ( talk ) 08:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC) 14, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom and per OJDrucker , Hawkeye7 , and Timothytyy , above. BD2412 T 03:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"In-sok Kim: Tails Wx 16:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Episode 16: Does not meet G14 as it links to (or should I say, disambiguates) two articles JuniperChill ( talk ) 12:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . JuniperChill ( talk ) 12:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as bizarre disambiguation page. Almost kind of funny but definitely should be d. Dan • ✉ 18:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Gitit (software): BilledMammal ( talk ) 22:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . BilledMammal ( talk ) 22:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Hanna Instruments: None of the sources here have any WP:SIGCOV . Fails WP:NORG . - UtherSRG (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies , Technology , Italy , United States of America , and Rhode Island . UtherSRG (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC) nn list for more than 10 years and never been updated. Refeences are woeful. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as self-generated news. They are WP:SPS sources. Fails WP:SIRS . Coverage is woeful. This is an old established company and there should be a really decent article on it, but its not this. If there was references available to support they would be there. scope_creep Talk 10:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC) NCORP criteria apply. I agree with the above, current references fail NCORP and I can't locate anything that might be used. There doesn't appear to be any WP:ATD either. HighKing ++ 20:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - many reliable sources but each is short and usually references one product. None meets our requirement for substantial coverage. This is typical of analysis and test equipment companies -- they have wide fragmented product lines and don't get the coverage more focused companies get. This company is also privately-held which reduces the coverage. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"GRICES: I did search for additional sources to establish notability . The two sources provided on the Talk page both failed verification. Created on 25 September 2007 JoeNMLC ( talk ) 04:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , Science , Technology , and Portugal . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] since there is no clear evidence of notability . IP editor posted a two sources on the article talk page , but neither is usable. Nothing relevant shows up on Google. Anton.bersh ( talk ) 09:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC) GNG and it's not a surprise that no reliable sources available. -- BoraVoro ( talk ) 13:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Serenity Cox: The big ugly alien ( talk ) 05:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Wikipedia should represent all diversity, including people who work in the porn industry (an area Wikipedia itself wants to build out). Nearly half a billion views on PornHub is no easy feat, and people are interested to know the story behind these kinds of views and individual behind it. The ""low quality sources"" are highly respected publications within that industry, and proven to be factual sites. 2A00:23C7:BD94:4101:2000:A71D:505C:B905 ( talk ) 08:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . AVN and XBIZ were found to be generally reliable , with considerations for the latter. Cortador ( talk ) 10:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The key concern about porn trade press is determining who is speaking. The AVN citation is an obvious press release. The XBIZ citations not only reek of churnalism , but they are largely base on what the subject or her promoters say. Depth of coverage is also a concern. Porn awards tend to be promotional fluff, and these sources don't appear to be exceptions. • Gene93k ( talk ) 11:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While I would typically agree with you about industry awards, the Pornhub Awards (which have dedicated pages on Wikipedia) are based on site views and analytics so I consider these awards to carry more weight and be more substantial than “promotional fluff”. I also find AVN and XBIZ to be trusted source of truth. SanDiegoDan ( talk ) 07:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . As the original author of the entry, I feel I need to highlight my reasoning behind creating it. I firstly came here to create an archival history of the Pornhub Awards (which I still will), however after googling Serenity I created this entry. I found there were 100s of sites out there with unverified biography information on her, but I wanted to create a verified source of truth (based on citations) about this individual since she is my favourite model (and I imagine to many others based on views of her content across the web). Both AVN and XBIZ are reliable sources. SanDiegoDan ( talk ) 07:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC) This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions . • Gene93k ( talk ) 11:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is Serenity Cox the name of an actor or of a recurring role? AVN and XBIZ, and especially Pornhub, seem to regularly confuse the two. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 20:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC) Image uploaded has been published elsewhere, red flag number one. This [23] is the only non porn industry source I can find, somewhat trivial. Here, but we don't consider this a RS [24] . Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You seemed to over look the coverage in AVN (Adult Entertainment News) of which there is four articles (AVN is on the list of reliable resources) as well as several other publications, you have only chosen to mention the ones matching your narrative. I have also addressed the comment about the photo being a “red flag” within Wikimedia Commons (where you have also flagged that for deletion). For the most part here I feel personal beliefs on the porn industry are being imposed with flagging for deletion. If you were to ask anyone under 40 who Serenity Cox is, you would find at least 7/10 people would know. She has been on the homepage of Pornhub (the 4 most visited website in the world [25] https://www.semrush.com/trending-websites/global/all ) pretty much daily for the last 3 years. Regardless of the industry, women should celebrated for their accomplishment (with personal beliefs aside), and not contributing to gender bias within Wikipedia (see Women in Red for more details on that). SanDiegoDan ( talk ) 21:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's all coverage from the same sources. Gender bias is fine, but lack of sourcing is the issue. The last few articles I've created have been of either promotional models, influencers or the like, all of which have been female. I've attempted to source using RS; it can be done, but it's very difficult. We shouldn't waive requirements because of under-representation. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Issue with image has been resolved. Added additional ""non-porn"" related sources and will continue to research and update over the weekend. SanDiegoDan ( talk ) 18:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] More sources have now been added. SanDiegoDan ( talk ) 15:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The sourcing is rather poor and achievements seem to be lower tier for the industry. Awards have been pretty much dismissed anyway for sole notability purposes. A number of other performers with bigger achievements/awards within the industry have been d because of there being insufficient sourcing. Since she's still active, the article can be recreated if better sourcing turns up in the future. GoldenAgeFan1 ( talk ) 03:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Since my comments above, I have gone through the cited sources and did a WP:BEFORE search for better sources. The independent search found nothing useful. The 21 citations fall under the following categories: 1. generally unreliable (Fleshbot, WP:DAILYSTAR , Pornhub) 2. primary sources (quotes and interviews including MEL ) 3. Promotional (obvious press releases from Pornhub, xHamster, etc.) and 4. non-substantial mentions (IMDb citations, award rosters, top 10 listicle entry). WP:BASIC and WP:ENT failure without reliable independent secondary source coverage. • Gene93k ( talk ) 12:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Opinion is divided and notability is established not by how popular someone is on a website but by reliable sources and there is a fundamental disagreement on whether porn sources are reliable or unreliable PR fluff. But I have to say the cherry on the top of this discussion is reading that Women in Red champions writing articles on porn actresses to combat gender bias. That was hysterically twisted. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Slightly offended that you think it’s hysterical that it wouldn’t account towards the Women in Red initiative, that is your bias that people in porn are less deserving of being credible for their achievements. However, it’s not our personal feelings or bias being discussed here so I will move on. I am appreciative that you haven’t instantly sided with the people saying there are no credible sources and are open to the discussion that porn sources could indeed be credible. Both WP:AVN and WP:XBIZ are both listed under Reliable Sources, are are heavily referenced on the Wikipedia page. The fact is, the porn industry is an under reported industry, I know it is not based on popularity, but industry resources should be recognized as Reliable Sources as they have no ulterior motive and are reporting on what is notable within the industry. SanDiegoDan ( talk ) 15:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC) RSPS (WP:AVN/WP:XBIZ) should also note that both sources have caution flags attached. It is important to distinguish a news article from a republished press release. The porn trade press citations in the article are obvious promotional press releases, lacking intellectual authorship by the newsroom and independence from the subject or their promoters. • Gene93k ( talk ) 05:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Poor sourcing as comments above. FYI - I am one of the Women in Red , and have hung to the rear on this because I just don't want to be involved. But this is one of those situations, where if I don't speak up, I will always regret it. Wikipedia does not censor, however this is not a victimless industry. I thought long and hard before commenting here. My ""Delete"" is based on, not what the porn fans see on screen (or wherever), but the sourcing issue. Also, later accounts by porn stars such as those of Linda Lovelace about how they were initiated into the industry. Serenity Cox was also initiated into the industry through her husband. Only she knows how accurate her article is. But the other side of the coin is the Opposition to pornography movement. Some escape from the industry, and later tell their story. That industry is not victimless, and the only way we ever know differently, is if a performer comes forward to tell their story. — Maile ( talk ) 21:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You should listen to her podcast interview on World Wide Celeb before making accusations like that about her husband. She comes across as educated and well informed about the industry. And the sourcing has come from RS on XBIZ and AVN (links above). SanDiegoDan ( talk ) 22:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Didn't make any accusations. My comments were based on the article wording which you wrote : ""Cox’s journey into the adult industry started in her thirties, as a hobby between her and her husband, documenting their sexual adventures in an open marriage. In 2021 they began sharing some of this footage on online platforms, and by 2022 they were posting regularly on PornHub"" — Maile ( talk ) 22:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC) AVN and XBIZ sources are fine, combined with the magazine article from Oaktree b there is enough here for a weak pass. Let'srun ( talk ) 17:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I don't believe the coverage of her in RS is significant enough to satisfy the GNG. An acknowledgment of an award plus one or two quotes are not going to cut it. Neither is her opinion of having sex on the beach. Morbidthoughts ( talk ) 19:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Added additional news and citations. Also, it is worth noting the page has over 1000 views a day. There is certainly a demand for information on her. SanDiegoDan ( talk ) 23:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Five citations were added in two edits. The first edit was flagged by the system for using a deprecated (unreliable) source in two citations, the Daily Star . The Fleshbot citation is also junk. The second edit added a cite to XBIZ, award nominations roster, and a cite to AVN , which is marked as a press release in the URL . Porn award nominations were deprecated from PORNBIO 10 years ago. With 15 nominees per category, an AVN nomination is something for everyone, especially something for every studio . A claim of significance from a promotional source does not advance the case for notability. • Gene93k ( talk ) 02:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] AVN and XBIZ are essentially industry press releases, they are not sufficiently independent of the subject. The rest are primary sources, non-RS, or award / top 10 mentions. Zaathras ( talk ) 02:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , mainstream media rarely write about porn actresses, and she seems really notable. 2A06:C701:4BCB:5400:1ECC:D6FF:FE17:4CB3 ( talk ) 13:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above is an invalid rationale, provided by a 1-edit IP user. Zaathras ( talk ) 23:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Draftify – Sourcing includes relevant trade publications, I wouldn't say press releases. TLA tlak 02:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You would be wrong, we do not use AVN and Xbix releases to establish notability. Zaathras ( talk ) 23:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I notice now that they ring of press releases. Changing to draftify as a WP:ATD . TLA tlak 12:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC) does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT per review of available sources which are generally WP:SPIP and / or passing mentions. The arguments about AVN and XBIZ sources being sufficient are not valid as these are essentially rewarmed press releases ( WP:SPIP ) and are not sufficient for establishing notability. -- K.e.coffman ( talk ) 07:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Yamara López: No indication of notability. JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Cuba . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per nom. Svartner ( talk ) 22:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Wahlsten, Minnesota: Mangoe ( talk ) 20:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , Transportation , and Minnesota . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC) WAHLSTEN a village in section 29 of Kugler Township, which had a Duluth, Missabe, and Iron Range Railroad station — Upham, Warren (2001). ""Wahlsten"". Minnesota Place Names: A Geographical Encyclopedia . Minnesota Historical Society Press. p. 538. ISBN 9780873513968 . 2001 revised edition, you see. The MHS did some work on the original. Uncle G ( talk ) 21:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as a recognized settlement. The place is rather spread out and best known for, on the physical side, streams, flora, and fauna, and on the human side, roads and a former railway station. The tracks have been replaced by a trail. gidonb ( talk ) 11:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd like to see proof of it being known for streams. And there's an ""Ah, but"" for this, too. Ah, but: Minnesota doesn't legally recognize villages any more. It stopped doing so on 1974-01-01. There hasn't been any such legal entity as a village in Minnesota for 50 years minus a fortnight. ( S.F. 655, Chapter 123 . Laws of Minnesota. 1973. p. 233. ) Uncle G ( talk ) 16:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd like to see some evidence at all. There's no rail station there, and as best I can tell there hasn't been one for half a century at least, maybe longer. ""Rather spread out"" really means ""this is a locale, not a town or village."" Mangoe ( talk ) 18:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are only a few sparse structures on satellite and not much else besides forests and fields for miles in any direction. The railroad in question was dug out at some point years ago and is now labelled on GMaps as a ""snowmobile trail"" (although I assume the trail is also used for hiking and such in the summer). Per User:Uncle G , whatever ""village"" or ""unincorporated community"" claim there supposedly is isn't legally recognized anymore, and even if it was, there is hardly anything there to really justify a ""village"" or ""unincorporated community"" claim. Unless there is any other proof out there that this was an actual recognized settlement at some point, this was certainly just a marker for a railway stop and nothing more. Streetlampguy301 ( talk ) 20:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I never called this a village. That's in User:Uncle G 's citation, who then raised this with me. Or maybe he was just thinking out loud. In any case, more scrutiny led me to believe that it is unclear whether this is a populated place/community/settlement or just some houses that share a road. Perhaps there was more there there in the past but I am not 100% sure even about of that. gidonb ( talk ) 22:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did take a look at aerial photography of this region from the 1930s and later in the 20th century and could not distil a clear concentration of structures at that time. gidonb ( talk ) 23:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is another sad example of a rural railroad waypoint being falsely described as a ""community"" based only on GNIS and maybe a place-names guide. This map: [79] shows Wahlsten to be located on land owned by a C. Wahlstein, strongly suggesting this was a flag stop named for the local landowner (this was once a common practice on railroads). Flag stops are not inherently notable, and without other information we have no evidence this was a populated OR legally-recognized place. The 1951 Biwabik NE, MN USGS topo map shows a level crossing with 1 (one) building: [80] , nothing even approaching a community. It's therefore a fail of WP:GEOLAND and without secondary coverage a fail of WP:GNG also. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 01:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did a deep dive including searching Newspapers and was unable to find anything that would be substantive. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"IC 3786: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , as notability cannot be shown. hamster717 ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌 ) 12:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC) definitely not notable. - Parejkoj ( talk ) 18:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC) I am unable to find any other reliable sources. ‹hamster717› ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌 ) 20:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lanam, Indiana: I will begin by saying that none of the aerials give the slightest confidence that there was ever a settlement here: there's an isolated building shown on GMaps, but you don't have to go very far back before it's an unbroken expanse of forest. So, we go to the topos. When you get back a ways, they do show a ""LANAM"" label, but it's in the physical feature font, running at an angle. And if you look around you'll see a lot of similar labels, many of them marking ""ridges"". And indeed in searching I find a number references to ""Lanam Ridge"", including the road that runs though the area. Apparently either the ""ridge"" part of the label either got lost or was for some reason omitted, and then some GNIS map reader missed the font clue and turned it into a ""populated place"". There is a ""Lanam Cemetery"" a ways to the east, at least according to Find-a-Grave, but I can't find a connection of it to anything (which is pretty typical), and Lanam appears to be a common enough name that it accounts for most hits. At any rate, if there was a Lanam town, it wasn't here. Mangoe ( talk ) 02:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the nominator's research. It looks like at one point there may have been a post office near the site named ""Oak Farm"" [15] , but I couldn't find any maps that mark the location as an actual town or settlement. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 12:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Locals know this as Lanam Ridge, and this should get moved there if not d. This is a neighborhood of residents of the ridge. I can't find any one article gives the nature of the place, except this [16] which is less specific than I would like. But I do believe that this is just another neighborhood in Brown county. James.folsom ( talk ) 00:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"PANIC at Multiverse High! : QuietCicada ( talk ) 00:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . QuietCicada ( talk ) 00:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC) Well there are no sources to be found; Metacritic doesn't have any [39] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC) There's a review at Softpedia ( [40] ), a situational source at WP:VG/S but I don't think it counts towards notability, and it wouldn't be enough even if it did. -- Mika1h ( talk ) 08:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak PC Gamer has almost no actual opinions about the game, with the RPS and Softpedia sources being the only ones that do. This has swayed me towards deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Possible to some of this content this with publisher page DoubleBear Productions , given that article covers the game in summary. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 00:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That would be good if DoubleBear was notable. That remains to be seen, and the article's sources don't support it. It's possible that Dead State is the only notable thing related to them, which this has nothing to do with. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 03:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Corrie Erickson: Rejuvenating pin-ups in military aeroplanes, designing a city's logo, etc is all interesting but I can't see any significant coverage. JohnmgKing ( talk ) 14:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Minnesota . JohnmgKing ( talk ) 14:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One source talking about his tattoo art, nothing else. Not seeing GNG here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I couldn't find any coverage which was independent, significant, and reliable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST . Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits ) 19:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ; sourcing insufficient. Kablammo ( talk ) 12:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"KELM-LP: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Nevada . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC) Seems like a remnant of the looser inclusion standards in this topic area in 2010 — the only known/discussed programming was a full-time national service. There's probably little-to-no significant coverage here. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , as per Wcquidditch . Samoht27 ( talk ) 18:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Reclaiming the Glory: Looks questionable. UtherSRG (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Sports , and Wrestling . UtherSRG (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC) BEFORE finds enough passable sources to . Best I can tell, was the momentary continuation of the National Wrestling Alliance during a contract dispute. Certainly the article could use some improving but WP:DINC . IceBergYYC ( talk ) 02:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC) GNG ? Saying sources exist is unhelpful, whereas listing a few is a lot more helpful. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 07:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 15:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Arabs: There are currently ~400 million Arabs in the world, many of whom are notable and have a page on Wikipedia. This extremely incomplete list is way too broad, as it could potentially grow to millions of entries. Broc ( talk ) 10:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Ethnic groups , Lists , and Middle East . Broc ( talk ) 10:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Obviously far too broad to have as a main list, could be turned into a ""Lists of"" if appropriate. Reywas92 Talk 15:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per Reywas92 & Broc. Vlaemink ( talk ) 18:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Too broad for Wikipedia. Orientls ( talk ) 08:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"One Gold Radio: I'm not even sure what this article is trying to say - the ""2011 changes"" section seems to be very obscure insider stuff. I'm not seeing anything here to prove notability, and nothing is coming up on a search except for links back to this article and an unrelated internet radio station with the same name. Flip Format ( talk ) 20:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Companies , United Kingdom , and England . Flip Format ( talk ) 20:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - No evidence of notability I could find online. Sgubaldo ( talk ) 21:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails WP:NCORP , and the two sources given don't strike me as reliable . — Hello Annyong (say whaaat?!) 05:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dan Gore: Draftify if needed, but every youth player does not need a Wikipedia article before they gain significant coverage as senior players. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 07:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and England . Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 07:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC) the previous two nominations of Dan Gore for deletion were about a 2000s-decade American sportsperson. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 07:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC) GNG. Simione001 ( talk ) 01:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bulk bins: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 16:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC) Scattered mentions of the term in Gnewspapers for example, but simple mentions don't describe what this is, beyond an expanded DICDEF I can't find any sources for this item. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Namek (A fictional exoplanet of Dragon Ball): Purely a short description of a non notable fictional planet. CoconutOctopus talk 15:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Anime and manga . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 15:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC) 52, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please do not remove the AFD message from the article regardless of your opinion on the nomination, thank you. CoconutOctopus talk 16:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC) This is an article that lacks citations and has an improbable title. ― Susmuffin Talk 16:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is not FANDOM. Fictional articles must not be WP:INDISCRIMINATE information. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC) PRESERVE and even then the title is to specific to be a viable search term. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC) GNG. Memer15151 Chat 20:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No sources and no signs of notability. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 01:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC) poorly cited, almost entirely in-universe perspective, and no sign of meeting the GNG. – dudhhr talk contribs she her 21:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC) GNG , and suggesting the import of the content to a fan wiki or site. Toad ette ( Merry Christmas, and a happy new year ) 07:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Campaign of Chlef (1679): Sources in article and found in before are not WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject directly and indepth. Source eval: Comments Source Fails SIGCOV, a brief mention, no details 1. ""Abu-'l-Qāsim Ibn-Aḥmad Ibn-Alī Ibn-Ibrahīm az- Zaiyānī et Octave Victor Houdas, Le Maroc de 1631 à 1812 extrait de l'ouvrage intitulé Ettordjemân elmoʻarib ʻan douel elmachriq ou ʻlmaghrib, Octave Victor Houdas, 1886"". archive.wikiwix.com. Retrieved 2024-01-13. Fails SIGCOV, a brief mention, no details 2. ^ Jump up to:a b c Maximilien Antoine Cyprien Henri Poisson de La Martinière et Napoléon Lacroix, Documents pour servir à l'étude du Nord Ouest africain: Le sud-ouest algérien et les régions limitrophes. Figuig. L'oued Guir. L'oued Saoura, Gouvernement général de l'Algérie, Service des affaires indigènes, 1896. p. 36. Fails SIGCOV, a brief mention, no details 3. ^ Jump up to:a b ""Comer Plummer III, Empire of Clay: The Reign of Moulay Ismail, Sultan of Morocco (1672-1727), Lulu Publishing Services, 2020"". archive.wikiwix.com. p. 336. Retrieved 2024-01-13. No objection to a consensus or , nothing here merits a stand alone article. // Timothy :: talk 09:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a translation, please adress this to the french wikipedia article. ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ ( talk ) 09:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Algeria . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] for lack of in depth coverage in any sources. Mccapra ( talk ) 15:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Gamal Abdul Nasir Zakaria: However, it was recreated in November 2023 by the same article creator, who was confirmed as a sockpuppet. Despite its recreation, the current version of the article remains similar to its previous iteration from July 2023. Consequently, the arguments presented during the previous AfD remain applicable, highlighting the article's failure to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC . Ckfasdf ( talk ) 15:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC) I don't see anything about this person online. Sources 10-15 are orange per Cite Highllighter, so iffy notability. I looked over the last AfD, it doesn't help move this discussion either way. I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Language , Islam , Brunei , and Indonesia . Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I can't find notability here. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 21:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] . Not meet WP:GNG criteria. Deleted at idwiki. Ariandi Lie Let's talk 11:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jean-Luc Benoît: Sources found are routine sport reports (announcement or results) which can NOT contribute to the notability for GNG and not ranking world top 10 in mixed martial arts (WP:NMMA]] or world top-10 in K-1 or Glory (kickboxing) or Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion. Cassiopeia talk 00:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Martial arts , and France . Cassiopeia talk 00:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . He passes GNG because of references like this one: ""Muret. Boxe : Jean-Luc Benoit prend sa retraite, chapeau l'artiste !"" . ladepeche.fr (in French) . Retrieved 2024-04-15 . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 03:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Having one sources indicating his retirement does not pass signification coverage . Need at least 5-7 sources from independent , reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in dept and in length for verification . Sources found are routine sport reports (announcement or results) which can NOT contribute to the notability for GNG and not ranking world top 10 in mixed martial arts WP:NMMA or world top-10 in K1 or Glory (kickboxing) or Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion. Cassiopeia talk 04:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] FWIW, there is no requirement of seven significant sources to pass GNG; only ""multiple"", which could, and sometimes has, meant two sources of depth. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Significant is not means 1 or 2 9couple) or 3 ( a few) or 4 (several). Cassiopeia talk 03:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . WP:NMMA leaves a fairly clear guideline for MMA fighters and I don't see that here. Dan • ✉ 06:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Subject is not notable as per nom. Good faith search shows fight announcements and results. Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA. Lacking significant coverage. Article seems to have been created because he fought Andrew Tate which is not enough. Lethweimaster ( talk ) 16:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Space Shuttle launch countdown: Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spaceflight and United States of America . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC) basically a regurgitation of primary documents from NASA. The topic is amply covered in the space shuttle article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, off per nom. Overly technical minutia of no encyclopedic value. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 23:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. The actual Space Shuttle article adequately summarizes the launch prep and launch, so I don't really see a need for any kind of merging. Rorshacma ( talk ) 05:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Fails WP:GNG . Is not suitable for an encyclopedia. User:Let'srun 03:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2028 Republican National Convention: WP:Toosoon SecretName101 ( talk ) 02:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America . SecretName101 ( talk ) 02:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 09:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Obviously WP:TOOSOON . Sal2100 ( talk ) 16:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON . The Republicans haven't decided on location yet. — Maile ( talk ) 20:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Maile66 I wouldn't say that site selection is cutoff point before which an article cannot be created, as we started articles for 2024 conventions before their locations were selected. However, now is simply not he time for a 2028 RNC article as there is nothing more than early speculation as to the location with miniscule coverage (without any actual major action towards bidding, or even the initiation of a bidding process), and the 2024 conventions are still more than a year away from happening themselves. Also, in retrospect, the 2024 convention articles were published at least maybe half a year too early (my bad). Should have waited until formal bidding was underway to move them out of the draft space so they'd have actual meat to their content. SecretName101 ( talk ) 04:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON case. TH1980 ( talk ) 02:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON is an essay and does not provide grounds for deletion. WP:CHRYSTAL , however, is policy and does provide grounds for deletion: while this is a certain future event, it is lacking in SIGCOV RS. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 21:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2023 Special Session of the Parliament of India: These sessions last for months, and discuss and promulgate many pieces of legislation, similar to the sessions of other countries. When even the Budget sessions, arguably the most important parliamentary sessions, do not get their own individual articles, I fail to see how this five-day session, that passed one single piece of legislation, is notable. Most of the article is either a list of individual statements and minor speeches made by politicians or a load of media speculation that turned out to be nothingburgers. We shouldn't include these since WP is NOTNEWS (nor is it the Hansard ). There are two, and only two, notable things in this article, and none are inherent to this special session - Parliament started functioning in a new building, and the Women's Reservation Bill was passed as the 106th Amendment. The Amendment already has its own article , and the information about the inauguration of the building more properly belongs to the New Parliament House, New Delhi article. Other articles that can absorb info from here include 17th Lok Sabha and second Modi ministry . The article subject - the special session itself - shows no enduring relevance ; searches for ""special session"" dropped sharply after the close of the session, and even the sources themselves talk less about the importance of the special session and more about the Amendment. Thus, in my view, the article should be d . W. Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me! / c ) 15:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India . W. Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me! / c ) 15:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC) Event of no lasting significance, fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS . TryKid [ dubious – discuss ] 18:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC) Event has not demonstrated enduring relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bro-Koji ( talk • contribs ) 22:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/selective to 17th Lok Sabha . I don't see any other articles on Indian parliament sessions, so I don't see why we'd need such a detailed news-style agenda of a two-day session. Reywas92 Talk 16:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , albeit cautiously. I do agree that there are weird implications of this special session being played up as especially important when other sessions don't have such detailed articles. I also think it may be worth adjusting the tone to make more clear that this did indeed turn out to be a ""nothingburger"". But, well, nothingburgers in politics that have hype at the start but is unfulfilled happen, and can be relevant to document, too. If we have more detailed articles in the future on what each session of the Lok Sabha does, that's probably okay? As a fallback, / but do not think the content is worthy of outright deletion. SnowFire ( talk ) 19:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC) Information in this Wikipedia article is verifiable and there are numerous reliable independent sources which can be found on this topic. Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a topic. Content in this article is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To provide encyclopedic value, data in this article is put in context with references to independent sources having ""significant coverage"". Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. Policy clearly states - If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred) . This article page was created as an offshoot of Special session of the Parliament of India . Requesting fellow editors to help the community to preserve the editorial effort and this useful information on 2023 parliament session with historic significance. P.S. - Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any. -- Anand2202 ( talk ) 09:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Find the response on my talk page here Above comment posted by Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI . - The Gnome ( talk ) 13:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Greetings, Anand2202 . You wrote: ""[E]ditors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any."" I truly cannot understand what that task could possibly entail. We search for sources but find none, yet we should continue to believe sources exist?! They might , since that probablity is never zero, but how does that help our search, or, more importantly, our assessment of an article's notability? It smacks of ""well, sources might exist"" . - The Gnome ( talk ) 13:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] since subject fails the notability criteria. - The Gnome ( talk ) 13:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) per nom, NOTNEWS, LASTING. // Timothy :: talk 14:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Taggart Crossing, Indiana: Mangoe ( talk ) 03:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC) V . Nothing to suggest this is an actual ""community"". AusLondonder ( talk ) 10:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] More GNIS nonsense, no information found. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are only about 300 vague and passing mentions in the local paper, which is not very many when considering 100+ years of newspaper coverage. None of these provide any detail regarding the place. I'm rather confidant it was just a name of rural area centered around a named crossing of some kind. These three newspaper clippings [5] [6] [7] layout the entire history of the county, and couldn't spare more than the two words in the name of the place. This also provides alot of useful info about how towns get created, and the nature of postoffices that is very useful for AFD argument. James.folsom ( talk ) 02:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Diver, Ontario: – dlthewave ☎ 04:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada . – dlthewave ☎ 04:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per nomination. This locale is notable only in relation to the railway that goes through this point. TH1980 ( talk ) 23:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"MIL-L-63460: One among thousands with no indication of significance in the article and no WP:SIGCOV of the standard itself to be found. ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me! 13:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me! 13:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] seems to be an unremarkable lubricant, as nominator says no case is made why this deserves a standalone article. The number of the spec suggests that there are many many similar specs; do any of these have articles? TheLongTone ( talk ) 13:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They do, I'm working my way through them. Most seem unnotable. ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me! 17:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] agree that the article is not remarkable, but 'CLP' is the singular weapons lubricator in the U.S. military. There are many MIL-STDs, but CLP is the only weapons lubricator in use. Probably some editing might help this? Highspeed ( talk ) Editing can only go so far if there's no secondary sources. There are many things that are the ""only one"" used, and most of them are not independently notable. ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me! 11:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Peter Ouko: Shellwood ( talk ) 11:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sound Party (2023 film): The originator then contested the draftification by creating another copy of the article in article space. There are three stages of development for films: 1. Planned films which have not begun production. These should not have free-standing articles. Sometimes a may be in order, such as to the producer, or the film series. 2. Films that have begun production, but have not been released. These films are only notable if production itself has been notable. A passing mention that production has started (or finished) does not establish notability . 3. Films that have been released, whether for theatrical viewing, for television, for film festivals, or otherwise. These films are notable based on reception and reviews, or for other reasons. This film is in group 2, films that have begun production. The article makes no mention of anything notable about production. This film is too soon , and the article should be d from mainspace. When the film is released, the draft can be updated and resubmitted. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 05:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Telangana . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 05:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify as the film may get reliable reviews upon release. DareshMohan ( talk ) 18:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify per DareshMohan. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 12:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC) I have struck my initial ! vote, as the pages in draft space and article space appear to be identical. This version should be d per BD2412. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 14:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I tried to close this as Draftify but there is already an article in Draft space so having two would be inappropriate. So, do you want that one d in favor of this version? L iz Read! Talk! 06:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , given that it is a duplicate of an existing draft. The duplication itself is the larger problem here. BD2412 T 01:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Asoz Rashid: CNMall41 ( talk ) 07:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , Iraq , and United Kingdom . CNMall41 ( talk ) 07:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I nominated the thing for G11, it remains fundamentally promotional and there is no notability here. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 09:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are multiple notable sources, there is payment disclosure on the user page. Fina80 ( talk ) 06:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Doesn't seem very notable and a lot of it is written like a promotion. TheBritinator ( talk ) 11:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Alexander S. Bermange: Reads like a resume. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 17:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Music . Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 17:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 19:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems like a vanity page to me. Definitely non-notable. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 00:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A vanity page filled with puffery about a non-notable person. -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 07:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC) BLP of dubious relation to WP:NBIO . At best this could be moved to a draftspace, if the author appears and promises to work on this more. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 08:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ricky Rick: Essentially, the subject is not independently notable outside of their activities associated with the group, therefore does qualify for a stand-alone article. ihateneo ( talk ) 00:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music , and Mexico . ihateneo ( talk ) 00:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Someone with his name died recently, but it's all in non-RS. I'm not seeing notability for this entertainer. Sourcing used in the article doesn't help. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC) 42, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Yet another effort to prop up a new artist through creating their altar in Wikipedia. Thankfully, they using kamikaze accounts , usually a dead give-away . Also, thankfully, the whole promotional aspect is evident, thus saving time for everyone concerned. - The Gnome ( talk ) 15:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"John A. O'Keefe (judge): It’s also a one sentence article that was last updated 4 years ago. Note that WP:JUDGE is a necessary but not sufficient criteria for notability. NM 03:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Also nominating to Alice Desjardins ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) , Robert Décary ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) and C. Michael Ryer ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) for the same reason. NM 05:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . NM 03:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no refs to establish notability. Most similar judges don't have articles: Federal Court of Canada#Current judges . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 06:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC) JUDGE ? I would have thought that judges of the Federal Court of Appeal certainly do. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Since this was changed into a bundled nomination of four articles, I'm relisting this discussion to solicit more comment from editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - seems to lack sufficient references. - Indefensible ( talk ) 05:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . All are automatically notable under WP:JUDGE . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 07:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm. Per WP:JUDGE , holding office is only a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion , which is WP:BASIC that these articles fail at. NM 18:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to see a stronger consensus here and the questions raised demonstrate a lack of clarity about notability about individuals holding the position of judge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC) I agree with NM's interpretation of WP:JUDGE . Per the additional criteria, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included . In this case, there appears to be zero secondary coverage of the four nominated judges. ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me! 14:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Elaine Hernández: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Cuba . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC) GNG , and the references don't do much to indicate notability. Two stat sites, par for the course for these types of articles, and after a quick search, we find more stat sites. IncompA 20:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no sources indicating GNG being passed. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 16:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Encino Park and Ride: Information could be incorporated into the articles about Encino and LADOT . CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 20:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This entry should not be d. The Encino Park and Ride is a major commuter facility in the San Fernando valley, similar to other transit center and park and ride facilities already listed on Wikipedia. Jg10101 ( talk ) 21:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , Transportation , and California . Skynxnex ( talk ) 21:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Park-and-ride bus stations are generally not notable and there are few mentions in the regional newspaper (LA Times). Sounder Bruce 21:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What about the Vince Lombardi Park and Ride? Why is that more notable than this facility? They are essentially the same thing. Jg10101 ( talk ) 21:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Because the majority of that article discusses the study of the site for use as a rail station. Without that it shouldn't have an article either. Though that site is also a major service area for Turnpike and it includes several news articles discussing its history. If you had independent sources beyond the routine government pages then maybe something else could be written, but this is literally just a small parking lot a fraction of the Lombardi's size. Reywas92 Talk 02:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC) Just a parking lot with a bus stop. No significant coverage , no notability. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 21:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Los Angeles Department of Transportation#Commuter Express . Nothing beyond WP:ROTM coverage, mostly as part of bus lines. While a bus station, WP:NTRAINSTATION makes valid points. Shaws username . talk . 21:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Seriously? We need an article on a parking lot? I mean, if it wee the world's largest or something like that, but it's not. Which is to say, no claim to notability for something completely ordinary. Mangoe ( talk ) 23:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Brossard-Chevrier Park and Ride ( AfD discussion ) has more independent in-depth non-directory sources discussing it than this has, moreover. There is not even that degree of sourcing that I can find in this case. Uncle G ( talk ) 08:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just a parking lot, no significant independent coverage. Reywas92 Talk 02:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC) textbook example of a run-of-the-mill article; there's no meaningful independent coverage of this parking lot. Left guide ( talk ) 07:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as about as non-notable as one could imagine, barring sources stating that the location used to be paradise . AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 15:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] nothing in a before search, fails GNG. SportingFlyer T · C 10:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Mangoe's thoughts are mine too. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 16:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - It's a parking lot. It's not passing GNG either. RakdosWitch ( talk ) 00:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC) 44, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lázaro Reyes: Several searches, using different keywords, brought up nothing but database pages. Anwegmann ( talk ) 01:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Anwegmann ( talk ) 01:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Cuba . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - same as nom, could only find database sources. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Fails WP:GNG . Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Theory of decreasing responsibility: Seems to have been similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buy term and invest the difference . – I s o chrone ( T ) 21:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions . – I s o chrone ( T ) 21:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - The page is very small and unsourced. 2001:1970:5ACA:E000:0:0:0:A186 ( talk ) 21:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC) Doesn't seem to have much coverage online. Most sources are from Primerica, so they don't count towards WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARandomName123 ( talk • contribs ) 20:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC) surprised to see it was unsourced even before the culling. Independently couldn't find any demonstration of notability. microbiology Marcus ( petri dish • growths ) 17:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Piwik PRO Analytics Suite: Similar appears to be have been d at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piwik PRO , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piwik PRO (2nd nomination) . Disregarding that, none of the sources are sufficient to pass NCORP, many are press releases or primary sources related to the company. There's a bunch of statistic sites (e.g. [17] ), which in counts as trivial coverage under ""inclusion in collections that have indiscriminate inclusion criteria"". Other trivial coverage under ncorp includes raising capital ( [18] ). Many supposed third-party sources are written or possibly written by the company and thus primary ( [19] is written by their PR manager, [20] is written by a ""guest writer"", and covers a r which is also trivial coverage). BEFORE search only turns up more of the same. Pahunkat ( talk ) 10:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . Pahunkat ( talk ) 10:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising , Internet , Software , and Poland . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . As per my previous assessment of this aricle before my BLAR, I substantially agree with the assessment of potential sources. All I have to add is that I reiterate my recomendation to the article creator that any such future edits go through the appropriate processes ( Wikipedia:Articles for creation , Wikipedia:Edit requests ). The community's patience is not infinite, and while I do not pretend to be a barometer in this specific regard, moving through the proper channels may reduce the pace at which such patience wears. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 11:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Sources fail WP:ORGCRIT , and BEFORE search turns up nothing else. Should this discussion result in deletion, I recommend WP:SALTing ""Piwik Pro"" and permutations of it given persistent efforts to reject community consensus and evade appropriate channels like AfC for paid edits. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 14:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kadiyan: Sources are just passing mentions. Nothing significant. Maliner ( talk ) 07:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups , History , and Haryana . Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Text and tags say that it was intended as a List page of people with the surname of Kadiyan, but the only item is a village. Since only a handful of articles exist about someone with this surname, and since there is no WP:SIGCOV of the surname discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources , it fails WP:NLIST . If it is not intended as a list, it fails all criteria under WP:GNG . Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 13:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Originally closed this as a Soft Deletion but the page has previously been d as a PROD so Soft Deletion is not an option. So, I'm relisting this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] seems fine, although maybe someone can repurpose those references elsewhere. It seems unusually well sourced for a 1-line stub. - Indefensible ( talk ) 03:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ramit Maski Rana: He has only sung three unpopular songs as a singer. The accolades mentioned in the article are unremarkable since a Google search found no results. Additionally, the username of this article's creator matches the domain name of one of the sources in this article, indicating WP:COI or WP:UPE. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 16:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , and Nepal . 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 16:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] only receiving 20 search results, with them being social media sites of the singer. Can't find any news etc, current sources are only local too anyway. Awards also don't seem to be notable — Karnataka talk 16:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC) //artistkhabar.com/content/12413 ७. सर्वोत्कृष्ट नव गायक रमित मास्की राना https://kantipurpati.com/news/8831 ७. नव गायक-रमित मास्की राना Bbmr ( talk ) 05:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC) https://artistkhabar.com/content/12413 ७. सर्वोत्कृष्ट नव गायक रमित मास्की राना https://kantipurpati.com/news/8831 ७. नव गायक-रमित मास्की राना Bbmr ( talk ) 05:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC) https://scontent.fbhr1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/363064695_217638554593349_7035286855467065123_n.jpg? _nc_cat=106&cb=99be929b-59f725be&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=eeZdiG0dcUMAX-dutRt&_nc_ht=scontent.fbhr1-1.fna&oh=03_AdS8lsa_zdrW_EPmigeuqn2beThveiZG4mudpcASkn_XAQ&oe=64EFF225 Bbmr ( talk ) 05:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC) I can't find a listing of who's on the editorial staff, for instance. Neither does kantipurpati.com list who is on their staff. Finally, the ""Award Link"" is to an image: no context, no explanation of the award. Effectively, it tells us nothing about the award. — C.Fred ( talk ) 11:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] what can i do ? Bbmr ( talk ) 12:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you don't believe it, it. I don't care. Faith is a big thing. Bbmr ( talk ) 10:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:VER guidliness, fails to prove WP:NBIO and this article is releated to WP:COl . Kind regards ––– Àvî Râm7 (talk) 8:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Weak . There is a challenge in doing a Google search because of the transliteration of his name. I would like to hear what a WikiProject Nepal member has found based on searching in Nepali. I initially allowed this article to stay in mainspace when it was brought over from draft because of the award and related assertion of notability. If it's a situation where we just aren't hitting the sources because of the language issue, and somebody who speaks Nepali can help us out, then we're in good shape. On the other hand, if all the sources are just passing mentions or from a website that shares its name with the creating editor, then not only do we have an article that fails WP:GNG, but we also have a COI/UPE issue with the article's original editor. — C.Fred ( talk ) 17:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you don't believe it, it. I don't care. Faith is a big thing. Bbmr ( talk ) 10:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC) 1E . No WP:INDEPTH coverage or mention could be found except the award event. nirmal ( talk ) 10:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you don't believe it, it. I don't care. Faith is a big thing. Bbmr ( talk ) 10:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC) goodfaith on you, but at the current stage, the content of the article is not well supported. You can add offline references if you have such access to prove that the topic is notable. nirmal ( talk ) 11:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Hetty Shi: Placements at novice & junior competitions do not count. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Canada . Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 10:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2024 Canadian Figure Skating Championships#Senior results . WP:TOOSOON , but a bronze medal is something. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 11:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC) probably TOOSOON. Coverage is all simple match results or local media coverage [24] of a ""hometown hero"", which is fine, but we need more than that. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ağa hamamı: The only source used here is the hammam's own commercial website, which is not a reliable source . It also makes the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that the hammam was built in 1454, the same year of the Ottoman conquest of the city, which would make it one of the oldest Ottoman buildings in the city, if not the oldest. This has no support in actual reliable sources, which make no mention of this (e.g. see references at Tahtakale Hamam , which discuss the oldest hammams and other known Ottoman structures from this era). Judging by the choice of source and by the page creator , I'm also starting to suspect this was a WP:COI . R Prazeres ( talk ) 16:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions . R Prazeres ( talk ) 16:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Travel and tourism . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC) if anyone is looking up Ağa hamamı in sources, in mind that there is at least one other ""Ağa hamamı"" (or ""Aga Hamam"" etc) in the Samatya neighbourhood of Istanbul and there may be other hammams with the same name elsewhere. R Prazeres ( talk ) 16:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed. The Kapıağası Yakup Ağa Hamamı, often just known as Ağa Hamamı. And that one is far more notable and appears in guidebooks. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC) I think the comment below was to check explicitly if you support ing or deleting? Or no opinion? R Prazeres ( talk ) 16:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC) 47, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: What outcome would you like to see happen? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Covered by timeout , stating ""built in 1454 by Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror and was used privately by the Sultan and his male heirs."" Clearly is a significant term of use. This in turn points that the place has some strong historical context. You would have thought with that, this should have plenty of WP:OFFLINE sources. Lonelyplanet snippet, cityseeker snippet. arnoldreview ? Covered by [2] . Obviously it needs better sourcing, but due to the little coverage there is, which shows it's historical age and aspect shows there should be plenty more sources out there that should be able to use. Unless it's all bullshit history trying to get people through the door. Well, that's possible, but that really requires a different kind of investigation. For now, I am on the little of what google provides. Govvy ( talk ) 10:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV requires that a topic ""received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ."" This isn't the case here. Of course a business can be found in blogs and review sites, like those you've linked; my local pizza restaurant would fit that criteria too, but that doesn't make it WP:NOTABLE . The last link you provided ( [3] ) is also not the same place, it's the Samatya hammam mentioned above. As mentioned, the historical claim has no support in RS . Even the normally quite thorough Turkish Islam Ansiklopedisi has nothing about it. Whether the claim is deliberate bullshit I won't say, but it certainly doesn't satisfy WP:VERIFIABILITY . R Prazeres ( talk ) 16:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As far as I can see, the claim made in the article is false. Turkish Airlines has covered some hamams of Istanbul , and notes that the building itself was indeed built in 1454 as a hunting house. However, it only became a hamam after 1923. So that would perhaps make it the oldest building that has a hamam in it, but not the oldest operational hamam in the city. Basically some smart wording/PR trick coming from the website of the business that runs it to label this as the oldest, which we have taken over directly without elaboration because.... the creator of this article is likely the owner himself. Sources published post-2014 (i.e. since the creation of this article) paraphrase about the same 3 sentences found in the Turkish Airlines blog, so I won't bother to list them here. So I looked for sources before that date, and the only thing that came up was a book from 2010 on Istanbul hamams by the municipality (which I would consider to be much more reliable than any source mentioned above). There are 2 hamams in the book named ""Ağa Hamamı"", ours is located on page 41, easily identifiable as the book mentions the street its located on. This book gives a completely different history: it was built in 1562—already a hamam—and the income was used to fund the Fenerbahçe Lighthouse . Both the inside and outside have been renovated several times and there is nothing ""historic"" about the building anymore. The book also says that the building is described in the Istanbul Encyclopedia of Reşad Ekrem Koçu . I'd say that the building is notable, but not the business itself. Since our article currently only serves the latter with incorrect information, I don't think this can stay without a TNT . So yeah, unless anyone wants to clean this up. Styyx ( talk ) 16:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for all this great research (that 2010 book is a nice find). I just want to add: even a claim about the building itself being a hunting lodge built in 1454 is undoubtedly wrong, and a Turkish Airlines blog wouldn't count as reliable source for that either. R Prazeres ( talk ) 22:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have found the Istanbul Encyclopedia on archive.org. Volume 1, pages 241–243 are about this hamam, if anyone wants to use it. It indeed notes that it's a 16th-century building, so I think this confirms that the story in the article is fully made up. Styyx ( talk ) 09:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Fails GNG and NGEO. Single source in article is to the subject's own website. BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth . Ping me if WP:SIRS is found, Styyx's TNT idea may be the best solution, if sources are ever found it can be created without the baggage. // Timothy :: talk 23:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC) Clear case of WP:PROMOTION by single purpose editor who only has created this article. - DonCalo ( talk ) 13:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Natasha Gonzalez: Just i yaya 14:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Tennis , and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Nothing found for this influencer, other than mention of tennis matches she's played. Refbombed out the wazoo with trivial mentions in articles about other people. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source 11 in particular is about Xavier, a guy. I'm assuming they're related, but the article isn't about Natasha. Rest are about as unhelpful. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom and per same reasoning I gave when I PROD the article earlier. A lot of references in the article but all are passing mentions or don't assume any notability onto this individual. No accomplishments in the tennis world that would make her meet WP:NTENNIS , and no independent sources establish WP:GNG either. Adamtt9 ( talk ) 17:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please take a look at the feature article in Latina Style Magazine, a national publication since the 1990s, where Gonzalez is featured together with astronaut Ellen Ochoa and Dr. Elena Rios of the NHMA. Also take a look at the information regarding the International Tennis Club of the USA and its Avory Cup matches against the Great Britain select team. This is an international competition on par with Beier Ko's Fed Cup. The reference to Xavier, who is her brother, is simply because an editor requested a cite for that mention--don't now turn and use that against her. Where is the good faith? Also, it doesn't compute that you consider the Intercollegiate Tennis Association's Arthur Ashe Sportsmanship Award as a trivial award--it certainly is more significant than an award given by a single conference (as in the case of Kristy Borza). The Arthur Ashe Sportsmanship Award is a national collegiate award. Same goes for the coSIDA Academic All District. Again, applying the WP:NTENNIS standard is not the appropriate standard as that is for professional players, not for collegiate players. Not even Kristy Borza, who has a Wikipedia page, meets that standard. Nor does Grant Solomon, who has a wikipedia page, meet that standard Not even does Beier Ko meet that standard--ITF tournaments (which are one level down from Challenger tournaments, which are one level down from WTA and ATP tournaments) do not meet the test of WP:TENNIS. The proper standard to apply to all of the previous persons is the collegiate standard. Morevoer, wikipedia policy is clear that the Sports Threshold is not meant to raise the bar for general notability-- in the case of Gonzalez, you have not taken into account that she is a Fulbright Scholar and her anti-smoking advocacy work with teenagers. Finally, you have failed to take into consideration that she comes from the Bolivian-American community, and there has never before been a student-athlete from that community that has served as a team captain for a varsity athletic team in the history of Harvard University. Let me be clear: I believe that each of Kristy Borza, Beier Ko and Grant Solomon are deserving of a wikipedia page. But by that measure, so is Natasha Gonzalez. A final note: you say the sources mention her accomplishments in passing. If one is awarded the Fulbright Scholarship, doesn't that speak for itself? Isn't there a presumption that that is notable. ? So even a mention in passing establishes that. Look, the accomplishments speak for themselves. If you want more or better sources, give me time to come up with them. Why the hurry to blow up the page? Xavier Serif ( talk ) 04:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you point to the source that says she's a Fullbright Scholar? None of the ones listed show that, that I can see anyway. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with the above comments. Easy . Go4thProsper ( talk ) 21:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Vugar Aliyev Amir: Only criterion subject could possibly pass is prestigious national awards, but I haven't been able to find much information on the prizes even in their native languages, and hence doubt it counts as prestigious. The sources in the article currently are both primary. Fermiboson ( talk ) 02:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , and Azerbaijan . Fermiboson ( talk ) 02:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . With no context to the awards we cannot assume their significance. The first reference, labeled ""Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences"", is neither an independent source nor the kind of academy membership that would pass WP:PROF#C3 : it is an employee profile of someone who works as a researcher for the ANAS. It mentions some of the same awards, but again without context. It also mentions foreign membership in the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences , which I thought might be promising until I read the linked article; importantly, this is not to be confused with the actually-prestigious Russian Academy of Sciences . Anyway, none of this is evidence for non-notability but neither is it evidence of notability and without evidence we cannot have an article. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 08:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Moussa Ndikumana: No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Elvish Yadav: All the news references are about the show Bigg Boss show where he is now a contestant and about the controvercy on the show. Nomadwikiholic ( talk ) 17:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Nomadwikiholic ( talk ) 17:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Internet , and India . Karnataka ( talk ) 18:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC) 41, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All the news reference are written by news desk, there no journalist name. So those news are not independent. And the news reference which is written by journalist that news agency is not reliable. Hence not falling under GNG. Nomadwikiholic ( talk ) 06:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] When did you check that the news is not independent? See the article once again, I have also corrected it. –– 𝚅𝚁𝙹 𝙱𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚑𝚞 07:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Filmibeat is not reliable source, Statesmen is reliable but not written by journalist, India Today is reliable source but not written by journalist, Rediff is good but not in-depth coverage, The Print is not reliable source, Republic World is not reliable source. I'd like to refer you WP:ICTFSOURCES to know which is reliable and which is not. Also I would like to refer you to read WP:GNG and recheck those references again. Thanks Nomadwikiholic ( talk ) 08:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] When you have already started the discussion, now only experienced editors will take this discussion. –– 𝚅𝚁𝙹 𝙱𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚑𝚞 09:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC) definitely case of WP:TOOSOON , no WP:GNG , No WP:RS QueerEcofeminist🌈 03:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Per nom. Ajeeb Prani ( talk ) 12:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Progress Chapter Two: The March Of Progress: WP:BEFORE didn't show this event was particularly notable. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 20:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions . Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 20:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, thank you for the sincere feedback. However, I believe that a proper categorization and documentation of Progress Wrestling's ""Chapter"" flagship events should exist. Now I understand that the early chapters might indeed be less notable than the more recent ones but I believe they should be part of the project which has to benefit from clear continuity. The presence of only some of the chapters on the mainspace would disrupt it as this continuity should be sanctioned as a book with pages. Let me know what you think. Regards! JeyReydar97 ( talk ) 21:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We don't have articles on subjects that aren't notable simply because later similar articles might be notable. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 21:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Almost all of these events are also featured on WWE Network's broadcast system as VOD shoes as Progress has held business relationships with WWE. They're pretty popular on that streaming service. JeyReydar97 ( talk ) 22:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC) No coverage in RS, nothing found now. Was a decade ago, likely no further coverage. I don't see any sourcing we can use. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It has video coverage on Progress' Youtube channel. I also found written coverages from two trustworthy sites. One of them is 411Mania. They should be more than enough as references. JeyReydar97 ( talk ) 22:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Perhaps @ JeyReydar97 : could combine a couple of these early events into a larger article? Mixed martial arts does something similar for articles such as 2020 in Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki . JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment maybe, a list like List of Evolve Wrestling events is more usefull. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 08:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC) Thank you; I wasn't sure wether they had done it for wrestling events too. JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of AFL Championship Game broadcasters: Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent NFL fans. Fails WP:LISTN . Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE . As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists entirely of forums, if not dead; not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 17:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , American football , Lists , and United States of America . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 17:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC) LISTN as a WP:LISTCRUFT that would only be used for trivia purposes. Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Vegetable Market Workers Union: The article can be ed. Grab Up - Talk 02:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Andhra Pradesh . Grab Up - Talk 02:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The editor who de-PROD'd this article suggested a to All India Trade Union Congress . Is there a reason you came to AFD instead? L iz Read! Talk! 04:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz , I thought this should be discussed at Afd before ing it there. I have no reason other than that; I myself don’t want to it. I also thought, if someone disagrees with me after the , then what am I going to do? So, I don’t want to bear any burden. Grab Up - Talk 04:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The is also questionable because I too could not find any source that can prove the existence or even an affiliation with All India Trade Union Congress . RangersRus ( talk ) 14:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 08:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't verify that this exists at all, or if it has continued to exist for the 19 years since the article was created (almost in its current form), or if is affiliated with the All India Trade Union Congress , or who ""Moulana"" is. Neither Google nor Bing can find anything. Without a source, this should be d without a . Walsh90210 ( talk ) 01:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I did some search and could come up with nothing reliable that could verify if this page could be warranted. No sources on the page. Fails WP:GNG . RangersRus ( talk ) 14:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Maryann Krieglstein: Likely WP:VANITY page. jps ( talk ) 18:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Social science . jps ( talk ) 18:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Illinois . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . TJMSmith ( talk ) 19:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not voting since this is my mother. I've had my COI announced on the top of my user page for over a decade. I haven't edited this page since 2016 and have no plans of violating COI and editing ever again. This article went through peer review at Articles for Creation, as noted on the talk page. I did not move it to the main space. Finally, are Maryann's google scholar results . Her seminal research has been cited 60 times. Her co-authorship has been cited 128. D kriegls ( talk to me! ) 21:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak or draftify . Sadly, I don't think WP:PROF or WP:GNG is met. Awards and recognition are very local. Perhaps, if no better sources are found (my BEFORE did not help), we can draftify it rather than it. Sources may appear, eventually, and restoring a userpace draft is easier than going through a REFUND. And I presume User:Dkriegls would not mind hosting this article in their userspace for indefinite time? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've spent a good amount of time on Wikipedia trying to save/add biographies of female scientists and artists . Happy to add my mom to the list ( link ). I'd be grateful if you could provide some guidance on what you think would improve the article. D kriegls ( talk to me! ) 20:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] but her presence might be maintained on WP if one could use her written materials in articles such as Violence against women . That would be more likely to lead people to her work than an article under her name, IMO. Lamona ( talk ) 09:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Seems to be part of a WALL of the creator's parents (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Krieglstein and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transcendental perspectivism ). Unfortunately, the scholarly work of this person (a few journal articles with a grand total citation count of around 130) and the academic awards (mostly internal from her community college) fall very far short of typical PROF criteria. 128.252.154.2 ( talk ) 00:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Hoa Nghiem: Seem WP:TOOSOON at best. Kj cheetham ( talk ) 12:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Women , and Vietnam . Kj cheetham ( talk ) 12:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Does seem possibly a case of too early career. Top citations in GS are 41,37,31,21,19 [28] , and I don't believe it is a particularly low-citation field? No other criteria in WP:PROF are obviously met. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 04:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning after looking more carefully at the sources with GTranslate, especially the first source, a long profile from what I think is Tia Sáng magazine. The award, although early career, appears significant at a national level. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 06:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC) is there any indication that she won the award that she was nominated for? This seems to indicate she didnt win. Usually being nominated for an award does not confer notability. -- hroest 14:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . : I understand these concerns on notability, though would like to present some more contexts for reconsideration. One point on WP:NPROF : point 6 regarding holding an important position in a major research institution. Hoa Nghiem is the vice director of one such institute, though it is hard to determine what institution is major in the country, since there are only a handful of physics research institutions in Vietnam. That is also the context in which this article is based: there is only a small number of physicists in Vietnam and even fewer woman physicists. It is even more unusual for one such person to hold any major position in a research institution. Look up any Vietnamese physicist residing in Vietnam at the moment and you might realize there are very few independent sources written about them, no matter how prominent in the circle within the country. That is why Hoa Nghiem's achievements and media attention, though seemingly meager compared to the standard Wikipedia biography, are notable, given her background and the academic circle she belongs to. This is why I believe the judgement of notability, given this context, should be of a different standard. I do agree, though, that this article will be of interest to few readers outside of Vietnam, a relevant consideration given that the article is written in English. I am split as to whether this constitutes the reason why this article should exist. Thidhoang ( talk ) 05:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's very difficult in such cases. The citations might be acceptably high for work not published in English? We don't usually count second-in-command positions, even in very major institutions (though perhaps we should). Perhaps someone more expert in this area could comment. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 05:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Unusual success including a prized award for a women physicist in Vietman. -- Ipigott ( talk ) 06:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC) is there any indication that she won the award that she was nominated for? This seems to indicate she didnt win. Usually being nominated for an award does not confer notability. -- hroest 14:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Based on her citation profile, she does not pass NPROF#1 with an h-index of 7 and there is no indication she actually won the prize that Ipigott mentioned as a reason for their vote. This seems to indicate she didnt win, the three winners were Pham Duc Chinh , Nguyen Le Khanh Hang and Le Trong Lu . Furthermore, I dont think she could be notable under NPROF#6 as per criterion an important position in a major research institution which is not fulfilled here either, the institute she works at hardly classifies as a major institution for international research and her position is vice-director. This is clearly a case of WP:TOOEARLY , she just started her group in 2017 and is likely an assistant professor (or would be in the Western career progression); assistant profs which are only notable for WP under exceptional circumstances. -- hroest 14:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC) 50, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Central African Republic–Ukraine relations: Fails GNG. LibStar ( talk ) 22:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Africa , and Ukraine . LibStar ( talk ) 22:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV of this topic. Yilloslime ( talk ) 18:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Yovan Nagwetch: The strongest notability claim here is a nomination for a specialty music award, which would be fine to mention if the article were properly sourced but is not top-level enough to constitute an automatic pass of NMUSIC #8 on bad sourcing -- but the article is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with not even one reliable or GNG-building source shown at all. There was, additionally, a completely unreferenced article about his band, which basically made no other notability claims at all besides this guy being in it, so I've ed that to the BLP as well -- and I would also note that there isn't a single inbound link to this article from any other Wikipedia article: the s from the band and one of his album titles are the only inbound links leading to this, and until I unlinked them as recursive s just now this article was the only inbound link leading to the band or the album title either, so these three titles are essentially creating a self-contained walled garden. Nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt him or his band from having to have much better sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada . Bearcat ( talk ) 14:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC) The sources provided are not strong enough to establish notablility. @T.C.G. [talk] 22:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mavila Vishwanathan Nair: Very little in gnews and supplied sources do not meet WP:SIGCOV except one by Union Bank but that's a primary source. 2 of the sources are dead links. LibStar ( talk ) 01:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO . Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 13:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Karnataka and Kerala . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jalen Schlachter: Sources are all standard run-of-the-mill sources so failed GNG, never played in the NFL, pedestrian college football carer. Wizardman 13:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions . Wizardman 13:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Michigan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC) No coverage found for this person; playing college football alone isn't notable. Not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for the subject to meet the WP:GNG , only some routine mentions in articles about other players. This [ [10] ] may be WP:SIGCOV but it is paywalled. Let'srun ( talk ) 15:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Some coverage is available here , here , here , here , and here . Ejgreen77 ( talk ) 02:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC) YOUNGATH in my opinion. Other minds may differ. Let'srun ( talk ) 13:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nerm: It is currently referenced to radio programmes listing, event listings and an interview, not all of which mention Nerm. I have not been able to find better sources to add - I have added another BBC programme listing and two articles written by Nerm. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC . The article has been heavily tagged for years. Tacyarg ( talk ) 21:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music , United Kingdom , and England . Tacyarg ( talk ) 21:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Radio . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Palannoruwa Central College: I can't find evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NORG in English or Sinhala (පලන්නොරුව මධ්‍ය මහා විද්‍යාලය). The best that I can find is Kelimandala (translated) , which only mentions the school in passing. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Sri Lanka . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jeevan Nagar: ROTM coverage like this or namechecks coverage like is not enough to meet GNG. Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on some ROTM or paid/PR coverage — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC) NTV and WP:GNG Donald D23 talk to me 21:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kandu Khera Incident: After cleaning up the citations, the content as it stands now depends solely on the ""authorized biography"" of the Captain Amarinder Singh , a far-cry from WP:INDEPENDANT . In a basic WP:BEFORE search, I was not able to find any sources that describe such an ""incident"" — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c ) 06:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India . — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c ) 06:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Having read the preface of the remaining book: the author seems to be a really big fan of the subject, and the book seems like a complete hagiography. Additionally, the publisher is Hay House , which publishes authors who write on such topics as psychic reading, energy healing, meditation, tarot cards, alternative medicine, numerology, astrology, and holistic health . So yeah, the book is definitely not reliable. Some sort of inter-state incident did seem to happen in this village in 1986 ( [60] [61] ), but I can't find much info on it and I highly doubt it occurred in the way this article suggests. If it was a notable event, then WP:TNT the article; if not, then just normal . Curbon7 ( talk ) 07:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks @ Curbon7 for checking on Hay House, I totally forgot to investigate that. Removing that source, the article is now unsourced — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c ) 08:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Kudos to the nom. It is too risky to include this as either a hoax or a very non-neutral perspective. I see nothing of note known by this moniker. If more sources turn up I hope an editor knows to WP:REFUND , but there's nothing else for it now. — siro χ o 07:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Curbon7 . 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as a possible hoax. Even if it isn't, the book is so unreliable that there would be severe WP:NPOV issues that have probably significantly distorted what has happened. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 08:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Haryana and Punjab . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC) 37, 23 July 2023 (UTC) (sock strike — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c ) 14:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC) ) [ reply ] per nom and above. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 22:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the above as a hoax. D u s t i *Let's talk! * 22:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC) This article is eligible for WP:G5 deletion as a creation of a sock account with minimal contributions from other editors. But since several substantive comments have been made at the AFD indicating that even its (re)creation by a non-sock account would be unmerited, I am not short-circuiting the discussion. No issues with any other admin deciding to speedy the article, closing the AFD early, or letting it run to completion. Abecedare ( talk ) 22:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since the consensus is leaning heavily towards I went ahead and tagged the artcile for speedy deletion. D u s t i *Let's talk! * 22:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC) A hoax and also has no sources. HarukaAmaranth ( talk ) 01:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Concrete Technology: There are already pages which go into details, this stub serves no real purpose. Ldm1954 ( talk ) 06:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions . Ldm1954 ( talk ) 06:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – unnecessary article worthy to be d to other existing topics. Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 18:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ashleigh Udalovas: Let'srun ( talk ) 01:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , Women , Beauty pageants , and New Jersey . Let'srun ( talk ) 01:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak as a titleholder, Miss New Jersey might be notable, but I'm not good in pageant competition notability checks. Nevertheless, the Miss New Jersey page suggests that the competition is significant and prominent. I'd lean towards ing the page. -- Mozzcircuit ( talk ) 14:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I might be swayed by a state-level beauty pageant if the article were actually sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG , but that's in no way ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG. This is referenced to a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and local human-interest coverage that's acceptable but not enough all by itself, and we require more than that to deem somebody permanenntly notable for winning a regional beauty pageant. Bearcat ( talk ) 19:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Would a be a possibility here? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:NPOL as described above. I don't know if there's anywhere to this to. SportingFlyer T · C 22:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Denial of atrocities during the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel: Moreover, this is a collection of supposed ""denials"" which goes against WP:Original research. And finally, the sources cited are mostly low-quality, such as Hindustan Times, Jewishnews.co.uk, and Radar Online. Makeandtoss ( talk ) 10:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 6 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 10:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Military , Israel , and Palestine . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC) I have not found any RSes providing significant coverage of denials of the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel as a phenomenon. Rather, the bulk of what's been reported (and what is cited here) are routine news stories about Hamas itself denying it had killed civilians (which is not really a topic that needs its own article). There's no need for an article just to list every time a Hamas spokesperson or conspiracy theorist (e.g., Piers Corbyn ) says something bad. Giving what he said or what a Yale student publication did (or did not do) the same weight as what Queen Raina said is absurd. This article is (and will continue to be) an amalgamation of OR , using poor quality sources alleging antisemitism or misquoting sources to allege that particular people have denied atrocities in Israel (see, e.g., the talk page discussion about the Queen Raina quote). voorts ( talk / contributions ) 14:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] on several policy grounds. to Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war (see below for !vote change, but all the reasons for this article to not exist are still valid). First, the article as presented cannot escape WP:NPOV problems as long as it focuses on only one side's denials. Atrocities against civilians are happening daily from all possible sides of this horrific and senseless conflict. In a few years, a good article can be written about denialism in general for this conflict, but that brings us to the second problem, WP:TOOSOON . Lastly, this is pure WP:SYNTH at this stage. There is no scholarly discourse (yet) about denials as a group or collective concept , though there might eventually be as denialists on all sides pile on with the spin. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC) 53, 16 November 2023). The Disinformation article can be (and still is, more or less) NPOV; it has a far less incendiary / POV-pushing title; solid RS support that article; and there is already scholarship building around that concept, whereas this one has little more than a collection of one-off denials. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 20:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] this is simply not a significant viewpoint. JDiala ( talk ) 00:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and improve. There are a lot of people in the west who deny that it happened. I think the article has merit but should be improved. TimeEngineer ( talk ) 09:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Similiar to Holocaust denial, and is covered by reliable sources such as [1] , [2] , [3] . Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) ( talk ) 09:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC) Denials are flying in all directions, of course. That does not make an WP:OR aggregation of news about disparate denials of this, that or the other suddenly its own topic when there is no indication that it is. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 11:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A phenomenon that, unfortunately, receives wide media coverage. Eladkarmel ( talk ) 16:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC) NOTNEWS criteria with nearly one month-long coverage by sources and has wide coverage with Israeli government acting specifically against denial in an organized way (screening of event videos and recording accounts by survivors). GreyShark ( dibra ) 18:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC) More sources that exclusively deal with the denial of the incident are available now - UtoD 18:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first source is routine coverage. I agree the second source could establish notability, but that's just one source. Fox News is not reliable for politics per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 20:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fox news citation was replaced by The Guardian. [4] Marokwitz ( talk ) 13:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] references include The Economist, The Guardian, CNN, and Times of Israel, and the Jerusalem Post. And the IDF is directly talking about it. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 23:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""And the IDF is directly talking about it."" - makes it less credible surely? Iskandar323 ( talk ) 13:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We're not discussing credibility, we're discussing notability. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 19:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC) per nom. There is very little in what amounts to credible coverage. Additionally, it's not really encyclopedic and these types of articles lead to a good deal of subjectivity and become battlegrounds. Some of the sources seem to be circular (source A says it, then source B and C say it based on source A's reporting), which doesn't portend significant coverage. I would encourage ! voters to review voorts's lists of sources below. Also, per @Last1in, pure WP:SYNTH at this stage. There is no conversage (yet) of denials as a group or collective concept - it's not really anything other than media coverage of who said what at this point. It's not a ""thing"" (like holocaust denial is). Butler Blog ( talk ) 13:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Reliable sources. Zanahary ( talk ) 17:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Source quality is terrible, material is a WP:SYNTH collection of anecdotal WP:NEWS examples of largely individual acts of denial, with little to no analysis of the topic cohesively as a subject, and even if such a topic were to exist, it would need to reflect both sides of this conflict to be WP:NPOV , not be totally one-sided. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Strike out double vote, you only get one vote. Why you would put this in the middle of the discussion in any case? // Timothy :: talk 20:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Whoops. Lost track there, but strike the vote, not the comment. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 07:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC) the article is pure WP:SYNTH and it's not evidently notable based on sources of acknowledged reliability. Certain content from the article could be d into other articles about the war, maybe, if it's sufficiently reliable. If we open the door to this type of article in this subject area, don't be surprised to see a dozen articles pop up with titles like "" Denial of atrocities during Operation Protective Edge "", "" Denial of atrocities during Operation Cast Lead "", "" Denial of Israeli atrocities during the Second Intifada "" etc.... (actually, come to think of it, if there's notable commentary on any of these topics, they could make for worthwhile articles in any event). WillowCity (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could be a good article in a few years, but as of today its just a list of ""This person said"" statements. Furthermore some statements like one by Queen Rania of Jordan or about Yale news mentioned in the article dont even qualify as denial. F.Alexsandr ( talk ) 16:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Well sourced and documented by several sources. Definitely worth ing since it's a phenomena that also holds historical value in conjunction with the rise of Fake News and the information Era. Indeed it has also been attributed to be a major factor in the rise of anti-semitism and is also crucial in understanding the Israeli response. There are ample sources to support this, this is an historical phenomena that is also highly reflective of the current progression regarding the War on Information and the digital Era, therefore this is an article of high interest and high potential. Homerethegreat ( talk ) 09:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What sources are you referring to that has discussed this as a phenomenon? So far, I've only uncovered this Haaretz article . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] • in agreement with what has already been said above about naming this as a definitive trend and the quality of source issues. numerous articles exist on Wikipedia where people can learn about current events and political responses and it does not make sense to me based on all that I have read on this topic to carve this out as a separate phenomenon and article, at least not at present without appropriate secondary analytical sources rather than a ""this person said"" list of statements, which would seem to me to reflect Original Research. Jackie.salzinger ( talk ) 15:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) prepared by User:voorts Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? Anadolu Agency Per WP:RSPS . Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Example of Hamas denial. ✘ No CNN Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Example of Hamas denial. ✘ No CNN 2 Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Example of Hamas denial. ✘ No Washington Institute 1 ? Organization is associated with AIPAC. Organization associated with AIPAC and therefore not sufficient to establish notability in this context (see WP:BIASED ). ✘ No The Economist Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Example of Hamas denial. ✘ No Radar Online Self-described as ""the most influential and trusted pop culture, celebrity and entertainment news brand in the world"" and no clear editorial standards. Tabloid-style coverage of an interview with a Hamas leader. ✘ No Hindustan Times Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon, and is being used in a misleading way (see talk page discussion ). ✘ No Daily Beast ? Per WP:DAILYBEAST . Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon, and is being used in a misleading way (see talk page discussion ). ✘ No Ynetnews ? Unclear whether there are editorial standards. Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Just another example (Knesset member). ✘ No Jewish News ? Unclear whether there are editorial standards. Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Just another example (Piers Corbyn). ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Source assessment table: prepared by User:voorts Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? JPost 1 Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Just another example (Piers Corbyn). ✘ No Times of Israel 1 Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Just another example (Roger Waters). ✘ No JPost 2 Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Does not even establish that anyone is intentionally denying any atrocities. ✘ No The Guardian Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Merely establishes that the Israeli government wants to counter what Hamas has said and change the narrative around the conflict. ✘ No Fox News Per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS . Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Merely establishes that the Israeli government wants to counter what Hamas has said and change the narrative around the conflict. ✘ No JPost 3 Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Merely establishes that the Israeli government wants to counter what Hamas has said and change the narrative around the conflict. ✘ No Times of Israel 2 Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Merely establishes that the Israeli government wants to counter what Hamas has said and change the narrative around the conflict. ✘ No CBC Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Merely establishes that the Israeli government wants to counter what Hamas has said and change the narrative around the conflict. ✘ No Rep McCaul statement Statement by Member of Congress. Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Political statement made for political purposes. ✘ No Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs Strong association with Netanyahu and his government. Associated with Netanyahu / biased and therefore not sufficient to establish notability in this context (see WP:BIASED ). ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Source assessment table: prepared by User:voorts Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? Haaretz ✔ Yes This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Here is my source assessment. Most of the sources cited are examples of either Hamas or random people denying particular atrocities (or denying things that were later debunked , like babies being decapitated). Of the sources cited in this article and this discussion, only one establishes GNG. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 02:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Solid effort voorts. One point to add is that even the Haaretz article doesn't make claims that for example Queen Rania was engaged in some sort of ""denialism"". Makeandtoss ( talk ) 14:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Subject is discussed widely, e.g. [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [], [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] . // Timothy :: talk 16:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC) #11 is not independent because it's reporting on the position of the Israeli government. #13 (Spiked) is a very biased op-ed. #17 is also an op-ed by a former Israeli government official. The remainder of the sources have either been dealt with in the table above or are reporting on specific instances of denial (or instances of actions being construed as denial, e.g., protests against the war), but do not identify ""Denial of atrocities during the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel"" as a phenomenon. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reliable sources per above. I don't think this is OR either although the title is quite unwieldy. Swordman97 talk to me 00:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Voortz. WP:GNG is not met and people are mischaracterizing the sources. Flip and Flopped ツ 15:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC) Apart from the arguments others have made, this article is a violation of WP:NFRINGE . Parham wiki ( talk ) 10:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC) NFRINGE ? Marokwitz ( talk ) 13:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC) The opinions of Hamas and others (ie Israel is lying, they were not civilians) are fringe theories. Parham wiki ( talk ) 20:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, but what 'violation' did you found? The policy mostly warns about using proclamations of fringe theory adherents (in this case, the opinions of Hamas and others) when determining notability, I don't think this is the case here. Marokwitz ( talk ) 21:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even though I am for deletion, I agree that NFRINGE does not apply here. NFRINGE doesn't mean we can't write articles on fringe positions. It means that we can't write articles about fringe theories based solely on the positions of those advocating a fringe theory. The argument for here has been that the fringe position (denial of events during the October 7 attacks) is notable as a phenomenon. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I fully expected to argue to based on the title, but the sources presented are insufficient, and I'm unable to find better ones. The sources presented thus far (I checked most of them) are either individual examples of denialism, or of representatives of the Israeli government describing what they see as a broader phenomenon of denial. Israeli government sources are primary sources, regardless of what you believe about their reliability; and Wikipedia cannot synthesize individual examples into a general phenomenon, even if there's enough sources for individual editors to conclude there is a pattern. Really, this is a case of TOOSOON; a year or two from now there will be published scholarly material analyzing depictions of this conflict in the news media and in the popular imaginary; once those sources are written, this sort of topic can certainly be explored in an encyclopedic manner. But even before that, we need reliable secondary sources saying in their own voice that this is a pattern, and AFAICS we don't have those. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 22:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or per Voortz. Loki ( talk ) 22:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Homerethegreat. \\ Loksmythe // ( talk ) 22:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 23:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Similiar to Holocaust denial, and is covered by reliable sources. We could revisit removal in future months, but considering the short amount of time having passed, the quantity of reliable sources warrants inclusion. Drsruli ( talk ) 01:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Timothy, Homerethegreat, and others. Jweiss11 ( talk ) 22:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Homerethegreat. -- Omnipaedista ( talk ) 20:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per voorts and others. - Ïvana ( talk ) 21:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC) GNG , wide and persistent coverage of the denial and the discussion surrounding the denial in reliable sources, just a few examples: [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] . Note that many above arguments are invalid since content does not determine notability, per WP:ARTN . The might be a case for renaming the article, though. Marokwitz ( talk ) 12:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The argument isn't that the content included in the article makes the topic not notable. The argument is that the articles being cited for notability don't define a phenomenon of denial occurring, but rather report on particular instances of people denying a wide variety of things (or, in some cases, making statements that don't actually deny anything but are being construed as denial), and that combining those sources to establish notability is OR . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, #24 is reporting on a statement by the Israeli ambassador, which is not an independent source for purposes of notability. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war . It's been covered by reliable sources but I think the page would work better as a section on the page about disinformation on the war instead. BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk ) 17:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC) Does it make sense to Holocaust denial into an article called Disinformation in the Second World War ? Those seem to be different topics ... This article is about historical negationism and not about ""disinformation in the war"". Marokwitz ( talk ) 20:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC) Strongly oppose merging, they are two different topics, albeit related. Per WP:SUMMARY it should be briefly summarized in Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and the reader directed this article. The above refs I listed show their is ample material and sourcing to support a stand alone article. // Timothy :: talk 21:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. This is not a significant viewpoint. Combefere ★ Talk 02:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above, particularly Homer and Timothy. The Kip 03:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is not a good sign when the source assessment comment includes a denial of a Hamas atrocity. , clearly notable topic, covered by sources. -- Yair rand ( talk ) 09:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC) What did I deny? voorts ( talk / contributions ) 14:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC) I was referring to the beheadings, which have been confirmed . (""An international group of forensic pathologists also have confirmed babies were found decapitated, though it's unclear if that happened before or after death."") Sorry for the unnecessarily confrontational tone. -- Yair rand ( talk ) 20:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC) No worries. I didn't find your tone confrontational at all. And to be clear, the articles being cited were about people questioning the beheadings right before the Biden administration and others admitted there was no evidence of beheading of babies at that point in time. I wouldn't call questioning an unproven assertion denialism. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Notable and shares similarities with Holocaust denial . JoseJan89 ( talk ) 09:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. There is no lack of participation here but I also don't see editors who advocate Keeping this article address voorts's persuasive source analysis tables. I don't think anyone is denying that sources exist that provide examples, at least to someone, that a denial of atrocities may be happening in statements made by individuals or organizations, the question is whether or not this article is OR and whether ""denialism"" is being discussed as a notable and coherent concept on its own. There is a huge amount of literature on Holocaust denialism and an academic study of that subject and so a comparison can't be made to this very recent phenomena. I'd like to see editors arguing to this article go beyond WP:ITEXISTS statements and address the problems pointed out by the nominator. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per voorts, and the relevant info into Misinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war . Can anyone give a reason why this can't be covered at the parent article? THat article still has room to grow. VR talk 04:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per voorts and Vanamonde ( we need reliable secondary sources saying in their own voice that this is a pattern, and AFAICS we don't have those ). — Alalch E. 09:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Timothy, Homerethegreat, and others. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 01:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per voorts, invented topic without any sourcing discussing it as a topic whatsoever. nableezy - 02:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per voorts. Tryin to make a change :-/ 12:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC) GNG , wide and persistent coverage of the denial and the discussion surrounding the denial in reliable sources: [28] , [29] , just two examples. GNG has been met. BabbaQ ( talk ) 10:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It should be d- I believe so-- because we can create many (extra) other similar articles if we want to such denial... Ali Ahwazi ( talk ) 14:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel . Maybe this topic will become notable in the future, but as it stands now, this page probably doesn't have enough material to stand on it's own. XTheBedrockX ( talk ) 23:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources provided by Timothy. Yes, the atrocities have been denied by Hamas itself and many others. There is a significant coverage of this in RS, which makes this denial highly notable. My very best wishes ( talk ) 05:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC) This continues to be actively discussed in the media, which clearly shows this is a notable topic. A few more to add to the above: [30] , ""In the wake of global silence and denial of Hamas’ sexual violence against Israeli women, efforts are being made across multiple echelons to raise awareness, including a civil commission to document the crimes, international diplomacy, and a campaign by tech industry executives"" [31] , ""Global women’s rights groups silent as Israeli women testify about rapes by Hamas"" [32] , ""UN and Women’s Groups Ignore or Deny the Systematic Rape of Israeli Women by Hamas"" [33] , ""Deborah Lipstadt struck by ‘speed and intensity’ of Hamas atrocity denial"" [34] , ""World's denial of Hamas's massacre of Israelis is a betrayal"" You can disagree with the point of view or the conclusions of the above but it is clear this is a notable topic being discussed widely in the media. // Timothy :: talk 06:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not a single one of these seem to be a reliable source. Tryin to make a change :-/ 10:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not to mention none of them deal with the topic exactly; they are quotes. Read WP:Notability. Makeandtoss ( talk ) 14:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What you need are sources treating ""denial"" as the topic itself, not giving examples of individuals denying something. That is how you demonstrate a notable topic, not one that is attempted to be put together through SYNTH. The Haaretz piece comes closest, but its just one news article. But you need sources that treat this topic as a topic, not just discussing individual examples so that Wikipedia editors can try to invent a topic by combining things that never refer to the overarching topic. nableezy - 14:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh no, providing individual examples of denial (per the sources above) is fine, just as it is fine on pages like Armenian genocide denial or Holodomor denial . There is absolutely no requirement that every source must be exclusively or specifically on the subject of the page, treat the subject as the whole, etc. It is enough that it says something on the subject of the page. My very best wishes ( talk ) 20:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC) SYNTH . There are entire monographs dedicated to Armenian genocide denial and Holocaust denial. Tryin to make a change :-/ 20:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, of course, there are no ""entire monographs"" dedicated to denials of these atrocities yet . This is because they are current events. My very best wishes ( talk ) 02:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC) CRYSTALBALL . Tryin to make a change :-/ 04:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC) SYNTH , much less WP:GNG , would say such a thing. The topic is what must have received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. You can say ""oh no"", but you are quite wrong. And this is basic English. nableezy - 21:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC) 30 reads like an op-ed and mentions denialism in passing. 31 is largely about what groups haven't said, not what they are saying. 32 is a DAILYBEAST op-ed. 33 is an article about the claims of a US government official, which is not independent in the conflict and thus not independent for notability purposes. 34 is another op-ed, and includes what Queen Rania said as an example of denialism, which as I've discussed above, it was not, making me question its reliability or ability to treat facts in an unbiased manner. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC) V , especially if written by experts. And in many cases they should be used. My very best wishes ( talk ) 02:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, but op-eds and editorials are generally not secondary (or arguably independent) sources for purposes of establishing notability. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 03:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Put another way, for a topic like ""denialism [or historical negationism] of X"", one would expect secondary, independent (e.g., scholarly or critical) sources, rather than primary, biased (e.g., op-eds) sources. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 03:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Denials exist but pretty sure that denials as a topic per se is just not a thing. Selfstudier ( talk ) 15:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Here's more RS (helps that the PA decided to issue a denial of some of the events of that day as well): Guardian , I24 , The Forward , Ynet , Yahoo , in addition to dozens of op-eds published in RS speak of this unfortunate phenomenon. Longhornsg ( talk ) 18:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per @ Nableezy , [W]hat you need are sources treating ""denial"" as the topic itself, not giving examples of individuals denying something. That is how you demonstrate a notable topic, not one that is attempted to be put together through WP:SYNTH . Tryin to make a change :-/ 19:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They do? Longhornsg ( talk ) 21:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC) OR examples that allows a back-door in to various BLP violations. I notice that among them are claims of rape denial - but how can we be calling this ""denial of atrocities"", when the Israeli government itself is still investigating whether rapes occurred? We are still too close to these events for the full account of what happened to have even been written yet, let alone real secondary sources to have been written about denialism. -- asilvering ( talk ) 04:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bintan Agro Beach Resort: Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep ( talk ) 08:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Indonesia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment For some reason, the nominator considers that all the hotels and resorts in Bintan Regency fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Aymatth2 ( talk ) 13:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] v t e Hotels and resorts in Bintan Nikoi Island Banyan Tree Bintan Club Med Ria Bintan Angsana Resort & Spa Loola Adventure Resort Mayang Sari Beach Resort Comfort Hotel & Resort Tanjung Pinang Hotel Sadaap Hotel Laguna Hotels portal Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Software industry in Madurai: This failed a PROD for being potentially notable, but absent any evidence to support that potential, I think this article should be d. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 01:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC) Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of in depth, significant coverage. Let'srun ( talk ) 18:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Poor sources. 5 sources on the page and 3 of them have absolutely nothing on the subject and the other 2 about ""Oracle planning to open a new center"" and the other is about ""building an IT park"". No sources on the page have any coverage on the subject and does not warrant a page due to failure to pass WP:GNG . RangersRus ( talk ) 13:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"KayvonTV: (It's also shooting for ""has been featured on major television networks"" in the lede, but I've been completely unable to verify that claim at all.) As always, web content is not ""inherently"" notable just because it exists, and has to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source media coverage about it -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability, such as his own self-published website and Blogspot blogs and dead TV listings and content self-published by his own past employers. Out of 21 footnotes, just two are to nominally reliable sources at all: a deadlinked (but waybackable) Sports Illustrated piece that briefly glances off Kayvon's existence without being about him in any non-trivial sense, and a deadlinked (but proquestable) Toronto Sun article that's just about him hanging out at TIFF to collect celebrity autographs rather than doing anything noteworthy, which isn't enough to get him over GNG all by itself. But that Toronto Sun hit is also the only remotely useful source that turns up at ProQuest at all : otherwise, I'm only finding glancing namechecks of Kayvon Zahedi attending Toronto Argonauts Grey Cup victory parades as a spectator and a press release self-published by Aux , not anything remotely notability-building. Nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced properly. Bearcat ( talk ) 04:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada . Bearcat ( talk ) 04:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC) This explains most of the claims [21] , he's a ""reporter"" that gets in people's faces at events and collects a sound bite or tow (they use the term guerilla reporter). He may have been ""on CBC and Global"" (briefly mentioned) in news events, but I can't find confirmation of those (heck, I'VE been on CTV News once, but that doesn't make me notable). This is refbombed and very PROMO for an individual that isn't otherwise notable. Limiting the search to . ca websites, only a few pop up that aren't PR items, msotly in non-RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. There is too little coverage available to source nearly 99% of the claims in this article. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 14:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Appearing on TV news programmes does not make one notable. I was on my local CTV/CTV2 station once, when i was a lil kid before I started my mtf transition (a segemnt about elementary school kids getting an early summer break due to a teacher strike), but that doesn't make me notable. Kinopiko talk 22:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"DUnit: -- Wiki Linuz ( talk ) 04:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC) I checked for sources, but sadly, I can’t find any that deem this subject notable. The cited sources are not reliable, and the subject fails to meet WP:GNG . Grab Up - Talk 19:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Christo Joubert: I am having a hard time finding anything approaching WP:SIGCOV . JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Amature player with minimal coverage. Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC) SPORTSCRIT . LibStar ( talk ) 03:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"BEMET: The subject also lacks significant coverage. Also seems like the editor of the page has close connection with the subject. Can't find any RS about anything written. Rydex64 ( talk ) 20:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . Rydex64 ( talk ) 20:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Marokwitz ( talk ) 07:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I agree with the others. Considered a to the famous Teapacks but the connection is probably not sufficiently substential. gidonb ( talk ) 05:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. I agree that ing to Teapacks would be unwarranted. Better Nuncio ( talk ) 10:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Angus Gilmour: No coverage found online, and achievements are not enough to provide assumptions of notability via SNG. Timothytyy ( talk ) 06:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Badminton , and Scotland . Timothytyy ( talk ) 06:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] there were some online news used Angus Gilmour as subject on their article. 1 , 2 . Stvbastian ( talk ) 11:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source 2 does not provide SIGCOV. As both sources are from the same website, any proof of reliability for it? Or is this a case of ROUTINE? Timothytyy ( talk ) 02:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source #1 is enough to satisfied SIGCOV. You can check the reliability by ur self. Stvbastian ( talk ) 11:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC) ROUTINE . Timothytyy ( talk ) 00:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV . Both articles above are routine coverage and do not demonstrate significant reliable coverage exists. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 23:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Article #1 clearly have a sigcov of Angus Gilmour. All sentences talks about Gilmour. Stvbastian ( talk ) 04:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In case you missed the other message, that article is just ROUTINE. Please find more SIGCOV if you still believe it passes GNG. Timothytyy ( talk ) 05:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In case you missed wht is and is not routine. The article not ""just routine"" at all. . From head to toe talks about Gilmour, that means the article hve sigcov of Gilmour. Stvbastian ( talk ) 07:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know if you know what routine is, but an article that wouldn't appear if he didn't win the title is definitely not GNG-contributing. Timothytyy ( talk ) 08:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. Why article #1 not a routine-> thts not about just a sport scores (especially the sources not a ""box scores""; see: WP:NOTROUTINE ) There were some detail facts in the article, tht means the article clearly have sigcov of Angus Gilmour not just a routine as u said. Stvbastian ( talk ) 09:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These are the only parts where coverage is provided. Gilmour, 18, said: ""This is a really big title for us because it’s the first European tournament we’ve won. The guys we beat in the final we hadn’t played before so they were new to us. It’s good to get the victories against them and also good that we didn’t drop a set in the whole competition."" ... Gilmour has been a full time player for the past season. He is a member of Badminton Scotland’s Junior High Performance squad and has been supported by the West of Scotland Institute of Sport for the past five years. Being European No.1s will help the pair in their quest for the European under 19 Championships in Milan this April. Gilmour added: ""It’s fantastic to be No. It will be a big confidence boost for us preparing for the European Junior Championships. We are definitely hoping to get a medal there and if we work hard there should be no reason why we can’t."" Let's discuss on whether this makes the subject pass GNG. Timothytyy ( talk ) 11:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Clearly sigcov and not a routine article as you said. . Here i give u example the routine article -> 3 . . Thanks Stvbastian ( talk ) 12:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry but I can't see anything about badminton at your link. Can you put the correct link here? Thanks a lot! For source 1 there are only quotes from the player and ""Gilmour has been a full time player for the past season. He is a member of Badminton Scotland’s Junior High Performance squad and has been supported by the West of Scotland Institute of Sport for the past five years."" which is not coverage and therefore may not be able to demonstrate GNG. Timothytyy ( talk ) 14:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] don't act like u don't understand lah. As i said above, the link #3 is an ""example"" for WP:ROUTINE article (article that only show results of the tournament, without explanation). If you still dont understand, here another example for routine article -> 4 . Still don't understand? need more example? feel free to ask me.. And for source #1, Angus Gilmour not just a trivial mention. Surpass trivial mention means the article is a sigcov, especially he is the main topic in the article. From head to toe we can get some detail about Angus Gilmour: -He is from Troon; -He won the Belgium Open; -At that time he was European #1 junior badminton player; He is a member of Badminton Scotland's Junior High Performance squad. Stvbastian ( talk ) 15:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The sources provided so far are ROUTINE. The first Daily Record article is plainly a routine announcement that he won a tournament, and furthermore offers little more than two sentences of non-quote coverage of him--nowhere close to SIGCOV even if it wasn't RotM. NOTNEWS states For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage , and ROUTINE expands with Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches... NSPORT then implements these (non-exhaustive) definitions of ""routine coverage"" and ""routine events"" in its guidance on what contributes to SIGCOV for athletes. The article on winning the Belgium Open was planned coverage of a scheduled event and would have been written regardless of who won it; it is ROUTINE. JoelleJay ( talk ) 21:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC) Modern-day sporting events appear regularly in blogs or in local news as sports scores (sometimes called ""box scores"") ""without details"". Such box scores are examples of routine coverage. And the article not just such a box scores. routine coverage"" is not a disqualification for notability. Stvbastian ( talk ) 23:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Where are you getting that definition? I am quoting the description and examples of routine coverage in our policies and guidelines, which override anything said in essays. JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC) NOTROUTINE. Stvbastian ( talk ) 03:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC) NOTROUTINE is an essay. JoelleJay ( talk ) 21:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC) GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV . Routine or not, I just don't think the above sources are significant coverage. Alvaldi ( talk ) 20:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Manu (Theosophy): Only unreliable Theosophical writers like Elizabeth Clare Prophet are cited. No academic historians have specifically covered this topic, it is not possible to have a neutral article. The only sources that cover the topic are fringe related Theosophical sources that fail WP:RS . The topic is non-notable and no independent coverage exists. Psychologist Guy ( talk ) 15:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As per the nominator, only primary sources exist. There is no reliable independent sources that cover this concept. Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 00:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 16:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] PhD theses are neither automatically unreliable nor automatically reliable. WP:SCHOLARSHIP . Jfire ( talk ) 22:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Servoy: CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Cannot find any reliable sources providing significant coverage on this. popo dameron ⁠ talk 03:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC) as far as I can tell, the product fails NSOFT, and the company of the same name fails NCORP. Owen× ☎ 15:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Farid Alizade: Shellwood ( talk ) 15:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The work in progress template is posted in the article, the World Alpagut Federation cooperates with world important organizations such as TAFİSA and Fair play. links prove the importance of the organization and its leader Farid Alizade. Alpagut: The Turkic World's Martial Art Making Waves Globally ""3. Dünya Alpagut Şampiyonası"", Bursa'da başladı Alpagut rüzgarı Bursa’da esti Azərbaycanda I Beynəlxalq Turan Oyunları keçiriləcək newspaper agazete.com Azərbaycan Respublikası Daxili İşlər Nazirliyinin Polis Akademiyası Azərbaycanlı deputat federasiya prezidenti oldu musavat.com Reviving Turkic Sports: An Interview With Farid Alizade, President Of The International Turan Games Committee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.191.67.51 ( talk ) 21:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 17, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He is the founder and first president of the World Alpagut Federation. He is the founder of the Turan games committee. He is an important person who created martial arts in Azerbaijan. -- Mehdi Fayyazli (Talk) 09:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC) 22, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Notability (people)#Basic criteria -- Samral ( talk ) 05:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per above reasons to have the article kept. Valid links listed above and Authority control, referance ISNI meet the WP:GNG , I think the publication seems OK. Notable in the Azerbaijani context. I am attaching the important document of the World Federation to the discussion . Extract from the Registry of Entrepreneurial and Non-Entrepreneurial (Non-Commercial) Legal Entities / The World Alpagut Federation was accepted as a member of International Martial Arts Games Committee -- ETIBAR MEMMEDOV TT me 15:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Although the consensus is to , two of the voters seem very inactive, and the remaining one is the creator who did not edit other pages for two months. Only one user tried to explain adequately. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy ( talk ) 09:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . It's great that he create the martial art, makes him noteworthy, but we need sourcing discussing the individual to be notable for wikipedia's purposes. I'm not seeing that in this case. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weakish , I'm far from convinced. Being the founder of the World Alpagut Foundation would be more meaningful if I could find any sources suggesting that this organisation is written-about or known to anyone except the handful of people directly involved in it. For this, and for the International Turan Games committee I am finding only LinkedIn, Crunchbase, Instagram, Twitter, and the organisations' own websites, none of which are even remotely indicators of notability. I'm classing my as Weakish because I cannot assess Azerbaijani sources, and there may be stuff out there if I could read it. Elemimele ( talk ) 12:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If you go a little deeper, then you will abandon your comment. In general, those who comment on this question do not seem to be those who know this area in depth. I think the comments could be more reasonable. It would be nice to get the opinion of those who have a wide and informed opinion in other discussions, for example, let's get the opinion of these two Wikipedians. Dear Necrothesp and Dear CactiStaccingCrane please comment. -- ETIBAR MEMMEDOV TT me 18:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Dear Oaktree b But these shortcomings do not preclude the existence of an article when the subject of the article is significant. I must say, at this moment, the retelling of the article's view, as presented from your position, has not satisfied me. I suspect that this is your personal opinion. What specific doubts do you have about Alizade's credibility? I see no good reason to the article; there are indications of encyclopedic significance. If any points of significance are controversial or unclear, they should be discussed. If the article contains advertisements, nonsense, or copyvio, they must be d. You declare that none of the listed positions give a person significance. But how can you prove it? Senior managers, members of boards of directors, and similar governing bodies, along with the activities of the enterprise, are represented by independent authoritative sources. You could still consider the subject as a public figure. Anadolu Agency (tr): https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/spor/dunya-alpagut-sampiyonasinda-12-madalya-alan-sporcular-yeni-hedeflere-odaklandi/2763314 Türkiye Wikipedia for Alpagut Martial Art (tr): https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpagut_(d%C3%B6v%C3%BC%C5%9F_sanat%C4%B1) Haberler.com (News) (tr): https://www.haberler.com/guncel/kazakistan-da-eski-turk-dovus-sanati-alpagut-11294797-haberi/ HaberTurk TV Official Website News (tr): https://www.haberturk.com/bursa-haberleri/29633502-3-dunya-alpagut-sampiyonasi-bursada-basladi DHA (Demiroren News Agency) Official News Portal (tr): Bilal Erdoğan attended the Turkic World Ancestor Sports Festival: https://www.dha.com.tr/gundem/bilal-erdogan-turk-dunyasi-ata-sporlari-senligine-katildi-2104540 Ministry of Education of Republic of Turkiye (tr): 1. https://nallihan.meb.gov.tr/www/dunya-alpagut-sampiyonasinda-dereceye-giren-ogrencilerimizin-ilce-milli-egitim-mudurumuz-bayram-benliceyi-ziyareti/icerik/954 2. https://nallihan.meb.gov.tr/www/ilcemizde-sportif-basari/icerik/951 3. https://nallihan.meb.gov.tr/www/turan-alpagut-turk-dovus-sanatlari-kategorisinde-ogrencilerimiz-dunya-sampiyonu-oldular/icerik/845 IHA (Ihlas News Agency) (tr): https://www.iha.com.tr/bursa-haberleri/ata-sporlarinda-renkli-bulusma-3823287/ Inflicts World News Portal: https://inflics.com/arwa-afridi-wins-2-gold-medals-at-world-alpagut-championship/ Parliamentary Assembly of Turkic States (former President of WAF after Farid Alizade): https://www.turk-pa.org/person/4-nizami-jafarov Kyrgyz News AKIPRESS: https://akipress.com/news:672155:Kyrgyzstanis_win_4_gold_medals_at__World_Alpagut_Cup_2022_in_Turkey/ Azerbaijani News Portals about Alpagut: 1. http://www.today.az/news/sports/166824.html 2. https://oval.az/azerbaijan-rank-first-overall-medal-table-world-alpagut-championships/ 3. https://en.axar.az/news/officialnews/136036.html 4. https://www.news.az/news/world-alpagut-cup-kicks-off-in-baku Kazakhstan News Portal KazInform: https://www.inform.kz/en/kazakhstan-set-to-revive-alpagut-old-turkic-martial-art_a3409227 Voen.nezer ( talk ) 10:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Exactly, but we need sourcing that discusses the person, or we're just blowing smoke. I can't judge the qualify of most of those sources. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please don't ping me further, I've given my thoughts and have moved on. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply The world federation should be introduced to the Wikipedia community in a completely proper encyclopedic tone. Let's look at the problem that caused the discussion from a different point of view. Alpagut has been around for nine years and already has ties in over 50 countries worldwide. So, isn't English-language media missing out by not covering it? Dear Elemimele , the sources you listed are social media coverage. I noticed your attempt to prioritize LinkedIn, Crunchbase, Instagram, Twitter directly over Federation sources, frankly I didn't like it when I looked at your comment and that's why I wanted to prepare an extensive comment and present it to you and the community with all the sources. And yet, it seems its story is somewhat untold in the English language. But let us not be restricted by language, for when we delve into different regions and languages, we discover that Alpagut's story is indeed being told with fervor. Italy: The Italians, for instance, have embraced Alpagut. From a touching piece in the Milan Newspaper to the recognition from the Italy Kurash Federation the organization has made its mark. https://www.gazzettadimilano.it/sport/intervista-a-vasif-namazov-fondatore-dellalpagut-vasil-namazov-alpagut-founder/ http://www.kurashitalia.com/alpagut/ Pakistan: The narrative continues in Pakistan. Celebrating their athletes' victory to covering the events, Pakistan acknowledges the impact of Alpagut. The Pakistani media continuous contribute to Alpagut's growing global presence https://dailytimes.com.pk/508797/pakistans-woman-athlete-wins-two-golds-at-world-alpagut-championship/ https://www.thedayspring.com.pk/tag/2nd-world-alpagut-championship/ https://www.brecorder.com/news/548289 https://www.oyeyeah.com/sports/female-athlete-wins-two-golds-at-the-2nd-world-alpagut-championship/ Iraq: In Iraq, too, Alpagut's influence is apparent. From government portals to universities they're talking about Alpagut. https://alsabaah.iq/43296-. html https://mofa.gov.iq/baku/martyrs-of-the-ministry-of-foreign-affair/? paged=40 https://shafaq.com/ar/ريـاضة/عراقي-يحصد-ذهبية-بطولة-الباغوت-العالمية-في-تركيا https://uowasit.edu.iq/ar/ Kyrgyzstan: Kyrgyzstan joins this global conversation through its own online platform https://ru.kyrgyztoday.org/archives/340584 Kazakhstan: Kazakhstan echoes the enthusiasm, with its sports portals filled with Alpagut content https://www.sportinfo.kz/news/show/name/sportsmeny_iz_aktau_zavoevali_pervye_mesta_na_chempionate_mira_po_alpagut_162426.html https://www.sports.kz/news/sportsmenyi-iz-aktau-zavoevali-pervyie-mesta-na-chempionate-mira-po-alpagut Russia: Russia joins the chorus, sharing Alpagut's stories http://www.derbent.ru/press-tsentr/novosti/208706/ https://az.sputniknews.ru/20160118/403403152.html Azerbaijan: Azerbaijan, too, showcases Alpagut on various platforms, even governmental ones https://mys.gov.az/en/press/news/n/24435/the-astara-athlete-took-the-1st-position-in-the-v-championship-in-the-alpagut-martial-arts https://www.fhn.gov.az/index.php? eng/news/xeber/2021/11/24/41733/4/1 Jordan: Even Jordan, with its news portal pays homage to Alpagut. https://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.aspx? storyid=1096092497&title=Baku-to-host-World-Alpagut-Cup&src=RSS International Recognition: And there's no shortage of international recognition https://www.icsspe.org/content/new-member-world-alpagut-federation http://tafisa.org/supporter-members http://www.fairplayinternational.org/cifp-members-ordinary-members https://www.turksoy.org/en-US/news/2019-07-24-4th-festival-of-traditional-sports-of-the-turkic-world-in-bursa-kocayayla https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/959596-arwa-the-grappling-queen Turkey: https://raillynews.com/2022/07/ata-sporlarinda-renkli-bulusma/ https://www.raillynews.com/2021/11/Alpagut-Eurasian-Championship-will-be-held-in-Bursa/ https://www.trthaber.com/haber/spor/3-dunya-alpagut-sampiyonasi-bursada-basladi-728087.html https://www.trtspor.com.tr/haber/diger-sporlar/3-dunya-alpagut-sampiyonasi-bursada-yapilacak-203614.html https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/bilim-teknoloji/turkiyenin-yeni-akilli-dolanan-muhimmati-alpagut-tanitildi/ http://www.tdbb.org.tr/? p=19154&lang=en https://www.bursa.bel.tr/haber/alpagut-ruzgari-bursada-esti-32356 Turkey, with its several news outlets showcases Alpagut with pride. Alpagut is well known in the Arab countries, and looking at the Arab sources, the Federation cannot be considered a new creation, and it is obvious that this is not the case. Interesting, right? shafaq.com alsabaah.iq Behind this global recognition is the man who started it all, Farid Alizade, the founder and first president of the World Alpagut Federation. His vision and leadership have undeniably put Alpagut on the map. It's time we recognize him as a 'Wikipedic' person - an individual who has made a meaningful impact worthy of widespread acknowledgment. He is now Executive Member of the Board of World Alpagut Federation and continuously supporting Alpagut. I spent approximately one hour researching this information on the internet, focusing primarily on resources in the English language. I'm aware that there is an abundance of news in the native languages of various countries which I haven't tapped into all. I am confident that a more thorough investigation would reveal even more about Alpagut. I trust in the fairness of Wikipedia's administrators, and I believe they will take note of this information and will decide to this page. These information that I just searched on the internet for 1 hours. I believe you will find much more about Alpagut. -- ETIBAR MEMMEDOV TT me 16:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not ultimately my decision, I'm just one opinion. But if you want the article kept, my advice would be to find just three really good sources that are not interviews, press-releases or publicity pieces produced by the organisations associated with Alizade or Alpagut. Just three truly independent articles would be enough. I don't doubt that Alpagut's story is being told with fervour, but fervour isn't helpful: The story has to have been told by someone who isn't closely involved in Alpagut or one of its events. Elemimele ( talk ) 18:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's fascinating that you are asking for sources from third parties who are not affiliated with Alpagut. Are you proficient in Azerbaijani, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Russian, Arabic, Urdu, Hindi, Italian and a few other languages? Because the information I found within an hour includes instances of Alpagut being covered by third parties that have no affiliation with Alpagut. For instance, Etno Sport, which is unaffiliated with Alpagut, has covered it. There are more among the sources I shared, and they outnumber the three you asked for. Have you noticed them? Moreover, it is essential to note that the sports community is a niche community. You can't expect to find a person or a party unaffiliated and unknowledgeable about the sport to discuss or write about it. It is not a perfume, fashion, or a car where everyone can express an opinion when asked. Only those involved in the community and understand the sport can provide the most informed coverage. ETIBAR MEMMEDOV TT me 05:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think there are several misunderstandings going on here. Firstly, this is an article about a person, not the sport, so we shouldn't digress too far into the notability of the martial art itself. In many ways it would have been better to start with an article on the martial art rather than on its founder. But we are where we are. Secondly, sources are relevant for two different purposes: to back up facts, and to demonstrate notability. It is fine to use sources intimately connected with a subject to back up facts (with the proviso that we do not expect them to be as reliable; for example, an actress may choose to knock a few years off her age when interviewed). But we need unconnected sources to demonstrate notability. The big question for Farid Alizade is this: is he a big fish in a pond of which few outside the pond has heard? If so, by all means promote the pond, but do that somewhere outside Wikipedia, and come back to Wikipedia when the pond is notable. There is nothing wrong with niche communities, but Wikipedia's interest in them fades the smaller the niche becomes. You've produced a very long list of interviews and publicity pieces issued by organisations who work with him. What I was looking for was, for example, a national newspaper that chose to write about him without any prompting from him, his publicist, or an organisation for which he works, or which is sponsoring him in some way. At this point, I am going to bow out because I think I'm verging on WP:BLUDGEON , but I would advise you also to be aware of not only that page, but also WP:COI . If you are closely associated with the subject of the article, you should declare it, and if you work for him or one of his organisations, you definitely need to declare it. I'm going to drop out now, we really need more diverse input. Elemimele ( talk ) 12:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC) SOCKSTRIKE . Regarding the sock's allegations of sockpuppetry (heh), at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elshadiman I did not see an actionable case that 90AA123 is a sock of Elshad. However, @ 90AA123 , please stop bludgeoning . You've said your piece. Let others say theirs. -- Tamzin [ cetacean needed ] (she|they|xe) 02:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. this user is a sockpuppet of Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) . He has personal connection with the discussed person (Farid Alizade). See his instagram post ( archive ) Also, he has created Elkhan Bashirov article which was edited by Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) on Azwiki. Also, his discussion style is the exact copy of his. He e-mails or personally contacts people to vote in his AfD/AfU pages, as you can see on this page. Necessary steps should be taken. Could you evaluate this further? Please, help to take global block measurements. I'm writing with this user profile for security issues and I apologize for that. Thanks in advance! @ Ponyo , RoySmith , Sir Sputnik , Vanjagenije , and Oshwa : sorry for the tag -- Vikiistifadəçi ( talk ) 10:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC) UNCIVIL procedure. If you truly think that (and have enough evidence to support it), take it to WP:SPI . Cheers, atque supra ! Fake scientist 8000 10:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Fakescientist8000 thank you, but I guess, this is far from being suspicious. I provided this information to others attention as he canvasses the discussion. If not taken, I will apply for the SPI as well. Vikiistifadəçi ( talk ) 10:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I request you to investigate this matter and serious allegation. ETIBAR MEMMEDOV TT me 11:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC) GNG . Currently, the English-language Wikipedia boasts over 6 million articles. Among them, there are entries on individuals who have won merely a single silver medal in sports, with their fame often limited to their home countries. Shouldn't the founder of an international organization be given equal consideration, especially when the organization and its activities are detailed in multiple sources? Take a moment to research it, and you'll discover that every international competition they organize witnesses participation from over 20 countries, with dozens of silver medals being awarded. Hypothetically speaking, if this page is d at a time when a rapidly growing organization is being actively managed by a dedicated board of directors, how likely is it that someone will recreate this article in 1, 3, or 5 years? Moreover, should a page for the World Alpagut Federation be created, Farid Alizade's name is bound to appear as one of its founders and as the 1st President of the Federation. After all, he made history in 2014 as the first Azerbaijani to preside over a World Federation when he founded the WAF. My recent research reveals that the current president of this federation is Jala Ahmedova, a member of the Parliament of Azerbaijan, and the first vice president is Konul Nurullayeva , another member of the Parliament of Azerbaijan. Both are renowned in the sports world. While Konul has her own English-language Wikipedia page, Azerbaijani contributors are cautious about adding her Alpagut role to her English-language Wikipedia page, out of concern for potential backlash and the scrutiny of overly active users. So, how else are we, the Azerbaijanis, to expand on English-language Wikipedia entries about our notable figures, if not through foreign initiative? I place my trust in the fairness of Wikipedia's administrators. I anticipate that the Supreme Administrative Council will exercise a just influence on this process and its outcome. The case is simple: Sources have been provided above that establish significant coverage. Thus, it fulfills the WP:GNG ULPS criteria. Furthermore, we are dealing with a subject matter that is a recognized sport, one that has garnered significant coverage in WP:RS . It's worth noting that it's a member of the International Council of Sport Science and Physical Education , https://www.icsspe.org/content/new-member-world-alpagut-federation a globally significant organization. Hence, the premise of this AfD, in my opinion, is fundamentally flawed. "" ETIBAR MEMMEDOV TT me 06:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm unsure about the reliability of most of the sources, they do appear impressive, but I'm not sure if they're RS or not. If someone could do a source analysis, it would be helpful; otherwise I'm still a ! . Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your comment. I sense you may still harbor some doubts. Concurrently, I, too, would appreciate third-party verification of these sources. Your comment suggests that a favorable review of this topic by an impartial third party could potentially sway your opinion from a 'Weak ' to a . That would certainly bring us much gratification. The following sources are fully compliant with WP:RS . They are reliable and bear no affiliation with Farid Alizade, with Wikipedia pages having been created about them in English. If these sources were not trustworthy, their own Wikipedia pages would equally be under scrutiny. I could augment this list of 25 international sources, but at this juncture, I believe these to be ample: 1. Anadolu Agency (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anadolu_Agency , News: https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/spor/dunya-alpagut-sampiyonasinda-12-madalya-alan-sporcular-yeni-hedeflere-odaklandi/2763314 ) 2. TRT News and TRT Sports (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Radio_and_Television_Corporation , News 1: https://www.trthaber.com/haber/spor/3-dunya-alpagut-sampiyonasi-bursada-basladi-728087.html , News 2: https://www.trtspor.com.tr/haber/diger-sporlar/3-dunya-alpagut-sampiyonasi-bursada-yapilacak-203614.html , News 3: https://www.trthaber.com/haber/spor/dunya-alpagut-sampiyonasinda-12-madalya-alan-sporcular-yeni-hedeflere-odaklandi-730769.html ) 3. CNN Turk (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_Türk , News: https://www.cnnturk.com/yerel-haberler/bursa/merkez/alpagut-sporu-19-mayis-icin-dunya-genclerini-klipte-bulusturdu-1523957 ) 4. Azerbaijan State News Agency (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan_State_News_Agency , News: https://azertag.az/xeber/Azerbaycanda_I_Beynelxalq_Turan_Oyunlari_kechirilecek-1361695 ) 5. HaberTürk (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habert%C3%BCrk , News: https://www.haberturk.com/bursa-haberleri/29633502-3-dunya-alpagut-sampiyonasi-bursada-basladi ) 6. IHA - İhlas News Agency (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%B0hlas_News_Agency , News: https://www.iha.com.tr/bursa-haberleri/ata-sporlarinda-renkli-bulusma-3823287/ ) 7. TURKPA - Parliamentary Assembly of Turkic States (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TURKPA , News: https://www.turk-pa.org/person/4-nizami-jafarov ) 8. Musavat (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musavat , News: https://musavat.com/news/azerbaycanli-deputat-federasiya-prezidenti-oldu_254257.html ) 9. Daily Times (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Times_%28Pakistan%29 , News: https://dailytimes.com.pk/508797/pakistans-woman-athlete-wins-two-golds-at-world-alpagut-championship/ ) 10. Business Recorder (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Recorder , News: https://www.brecorder.com/news/548289 ) 11. DHA - Demirören News Agency (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demir%C3%B6ren_News_Agency , News: https://www.dha.com.tr/gundem/bilal-erdogan-turk-dunyasi-ata-sporlari-senligine-katildi-2104540 ) 12. Today.az and Day.az (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day.az , News: http://www.today.az/news/sports/166824.html ) 13. Republic of Turkey, Bursa City Municipality (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bursa , News: https://www.bursa.bel.tr/haber/alpagut-ruzgari-bursada-esti-32356 ) 14. The News International (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_News_International , News: https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/959596-arwa-the-grappling-queen ) 15. Italian Kurash Federation (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurash , News: http://www.kurashitalia.com/alpagut/ ) 16. Milliyet Newspaper (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milliyet , News: https://www.milliyet.com.tr/yerel-haberler/bursa/merkez/dunya-alpagut-sampiyonasi-2021e-ertelendi-6286420 ) 17. Sputnik News Agency (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_%28news_agency , News: https://az.sputniknews.ru/20160118/403403152.html ) 18. Hürriyet Newspaper (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hürriyet , News 1: https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/yerel-haberler/bursa/merkez/dunya-alpagut-sampiyonasi-2021e-ertelendi-41591760 , News 2: https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/amp/yerel-haberler/bursa/merkez/bursa-3ncu-dunya-alpagut-sampiyonasina-ev-sa-41451754 ) 19. ISSCPE - International Council of Sport Science and Physical Education ( https://en.m. wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Council_of_Sport_Science_and_Physical_Education , News: https://www.icsspe.org/content/new-member-world-alpagut-federation ) 20. International Fair Play Committee (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fair_Play_Committee , International Sports Federation Members: http://www.fairplayinternational.org/cifp-members-ordinary-members ) 21. TAFISA - Trim and Fitness International Sport for All Association (Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trim_and_Fitness_International_Sport_for_All_Association , Supporter Members/Europe: http://tafisa.org/supporter-members ) 22. TURKSOY -​ International Organization of Turkic Culture (Wikipedia: https://en.m. wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_of_Turkic_Culture , News: https://www.turksoy.org/en-US/news/2019-07-24-4th-festival-of-traditional-sports-of-the-turkic-world-in-bursa-kocayayla ) 23. University of Wasit (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Wasit , News: https://uowasit.edu.iq/ar/تدريسي-بجامعة-واسط-يحصل-على-المركز-الا/ ) 24. Al Sabaah Newspaper (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Sabaah News: https://alsabaah.iq/43296-. html ) 25. Trend News Agency (Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trend_News_Agency , News: https://az.trend.az/azerbaijan/sports/2731206.html ) Given the lack of consensus in the votes for deletion, it appears there's some hesitancy. It's as if the primary criterion has been overlooked. I wanted to reiterate my stance to prevent the topic from veering too far off course. Notability is presumed for individuals who have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source isn't substantial, multiple independent sources may be used in tandem to demonstrate notability. I'm reaching out to esteemed Wikipedia contributors, specifically @ OwenBlacker , due to the need for third-party input to affirm the validity and significance of the sources and RS. ETIBAR MEMMEDOV TT me 12:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think I have any particular expertise here, but they do certainly appear to be acceptable sources. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk ; please {{ ping }} me in replies) 14:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC) 53 above — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk ; please {{ ping }} me in replies) 14:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This discussion has turned into something of a morass, between back and forth sock allegations (and actual socking), and discussion of tangentially related matters. The question is about source material covering Alizade. Not sources about Aipagut, not sources about organizations he founded, but specifically about him. If discussion can stay focused to that, it would become much clearer what we need to do here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC) agreeing with the nominator, most of the coverage is either non-independent or passing mentions, the sources don't establish the person's notability. - K evo 3 2 7 ( talk ) 08:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Not seeing a good reason to . I'm Notified of this discussion at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Azerbaijan. There is relevant content. In any case, I think per OwenBlacker . I cannot find a single reason at WP:RFD#DELETE which might apply here. Regarding the claim these pages are all no longer linked to from anywhere , this is demonstrably untrue - every single one of them has inward links. -- Sabin. K. M ( talk ) 12:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong The crux of this discussion hinges on the reliability and relevance of the provided sources. While the links mentioned above are very strong, my research led me to discover several equally sufficient, albeit not top-tier, links that had not yet been introduced in the discussion. Here are a few: 1(one) , 2(two) , 3(three) , 4(four) , 5(five) . These further validate the possibility of locating ample sources about F. Alizade. In my assessment, this individual has enough notability to warrant his own Wikipedia article. It is of significant importance to convey to the world the historical journey of the founder of Alpagut sport, which has gained a global presence. Plus, let's not forget that he is the founder of Turan Games. To demonstrate notability, both primary and secondary criteria can be used. -- Nuray95 ( talk ) 07:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong The subject at hand undoubtedly warrants attention , and additional references would strengthen its case. While it's true that the sources directly discussing the head of the federation are limited here, it doesn't mean they are non-existent. A thorough search might still uncover pertinent sources. The purpose of Wikipedia is to educate people on a wide array of topics, both major and minor. It's important to note, however, that this is not a voting process. AfD discussions, like any other discourse on Wikipedia, aim to reach a consensus based on interpretation of guidelines and evidence. In this context, the focus is on establishing whether the article meets Wikipedia's standards. Everyone is, of course, free to express their opinions. But the goal here is to facilitate a discussion that ultimately leads to a rough consensus. In light of this, I stand by my previous comment, asserting that the article is encyclopedic in nature and deserves to be kept updated. There is little value in revisiting the discussion repeatedly without new grounds for argument. Dear colleague @ Phil Bridger , if I have missed anything in my thoughts, I invite you as an active user to make your additions, please take a look to create objectivity. - Samral ( talk ) 07:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – the sources presented here and in the article do not satisfy our basic criteria for biographies . There are several mentions in passing, but no in-depth coverage, certainly not from multiple reliable independent sources. – brad v 00:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please note that failing to meet these criteria doesn't necessarily result in the deletion of the article. These are merely guidelines that some editors in mind when deciding whether to retain an article, along with relevant policies and instructions like Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In other words, these rules have been written by Wikipedians. At the same time, an objective approach should be taken towards this issue. For instance, there is no e.g. PR (promo) in the text of the article itself. Secondary sources reveal the significance of the individual, and there are other independent sources related to this, per the Additional criteria . While Wikipedia aims to feature humanity's most notable individuals as extensively as possible, it is not interested in including just anyone, for more detailed information see: WP:NOT . What I want to point out is that Wikipedians in general have written guidelines for whether this or any other article can stay on Wikipedia, but they aren't specific, and this is their advantage. For example, you and I don't exactly know what a ""notable individual"" is, or we don't have clear standards for it. Before making this remark, I took note of several individuals associated with martial arts. While they may not be widely recognized by the public, they are nonetheless represented on English Wikipedia: Eddie Bravo — founder of the 10th Planet Jiu Jitsu school in LA , Edward Barton-Wright — founder and practitioner of Suffrajitsu , Adriano Directo Emperado — one of the five martial artists who developed the Kajukenbo self-defense system, Huo Yuanjia — founder of the Chin Woo Athletic Association , Ng Mui — female founder of Southern martial arts , Shūsaku Narimasa Chiba — founder of the Hokushin Ittō-ryū Hyōhō . There could potentially be hundreds of such names, many of which might even be mythical. It's crucial to consider that if an individual who established a school in a city merits an English Wikipedia page, then it is logically consistent for the founder of a burgeoning world federation to also have a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.191.59.132 ( talk ) 13:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] last reply I kindly request that when finalizing the discussion and accepting the consensus for the benefit of the page, please do not overlook the last presented arguments. I saw the announcement for a documentary named "" ALPAGUT "" on the widely watched Turkic-language channel TRT Belgesel . It's set to air on 25 June 22:00 UTC+3 . It's noted in the news that Farid Alizade has given an interview for this documentary. This can serve as a source here. For those who are interested in learning more about Alizade, I am sharing links in three different languages in English , на Русском , Azərbaycan Türkcəsində I am inviting my colleagues whom I trust and hope will not remain indifferent to this, @ Beshogur , @ Xaneqînî , @ Moguy . Thanks in advance. -- ETIBAR MEMMEDOV TT me 20:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you Etibar. I support ing this page. I think he is significant enough to have a wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moguy ( talk • contribs ) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nick Dean (singer): CNMall41 ( talk ) 00:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . CNMall41 ( talk ) 00:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is all I could find [57] and it's barely a mention, unsure if it's even the same person. Sources used in the article are not RS. for lack of notability, no sources. Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC) SINGER . APK whisper in my ear 03:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Indrit Sejko: Furthermore, I can't find any information about him after his debut; he seems to have disappeared. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC as things stand. No objection to this being restored should WP:SIGCOV occur later in his career as he is still only 18. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Albania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong – Article obviously fails GNG with only database source listed. Corresponding article on Albanian Wikipedia is also an unsourced stub, no major edits since its last revision in 2022. I also don't see any evidence he'll become notable or gain recognization in a few years. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Nothing notable. Athel cb ( talk ) 15:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC) I can't find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV . JTtheOG ( talk ) 02:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Android games: This page is clearly not feasible in this format and is misleading, with so many missing games. It is impossible to list every Android game here. Why some android games are listed, but nòt the other ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan York ( talk • contribs ) and transcluded to the log at 22:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC) Repeat after me: AfD is not cleanup . This meets WP: NLIST . Here are seven sources from reputable journalists that demonstrate the subject's notability: 1 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 . They discuss subjects ranging from optimizing gaming performance on Android phones to the Google Play Pass to Android games that can be played offline. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 01:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Listing hundreds of thousands of Android games in this format is simply not possible, and therefore it is misleading. Additionally, Category:Android (operating system) games list already exist and provides a structured way to list such games, which is how listings should be done for comprehensive lists like these. Specialized databases and resources like the Google Play Store offer extensive, up-to-date lists, making this Wikipedia page redundant and difficult to maintain. Additionally, many of the games listed here lack a source, which alone demonstrates how flawed this list is. Ryan York ( talk ) 04:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, none of that's true. This doesn't make sense. Listing hundreds of thousands of Android games in this format is simply not possible, and therefore it is misleading. How is it misleading? There is a statement at the top of this list that states: This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources. That makes it very clear that this list doesn't need to be hundreds of thousands of games long. WP: NLIST , which I'm hoping you've read by now, also says that ""editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles"". That would also make the article much easier to manage. Category:Android (operating system) games list [sic] already exist [sic] and ... is how listings should be done for comprehensive lists like these. That's not a valid reason for deletion: ""arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided."" Please read WP: NOTDUP . Additionally, many of the games listed here lack a source, which alone demonstrates how flawed this list is. Repeat after me: AfD is not cleanup . This is the wrong venue for these concerns, no matter how many times you insist that this list is ""flawed"". You need to write this on the Talk page of the article, per WP: ATD-E . HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 05:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You don't need to saying this. It isn't accurate. Having an implausible scope is not, in fact, a cleanup issue. Sergecross73 msg me 10:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Evidently I do, because this is a cleanup issue. I don't think the scope is implausible, and even if it is, this just means that the list should be split into sublists that are manageable (e.g. by genre or name). HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 15:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not a good sign when you saying the same thing over and over again and deletion stances continue rolling in concurrently. I'd recommend some introspection on what's really going on here, and caution you not to WP:BLUDGEON the conversation. Sergecross73 msg me 16:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC) NLIST . I don't think the current arguments for deletion will hold much weight. At best, most of the reasons here are really just reasons to split the list. I see this going one of two ways: either the list's size can be managed by limiting it to notable games, at which point the article should be kept, or it's too big, at which point we should just split the list by genre or name. Split lists like Lists of murders (edit: and policies like WP: SALAT ) show that splitting massive, difficult-to-complete lists is possible, contrary to what has been asserted in this discussion. Also, there is a difference between civil disagreement and bludgeoning -- accusing good-faith editors of violating WP: BLUDGEON isn't funny. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 02:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I see it going one way - deletion - because a scope of half a million titles (and rapidly increasing every day) isn't manageable. Perhaps with more editing experience you'll understand what people are trying to tell you. Perhaps you have to ""live it"" to understand. And bludgeoning can happen even in good faith. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, thanks. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 02:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC) NLIST ? HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 05:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The manageability of the list, the proposal to limit entries to notable games or create sublists is not a sufficient solution. Even with these measures, the list remains unwieldy and prone to becoming outdated quickly. The effort required to continuously vet and update the list for notability and accuracy is disproportionate to the benefits it provides. The argument that deletion discussions are not the venue for cleanup concerns overlooks the fundamental issue of the list’s feasibility. Cleanup is indeed necessary, but the extent of the problems with this list—scope, manageability, and sourcing—indicates that deletion is a more appropriate response. The energy and resources required for ongoing maintenance are better directed towards creating high-quality. Redundancy with existing categories, unmanageable nature, lack of reliable sourcing, and the disproportionate effort required for maintenance. Deletion will streamline Wikipedia’s content and ensure resources are used more effectively to maintain the quality and reliability of the information provided. The scope is simply too broad. There is a reason why there is no ""List of Windows games"" or ""List of Android apps"" on this website. Let me give you another example: I personally log into Wikipedia every day to update lists of Microsoft games and triple-A and double-A console games. Even that can be quite impossible. Ryan York ( talk ) 16:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC) NLIST . HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 02:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You either don't want to understand, or you are trolling. Listing 100,000–500,000 games on this format is not possible. If you want to create multiple Wikipedia articles listing Android games by their year or maybe genre, you are welcome to do so. As of now, this list does not even include 1% of Android games, and it is misleading. It is so broad and not up to date that it is simply impossible to list even 1% of the games here. I recommend you check out the List of Europeans discussion. Ryan York ( talk ) 03:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Cut the attitude and answer my question. This is not an invitation to grandstand about your edits on articles that have nothing to do with this AfD, to show that you know how many Android games exist, or to call someone a troll just because they disagree with you. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 02:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, I know there are hundreds of thousands of Android games out there. It's impossible to list them all here, so we'll have to this article. Thanks and goodbye Ryan York ( talk ) 21:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that this list should be d. Attempting to compile a comprehensive list of millions of Android games on Wikipedia is impractical and misleading. Maintaining such a list on Wikipedia would be burdensome and redundant, given the constantly expanding nature of mobile gaming. Deleting this page would uphold Wikipedia's standards for accuracy and relevance, focusing on curated content rather than exhaustive lists. Wariorio10 ( talk ) 04:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not a valid reason for deleting an article. Please read WP: NLIST and WP: NOTDUP . HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 05:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've reviewed it already. This list should be d due to its massive scope. It's not feasible to list half a million games in this format with sources. The largest list in Wikipedia's history, ' List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements ,' pales in comparison to the claims made by this list. Wariorio10 ( talk ) 17:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC) OLIST . This is equally as over-extensive as the now-d List of Europeans . There are too many potential entries for it to possibly make sense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC) OLIST is not a guideline for deleting articles (it's an essay), and a list of 240 games does not come close to being ""over-extensive"". HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 06:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The 240 present is not the issue, it's the approximately half million games missing that is the problem here. (This isn't even hyperbole or exaggeration - it comes from a sourced statement to this effect in the article currently.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC) INDISCRIMINATE which is the actual relevant policy here. Saying it is ""just an essay"" while ignoring the policy behind it doesn't help. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC) INDISCRIMINATE tells us to refer to WP: NLIST , which is the actual policy we should be talking about. It is just an essay, and the policies that are behind it firmly tell us that this article should be kept. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 15:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC) INDISCRIMINATE . The scope is too wide, it'll be impossible to both list and reliably source the subject in a comprehensive manner. Sergecross73 msg me 10:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Most mobile games are published on iOS and other platforms as well, I don't see a point of a list calling these ""Android games"". List of iOS games and probably others should be d too because very few of them are specifically ""iOS games"". Agree that this is impractical and misleading, even if considering only notable games and not the ""half million"" missing. Reywas92 Talk 13:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC) INDISCRIMINATE . Too much for such lists. Do we need every game of the Angry Birds franchise? And what about games that pre-existed Android? SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 20:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Are there any exclusive games for Android? If the games are ported everywhere, no reason to have them on this list. D r e a m Focus 23:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"MATA bus fleet: The vast majority of information here is uncited, and several of the citations are self-published sources. A substantially condensed and properly cited list of current fleet would be appropriate at Memphis Area Transit Authority , but Wikipedia is not a database of unsourced trivia about all-time fleets. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 21:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation , Lists , and Tennessee . Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 21:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with merging the condensed current fleet with the main page. But how do you recommend properly citing fleet information when it is not published by the transit agency? ElToAn123 ( talk ) 22:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fleet lists are generally in the realm of WP:FANCRUFT and very few would ever have enough reliable independent (non self-published) coverage to be considered notable. This one is no exception. Ajf773 ( talk ) 08:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Fails NLIST, doesn't serve a purpose under WP:CLN. No objection to a consensus , but do not think it helpful. // Timothy :: talk 14:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] by NLIST or NOTDB. Less detailed tables would have worked with a detailed article on the MATA bus operations. gidonb ( talk ) 05:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Louise Camrass: - Rich T | C | E-Mail 18:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The page would need rework. Other sources on her individual work include: Museum of Motherhood article [16] https://disabilityarts.online/events/free-space-project-present-you-me-and-the-sky-by-louise-camrass-london/ Some awards/nominations/collective screenings/associated acts are mentioned by various sources, not all independent. So... to List of alumni of Central Saint Martins ? - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC) BEFORE brings up only a reliable source for birth year and education. Most of the other citations are passing mentions of being included in film screenings or exhibitions. The Motherhood Museum link (above) is an illustration credit for an article and the other link to Kentish Town Health Centre is a press release for an exhibition. I do not see any in-depth coverage and she fails WP:NARTIST - no notable exhibitions or collections. I moved the passing mentions off the main space and into the talk. Embedded links that can't be properly included in the article. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 22:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Surinder Sandhu: Much of the information in the article is asserting notability-by-association. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so I really hope we can now establish it one way or the other. Boleyn ( talk ) 20:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nominator. I cannot find WP:GNG material for this person, and reviewing WP:NMUSIC - even presuming there was WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT for the claims in the article - they wouldn't satisfy the relevant SNG. — Sirdog ( talk ) 04:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Heritage Academy High school: Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG with flying colours. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , India , and West Bengal . DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC) Searched for sources with in-depth coverage to establish notability but did not find any. I agree with the nominator; it fails WP:GNG . Grab Up - Talk 16:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL . RangersRus ( talk ) 14:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC) No reliable sources to establish notability. Pinakpani ( talk ) 07:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bhogalingeswara swamy temple: — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c ) 18:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Clearly non-notable; the only source that exists is not in English, which is treated as if there are no sources to begin with. HarukaAmaranth ( 話 ) 17:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Cinderford rusty pole: Skyerise ( talk ) 15:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is not a dustbin for ephemeral trivia. TheLongTone ( talk ) 15:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON? The BBC and local Gloucester Live are the only coverages there are. I guess we could have drafted it until later to see if any other coverage happens, but I'm not seeing notability at this point. The article doesn't describe what the pole is, why it's rusty or just about anything else. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Articles like this infuriate me; Wikipedia isn't an archive for every social media blip that ever existed. Wholly non-notable. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC) As stated before, the article is hardly noteworthy ""Flux55"" ( talk ) 15:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC) as per others and nom. Salt because it seems like it may be recreated (see Sirfurboy's response also). – Pharyngeal Implosive7 (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism , Geography , and England . Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON . Should the Cinderford rusty pole stand the test of time and be discussed in reliable sources for an extended period of time, then this article should be restored, but at the moment, this article appears to be created too soon for something that may prove to be a brief fad. -- Panian513 19:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not voting but someone removed the AFD on the article. I fixed it :) Toketaa talk 19:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I started a sockpuppet investigation . Seems like there are multiple accounts involved here. – Pharyngeal Implosive7 (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [25] there may be a case for salting. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 19:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Definitely not worthy of a standalone article. Probably not even worth including at Cinderford . – Skywatcher68 ( talk ) 19:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that both users who were deleting the deletion templates got blocked [26] [27] . – Pharyngeal Implosive7 (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The SPI also found that the accounts deleting the deletion templates and the one that created the article are all socks. – Pharyngeal Implosive7 (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This ridiculously trivial and uninformative ""article"" is the product of a group of sockpuppets that has violated multiple policies. Cullen328 ( talk ) 19:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . No evidence that the pole is notable . It's the subject of an ephemeral internet joke, is all. Maproom ( talk ) 19:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC) NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM . Wikipedia does not exist to document every passing meme as soon as it is released into the wild without any evidence of lasting notability. -- Kinu t / c 20:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is actually the only time I don't mentally wrestle with myself on what to suggest. This is clearly not notable. Nor is it news. The user who created the article was blocked for sockpupeteering. Avishai11 ( talk ) 21:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per rs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 22:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and salt per all of the above - especially how a sockpuppeteer made the joke article. - The Master of Hedgehogs (always up for a conversation!) 22:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . It's reported that a similar pipe in Shifnal was Grade II listed in 2023 [28] . Here's the listing [29] . Coverage of the Cinderford Rusty Pole is at present based mainly on comments off social media. There's not much background content on the pole itself and I've not come across serious indepth reviews in reliable sources. It needs more WP:SUSTAINED and detailed coverage to prevent being caught by the provisions of WP:NOTNEWS as a fad. Rupples ( talk ) 21:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC) LASTING coverage it may well become notable. But it's clearly not notable yet. SportingFlyer T · C 10:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that a draft article does exist, and it was created by sockpuppets. As Sirfurboy noted, another sock may simply resubmit that article after this one gets d. – Pharyngeal Implosive7 (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - No evidence of lasting notability. – dlthewave ☎ 16:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , salt . We don't need articles like this. This is exactly the sort we need to concentrate on removing. Given the threat to recreate, we should salt as well. Jacona ( talk ) 17:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Raspcontrol: Little referencing, and orphaned for a decade. Pepper Beast (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . Pepper Beast (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC) Links in Gsearch are straight to eLinux or github, so nothing discussing this software in RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Like Oaktree, couldn't find any RS coverage. DFlhb ( talk ) 19:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nothing in News, NYT , and a whole bunch of SPS that don't give information about Raspcontrol. Tarantula TM ( speak with me ) ( my legacy ) 05:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of people from Ladera Heights: I could just as easily move the references there. TWOrantula TM ( enter the web ) 22:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC) No need for a standalone list for a dozen people. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 23:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC) Unnecessary article for content copied from the Ladera Heights one. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . C-List celebrities do not need their own list , which is becoming a fork . Bearian ( talk ) 15:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC) insufficient content for a standalone. She was a fairy 02:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Gabriel Mendoza Gagnier: No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Regarding GNG, none of the references really even cover him much less be of GNG scope. Regarding SNG, it basically covers routine participation in three areas. North8000 ( talk ) 13:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Sportspeople , Animal , Medicine , Horse racing , and Mexico . Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Personally created stuff, Instagram accounts, and irrelevant articles are all that can be enlisted to support a non-existent notability. Dare we spell ""promotion"" ? And the fact that the text has been created by a kamikaze account , the same one who provided the portrait, does not help. - The Gnome ( talk ) 20:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sanjay Raval: Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCER. -- Gazal world ( talk ) 06:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC) Gazal world ( talk ) 06:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Non-notable. MisterWizzy ( talk ) 06:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Give chance to edit becauseit is partially notable. Tablasingh ( talk ) 06:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Gujarat . Kpg jhp jm 07:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC) GNG. Freinland ( talk ) 07:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] not notable right now . fails in WP:GNG Worldiswide ( talk ) 04:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of",delete
+"Kimon Argyropoulo: The only claim to notability appears to be his position as ambassador. It is possible references exist in languages I don't read. JMWt ( talk ) 08:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions . JMWt ( talk ) 08:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Iran . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of kosher supermarkets: It claims to be a list of notable kosher supermarkets, but in actuality we do not have articles on three of the entries. Our own article on H-E-B does not contain the word ""kosher"" and it's inclusion here is apparently based on one specific store having an extensive kosher section . That leaves two entries if we are actually limiting the list to notable kosher grocers. I believe simply having a category, which already exists and is on the two valid entries, is sufficient without a list article with no real criteria for being listed. Just Step Sideways from this world .... . today 18:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Just Step Sideways from this world .... . today 18:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Judaism . Shellwood ( talk ) 18:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC) ADVERTISEMENTs bordering on WP:NOTADVERT . Conyo14 ( talk ) 18:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . As I recently commented elsewhere, I have serious doubts as to whether the subject 'kosher supermarket' is even independently notable. Isn't it just the intersection of the set 'places selling kosher food' with an exceedingly-ill-defined 'supermarket' set? We appear to have built a list around a Venn diagram. Anyway, WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies, and anyone looking for say a local supplier of kosher goods would do vastly better to use Google. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 19:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ AndyTheGrump Kosher markets are core to many Jewish communities, particularly Orthodox communities that are strictly shomer kashrut . The presence of a kosher market is almost as important as the presence of a synagogue. It isn't just a meaningless Venn overlap. It is culturally and religiously significant. If there isn't a list, there should still be an article. A kosher supermarket isn't merely a ""place that sells kosher food""; you can find a kosher section in almost any major grocery store. Whereas a kosher supermarket certified by a local vaad , that is supervised by mashgichim , that closes from Friday evening to Saturday evening...is something quite specific and defining. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk ) 05:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nowhere in the list does it define 'kosher supermarket' in the terms that you describe. Properly sourced, an article on culturally and religiously significant, certified and supervised kosher-only stores would be absolutely appropriate (a list would be too long to be feasible, or useful), but that isn't the subject of this AfD. Instead, what we are discussing is a list of 'places that sell kosher food' that are described as (or call themselves) 'supermarkets'. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 12:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Absolutely a listcruft. Orientls ( talk ) 06:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment A kosher market is an important locus of Jewish communities, particularly Orthodox communities. I would argue that the kosher market is almost as important as the synagogue. At the very least, if not a list, there has to be an article on Kosher supermarkets . Bohemian Baltimore ( talk ) 04:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think this might be the wrong terminology altogether. It's a blurry line to be sure, but I suspect most such outlets are grocery stores as opposed to supermarkets as their main focus is the sale of kosher foods . Just Step Sideways from this world .... . today 19:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , it's listcruft , simple as that. - Samoht27 ( talk ) 20:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom, and create a category (if at all) instead, and/or an article per Bohemian Baltimore. (Side note: interesting that no Israeli supermarkets are on the list, maybe they've not heard of this kosher thing...?) -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 07:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Embassy of the United States, Malabo: — Biruitorul Talk 20:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Africa , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as content fork of bilateral relations article. All relevant text here was already d into that article during the previous AfD. Dan • ✉ 22:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] content fork of bilateral relations article. Created during a spree of US embassy article creation. LibStar ( talk ) 09:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Walkies: For one, the rapper's name is not walkies, but walkie. Marsbar8 ( talk ) 20:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural close the disambiguation page can be combined for both singular and plural forms and the page in question is requested to be moved to ""walkie"", which if done would make the deletion rationale moot. Therefore this AfD is too soon, considering a different consensus seeking process is underway that could renamed said page to ""walkie"" or ""walkie (disambiguation)"". Also, this nomination is malformed and not nominated correctly, so should at least be closed until the name of said page is determined. The nominator can renominate later, after the move request is processed. -- 65.92.244.249 ( talk ) 04:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . ""Walkies"" appears to be a term for dog-walking, although I don't see any evidence of it in reliable secondary sources. The current disambiguation page serves no discernible purpose. 162 etc. ( talk ) 07:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Walkies"" does indeed refer to dog-walking in UK English; it's defined that way in OED2 with the first example being from 1939. Adam Sampson ( talk ) 10:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per ongoing RM at talk page. This is a valid dab as it disambiguates several topics with the name. – Uanfala ( talk ) 14:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This word is not mentioned in what it disambiguates. See WP:NOR . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm fine with deletion. The hat on Walkie-talkie would just be changed to dab to the rapper. SWinxy ( talk ) 20:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bent Burgess: Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 03:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Belize . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 03:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 07:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2025 Western Australian local elections: My rationale last time was ""There have been no reforms to local government since then which might merit mentioning in this article. It is far too early for people to announce their candidacies."" This is still the case. This article was created far too soon. Steelkamp ( talk ) 05:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC) FUTUREEVENT Totallynotarandomalt69 ( talk ) 06:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Federal elections and state elections are vastly more important than local government elections. Besides, federal elections and state elections usually have something tangible to write about soon after the previous election. That is not the case with this article, where its basically saying what the date is, and repeating a bunch of stuff from the 2023 local government election article. Steelkamp ( talk ) 06:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But at what point would you want the page created? As I said we are only about a year-and-a-half out, we know the date and coverage will eventually pop up as well This page existing as it is with a bit of background info harms no-one Totallynotarandomalt69 ( talk ) 06:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] When coverage eventually pops up. Steelkamp ( talk ) 06:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC) OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in deletion discussions. Tar nis hed Path talk 10:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia . Shellwood ( talk ) 08:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC) this isn't ready for mainspace. All sources in the article bar one are primary sources and the one source that isn't primary (The Mandarin) doesn't mention when the election is and is about changes being made ahead of elections which occurred in October 2023. None of the other material is covered in an article which I would expect of the name ""2025 Western Australian local elections"". In short this is lacking in coverage in secondary sources. However this will happen in over a year, so best to push to draft for the time being where it can be worked on until it is ready for mainspace. Tar nis hed Path talk 10:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC) 00, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is standard practice for the next election to have a page created after the prior one is completed, even if there haven't been many significant developments. Additional coverage will follow soon enough. Goodebening ( talk ) 05:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC) the sparseness of the article ia good indicator that it is much to early to have this in mainspace. Similar discussion of premature election coverage have appeared at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candidates of the next Australian federal election (2nd nomination) and the 1st nomination. Teraplane ( talk ) 08:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I'm not convinced that these articles (including the 2023 article) meet the WP:GNG . Local council elections in WA remain largely discrete events and there is very little coverage of them as a ""set of elections"" – which is to be expected when councils are almost uniformly nonpartisan and the majority of them have residents numbering in the hundreds. Only a handful of candidates would be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages. The article on the 2023 elections relies on primary sources for election results and then a scattering of ""controversy"" articles on individual candidates; I can't see the 2025 article progressing beyond this because there just isn't the coverage to expand it. ITBF ( talk ) 07:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC) 49, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I can't help but notice that most editors arguing to are low edit or new accounts. Not sure how to factor that into a closure but I'd like to see more participation from regular AFD participants. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC) 41, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think it should be a regardless the number of votes because the rational is extremely weak. Tar nis hed Path talk 00:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Hasan Abdulwahab Al-Qadhi: Shellwood ( talk ) 09:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC) GNG as stated above, no sources in Arabic either. Tails Wx 15:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. Fails WP:GNG . - The Gnome ( talk ) 14:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Mexican supercentenarians: Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 01:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Mexico . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 01:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC) If you (or anyone) had access to sources for this, it would fit in well with the others on Category:Supercentenarians by nationality . @ Significa liberdade : not everybody on the other lists has their own article, but it would be helpful if at least few on this one did. — Maile ( talk ) 01:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC) @ Maile66 : Perhaps not everyone will justify the creation of an article, but everyone on the list requires a citation of a reliable source to support their inclusion. At this time, this list has none . General Ization Talk 00:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy This topic is not terribly notable and as stated above, nobody on the list is important enough to have their own article. The article is not supported by any reliable sources. 76.117.162.190 ( talk ) 23:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . All the people do not have BLP articles, fails WP:GNG and can be d to List of supercentenarians . I don't see said list being beneficial in the future. -- Wesoree ( talk · contribs ) 17:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC) The claim none have articles is false: María Capovilla , Emiliano Mercado del Toro , and Juan Vicente Pérez are in English whilst Francisca Celsa dos Santos and Inah Canabarro Lucas have sourced articles in Spanish. As such, sources are readily available; others can be found to include those without articles [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] . XxTechnicianxX ( talk ) 21:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as this deletion is also contested here. How does this list meet, or doesn't meet, WP:NLIST guidelines? Also, please do not move articles to a different page title in the midst of an AFD discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails as a navigational list because the only blue-linked entries are people notable only for their age, and there are only a very few of them. It is likely that readers looking for these people are interested in supercentenarians in general; such readers would be better served by an article listing supercentenarians in general. In fact we have a list at List of supercentenarians but we've chosen to stick to people notable for other reasons besides age. And navigational lists have to navigate to articles, which isn't likely to be possible for people who haven't done wiki-notable things beyond living long lives. Fails as a stand-alone list because although the press from time to time likes to write articles about people surviving to great age, implying that supercentenarians might be a an independently-notable set, (1) these articles aren't focussed on Mexico (except in Mexico), so again a global list would make more sense than a Mexican list; (2) they are often borderline, rather trivial interest articles analogous to those on particularly tall actresses, or worst seaside towns. (3) the press tends to write about old people rather than specifically supercentenarians. Elemimele ( talk ) 07:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC) After reversion to the proper content, Mexican supercentenarians alone are not notable. The creator is also blatantly attempting to circumvent procedure. XxTechnicianxX ( talk ) 00:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Anani Mohamed: Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Caribbean , South America , and California . JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"World TradeX: ACCEPTING FULL REGISTRATION FALL 2022 PRE REGISTRATION IS OPEN NOW FOR APP FIRST ACCESS Click on the icon below"" and doesn't have any further information doesn't really give much confidence either. Fram ( talk ) 10:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Economics , Websites , and United States of America . Fram ( talk ) 10:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SEO spam sites and the like, nothing found for GNG. Appears PROMO for what it is. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , garbage sources removed - mostly press releases and SEO/PR sink sites. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Delaware . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - sought sourcing and came up slim. Deleted promo and weak sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justwatchmee ( talk • contribs ) 22:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ghanim Alsheikh: As mentioned in the previous AfD, the citation numbers here are not enough to satisfy C1 of WP:NPROF , and Dean of a College of Medicine (not the entire university!) does not correspond to a named chair as required by C5. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 20:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iraq . Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 20:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC) Not seeing notability, as discussed in the last AfD, does not seem to pass criteria for academics. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine , Egypt , and Yemen . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC) Star_Mississippi#What_happened_at_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ghanim_Alsheikh? . I apparently closed the first AfD in error and didn't notice it even on restoration. Oops. Since it's already here, no harm no foul but just to save anyone else the huh?! as I feel it too. Star Mississippi 00:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Citation record is light for WP:NPROF C1; GNG looks unlikely (and I don't find sources). Dean of the college of medicine is not a highest position at Tikrit University for WP:NPROF C6. He is apparently a fellow of the American Academy of Neurological and Orthopaedic Surgeons, but I don't think this [69] is sufficiently selective for WP:NPROF C3. Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 12:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Citation numbers are low, fails WP:NPROF , I couldn't find sufficient sources for notability in either Arabic or English in my research. Tehonk ( talk ) 00:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I agree with others above that the citations are very light, far from WP:PROF#C1 , with User:JoelleJay on the first AfD and with Russ Woodroofe that his administrative position does not pass #C6, and with Russ Woodroofe that the fellowship is insufficiently selective to pass #C3. That leaves no evidence of any kind of notability. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The situation has not changed since the last AfD, which apparently reached the correct outcome through some pseudo-Gettier situation. JoelleJay ( talk ) 02:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jeanne E. Davidson: Lacks the secondary sources needed to meet WP:SIGCOV . Let'srun ( talk ) 14:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Law , and California . Let'srun ( talk ) 14:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC) GNG as article creator. Safiel ( talk ) 15:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC) NBASIC . MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 10:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Chris King (rapper): BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions ) 18:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But it still shows that everything is based on facts? So what is the problem Elektrinhooo ( talk ) 18:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] He hadn't accomplished anything we'd consider for musical notability here; he got barely any press mentions when he was alive. A tragic death, yes, but that isn't enough for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh but I do think his appearances on the Trippie Redd songs are notable. Really good performances and I have never seen anyone say they weren't good. The Trippie Redd tapes he was on did chart on the billboard 200, so I'd say that this is partially because of him. Elektrinhooo ( talk ) 10:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , California , and Tennessee . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC) No notability when alive it seems, I don't see charted singles, album reviews or much of anything. Even the many articles on his death are about him being a friend of Justin Bieber. Friend of a famous person doesn't quite get us notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - No indication of notability before his death. Magnolia677 ( talk ) 21:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - We've seen this a lot, as a previously non-notable musician (typically a murdered rapper) suddenly gets media coverage for his death, and media outlets use the occasion to talk about his music for the first time ever while quoting more famous people that he knew. This rapper achieved nothing musically that qualifies for notability at WP:NMUSICIAN . All media coverage is about his recent death, but that does not qualify for notability under WP:NVICTIM either. May he R.I.P. but he doesn't qualify for an article here. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Sources are too thin and it seems notability has not been established. InDimensional ( talk ) 11:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC) The endless list of Spotify links and having another artist's feature considered worthy of it's own section is sloppy and I don't see notability beyond their tragic end Sansbarry ( talk ) 01:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC) It's odd that nobody has brought up moving the page to Death of Chris King but even then it would probably not follow WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING . Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib. ) 19:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think even the death is that notable, it's all about ""the friend of Justin Bieber"" that passed away; we remove the friend link, I still don't think notability has been met. ""Person who was a rapper and friend with a famous person"" passed away... Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC) 11, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mexican Federal Highway 28: There's no information about where it is in the article, the only source is to a general map of Mexico that doesn't seem to have a Highway 28, and I can't find any other sources to confirm it exists. TheCatalyst31 Reaction • Creation 05:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Mexico . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Fictional highway, as per Fandom: [67] . No, that's not a RS, but all other sources found are WP mirrors, meaning that we're creating misinformation by ing this article. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 16:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC) even remembers creating it sixteen years later), but created in bulk and in error when all the MFH articles were likely created (as we did in bulk for MFH shield images), but never assigned to an actual route; there is no matching article on es.wiki, which would have long been created by now. Nate • ( chatter ) 03:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Carretera federal 28.svg exists. According to Bing maps there is a Carretera Federal 28 in Playa del Carmen, Quintana Roo, Mexico, but doesn't look like a national highway. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per nomination. GeographicAccountant ( talk ) 13:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC) V . I looked for reliable sources that proved it exists and could not locate any. RecycledPixels ( talk ) 22:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rochelle Sceats-Basil: Only primary sources provided. LibStar ( talk ) 23:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , and New Zealand . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , the only sources I could find were a few passing mentions ala this , no SIGCOV. Devonian Wombat ( talk ) 05:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Earth Law Center: Of the 13 references, four are self-published, four are dead, three do not mention the organisation, one is a mention because it quotes someone from the organisation, and only one reference (the second one) might be about the center, but it requires registration. Much or the article is unsourced; much looks like it has been copied from somewhere. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk ) 14:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Environment , California , and Colorado . Curb Safe Charmer ( talk ) 14:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Appears to be enough here in terms of in-depth secondary sources needed to pass GNG, although there is a lot of work needed to improve it to encyclopedia-level standards. [ [1] ][ [2] ] User:Let'srun 15:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I appreciate Let'srun finding those refs, however I read them and I drew a different conclusion. The first was about rights of nature ; it included the Earth Law Center, too, but most of that material was in the form of quotes from an Earth Law Center person. The second didn't sufficiently cover Earth Law Center itself. This is a borderline call either way - I encourage others to look at these 2 refs and decide for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. ( talk • contribs ) 16:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This subject probably should have an article but references are admittedly weak as A.B. noted. I think it would be nice to have preserved in draft space though. - Indefensible ( talk ) 03:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC) //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Earth_Law_Center&diff=1170270345&oldid=1167728538 --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC) NORG at the moment, and has parts written non-encyclopedically. If additional sources are found I have no problem with re-creation. SportingFlyer T · C 12:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sports broadcasting contracts in Portugal: The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Also, the only one source are nothing but announcement, not asserting notability. Those arguing for a claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL . I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 13:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports , Lists , and Portugal . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 13:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as simply a directory. Mccapra ( talk ) 18:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rel (DBMS): Two of the sources are simply about the relational model this product aims to implement, with no mention of the product itself. The third source is a non-independent promotional page. The website gives no indication that it's widely used, and the code has fewer than 100 stars on Github. Ghosts of Europa ( talk ) 21:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 21:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Doesn't meet WP:NSOFT . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 21:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . AllyD ( talk ) 08:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Not an easy search term; I have added a notification to the article/software author who may be able to indicate any independent coverage which it has received. AllyD ( talk ) 08:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Constance McKee: Only one reference which is from the non-notable company she is CEO of and even that is not in-depth. Article creator seems to be WP:SPA to advertise Yale Alumni. Imcdc Contact 09:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople . Imcdc Contact 09:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , fails NBIO. Only other sources I see are a similar profile from a seemingly related company and a few database profiles that just regurgitations of the others. —⁠ PlanetJuice ( talk • contribs ) 15:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC) NBASIC . MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC) GNG Whitemancanjump23 ( talk ) 08:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - non-notable subject. No coverage exists. Upper Deck Guy ( talk ) 19:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Naomi Bakr: Subject has two caps for Egypt, but there is no coverage of the subject except for a profile from UC Irvine and a profile in the Orange County Register. Enos733 ( talk ) 18:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , and Egypt . Enos733 ( talk ) 18:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC . 4meter4 ( talk ) 18:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as non-notable. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 14:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Canadian Sleep Society: Bearcat ( talk ) 22:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Fails WP:ORGCRITE and a cursory Google search doesn't turn up any independent sources. The article itself is lacks encyclopedic coverage; its mostly lists of staff and statements about itself. Grumpylawnchair ( talk ) 22:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Canada . Bearcat ( talk ) 22:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"BV Bhaskar: Previous edit looks like a fan page [9] . Seems to only play a ""notable"" role in Salaga (film), can there [10] . Only one good source on entire internet which is not a passing mention which is already on the page. DareshMohan ( talk ) 03:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Sportspeople , Cricket , and Karnataka . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Utter nonsense regarding what has been written about him and cricket. Has never played in the Ranji Trophy, and the 'English County Cricket League' is totally made up. StickyWicket aka AA ( talk ) 20:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Global Mission: Pinging participants of the RfD discussion: @ Bkonrad , TartarTorte , Catfurball , The Banner , and Thryduulf : . Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The RFD-nomination can be found here . The Banner talk 08:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions . Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] this article will never be notable, it should have never been created. Catfurball ( talk ) 21:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Maryland . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article looks promo to me, with only related sources. No proof of notability. The Banner talk 08:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fails notability. It is also unsourced. Topjur01 ( talk ) 16:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If kept, rename with a disambiguator, such as Global Mission (Adventist) . I would have expected an article with this title to refer to the mission of the church as a whole, not that one one denomination. However I doubt it is worth having. Peterkingiron ( talk ) 18:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Alejandro Ruiz (footballer): He has also played domestically in the Cayman Islands top flight. I see nothing that helps this person meet GNG and a search of local news services turned up very little. There are some passing mentions in the Cayman Compass but it's not nearly enough. PROD was removed without explanation by Ortizesp as part of a mass dePROD. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk ) 14:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople , Sports , Football , and United Kingdom . MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk ) 14:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Caribbean and Costa Rica . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No sources found to prove notability. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 23:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per nominator. No sources to prove that this person is notable. Not notable football player nothing more on google . DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 23:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Johnny Maroney: Appears to fail WP:GNG ; a WP:BEFORE search turned up no significant coverage of either him or his company. Gnomingstuff ( talk ) 05:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Entertainment , and United States of America . AllyD ( talk ) 06:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could not find coverage of him, nothing in gnews. LibStar ( talk ) 06:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sumit Kadel: Instead, they link to one-off mentions of his reviews of other popular work. microbiology Marcus ( petri dish ) 17:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC) Correction: one of the sources address the subject directly, but I question it's reliability. The other one is a collection of information that doesn't even contain the information it is cited to in the article. I have already removed the birthdate as per WP:BLP . microbiology Marcus ( petri dish ) 17:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Film , and West Bengal . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC) 33, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The two centered articles and the various references to his work in reliable newspapers (like this one ) seem to attest a certain notability. Rather Keep. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC) 32, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As for reviews of the article by other users (not sure what you mean), it is not technically needed. If you have other sources about him (t his one may be considered disputable, perhaps) even in other languages, feel free to add them to the page or here, that's all I can say. The future of the article depends on what consensus es from this discussion. I for one, think he should rather be considered notable as meeting the criteria for creative professionals (which includes journalists, Sumit Kadel being presented as a f ilm critic among other things)) ""The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors"" (I think you can reasonably argue that he is widely cited by his peers) but I can only speak for myself. MicrobiologyMarcus was not, I think, satisfied with the current sourcing, so I guess you can only wait. I won't have time to comment here any further, I'm afraid. Best, - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sumit Kadel is well known film critic and trade analyst and he is considered in top critic in indian cinema now a days. He has been quoted in many newspapers and news channels for his criticism and analysis of films. He has got 180k followers on Twitter(X), 197K followers on Instagram, 193K followers on Facebook and 39.6k subsribers on Youtube Channel. I hope this will prove his presence and notability. Feel free to suggest further on this. Thank You MdShahFahad786 ( talk ) 16:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC) This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum . There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current s and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. Logs : 2023-10 ✗ d -- Cewbot ( talk ) 00:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP, added some reliable references for his notability and provided social media followers data for his authority in his field. Don't this article. Thank You MdShahFahad786 ( talk ) 08:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC) Fails BLP sourcing. Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article and BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth . BEFORE showed name mentions, and an interview, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV with indepth independent coverage of the subject. // Timothy :: talk 13:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 23:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nashville Kickoff Game: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT . Let'srun ( talk ) 17:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and American football . Let'srun ( talk ) 17:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC) GNG per nom and Google search that shows no references to a game of this title outside of Wiki mirrors. Frank Anchor 18:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Tennessee . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another one of those non-notable 'neutral site' season launch games where the state's big team plays 'on the road' in an NFL stadium to a lesser team which got a big payoff to lose by five touchdowns in a de facto exhibition game. This isn't anything that gained real N at all and was done after the original two-year deal. Nate • ( chatter ) 19:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Battle of Cape São Vicente (1676): It's just three lines in the source (wrong page btw, it's actually 149) that were hallucinated by an LLM into becoming an article. – Hilst [talk] 00:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , History , Military , Africa , and Portugal . – Hilst [talk] 00:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong to remove LLMCruft from Wikipedia. Can we nominate all articles created by this user? -1ctinus📝 🗨 19:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ajmel Quereshi: . ""not inherently notable"" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider Snickers2686 ( talk ) 22:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions . Snickers2686 ( talk ) 22:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maryland , Minnesota , and Wisconsin . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per precedent. His selection as a magistrate judge of itself does not confer notability, and his legal work prior to that selection likely is typical of other attorneys in his field. Kablammo ( talk ) 12:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC) Subject plainly does not pass WP:JUDGE or the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV . Article was originally created by the sockpuppet MIAJudges. User:Let'srun 01:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC) per above. Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 16:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Americas Energy and Climate Symposium: Longhornsg ( talk ) 07:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Environment , and Peru . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Greg Wilcock: Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 03:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ambassadors are not inherently notable. This one doesn't meet WP:BIO . LibStar ( talk ) 03:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I restored some text that 122Monaro",delete
+"List of snooker player nicknames: It's a tradition in snooker that each player has a nickname. There are some nicknames that are particularly noteworthy within the context of certain players (e.g. ""Hurricane"" Alex Higgins , ""Whirlwind"" Jimmy White , and of course ""Rocket"" Ronnie O'Sullivan ). The snooker project now has a template ( Template:Infobox snooker player/nicknames ) that feeds these nicknames straight in the infobox. In that sense, this list is a duplication that serves very little encyclopedic purpose. Sometimes tabloid newspapers will publish the ""top ten nicknames"" or the ten funniest or whatever, but reliable sources (if you can call them that) generally regard such lists as trivia. Betty Logan ( talk ) 03:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Lists of people , and Cue sports . Betty Logan ( talk ) 03:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Although there is a case for improvement, this would mean unnecessary duplication of data. This article has also been a target for vandalism in the past, which was one of the reasons the template ( Template:Infobox snooker player/nicknames ) was created. Alan. AlH42 ( talk ) 07:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] for the reasons outlined by Betty Logan and Alan above. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 16:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 22, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just because some snooker players nicknames have been prone to vandalism in the past, that doesn't mean you should the page that lists all of them. That would be like saying ""let's the list of top football goal scorers because we want to protect Ronaldo's Wikipedia page"". Lots of people would appreciate the opportunity to see a list of these snooker nicknames together, hence this page existing for almost 20 years. If we removed every Wikipedia page that had an occasional incorrect edit, then we'd have very little of this website left. As for notability, there was a tweet just last month by World Snooker themselves - the organisers of the professional snooker tour - asking what Jak Jones' nickname should be. [1] There have been BBC pieces about snooker nicknames done during the World Championships [2] , books [3] , it has been discussed on podcasts [4] , the idea of specifically having a ""snooker nickname"" was muted by BBC Sport [5] , there are specific articles detailing the history of snooker nicknames and how they were often used to promote events [6] , - this article includes the quote "" As snooker boomed in the 1970s and 1980s, players were often synonymous with their nicknames and referenced as such in the written press and when being introduced to audiences "". They are a massive part of the sport - with players being introduced by them before the World Championships, and referred to as such by the media during events [7] - and have been for decades. They are far from trivial, and having a list of them is an important document of a major part of the sports' coverage. Heck, even one of the users above is called ""HurricaneHiggins"", which was Alex Higgins' nickname! SnookerLoopyOneFourSeven ( talk • contribs ) 04:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nicknames are important in the context of player coverage—that does not necessarily make them notable as an encylopedic topic in their own right. I agree with you that the amount of vandalism an article is subject to is not a consideration for whether an article should exist or not, but WP:LISTN is. To demonstrate that the article satisfies WP:LISTN it should be possible to show that snooker player nicknames have received significant coverage in reliable sources as a group , not just within the context of an article about the player. Nobody here is suggesting nicknames should be removed from player profiles—indeed, the snooker project has recently taken steps to integrate a player's nickname more seemlessly into the infobox on player articles. It's just a question of how they should be documented on Wikipedia—as the proposer of this nomination I think the proper place for this information is in the player articles, but I struggle to see the encyclopedic value of just having a list of nicknames. Betty Logan ( talk ) 08:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To SnookerLoopyOneFourSeven . If I gave the impression in my previous post that vandalism is a reason for deletion of this article, that was certainly not the intention. The main reason, as pointed out by Betty Logan is that it fails WP:LISTN . There is also the matter of duplication of data, since we now have a list in the new template which feeds directly into players' infoboxes. If this article is to remain, it would need to mirror the data in the template. Alan. AlH42 ( talk ) 07:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The main reason this article should not exist is because it fails LISTN. People who wish to this page should demonstrate the topic as a whole has been covered significantly in multiple IRS sources that aren't just listicles or tabloids. JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC) //twitter.com/WeAreWST/status/1647731768064110594 ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=kbQiSM57NcA ^ https://www.amazon.co.uk/Snooker-Wordsearches-Tournaments-Nicknames-Collection/dp/B08M8HF63B ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0d8bwc8 ^ https://www.facebook.com/BBCSport/posts/lets-talk-about-snooker-nicknamesmark-selby-the-jester-from-leicesternigel-bond-/2177779545642400/? locale=en_GB ^ https://www.sportingnews.com/uk/snooker/news/snooker-nicknames-ronnie-rocket-osullivan-mark-pistol-allen/mwmqt6eqntfg0em13rotvoah ^ https://twitter.com/eurosport/status/1520469062509334529? ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1520469062509334529%7Ctwgr%5Ef496364c72183ad9f8e7021f3e3afb77525c7b37%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sportingnews.com%2Fuk%2Fsnooker%2Fnews%2Fsnooker-nicknames-ronnie-rocket-osullivan-mark-pistol-allen%2Fmwmqt6eqntfg0em13rotvoah The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2023 Asia Cup statistics: The main articles for these events have the key statistics (top 5 for most runs and most wickets) which is all that's needed for an encyclopedia. These article just include way too much WP:TRIVIA like top partnership by wicket (there will only be a handful of 10th wicket partnerships each tournament, so this isn't at all a meaningful, encyclopedic statistic) Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 09:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Cricket , Lists , and Asia . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 09:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC) NOTSTATS / WP:NOTMIRROR . All easily obtained by looking up ESPNCricinfo. Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per NOTDATABASE. AryKun ( talk ) 13:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Relevant, notable statistics can go on the main article. If this was a World Cup, you'd might have a better argument for it, but as it stands its WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:TRIVIA MarkiPoli ( talk ) 13:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC) NOTDATABASE FatCat96 ( talk ) 17:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per WP:NOTDATABASE . Should be restricted to tables on the main article for the tournament, showing the top five leading run scorers and wicket takers during the competition. StickyWicket aka AA ( talk ) 18:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] all' Per nom and others. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC) NOTSTATS. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk ) 05:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. DSP2092 talk The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Progressive Victory: An evaluation of the sources in the article (below) show that none of the sources cited contribute towards the group's notability. Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? Progressive Victory (1) This is the organization's website, so it is not independent of the organization ~ WP:ABOUTSELF ? Moot as clearly non-independent ✘ No Progressive Victory (2) This is the organization's website, so it is not independent of the organization ~ WP:ABOUTSELF ? Moot as clearly non-independent ✘ No The College of Wooster This is an alumni profile by a University that is posted on the university's website. press releases, press kits, or similar public relations materials are not considered to be independent sources for organizations. ~ This is an alumni profile by a University; it appears to be a self-published blogpost . There's significant coverage of Hans Johnson in the article, but the organization itself is given only trivial mention. ✘ No Tubefilter Why not? Per WP:NPPSG and for sake of argument. ""Progressive Victory"" is not so much as mentioned in the article. ✘ No The Washington Post Why not? WaPo is a WP:NEWSORG . ""Progressive Victory"" is not so much as mentioned in the article. ✘ No YouTube This is the YouTube channel of ""Progressive Victory"". ~ WP:ABOUTSELF . ? Moot as clearly non-independent. ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . I conducted a further search online for sources about the group, which (per the article) was founded in 2022. I was only able to come up with trivial mentions and non-independent sources: More trivial mentions and non-independent sources Spectrum 1 gives the organization as the employer of Hans Johnson, but doesn't cover the organization itself significantly. Pasadena Star News has an op-ed written by Johnson, which is clearly a non-independent source. Los Angeles Blade mentions the group only in passing. Cincinnati Enquirer hosts an opinion piece by the group's president, which is non-independent. CalMatters has a guest commentary by Johnson, but that's non-independent. The name is fairly generic, and the article creator notes the existence of a different group with the same name on the talk page (the group linked from the infobox self-describes itself as being largely a discord server ). Even with that confounding factor of multiple groups with the same name, a source search makes me conclude that this group fails WP:NGO and should be d in line with WP:DEL-REASON #8 for failing to meet the relevant notability criteria. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics , Internet , and United States of America . — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment as nom. Article creator has since removed reference to Hans Johnson from the article, implying in an edit summary that he's related to a different group also called ""Progressive Victory"". The reference to Hans Johnson was first inserted into the article in the first revision . — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC) I agree that this article has few reliable sources. (In fact, I removed the Wooster College one -- Hans Johnson appears to be completely unaffiliated with this Progressive Victory). Although Progressive Victory is not mentioned by name in the WaPo or TubeFilter sources, my thinking is: 1. WaPo is reliable and indicates the stream occurred, but provides no direct link 2. TubeFilter is less reliable, but directly links the Progressive Victory embed 3. Streamer & attendee Destiny reposted that stream and described it as ""a special event organised by Progressive Victory "". More broadly, notable streamers Vaush and Destiny worked with PV in 2022 and will in 2024 -- but due to the nature of streaming, their announcements ( eg ) tend to be WP:SELFPUB . If this article needs to go back to draftspace, so be it! SocDoneLeft ( talk ) 19:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC) WP:ORGDEPTH notes that significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization . The WaPo piece is about a particular livestream, and, while the NGO may well be involved, there's really nothing in that article that's about the NGO (not even a mention of the NGO's name). Largely the same as point #1. Additionally, merely linking/embedding a particular YouTube video does not provide significant coverage of the NGO article subject, particularly when that group is not so much as given a passing mention by name in the text of the article about the event. WP:INHERITORG states that An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it... [t]he organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable . In other words, just because some popular streamers have attended an event or worked with the group does not mean that the organization has been conferred notability. The fact that we don't have significant coverage in any reliable source that so much as mentions the name of the group is the ultimate nail in the coffin for me. The only alternative I can think of would be to have an article on the particular livestream, but such an article would likely fail to meet WP:NEVENT based off of the sourcing here. I don't think there's anything to do here at this time but to this from the mainspace. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear opinions/arguments from more editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Plenty of use of the term, nothing found for this group. Agree with the source assessment table, nothing we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I looked online and found little to nothing of note. There are two pages that link to this article and mention that two streamers were part of a stream sponsored by Progressive Victory but when I checked the sources they never mentioned the org. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bansharaj Sun: I have searched ProQuest, Google and DDG but found nothing even close to being a decent source. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , India , and Meghalaya . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of GNG-passing coverage. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 17:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2023 Women's EuroHockey5s Championship: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 14:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Europe . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 14:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC) GNG . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 11:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Juniper Foundation: Clarityfiend ( talk ) 02:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Buddhism , and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC) GNG . Sourcing wise I can't find much more than is already in the article and nothing that would contribute to its notability. The only thing even approaching a third-party source would be the Snow Lion Newsletter (here's an archived copy ) which wouldn't necessarily be a reliable source, but since that reference isn't even about (and indeed predates the formation of) the Juniper Foundation, it's a moot point if it's reliable or not because it wouldn't contribute to the notability of the subject in any case. - Aoidh ( talk ) 10:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. jengod ( talk ) 19:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Charlie Barrett (rock climber): Artem. G ( talk ) 15:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC) Not meeting criminal notability, and the pro rock climbing career is rather non-notable. I don't see the required level of notability to have an article here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC) I had tagged this page as a WP:BLP1E while patrolling and planned to circle back to it. This subject has zero notability as a climber (i.e. nothing in mainstream climbing media per WP:NCLIMBER ), and outside of this case, has no notability. Aszx5000 ( talk ) 17:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC) Is a case of WP:BLP1E , subject lacks previous coverage before the 1E. Let'srun ( talk ) 20:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jéan Rossouw: Contested PROD. JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Couple of bits here , here and here which I think make it worth a weak . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 08:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] on account of the serious dearth of sources denoting notability . The ones provided above by RugbyFan22 are two routine listings of players, plus one nostalgia-cum-trivia article titled ""Where Are They Now"". We cannot construct notability on such thin ground. Otherwise, Wikipedia would be a collection of random information . - The Gnome ( talk ) 17:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak the sources mentioned by Rugbyfan22 look like non-trivial coverage (there is a prose section of each, it's not just a routine listing). I am assuming Rugby365 is an acceptable source. -- Here2rewrite ( talk ) 17:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. or ? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC) Per The Gnome. This subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV from IRS to meet the GNG. Let'srun ( talk ) 22:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . WP:SPORTSPERSON was recently revised for this exact situation. A sports biography must contain at least one independent reliable source which significantly covers the subject. Nothing approaching that here, applied, presented or found. BusterD ( talk ) 16:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"When There's No More Room in Hell: Volume I: Found no significant coverage of the subject, nor any useful reviews on music sites. Does not seem to pass WP:GNG . Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 16:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs , Music , and United States of America . Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 16:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I couldn't find the sources needed to meet the GNG. Will reconsider if some are found, but the fact that most artists on this compilation album are red links, and not even Allmusic has a review, are pretty bad signs... Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC) It doesn't have any sources at all. Agreed with Sergecross73. CastJared ( talk ) 17:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. QuietHere ( talk &#124 contributions ) 23:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . When most of the people who are on the album are not notable, I seriously doubt that the album is. No sources too, which backs this up. ULPS ( talk ) 12:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Time Apart: A History of Hope: I searched the websites of the other alleged sources for information about the movie that the introduction lists; nothing relevant appeared. None of the film festivals listed in the article appear to be major, and only one, the Atlantic Film Festival , is apparently notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Setting aside this award's inability to establish notability, when I checked previous New Brunswick Joy Award recipients, neither this film nor the filmmakers showed up in any year from 2008 onward. Based on this, I believe that this film clearly fails WP:NFILM . AnAbandonedMall ( talk ) 14:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Entertainment , and Canada . AnAbandonedMall ( talk ) 14:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . To be fair, the New Brunswick Joy Award is actually a pitch contest for as yet unmade films, so you actually will find this film in that link if you back up to 2004. But it isn't a notability-conferring award for the purposes of WP:NFILM at all: that requires the awards to get reliable source media coverage to establish that the award is actually seen as a notable one, and is not a status held by awards that require you to source the claim to the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself because media coverage about the awards is nonexistent. The claim that it ""received press coverage"" in various media outlets has also proven mostly unverifiable, as absolutely none of that has turned up in any WP:BEFORE searches besides the one piece noted by the nominator above (which is, going by date and publisher, the same piece that's already incompletely cited in the article as its sole footnote, so we haven't bumped up to two) — but one piece isn't enough all by itself, and ""notability because media coverage"" is not passed by saying that the topic was covered in media, it's passed by using said media coverage as footnoting for content . There's just nothing here that's ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt it from having to have more than just one locatable source. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Altitude (building): The plan had some coverage, but not enough, and I am not sure how ambiguous a name like this is for a tall building. Boleyn ( talk ) 16:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Sri Lanka . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] if referenced properly. It's a curiosity, even if it's never going to happen. Shows hot important the victory was to the Sri Lankans at the time. -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 14:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My sense is it needs another source to be clearly notable. It's not completely non-notable and it may already be notable, but this is one of those really grey zone articles. SportingFlyer T · C 14:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if those ""proper"" references can be located. Otherwise, it looks like this vote is nullified. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Ironically the additional coverage you would need to find in order to the article is a source explaining the cancellation of the building project, and assessing the significance of the project's failure. All the coverage currently cited in the article are essentially speculative WP:CRYSTALBALL claims simply repeating what the developers were saying, which turned out not to come true. In its current state, it is a misleading article that does not belong on Wikipedia. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 17:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As above, actual analysis of known available source material would be quite helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Couldn't find enough sources, but draftification may be preferred; however the notability is dubious. Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 21:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . There is a 2023–2024 discussion on Skyscrapercity.com about the abandoned building project (with photos} and mention of a nascent new development taking its place, but it's in a discussion forum which has been blacklisted by Wikipedia, not a reliable source we can cite. (If you are curious, search for ""Kotte | Baili Mix Development |Floors, Height-TBA| (Previous 96 Iconic Tower-Abondoned)"". ) At the moment the best WP:ATD that I can think of would be to to Sri Lankan economic crisis (2019–present) . But since we haven't found any sources yet that specifically explain the abandonment of the building project, none of the content here seems that useful in the context of that article. To Ouro's point, another alternative would be to mention it in the article Cricket in Sri Lanka . But that would be like a sentence and it would still be preferable to have a source verifying that the project was proposed and planned but later canceled...which I haven't found yet in ProQuest (although there is one 2017 Euroweek / Global Capital article about the asset bubble which mentions it in passing but not in a terribly meaningful way). As a side note, the former developer of the failed building project is using the existence of this Wikipedia article as a proof point in its portfolio (scroll to the bottom of that page). The responsible thing for Wikipedia to do is to . If the new development actually materialises and there is coverage, a new article could be created then; future sources might even mention the past failed building project. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 05:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Electrolux Laundry Systems: TooManyFingers ( talk ) 16:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun ( talk ) 21:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 4 gnews hits one of which is primary. Fails GNG. LibStar ( talk ) 01:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Quizimaze: Was unable to find anything via a basic before search and newspapers.com has very little outside of advertisements. Just i yaya 04:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Canada . Just i yaya 04:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Based on the BGG page I find it unlikely this is notable. Hobit ( talk ) 17:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , appears to fail GNG. ― novov (t c) 03:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC) fails WP:GNG – Pharyngeal Implosive7 (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rural Youth Europe: Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, a free web host, a mirror of an orgs own website or a link farm. Lacks independent reliable sources. Content is loosely paraphrased from the orgs own PR, added by a SPA. Even if there is some notability here this is not the page to have, blow it away and let someone independent start over. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 03:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Environment , Europe , Finland , and Germany . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't find any coverage to satisfy GNG/NORG about this ceiling organization in specific, even if (at least some of) the national member organizations themselves have been covered in press. - Ljleppan ( talk ) 09:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Looks like a promotional article. -- Kammerer55 ( talk ) 16:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Brand24: A search for other sources only returns trivial/routine coverage. AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 13:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Technology , Internet , and Poland . AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 13:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC) GNG or WP:NCORP . Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – There seems to be a review on PCMag , but rest of the sources are just press releases, it seems. TLA (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC) I am main author of this article. According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) , publicly traded companies nearly always can be established as a notable. This was also my understanding while I was adding this article - it is about company that can be searched in multiple investing tools. In this short stub-article nearly all sentences are with references reliable sources, but I am happy to add more, if needed. Mlepicki ( talk ) 12:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Adding sample media coverage: Business Insider - https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-review-all-marketing-partners-instagram-data-scraping-2019-8? IR=T Wyborcza.pl, one of biggest newspapers in Poland: https://wyborcza.biz/biznes/7,177150,25313272,internety-robil-az-zablokowal-go-facebook-michal-sadowski.html Polish edition of Newsweek: https://www.newsweek.pl/biznes/twarza-polskiego-biznesu-internetowego-jest-od-lat-wlasnie-debiutowal-na-gieldzie/5p031p4 Mlepicki ( talk ) 12:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . It is generally helpful for the readers to have articles on publicly listed companies, and while WP:ITSUSFUL is not enough, souces cited by the author above seem solid (ex. Gazeta Wyborcza is a major Polish newspaper). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 02:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC) NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* . ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject . Normally for listed companies we can locate detailed analyst reviews (which do more than report on stock price listings and forecasts and which analyse their business) which are a gold standard for notability but I cannot find anything for this company. The references posted by Mlepicki fails ORGIND as they rely entirely on information provided by the company and interviews with their execs with no ""Independent Content"" and fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. HighKing ++ 11:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with what's already been written. It fails GNG. MaskedSinger ( talk ) 07:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"T. Tapunuu: Simione001 ( talk ) 22:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 22:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 22:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 22:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC) 55, 28 April 2023 (UTC) BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article and BEFORE (Tapunuu and T Tapunu'u) showed nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Sources in article is database records (1 ref + el). WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). // Timothy :: talk 04:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Leida Chirino: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Cuba . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Soliai Letutusa: The sources cited don't seem to mention him. In my searches, I can find the usual database sites which confirm that he exists but do not confer notability. Oceania Football mentions him as an unused sub in a game and Samoa Observer has an image caption mentioning him, both far from WP:SIGCOV . Other than that, I found Oceania Football Center which also mentions him just once. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Oceania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Tural Yusifov: Not enough for an encyclopedia. -- Correspondentman ( talk ) 09:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC) An article that doesn't meet WP:SNG for journalism related professionals, and WP:ANYBIO —the awards are not notable nor neither are they major awards per the criteria. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 15:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Quirel Masse: Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 16:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and South America . Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 16:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC) 56, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rokšped: No SIGCOV whatsoever. 〜 Festucalex • talk 21:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I could find no coverage other than this brief press release . No obvious targets. Suriname0 ( talk ) 00:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Beta-Lactamase Database (BLDB): Tagged non-notable for years without improvement * Pppery * it has begun... 23:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC) I can find several mentions in primary sources (mostly comparing it to other beta-lactamase databases, of which there are several ), but no significant secondary coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The database is cited hundreds of times in the literature, appearing in several recent review articles as well. While those probably don't qualify as significant coverage, I would argue it is notable though niche. The Beta-lactamase article even uses it as a reliable source. Not sure what the outcome should be, but deletion doesn't seem appropriate. ― Syn path 19:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , but include the information in the article on β-lactamase . I don't see any point in having a separate article. Athel cb ( talk ) 16:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC) If the decision is to not it as a separate article but to include it at Beta-lactamase , it should be retained as a given that it is listed at List of biological databases . ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 05:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is actually a good and helpful database. What needs to be d is another page, i.e. Beta-Lactamase Database (BLAD) (it is no longer operational). My very best wishes ( talk ) 16:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. This deletion is long overdue, given how long it has been tagged without getting improved. seems unnecessary because people are not likely to use this as the search term instead of simply Beta-Lactamase. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - good, helpful, and even useful , but there are few secondary sources . Sorry. Bearian ( talk ) 19:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you mean RS which cite this database (indeed, they are secondary in this regard), there are hundreds. Looking in Web of Science database, the paper about this resource, i.e. ""Beta-lactamase database (BLDB) - structure and function"" by Naas et al. is a highly cited paper, and it is cited in 306 other publications. This is the reason I think it is notable enough and voted to . I never used it though because my interests are different. My very best wishes ( talk ) 21:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This database is cited in 69 scientific review papers. One could make a really big and nice page about BLDB on wiki using these reviews. It is just that the authors apparently do not care. The actual candidate for deletion is another page (see above). My very best wishes ( talk ) 21:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests: Cited sources in the page do not appear to use this framing. Searching on Google Scholar for the page title, and also ""Rajput resistance"" ""Muslim conquests"" did not turn up anything useful. Searching Google Books turned up only a handful of results that weren't false positives, and none of them bode well for this topic: Serving Empire, Serving nation pg 185-190 discuss revisionist nationalist histories that attempt to construct a narrative of resistance to Muslim conquests through reinterpretation of folklore and historical events, but does not adopt or endorse this historiographic framing. Royal Umbrellas of Stone talks about Rajput resistance, but predominantly uses the term to discuss social movements and rebellions against established Mughal rule, not against the initial conquests. The only source that I can find that uncritically adopts the framing of ""Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests"" is.. . The Abortion Explosion: Woman Weapon of Mass Destruction #1 , which appears to be a polemic against abortion and not a reliable source of any kind, let alone Indian history in particular. This could potentially be a to Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent , but given that Rajput kingdoms also sometimes formed alliances with Muslim polities (see Rajput Mughal marriage alliances ; n.b. this aspect is totally absent from the Rajput resistance article), deletion may also be appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 19:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , and India . signed, Rosguill talk 19:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment @Rosguill what is it you think this is a fork of? Mccapra ( talk ) 20:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC) Diff/1219105445 , it's a fork of Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent . Also note that this article was created evading a salt on Rajput resistance , and this has also been d several times as Rajput resistance to Muslim invasions . I suspect that",delete
+"Qais Khedri: No sources found by searching in Persian (قیس خدری) or English. No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC , the latter clearly stating that Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Afghanistan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. 〜 Festucalex • talk 21:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC) GNG . Jogurney ( talk ) 15:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC) 23, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] cannot find any sources as per above. Karnataka ( talk ) 22:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ye Yint Aung (footballer, born 2000): My ability to search in Burmese is limited, and further impacted by the existence of Yair Yint Aung , whose name in Burmese is spelled the same as this topic. Still, I attempted to search in Burmese by including search terms for teams that this subject has played on, and didn't find any coverage more significant than brief mentions in lineups or match summaries. signed, Rosguill talk 18:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Myanmar . signed, Rosguill talk 18:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I found Myanmar Digital News in addition to the transfer report already in the article but I don't think that it's enough for GNG. Scratch that, sorry, that article is about Ye Yint Aung . The 2000 born one doesn't seem to be notable at all. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. Lightburst ( talk ) 22:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Simon T. Bailey: Zero in-depth secondary source about him. A few mentions in promotional guest posts or invitations of his events. Tagged since 2015 but has been continously attracting COI/UPE editors. Fails WP:GNG . Teltle ( talk ) 05:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 05:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Businesspeople , Florida , New York , and Oklahoma . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - the only thing here that qualifies as a claim of notability is the CPAE Speakers Hall of Fame, and doing a newspapers.com search for that Hall, the 34 times I find of it being mentioned are basically all clearly quoting press release materials about a given speaker, or flat out ads. Web search is not finding the sort of results that suggest it should be given more consideration. -- Nat Gertler ( talk ) 14:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mariya Rusalenko: Wrote a book in 2023, but insufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR . Don't think meets WP:GNG from other coverage either. Kj cheetham ( talk ) 11:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women . Kj cheetham ( talk ) 11:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] h index of 5. Does not pass WP:NPROF. Mccapra ( talk ) 15:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please check the Russian and Maldivian local news source on her nomination and work. Due to her extensive research on the field of endocrinology, she was assigned as director General of Belarus Maldives Cultural Center by both gov's to initiate research work in the Maldives, and conducted the first successful IVF in Maldives after 49 years. The first Belarusian who was given such an honor. Hope this helps and please read Russian and maldivian coverage on her and note that it complies with WP:NPROF. These are people we need to archive as examples to youth, so lets take care in removing or adding them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leesaaisath ( talk • contribs ) 17:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you point to some specific sources to back up this? Using Google Translate I read https://dhiyares-com.translate.goog/59679? _x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp but it didn't seem like signifcant coverage to me, and didn't say she was the first Belarusian, etc.. - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 17:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please check the second link (in Russian), it shows the extensive coverage of the successful IVF done (49 years + individual) by Dr. Mariya and Krivalapov in the Belarusian State genetic and Reproductive Center under the leadership of Prof. Mariya, newly assigned Director General to render services to Maldives Health care development. Also check the google academia on her research base and search her on Russian language also. you will get more details. (Мария Русаленко) Existence Leesaaisath 17:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC) //gp-by.translate.goog/novosti/obshchestvo/news280156.html? _x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp ) didn't look like significant coverage of Mariya Rusalenko to pass WP:GNG either. I already checked Google Scholar (on English and Russian ) before I nominated the article for deletion, and the citation counts seemed far too low for a pass of WP:NPROF . - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 17:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure how much being director general of that institute counts towards notability, it does help though. - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 17:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's the point, if searched in Russian you can see its one of the best stats for any Belarusian women in research. She is also on scientific editorial board for the Journal of Republican Research Center for radiation medicine and human ecology that research on Chernobyl. I did some research after I came across her book interview in Russian tv. In Russian links on her are endless in google, Maldives Foreign Minister as UN president has endorsed her work on her book and assigned her for the Development of Maldives health care. I didn't add links like maxim since they dont count on wiki. Cheetham, lets see how it goes with colleagues here (they will help), we will research and on developing the page. I think in Wiki, its our language barriers us blind at times. Existence Leesaaisath 17:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I certainly agree language is a barrier! I have since found some interviews: https://gp-by.translate.goog/novosti/zdorove/news269273.html? _x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp and https://gp-by.translate.goog/novosti/zdorove/news97315.html? _x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp though it would be better to have some secondary sources. Being on an editorial board doesn't count a lot towards notability though, neither does having patents inherently (the impact is more important). - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 18:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC) //www.usatoday.com/story/special/contributor-content/2023/05/30/hormones-and-preserving-youth-a-remedy-through-advocacy-and-prevention/70270624007/ also mentioned the endorsement by the President of UNGA, though I can't get to the whole article myself. What's wrong with the Maxim source ? - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 18:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Found another source. A TV coverage of her on the research activities of republican research center for radiation medicine on post Chernobyl disaster. https://www.tvr.by/videogallery/intervyu/nezavisimost-eto-vozmozhnost-/mariya-rusalenko/ Good to have found it, but it's a WP:PRIMARY source and we really want WP:SECONDARY sources to show notability for WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO . - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 15:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Cheetam, may be ur right, we may add those sources like maxim too and book too. . Not seeing the citations for NPROF C1, nor the secondary coverage for GNG. JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi JoelleJay, I would respectfully like your comments on her on other criteria. NPROF C6: The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. Deputy Director of Republican Research Center for Radiation Medicine and Human Ecology, build for post Chernobyl Research. The highest Authority on that research authority in Belarus and Russia and the region. Also on the scientific editorial board of the institution. NPROF C7: The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. One of her books (hormones and preserving youth) is endorsed by the president of the United nations General Assembly for the contribution to the community. She is also Assigned as the Director General of Belarus Maldives Cultural center. Her work on IVF and endocrinology is documentation in Belarus media. Being recognized by the minister of state of Health of another country and the President of UNGA is not something an ordinary scholar can achieve. Also, most researches done in Russian languages are not properly indexed in google. NPROF C1: The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. I cannot fully agree on this part since, her academic achievements has led for the recognition under C7. And its covered significantly, locally and internationally. Existence Leesaaisath 13:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC) The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. here is another link on December 6th of recognition. https://mvdoctors.org/press-release-1/ I ask all the editor colleagues to participate and to look in to local literature and do research and help in developing these works. We need support of all to make wiki better. As I have started researching, I myself is seeing more and more material on this page. Every article has to abide by wiki rules, and we shall all enforce it, and at the same time we shall work to appreciate and treat with respect and fairness to all articles as much as possible. Existence Leesaaisath 22:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Deputy Director is not the highest post of the institution, and anyway that is not a notable independent research institute so even its director would not qualify. C7: Belonging to various government committees and receiving recognition from international bodies are not enough to qualify (else everyone who worked on UN subcommittees would be notable). C1: For her field, this would require thousands of citations by other academics, in peer-reviewed academic literature . C2: I see no evidence she has received an award equivalent to, e.g., a Guggenheim Fellowship. JoelleJay ( talk ) 05:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC) The Chernobyl incident and the organization she belongs that was made to investigate it and heading its research is not significant than, I guess we have redefined very guidelines as we wish to interpret. I have visited the website and seen their history in Russian/English. Also, if you listen to the the live interview you can understand the research they are doing on cancer research with US and the countries. I think we need to focus on countries as a whole and not on western and English media alone. I have an article on Dr. Ali Niyaf here, had not seen these criterias mentioned this way. He has less scope than this individual we discuss here. C7: Recognized by the President of UNGA, and Minister of state of health of another country, for the work and recognized by the a biggest doctors body in another country; if that is not credible, then I really do not understand how the guidelines apply. C2: I don't think only EU or US or their societies recognition can be a norm since, there is various sanctions on individuals and countries these people are born to and these countries have it own standards and classifications. C1: I dont think its only one criteria we should look on on that angle. And also I believe we need to look to think balanced. My explanations are purely not based on this article, its my understanding to interpret the right and balanced way regardless of which language the persons are represented and valued, thus I respectfully note these & I thank you JoelleJay for the contribution to this discussion. Lets investigate deep and find more. Existence Leesaaisath 10:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Her research can be highly important and impactful and still not make her notable. The notability requirements for a page are there partly because they allow us to write a comprehensive, neutral article on the person, which means independent secondary sources providing significant coverage are crucial. The websites of people/organizations someone is affiliated with (including those awarding the person or publishing official recognition) are not independent, interviews are primary and not independent, the person's own publications and quotations in media are not independent, and brief descriptions of the person by independent secondary media outlets are not significant enough. JoelleJay ( talk ) 19:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear JoelleJay , Thank you for noting that out. That is what I am trying to explain. Notability is via many sources and its can been in many articles in russian, english and also in Maldivian, most are independent also state media sources of the country if you research on them in Belarus. I dont think we can have a bling eye on it. Also its not one media outlet. Its cross country and major media sources. Also, regarding notability I have thoroughly explained and highlighted above with Wiki why she fits certain criterias as explained in the criterias of Wikipedia. I cannot agree on the fact a person is notable by a highlight on specific organizations alone or specific news sources as you have mentioned, but a mix of reliable secondary sources. Also we should not focus on interviews since, in my research alone I have found news sources on her. In retrospect her work is published in oxford too among many I have come across. We can work with one angle, but why? shall we decredit state organizations and international organizations and define the criteria otherwise to state as non notable. And if the criteria definition you have detailed is put in place like 1000's of citations, then we will shun and many contributors to science in these countries unfairly deemed non notable for Wikipedia and will show a deficit in the presence of Wikipedia in its own right in these regions. That is why I put in place Ali niyaf as an example. If a person lives in Maldives will understand the magnitude of notability on him and in fits the criteria listed, but as per your explanation his article needs to be removed too. As I have mentioned we are looking to develop wiki, and looking not only to one scope or a professor, but in general too on notability. I welcome to please read more an investigate to help develop our thoughts here. I am delighted to give few hours of my time in it. We may not be able to fathom certain media coverage due to language barriers we have. This is something I have been advocating from the start. Existence Leesaaisath 13:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't forget this page is only to discuss the notability of Mariya Rusalenko with respect to the guidelines and policies. This isn't an appropriate forum to discuss revising notability guidelines (would be better going to the talk pages of the guidelines themselves). - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 15:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] With Respect - Kj cheetham , developing wiki is not about changing guidelines (should not be). I mentioned it in reference to populating it with articles as per the guidelines of wiki. Also, with examples in articles I have created, I am asking that, the guidelines define what is notable and not notable and we have no right to add extra rules or remove extra rules with various interpretations. I have argued with respected to editors here for explanation and links and also example of other approved articles. I did so, since countries like Belarus, khazakstan, or Romania, Maldives, these are countries with very deep language and media, and we have to look deep to the local sources, organizations to as the guideline say to define notability. In western only sources doesnt define them fairly. That is why I have put Dr. Ali Niyaf, who i made an article which is approved. Why it was approved as per current definitions by some authors here? And now lets imagine, are we to remove it: its one of the most famous individuals in the country. Anyways, lets look more on these. I hope this discussion will assist more on making a better understanding and making wiki contributions a pleasant work. I urge all to look positive in adding your ideas and thoughts, and create arguments with facts and examples possible. Existence Leesaaisath 16:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] & Kj cheetham Thanks for pointing them out. I was once advised by Timothy to not use links of Tabloids. Now I know I remember, thanks User:I'm tla for noting it out Existence Leesaaisath 16:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fairly notable researcher with quite a few publications on topics such as the Chernobyl radiation fallout. Stellarnelson ( talk ) 00:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC) — Stellarnelson ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] per nom. The Maxim and USA Today source is sponsored. Stellarnelson is likely a WP:SPA . TLA (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please remove those links from consideration. I dont think we need to weigh on those links for this person on this article. I have previously been skeptical on it and didnt add them. Article doesnt have them anymore. Existence Leesaaisath 16:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Input from more editors needed Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk ) 09:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The nominator and non-author/SPA editors who have evaluated the article and sources have come to the correct conclusion: the subject of this article does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NACADEMIC . Jfire ( talk ) 17:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the contribution. Please kindly explain the GNG criterias how the article does not meet it. It will be useful. Also please search the person in native language (Russian). Here is the link. https://www.google.com/search? q=%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F+%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE&sca_esv=599294221&biw=1366&bih=610&sxsrf=ACQVn0-Inj7SU3-e2k7MRUAx2_LTvNSy9A%3A1705536996023&ei=5G2oZZ6IAde8xc8PzuUc&ved=0ahUKEwieirK21OWDAxVXXvEDHc4yBwAQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F+%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHdCc0LDRgNC40Y8g0KDRg9GB0LDQu9C10L3QutC-MgwQIxiABBiKBRgTGCcyCBAAGBYYHhgTSKYEUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAZsBoAGbAaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAeIDBBgAIEE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1 As I have explained above, with the local language search please weigh on guidelines. Also give me your ideas on why Ali Niyaf and Mariya Rusalenko has difference in meeting Guidelines. I want to respectfully highlight this with all our colleagues here on the importance of understanding local languages in this process. It can really hinder our judgement and fairness in enforcing guidelines of Wiki Existence Leesaaisath 00:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC) BADGER people on here, especially to repeat things you've already said. Also when referring to Ali Niyaf, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS tends not to be a good argument at AfD. Thanks. - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 20:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear Kj cheetham , This discussion is focused to learn. Lets not divert it in a wrong way. I have mentioned all our collaborators with respect and dignity, since many have contributed here for years. I too take a lot of time to read the guidelines and develop my skills, and focus to contribute from spheres I am familiar with. I have with enthusiasm tried to explain as many times as possible some issues, we face and weighing Articles in various regions and languages. I have created the article for Ali Niyaf too, the point is all are under one guideline and I dont see any issue to example here to our colleagues to explain the challenges we have, since are arguments to learn for me and others and should be fact based. Also, I want to highlight that, we as editors with lack of knowledge of certain languages on where the article subjects are native from, may not be the best weighing certain articles. This is why I have asked for an explanation and helped with a link to have a look. As an editor I see them and since it has much more than other articles I have published here, I ask politely for explanations from editors. Its important to discuss these things so our work will be better and and things be more clear. Without proper justification and facts if decisions on made, it will demotivate the new editors to learn more and contribute. (I give my energy here this much since I genuinely want to contribute to wiki) When you look into the Russian name search for the article source, its a different world and we need Russian editors to participate to give their views. I wish all to Think to develop the work here (not only this article), and lets find more ways to contribute to every article here, its what Afd page instructs us. Existence Leesaaisath 15:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC) PRIMARYNOTBAD ), just they don't add to the notability case. Use of Amazon links is more like advertising though ( WP:AMAZON ). - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 18:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Kj Cheetham, You are right, I will edit as advised that can counter any rules. That is something new I have learned. Thanks Kj Cheetham Existence Leesaaisath 00:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Maradhoo Feydhoo School: There are no reliable sources currently cited and I wasn't able to find any sources satisfying WP:GNG or WP:NORG in my own searches. AO News (translated from Dhivehi) was the best that I could find and it's nowhere near good enough on its own. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Maldives . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Clearly not notable like most schools. -- Bduke ( talk ) 02:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One Wikimapia reference. Fails WP:NSCHOOL . LibStar ( talk ) 06:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Zehra Bajraktarević: Newspaper sources cited in the article are interviews. Cordless Larry ( talk ) 08:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bosnia and Herzegovina . Cordless Larry ( talk ) 08:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC) //bs.m. wikipedia.org/wiki/Zehra_Bajraktarevi%C4%87#/search ItsMeGabeProductions ( talk ) 14:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zehra Bajraktarević and the original article's author supported the deletion. OIM20 ( talk ) 20:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Weak . 195,000 hits on Google suggest notability and potential for other sources. The one article appears to be an interview but only a portion of it is accessible online, so we don't know for sure. She also appears to be included in a few books; however, they are not translatable to English to review. Rublamb ( talk ) 14:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to AfC / Draftify . I realize this was translated from the Bosnian Wiki, but it doesn't feel like a complete article. Analysis of available online resources: My search only got 141K according to Google (and after clicking ""show omitted"", it only gave me 119K). Going through the 177 it let me scroll through before it told me I needed to click the ""show omitted results"" button, 129 of those were YouTube links. Only two that I saw went to news sites: one was a photo only, and one was an interview with someone who knows her. I saw at least two that were announcements of (at the time) upcoming events ( ex ). Some were announcements of (at the time) new releases ( ex ). Some of the YouTube and TikTok (22 of the 177) were of people doing covers of her songs. Other links were to lyric sites or places to listen to her music that aren't YouTube or TikTok. One was to a site that claims to have taken its information from biografija.org, but I searched of that site (to hopefully find sources) and couldn't find the article for her. Several of the Google Books results were for materials that couldn't possibly include her (e.g.: The Most In-Depth Hacker's Guide and Hillary Clinton's How I Lost ; and a search inside those showed no results so I don't know why Google would return them). I did not find any resources when searching Internet Archive. All of that said, I did go through all of the sites listed as Bosnian newspapers here , and found a few articles that do indicate notability, but unfortunately don't have much information. - https://bosnjaci.net/prilog.php? pid=56417 -- brief mention as getting her start through the Bihac festival. It's an interview with Dilvad Felić Dado, creator of the festival. - https://bosnjaci.net/prilog.php? pid=59730 -- interview where she states that she has been largely ignored by the media. - https://bljesak.info/kultura/glazba/poslusajte-pjesmu-hiljadarka-iz-istoimenog-filma/134055 -- if I'm reading this correctly, the article's author calls her the doyen of Bosnia, which would definitely give her notability with her target audience. - https://express.ba/izdvojeno/180682/mujo-isanovic-da-sam-bio-zaljubljen-u-zehru-bajraktarevic-ozenio-bih-je/ (also one of the Google news results) -- interview with Mujo Isanović where he states she was the ""role model of Eastern Bosnia"" - https://www.klix.ba/magazin/kultura/koncert-ede-pandura-na-bascarsijskim-nocima/110722047 -- one of the artists listed performing alongside Eda Pandur. - https://www.klix.ba/magazin/kultura/bascarsijske-noci-zavrsavaju-koncertom-sevdaha/120730068 -- one of the artists performing at the festival listed. I haven't gone through all of the Serbian newspapers yet. I do wonder if applying US standard for cultural news reporting to foreign countries' standards is wholly fair, but I understand that we can't rely entirely on an interview with the subject of the article for encyclopedic content, which is what this article currently does (Discogs aside). OIM20 ( talk ) 23:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC) //www.kkbox.com/sg/en/artist/X_2qON0xnYXJGoI_2s Gonna Add this now ItsMeGabeProductions ( talk ) 01:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC) GNG is met here. Cordless Larry ( talk ) 09:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC) 58, 3 February 2024 (UTC) BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth . BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 17:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC) 54, 11 February 2024 (UTC) Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC) GNG or WP:ANYBIO. BusterD ( talk ) 03:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC) 10, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"The Council Wars: Sadly (I liked this in my younger days...) this article seems to fail WP:GNG . Unreferenced too. My BEFORE fails to find anything. ISFDb lists only one review for first and third book in the series ( [5] ) so it may be hard to even try to argue that book reviews for individual books here might save this. In either case, what we have is just a plot summary with some old and unreferenced fan speculation about the series' future. Per WP:ATD-R , this can be ed to the author's bio, where the series is mentioned (or maybe better, to John Ringo bibliography ). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I found a newspaper source and according to the ISFDb there were reviews in two zines, Deep Magic and FOSFAX , for two of the novels. Not sure how usable those would be but worth mentioning. It looks like this certainly wasn't one of Ringo's most notable series, though. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC) 11, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also a SF Site review - I can't remember if they're usable or not. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] SF Site is fine I think, at least we describe it as magazine. But RPGNet is not reliable (AFAIK those are just forum reviews, user generated) and zines are generally not reliable (they are also tagged in red by Headbomb's reliable sources script). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Aw, that stinks - it looked like it was posted by the site rather than a random user. I'll looking when I can! ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 14:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 17:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Suat Onur Ayas: If we ignore that the prose is entirely uncited for two seconds, we can see that 19 of the references are from IMDb, while two are similar databases. The only source left now is Ref 3, which is just a photo and doesn't confirm anything. Appears to have won an award in 2017, though checking the article of the award it's evident that this wouldn't result in auto-notability. This is a rather poor attempt to refbomb a topic into notability. A search for ""Suat Onur Ayas"" or ""Suat Onur Aya ş "" results in no other sources. Lacks significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. Styyx ( talk ) 20:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Turkey . Styyx ( talk ) 20:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV . Aintabli ( talk ) 04:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , I know the incident from trwiki. The article fails WP:GNG . -- Kadı Message 09:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , no notability. Tehonk ( talk ) 22:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Scott Keadle: Only elected office is hyper-local county commissioner which would not normally qualify as notable outwith exceptional circumstances. Somewhat of a perennial candidate, but given that they generally failed to get past primaries (much less general elections) and lack the WP:SIGCOV that would be needed for a perennial candidate to be notable (c.f. Howling Laud Hope or Count Binface ), I don't believe they're over the line. Promo/Peacock in ""Community and family"" section implies originally written by someone associated with his campaigns. That can be fixed/rewritten, but he's not notable to start with. A previous AfD in 2013 came to no consensus, seemingly based on currency/recency of elections. But 12 years later I don't see that any enduring notability has been demonstrated. Hemmers ( talk ) 10:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Conservatism , North Carolina , and West Virginia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] non-notable county commissioner/congressional candidate. No real claim to notability BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 08:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] agree not notable lower office-holder and frequent candidate. Shrikesong ( talk ) 06:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Claude Wasserstein: The sources are connected with her and her work, or are passing mentions. Star Mississippi 15:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women . Star Mississippi 15:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and United States of America . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Note that the description of the Chevalier of the Legion of Honor as France's highest honor is misleading; Chevalier is the lowest rank of the Legion of Honor, awarded to thousands of people yearly. — Moriwen ( talk ) 17:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Television , United Arab Emirates , Ireland , England , New York , and Virginia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"News Watch (Indonesian TV series): Tagged for notability since 2016. PROD removed because ""it ran for 3 years"". Still needs reliable sources though Donald D23 talk to me 03:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Television , and Indonesia . Donald D23 talk to me 03:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . There's not any evidence of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SECONDARY reliable sources. Fails GNG, fails NTV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacona ( talk • contribs ) 14:46, September 28, 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mouth Sweet: The article has 8 sources. Only the 8th is a reliable secondary source that says anything significant, and it's a listicle of 10 games chosen by ""Colin Spacetwinks"" for Giant Bomb. Sources 1 and 3 are primary, while sources 2 is likely unreliable. Sources 4, 6 and 7 are probably unreliable, but also non-independent interviews. Source 5's reliability is irrelevant, as it's a trivial name drop. WP:VG/S uncovers nothing more. -- ferret ( talk ) 13:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . -- ferret ( talk ) 13:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No game reviews that I can see in any of the acceptable sources. TV Tropes is about the best site with a review I can find and it's not an RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Creator No objection here. Open and shut to me that there's not enough reliable sources. I'll look into source discussions for the potentially unreliable sites that remain unconfirmed. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 17:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There does not seem to be enough mentions in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Navid Ghasemi: Matingholami ( talk ) 15:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Cycling , and Iran . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 17 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 15:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] no accomplishments that would indicate notability. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 05:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Claire Rochecouste: 2 of The 3 sources are primary. A Google News search yielded nothing in-depth. Fails WP:BIO . LibStar ( talk ) 03:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Bilateral relations , Portugal , and Australia . LibStar ( talk ) 03:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not notable like the other article. Fails WP:BIO too. Wolverine XI ( talk to me ) 15:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Stephen López: Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 00:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Belize . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 00:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Serge Boutouli: No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC) RS Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of NFL Network Exclusive Game Series results (2006–present): Let'srun ( talk ) 20:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports , and American football . Let'srun ( talk ) 20:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , it is a split of the very long List of Thursday Night Football results (2006–present) . Esolo5002 ( talk ) 00:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The network a football game is on outside of its production, scorebug and announcers/analysts is not a defining characteristic, and these are all standard regular season games. Nate • ( chatter ) 23:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 20:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Independence Bowl broadcasters: Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE . Of the sources per WP:RS ; one is a 404, one are announcments of the BCS coverages, not just this. The rest is about the games itself, far less for the broadcasting of this game. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 08:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , American football , Lists , and Louisiana . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 08:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC) LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet WP:LISTN . Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jackie Adedeji: As always, journalists are not ""inherently"" notable just because content they created exists, and the notability test hinges on the reception of significant third-party coverage about them and their work -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that were self-published by companies or organizations she was directly affiliated with (e.g. documentary films that she appeared in ""sourced"" to their own presence on a streaming platform rather than media coverage about the films, podcast directories, etc.) or glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage that isn't about her (e.g. her name getting briefly mentioned in coverage whose primary subject is the celebrities who were on her podcast rather than her). There's only one footnote here, #6, that actually represents coverage about her in a WP:GNG -worthy source, and that isn't enough by itself. Bearcat ( talk ) 13:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and United Kingdom . Bearcat ( talk ) 13:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Women , Television , and Sexuality and gender . Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC) BBC ref is solid, rest are in sources of iffy reliability. Most coverage I find is in tabloids or other websites mostly describing her ample chest. There seems to have been a documentary on Channel 4 about her struggles with body image and large breasts, but most coverage is not in RS, more focused on her chest. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I feel if we had at least one other decent source about her, we'd be at notability. I'm surprised more media hasn't picked up on her message of positivity and acceptance. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC) Only other sources I find are in Nigerian media [18] and [19] , which are trivial coverage. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Armenian-Sasanian war (363–371): None of the citations have pages cited. First source is from 1903 and is about geography (?) Second source is good, though no page. It's only used to cite ""In 363 Armenia"". Third source is published by Lulu.com , a self-published source. In other words, article seems to be WP:OR . HistoryofIran ( talk ) 17:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Iran , and Armenia . Shellwood ( talk ) 18:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per above. Even if a better article could be written it would need to be completely recreated with different sources. BuySomeApples ( talk ) 00:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Meathead (band): I don't see much that would suggest the notability criteria is met for a page on en.wiki - there are a few refs on it.wiki but these seem to be databases or encyclopedia JMWt ( talk ) 13:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Italy . JMWt ( talk ) 13:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jhermy Fuentes: All that came up in my searches were passing mentions ( 2012 , 2014 , 2016 , 2017 , 2022 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 08:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Bolivia . JTtheOG ( talk ) 08:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC) BEFORE has been done; nothing but trivial coverage has been located Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per all above. Svartner ( talk ) 09:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Non-monotonic dice: None of the three sources are reliable or (worse) even mention ""non-monotonic dice"", which is understandable because there are no sources for the concept ""non-monotonic dice"" [20] . The concept of non-transitive dice, which is mentioned by the references, is already covered in Intransitive dice , so it's not as if this article discusses an uncovered topic by the wrong name. Fram ( talk ) 07:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions . Fram ( talk ) 07:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC) I found the David and Goliath dice interesting and no less remarkable than other sets of dice that are subjects of articles. Unfortunately I can find no references about them, or non-monotonic dice more generally, except for the page selling them (which is currently linked in the article) and what appears to be a Facebook page of the people who made or discovered them. If reliable sources publish something about these dice then I would like to see the information return to Wikipedia but at the moment I don't think there are sufficient sources. Mgp28 ( talk ) 10:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Mgp28 and Fram, thank you for the comments. The motivation for creating this page is the following: Before creating this page I considered including David vs Goliath dice as a variation under the Intransitive dice page (which I believe would be relatively unproblematic), however David vs Goliath dice are not intransitive by definition despite having many similities. Do you believe it would be better to include a section under intransitive dice called ""Variations to intransitive dice"" where David vs Goliath dice are explained? . Trojan.chess ( talk ) 12:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, because the David vs. Goliath dice are not notable either, the claims about it are not picked up or commented upon by any reliable sources. At the moment, it doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Fram ( talk ) 12:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your reply Fram. I agree there are very little publically available sources online concerning David vs Goliath dice, however there are some. I would like to highlight Mgp28 comment that these are ""no less remarkable than other sets of dice that are subjects of articles"" and I would add that on the Intransitive Dice page most of the dice sets cited there and the properties atributed to them have no source at all (see: mininmal alterations set, numbered 1 to 24, corrected grime dice, intransitive 4-sided, intransitive 12-sided). I think this is fine since these are mathematical objects that require less external validation than the average topic covered on wikipedia. My take is that either David vs Goliath should be included as a variant under Intransitive Dice (if not a full page) or the entire Intransitive Dice page should be cropped down for lack of external sources. My opinion is for the former rather than the latter. Trojan.chess ( talk ) 14:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""mathematical objects that require less external validation than the average topic covered on wikipedia."" Er, that goes against the most basic policies. Perhaps the other page needs trimming, but that's not an argument to include (further) novelties without good sources. And no, there are no good sources about these dice, never mind anything serious verifying the claims about them. Fram ( talk ) 14:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Trojan, I do think the dice are interesting. But when I come to read a Wikipedia article I expect the information to be reliable. That means that the blurb on a website selling dice is not sufficient. And while you might be perfectly qualified to tell me that the information is true, the rest of us have no way of knowing that, which is why there are rules against original research. It is perfectly feasible that these dice could be covered in reliable sources -- the intransitive dice are covered in publications such as The American Mathematical Monthly and Mathematics Magazine . But until they are, I don't think they have a place here, either on their own page or as part of another one. And if the descriptions of other dice are also original research, I think they will also need to be removed. Mgp28 ( talk ) 17:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Does a shop selling them even count as a valid source? Sadustu Tau ( talk ) 14:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Either per nom or to intransitive dice . Sadustu Tau ( talk ) 14:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why would we a term which is not in use elsewhere and seems to be an invention of the page creator? Fram ( talk ) 14:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Now that you mention it, looking up the term only brings up that article...in which case just . Sadustu Tau ( talk ) 20:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as an apparent neologism for an invented concept. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 20:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC) 43, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] a mildly interesting variation of intransitive dice , but not one that is discussed anywhere else under this name. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 21:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Evelaynne Alcequiez: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Dominican Republic . JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Permission slip: Boleyn ( talk ) 16:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC) NOTDICTIONARY . IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 16:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Field trip . This should be a pretty straightforward solution, since that is the thing to which the document relates. BD2412 T 03:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] When I was at school, I used permission slips to leave classes early for medical appointments, or to consent to my photograph being taken. I remember we had a yellow slip with about ten different checkboxes and the staff would just tick the applicable box for what permission was needed. So it wasn't just for field trips. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 09:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Another big one – permission to skip the lunch queue/enter the canteen at a specified time without queueing, for those taking part in lunch clubs. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 10:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well the current content is about field trips, and it would probably be better to there than go nowhere. BD2412 T 02:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, field trip could mention that permission slips are needed for students to attend. But that mention should occupy no more than a sentence of the article, and permission slip is entirely unreferenced. It is likely easier for an editor to find one source that supports whatever should be briefly said about permission slips at field trip than for an editor to the article. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 12:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and do not . In universities in the US permission slips are used to register for classes with limited enrollments and for other cases. Merging would be inappropriate because the term has far more general usage. Ldm1954 ( talk ) 00:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 16:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC) NOTDICTIONARY . TH1980 ( talk ) 03:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Karen Akopyan: Does not meet WP:SPORTBASIC . Sabih omar 04:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople , Football , and Russia . — Karnataka talk 06:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC) GNG . I could only find routine coverage (e.g., match reports [20] and database entries) in Russian-language sources. Jogurney ( talk ) 14:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Hasan Al Moustafa: No evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC from the references provided. Best I can find in Indian football coverage is Indian Sports News , a trivial mention, and Sportskeeda , which only mentions him twice. Best source I can find in Arabic is Kooora , a database source, which doesn't confer notability. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Syria . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC) GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney ( talk ) 14:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"UFO convention: Of the 11 listed as notable, only National UFO Conference (now defunk) is an actual notable UFO conference. Conspiracy Con is for conspiracies, MUFON has only a brief mention of symposium in the MUFON article. Giant Rock was a place where some UFO people gathered, not a convention. Roswell has a festival but even that is not a notable article. All the others currently mentioned are not notable. In popular culture section, is weak and some are only loosely associated with conventions. Two citations, one to Giant Rock and the other to MUFON. I think this article is only here to collect non-notable gatherings. Let each convention exist on it's own, and if we have enough that are notable, then have a UFO convention category. This is just unnecessary. Sgerbic ( talk ) 07:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Paranormal . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 08:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak or listify . As an article this is a WP:OR mess, but maybe it could be renamed to a list of UFO conventions (ing the list and removing the OR trivia about in popular culture)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] listify or if not . Preferably listify following above suggestion. Editing84 ( talk ) 09:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC) NLIST . The conventions red-linked currently without Wikipedia articles could just be due to no one yet having compiled the necessary quality news media sources, which are likely to increase in the present era. 5Q5 | ✉ 13:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Knox United SC: Couldn't find any online either. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 01:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia . ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 01:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Semi professional football club playing in Victoria . Plenty of sources must exist including in print media. Simione001 ( talk ) 23:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per Simione001. Definetlyu has offline sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 17:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] any evidence of such? ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 23:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC) No evidence of notability, fails GNG and NORG. None of the sources in the article or found in BEFORE are WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth . 05:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Fails WP:SIGCOV . WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is listed in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § There must be sources . voters must locate sources that demonstrate the topic passes GNG. Speculative statements are not convincing arguments. We need to see the evidence. 4meter4 ( talk ) 15:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Chloé Dépouilly: Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , South Africa , and France . Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC) NSKATE #2 requires gold in national championship. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 19:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC) There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale as WP:NSKATE is indicative that sigcov is likely, and is not presumptive/determinative, so someone could meet none of the NSKATE criteria but still meet WP:SPORTCRIT for some reason. And ! votes relying only on NSKATE are likewise invalid. That said, it's quite possible that most of these should be or results. ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 01:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources to meet the WP:GNG . Let'srun ( talk ) 22:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 12:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ben Dreyfuss: I have searched for meaningful second-party references to his career or body of work and am coming up short -- he does not seem to be notable as either a creative professional or writer. As far as I can tell, his most significant mentions are minor social media disputes. This article has, as far as I can tell, never included appropriate references and has at times leaned on inappropriate references (ie, personal LinkedIn or Facebook pages). The only current reference is an article about Richard Dreyfuss, not his son Ben. Since being related to a famous person by itself confers no notability ( WP:BIOFAMILY ), I think Ben Dreyfuss fails the notability check on his own. Geethree ( talk ) 13:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 6 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Journalism , and United States of America . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft There are a handful of reliable sources with significant coverage of Ben (not just his father). See here , here , here , here , here , here . I'd say it's just over the threshold for notability but I can see how someone would make a different judgment call. P.S. If the AfD consensus is to this article, Emily Dreyfuss should probably go through AfD as well on similar grounds. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 17:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dclemens1971 , I looked at the above sources you presented especially the first and second, which are simply interviews about a family. Others seems also though I didn't continued since first matters. Also we don't say because this person isn't notable, we should go for an article that has nothing to do with this AFD. Remember that journalists are taken to pass entry not only for the interviews they go always, but for coverage of them on a particular writing or style. If we should use those sources which are interviews per WP:INTERVIEW , then, we are incorporating unverifiable source—they says everything about them. — Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC) INTERVIEWS highlights the tension in using interviews for verifiability/notability, but the manual of style makes clear that interviews that are conducted by reliable journalistic outlets with robust editorial standards (like NPR, Politico, and NBC) can be considered for use. EDITED TO ADD: I acknowledge that it's a matter of discretion and judgment and that's why my rating remains a soft/weak . Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 11:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - He was the editorial director of Mother Jones (magazine) which would possibly not be enough in itself, but is not chopped liver, here he is being interviewed strictly about that. Between that and the various things DClemens mentions above, it should be enough. -- GRuban ( talk ) 03:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC) being such a writer of such magazines is not notability. I will also say you'do read it analyse the source per SE! — Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC) Per above! Cleanup and sourcing. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 00:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC) An article about an individual that doesn't meet the general notability guidelines for a journalist and actor. For WP:JOURNALIST , the article were less/not supported by any reliable source. Primarily, covering news is not same as you covered in news. The question is, has his writing influenced any style, time, etc like a normal writer? has his journalism been covered per WP:SIGCOV or for a particular incident. The answer per WP:BEFORE is ""no"". Appearing on few films not as lead doesn't mean the person is notable per WP:NACTOR , there are more or less sources to verify he was cast if not databases like IMDb, etc. While I have analysed this article doesn't meet our notability guidelines for an entry. Likewise the imitator, there is a case of WP:BIOFAMILY , as the article percent were sources from his family, his father, who was a notable actor. In my researches, almost if not all the sources were about his father lining a bit of the son, so, this is a case of WP:INHERITED . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 07:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – At this stage, I would and add whatever to Richard's page. If over time, he becomes more notable, he may justify his own article. This isn't now. MaskedSinger ( talk ) 06:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To me, slightly fleshing out Richard's page (and deleting this one) seems like the clear solution here. Most of the links provided above are all about Ben in relation to his father, not about Ben per se. If that is the eventual consensus, I'm happy to make those updates myself. Geethree ( talk ) 16:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] MaskedSinger , there is nothing to add here. Neither going for 23 eye surgeries nor being born by notable parents ( WP:INHERITED ) doesn't mean we should or . Tis article is credibly have no context, sources that analysed his characters or directing, any award? , what cognitive impact he has made. I don't see much of his parents role here . As a matter of fact, let's judge it in it's own accord! — Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 08:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Cynthia Laury Dahl: Doesn't meet WP:NPROF , not convinced meets WP:NAUTHOR (unless someone is better at finding reviews than me), or WP:GNG . Article has been PRODded before. Perhaps WP:MILL . Kj cheetham ( talk ) 13:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women . Kj cheetham ( talk ) 13:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 13:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. This article only shows up in search in some educational faculty sites and a LinkedIn account is the second result. Nothing really says anything about her except for that she works there, so I agree that it fails WP:GNG . User Memer ( chat ) Tribs 14:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mohamad Jaamour: is what WP:SPORTBASIC tells us is a requirement for any footballer to have their own article. I've revived the Syrian Soccer article but it's only a trivial squad list mention. Kooora merely lists his goals in the Syria Youth League and is only a database source. I found some Arabic coverage on Facebook but that's not a WP:RS . The only other source that I found was ZAMANALWSL , which is another trivial mention. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Syria . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC) GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney ( talk ) 02:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Joe Joseph (politician): If he wins, automatically notable, but at this point he is subject to general notability policy, and has no indication of passing Brislian ( talk ) 04:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON . All the coverage is specifically related to one event WP:BLP1E , if he does get elected he will be notable as you mention, thus drafting is best for now. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 08:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Military , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC) Beyond running as a candidate, the individual is not notable. TOOSOON applies. Can be re-created after the election win, if it goes that way. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON , and nom. and others above . Sal2100 ( talk ) 20:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC) Changing above ! vote from ""draftify"" to """" per the rationale of Antonine below. Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC) This is a blatant example of not notable. WP:TOOSOON shouldn't apply here as otherwise you could apply to all the other candidates standing in the general election, but the editorial guidelines are quite clear that only notable people get articles. Simply standing for election in a national contest does not automatically make someone notable, so this should be an automatic deletion as a simple case of not being noteworthy. Antonine ( talk ) 21:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fails multiple categories related to BLP articles. Textbook example of not notable and not meriting an individual Wiki article. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 23:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per previous votes. Unelected candidates are not inherently notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 20:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Anton Wormann: Shellwood ( talk ) 00:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 22 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 00:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Five total hits in Gnews, they all appear to be rehashing of the same story about buying a house in Japan. Gsearch goes straight to socials. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion , Internet , and Japan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per others. Drowssap SMM ( talk ) ( contributions ) 02:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Logitech Racing Wheels compatible games: It would make more sense to list specific game compatibility on the pages for the specific controllers themselves. QuietCicada - Talk 21:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . QuietCicada - Talk 21:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC) INDISCRIMINATE . It's potentially useful info for someone, but not necessarily the sort of information suited for a standalone Wikipedia article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wheel support is listed on the sites that sell games and on the box (if you still buy physical copies); it's not up to us to up a 'katamari list' where different models and console generations are listed without proper sourcing or demarcation and never removed when support ends. Nate • ( chatter ) 22:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So Toss it into the cosmos , then? :) QuietCicada - Talk 22:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - this sounds like a compatibility list for Logitech's website, not an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 23:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . per WP:NOTIINFO and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE . Ajf773 ( talk ) 08:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. AryKun ( talk ) 14:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC) INDISCRIMINATE -- Artene50 ( talk ) 12:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep/Change So I am new to this process so forgive me if I make mistakes. So I do think some of the points are valid . On the point of lack of citation, a major issue with a lot of the older games listed on this article there's essentially no citable source outside of the software/physical packaging. If this article would need a major rework to work around that (or if someone can inform me how to handle correct information about a piece of video game software outside of the software and manual itself, please do) I mention this because this counters the idea this information can be found via online stores, that's only true of newer, digital releases (and frankly isn't always true, as I've found out myself). However I do see issues with this article, personally I don't think it should have been originally set up to only use Logitech brand wheels, while during the PlayStation 2 console generation they were essentially the ""Official"" wheel controller for the console, that became less the case with each new console generation. I do have to ask why a list like this wouldn't be suited for Wikipedia, but lists such as Lists of software released for a specific console hardware, or exclusively for that hardware are, again I'm new to this article for deletion process so what specific differences allow for those articles, I genuinely want to know. If ultimately a more broad version of this article, or specific versions of this article broken up by console system, or specific model of wheel controllers (which personally I think would be a mess because there would be dozen of 3rd party models that older console hardware would detect as if it was a logitech one) then I'll understand, though if that is the case do articles have a certain amount of notice? JohnnyBagHead ( talk ) 03:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sarala Birla Academy: RPSkokie ( talk ) 09:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India . RPSkokie ( talk ) 09:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:NSCHOOL , and is unsourced. I couldn't find any reliable sources for the article. Most of the article is likely WP:OR , as well. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 09:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Karnataka . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . While some sources are available, they do not meet WP:SIGCOV . Fails WP:NSCHOOL . 33ABGirl ( talk ) 17:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unreferenced, although the sources in the Bengali version of this appear to be primary. Fails WP:NSCHOOL . LibStar ( talk ) 04:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nilo Aguillar Effori: Purely promo vanity page. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Nirva20 ( talk ) 02:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Law , and Brazil . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 03:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Also looked for sources: could find none talking about him. References on article were links to articles that he wrote. He does appear as an interviewee about some formula 1 things here , but it doesn't cover him significantly. Mrfoogles ( talk ) 03:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Looks like a self-promo. Anwegmann ( talk ) 01:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC) classic vanity page. Please ping if you find sources to contrary. Jtrrs0 ( talk ) 15:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"King Biscuit Flower Hour Presents - Humble Pie In Concert: Based on a before search it does not appear to have charted, won an award, or received enough significant coverage for a stand alone article. Nominating to be ed to Humble Pie , the band who recorded the album. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Fails NALBUM per nom. C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE 05:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nadine Cohen: Not much on the page to indicate this is a notable person JMWt ( talk ) 16:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia . JMWt ( talk ) 16:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] created by a single purpose editor so possible promo. None of the roles confer inherent notability. Fails WP:BIO . LibStar ( talk ) 22:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Peninsula Engineering Group, Inc.: Appears to fail WP:NCORP and WP:GNG . Appears to mainly cite primary sources, with none sustaining a claim to notability. Various searches are struggling to turn up anything. Mdann52 ( talk ) 06:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC) first to Peninsula Wireless Communications, and then to Repeater Technologies. The company was taken public and then went bankrupt under the name Repeater Technologies. Peninsula Engineering Solutions is a successor organization, which was acquired by Infinity Wireless. https://www.infinitiwireless.com/we-are-pleased-to-announce-the-r-of-their-two-companies/ The company's patent on split band filtering was a foundational patent in on frequency repeaters for cellular mobile radio. It is cited by 36 other patents, see: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4783843A/en Rabcfi ( talk ) 16:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Technology . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 08:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 08:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs ) 11:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC) No sources about the company found, some patents and government decisions. Listed in a paper here [19] , but not really about the organization. for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ilya Pekaruk: Dougal18 ( talk ) 14:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Nagol0929 ( talk ) 14:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC) this person appears to be early in their career, so it's entirely possible that they might become notable later. But for now, I'm struggling to find sources that meet GNG. Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://dartsnews.com/pdc/northern-ireland-ease-past-ukraine-at-world-cup-of-darts-hungary-whitewash-india passing reference ✘ No https://energodar.city/articles/46510/illya-pekaruk-ta-andrij-lagutin-posili-prizovi-miscya-na-turniri-z-dartsu-v-melitopoli ~ Pekaruk gets a photograph and a paragraph of prose, but is not the subject of the article ~ Partial https://skeptik.com.ua/ykrayinec-vpershe-zigraye-na-chempionati-svity-z-dartsy/ ? passing reference ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . All the best, Akakievich ( talk ) 17:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jordan Casanova: It appears the subject received a scholarship to play at Angelina College in Texas, but I could not find SIGCOV on his club, college, or international careers. JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Belize . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC) GNG ; I couldn't find anything better than what the nominator mentions (just routine stuff like this ). Jogurney ( talk ) 15:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC) FAILN . PARVAGE talk! 06:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Fails WP:GNG . Maliner ( talk ) 16:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Desarrollos Industriales Casanave SC-2005: Elshad ( talk ) 18:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Firearms and Peru . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or if a citation is added then into FN FAL. Flurrious ( talk ) 15:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Presidents Leadership Class: I found no widespread evidence of significant coverage by WP:RS. There is only one source; most of the article's actually relevant organizational information is unsourced with a large amount of WP:NOR . It reads as a promotional showcase to a minor college program. GuardianH ( talk ) 13:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , Schools , and Colorado . Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Schneider Crossroads, Virginia: WP:BEFORE pulls up nothing useful. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , United States of America , and Virginia . Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The sole supporting source in the article is a GNIS computer database record, and that is false sourcing, as the original feature class for that record was ""locale"", not ""ppl"". There's no source for this being a community, unincorporated or otherwise, nor even a populated place of any sort. No source for all of the material in Special:Diff/518903976 has been proffered, and the Virginia Department of Transport WWW site turns up nothing for a ""Schneiders"" or a ""Schneider's"" and its search engine results break for ""Schneider"" although the titles returned seem to indicate completely different roads and places to this one. This is at best road junction work that is unverifiable by me from VDOT records, and at the moment worse than that a completely fictitious ""unincorporated community"" with false sourcing. Uncle G ( talk ) 11:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, Cox Farms is certainly there (started in 1979 as an outgrowth of the the original Vienna VA site), and the roundabout got built, but it's still just a intersection in a still rural part of of No. VA. Go back into the past, any way you like, and there's simply nothing there. It's just not a notable spot/locale. Mangoe ( talk ) I don't think you would be able to find any hits if it hadn't been for other sites repeating the GNIS record. Kill it. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC) ""little more than a florists' and a site called Cox Farms."" Totally run of the mill locality. It badly fails my own long time standards . Bearian ( talk ) 15:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Greenville Triumph SC head coaches: I see no reason this very short article shouldn't be d into the main Greenville Triumph SC article, which is also fairly short. Iago Qnsi ( talk ) 02:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You have to be kidding me. A list with one entry, when WP:NLIST specifies that the entrieS (plural) on a list must have been discussed as a group in RS to be notable? Flagrant, obvious violation of notability. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 02:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy - Created by a banned sock puppeteer. — Maile ( talk ) 02:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC) CSD#G5 . Also, doesn't meet WP:NLIST , as this ""list"" contains one person. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 07:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Football , and South Carolina . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Greenville Triumph as there's nothing wrong with the actual content of this page (which consists of a table with one row), but absolutely should not be a stand-alone page. SportingFlyer T · C 08:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. There is literally no need for a separate list article with literally one entry -- ChrisTheDude ( talk ) 10:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as superfluous. The substantive content, i.e John Harkes was appointed head coach before the team's first season, and as far as we know is still in post, is already in the main article, and the stats haven't been updated since this list was created 4+ years ago. There's nothing to . cheers, Struway2 ( talk ) 10:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A list with all of one entry, and the club itself has existed for five whole years. Jiminy Christmas. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 19:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - absolutely pointless. Giant Snowman 16:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Puthiya Mugam (unreleased film): Why is it notable? This film is unreleased since 2017. DareshMohan ( talk ) 00:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC) NFF without prejudice, the parameters of discussion have changed since the start. — siro χ o 01:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Why should unreleased films that are only partially filmed (less than 100% filmed) for three or more years be considered notable? DareshMohan ( talk ) 17:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Tamil Nadu . Skynxnex ( talk ) 02:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unreleased films may be notable. Here sources tend to focus on Kalaiyarasan , so I'd say there. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Not an exception to WP:NFF . ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 09:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following related pages because they are unreleased and will never release due to years of delay. These films from 2017—2020 have no update. Ottakkomban ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Unreleased since 2020. Daali ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Unreleased since 2019. Kallapart ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Unreleased since 2018. Iravaakaalam ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Unreleased since 2017. Pagaivanuku Arulvai ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Unreleased since 2020. Comment @ DareshMohan : I am not absolutely sure ""bundling"" so many unreleased/upcoming films in the same Afd is extremely clear nor that it will prove efficient. I would tend to think that each of these films deserves a specific approach. In strictly procedural terms, I see that the Afd tags on other pages lead here without this fact being clearly presented on top of this page (in the actual nomination), and I am not quite certain it should or even can be like this. It will become increasingly complicated to make sure what people are commenting on exactly if distinct Afds are not created, or to know what they comment upon if other pages are bundled into this Afd in the meantime. For instance, my comment above is strictly related to Puthiya Mugam and not to anything else. I suggest to fix this by having one Afd for each film. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC) I think it is fine because all of the films are unreleased for years. Imo, creating 5 more AfD's with the same ""This film is never going to release. Why is it notable?"" wouldn't make sense either. Remember: unreleased films should not have articles unless the production is deemed notable, which is not the case. Invitation for @ Siroxo : @ Raydann : to cast their votes for the other 5 films. DareshMohan ( talk ) 18:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Fails WP:NFF . Unreleased for over six years. Kailash29792 (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Fails WP:NFF . aggarwala2727 ( talk ) 18:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] failing SNG for film. Okoslavia ( talk ) 21:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] all Unreleased film = not notable film. It's as simple as that. A forthcoming film by a notable director with a notable cast with a definite release date, yes - but after three years, I think we're in safe 'not happening' territory and in case it ever does happen, a nice, new article can be unveiled. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 04:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC) The assertion that ""Unreleased film = not notable film. It's as simple as that"" is simply not true . There are many unreleased films that are extremely notable according to Wikipedia generally accepted standards. The guideline clearly states: ""Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines ."" (emphasis mine) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Thomas Toivonen: His side project Kaburu is likewise listed at AfD. Drmies ( talk ) 01:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The references in the corresponding Polish article at pl:Thomas_Toivonen may be helpful. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Finland , and Sweden . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I can't read Polish, but based on the urls the pl.wiki sources appear all suspect. It's blogs, an amazon page, etc. I did find a Polish newspaper bio about him [29] , and there's maybe a couple of hits from Swedish newspapers, but the latter are all paywalled and I can't access them [30] , [31] . Someone of the same name appears to have also written opinion pieces for Fria Tidningen , but those obviously don't count even if it is the same person. I'll refrain from ! voting for now in the hopes that someone else has access to the paywalled newspaper links. - Ljleppan ( talk ) 07:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's been a couple of days, so absent confirmation that the paywalled Swedish language sources I linked above are sufficient for GNG, I'll mark myself down as a . That said, I'll happily reconsider if someone can provide a description of them. Ljleppan ( talk ) 11:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hwem ( AfD discussion ) and Kaburu ( AfD discussion ) were created by an account claiming (via the copyright on the image) to be Thomas Toivonen ( AfD discussion ), which has also edited this article. Interestingly, some 13 years later another account claiming to be Toivonen came along, requested that the biography be d , and proceeded in concert with an IP address editor to remove quite a lot of content. That was 3 years ago. The early versions from 2007 were very clearly someone writing about xyrself in the third person. The current version is fairly well aligned with the Polish Wikipedia article, whose sourcing is somewhat shaky, I agree. Some similarly poor sources were removed from this article in 2020. Uncle G ( talk ) 10:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Panchkot Raj: It is an unnecessary standalone article as it can exist as part of Damodar Sekhar . ~ Admantine123 ( talk ) 18:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . Admantine123 ( talk ) 18:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Jharkhand and West Bengal . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sardar Khan Niazi: The only participant who voted to it was a sock account who provided no strong sourcing based on GNG. The sockpuppet also claimed that the subject had received one award. However, per WP:NBIO, receiving a single award does not automatically guarantee that a subject should get a WP BLP. Saqib ( talk ) 11:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . Saqib ( talk ) 11:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC) ANYBIO #2 - he has received Tamgha-i-Imtiaz for his work. Editor-in-chief of a number of licensed newspapers, founder of a PEMRA -licensed TV station is enough to show his notability. 2400:ADC7:5101:2500:B17C:9657:E301:EFD4 ( talk ) 22:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC) shared a good rationale to this article. 2400:ADC7:5101:2500:B17C:9657:E301:EFD4 ( talk ) 22:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sachi Baat SK Niazi k Sath should be a to this article. 2400:ADC7:5101:2500:B17C:9657:E301:EFD4 ( talk ) 22:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC) NBIO, receiving a single award does not automatically guarantee that a subject should get a WP BLP. Similarly, positions such as ""Editor-in-chief of a number of licensed newspapers, founder of a PEMRA-licensed TV station"" do not inherently establish WP:N or automatically justify a WP BLP. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 06:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC) Failed WP:GNG . No in-depth coverage. Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 15:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk ) 17:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Searched for sources with significant coverage of the subject to meet notability, but couldn’t find any. Being an editor-in-chief of newspapers does not make someone notable. Similarly, the award is not exclusive; many who have received this award are not notable. Grab Up - Talk 11:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Asad Ali Palijo (singer): Appears to fail NMUSIC/NACTOR. Background: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asad Ali Palijo , [3] , [4] KH-1 ( talk ) 12:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Bands and musicians , and Pakistan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote , but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts : {{subst: spa | username }} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed | username }} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry : {{subst: csm | username }} or {{subst: csp | username }} . - long-term abuse, see also this SPI . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC) BEFORE search, also the same for a search for Urdu-language sources. Tails Wx 14:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC) No coverage for this individual found, I'd SALT. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC) BEFORE . Easily passes WP:NACTOR as there is a ton of coverage: [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] . Rahe Husain ( talk ) 6:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC) You'll have to do better than that. Refs 3, 4, 5, 11 just list him a cast member (no SIGCOV or indication of whether the role is notable), and he's not specifically mentioned in the rest. Plus you'll need at least two notable credits to have a chance at WP:NACTOR. - KH-1 ( talk ) 09:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:NACTOR, Has played major and notable roles in movies. M. Umar Lal‬ ( talk ) 02:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M. Umar Lal ( talk • contribs ) [ reply ] None of these sources do not have significant coverage of the subject playing major and notable roles in movies. Doesn't pass GNG nor NACTOR based on the given references. Tails Wx 02:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Official accounts post [20] , [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Wikee ( talk • contribs ) 14:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC) After reviewing the article and looking at ALL the references, my conclusion is that this article about a actor is worth ing. I saw many references not only from the reliable sources like Dawn newspaper, The Express Tribune and Youlin magazine and others. WP:NACTOR . DKGS02 ( talk ) 15:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC) Pass in WP:NACTOR. look like notable. M. Umar Lal‬ ( talk ) 02:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M. Umar Lal ( talk • contribs ) The actor has played supporting roles in Quaid-e-Azam Zindabad , London Nahi Jaunga and notable roles in other and There are also independent coverages of the person on web. I strongly believe that the person is notable and passes WP:NACTOR. Kiryaani‬ ( talk ) 13:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiryaani ( talk • contribs ) NACTOR Worldiswide ( talk ) 03:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC) Notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.198.109.243 ( talk ) 07:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment All of these """" votes are coming from SPAs. - KH-1 ( talk ) 11:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not think there has been RS offered. Many of the sources offered appear to be dubious. Also, there is an SPA farm of s here. Lightburst ( talk ) 15:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bikwasi Haruna: At first glance, Place and See might appear to be WP:SIGCOV but the content is entirely copied from Wikipedia so fails WP:RS standards. I can't find anything better in my WP:BEFORE . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Uganda . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . WP:NOTPROMO / WP:NOTLINKEDIN . Does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:BASIC . — siro χ o 23:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I didn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources . Jacona ( talk ) 01:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Fatjon Muhameti: Newsport has an article on him but the majority of the post is copied from Muhameti's social media post. Likewise, Bold News is based entirely off Muhameti's Facebook post too. Telegrafi is an independent source in this case but it only mentions him twice so isn't WP:SIGCOV . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Albania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and SALT - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Obviously not notable by all measures. Anwegmann ( talk ) 02:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Human Society and Its Environment: - Guillaume Faye-Bédrin ( talk ) 19:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC) Technological and Applied Studies Personal Development, Health and Physical Education Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Added two more articles from the same user here, I'm rather baffled why we would want articles on a single state's curricula, sourced only the state education authority. Expand New_South_Wales#Education with brief summaries , but don't do this. Reywas92 Talk 20:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC) there is not a lot of value in us maintaining as seperate documents, when it would serve the teachers and others users of the material much better to get it from the original source. I encourage the author @ Smashskitten : to check out Wikidata:Wikidata_for_Education : a much bettter thing to do with the material from the standards, would be to map key concepts against Wikidata, so we can do things like improve existing Wikipedia articles that match the things the students need to learn. Sadads ( talk ) 12:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC) NOTGUIDE also applies besides being a blatant copy and paste. LibStar ( talk ) 02:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . This article is in need of cleanup, but the course itself seems to be the subject of a some academic study and critique. Such sources include ""Some issues arising in NSW human society and its environment for primary schools"" , a journal article about the course; and ""Forum: Geography and Geographical Education in New South Wales, Australia"" , a 2006 journal article discussing the course's teachings of geography. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lisbeth Moreno: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Nicaragua . JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"AMGTV: A BEFORE check only found some minor and routine coverage regarding confirmation of certain shows the network was set to air, such as [ [46] ]. Let'srun ( talk ) 14:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Florida . Let'srun ( talk ) 14:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Henry Robinson (scientist): In 1850 he was listed as auditor and council member of the same, [1] and that's all I got from a BEFORE . Seems like a very odd choice for an article to be honest. -- D'n'B - t -- 19:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and England . -- D'n'B - t -- 19:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Way too little here to justify notability under WP:BIO . Nsk92 ( talk ) 19:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . For a little while, I thought this Henry Robinson might have been the civil engineer who was the author of ""River Pollution"" and Sewerage and Sewer Disposal (1896). I don't think that Henry Robinson is notable either , but his writing was at least influential in the late 19th century debate in England about whether rivers were inherently ""self-cleaning"" or whether pollution needed to be managed. However, they're not the same person. This is clearly about the Henry Robinson who is the subject of this ""article""; his son Charles Best Norcliffe discusses his ""late"" father. That was published in 1884, so the author of the 1896 book cannot be the same man. With that in mind, I have absolutely no idea what this article was trying to accomplish. I think I can find references for the claims it makes, but why ? There's nothing here or, so far as I can tell, elsewhere to suggest any particular level of notability or importance. Lubal ( talk ) 19:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Not enough here for notability. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 00:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] the only references to him were in the YPS minutes and the York directories. I suspect that he may have been a fine fellow, but not especially notable even during his lifetime — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 11:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC) Is this him [7] ? Talks a bit about the person, but still not enough for ing the article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nope, that Henry Robinson wrote in the 17th century, while the article's Henry Robinson was active in the mid-1800s. Lubal ( talk ) 00:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no allegation of notability nor any evidence therefor. Bearian ( talk ) 15:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Etienne Mermer: Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 04:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC) has the nominator fulfilled WP:BEFORE? Jack4576 ( talk ) 05:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I've added a few sources, and as with the rest of tonight's deletions, there are plenty on the Vanuatu Daily Post in Bismali for the football fans to go through. -- IdiotSavant ( talk ) 10:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:SIGCOV . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 17:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak [56] , [57] , [58] , [59] , [60] , there is more in the google search. [61] , Regards. Govvy ( talk ) 10:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lets see, the first two are interviews with the subject and therefore are primary sources. The third and fifth sources mentions the subject once and therefore it fails WP:SIGCOV . The fourth source mentions the subject twice and is routine. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 17:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Interviews are not 'primary'. Giant Snowman 18:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes they are! ""The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material. "" Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 23:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC) For definitions of primary sources: The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing ""an inside view of a particular event"". They offer as examples: original documents , such as [...] interviews, [...]"" Duke University Libraries offers this definition: ""A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include [...] interviews, [...]"" JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 43, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 40, 22 May 2023 (UTC) OR explicitly includes interviews among examples of primary sources) and so do not count, and anyway they're by the governing football org (OFC) and the government sports ministry so are automatically ineligible to count towards GNG N (and that goes for the other OFC article too). Oceania Football Center is a WordPress blog N . The Solomon Star source is a passing mention + quote N . Nothing approaching SIGCOV here. JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:SIGCOV . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 23:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 10, 23 May 2023 (UTC) 49, 23 May 2023 (UTC) 50, 23 May 2023 (UTC) NBIO , which states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Frank Anchor 03:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC) Vanuatu U23 football coach, Etienne Mermer, stood by his players and congratulated them for reaching the semi-final of the OFC Men’s Olympic qualifiers. [62] [press release from Vanuatu Football] [63] with Vanuatu coach Etienne Mermer and coach Leo Moli putting in Azariah Soromon at number minute. (+quotes) [64] The Vanuatu Football Federation (VFF) has confirmed that Assistant U20 coach Etienne Mermer will not join the management team of the U20 squad of Vanuatu where he stayed for the World Cup in Korea in May. [...] Mermer's Thomas and Kaltak were part of the U20 squad that defeated the Solomon Islands in the U20 semifinal in Vanuatu last year... [65] [literally all coverage is ""Mermer said""], and anyway the article is a press release from VFF [youtube interview from OFC], [youtube video from sports ministry] [blog post] [66] Suri’s opposite number Etienne Mermer despite having a good number of experienced players featured in the 2017 FIFA U-20 World Cup says... (+quotes) [67] [OFC PR] [68] So please tell me how this adds up to SIGCOV of Mermer?? JoelleJay ( talk ) 18:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC) GNG due to lack of significant coverage. I agree with the above evaluation of the sources. Alvaldi ( talk ) 20:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC) GNG per the above evaluation of the sources; the only in-depth coverage comes from the VFF, OFC and quotes from the subject himself (which are not independent of the subject). Jogurney ( talk ) 20:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , passes GNG. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 20:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you explain how in light of the source analysis by JoelleJay above? Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 20:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"HTML-Kit: There's some brief coverage in books but nothing significant other than ""it's an HTML editor you can use,"" and nothing else I could find that seemed reliable. Survived an AfD in 2005 solely on the basis of being ""well-known."" StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software . StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC) The prior AfD (which was long enough ago that it was actually a V fD) is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HTML Kit ; the article was renamed a few months after that nomination. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Because of prior deletion discussion, a Soft Deletion is not an option here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Usual software fluffery. Unreferenced since 2005. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC) Fails GNG, unsourced, nothing found that meets WP:SIRS . // Timothy :: talk 10:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Chae Tu-yong: Simione001 ( talk ) 00:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 00:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 00:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 00:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC) This subject fails all notability guidelines. User:Let'srun 00:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"8964 (disambiguation): ltbdl ( talk ) 06:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . ltbdl ( talk ) 06:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I agree there appear to only be two pages that are likely to be sought by visitors to this disam page, and this can be sorted out by a hatnote. I'm not sure which is the more likely target tho. JMWt ( talk ) 07:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC) have retargetd 8964 to the section on ""Naming"" where it is mentioned, and moved the hatnote there too. No link needed to the 9th millennium, any more than for the other 999 years of that millennium. Pam D 08:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This is barely even a ONEOTHER situation: other four-digit numbers do not to the minor planets they are associated with, even when (unlike 8964 Corax) they actually have articles: e.g. 8013 does not to 8013 Gordonmoore . There's certainly no need to include 9th millennium , which s to timeline of the far future and has nothing to say about the year 8964. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk ) 11:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Japanese overseas military actions: This would theoretically include every Japanese operation in World Wars I and II, in addition to countless previous actions. SilverStar54 ( talk ) 05:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Lists , and Japan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. This includes numerous unrelated states. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 12:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or draftify. The subject is notable, the list is not unmanageably large, and mostly it just wants proper sourcing. Mccapra ( talk ) 14:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC) NOTDATABASE . What is the point of this 2005 un-sourced list? There is no indication of who created this, or why. Ultimately, just about every existing nation on earth has been involved in military actions beyond their borders. But, so what? — Maile ( talk ) 16:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I searched for List of overseas military actions and seen no other nation has this. There is a Timeline of United States military operations and Category:Military timelines shows other nations that have these. But those are for nations, not locations that previously had a completely unrelated government. D r e a m Focus 05:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mere POVFORK of wars list. Abhishek0831996 ( talk ) 14:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Seems like a perfectly manageable list. I have no idea what ""unrelated states"" Clarityfiend is referring to. Lack of sources in an article from 2005 and especially in a list is no grounds for deletion. What POV does Abhishek0831996 have in mind? Srnec ( talk ) 21:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC) Lists of wars by country ? All of the former lists would just be an arbitrary subset of the latter. One can imagine an endless number of ways to subdivide lists of wars involving a country, but I don't think they all need separate pages. SilverStar54 ( talk ) 00:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC) TNT - There might be a list to be created within this area, but the current contents (effectively unsourced and containing vague statements like By some interpretations... ) and the mismatch between it's title (""military actions"" encompasses almost anything) and it's inclusion criteria ( historical wars or other military conflicts outside the geographic boundaries of Japan in which Japanese soldiers participated ) make this a difficult knot to untangle incrementally: removing unsourced contents would be equivalent to just removing the article, and a discussion on what the scope/inclusion criteria/title should be is exactly the kind of discussion that I've found rarely works out in practice. Easier for everyone involved to just start over. - Ljleppan ( talk ) 08:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - This article is just junk . We have [ [19] ] which is also questionable, and we have Military_history_of_Japan . DCsansei ( talk ) 22:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Susan Binau: Does not meet WP:N , references cited are either not connected to notability, or passing remarks or self-published/promotional material, or completely irrelevant of the subject. Strong indication of WP:COI . Bulk of the article is written like a promotional material for subject's books and charity, violating WP:PROMOTION . Sabih omar 18:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Businesspeople , Women , Beauty pageants , and Denmark . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 17 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 18:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , very PROMO. Sources 17-19 are synth. They don't discuss this person, only the sound method used in treatments. Too many sources to wade through in Danish, no article in any other language wiki is a red flag. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Aaliya Siddiqui: The films perhaps are. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC) PRODUCER , no notable films and no in-depth coverages from reliable sources. DSN18 ( talk ) 21:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Holy Cow (film) already gives her producer credits. WonderCanada ( talk ) 10:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"SS Jassim: Doesn;t appear to have enough coverage to meet GNG. Acroterion (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . First two sources in the article are unreliable. Web searches aren't convincing either, and do not have signficant coverage of the event. per nominator. Tails Wx ( they/them ) ⚧ 02:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sudan-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 08:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] after a unconvincing source search though note I didn't search in Sudanese media. Would like to this if any other sources beyond ""cool places in Google maps"" can be found - there's a mention in a diving the Red Sea book though. SportingFlyer T · C 11:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation , Norway , and Bolivia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC) RS sources cited, so fails WP:GNG . Seems to be just another non-notable shipwreck. - Ahunt ( talk ) 12:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Šimon Horniak: Had a first-tier career that lasted one or two minutes , and nothing in the way of biographical sourcing. Geschichte ( talk ) 16:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Slovakia . Shellwood ( talk ) 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per nom. Svartner ( talk ) 09:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – I can't find any coverage of him on Slovak news websites. SME sub-website My Nitra is only a passing mention in squad announcement, and very unlikely to coverage due to being paywalled. Clara A. Djalim ( talk ) 10:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC) GNG and WP:SIGCOV . Anwegmann ( talk ) 21:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Just Visiting (band): WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No sources provided and it is hard to find anything in Google due to do commonality of the name. Royal88888 ( talk ) 01:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Judith Sewell Wright: Mdann52 ( talk ) 14:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Law . Mdann52 ( talk ) 14:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC) I don't find book reviews, so not passing AUTHOR. No mentions in media that i can find, what's now used for sourcing in the article is primary or linked to paper sources that I can't locate online. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you need reviews for the books, they are in the Amazon postings of the books. I may not be a Wikipedia expert, but I do know that Judith has, in fact, written these books. If you want to look her up as an author in general: https://www.amazon.com/s? i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3AJudith+Wright+EdD&s=relevancerank&text=Judith+Wright+EdD&ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1 Does that somehow not qualify? I do not understand. KreftMM ( talk ) 15:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC) By ""reviews"" we normally mean articles discussing books and covering them in depth, not just reviews on shopping sites. Mdann52 ( talk ) 05:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for that feedback. It will help me in other regards - however, I am no longer working on Judith's Wikipedia page in any regard. KreftMM ( talk ) 16:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . in WP:AUTHOR, one of the criteria for notability is that 'The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique'. It looks to me like Wright is either the originator of the concept of soft addiction or at the very least a leading author on the topic. Also, I can find book reviews- I am not sure where you were looking. Spiralwidget ( talk ) 15:45, 19 June 2024 @ Spiralwidget : I note the soft addiction thing - but I don't know if it's a ""significant new"" concept, as the concept seemed to be known and studied under the name ""behaviour addition"" from before her time (and the article s there now) - however with that being the only claim to notability, I didn't think it met the bar. Mdann52 ( talk ) 16:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC) I have to review this as instead a Comment . I could not find reviews outside of Amazon Books and she seems to receive remarkably little attention by major publications. Reviews are available on the books in every place they are available for purchase. I can also provide additional book reviews, as well as sources for where she has been in the media. Such as: https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=HlE0y5gYH1I , https://www.grandmagazine.com/2018/03/transformational-learning-age/ , https://beta.prx.org/stories/94668 , https://blacktortoisepress.com/tag/oprah-winfrey-show/ I'll admit that I don't know what types of sources are preferred on Wikipedia, but I can assure you I can provide the right kind if you educate me. KreftMM ( talk ) 16:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC) RSPRIMARY , Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over others. Procyon117 ( talk ) 17:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Illinois , and Michigan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Wright's coining of soft addiction, per WP:AUTHOR , makes her notable. — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong ) 16:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC) AUTHOR , according soft addiction . -- Mooon FR ( talk ) 20:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I refined my search to ""Judith Wright"" + soft addictions, and found multiple sources through ProQuest and Newspapers.com and through Google that verify she did coin the term. Sacramento Bee , Sac Bee continued , Orlando Sentinel , author, Judith Wright, coined the term ""soft addictions"" more than 12 years ago , Judith Wright, who labeled the phenomenon more than a decade ago , a term she coined several years ago , so she appears to meet WP:AUTHOR#2. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC) AUTHOR #2 is satisfied. Sal2100 ( talk ) 15:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] unless an editor can provide references to reliable, fully independent sources that devote significant coverage to Sewell Wright. Sources brought forward are passing mentions of her, and quotations from her, generated by the marketing campaigns for her books. Sources that call her a ""life coach and lifestyles expert"" are clearly parroting her self promotional activities. Yes, she coined the phrase ""soft addiction"" but that refers to a psychiatric condition and she has no known formal training in psychiatry or psychology or psychotherapy or counseling or anything relevant. As for Amazon reviews, they are worthless for establishing notability since Amazon is in the business of selling almost everything including non-notable books by non-notable authors, as in this case. She is definitely not a ""leading author"" on Behavioral addiction . Many of the leading authors are in the reference section of that well-referenced article, and she is not among them. Cullen328 ( talk ) 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per reasons given by Cullen328, at least for now. No editor has yet provided examples of significant coverage of ""soft addiction"" in fully independent non-promotional venues/outlets. As far as I can tell, all the links to news clippings above are associated with Wright's books, interviews directly with Wright, promotions of her seminars, or all three. SunTunnels ( talk ) 22:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Although the article needs an update, it certainly meets the notability criteria. Bexaendos ( talk ) 12:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Bexaendos , please point out reliable sources completely independent of Sewell Wright that devote significant coverage to Sewell Wright. Cullen328 ( talk ) 21:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Parmatma Ek Sevak: No WP:RS coverage found. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion , Hinduism , India , and Maharashtra . Redtigerxyz Talk 17:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - 1. The sect has significant following in eastern part of Vidarbha. 2. Chief Minister of Maharashtra praised their work. https://x.com/cmomaharashtra/status/815528360415621121? s=46&t=WEvzL9ICcN6GgmjJ3HjA4g 3. Govt of India, Department of Post, released a post ticket featuring founder of the sect, released by vice-president of India. https://www.jagranjosh.com/current-affairs/amp/vice-president-of-india-released-a-commemorative-postage-stamp-of-baba-jumdev-1380607652-1 4. The article does need a cleanup, but it certainly meets notability criteria. Not many sources available in English as the sect works in marginalized sections and is not well-documented in academia. GD ( talk ) 18:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC) Being thanked by someone on Twitter isn't notable. This article has one source and the rest appears to be copied verbatim from the scriptures/holy texts this religion uses. I can't find mention of them. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] based the lack of sources I can find in English. If there are sources shown in other languages I’m happy to reconsider. Mccapra ( talk ) 20:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Drowssap SMM ( talk ) ( contributions ) 02:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV . Interestingly someone in the early page history pasted a huge dump of unsourced text that is probably a copyvio (though the detector doesn't come up with any significant hits) that still lives on the page today. It should have been reverted but never was. Uhai ( talk ) 12:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Fabrizio Tassinari: Seems a lot like advertising. HPfan4 ( talk ) 23:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Politics , and Italy . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC) BEFORE search, but the nom is correct, the article fails GNG on its face. (I looked into this very quickly but wanted to leave a quick note.) SportingFlyer T · C 19:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC) V and decent WP:BEFORE should be done per best practice. I found this book review [2] which might go some way towards WP:NAUTHOR . I think probably the book The Pursuit of Governance at [3] may be notable, but I suspect he is not. It needs a better academic search, but no other reviews on any of this work turned up. scope_creep Talk 11:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - a Google Scholar search indicates he's a prolific academic writer and widely cited. He's notable per criteria #1 of WP:NACADEMIC . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have replaced two useless citations to books that he wrote himself with citations to independent reviews. More needs to be done. Why is it that most of our articles about academics seem to cite their own writings rather than independent sources? Are academics uniquely thick in that they write this way? Phil Bridger ( talk ) 13:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] His G-Scholar showing is actually pretty low - a total of 650 cites, and most of his articles have cites in the low 2 digits. That isn't enough for WP:NACADEMIC . I found a few places where he is quoted, but that's all. I also checked Italian newspapers and he doesn't turn up there either. This was done by an SPA, and the entire upper portion of the article is unsourced, so possibly the creator got the info from him directly. I don't think we have enough here to this. Lamona ( talk ) 17:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Lamona . I trust their understanding of WP:NACADEMIC more than my own. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Duwayne Smart: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV . Contested PROD. JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . No suitable per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Firefly (film series) characters: Has been in CAT:NN and CAT:UNREF for years. Possible to TV series, but unsure is a good WP:ATD as this is all unsourced. Boleyn ( talk ) 11:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists . Shellwood ( talk ) 11:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This article is completely unrelated to the TV series Firefly (TV series) , so don't there. Firefly (film series) doesn't exist anymore (speedied in April). – sgeureka t • c 10:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . If the film series was speedied, this subsarticle has even less reason to exist. WP:FANCRUFT . -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 20:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] even the main flim article was d. There is already a character list for the overall series at List of Firefly (TV series) characters . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 19:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lensa Indonesia: Nothing in article or BEFORE showed IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Lots of promo, database listings. Bringing it to AfD instead of CSD or PROD because of past contested nominations. // Timothy :: talk 12:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as nommed. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 12:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does not meet inclusion criteria for an encyclopedia. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk ) 17:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC) GNG . 141 Pr { contribs } 19:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Oumou Tangara: All that came up in my searches were passing mentions in squad lists and match reports ( 1 , 2 , 3 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . This could be better off as part of a List of Mali women's international footballers . Geschichte ( talk ) 11:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails WP:NBLP and WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of sources. — Hello Annyong (say whaaat?!) 04:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sadakiyans: Semsûrî ( talk ) 19:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . Semsûrî ( talk ) 19:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Cambridge History of Iran , Vol. 4, p. 227: ""In other towns, too, Arab chieftains came to build their castles and dominated the inhabitants ... in Urmiya Sadaqa b. 'Ali, a client of Azd"". See also https://iranicaonline.org/articles/rawwadids . I cannot verify the article as a whole or confirm if this is a notable dynasty, but it does not appear to be a fabrication. Srnec ( talk ) 00:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC) 02, 3 July 2024 (UTC) 59, 3 July 2024 (UTC) 45, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 49, 3 July 2024 (UTC) I'd love to hear more feedback from editors who are knowledgeable about this subject area. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC) Revue du monde musulman and Revue des études islamiques , and the third cites the first edition of Encyclopaedia of Islam . References do not have to be online to be valid, but editors with access to a university library might be able to access online or printed versions of the references. The fourth reference, perhaps added in error, was in a battle infobox that another editor removed. It was to the book The sword of Persia : Nader Shah, from tribal warrior to conquering tyrant , about Nader Shah , who was ruler of Persia much later, from 1736 to 1747. That fourth reference is no longer in the particle, but I think the three remaining references are good ones. I think the article is adequately referenced. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 00:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 14, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 55, 17 July 2024 (UTC) No mention in modern scholarship. I was able to access one of the sources (from 1910): [2] And there, Sadaka ibn Ali is a passing mention, where we learn that he was a ""client of the Azd tribe"" and that he took Urmia and built a castle. Most of the content in the Wikipedia article is unreferenced, so I fail to see how this article can be considered adequately sourced. The article title itself is WP:OR as I failed to find any potential variations of it (let alone the form seen here). The source I linked above does not mention a dynasty, and I very much doubt the other two similarly-aged sources include anything close to that. The most inclusionist choice here would be creating Sadaka ibn Ali's bio, disregarding the small amount of available sources and content. Another inclusionist choice would be adding the sourced parts about Sadaka ibn Ali to a relevant article such as Azd . But in any case, ""Sadakiyans"" should not anywhere as it doesn't appear to be a term precedented in the sources. Aintabli ( talk ) 09:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the claim this was a ""dynasty"" appears to be original research. The mention in al-Baladhuri is As for Urmiyah, 1 it was an ancient city in re- 331' gard to which the Magians (Ma jus} assert that their founder Zaradusht was from it. Sadakah ibn-'Ali ibn-Sadakah ibnDinar, the freedman of the Azd, made war against its inhabitants, finally entering and subduing it. He and his brothers built in it some castles. The Encyclopaedia of Islam citation appears to be referring to these three sentences. And while Sadaka ibn Ali's existence has clear attestations, the information about his descendants appears completely unsourced. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 22:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Like the two above editors I can't find anything that verifies the information in this article, or even its title, beyond the bits about Sadaka ibn Ali. I've turned up enough Turkish-language sources to suggest that he is notable, but that's as far as I've got. -- asilvering ( talk ) 05:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Marcelo Moraes Caetano: The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF . Sgubaldo ( talk ) 16:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , and Brazil . Sgubaldo . GS citations show negligible impact as yet. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 02:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"KTVS-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 03:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New Mexico . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 03:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or to New Mexico LPTVs. Logo kinda goes hard tho Danubeball ( talk ) 20:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Pratikur Rahaman: This is also written promotionally. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 12:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - The sources are there in the article which show GNG is passed, there are full length profiles of him. What is promotional in it? MrMkG ( talk ) 12:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and West Bengal . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC) Another case of WP:BLP1E . Only passing mentions on sources before 2023. Fails GNG and WP:NPOL Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 20:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC) Source 1 is fine, but I can't find anything else in RS we can use. I don't see any other sources in those used that are reliable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG . TheWikiholic ( talk ) 20:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC) GNG , here is the source assessment table. Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://indianexpress.com/article/political-pulse/cpm-next-gen-who-is-pratikur-rahaman-9256427/ WP:RSPS The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. ✔ Yes https://hindi.news24online.com/india/pratikur-rahaman-who-cpim-candidate-contest-election-against-abhishek-banerjee-in-diamond-harbour-seat/660274/ The source is a major news channel. The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. ✔ Yes https://eisamay.com/west-bengal-news/24pargana-news/diamond-harbour-left-candidate-pratikur-rahaman-know-details-about-her/amp_articleshow/109069775.cms The source is a major Bengali newspaper. The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. ✔ Yes https://www.moneycontrol.com/elections/lok-sabha-election/lok-sabha-elections-2024-who-is-pratikur-rahaman-the-cpm-candidate-taking-on-abhishek-from-diamond-harbour-article-12594511.html ? The source is a well known financial news website run by Network18 , which has partnerships with CNN. The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. ? Unknown https://indianexpress.com/elections/diamond-harbour-lok-sabha-constituency-two-time-sitting-mp-abhishek-banerjee-to-face-challenge-from-cpims-pratikur-rahaman-and-bjps-abhijit-das-9317741/ WP:RSPS ~ The article has a paragraph on the subject. ~ Partial https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/how-young-leaders-are-spawning-a-generational-shift-in-cpi-m-1927728-2022-03-21 The source is the highly regarded magazine India Today. ~ The article has a paragraph on the subject ~ Partial This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Not just WP:GNG but there is also WP:NBIO for biographical articles. The guideline mentions these conditions too. ""If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"" To this end the last 2 sources meet the requirement too. Therefore with these conditions and with the availability of these sources, mere handwave arguments with guideline links asserting the subject is not notable should not be made. MrMkG ( talk ) 18:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] With your source analysis above, it becomes obvious that you do not clearly know how GNG works or what a reliable independent significant coverage is. Don’t worry, that’s the essence of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 20:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is in essence another handwave comment and now in a patronising tone. Are you trying to say that major newspapers, news channels, etc are not reliable independent sources? Are you even familiar with Indian sources? Or are you trying to say that the coverage is not significant, that there is something inaccurate in my description? MrMkG ( talk ) 21:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC) The subject does not meet WP:GNG . These sources before 2024 election only provide passing mentions with a bunch of new sources because of the candidacy, wrote about him in some or single paragraph about him . Additionally, these sources merely announce his candidacy against TMC leader Abhishek. I've already voted against many articles created due to the 2024 General Elections Which fails WP:BLP1E ; these candidates are not elected as MPs yet and do not meet WP:NPOL . Being a vice-president of a student organization does not meet NPOL criteria either. Furthermore, this coverage cannot justify notability. We can wait to see if he wins and becomes an MP or, in future elections, an MLA; then he will automatically become notable. Grab Up - Talk 10:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC) edited 20:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah! Now I understand what the problem is. There is a blind knee-jerk reaction to any article on the 2024 election candidates with whatever reason one can word out, if they don't pass WP:NPOL even if they pass WP:NBIO and WP:GNG because there is a rush of new article creations with many presumably having little substance. I must also point out that one of the sources is from 2022 and has nothing to do with the candidacy. The claim you make that the sources are making ""passing mentions with a single paragraph"" is grossly false, no other way to put it (a paragraph is also not just a ""passing mention"" but let's set that aside for a moment because it's more than one paragraph). Let us just randomly pick out one source from them and quote the entire part on the subject. ""Pratik Ur was the state president of SFI. He came to the center of discussion during the Panchayat elections. Left leaders alleged that opposition candidates and agents were not allowed to enter Fakir Chand College. After that Prateek Ur Rahman protested by sitting on the local streets. Prateek Ur was arrested at that time. Prateek Ur's wife Shireen Sultana contested from Zilla Parishad seat number 59 of South 24 Parganas in the panchayat elections. He also became the Left-Congress-Indian Secular Front candidate for the Diamond Harbor Assembly constituency in Ekush assembly elections. Prateek Ur handled the responsibility of SFI for long 6 years. This year Srijan-Pratik Ur duo was released. This time a bigger responsibility is on his shoulders. After announcing his name as a candidate, Prateek Ur Rahman said, 'I think the people of Diamond Harbor are average. Average against corruptionists. Means in favor of a healthy culture.' Also, Prateek Ur said that he does not believe in 'adversarial politics'. He said, 'I think the common people will unite against those who talk about dividing people on the basis of religion without talking about bread and sustenance.' Along with this, he has fired cannon at Trinamool. Prateek Ur said, 'We will talk about bread and rice, we will talk about the mill factory.'"" Under no logical way understanding of the term can this be called a passing mention. Most of the sources in the table are about him as the subject. I must remind those people droning about the obvious WP:NPOL failure, that at the end of WP:NPOL , it is said ""An unelected candidate can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."" MrMkG ( talk ) 12:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Obviously a lot of articles are going to be created especially in this election and many of them may not be notable. But that doesn't mean any and every candidate is non-notable. Many wikipedia-notable people don't have articles and when they are made candidate, those articles get created due to the attention. I have created dozens of articles of current and former MLAs and even MPs. They met WP:NPOL for years even decades but their articles were created now. Same applies to WP:GNG and WP:NBIO passing people. This bias is very disconcerting. MrMkG ( talk ) 12:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC) TOI . I never considered this a reliable source. When I mentioned sources only provide passing mentions, I was only referring reliable sources, not these unreliable sources. Grab Up - Talk 12:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you were correct, you could have chosen other sources like The Indian Express or India Today, which you mentioned in your analysis as providing in-depth coverage of the subject. However, you chose this unreliable source just to counter my argument, you can’t choose these reliable sources as these only provided passing mentions. Grab Up - Talk 12:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ei Samay isn't Times of India, completely different paper. The list you linked to has outlets from the same company with completely different ratings. Just because it's owned by the same company doesn't mean they're all the same. BCCL probably has close to a hundred outlets. I have never seen Ei Samay being accused of promotion. But ok, you don't like Ei Samay, then there is Indian Express . ( WP:INDIANEXP ) You can randomly pick from them. These articles are literally about him. It is titled ""CPM next-gen: Who is Pratikur Rahaman, tasked with taking on Abhishek Banerjee?"". Pratikur Rahaman, the CPI(M)’s pick, is a local. At present, the 33-year-old is a member of the CPI(M) state committee and is the national vice-president of the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), the party’s student wing. Rahaman, who studied at the Fakir Chand College in Diamond Harbour, lives on the outskirts of Diamond Harbour with his parents, brothers, wife and daughter. His family, according to party insiders, runs a construction material supply business. “I am not fighting against any individual. My fight is against the policies of the TMC and BJP,” Rahaman told The Indian Express after his candidature was announced. This will not be Rahaman’s first time in the poll fray. In 2021, he contested from Diamond Harbour, finishing third after Pannalal Halder of the TMC and Deepak Halder of the BJP. “I got associated with the SFI in 2011 following which I have been assaulted by TMC goons many times. They cannot stop me with violence. I will fight back hard,” Rahaman said Terming the TMC’s “Diamond Harbour model” as a bluff, Rahaman accused the TMC and BJP of being anti-farmer. “The prices of fertilisers are increasing while the farmers are getting poorer. We are against this policy,” the CPI(M) candidate said. It's all similar level of coverage. You will also find more if you search and some of them will be much before the candidacy too. There is no real reason to the article. MrMkG ( talk ) 13:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That’s what I said. The reliable sources just gave passing mentions, and one paragraph of coverage is not enough to establish notability. His words mean nothing. I don’t know why you are sharing his quotes. Grab Up - Talk 13:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not one paragraph even if you ignore the quotes and again in no logical understanding can this be called ""passing mention"". Even if we accept this extraordinary standard, can you explain what ""If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"" means? It is part of WP:NBIO . MrMkG ( talk ) 13:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I mentioned that other reliable sources provided passing mentions, but this particular source (Indian Express) lacks depth covarage—it's just one paragraph. The main subject of these articles is the election, not this person. These sources can't establish notability because they don't provide in-depth coverage of the subject. Grab Up - Talk 13:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The main subject is him as a candidate in the election. And are you unable to count? It's 5 paragraphs and ignoring the ones with quotes, it is 2 paragraphs. MrMkG ( talk ) 14:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ MrMkG , The consensus is nearly reached, as I can see from the comments of other editors. Your counting won't help to this article. Its just you the author of the article who want’s to the article. Grab Up - Talk 14:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC) CONSENSUS is determined by quality of arguments and their basis in policy not votes. But yeah I understand it might still get d because in actuality many admins dont follow this and only really look at votes. Sure I am the author but your argument has no leg to stand on which you yourself can clearly understand it seems, which begs the question why do you want to it so badly for no apparent reason? Btw back to the actual point. Were you saying the two which I quoted aren't passing mention but the rest which I haven't quoted yet are? Lol. Do I really have to do this? It's all similar level of coverage. Title: Who Is 33 Year Old Pratikur Rahman? Will Contest Elections Against Abhishek Banerjee ~ About him as a candidate. Pratikur Rahman, 33, is currently a member of the CPI(M) State Committee. He is also the national vice president of the party's student wing, Students Federation of India (SFI). He studied at Fakir Chand College, Diamond Harbour. He lives on the outskirts of Diamond Harbor with his parents, brothers, wife and daughter. His family is involved in the business of construction material supply. Pratikur Rahman is not contesting elections for the first time, but he had also contested the assembly elections from Diamond Harbor in 2021. TMC candidate Pannalal Haldar had won that election. Pratikur Rahman was at third place with 38,719 votes, while BJP candidate Deepak Kumar Halder was at second place. Title: Who is Pratikur Rahaman, the CPM candidate taking on Abhishek from Diamond Harbour? ~ About him as a candidate. Rahaman, 33, chosen by the CPI (M), is a local candidate. He serves as a member of the CPI (M) state committee and holds the position of national vice-president within the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), the party's student wing. Rahaman completed his education at Fakir Chand College in Diamond Harbour and currently resides on the outskirts of Diamond Harbour with his parents, brothers, wife, and daughter. Reports say, the Left leader's family is involved in a business specialising in the supply of construction materials. Rahman is no stranger to electoral contests, having earlier contested the assembly elections from Diamond Harbour in 2021. During that election, TMC candidate Pannalal Haldar clinched victory. Rahman secured the third position with 38,719 votes, while the BJP candidate, Deepak Kumar Halder, secured the second position. Rahaman clarified to The Indian Express that his candidacy is not aimed at any specific individual. Instead, it represents a stand against the policies advocated by both the TMC and BJP. How young leaders are spawning a generational shift in CPI(M) ~ About a group of young leaders in his party, he is one of the subjects of the article (2022). Of the new young faces in CPI(M) state committee, several have shown promise, such as Minakshi Mukherjee, Srijan Bhattacharya, Mayukh Biswas and Pratikur Rahaman—all in their twenties or early thirties. Pratikur Rahaman is a good orator and has been raising his voice for the youth, particularly the unemployed who are forced to depend on the TMC government’s doles. His house in South 24 Parganas was allegedly vandalised and his family tea-stall damaged in the post-assembly poll results violence in May 2021. Title: Two time sitting MP Abhishek Banerjee to face challenge from CPIM’s Pratikur Rahaman and BJP’s Abhijit Das ~ About all three candidates in the election, he is one of the three subjects of the article. The most successful party from this seat, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), has fielded the young Pratikur Rahaman as their candidate for the Diamond Harbour Lok Sabha Constituency in a bid to regain their dominance over the seat they have dominance in historically. This will be Rahman’s first attempt in mainstream politics as he has earlier served as the national vice-president of the Students Federation of India and a member of the state committee of the CPI(M) in West Bengal. Not one of them can be called ""passing mention"" by any logical understanding of the term. In 2 of them it is one paragraph long and the other 4 are articles on him and multiple paragraphs long. Let us assume, taking as strict a standard as possible that none of them individually help meet significant or substanital coverage part of WP:GNG . But it is impossible to escape the part of WP:NBIO that says ""If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"". So what is your justification? MrMkG ( talk ) 15:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As I said these are just routine public announcments for election, these don’t establish notability. To establish notability it require more in-depth covarage of the subject. Also, BLP require strong sources. Grab Up - Talk 15:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a new thing you're saying. What is routine public announcement about them? Public announcement is what parties make, this is coverage of a person by independent newspapers, magazines and channels. Look at any other politician or political articles, the same kind of news sources are there. Also again ""if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"" according to WP:NBIO (section ~ WP:BASIC ) which you're ignoring since you can't give an answer to it. MrMkG ( talk ) 15:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Already told you, these sources are just some paragraphs and are only about one event, the election candidacy. They all report the same information such as his name, age, candidacy, and about his wife; nothing more to establish this person as notable. Even you combine them, they just talk the same thing, what is the point to combine? Grab Up - Talk 15:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC) BLP1E which says : We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. Grab Up - Talk 16:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Allow me to interject. I seldom make arbitrary nominations for deletion on AfD. Prior to proposing an article for deletion, I ensure that I have conducted extensive research on the subject of the article. I am confident in my understanding of our policies and would not nominate an article for deletion if the subject, under any circumstances, meets any of our notability criteria. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 16:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Vanderwaalforces , Thank you for the comment. I acknowledge your good-faith nomination and research. However, this editor doesn't understand WP:BLP1E . These sources are solely because of the candidacy, nothing more. Grab Up - Talk 16:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Grabup You are right, that was part of the reason I nominated it, after my evaluation. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 16:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Grabup and @ Vanderwaalforces . How would you combine them? Many of them are similar but each has some unique detail or the other (for example, his family business is mentioned in just one source). I have seen other AfDs and in any other case, these articles would have easily been called ""significant coverage"" for WP:GNG , afterall you can't exactly get more coverage from an article than the article being about the subject itself. And what does ""just some paragraphs"" even mean? Articles are created with paragraphs. What do you want? A book? You will even find some CMs who don't have chapters in books. This is effectively just based on a feeling that the article shouldn't exist, jumping from one justification to another and seeing whatever sticks on the wall while applying an unusual and unreasonably strict standard which most notable articles wouldn't meet. From vaguely mentioning policies to claiming the sources are ""passing mention"" when that's obviously false to claiming sources aren't reliable and now ultimately coming up with WP:BLP1E . There is no ""research"" behind it, it's an after the fact attempt at justification. BLP1E gets the closest to reasonable (and I can only thank you for that finally) and that wasn't mentioned at all before except by a different user, ignored by everyone else. But even that's not really applicable. Admittedly his coverage is heavy around the candidacy but not solely about it. Out of the six articles, one of them is from 2022 about new leaders including him in the party and has nothing to do with the candidacy. Had there in fact been research one would have found more. There is an article from 2023 about a protest led by him and his arrest . There is a page linked to WP:BLP1E called WP:BLP1ENOT , it talks about exactly this situation. ""An exceptionally common misinterpretation of BLP1E is that subjects notable primarily for one event are notable only for one event. If the article's subject has done more than one notable thing, even if the rest of it is far overshadowed by the primary event, BLP1E does not apply."" Even if we take the surge of election coverage as one, we can combine them with these and we have again met WP:NBIO 's WP:BASIC criteria. Individuals don't easily have full articles written on them (most candidates don't) and the NBIO criteria is laxer than GNG seemingly by design because of this. Also @ Jeraxmoira who had actually mentioned BLP1E. MrMkG ( talk ) 18:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC) BLP1E . Your analysis is can't exempt this article from WP:BLP1E , as you mentioned WP:BLP1ENOT mentioned ""An exceptionally common misinterpretation of BLP1E is that subjects notable primarily for one event are notable only for one event. If the article's subject has done more than one notable thing , even if the rest of it is far overshadowed by the primary event, BLP1E does not apply."" Joining a political party is not a notable thing. This can't exempt this article from BLP1E. Peoplesreporter.in is not an reliable source. As there is no editorial details found on their About US or any other pages. Grab Up - Talk 18:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 1. It's not about joining a party. It's about leaders in a party and it is talking about a generational shift highlighting people in the new leadership which includes him. In it there's a mention of him joining the state committee of the party. 2. We are back to claiming sources are unreliable when nothing else works now. 🤦 What you see there is what any website of a Bengali (or even Indian) news outlet looks like. Anandabazar Patrika/About Us looks the exact same, I hope you consider that reliable because if it isn't then no Bengali news outlet is. Indian news outlets very rarely if at all have anything like ""editorial details"" on their websites. MrMkG ( talk ) 18:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Btw you just changed the meaning of your first comment in this edit . Had you meant BLP1E, you would have mentioned it far earlier than you did and not made the arguments you made. But whatever it doesn't matter but mentioning it since you change makes my later comment not make sense. Don't edit comments after they are replied to. MrMkG ( talk ) 19:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You can't compare a mainstream Bengali media outlet with an unknown website. There are thousands of Bengali news websites on the web. Can we start to accept them as reliable? Also, there was a discussion that took place at the RS Noticeboard about its reliability, and a consensus was reached that the source, Anandabazar , is reliable. I don't think there has been any discussion about this source before considering it reliable. Grab Up - Talk 19:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The point was that standard you just set for the website that isn't even met by Anandabazar. Not being discussed before doesn't mean it is presumed unreliable. It's not an unknown website. It's a new but well regarded news website. Paranjoy Guha Thakurta , who is the highest acclaimed Bengali journalist active at present publishes in there . The WP:RSPS list has similar ones like Newslaundry and The Wire, so there is no reason such a website shouldn't be considered reliable. MrMkG ( talk ) 19:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Active at present? According to the link provided, he never published anything on the website, only a video on YouTube published back in 2023. I edited my initial post to clarify that I was referring to WP:BLP1E, which you reverted, no problem. Even I assume that the source is reliable, it lacks in-depth coverage. The article itself is quite short and contains quotations from the subject. This source cannot elevate this event to notable status, which would exempt it from WP:BLP1E. Grab Up - Talk 20:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There maybe others like him historically, just being on the safe side. Publishing a video on their channel is still publishing. Anyways, the source is sufficient to be contributing coverage for WP:BASIC , it's a short article but he is the central figure in it. WP:BLP1E itself says that ""If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event "". It isn't only in the context of a single event, there are at least two other articles which cover him in different contexts. WP:BLP1ENOT mentions it too and on a complete reading of the page, ""more than one notable thing"" just looks like poor wording to mean anything more than that one notable thing rather than two or more notable things. The purpose of BLP1E is described as ""more a courtesy we grant potentially unwilling article subjects than anything"", says the criteria is very narrow and describes situations where even related minlr events can make BLP1E not applicable. Both the pages say that two other criteria must be met besides being only covered in one event. One of them is that the person has to a ""low-profile individual"" ( WP:LOWPROFILE ) which practically no politician or political activist would really be. The subject here is involved in active public life, in protests and is an MP candidate. Nevertheless, the interpretation you're giving would contradict WP:BASIC too which allows articles on the basis of multiple events with just less coverage. It can't be that one person who gets only multiple low coverage events can have an article and one person who gets one high coverage event and other low coverage ones can't have an article. MrMkG ( talk ) 22:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the amazing discussion, but I am not convinced that this source is reliable. I told you that there are thousands of Bengali news websites like this. Can we start to accept them as reliable? I don’t think this discussion is going to end. Let's let others and the admins decide what they think is right. Have a nice day. Grab Up - Talk 02:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL . The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. Sources are poor to unreliable. Fails WP:GNG . RangersRus ( talk ) 13:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Hiba Ali Khan: The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 15:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 15:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women . Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Under the general notability guideline , it's not the perceived prestige, in the eyes of us as editors, of a film, show, or or performer (which is subjective; e. g., one of the linked sources calls Khan a prolific actor ) that confers notability; rather, notability comes from coverage in secondary sources. The article already cites sources that focus on Khan (e. g. [31] , [32] , [33] ). I noticed other hits when I keyword-searched with Google, and this is just considering English language sources without getting into the probability of other language sources. By way of aside, the text of this AfD's OP is nearly identical to another AfD Saqib nominated on the same day . Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 20:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC) GNG / WP:NACTOR or merely on some press coverage and appearances in dramas? No one is questioning her status as an actor, as she has indeed appeared in dramas. However, the crucial question is whether she has had significant roles. I don't see that. Now one might question why she receives press coverage if she doesn't have significant roles. It's important to note that national news channels such as ARY, GEO and others, are also associated with the production and promotion of these dramas, so they often invite the cast onto their TV shows, resulting in news articles in their news websites based on these TV appearances. While ARY news story may label her a prolific actor , this alone doesn't necessarily meet the criteria for WP:NACTOR. Additionally, we should be cautious about relying on the websites of Pakistani national news channels, as they fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and regularly publish sensational and tabloid-like content for increased traffic. As far I can see coverage in Urdu language, while available, also tends to lean towards gossip and sensationalism. And the identical text across my AfD nominations shouldn't be an issue when the problem with all of these BLPs is the same. — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 07:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC) NEWSORGINDIA ; however, that subsection of WP:RSP specifically refers to certain kinds of articles in certain publications from India like ABP Live's Brand Wire, Outlook 's Business Spotlight, etc. The consensus isn't about all entertainment media in southern/southeast Asia. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 23:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC) 09, 28 March 2024 (UTC). — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 00:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ActivelyDisinterested's advice to be cautious about ProPakistan.pk is duly noted, but their comment doesn't seem to be about all news publications in Pakistan, and Sheriff contested the characterizations of even just ProPakistan.pk. Three editors who seem to have brought three different opinions doesn't seem like a ringing consensus. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 00:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hydrangeans , OK - I do not want to delve into the details of what constitutes a RS or not, as this isn't the appropriate forum for that discussion. Let's it simple. so here are my final thoughts. As we can see, the actor clearly does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG because it requires sig/in-depth coverage. And if look at this from the perspective of NACTOR, the actor only had a lead role in one TV show, Dil, Diya, Dehleez (TV series) and in the rest of the shows, she only played MINOR roles. I d some because they were either based on WP:OR or cited using clearly unreliable sources that can't even be used for WP:V purposes. So, as I mentioned, the actor had a lead role in "" Dil, Diya, Dehleez (TV series) but when one does a Google search, there is no sig/ in-depth coverage about this show, indicating that it is not a significant work . Yes, it has a WP article, but so do hundreds of other TV shows created by UPEs. However, this show clearly does not meet the threshold of significance, which means the subject fails to meet NACTOR, which states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant . If you still like, I am happy to discuss further. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 21:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""specifically refers to certain kinds of articles in certain publications from India like ABP Live's Brand Wire, Outlook's Business Spotlight. "" The rule can be applied to the Indian subcontinent and all media therein. Note that a lot of media in one country is served in other countries in that are. A border does not negate the fact that the region has a history of paid media such as these. The ""certain kinds of articles"" apply and the ""certain publications"" are only examples. Creating a listing of ALL publications that do so would be exhaustive. These are just examples and we need to use common sense when applying the rule. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 17:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Hiba's is a notable actress and she is recently working in drama Shiddat and Rah-e-Junoon . ( BeauSuzanne ( talk ) 05:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] As the creator of this BLP, you've to provide references to support your claims. — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 07:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] based on general notability. The AfD appears to be partially motivated by some personal gripe Saqib has with the article's original creator. Cortador ( talk ) 20:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No I don't have any issues with the person who created the page. But could you please share some coverage that fits WP:GNG? — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 20:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet and little policy-based opinions stated in this discussion. Yes, there have been run-ins between editors in this subject area but can this discussion focus on the merits of this standalone article and not on the perceived motivations of any or all discussion participants? Thank you. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Source are interviews, based on what she says or brief mentions. The other issue is when I look at the articles about the shows listed in the filmography to see if any sources have info about Khan, I am finding those articles are also poorly sourced. For example, the sources used for Kitni Girhain Baaki Hain are not about the show and are only brief mentions. That's just one but I looked at a few. If anyone comes up with a couple RS that has in-depth coverage about Khan , please ping me. S0091 ( talk ) 17:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC) As per my check, I searched for sources with in-depth coverage of the subject but found only interviews with some passing mentions, which can't establish notability at all as per WP:GNG . She also fails WP:NACTOR as she did not have a significant role in a notable film. Grab Up - Talk 16:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - For someone with so many listed roles, I initially assumed there would be a ton of references available. However, there are not. And, the ones that do exist simply verify roles but do not add up to significant coverage. They are interviews, NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise unreliable. Note that WP:NACTOR only presumes notability for certain roles, but does not guarantee notability. It is still based on sourcing. Here are the references currently on the page: The News International , an interview which is not considered independent. ARY News , Falls under NEWSORGINDIA but it does include a video of an interview she gave. Unfortunately, it is still an interview and the information is not considered indepdent. Dawn , mentions her as part of the cast. Verifies role but verifiability is not notability. ARY News , same as the ARY News assessment above. City 42 , announcement of her marriage. It does say she changed her name but searching that name found no references suitable to show notability. Dawn , another one that mentions her name to verify a role, but does not talk about her outside of that. Brief mention only. Daily Times , Falls under NEWSORGINDIA, but even if disputed, it still only verifies a role. Her name is mentioned one time. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"T.S. Idiot: Although this person is a performer, there is a lack of notability. No wider impact of significant secondary sources beyond self-promotion and marketing. Seaweed ( talk ) 15:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and England . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 15:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . There's an exhibit at an art gallery, a personal Weebly site, and some promotional listings, but not any significant coverage to establish notability. Thriftycat Talk • Contribs 19:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does not demonstrate significant notability and the sources are mainly promotional. The article is an autobiography originally made by the user of the same name as the subject and it has been nominated for deletion a couple times before and the user appears to recreate it every time. StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 19:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first deletion discussion didn’t have much participation, so the author/subject was able to request undeletion . Thriftycat Talk • Contribs 19:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC) YOURSELF . — Maile ( talk ) 22:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2030 European Women's Handball Championship: Event is 6 years away. Grahaml35 ( talk ) 16:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 17:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per above. There was an indiscriminate creation of articles about upcoming sports events. Svartner ( talk ) 02:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per above. Боки ☎ ✎ 17:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Genrobotics: Notability still not clearly established. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Technology , and Kerala . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC) 15, 16 September 2023 (UTC) NCORP criteria for establishing notability? Please point to the particular para/section you believe meets CORPDEPTH/ORGIND. Thank you. HighKing ++ 14:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC) NEWSORGINDIA and are press releases or churnalism. The others fail WP:ORGCRIT . Pinging Lordofhunter and HighKing who were the only two votes in the recent nomination that ended in a soft . -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 22:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC) NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* . ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject . I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The sources listed in the article are entirely based on announcements and/or information provided by the company/execs. HighKing ++ 14:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Next Goa Legislative Assembly election: Speculation about an election that may be held on or before 2027. Article is 100% editor created/derived content/ wp:OR. There are zero sources about the subject. The one reference is a government document which does not discuss this but defines how elections are scheduled/run. North8000 ( talk ) 16:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Politics , and Goa . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom and per all the comments that led to the deletion decision in the first AFD. LizardJr8 ( talk ) 19:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON . Sohom ( talk ) 07:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] still no sources since last creation/deletion to satisfy the GNG. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 00:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"KJCS-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Religion , and Colorado . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC) This probably should have been bundled with the nomination for parent station KDEO-LD . KJCS's pre-KDEO history was all-Daystar, and its current form has no separate notability from KDEO — which, when there's no notability there , is a problem. (Non-notability isn't automatically handed down like that, much as notability isn't inherited either , but it's not a good sign.) There are lists that this could be ed to, but for the sake of consistency (given the KDEO deletion) it's probably best to jettison this entirely. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG . Let'srun ( talk ) 01:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] if there is a suitable list as per WCQuidditch's post. Religious related broadcasting stations are more notable when we get info the physical paperwork. After the work that's been put into it, it would be nice to preserve the history. Karl Twist ( talk ) 11:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are advocating a or Merge, you need to identify the target article in each AFD you participate in. One link, and an argument, is what is being looked for. Otherwise, it looks like this article will be Deleted. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Media in Colorado Springs, Colorado (where it is mentioned as an EWTN station). -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 12:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The information in RabbitEars suggests that article is the outdated one, Slgrandson . This was once owned by a Catholic group, but it now is owned by Simchat Torah Beit Midrash and offers channels called Oorah TV, Torah TV, Vida Vision TV, and Grace TV. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 16:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of 68 Ventures Bowl broadcasters: Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE . Of the sources that is not a dead link per WP:RS ; one is WP:PRIMARY , one is a dead Twitter post, one is a media guide, and another is about the coverages to all 18 Bowl games. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. Besides being by a banned sock. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 13:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , American football , Lists , and Alabama . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 13:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . List of broadcasters for a low level, almost unknown (I'd never heard of it) bowl game. Fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG . Cbl62 ( talk ) 19:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC) LISTN . There is no way that we need a list of broadcasters for every game. It is suitable for the fandom wiki. Conyo14 ( talk ) 14:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Unsourced and non-notable article. Policy citations have been said already. Evident WP:LISTCRUFT . Bgv. ( talk ) 06:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jahrbuch: I doubt any of the journals listed are going to be referred to as just ""Jahrbuch"". AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 04:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Germany . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] cf. Yearbook (disambiguation) which is not a list of every single article that has Yearbook somewhere in the title. Geschichte ( talk ) 09:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Redaksi: Sources don't meet WP:GNG , and a search finds nothing better. Previously draftified, but author insists on publishing, so here we are. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 07:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Television , and Indonesia . DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 07:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC) : talk 08:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Suckapunch Records: Graywalls ( talk ) 11:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nebraska . Graywalls ( talk ) 11:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC) AUD . There's some coveranage from Lincoln, NE [47] [48] [49] but nothing else. Mach61 13:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even then, two of those look like ""what to do in town"" listings as indicated by show hours and location and those can be used to fact check artist's background but they shouldn't count towards notability credit. Graywalls ( talk ) 19:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , as not-notable organization. WP:AUD point is also strong for Delete. -- Old-AgedKid ( talk ) 10:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"A. Q. M. Zainul Abedin: There are two brief obituaries (67 and 72 words). How much weight should the obituaries be given with respect to notability ? There's a brief mention that he was detained overnight on charges of defamation, a brief quote of him, and a link to one of the two newspapers he edited, showing his name on the masthead (the other, Dainik Kishan , had a circulation of 3,000 in the late 1970s, neither appears notable). We have inclusion criteria because enough people need to have written about a person for a full and balanced biographical article to be constructed. If the subject were notable , then he would have been written about in greater depth. Worldbruce ( talk ) 05:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Bangladesh . Worldbruce ( talk ) 05:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Isaac Oti-Boateng: One reference broken, other to self. Orphan. Can't see why it would pass notability test. Seaweed ( talk ) 18:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Christianity , and Ghana . Shellwood ( talk ) 19:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC) BASIC . North America 1000 15:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Emilson Rakotonarivo: No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per NOM. Greenman ( talk ) 22:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC) GNG . Suonii180 ( talk ) 12:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Christopher Ingvaldson: This is a low-profile person who does not clearly pass either the ten year test for enduring significance, or the standards at PERP for when an article about a criminal is actually warranted. Instead, the article started out as a poorly sourced sports BLP on the basis of his previously having played field hockey at a level that might possibly have passed the sports notability standards of 2006 but certainly doesn't pass the sports notability standards of 2023, and then by 2009 it featured such sparkling prose as ""Ingvaldson is also locally known as the only teacher at St. Georges who can rip a phonebook in half(if he was spazzing) and survive an argument with Mr. Jamieson"" (unsourced, natch) — the crime issue came along only in 2010, four years after the article was created, and the article most likely would never have even existed at all (or would have been shitcanned by AFD if it had been newly created) on the basis of the crime alone. There's an additional BLP sensitivity here, because he once tangentially happened to briefly share the same employer as a prominent Canadian politician a full decade before the crime, and IP editors have attempted to inflate that minor fact into the explosive implication that the politician shares direct personal culpability in the subject's crime. This person simply is not significant enough to warrant the amount of monitoring this requires. Bearcat ( talk ) 01:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Crime , and Canada . Bearcat ( talk ) 01:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC) PERP . LibStar ( talk ) 02:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as the subject is clearly non notable this article has no real purpose other than as an attack page. Mccapra ( talk ) 04:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Definately not notable. Masterhatch ( talk ) 11:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Horrible crime, but simply a routine crime of this type with no long-term legal effects or changing of anything really. Found guilty, did his time. Almost a revenge page at this point. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] not notable for either the crime or their hockey career. Being a room mate and friend of Trudeau isn't useful either as notability is not inherited. Canterbury Tail talk 18:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This almost appears to be some attempt to smear Justin Trudeau, as it really has no importance in relation to the person; pure conjecture, but there are a certain set of individuals on social medial that think Trudeau is some sort of WW2-era German person. Which I can't type because of the firewall at work... ""I lived with a guy once, and he's famous now but wasn't then"" doesn't really add to notability, maybe an interesting tidbit. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree it’s for all the reasons stated above. This looks like a very easy call. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 01:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Obviously, it's all out of proportion. And the attachment to Trudeau certainly raises a lot of questions. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 17:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sports broadcasting contracts in Bulgaria: Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG ( talk ) 16:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports , Europe , and Bulgaria . BrigadierG ( talk ) 16:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 23:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC) NLIST and possibly is NOTTVGUIDE or WP:NOTDIR per nom. Might even be issues with WP:V too. Maybe an article about sports broadcasting in Bulgaria would be notable but a live list of the current broadcasters is not an encyclopaedic topic. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Han Thae-hyok: Simione001 ( talk ) 02:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 02:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 02:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 02:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC) GNG and WP:SIGCOV , but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann ( talk ) 15:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nick Kaufman: WP:COI with uncited statements. TLA (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and salt . Fails GNG. There are also 5 (!) editors who contributed to this whose first edits were to this article. Most of them single-purpose accounts. Also, this edit is a pretty compelling one that hints at all of these SPAs being Nick himself. Requesting salt so Nick can't re-create his own article down the road once eyes are off of it. SportsGuy789 ( talk ) 00:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Crime , Law , Israel , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC) 35, 15 January 2024 (UTC) NOTINHERITED . I do not seem a strong reason to WP:SALT . Marokwitz ( talk ) 14:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Lawyer with interests, experience and expertise in fields that are currently closely followed in Israel. An accessible chap who likes to write and share. As a result, he has written opinion pieces and has been interviewed for distinguished Israeli newspapers and TV shows. He also shared his biographies with Enwiki and Hewiki. Hewiki was d after much debate. We should do the same because virtually all his coverage is primary. gidonb ( talk ) 05:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Viera Mašlejová: I am unable to find sufficient coverage on the subject to meet WP:GNG . All that came up in searches were passing mentions ( 2007 , 2009 , 2010 , 2012 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Slovakia . JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC) GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 16:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I concur with the @GiantSnowman statement. KeepItGoingForward ( talk ) 02:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I was going to comment the same thing as JTtheOG. CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 11:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I see no evidence of sources that would bring this to WP:GNG . Jacona ( talk ) 18:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC) 32, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dmitri Antoni: Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Estonia . Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC) GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 08:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC) 11, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Japanese fashion as social resistance: Half of is unreferenced, half of it is/was referenced to low quality souces (blogs), most of the other sources are low quality (one academic book is cited without a page number, NYT is invoked for a mostly irrelevant claim) it still sports an essay style ""conclusion"" section. Worse, there are obviously ""fake"" references, for example the first paragraph of the ""Analysis of Ganguro as Resistance"" is referenced to Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage in Japan site, which aside from not being reliable doesn't even mention anything related to Ganguro or resistance. The concept of social resistance is not defined nor do we have an article on this; and the article doesn't mention this word outside the lead and two headings and two sentences in one of those. I don't think there is anything salvageable here to even suggest a (to Japanese street fashion , which already covers almost all that is here). If someone wants to work on this, they should start by adding a sociological analysis to that article, and then split it off. It's time to put this editing experiment out of everyone's misery. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion , Social science , and Japan . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC) I found a couple of scholarly pieces that might count as RS: [90] and [91] . Those actually use the term ""social resistance"" at least once. But as it stands this is a term paper, not an encyclopedia article, and it's packed with WP:SYNTH drawn from low-quality sources. Someone must care enough about this topic to write a decent article, but this isn't it and won't be until it's bombed and rebuilt. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC) Per nominator, I think anything sporting fake references is worthy of TNT. Bensci54 ( talk ) 16:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC) we already have articles on lolita fashion and Ganguro , both much better cited (and written) than this article. Further, the article is based on 2 premises: that Lolita and Ganguro both involve ""social resistance"" (not proven), and that scholars have grouped the two fashions together for their social resistance (doesn't seem to be true, so the conjunction is WP:OR ). Since it is unlikely there's anything in this essay that can be d to either target, we should it now. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 13:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC) OR . Dekimasu よ! 01:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Carr Cavender: Film festival award is non-notable. No sourcing found other than social media. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Has starred in multiple previously released feature films. More than enough RS are referenced in article including Newspapers.com . I believe WP:PRODUCER applies here with their involvement in To Hell and Gone . – Filmforme ( talk ) 19:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC) PRODUCER require that someone's work be significant? To Hell and Gone was a barely notable movie, let alone significant. If I'm missing something, let me know. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ A. B. You may know more about it, but it is widely distributed by Gravitas Ventures . A google search says it’s on 10+ major streamers and physical media. That with the RS coverage for the film, it’s significant enough for me. – Filmforme ( talk ) 21:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 01:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Anyone? Bueller? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I tried hard. He's got refs for wining some routine awards (student of the week) [56] [57] [58] in high school but, gosh, I just can't bring myself to say he's notable because of that. Post-school, there are interesting articles in small press sites that talk about movies he's making but they're more about them than him. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 06:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"C-Sick: Did WP:BEFORE and was unable to find anything that would help this article pass WP:ARTIST . Article claims that C-Sick was nominated for a Grammy in 2019 for an album he and 32 other people helped produce. I don't think just being a producer on an album passes WP:ARTIST . As for the Grammy nomination this is not true, the album was not nominated for a Grammy according the list of winners and nominated albums on the awards website. ""2019 GRAMMY Awards: Complete Nominees And Winners List"" . www.grammy.com . Retrieved 2023-05-17 . Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , and Bands and musicians . Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and Illinois . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC) MUSICBIO rather than WP:ARTIST . WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 23:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Can't find anything online to establish notability under GNG or NSINGER. -- Tserton ( talk ) 14:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC) the Grammy nomination. The album in reference indeed was nominated for best Rap Album of 2019. The confusion is that awards for 2019 works are handed out in 2020. You'll find it listed there. That said, the claim of it being a nomination for this person is disingenuous, as it was Meek Mill who was nominated as Executive Producer. The 34 other people who get listed as ""producers"" range widely in their contributions, but it's really only the Executive Producer who was nominated. ShelbyMarion ( talk ) 19:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Doh thanks @ ShelbyMarion for pointing that out to me, I'll make a mental note to check that in the future. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per my comment above. Not enough accomplishments or RS references. Page the product of an SP editor with inflated claims for promotional purposes. ShelbyMarion ( talk ) 19:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ange Keffa: I suggest ing to Ma Famille . BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions ) 03:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] unless references to significant coverage of this actress in reliable, independent sources can be added to the article. The two current sources simply report that an actress who appeared in a television series has died. She is otherwise a mystery, based on what the article says and does not say. Cullen328 ( talk ) 04:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , Television , and Ivory Coast . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Question Instead of translating this article from French should I have ed it to Ma Famille instead? Moondragon21 ( talk ) 11:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I did suggest that but it's too late since the page already has been made. BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions ) 20:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] since subject fails the notability criteria . A little known artist who met a painful death. We have no more than that. - The Gnome ( talk ) 15:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"HB Arcade Cards: QuietCicada chirp 13:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . QuietCicada chirp 13:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The game got a short review in Nintendo Power #246 (October 2009) on page 26. Waxworker ( talk ) 02:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC) GNG . Nintendo Life and IGN are significant coverage (although IGN barely qualifies), Nintendo Power review is not SIGCOV. -- Mika1h ( talk ) 14:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per this source assessment table. Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 17:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC) Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://archive.org/details/Nintendo_Power_Issue_246_October_2009/page/n27/mode/2up Games journal Only 3 sentences ✘ No https://www.nintendolife.com/reviews/2009/07/hb_arcade_cards User-created review ✘ No https://www.ign.com/games/hb-arcade-cards ~ Though it is listed as reliable in WP:NPPSG , there is only a single summary sentence and the review consists of user-generated content Insufficient coverage, only one sentence in the game's summary ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Renee Biautubu: All that came up in my searches were passing mentions ( 1 , 2 , 3 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Oceania . JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Yet another example of WP:MILL . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 17:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2023–24 Porsche Carrera Cup Middle East: Stats-only article for a season with no sources other than themselves about a series which doesn't have an article. GNG sourcing of the season per se is unfindable and unlikely to exist. The series itself would probably be a good topic for an article. But there is nothing here to move to it. North8000 ( talk ) 13:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 13:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The series are new. I'm guessing an offshoot of the Porsche Carrera Cup Germany ? The lack of sources is dire, but are you sure none of this was written about? Geschichte ( talk ) 21:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First to reinforce, this article is not about the series, it's stats for 1 season of the series. There is no article for the series. On your question, I'm never sure that something doesn't exist but I looked and couldn't find any real coverage of the season, much less GNG coverage. North8000 ( talk ) 00:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 11:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The Porsche Carrera Cup Middle East could be notable, but I don't see enough coverage for this collection of stats. Cortador ( talk ) 12:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are some sources mentioning PCCME - Australians talking about Walls and Jones ( here ), or Middle Eastern sources referring to PCCME as a F1 or WEC support event ( here ). The series is notable as a support event on two Formula One events, as well as WEC support during 1st Bahrain round. Apart from that, a lot of notable drivers took part in the races including Theo Oeverhaus , Harry King , Harri Jones , Robert de Haan or F3 Charlie Wurz . The series doesn't have an article, as it's very new, but it may be created by me in coming days. So, I think that the season is notable enough to not the article. Maceekim ( talk ) 13:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability of a parent topic isn't passed down to articles of the same topic. Cortador ( talk ) 13:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In this case, seasons are not presumed notable under the SNG. So the the relevant definition of wp:notability is having suitable GNG coverage, not the elements which you are listing. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 13:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify in anticipation of the series article being created. It is new and looks pretty notable, and having this in draft space is completely fine. Geschichte ( talk ) 08:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Is there any more support for draftification? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"All India Tanzeem-e-Insaaf: DSP2092 talk 14:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC) this , this , a bit of this and this is pretty much Good ; and these make a good case for my week argument. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC) NORG . Most of the article's references are not independent and reliable . It also doesn't have indepth coverage . DSP2092 talk 15:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's a reason I didn't argue for a full . The sources are independent and reliable (you can comment on the quality though), and I agree with WP:SIGNIFICANT being absent to some extent, however, if we combine all of these, this makes a good Basic case. A borderline notability for me, hence Weak Keep. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:NORG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 02:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC) GNG . Divesome ( talk ) 04:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Tommy Coster: The only vaguely reliable source I could find in a WP:BEFORE is this The Union story that I'm having trouble accessing, but even if it was excellent and detailed, one source is not sufficient for WP:GNG / WP:NBASIC . Google books doesn't show anything useful at least in the first pages. Various (self-authored?) bios describe him as grammy awardee etc., but I can't substantiate these claims to any reliable source and suspect the claimed awards were not for him, specifically, but rather some affiliated person/group/project. I thus don't think WP:ANYBIO #1 is met. The relevant SNG is WP:NMUSIC , which states at WP:BANDMEMBER : Members of notable bands are ed to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability. . WP:BANDMEMBER states articles such as this should be ed, but I'm not seeing an obvious target. WP:NCOMPOSER similarly states that composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should be d into the article about their work . Suggestions welcome. Ljleppan ( talk ) 07:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Bands and musicians , and United States of America . Ljleppan ( talk ) 07:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC) Unsourced BLP. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS. // Timothy :: talk 12:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was unable to find anything outside of his own web site to back up the statements in the article. I tried to find his alleged grammy awards but could not - search on his name at grammy.com got me nothing. Everything else I find, and there is little of it, is not in significant or reliable sources. Lamona ( talk ) 04:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2023 Deans Trophy season: Mccapra ( talk ) 03:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and Fiji . Mccapra ( talk ) 03:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Article about high-school sports, sourced only to local newspaper coverage. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 20:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Make A Difference Now: I could not find independent sources discussing the organization. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 01:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC) 35, 11 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , Tanzania , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is sourced from a website that belongs to the org. Not enough sources. killer bee 05:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC) Completely and utterly non-notable with no secondary sources available. User:Let'srun 16:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jóannes Lamhauge: WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 22:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Denmark . WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 22:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC) BEFORE does not turn up any information on Jóannes Lamhauge, visual artist. There is an architect and a musician. 2 of the references in this short stub fail verification. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 02:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mark McDowell (entrepreneur): 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Appears vanity spam, nothing for notability found. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , clearly promotional and not notable enough for Wikipedia. Graham 87 14:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I checked every source in the present version that didn't have Thai in its title, and all of them are either database entries (or equivalently short content), by contributors, non-independent, or PR pieces. A news search gives 3 results, 1 of which is already in the article and is from a contributor. Checking other sources, such as the WP:TWL , is a non-sequitar due to the commonness of his name. Using the entrepreneur discriminator doesn't help. Non-notable. — Sirdog ( talk ) 06:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Cameron Stracher: AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 20:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Law , and Politics . AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 20:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iowa , Massachusetts , and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . No indication that this attorney himself is notable. He was once general counsel for a notable company; and represented that company in negotiating agreements that related to notable people; but nothing indicates that the attorney himself is notable. The closest thing to it is the WSJ article, but it's not really close at all; the WSJ article is not about the attorney himself, and merely sets out his involvement in a larger story as routine news coverage of that story. TJRC ( talk ) 18:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Lacks sufficient coverage for notability. agt x 01:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Back to Front TV: There were a couple of media mentions in 2013, but I couldn't find any evidence that it actually ever produced anything. Pepper Beast (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom . Pepper Beast (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC) NOTPROMO . As written, this is promotional and fixing it would reduce it to a microstub. I agree with the PROD removal comment that the digital trends source may be usable in some context, but probably not as a SIRS source for a production company -- more likely as a source for the Back to Front show, if it ever got made, which I am not really sure of. — siro χ o 06:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'd perhaps to the TV show of the same name, it has some coverage. Nothing found for the company alone. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I didn't find an article on a TV series with this name. Any other suggestions? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC) NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* . ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject . I'm unable to identify any sources that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 18:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of tallest buildings in Thrissur: The sources used are either dead or primary, with no SIGCOV in any independent reliable sources justifying the existence of any such list. Except one, none of the buildings listed aren't notable by itself, and hence WP:SALAT is not justified. WP:NOTDIR applies too. The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , India , and Kerala . The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . 03:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC) 122.3.167.234 ( talk ) 03:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC) NLIST and WP:GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 04:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Mccapra ( talk ) 18:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 18:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC) GNG and WP:NLIST . Grabup ( talk ) 09:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Belmont Greene: Possible WP:ATD is / to Belmont, Virginia , but it might not fit well to have information on it there. Boleyn ( talk ) 20:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Virginia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] there's a potential to some of the content, especially about the railroad station, but the sourcing here is so poor (archived Geocities site) someone will need to re-source that information, so an ATD doesn't really make sense. SportingFlyer T · C 20:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's just another housing development article that's been coatracked. James.folsom ( talk ) 01:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. What links here shows Stone Bridge High School and Virginia State Route 659 , but they are no good as options Better Nuncio ( talk ) 10:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Vande Bharat Express services: Rather one could add the services (which is already added presently) in the main vande bharat page and proposed services could be omitted, or written in short. Better would be to this page and do the needful changes over the main page, and nothing would cause it to be so lengthy or scrumptious !! ! BhandupAamche ( talk ) 13:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India . BhandupAamche ( talk ) 13:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, ing in mind and considering the no. of sockpuppets increasing maladroit edits. BhandupAamche ( talk ) 13:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is not a valid reason for deletion, it is one for protection. Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 07:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Shaws username . talk . 14:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . This page is not needed when there is already a page Vande Bharat Express with all service List and details. RangersRus ( talk ) 14:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC) Vande Bharat Express/Archive 1#Should service table be removed and should it be replaced with Map, As size of Services table will on increasing . Also, the main article contains the list as it is transcluded from this article. Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 15:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or into Vande Bharat Express . I would prefer ing the articles separate, but merging is also fine with me, as long as the information is present on Wikipedia. Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 13:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with your point and this is to be kept for ing a track of the services this express is currently running. Request the Wiki team to it as it is and not the page. Sameer2905 ( talk ) 09:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, having a separate article for the list of services is not without precedent, List of TGV services exists. Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 18:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The Vande Bharat Express article is appropriate for an encyclopaedia, this list is not. We are here to write about subjects in a way that's useful to the general reader, not act as a webhost for indiscriminate railway statistics and trainspotting. And no one in their right mind would use us as a train timetable service. In the original article, a map would give the general reader a much more accessible overview than this over-sized table, so I'd have no objection to it vanishing from the main article too. The talk page discussion referred to above included only three people, one of whom dropped out after making a single comment, so it can't be regarded as a conclusive discussion. Elemimele ( talk ) 20:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I linked the talk page discussion since I didn't want to repeat my reasons, not because I wanted to show that there was consensus. Also, all Indian train service articles have a list of services, this one's list is big enough that I felt it needed to be on a separate page. (It is larger than the rest of the article.) Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 07:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC) NOTTRAVELGUIDE , this information is too detailed and is equivalent to trying to have a table on every individual Shinkansen service or every individual China HSR service, which we don't do for obvious reasons. I also note for some reason every service has it's own article, where the violations are even worse with the exact frequency and timetable being in every article... Jumpytoo Talk 08:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC) List of named passenger trains of Japan#Shinkansen (bullet trains) . Each one has an article too. This is equivalent, but maybe with a little extra detail. Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 09:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What I mean is that we do not describe each individual run of a Shinkansen service. There is no information about what exact time the Shinkansen runs, only the types of service and a general routing. In this case we are describing each individual service with the train number and exact timetable, that is too much. The ""names"" of the services are also noting more than ""[START] - [END] Vande Bharat Express"" which is generally a sign it should not be having an article. Jumpytoo Talk 17:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not arguing for ing the articles for each service, only the list article, with maybe a little trimming. Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 18:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC) an article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre , but not the telephone numbers or street addresses of the ""best"" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées . Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should list only those that are actually in the city. If you do wish to help write a travel guide, your contributions would be more than welcome at our sister project, Wikivoyage . How is a list of services a travel guide? Maybe an article for each service is too much, but a list is fine. Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 10:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reads like a trivia and advertisement. Abhishek0831996 ( talk ) 10:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The previous discussion never reached consensus as I had seeked for more opinions, which are now finally conveyed here. Size of the table was the only reason helping the cause for a seperate article, but with the suggestions for optimizations provided above, it only makes the list article less useful and less accessible. Footy2000♡ ; 20:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] therefore I can conclude that majority is in support of deletion for this article ? am I right. Pls correct me if not. BhandupAamche ( talk ) 10:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC) POLL Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 11:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. -- Imperial [AFCND] 18:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"WIIC-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 22:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pennsylvania . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 22:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC) GNG . This station is only notable at a local level (if even that, due to its checkered history). TH1980 ( talk ) 01:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Couldn’t find any sources even mentioning this station. -- Danubeball ( talk ) 13:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC) Fails WP:GNG . No significant coverage of the television station at all. — Young Forever (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Asy Syifa Kaila Saidah: Their only notable accomplishments include winning a local English-speaking competition and being selected as one of 60 participants to present their work in a local gallery. Additionally, the article's existence is partly attributed to their relation to Zakaria, which provides another reason for considering its removal under WP:BIOFAMILY . Ckfasdf ( talk ) 01:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Women , Islam , and Indonesia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . No notability here at all. Why wasn't this prodded? Xxanthippe ( talk ) 02:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC) . Because PROD will be blocked by sock/editor, these are such examples 1 , 2 and 3 . Ckfasdf ( talk ) 06:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Other than the subject has lack of notability, one of the sources that the user cited, which was from Saputra, did not mention Saidah at any pages. Faldi00 ( talk ) 02:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Arabesque TV: I tried clicking ""The official homepage"" link on the bottom of the article, but the site doesn't mention any ""Arabesque"". Was previously nominated for AfD but speedy kept because nominator gave the wrong reason. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 12:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 12:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , an article with the correct name already exists at Arab Radio and Television Network . SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Richard Neville, 11th Baron Braybrooke: British peers are not inherently notable. Neville was also never elected to the House of Lords, so WP:NPOL is not met either. I wonder if WP:SALT is worth considering here. On top of the source assessment of the previous AfD (which closed as ) , I am adding my personal source assessment for the new sources below. Sources 1-10: Source assessment table: prepared by User:Pilaz Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? "" Braybrooke, 11th Baron, (Richard Ralph Neville) (born 10 June 1977) "". Who's Who (174th ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing (published 6 December 2021). 2022. doi:10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013. U289642. ISBN 9781472979070. Archived from the original on 2022-10-19. Retrieved 2022-10-19. WP:PRIMARY - written by the subject of the article and equal to a self-published source , per WP:RSP consensus 2022 RfC closer on this source: ""There is a consensus that Who's Who (UK) is generally unreliable due to its poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate information"". ✘ No Morris, Susan (2020). Braybrooke, Baron (Neville) (Baron GB 1788). Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage (2019 ed.). Debrett's (published 4 April 2020). pp. 1832–1834. ISBN 9781999767051. Retrieved 2023-05-24. While Debrett's is reliable for genealogy, per WP:RSP , it's a tertiary source as it acts as a reference work of noble titles, which means it cannot count towards the GNG, whose metric of notability is secondary sources. Furthermore, family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic , per WP:NOTGENEALOGY . ✘ No "" NEVILLE - Births Announcements - Telegraph Announcements "". Telegraph Announcements. 27 August 2019. Archived from the original on 2023-05-24. Retrieved 2023-05-24. No in-depth coverage of the subject in this birth announcement ✘ No Burton, Simon (30 September 2022). "" Crossbench hereditary peers' by-election "" (PDF). House of Lords. Retrieved 2022-10-19. Candidate statements are written in the first person and are therefore not independent. ✘ No "" Lord Braybrooke "". braybrooke.co.uk. Archived from the original on 2023-05-17. Retrieved 2023-05-17. Website presumably belongs to the subject's family. ✘ No "" BRAYBROOKE "" (PDF). The Roll of the Peerage. The Crown Office, Ministry of Justice (published 21 April 2023): 22. 2023. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2023-05-24. Retrieved 2023-05-24. Namecheck only. ✘ No ""Magdalene College, Cambridge (1998). "" Statutes of Magdalene College in the University of Cambridge "" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-19. Retrieved 2022-10-19. Nothing about the subject, the 11th Baron of Braybrooke. ✘ No Crockford's clerical directory 2018-2019: a directory of the clergy of the Church of England, the Church in Wales, the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Church of Ireland . Church House Publishing (published 2017). 2018–2019. p. 1228. ISBN 9780715111284. Retrieved 2023-05-28. ✘ No "" Mr R.R. Neville and Miss S.A. Kelway-Bamber - Engagements Announcements - Telegraph Announcements "". Telegraph Announcements. 9 September 2015. Archived from the original on 2023-05-24. Retrieved 2023-05-24. ✘ No Companies House (UK). "" George NEVILLE personal appointments "". Archived from the original on 2023-05-23. Retrieved 2023-05-23."". Telegraph Announcements. 9 September 2015. Archived from the original on 2023-05-24. Retrieved 2023-05-24. ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Sources 11-21: Source assessment table: prepared by User:Pilaz Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? "" Lord Braybrooke - Aristocrat who loved women and trains and doted on the eight daughters unable to inherit his land "". The Times. 10 June 2017. Archived from the original on 2023-05-26. Retrieved 2023-05-26. Article is about the subject's father, insufficiently meets WP:SIGCOV ✘ No Magdalene College, Cambridge (2017). "" Magdalene College Magazine No. 61 2016–17 "" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-19. Retrieved 2022-10-19. Article subject only gets a passing mention on page 8. ✘ No "" People Magdalene College "". Magdalene College, Cambridge. 2023-05-17. Archived from the original on 2023-05-17. Retrieved 2023-05-17. ✘ No "" Register of Hereditary Peers who wish to stand for election as members of the House of Lords under Standing Order 9 (Hereditary peers: by-elections) as at 10 May 2022 "" (PDF). House of Lords. 10 May 2022. Retrieved 2023-05-24. also WP:PRIMARY ✘ No Burton, Simon (20 October 2022). "" Crossbench hereditary peers' by-election, October 2022: result "" (PDF). House of Lords. Retrieved 2022-11-20. ✘ No Companies House (UK). "" Bring a Bottle Limited - Officers "". Archived from the original on 2022-10-19. Retrieved 2022-10-19. Just the company information; WP:PRIMARY . ✘ No Sources 17-21: Telegraph , The Times , The Independent , The Guardian , GQ Magazine only limited company coverage, no mention of subject ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Pilaz ( talk ) 00:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Royalty and nobility , and United Kingdom . Pilaz ( talk ) 00:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per source review tables above, zero RS; and props for doing two of them. I just did one for another AfD and it's quite laborious... I find nothing for this individual. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC) ATD to Baron Braybrooke - absolutely no reason not to. Ingratis ( talk ) 09:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC) - amplified below. Ingratis ( talk ) 05:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC) I would actually prefer (but pointless to !vote for it) that this and all comparable peerage articles should be kept, firstly because peers up to and including current ones are perennial subjects of enquiry, regardless of the current Wikipedia orthodoxy, and secondly because it's illogical to give articles (or as a bare if not substandard minimum, links) to some members of a series and not others, thus creating little gaps everywhere without obvious reason and creating an inept moth-eaten appearance, but that's the consequence of following ""the rules"" without any further thought. Not doing the reader any favours though. Ingratis ( talk ) 09:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand your point, but the truth is that many other NPOL-compliant peers don't receive significant coverage either. For consistency's sake, one could also nominate those NPOL-compliant but GNG-noncompliant articles, which would result in a GNG vs SNG ideological split at AfD like always. Personally, I find it more useful and less intensive to the AfD community to go after the NPOL-noncompliant, GNG-noncompliant peers. Pilaz ( talk ) 15:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC) I created the third incarnation of this article as it came to my attention that the subject probably does have a role that satisfies notability. The subject is the Visitor of Magdalene College, Cambridge and is arguably therefore the most senior academic administrator of the college, and is a role that comes with real responsibilities (although these responsibilities have been eroded throughout the years). I believe the fact that the subject is the visitor satisfies WP:NACADEMIC , specifically point 6. I raise the point that all visitors of the Cambridge colleges (and indeed Oxford) have their own WP pages see List of college visitors of the University of Cambridge , and based on this alone it would therefore be anomalous for there not to be an article about the subject (although I acknowledge that other visitors in the list generally derive notability in other ways). Perhaps this is a case where the article needs improvement to clarify why exactly the subject is notable. The role of visitor is little understood, but it is by no means insignificant. The subject is also somewhat notable in the context of hereditary peerages, and the inheritance of landed estates, as his predecessor (10th Baron) had eight girls, but no boys (a chance of 1 in 256), and therefore the subject (distant cousin) inherited the title, but the estate went elsewhere. There was significant coverage in the UK press and legal firms at the time of this inheritance, making the case for the perceived injustice of primogeniture. The article did originally include a large amount of this information. DMEVB ( talk ) 18:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ DMEVB , how high does a college visitor rank in the United Kingdom? Because from the University of Cambridge article, it seems to me that the highest-level elected or appointed administrative post described by WP:NACADEMIC #6 is the Chancellor or Vice-Chancellor. The word ""visitor"" doesn't even appear in that article. Pilaz ( talk ) 20:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC) a visitor is to a constituent college as a chancellor is to a university. The visitor's main role is to be the last resort to adjudicate in college disputes (except where recent law has superseded-particularly in relation to student disputes). If, for example, there were a disagreement within the fellowship (academics who are senior members) of the college that the governing body could not resolve, the visitor would be the last internal member of the college to adjudicate on the matter, and normally they have absolute authority on matters they are asked to step-in to resolve and might seek their own independent legal representation if the matter is not straightforward. The role of visitor is not a university position (at least at the universities concerned), but a college position, which is why you won't find it mentioned on the University of Cambridge article. The colleges are entities legally autonomous from the university and have their own governance as prescribed in the individual college statutes. If a visitor is not able to resolve a dispute, the next level-up is probably the Lord Chancellor or the legal system itself, and not in fact the university governance (although another complication is that the Chancellor of the University is in fact the visitor of a number of colleges). To further answer your question of ranking by asking another question: if you were a current academic, member of staff, or student at Magdalene College (of which there are probably 500-1,000 at any given time, plus 10,000s alumni) would you want to know who the nominally-highest ranking member of the College is? I think the answer is an unequivocal yes. I believe the 10th Baron (previous) did step in to adjudicate certain matters, one being about reinstating a student who had been expelled for alcohol-related reasons. If you were in this situation, you would want to know who the person who might be able to help you is! But these are internal disputes, so you won't find information about them online. There was recently a high-profile dispute at Christ Church, Oxford , where I believe the visitor ( The Crown ) was asked to step-in to resolve, resulting in the Dean (head) of the college stepping down in 2022. Some of the reasons you can't find much information about the visitor are:- - Governance of a college is (historically) deliberately opaque and intractable to outsiders without intimate knowledge of its function, although this is becoming less common. - The optics in the ""age of meritocracy"" of having a hereditary peer who is nominally the most senior member may not be desired by the college, and they may not want to draw attention to this fact. It quite frankly looks a bit odd when the college is undertaking ""access to university"" initiatives to deprived/poor areas of the country, when the college has a hereditary British Lord sat at the top in a hereditary role. It is not surprising that the visitor is not included in the online college directory, which is why one reference is a link to the online college directory to demonstrate absence of the subject. - The subject does not appear to be a notable individual and so there isn't much specific information available about the subject online. But given the subject has inherited an important academic role at an academic institute (and despite their currently being no evidence of his attending university himself as of 2023) that's exactly why there should be an article about the subject! The case of how this inheritance has occurred is an interesting one. Previous Barons Braybrooke (as in some of the previous holders in title) have been longest-serving Master (head) of the college, alumni themselves, and have had very strong links to the college (and yes, therefore simultaneously visitor as well), and suddenly by fluke of inheritance, someone with no known association to the college, and is otherwise in contrast to other college visitors completely undistinguished, is visitor! The subject is notable because of these circumstances. Although individually some of the references in the article might be weak, the body of references taken as a whole, I believe provide sufficient verifiability for the subject's notability, which I claim only under WP:NACADEMIC #6. The references do provide sufficient evidence as to why the subject is notable under WP policy. DMEVB ( talk ) 22:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – I can see the point that Braybrooke was never in the Lords, so he doesn't get that free ride, and it seems his only claim to distinction is the odd one of being the hereditary Visitor of a Cambridge college. But WP:N is not remotely about importance, the nitty gritty of it is verifiability, and we have that for almost everything. Unlike a print encyclopedia, Wikipedia has no practical limitation on its coverage, and its aspiration ""all human knowledge is here"" does take it to including some unimportant people, subject to verifiability. Having said that , when it comes to notable ancestors, we do not need much more than a simple link. Moonraker ( talk ) 05:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC) N is the WP:GNG . So let me ask the question: do you think that the subject of this article passes the GNG or not? Pilaz ( talk ) 20:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pilaz I stand by verifiability -- and the way that is delivered is by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The GNG does not require ""multiple sources"". The crunch question is whether there is ""significant coverage"", WP:SIGCOV , and that depends on the biography in Debrett's Peerage , which you say is a reliable source, but not a secondary source. The WP:GNG does not make a distinction. WP:Reliable sources prefers secondary sources, but I say Debrett's is a secondary source, and what it says about tertiary sources makes no sense. I agree of course that Wikipedia is a ""tertiary"" source, being constructed from secondary and primary sources, but it is surely an absurd idea that ""encyclopedias"" in general are ""tertiary"". There could not be a non-notable person with a biography in Encyclopedia Britannica , in which each article is written by a suitable scholar. On The Times , I do not have access to it where I am today. So I am erring on the side of caution. Moonraker ( talk ) 19:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The fourth bullet point of the GNG says that sources must be secondary. Besides, coverage in Debrett's is only a two-sentence passing mention, hardly SIGCOV. And to address your point that it is surely an absurd idea that ""encyclopedias"" in general are ""tertiary"" , see WP:TERTIARY , which clearly lists encyclopedias. WP:SECONDARY is quite clear that a secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources , and I'm not seeing any thought and reflection in the Debrett's passage. Pilaz ( talk ) 22:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Deja vu. I closed the 2nd AFD nomination for this subject nominated by the same editor. I still think we could use additional input on sources and the possibility of a Redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If this results in a result, there should be a one-year moratorium on renominating the poor fellow. Having said that, titles and all that apart, there are simply not the sources here to pass WP:GNG. The Telegraph announcements are small ads, the bottleshop coverage isn't about the subject at all. We are left with a single RS piece in The Times - and that just cutteth not the mustard. He's simply not a notable noble. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 14:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC) like it or not, peers - ALL peers - are plausible search terms, but this one especially so because of the circumstances, mentioned above by User:DMEVB, of his succession to the title. This may not be quite enough to warrant a in the face of a rigid adherence to the ""rules"", but it's certainly enough to merit a to the Baron Braybrooke article which cd usefully take up some of DMEVB's refs (the ones removed from this article by a SP IP editor). Ingratis ( talk ) 05:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and when I say ""Redirect"", I mean ing the page history, as I think it's possible that the article may be developed in future. Ingratis ( talk ) 11:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (What is the SP acronym please?) The IP editor of the article removed a large number of references that would strengthen the vote. The IP editor edited two articles only: initially Magdalene College, Cambridge , and then Richard Neville, 11th Baron Braybrooke . They seem to be an experienced user as they quote WP policy in their edits. DMEVB ( talk ) 15:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SP = Single Purpose or SPA, single purpose account. Not generally regarded as a good thing at AfD, which would normally only attract participation from more experienced editors rather than those with no or very few edits under their belt. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies for the acronym - as explained by Alexandermcnabb. Ingratis ( talk ) 11:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Baron Braybrooke What did change since the last consesus? I can't see the point why this article was recreated. -- Theoreticalmawi ( talk ) 16:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could it meet G4 of CSD? Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 03:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete, without prejudice . Maybe draftily and resubmit via AFC. I personally feel unconvinced by Moonraker's reasoning for him existing on Wikipedia, but if better evidence for notability could be brought to my attention, I would be willing to adjust my position, and while conditionally I am weak as of writing, I would endorse draftifying his article if I see better proof of notability Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 03:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Fond My Mind: AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 05:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC) 15, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs , Dance , and Brazil . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't seem to find any reliable, independent sources to warrant a . AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 17:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC) PRODded this article some time ago, since I could not find a single reliable source that provides significant coverage of the topic (bearing in mind WP:NEXIST ), only for it to be undone by Kvng with the argument that it could be d into Lostwave . I would be willing to go that route if there was even a single reliable source discussing this song. Alas, there is not. If such a r does occur, I then imagine the following happening: The content is tagged as needing citations. For lacking citations, the entry is d. The s relating to this song ( Fond My Mind , Edde Edman , Andre Nobrega , William Paiva , Feels Like A Wish , Feels Like a Wish , Station K. ) go to RfD because there's no information on the page that makes the s plausible, leading to someone unsuccessfully pushing to restore the information on the Lostwave page . As much as I love this song, I unfortunately do not think we are ready for an article on it. I will happily accept undeletion, though, if and when this gets attention from reliable sources. It is a story as fascinating as its sound, and it sucks that it's not getting the attention it deserves. I suppose if someone wants to make this a userspace draft, that's fine by me, too. - B RAINULATOR 9 ( TALK ) 05:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well put. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 06:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - There is some excitement about it on Reddit . I have asked the subreddit for help finding sources. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 15:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bu Athla: The co-ordinates given in the article are open desert . How did this article survive for so long like this? I can only assume lots of people think that ""populated places"" just cannot be d regardless of issues because of WP:GEOLAND . Based on the creator, the article was likely mass-created algorithmically based on GEOnet Names Server data, which is unreliable. FOARP ( talk ) 10:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions . FOARP ( talk ) 10:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] although it exists. It’s a well. See [28] . Mccapra ( talk ) 12:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] After checking, the only thing that happened at the well was fighting during a 1929 battle in the Second Italo-Senussi War that mainly took place in nearby Jikharra . The battle itself doesn't have an article, although I could find another link talking about it here . Don't think there is any notability to be found there. Chaotic Enby ( talk ) 19:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Same as the well above, just it. I can't find sources for the place. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or to the Second Italo Senussi War article I suppose? Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm wondering if the battle itself could be notable. I see no articles about that war's military campaigns, which is a bit unusual? I'd have expected a conflict of this magnitude to have more than a single ""main"" article, but this specific battle isn't really sourced, so not very sure about its notability. Redirects are cheap, and the war's article could be expanded, but given how poorly sourced (and relatively irrelevant) the well is I don't even know if a might be useful rather than a plain . Chaotic Enby ( talk ) 19:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I looked for sources on the battle but found nothing. The word “battle” is probably doing a lot of work here. The one source I found says 241 Libyans were killed there. That was an average morning’s work for the Italians in Libya. Anyway the source says that the 2020 commemoration took place in Jikharra, the nearby town, so I’ll add the fighting to the article on that town and then we can if that’s preferable to deleting. Mccapra ( talk ) 07:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] done. Mccapra ( talk ) 07:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The fighting took place at Jikarra and not at the Bu Athla well? Can't read the link (which is anyway a blog of some kind). Eyeballing it on the map the Bu Athla well is about 40 klicks away from Jikarra so the locations are not closely associated. Redirects are cheap, but not simply random, so I don't see the point here. FOARP ( talk ) 15:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The source is a Libyan online newspaper. It says that there was a commemoration in the town of Jikharra of the battle of Al-Koz and Bu Athla “which took place in the Jikharra region.” I.e. the battle was out in the desert somewhere in the environs and Jikharra is the most appropriate place to commemorate it. So I don’t think it’s random. Mccapra ( talk ) 08:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] unlikely to ever warrant a discrete article, so and per Mccapra. SN54129 14:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"RC Slovan Bratislava: While there might be WP:SIGCOV for the league in which they compete, I couldn't find any for the club. Page is unsourced. Broc ( talk ) 11:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Rugby union , and Slovakia . Broc ( talk ) 11:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC) GNG , no suitable WP:ATD also. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 10:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Tush (band): It's one claim to fame was that the guitarist Phil Collen played for them for a short time. It's been unsourced since March 2008. I did just add a singular primary source from Phil Collen's autobiography. Annwfwn ( talk ) 17:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England . Skynxnex ( talk ) 18:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Thanks to the nominator for adding the reference to the Def Leppard biography, but that does not really matter because the band is not notable. They are only mentioned occasionally, and very briefly, as an early gig for Phil Collen and those sources are about him and not the band. He was not even a significant part of the band's history. Via a search for the other band members, all I can find are occasional social media posts and blogs from the now 60-something members and club attendees claiming that they have a connection to someone famous. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Thai bombing of Phnom Penh: None of the claimed book references mention anything remotely close to a bombing of Phnom Penh on 13 January 1941, and a Google Books search reveals no mention anywhere else. This looks very much like a hoax, but it's probably not blatant enough for G3. Paul_012 ( talk ) 02:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Cambodia , Thailand , and France . Paul_012 ( talk ) 02:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as made up. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 06:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [16] . Seems to be a hoax. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC) Doubts exist around the bombing's occurrence. The provided sources don't mention it, and wider searches haven't yielded any results. Deleting this article for potential factuality issues might be best. Waqar 💬 16:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Green Globe Company Standard: Largely unsourced and does not seem to warrant a standalone article. CycloneYoris talk! 09:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Travel and tourism . CycloneYoris talk! 09:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Article provides no sources, The external link section only contains a link to the website of the article's subject. Shadow311 ( talk ) 15:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Most sources I can find are commercial sources that do not meet WP:RS , specifically websites of other companies with the certification that are providing customer-oriented information about it. Redtree21 ( talk ) 08:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Babatunde Bayo Lawal: Others are press releases. Nothing secondary or independent found. PS: Article was previously draftified by Jamiebuba. Reading Beans ( talk ) 16:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , and Nigeria . Reading Beans ( talk ) 16:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] • . Leaning because most of the references are interviews which make the article fails WP:GNG . Ezra Cricket ( talk ) 18:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Clearly fails WP:GNG . Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 22:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Choi Won-nam: Simione001 ( talk ) 21:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 21:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 21:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 21:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann ( talk ) 22:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 1994 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC) , he is mentioned there, it's the only tournament he played in and scored two goals. Govvy ( talk ) 10:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Doesn't appear to pass WP:NSPORT . toobigtokale ( talk ) 17:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Fails WP:GNG . Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of sovereign states in 221: I think it's fairly obvious that this fails all notability criteria, and would be of no use as a even to List of political entities in the 3rd century . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 20:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 20:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC) Might give it a pass if it had some sort of sourcing. I really don't see the need. These lists seem to be chronological by year since... I'm not sure really. The years 221 and 223 anyway, based on the box at the bottom. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . It's redundant as per comment above, and the article doesn't make it clear what its inclusion criteria are. E.g. it lists ""Saxons"" as a sovereign state. What's that supposed to mean? Was there a single sovereign ruling over all Saxon people? Cortador ( talk ) 21:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - A clear NLIST fail. No sourcing, lots of OR, significant omissions and what exactly is special about 221? How are states defined? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 12:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Better to have category about the subject. Azuredivay ( talk ) 15:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . per nom -- Devokewater | (tαlk) 11:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC) LIST . This is random. Why no 311? Why not West Saxons and Northeastern Saxons? Bearian ( talk ) 17:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"O-Sensei (comics): Plot summary, a short list of appearances in other media, no reception/analysis. The best ATD I can suggest is the usual to the List of DC comics characters . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 13:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Comics and animation . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 13:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC) I could not find anything that approached significant coverage . Meanwhile, the character is not mentioned in the list, so a would not make sense to anyone who does not know about this obscure character. ― Susmuffin Talk 23:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC) GNG . I am not finding anything in searches that are not either non-reliable sources, such as fanpages, or the most trivial of mentions. As stated by Susmuffin, the character does not even appear in the overstuffed DC Character lists, so Redirecting is out of the question, and as the character is just so incredibly non-notable and there is not a single piece of genuinely sourced information here, merging would not be appropriate. And of course, since O-Sensei s to the notable individual Morihei Ueshiba , this specific search term would not be a particularly useful anyway, given that it is a very specific, very unlikely search term. Rorshacma ( talk ) 17:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree that this character fails GNG and is so minor a is not appropriate. Rhino131 ( talk ) 13:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC) O in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . To the closer of this AFD discussion if the outcome is , can you see to it that some of his history goes to the page that I just mentioned? -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 23:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"A.J. Applegate: AVN and XBIZ coverage is not sufficient. Morbidthoughts ( talk ) 20:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women . Morbidthoughts ( talk ) 20:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and New York . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC) This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions . • Gene93k ( talk ) 09:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maxim is about the most RS I could find [2] , not really useful. She's mentioned here [3] and here [4] . Last isn't a RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I found a piece on her in the The Jerusalem Post (a good RS), and the International Business Times , (not a great RS). Very hard to search for adult film stars given the wall of x-rated links they throw up. Aszx5000 ( talk ) 18:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2032 European Women's Handball Championship: Event is 8 years away. Grahaml35 ( talk ) 16:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 17:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per above. There was an indiscriminate creation of articles about upcoming sports events. Svartner ( talk ) 02:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per above. Боки ☎ ✎ 17:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Iran Aseman Airlines destinations: Per the subsequent AN discussion these should be nominated for deletion in orderly fashion. Briefly, this is a failure of WP:NOT , particularly WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTCATALOGUE . The WP:NOT issue by itself is sufficient to warrant deletion, but if further reasons are needed it is a clear failure of WP:CORP since the only sources provided are the company's own website and a 404 link to a blog. I am not WP:BUNDLING these nominations as I think it highly likely that unbundling would be requested. FOARP ( talk ) 13:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation , Lists , and Iran . FOARP ( talk ) 13:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC) IINFO . Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 02:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Hopefully someone will vote here, but if they don't, I guess I should say that I don't agree that this article should be ineligible for soft-deletion. This is because: The article was only nominated for deletion once, in 2015, as part of a mass-nomination of 400 articles. The merits of this particular article were not discussed in that AFD. The 2015 AFD was eight years ago. There is a policy consensus at VPP in 2018 against this article. This should at least count as an additional vote against it if one is missing. There have been a series of AFDs closed recently (see here for a list) in which articles basically the same as this one have been d, and the consensus of the 2018 VPP discussion has been re-affirmed in those discussions. FOARP ( talk ) 10:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , per clearly violating the 2018 consensus and existing precedent and policy. JoelleJay ( talk ) 16:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Freedom and Justice Party (Bolivia): No evidence of notability per WP:NORG . AusLondonder ( talk ) 17:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics , and Bolivia . AusLondonder ( talk ) 17:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support and we shouldn't stop here. There are several articles about political parties that should be d for the same reason. Charles Essie ( talk ) 20:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We really have no need of more research-free nominations and deletion rationales. Instead, we need people to do the research before coming to AFD. That's what the unsourced article drive is about : looking for sources. You show no evidence of looking for sources in this rationale. That hasn't helped the encyclopaedia one iota. Uncle G ( talk ) 09:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Disappointing you characterise my nomination in this way when as you say below no sources exist. Having crappy one paragraph articles about micro-parties that haven't been updated in 22 years is not my definition of helping the encyclopedia. AusLondonder ( talk ) 11:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Agreed, I'm working on weeding out some of these awful articles about clearly non-notable political parties (most of which haven't been updated in at least twenty years). Unfortunately many were created with zero sources by editors who believe all political parties are inherently notable. AusLondonder ( talk ) 11:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I looked in the same handbook where I found Social Liberal and Democratic Party ( AfD discussion ) documented in depth. It doesn't have this party, by either English or Spanish names. Looking for anything else, after eliminating the Egyptian party of the same name (in Spanish as well), turns up pretty much nothing. ISBN 9781107145948 gives this a total of two words : ""unsuccessful (flop)"". Uncle G ( talk ) 09:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 3% of the vote and zero candidates two decades ago, isn't notable. The sources used are trivial coverage. I don't find anything further we can use. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Farid Ahmadi: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Afghanistan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC) GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 23:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . per nom. Idiosincrático ( talk ) 17:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dimitris Pappas: signed, Rosguill talk 23:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Greece . signed, Rosguill talk 23:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails WP:NBIO - the references are not nearly significant enough to justify notability. — Hello Annyong (say whaaat?!) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] not notable footballer and per arguments above. -- VertyBerty ( talk ) 08:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Manicaland Development Association: RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 21:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Africa , and Zimbabwe . RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 21:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC) while Manicaland is notable, this is not and has no information about it. There would need to be some sort of important secondary coverage of impact or consequences. Chamaemelum ( talk ) 04:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Seamus Hasson: Not recognised as a historian or expert by any authority, no training in the field either, edited and wrote for some super local magazines and appeared to have published a single non-notable book (Edit: striking through, he didn't publish a book, the ""New Orleans McCloskeys"" was just an article in a magazine). All coverage is passing other than some local area obituaries. Cannot find reasonable sources to define any notability. Half the content of the article still is only tangentially about the subject. The main reference is about the subject and their history, but is in the local magazine they edited and wrote for and appears to have just been narrated to the actual writer, so it's not in any way an independently produced source and may as well just have been written by the subject themself. I tried tidying it up, but couldn't find the notable or reliable sources to do much. (It's also worth noting that there is evidence of severe WP:CANVASing or WP:SOCKPUPPETRY on the article and talk page.) Canterbury Tail talk 12:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. This was a man who was apparently well-known in his local community, for several reasons, including his contributions to local magazines, but there is no evidence of more widespread notability. The cited references currently present in the article are: ( http://www.thewindingroe.com/ ) - the web site of the publisher of two magazines that Seamus Hasson was connected to, including being the editor of one, and a member of the editing committee of the other. The full and complete text of the mention of him on the cited page is ""1971 - Seamus Hasson edited the first Benbradagh Magazine"" . ( https://www.derrynow.com/news/local-news/460560/tailor-made-to-be-one-of-a-kind-tributes-to-seamus-hasson.html ) An obituary in a local newspaper. This reference links to he same web page as reference 1 above, but the wikitext of the reference gives a page number and an issue number of one of the magazines concerned. It turns out that it is a page in an article about the family of Hasson, one of the editors of the magazine. The information in the Wikipedia article which is cited to that page consists of such facts as that in 1950 the Hasson family set up a shop, and that later the shop was damaged by bombs. ( https://archive.niassembly.gov.uk/education/2007mandate/minutes/2008/090527.htm ) Minutes of a meeting of the Northern Ireland Assembly's committee for education, in which the full and complete mention of Hasson is "" The Committee noted correspondence of 16 May 2009 from Mr Seamus Hasson, Dungiven requesting information on the Education Bill. Agreed – the Committee would write to Mr Hasson to provide an update on the progress of the Committee’s scrutiny of the Education Bill to date. "" ( https://www.irishnews.com/paywall/tsb/irishnews/irishnews/irishnews/news/northernirelandnews/2019/07/13/news/brothers-told-of-francie-mccloskey-s-last-hours-1662179/content.html ) A newspaper publishing an account provided by Seamus Hasson and his brother of the death of an injured man, whom the Hasson borthers tried to help. ( https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/heathwood/static/1994.html ) The page of result from a search on a web site which lists television programmes, and synopses of them. The synopsis of one of the programmes is 181 words long, and includes a 6 word mention of Hasson. None of this comes near to constituting substantial coverage of Hasson, and some of them are not independent sources either. I searched for better sources, but found nothing significantly different in character from the cited sources. Unfortunately, the article gives no indication that Seamus Hasson satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, nor does there appear to be any evidence available anywhere else that he does so. JBW ( talk ) 14:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Northern Ireland . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please do not this article. Seamus was a well educated man and keen historian - his writings are important to mark events in local history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.159.95 ( talk ) 21:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 90.240.159.95 has made no other edits. JBW ( talk ) 08:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think this article should not be d as there is detailed interesting history within the content of this item. 146.198.186.198 ( talk ) 21:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 146.198.186.198 has made no edits other than about this article. JBW ( talk ) 08:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unfortunately, Wikipedia's notability criteria don't include the subject of an article being well educated or keen, or there being detailed or interesting material associated with him. I suggest you look at the general notability guideline and the guideline on notability of people to see what kind of thing is needed, and then see whether you can find evidence that Seamus Hasson satisfies any of the criteria given there. JBW ( talk ) 09:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as the other comments, I don't believe this article meets the notability criteria for Wikipedia. Local historians have their place and I've always appreciated local talks when I've attended but very few local historians would meet notability criteria. Knitsey ( talk ) 14:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Seamus Hasson is a notable figure, having initiated the Benbradagh magazine and supporting the Winding Roe magazine which are journals, held in high esteem by Academics. All editions of both the Benbradagh and Winding Roe magazines are held by The Agency for the Legal Deposit Libraries in Edinburgh as well as the national libraries of the Anglo-Celtic islands, being:- National Library of Scotland; The Bodleian Library at Oxford University; National Library of Wales; Cambridge University Library and The Library of Trinity College, Dublin. This demonstrates the notability of Seamus Hasson due to the importance and value of the contribution which these journals, he was involved in and, compiled over a period of fifty years have. Both titles are also held in the McClay Library, Queen's University of Belfast, the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin and and in the Legal Deposits of The British Library in Wetherby. In addition to this, Allen County Public Library, Genealogy Center, Fort Wayne, Indiana hold both titles. All of these institutions are esteemed, illustrious institutions who subscribed to the receipt of each journal annually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenshane ( talk • contribs ) 15:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Agency for the Legal Deposit Libraries does not hold copies of publications; it acts on behalf of the Bodleian Library, the Cambridge University Library, the Library of Trinity College, Dublin, the National Library of Wales and the National Library of Scotland to obtain copies of publications for them, and passes those copies on to the libraries. Those five libraries and the British Library, which you also mention, have an automatic legal right to a copy of every publication published in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, so it is far from true that the fact that they have the magazines ""demonstrates the notability"" even of those magazines, let alone of Seamus Hasson. I know nothing about the inclusion standards for the other libraries that you mention, but it isn't relevant anyway, since being a contributor to publications held in libraries is not part of Wikipedia's notability criteria. I echo my advice above to actually read the relevant Wikipedia notability guidelines and try to find evidence which complies with them. If you can do that then the article is likely to be kept, and I for one will support ing it, but that isn't going to happen on the basis of ideas which may seem like reasonable indications of notability to anyone new to contributing to Wikipedia, but which are unconnected to anything in the notability guidelines. JBW ( talk ) 16:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Heck I've got a book held in several libraries and I'm definitely not notable, and neither is my book. Canterbury Tail talk 17:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seamus Hasson contributed his Dungiven local historical knowledge to 29 out of 30 Benbradagh issues. These magazines were then bound together and are now known as the Second Book of Dungiven. Seamus served on Benbradagh's editorial committee for it's entire lifespan of 30 years and then went on to contribute to The Winding Roe magazine until the year before his death in 2016. He bequeathed to Dungiven a great treasure of his writings that is well respected for its accurate detail, a perfectionist to many of us that have read his work. Seamus Hasson has also been recognised by other writers in their research - The Irish highwaymen by Stephen Dunford. Matt a biography of Matthew H. McCloskey by Robert J Ehlinger. Owenbegpamela ( talk ) 07:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I also wish to object to this proposal as I do not see anything controversial in this article 213.104.114.26 ( talk ) 11:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Vilma Abrahamsson: Joeykai ( talk ) 11:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Fails WP:SPORTCRIT . BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions ) 16:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet GNG or SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC) GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 01:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Any coverage I find looking in the local paper is just match reports or very short statements on her injuries. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SPORTCRIT . AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 08:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as failing GNG, SPORTCRIT, NBIO, etc. Me Da Wikipedian ( talk ) 12:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Samantha Nassolo: A search for sources yielded just 1 hit in google news. Being the founder of ""Miss Lira Beauty Pageant"" is not really a claim for notability. Fails WP:BIO . LibStar ( talk ) 00:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women , and Uganda . LibStar ( talk ) 00:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , random run of the mill nightclub owner who happened to do some work for some small scale beauty pageant. - Samoht27 ( talk ) 16:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions . Let'srun ( talk ) 20:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Willy Suarez Maceo: Also, he has only been charged, not convicted of a crime, so there's a chance that he's innocent. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 19:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Crime , Cuba , and Florida . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . If there's more in depth coverage after/if he's found guilty, then that's another story, but as of now this is in violation of BLPCRIME. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 03:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kristian Freed: All I found was this . JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league , Australia , and United States of America . JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC) A player who has played in two world cups is plenty notable so there should be more out their, but if nothing is found then there isn't enough references here to pass. Mn1548 ( talk ) 12:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The media mentions Kristian Freed 99% of the time in listing the team's roster, I've only encountered him being praised for his play a couple times, which isn't enough for notability either. Also, the USA Rugby National Team is considered a weak team and has never won anything of significance-- Saul McGill ( talk ) 15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC) The subject does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines and lacks significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Prof. PMarini ( talk ) 22:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Andh Bhakt: Article was then re-created, but still isn't notable. Pepper Beast (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Politics , and India . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Was d literally last month. Still doesn't show any notability for inclusion. Would be better suited for a Wiktionary entry. Procyon117 ( talk ) 09:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . It was d before yet I don't see any change in the article. Xoocit ( talk ) 09:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Emji Spero: As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in third-party media -- but this is referenced entirely to sources directly affiliated with the claims, such as the promotional pages of the subject's books on the self-published websites of their own publishers, with not even one hit of proper GNG-building media coverage shown at all. There is a literary award in the mix here which would be a valid notability claim if the article were properly sourced, but as a specialty award it still isn't ""inherently"" notable enough to confer an instant inclusion freebie in the absence of any GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat ( talk ) 12:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America . Bearcat ( talk ) 12:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Sexuality and gender , and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - This article is listed for consideration under ""deletion sorting visual artists"". Perhaps a poet could take a look. Should we remove the unreferenced stuff and duplicate sentences and see what is left? -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Article relies on primary sources, specifically the publisher promotional website. Several dead links. WP:BEFORE shows a review in Los Angeles Review , an interview in Bomb (magazine) and Jacket2 . They seem to have a presence on the west coast, but still, the sourcing is thin and I think it is WP:TOOSOON . The claim that Spero was involved in the editing of ""We Both Laughed in Pleasure: The Selected Diaries of Lou Sullivan"" is not supported by the references. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Voznesensky Alexander Ernestovich: Article appears to be a rudimentary translation of the Russian one, down to the title (ru-wiki uses paper-encyclopedia conventions for names). RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 19:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Russia . RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 19:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"En Idhaya Rani: The film released at an unfortunate time (early February 1993) when there are no archives of it here . Kailash29792 (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Some reviews about a musical album with the same name around 2018-2019, nothing found for this film. What's used in the article is a single source, not enough for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC) No reliable sources are available as well the used source is also uninformative. Morekar ( talk ) 23:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Just one source in whole page and that isn't enough for significantly covering the entire article. I would have voted for Draftify but after doing a little digging myself, I couldn't find reliable sources that can furnish this page. RangersRus ( talk ) 14:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Released film, so to List of Tamil films of 1993#Movies (where it is listed) seems like a good ATD. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Goodwill Entertainments: No inherent notability. The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 20:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Music . The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 20:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Kerala . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC) per nom. No significant coverage from multiple reliable sources to meet GNG. 116.68.98.76 ( talk ) 12:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relist, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the comments above. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 11:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Fatima Feng: Couldn't even find ROTM coverage in RS. This page only cites non-RS. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC) Reliable Sources with WP:SIGCOV about the show. 2. In addition to above, upon Google search of the title in the local language, I found | BBC news , DAWN and Aaj News references, establishing WP: Notability along with WP:SIGCOV , ideally should be incorporated as the references of the article. 3. On Analytically comparison of article with other television shows which I have initiated a WP:AfD on ( Bhagyavidhaata and others), appears to be in line with WP: TVSERIES . Sameeerrr ( talk ) 11:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet ) [ reply ] Sameeerrr , The coverage in The News relying on interview, isn't suitable for establishing GNG, and People Magazine isn't considered a RS. Similarly, coverage in Urdu language outlets like BBC Urdu and DAWN News, also interview-based, isn't adequate for establishing GNG and doesn't meet WP:SIRS either. While these coverage can be used for WP:V, they fall short of meeting GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 11:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC) Notability (television) sets out references to be primarily WP:Reliable and Independent along with significant coverage. Sources mentioned above are WP:Reliable enough to cover the subject and are WP:Independent of the matter. In WP:GNG , it's clearly stated that, ""Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material"". Sources linked related to BBC News , DAWN , Aaj News aren't merely trivial mentions. They are interviews based on main character and cast member of the show apparently covering the show. Also The News International is a WP:RS where as People Magazine is a weak WP:RS . All in all, it does establish WP:GNG which is primary criteria as per WP:Notability (television) as per my evaluation, yours can differ. I'll leave it to the other editors to decide the outcome. Sameeerrr ( talk ) 12:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC) GNG, coverage should be significant and independent of the subject . How does interview-based coverage qualify as independent of the subject ? I reiterate that such coverage can be utilized for WP:V but not to establish GNG. My concern isn't about the reliability of sources, but rather the type of coverage. Such coverage often falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA , as paid placements are common in India as well in Pakistan. Thus, it's advisable to avoid relying on such coverage to establish GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 12:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC) NEWSORGINDIA ? Sameeerrr ( talk ) 12:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It appears my point isn't coming across clearly. I'm NOT saying these sources themselves aren't unreliable, but the coverage they provide has two issues. Firstly, the coverage is based on interviews, which isn't sufficient to meet GNG . Secondly, there's still the issue of paid placements, as outlets like DAWN and The News fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 13:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC) NEWSORGINDIA in this case. Hence, it's not appropriate to tag them as WP:NEWSORGINDIA . Also I believe the sources you removed, | (this and | this) are WP:RS , merely as per your determination you can't constitute WP:RS in the absence of explicit reliable sources list to assess the reliability mentioned sources. Taking into consideration External Links section, and the mentioned references, article clearly establishes WP:GNG along with WP:SIGCOV . I would rather not reply anymore cause I've other matters to look into as well. I hope closing admin and other editors will take into consideration the points I've raised over this. Adios! Sameeerrr ( talk ) 13:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC) noted here : WP:NEWSORGINDIA could be extended to cover the entire media within Indian subcontinent as Pakistan also has issues of paid media. And as CNMall41 said creating a complete listing of ALL publications that engage in such practices would be exhaustive. See you around! — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 14:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC) FAKEREF WP:SPAM . Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 23:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC) FAKEREF, but WP:SPAM. Though I've removed all now. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 23:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC) Someone most probably Sameeerrr ( talk · contribs ) did this . --— Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 21:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, that's just an LTA who targets AFDs at random. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk ) 22:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"The Vagabond Queen (opera): Fails the general notability policy. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts , Music , and Theatre . UtherSRG (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . No WP:RSs at all. It looks to me like all of the articles about works by Edward Barnes (composer) ought to be d, and his article is a jumble of WP:PROMO . -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 16:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All I could find was a one sentence entry in Operas in English . Not enough to pass WP:GNG . Jfire ( talk ) 01:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Souâd Benkredda: Article is largely sourced to lists of ""100 best people"" or the like; no other sources found beyond linkedin or various mentions of positions they've held. Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions . Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 05:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear participants of the discussion, As an employee of DZ BANK, I would like to participate in this discussion and explain the measures we have taken to prevent the deletion of our board member Souâd Benkredda’s entry. Initially, we made content additions and added additional objective sources such as German business newspapers Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Börsen-Zeitung , Bloomberg Television , and the Expert Commission on Stock Exchange to avoid the impression that Ms. Benkredda is only listed in overview lists. Her contributions in the mentioned media outlets, as well as her involvement in the Expert Commission on Stock Exchange, demonstrate her expertise and influence in the financial industry. These references have been accordingly included under “References” and can be found in the relevant section. Now, I would like to specifically address the accusation of “orphan” status. To refute this allegation, we have created a direct link from our company website ( ""Executive Board of DZ Bank with Vita S. Benkredda"" . DZ Bank . ) to the English Wikipedia entry of Souâd Benkredda. In addition, we will also link to other relevant Wikipedia entries so that the entry can no longer be viewed in isolation. I hope these measures contribute to classifying the entry as relevant for the Wikipedia community and prevents its deletion. Dzbank-kmmo ( talk ) 17:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC) COI . Editing with a conflict of interest is not strictly prohibited, but you must stick to WP:NPOV with utmost diligence. By the way, orphan, in Wikipedia lingo, means there are no other articles which link to this one. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 18:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC) COI, which I have read carefully. I understand the importance of complying with WP:NPOV and will ensure that we will make all edits in accordance with this policy. Dzbank-kmmo ( talk ) 18:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC) fax.net article Gab4gab ( talk ) 16:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . Possible COI issues, but [19] and [20] do appear to be non-trivial independent coverage. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 07:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the nominator's rationale. One of the sources presented in the weak doesn't appear independent (the 40 over 40) and the faz.net could be okay, but I can't completely tell due to language issues. Even assuming it is there's not enough here to . SportingFlyer T · C 12:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What makes you say the 40 over 40 source is not independent? Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 13:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This article is an orphan and its meeting of GNG is questionable. Referring to rationale of the nominator, the sources in the article are shaky, beyond some standard coverage for corporate businesspeople. DimensionalFusion (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"UFO sightings in Thailand: I see nothing worth saving. There are essentially no reliable sources on which to base this article. jps ( talk ) 15:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and Thailand . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC) COAT is not a valid reason for deletion. It's not a policy nor a guideline; it's just an essay. Even if it were, WP:COAT says "" Articles about one thing shouldn't be loaded up with unrelated things to make a point. "" In other words, it says that if an article has cruft, then remove the cruft. It doesn't say to an article except "" In extreme cases , when notability is borderline "". I don't think any reasonable person can possibly think that in nation of 70 million , there aren't more than enough reliable sources to establish notability , albeit in a foreign language. Anyway, it only took me a few minutes to find these sources in English. Reliable Sources to prove notability CNN - The UFO seekers flocking to a remote Thai hilltop in search of Buddhist aliens International Business Times - Glowing UFO disc spotted in Bangkok, eyewitness says alleged alien ship flew higher than clouds Bangkok Post - A crash course in Thailand's UFO obsession Vice - Meet The Thai UFO Group Convinced That Aliens Will Save Us From Armageddon Hindustan Times - Alien enthusiasts flock to see huge Buddha statue in Thailand. Here’s why Buddhist Door Global - Buddhist UFO Hunters Seek Contact on a Mountain in Thailand I'm sure there are way more in Thai . The solution here is improve the article, not it. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk ) 17:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC) SENSATION to me. If I removed the coat, there would be no article and rather than doing the undercover blanking thing, I thought we'd have a conversation. So it seems that your argument is that we should the article because you think reliable sources exist, but you haven't demonstrated that this is the case. jps ( talk ) 18:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] CNN , International Business Times , Bangkok Post , Vice are all legitimate news sources. None of those qualify as WP:SENSATION. You claim that there are no reliable sources but that claim has been debunked. In any case, WP:COAT is still not a valid reason for deletion. So, you haven't even provided a legitimate reason to . Perhaps you would be willing to withdraw the nomination until you come up with a valid reason to it? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk ) 18:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC) SENSATION is about. If you don't understand that, it just makes WP:CIR a question to consider. jps ( talk ) 19:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC) COAT essay isn't a valid reason for deletion. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk ) 19:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia works based on a consensus model. You can WP:Wikilawyer all you want, but you'll find plenty of instances where articles were d due to WP:COAT . Just because you don't think WP:COAT is a valid reason for deletion doesn't mean that it automatically isn't. WP:CIR indeed. jps ( talk ) 19:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What if I d the content cited to the YouTube videos? Would that help alleviate your concerns? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk ) 12:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per lack of reliable sources. The sourcing on this article is terrible. It was also created by a sock-puppet evading his block [18] . This terrible sourced article has no place on Wikipedia. We need reliably sourced articles. Psychologist Guy ( talk ) 17:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC) RS per WP:SENSATION , if there's a single media outlet that doesn't fall foul under that policy with respect to UFOs and other WP:FRINGE theories I've yet to hear of it. - car chasm ( talk ) 19:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC) RS , I'm not sure where you could possibly be getting the idea aren't. I can vouchsafe that both Bangkok Post and CNN very much are RS in the scope of WP:RS . Boynamedsue ( talk ) 13:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment The sourcing cited at the top of this page is all good, so they would stand as good sources for content in the article. However, they do not relate to the overall topic of UFO sightings in Thailand, just to specific incidents, and so it is far from clear if they support the existence of the page. I am sure that sources exist which do this, but it would be down to the proponents of retaining the article to prove this. Boynamedsue ( talk ) 13:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC) I don't see how any of the news sources here constitute tabloid reporting, as they all employ a documentary approach reporting the existence of these groups of believers rather than taking their claims at face value. Those arguing WP:SENSATIONAL should re-read what it actually says. -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 05:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC) 42, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Documentary approach"" does not work when your ""documentary"" is of the Ripley's Believe It Or Not variety. When the subject turns to this sort of subject, it seems that author's lose their heads and editors look the other way when outlandish claims are reported. If it was just a matter of tracking the existence of groups of believers, it would be one thing. But this is instead taking these believers at their word or, at the very least, providing zero context or analysis for their beliefs which does the reader no service. Imagine articles on Flat Earth conventions which failed to mention that the claims are poorly considered. That's what we have in these sources. jps ( talk ) 23:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think this is a , though the current Thai references are all junk and the article (like thousands of others) needs serious improvement. I had concerns that the references were relating only to individual incidents, but there's a Wall Street Journal article on the topic in general. I have also found a scholarly source, from the Journal of Tourism Futures which has significant coverage of the contribution of UFO belief to Thai tourism. I am puzzled at some of the arguments on this page, which seem to be arguing that, as belief in alien visitors is fringe, any source mentioning people who claim to see UFOs is covered by WP:SENSATION . It is worrying that users exist who are both experienced enough to find a deletion discussion and capable of such a massive misinterpretation of our rules. -- Boynamedsue ( talk ) 07:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC) 10, 15 May 2023 (UTC) NOTAVOTE . What ""it"" is, and the grounds on which you find it ""ridiculous"" would give your comment more weight. Boynamedsue ( talk ) 13:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC) 41, 15 May 2023 (UTC) COATRACK . Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminate collections of information. --- Steve Quinn ( talk ) 20:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or find a suitable target for valuable content. WP:COATRACK combined with WP:SENSATION certainly constitute a valid reason for deletion. Regarding the arguments about the value of essays, then the oft-invoked WP:ATA doesn't mention these as arguments to avoid either. ~ Anachronist ( talk ) 16:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The references are indeed junk. Google translate shows reference #1 is an internet forum posting. #2 is a Youtube video from someone who says they believe in aliens. #3 and #4 are also Youtube videos that are apparently unavailable. The Thai ""news"" links are indeed WP:SENSATIONAL clickbait and not serious journalism of the kind we'd require for such an article. - LuckyLouie ( talk ) 20:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Santa Teresa (fictional city): This fails GNG and NLIST as well. It might be the case this could be rescued by restoring it as an entry about the fictional town from Sue Grafton 's works, although the analysis in the article is limited to one sentence ""Grafton chose the setting as a tribute to Macdonald, an acknowledged influence"" and my BEFORE fails to locate anything more significant. Old AfDs from 2008 are not helpful, as back then the consensus was that ""it is notable because it is the setting of a notable work of fiction"". We have a bit higher standards these days, and pure plot summary, particularly degenerated by trivia about similarly named entities by other authors, likely merits WP:TNT or perhaps a per WP:ATD . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Literature , and Lists . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not needed per nom. GenuineArt ( talk ) 07:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC) OR listing of several completely unrelated books that happened to use the same name for a city. The examples are very clearly not even supposed to be the same fictional city, making this a complete unfocused mess. At best, this could be ed to Sue Grafton , where the use of the fictional city name as the setting of her novels is already described. Rorshacma ( talk ) 20:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC) OR synthesis of the use of these words. Not supported by reliable secondary sources, which is essential to meet WP:V and WP:SIGCOV . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 20:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] seems to be a synthesis of unrelated works that happened to have a similarly named city. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kim Kuk-jin: Simione001 ( talk ) 01:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 01:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 01:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 01:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: North Korea and Switzerland . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sajin Ahmed Babu: Lack of WP:SIGCOV . Macbeejack ☎ 17:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , and Bangladesh . Macbeejack ☎ 17:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Created very recently so would prefer not to soft-. Relisting to form consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 20:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. No WP:SIGCOV . -- আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk ) 18:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC) 32, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Fail s WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG no WP:SIGCOV . Seawolf35 T -- C 23:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] BLPs, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources found are all promos, interviews, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth . Source eval: Comments Source Name on page, no content 1. ""Sajin Ahmed Babu"" . December 29, 2023. Promo, interview 2. ^ ""Mosharraf-Mamar Drama High Love"" . December 29, 2023. Promo name mention 3. ^ ""New series 'Corporate Love' and 'Google Village' coming up"""". December 29, 2023. Interview, fails WP:IS 4. ^ ""Writing novels now"" . December 28, 2023. Interview, fails WP:IS 5. ^ ""Plays have to be written within constraints: Babu"" . December 28, 2023. Promo name mention 6. ^ ""Padshi-Yash's romance in Eid special drama"" . December 29, 2023. Promo name mention 7. ^ ""Sajin Ahmed Babu's 'Corporate Love' Begins Today"" . December 29, 2023. BLPs require strong sourcing. If I missed something, post the best WP:THREE IS RS with SIGCOV and ping me. The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Summit Power: As always, companies are not ""inherently"" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH on their coverage in reliable sources such as news media and books -- but this is referenced entirely to directly affiliated primary sources that are not support for notability, with absolutely no reliable or GNG-building sources shown at all. It also warrants note that this was recently hijacked to be about a completely different company with the same name, which was also referenced entirely to its own self-published website with no evidence of GNG-worthy reliable sourcing, and thus wasn't properly established as notable either. Bearcat ( talk ) 13:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Washington . Bearcat ( talk ) 13:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC) All I'm finding is the usual directory listings and user-generated material, nothing independent. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rebecca Aguilar: I can't find any we can use either. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , News media , and Texas . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 11:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . SaltLakeMists ( talk ) 16:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The nominator has no or few edits other than those related to this AfD. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 11:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe, but why does that matter? If the reasons are good (and to my mind they are), who cares what edits the nominator has done? . Athel cb ( talk ) 13:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] it's a red-flag. we see it all too often here Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Ohio . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Fails WP:GNG but most importantly the entire article is a clear WP:COI , fails WP:AUTO , entire article was written by subject Subject admits to this in Talk page and uses multiple accounts SaltLakeMists ( talk ) 02:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC) references #6, #9, #10, and #11 collectively amount to SIGCOV Jack4576 ( talk ) 15:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC) BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources are promo and brief routine news, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS. BEFORE only found promo materials. WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). // Timothy :: talk 16:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"North Gate, Indiana: Searching is pretty hopeless given commonality of the name. Mangoe ( talk ) 20:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana . Skynxnex ( talk ) 21:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] it's on topo maps from after 1960 sometime and someone put up a little ""Northgate"" sign next to Northgate Road, but this appears to be a small housing development which got into GNIS because it was never incorporated into Columbus, Indiana proper and is therefore unincorporated. I don't think it passes WP:GNG , I did search fairly thoroughly. SportingFlyer T · C 21:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC) //www.newspapers.com/article/the-republic-north-gate-subdivision/143312713/ GNIS provides no citation to explain their behavior. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"KWCC-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 12:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Washington . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 12:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 13:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rekonq: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I did a Google search and all I found is some posts about new versions. No sources discuss this web browser as significant. Also, I believe that being part of KDE does not mean that it is notable and should have its own Wikipedia article. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 22:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC) this article had three prior AfDs, was d twice, und once, and underwent two DRVs. Everything that could have been said about it and its sourcing has already been said. I'm sure the nom meant well in nominating this (on his 75th edit to the project), but at this point, any further discussion about this article is pointless, if not disruptive. I get it; sourcing is marginal. There are good arguments both for and against ing it. It also exists on wiki in 18 other languages, and will likely be recreated here again anyway. I don't often do this, but can we just leave this one alone? Owen× ☎ 00:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All three previous nominations were in 2010 when the browser was actively developed. But in 2014 the development stopped and now the project is dead, it became apparent that it has no prospects and I think now it isn't used as default browser anywhere. Given this information and that many arguments for ing this article in the previous nominations were in the spirit of ""this browser is default in major distro"" or ""probably not very notable yet, but it is in very active development"", I think the further discussion is not entirely pointless. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 08:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 18:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Sure, it was a part of KDE and the default browser for a distro, but I don't think it's notable. It never went anywhere and hasn't seen any notable activity in a decade. I also checked if another semi-obscure KDE browser, Angelfish, had a page and it doesn't, which makes me think this shouldn't either. You could make the argument that it was notable at one point, but anymore I'm not so sure. It's also been nominated for deletion on KDE's own wiki due to being abandoned. StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 00:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I am leaning but per OwenX, I have read through the previous AfDs and the DRVs andbased on those (yes, all in 2010), I think we need to at least discuss the sourcing. The project may be dead now, but notability is permanent. If it was notable in 2010 then it is notable as a historic item despite being essentially dead now. Having said that, source discussion is largely absent from the AfDs, so looking at them now, using numbering in what is currently the latest revision [11] for brevity: Project page. Primary, not independent. KDE announce page. Primary, not independent. Blog. Self published. Not RS, not independent, Primary. KDE project license. Primary, not independent. LinuxBSDos review. Secondary. Review is gone and domain appears hijacked but the ref contains a quote, yet the mention appears trivial. Kubuntu.org. Primary, not independent. Kubuntu archive. Primary, not independent. AdamBlog. Primary, self published, not independent. projects.kde.org - Primary, not independent. AdamBlog. Primary, self published, not independent. So in summary there is one old secondary source that might be retrievable through the webarchive but appears to be trivial. If we admit it, though, we are still not at WP:GNG . It probably never did meet GNG, but we should be looking to see if it made any kind of impact. Searching, I found reviews like this: [12] but that is a submitted review, so won't be reliable and that seems to be a general problem. It gets mentioned in a number of books talking about Linux distros, such as this one [13] , but this one is typical in saying little more than that it has a user agent switcher. I thought Logiciel pour le World Wide Web was going to do the trick and then saw it was sourced to Wikipedia! Other books failed to turn anything up. This paper looks at reverse engineering the browser [14] , but the significance of this browser is not really demonstrated there. Rekonq is chosen because that was the browser of a TOR user investigated by the FBI and who was de-anonymised using a technique described in the paper. The fact that rekonq was used is just chance and nothing there would allow an encyclopaedic article to be written. So, after spending a good deal of time on this one, I cannot say I think this software was ever independently notable. However, I have left the ! vote unsaid at this point as we have a few more days. If anyone can provide secondary sources showing it was independently notable, I would be happy to the page. Otherwise it's a (or to KDE ). : failing WP:NSOFT and given sources above. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 01:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Keyword Tool: I found a few such as those in TNW ( [51] ) and TechRadar ( [52] ), but it appears that they were either written by guest post writers/bloggers, thus being opinion pieces, or not written by staff. The TechRadar Pro version of TechRadar appears similar to Wirecutter, so I'm uncertain whether it contributes to notability. Mercenf ( talk ) 14:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The TNW source and both sources in the article only mention the tool or company in a list, with little actual content on either. The TechRadar review looks like a good source though and I see no reason to doubt its independence. As is, that one source doesn't bring it to WP:GNG , WP:NSOFT , or WP:NPRODUCT and I couldn't find anything else that appeared reliable (just a couple of blog posts). Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits ) 16:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and salt The last AfD discussed possible paid editing - this is also likely paid editing to get this on here (one user with five edits made this page) and it doesn't otherwise pass notability guidelines. SportingFlyer T · C 19:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Roberto Ibarra: Broc ( talk ) 14:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Chile , and Peru . Broc ( talk ) 14:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV to meet WP:BIO . A google news search comes up with 1 relevant hit, and that's a 1 line mention. LibStar ( talk ) 01:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Aurangabad High Madrasha: A cursory Google search gives doesn't show anything noteworthy. Lindsey40186 ( talk ) 17:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and West Bengal . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC) NSCHOOL . The Bengali version of this article only has primary sources. LibStar ( talk ) 12:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV to establish notability per WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL . InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 09:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Connor Rennie: A search through the Gale/newspapers.com/proquest and BNA archives found no SIGCOV of Rennie. Dougal18 ( talk ) 12:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Scotland . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Easily fails GNG guidelines. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 19:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2010–11 Dundee F.C. season#Squad as this was apparently his best season (he appeared on the field more than once). Doesn’t pass WP:SIGCOV . Tau Corvi ( talk ) 19:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Tempography: Boleyn ( talk ) 15:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Tempographs and Tempography is a thing that exists (I found references for the use of the term that go back to 1911), however, this article is about a ""conceptual video art project"" by Anthony Bannwart from 2003 that was titled Tempography. According to the article history, the article was originally about the technique/technology of Tempography, but was hijacked in 2008 by an editor named Anthonybannwart who turned it into an article about his video art project. The art project is a non-notable art work failing GNG. With the exception of one news article all I can find on it are primary sources and social media. Netherzone ( talk ) 21:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Photography , Sweden , and Switzerland . Netherzone ( talk ) 21:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Fails to meet WP:GNG . UtherSRG (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"WOCB-CD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Christianity , and Ohio . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Zero independent coverage. — Moriwen ( talk ) 17:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rubén González Sosa: As always, every diplomat is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists or existed, and instead diplomats only get articles if they can be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but existence is the only notability claim being made here, and the only sources are a short biographical blurb on one page of a book with over 2,000 pages and a very brief blurb about his death in a source that isn't even dated at all in order to replace the incorrect Category:Living people (which I've already removed) with an actual death year category. The article further asserts that he was a politician, but says absolutely nothing about any political roles he might have held to determine whether he would pass WP:NPOL or not. This is not enough sourcing to secure the notability of a diplomat all by itself, and nothing stated in the article is ""inherently"" notable to exempt him from having to have more sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk ) 17:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Mexico . Bearcat ( talk ) 17:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC) He appears to have been the vice-minister for foreign affairs [7] , but this seems to be a bureaucratic position rather than a political one, so I don't think it can be considered WP:NPOL -conferring as it is not a cabinet position. Besides that, there is a complete lack of WP:SIGCOV . Curbon7 ( talk ) 03:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Tintumon: Fails WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation . UtherSRG (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . While I'm unfamiliar with the subject, I can't seem to find much. Granted, I feel there may be sources out there, so if anything winds up from others' searches, let me know and I'd be willing to change my vote. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 02:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV that can be found. Looks to be a neologism or thing made up. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 04:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Chhangte Lalhriatpuia: An Indian source search yielded only database sources and Google gives me the same plus a few Football Manager sites. The best I can find in WP:RS is Football Counter , which only mentions him once. Likewise with the Football Counter source already cited. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , India , and Mizoram . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Margaret Clark (politician): While the subject does have some media coverage, I don't believe that any of it meets WP:SIGCOV , therefore failing WP:GNG and WP:NPOL . Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas , closed as procedural due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 04:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC) 41, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As Shaws username said, those two sources are not independent of the subject and therefore do not contribute towards notability. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 22:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] nothing remotely notable. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 08:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC) . ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN . The two links above are both from bodies that she was a member of and not secondary sources. Shaws username ( talk ) 13:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 18:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] fails NPOL and not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T · C 00:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Battle of Salyan: The Yengin source is just a diary from over a century ago, not reliable per WP:PRIMARY . Güzel, Oğuz, and Karatay are genocide deniers . Page 483 : ""This is an important proof, demonstrating that Armenians were not subjected to genocide before and after the deportation."" Güçlü is very apologetic to genocide denial and portrays it as a legitimate view, such as ( Page 179 ) writing genocide deniers like Heath W. Lowry and Justin McCarthy ""both dispute that the evidence supports a verdict of genocide"" as opposed to ""other historians...take a very different view"". Also on Page 44: ""Yet unlike the denial of the Holocaust that nourishes anti-Semitism, denial of the Armenian genocide is not part of a racist anti-Armenian ideology"". The Altayli website is not a credible or established source, and includes articles denying genocide . I also found very little information about these writers, and suspect they would not pass Wikipedia:Notability (academics) . - K evo 3 2 7 ( talk ) 07:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Azerbaijan , and Turkey . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - per the above arguments. Once again, could not find anything on google books stating that this battle happened. Sources cited are undoubtedly biased and not reliable. محرر البوق ( talk ) 03:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per norm. -- HistoryofIran ( talk ) 14:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Parkruns in the United Kingdom: Seems like a fairly clear violation of WP:NOTDIR . Hobit ( talk ) 17:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and United Kingdom . Hobit ( talk ) 17:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC) NOTDIR is a Wikipedia policy. Parkrun itself is notable but there is simply no need for an exhaustive list of every single event. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per list of Parkruns in Australia. Clearly WP:NOTDIR . The very exceptional few notable ones can probably be mentioned on the parent article. Ajf773 ( talk ) 18:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC) //www.parkrun.org.uk/events/events/#geo=4.03/55.05/-2.95 rather than Wikipedia attempting to maintain its own duplicate directory of non-notable small, local events like this. Reywas92 Talk 18:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Every link to a ""parkrun"" is actually just a link to a park or other location. D r e a m Focus 21:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . On top of NOTDIR and NLIST add other WP:NOTs . Wikipedia is not a free web host for an organisations event listings. Is not a mirror of primary content. Is not a link farm. Is not a means of promotion. WP:PRIMARY , Do not base an entire article on primary sources. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 12:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Reywas92. Clear NOTDIR violation, and advertising concerns also. Stifle ( talk ) 08:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC) NOTDIRECTORY violation. Can't believe this and the US equivalent survived AFDs in 2017, since no evidence has ever been given that these lists meet WP:GNG or WP:NLIST , and they clear violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 15:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"M. L. Ashwini: Was never elected into a political office that makes one inherently notable TheWikiholic ( talk ) 18:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . TheWikiholic ( talk ) 18:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] does not pass NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra ( talk ) 18:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Kerala . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sudokuro: QuietCicada ( talk ) 16:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . QuietCicada ( talk ) 16:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I couldn't find anything but the one IGN review, and a few announcement posts. Everything else was database entries or compilation posts about release days, i.e. ""released this week"" lists. -- ferret ( talk ) 16:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Found this South Florida Sun Sentinel article mention [2] but nothing else. Timur9008 ( talk ) 20:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I hate to an obscure DS game, but it does seem like it got virtually no review coverage besides the two noted reviews. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The IGN review is hardly a significant coverage, given the fact it spends almost 3 out of 4 paragraphs not talking much about the game itself. GamesRadar is a usual routine coverage of an announcement and the Sun Sentinel spends around 3 longer sentences only (after the intro about its publisher). Fails WP:GNG and I wasn't able to find much in my searches either. Jovanmilic97 ( talk ) 11:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Plush Mush: Google search for ""Plush Mush"" results in about 65 sites, consisting of places to hear the songs and sites to buy mushroom plushies. Sources provided in the article are interviews at sites that basically exist for promotional purposes (e.g. Blaster Magazine's tagline is ""Get interviewed today!""), or short news items declaring that a new song has been released. ... disco spinster talk 03:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Puerto Rico . ... disco spinster talk 03:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I agree with the nominator's assessment. Searching news, news archive, the web normally, and WP:TWL brings nothing up. What's there isn't usable. — Sirdog ( talk ) 05:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] nothing for notability for this musical artist found, all are mentions of plush items you can mush. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"San Joaquin River Estates, California: Reywas92 Talk 21:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See my comments about River Road Estates, above. Another GNIS copy-paste job. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC) Nothing is here to indicate notability. Concur with the nom regarding GEOLAND. Let'srun ( talk ) 16:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"RevPro Uprising 2022: I can't find any significant journalistic news coverage about the event Sionk ( talk ) 22:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions . Sionk ( talk ) 22:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sarah Dugdale: Sourcing is scant and mostly goes to social media sites. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , and Canada . Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC) She got major roles in major network shows (read the opening lead) Jaiquiero ( talk ) 13:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They say ""major roles"" but I couldn't find sourcing that supported that statement. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC) NACTOR . No evidence of ""significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows ..."" or ""unique, prolific or innovative contributions"". Most of the shows listed in the lead do not even include her name as one of the stars, and the sourcing is very poor (IMDB and an Indian wikia). Much of the bio material is unsourced, and some of it is inappropriate (for example, why would we include the information that her brother is gay and when he married his partner?). Meters ( talk ) 00:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm French-Canadian and have no idea what a B2 francophone is either (as in the article). Seems to not help the notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and improve. Article was nominated less than 7 hrs after it was created, articles need some time for improvement. Not convinced WP:NACTOR is failed, since there are notable roles listed at IMDB. W C M email 07:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC) NACTOR . Mentioned notable roles but no references to support it. Mentioned the article is new, can be improved and for same can be moved to draft rather then deletion. DSN18 ( talk ) 18:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC) ATD is to move the article could be moved to draftspace so that you could improve it, if you like? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another nothing article by an editor with a history of disruptive editing about another non-notable actress. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 07:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - There is only one source that points to her personal life. None of her films she has participated in were sourced. HarukaAmaranth ( talk ) 22:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Needs more citations for verification and notability. Naomijeans ( talk ) 21:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"25th Bangladesh Infantry Regiment: Extensive searches in English and Bengali found nothing deeper than a couple of passing mentions. The unit exists, but no significant coverage of it exists, so fails WP:MILUNIT and WP:GNG . No reliably sourced content to . Worldbruce ( talk ) 13:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Bangladesh . Worldbruce ( talk ) 13:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Purwati (internist): In terms of general notability, the coverage of her patent is not high by international standards, nor is there evidence of impact of the work (other than patent filing). FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 11:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Women , and Indonesia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC) Hello, I agree that the subject of this article has not yet gained international recognition. However, in Indonesia, he is regarded as a prominent stem cell expert who frequently garners attention from major, reputable Indonesian mass media. He holds the distinction of being a MURI record holder for receiving the most Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in the Stem Cell Field in 2022, a testament to his significant contributions. Despite the challenge of finding additional sources regarding the impact of his research, these achievements underscore his expertise and standing in the field. He was partner of the COVID-19 Response Acceleration Task Force during Covid-19 pandemic to advancing research, particularly in investigating Drug and Stem Cell Combination Regimens in 2020. Furthermore, his expertise is actively leveraged by Universitas Airlangga and hospitals to enhance stem cell services. In 2019, as stated in the article, she received national recognition, being listed as an 'Indonesian Young Scientist' by the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education. I remain guided by the notability criteria (Wikipedia:Notability). He is quite well-known in Indonesia despite not being internationally renowned. His notability has also been explained in the article through his career and achievements. Rahmatdenas ( talk ) 14:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC) BURDEN . As far as resources goes, this might all be a hoax as work around stem cells and COVID is highly cited, and I cannot see anything that suggests that. PS: you mean ""she"" not ""he"" FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 14:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . No sign that she passes WP:NACADEMIC , her top research doesn't even cross 50 citations. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 21:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . For certain her h-factors is low, and she has no major international awards to indicate peer recognition. What I also find disturbing is the mention of using STEM cell transplant for immuno diseases and some cancers as one of her patents. In fact I am pretty certain that these are either close to or already being trialed in the UK by others, perhaps elsewhere as well. There is no indication that she is involved in any of that, otherwise there would be mentions in the UK Grauniad or the New York Times in the sources. If you have the will local patents are easy, but I have seen some local ones which would never be enforceable internationally. Hence I end up being very unconvinced by both the article and it's defence. Ldm1954 ( talk ) 12:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Yutaka Kurita: This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk ) 18:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Japan . Owen× ☎ 19:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I am not sure there is any assertion of notability in the article, and only the birthdate is cited. I could not find anything better in a search. Dekimasu よ! 05:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak I did some searches and added some content, an image and references. According to the International Aikido Federation he was a notable person, see here . It looks to be notable person, but can't find many secondary sources. It would be good to do a search in Japanese, but I can't speak Japanese. 82.174.61.58 ( talk ) 12:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC) Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth . Source eval: Comments Source Could not find source, no pp # 1. The Way of Aiki, by Jose Carlos Escobar, MA. , Trafford Publishing Obit, all the normal problems with Obits 2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d ""RIP Yutaka Kurita Shihan"". International Aikido Federation. 11 March 2022. Blog post 3. ^ ""The great masters: Yutaka Kurita Sensei (Part 1)"". boec.com. 3 October 2021. Part 2 of blog post above 4. ^ Jump up to:a b c ""The great masters: Yutaka Kurita Sensei (Part 2)"". boec.com. 4 October 2021. The one source above I couldn't find a copy of has no page number, doubtful the entire book is about the subject and a single source won't meet WP:N. Ping me if sources are posted with WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 20:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Callum Ryan-Phillips: Southern Football League is the best that I could find but it's only a basic transfer announcement and there is consensus among a number of editors that the league website is not an independent source, see here for example. South Wales Argus mentions him just once and Severn Sport is just trivial match report coverage so my own searches have not found anything useful here. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Wales . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Muhammad Yahman: Being a local preacher, it's probable that his recognition is confined to his immediate region. Ckfasdf ( talk ) 22:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Indonesia . Owen× ☎ 23:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Notability not found. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 02:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC) . Census info and primary sourcing aren't what's needed here. There's nothing I can find about this person, very likely not meeting notability requirements either. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Best sources found are wikipedia mirrors and social media, none of which help here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - a before search popped up several similar names but nothing significant about this person. TunGunPun ( talk ) 07:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] no evidence of notability. -- 95.233.51.253 ( talk ) 18:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC) my reference search doesn't bring up anything that would pass NBIO. microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 18:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Development Counsellors International: Google News does not show any real secondary sourcing, besides the usual mentions in rankings and business listings. No secondary sources are supplied, so that's not helpful. Drmies ( talk ) 14:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC) CORPDEPTH . — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Neera Arya: However this article cite additional sources which I checked few of them and they did not check out. Some source do not even mention ""Neera Ayra"" include the BBC others are not functional links. I will leave it to the community decide rather than go for speedy deletion FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 12:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Military , and India . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC) , who created the article on 13 August 2023 , would explain why the access-dates on their sources range from 2016 to 2021. Did they actually consult these sources? Or is this an unacknowledged translation from another Wikipedia? Pam D 07:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC) I'm still suspicious about some of the further sources added with ancient ""access-date""s, suggesting that the editors haven't looked at the material, but the book First Lady Spy Of INA: Neera Arya ( ISBN 9789354886621 ) is published by Prabhat Prakashan on whom we have an article. If some of the sources are dubious, or cast suspicion on whether the whole tale is true, then that seems a need for careful editing and addition of further, reliable, sources. Pam D 07:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC) I am skeptical that it is a reliable source. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk ) 07:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC) 41, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This 2021 version is what triggered my thought about this being a hoax. However the current 2023 version seem to be perceived as factual. @ DSP2092 I think it will help everyone if you can fix the archived links and remove the unreliable references indicated in the previous discussion and also remove the irrelevant references like the BBC which doesn’t support the content attributed to FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 10:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC) I have recently expanded this article from the Hindi article. This article needs additional reliable sources, but it definitely meets the Wiki guidelines. There are even movies and books based on Neera Arya. DSP2092 talk 08:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC) did you check the sources you added, or just copy the work of the Hindi editors without acknowledgment? Pam D 09:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I haven't checked all the sources, but I have read the article, and it does contain information I have read in a book about her. I am going to copyedit and add some reliable sources soon. DSP2092 talk 09:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC) 42, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further input is clearly necessary... Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 11:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 4#Neera Arya FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 14:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At the RfD, my opinion was to discuss at AfD, which we are now doing. Thanks for the ping. I don't have an opinion as of now, will go through the sources. Jay 💬 10:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC) HOAX . I would like to thank Fuzzymagma for pinging me. Anyone can see my comments on RfD and my analysis of sources there. All of the sources that have been used here came after 2015, which itself proves that we have no actual serious source that is discussing this non-existing subject. Not a single cited source has any expertise in history. Dympies ( talk ) 17:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dympies How do you explain the references to an award in her name, and to a memorial to her being built, which appear genuine according to Google translation? Pam D 23:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC) Kindly post the sources here. There are just too many listed unreliable sources to wade through to find what you are saying. Dympies ( talk ) 01:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dympies Sources such as those currently refs 4, 5 and 7. Pam D 06:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All of them are newly created articles. Having a non-notable award created after a fictional person is not any evidence of WP:N . Dympies ( talk ) 12:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just like what I had said on RfD, there is no source to confirm if this person was real. It is easy to viral fake news on internet but Wikipedia is not their backwater. Georgethedragonslayer ( talk ) 02:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Dympies. Yes the subject is nothing more than a hoax. There are no scholarly sources to confirm the existence of this fake subject. In India, state-sponsored efforts are being made in the recent years to falsify history but we must avoid entertaining that. [20] Editorkamran ( talk ) 03:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The number of sources, found, even if some are considered unreliable, suggests that even if she did not exist she is notable as a fictional or legendary character, the subject of books and apparently a film. If the reader finds [ https://m.timesofindia.com/entertainment/kannada/movies/news/roopa-iyers-bollywood-debut-is-on-indias-first-woman-spy-before-independence/amp_articleshow/95093222.cms a Times of India article] about her biopic, Wikipedia should have an article about her. Pam D 06:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC) RSP . I am still waiting for @ DSP2092 to do what they promised (adding reliable sources and fix the dead links) FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 08:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm going to rewrite the article. I am copyediting in my sandbox but it will take some time. I have my exams running so i can't rewrite whole article in few days. It needs a lots of work to find RS and rewrite whole article, Regards. DSP 2092 ( 👤 , 🗨️ ) 16:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC) HOAX . We would know that from hundreds of scholarly sources written about Indian National Army if this subject was not a hoax but it is clear at present stage that it is indeed a social media fake news. CharlesWain ( talk ) 05:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Its a WP:HOAX . Agletarang ( talk ) 14:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Katrina Akursmørk: All I found in my searches were passing mentions ( 2014 , 2018 , 2019 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 06:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , Europe , and Denmark . JTtheOG ( talk ) 06:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Fails GNG as I couldn't find any sigcov of her. Dougal18 ( talk ) 16:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Albert Tjåland: It happened at a time when the player was looking to be moving up in the football hierarchy, but with all due respect to the player, the career has stagnated, which I think allows us to see the subject in a clearer light. In an encyclopedic sence, Albert Tjåland fails WP:NOTINHERITED , WP:SUSTAINED , WP:TOOSOON , WP:SIRS and as a consequence WP:SPORTCRIT . ABT was a child whom international media took a novelty interest to. His football career has not panned out. He plays on the fourth tier, has never played a league game for a first team, only reaching as far as appearing 6 times on Bryne's bench - as well as playing a cup game for Molde, which for WP:PEACOCK reasons is called ""a professional debut"". Nothing he has done remotely resembles a significant accomplishment within sport. While there was coverage in many countries, there reports about various accomplishments in children's games lack significance, and was all the more packed with speculation and hot air. A big breakthrough is not currently looming on the horizon, and while it might of course happen one day, we have the too soon guideline for a reason. The press coverage was exclusively motivated by him having a famous relative. Albert and Erling have similar names and likenesses, and joined the same club (Molde) as a youth player. Take the relative out of the equation, and what are you left with? Notability is not inherited from relatives. Geschichte ( talk ) 09:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude ( talk ) 10:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Norway . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , passes GNG with significant coverage. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 12:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no significant coverage, just churnalism . As I took the time to explain why I think so above, I think you should explain your view as well. Geschichte ( talk ) 07:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You call it churnalism, I call it journalism. Ortizesp ( talk ) 12:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per Ortizesp. Young player with ongoing career with pro Norwegian top flight team and many good sources already. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 07:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any further thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . My further thoughts are that the opinions are annulled by their lack of explanation and non-existing response as to the nomination statement, which detailed a failure of several policies. ""significant coverage"" and ""many good sources"" are unfounded opinions; ""ongoing career with pro Norwegian top flight team"" is false, Tjåland has an ongoing career with a semi-pro B team on the fourth tier. Geschichte ( talk ) 07:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Policy based input please, especially please provide the significant coverage alleged Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Each of the assertions in this process make claims of notability. Let's examine those claims: 1) Passes WP:GNG with WP:Significant coverage ? The burden is on those wanting to , and this page is wanting sourcing which directly details, as WP:SPORTSPERSON requires. 2) Young player with ongoing career with pro Norwegian top flight team and many good sources ? So what? None of those adjectives or sources directly details the subject in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. We have stats and routine sportsnews mostly linked to a relative. This is a biography for a living person. Delete. BusterD ( talk ) 14:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON . Anwegmann ( talk ) 21:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Subject currently does not have the independent, reliable coverage providing WP:SIGCOV of the subject. As such, this BLP does not meet the WP:GNG . The first 5 sources are primary, while most of the remainder are routine. Possibly WP:TOOSOON . Let'srun ( talk ) 02:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Azerbaijan in the Turkvision Song Contest: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyumen Oblast in the Turkvision Song Contest . Other precedents: Azerbaijan in the Turkvision Song Contest 2016 : d. List of languages in the Turkvision Song Contest : d. Turkvision Song Contest 2016 : d. I am nominating the remaining country/region pages of Turkvision by common demand at the previous ""Tyumen Oblast in the Turkvision Song Contest"" AfD , where participants said: all Turkvision country/region articles should be d and All Turkvison by country/region articles deserve to be d ( especially the per country/region AND year articles are way over the top. As for the regular by country or region articles, these summarizing stats will be sufficent . The by country/region list could be extended with zero medals countries. ); and no exception should be made for Azerbaijan ( I do not see why Azerbaijan in the Turkvision Song Contest should be an exception ); nor any exception for any other country or region despite some more sourcing ( While there may be additional sources for Azerbaijan in particular, I'm still not convinced that the contest's overall notability warrants this level of detail. ). If anyone would like to recycle anything, I strongly recommend participants to indicate which parts from which articles they would like to recycle to which other articles if they suggest a ""Merge"". Just saying ""Merge"" doesn't really help the closer. So far, everyone does appear to agree that the main articles about Turkvision should be kept, and that these articles do pass WP:GNG . So if anyone wants to recycle anything, please indicate to which of the following main articles: Turkvision Song Contest Turkvision Song Contest 2013 Turkvision Song Contest 2014 Turkvision Song Contest 2015 Turkvision Song Contest 2020 Bala Turkvision Song Contest Bala Turkvision Song Contest 2015 Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 07:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Events . Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 07:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Kazakhstan , Azerbaijan , and Turkey . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] all per nom and for the reasons stated in the previous related AfD . Grk1011 ( talk ) 21:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd also suggest nominating Kazakhstan in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest 2015 as well. Grk1011 ( talk ) 21:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Grk1011 Thanks, I didn't even see it! Bala Turkvision Song Contest 2015 might eventually be d into Bala Turkvision Song Contest , as there was only 1 edition. The category Category:Bala Turkvision Song Contest could then be d. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 22:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] all per nomination; reasons stated in previous AfD remain valid for these articles as well. Sims2aholic8 ( talk ) 08:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC) RfD (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 19#Xinjiang in the Turkvision Song Contest ) Xinjiang in the Turkvision Song Contest Kemerovo in the Turkvision Song Contest Iraqi Turkmen in the Turkvision Song Contest Syria in the Turkvision Song Contest Sims2aholic8 ( talk ) 08:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, well done! Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 09:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] all articles and s, per nom. - K evo 3 2 7 ( talk ) 09:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"City Center-Raipur: Boleyn ( talk ) 18:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Chhattisgarh-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails notability. The sources are not verifiable though the location exists. There is no reliable or independent source on the page to warrants its own article. RangersRus ( talk ) 15:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Alyosha (tank): WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC) 46, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or to T-80 models . The article is very poorly sourced, and ""video footage"" is not going to add reliability or credibility (it's easy to fabricate). In the doctrine of Russian military deception there is explicitly a measure named ""Disinformation"" (дезинформация). Under this measure, Russia actively seeks military advantage by tactics such as ""untrue information to journalists"". This accompanies concealment, imitation, simulation, and demonstrative manoeuvres (false trails). In other words, denial and deception come as standard in war or peace, and this is war. Do we believe that Putin congratulated some soldiers as heroes, etc? Yes. Do we believe that this was the work of one super-tankish-tank and its heroic crew? Not especially. Is this an encyclopedic article? No. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 13:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC) 06, 9 April 2024 (UTC) 27, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC) COATRACK content. Loafiewa ( talk ) 16:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC) GNG . Mr. Komori ( talk ) 18:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Han Song-hyok: Simione001 ( talk ) 03:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 03:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 03:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 03:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC) GNG . Google search brings up only press releases. Again the article has no sources at all beside external links. -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 12:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Same case as previous AfD regarding North Korean players. Svartner ( talk ) 13:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC) GNG and WP:SIGCOV , but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann ( talk ) 00:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"The Dark Roses: Uffda608 ( talk ) 19:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark and Visual arts . Uffda608 ( talk ) 19:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 28 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no indication of notability or supporting references, even on the native language Wiki. - Indefensible ( talk ) 19:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Manish Kashyap: ~~ αvírαm | (tαlk) 07:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies and Journalism . ~~ αvírαm | (tαlk) 07:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 09:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC) BLP1E ; subject received notability in the situation of the arrest and trial, that's it. Toad ette ( Merry Christmas, and a happy new year ) 06:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"The Castle Group: It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn ( talk ) 20:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New Jersey . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 21:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. It is difficult to tell whether the subject has any major holding on the structural engineering industry, just as it is difficult to tell from a citation search whether the article's expansiveness covers a justifiable range of points. One would find that the vast majority of citations have to do with either self-published sources or notations to do with awards granted to the company (all of which are from New Jersey , the company's founding region, I noticed), and one would also find that the lack of widespread coverage on the subject apart from the already-embedded sources make little more than a mere trivial mention of the subject or its active projects over time. As such, I would agree - the subject definitely fails to meet WP:ORGDEPTH as well as other critical criteria and should therefore be d. TheMysteriousShadeheart ( talk ) 18:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Hispanos: The Census citation's link no longer works, but from what I can tell the US Census Bureau does not recognize ""Hispano"" or anything similar as a cohesive ancestry or ethnic group (a code list from 2010, pages 295-296, I've found doesn't use the term at all). ""The Spanish Surname Criterion"" defines ""Hispano"" as equivalent to the modern category ""Hispanic and Latino Americans"" - although the ""native Spanish Americans"" it mentions seem to be the descendants of Spanish-speaking settlers in the Southwest this article claims to describe. The two sources with archived links are both about Hispanos of New Mexico specifically, and the Alexander B. King source is just about historical Californios . So, none of this article's sources actually establish that the term ""Hispanos"" is widely used to refer to the descendants of early Spanish and Mexican settlers in the American Southwest as a whole. Additionally, this article's exact scope is unclear. The lead sentence mentions ""independent Mexico"" but the article also mentions Louisiana Isleños . Speaking of scope, I'm not sure the article's subject, descendants of Spanish-speaking inhabitants of the territories Mexico ceded to the US in 1848, actually do constitute a meaningful ethnic or cultural group - the sources cited don't establish this. It's also noteworthy that several people in this article's talk page have previously objected to its existence and that most of the article's content is unsourced. Erinius ( talk ) 08:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions . Erinius ( talk ) 08:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 11:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not a notable subgroup of latinos in the United States, very unclear scope, fails GNG. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 20:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Avivah Wittenberg-Cox: WP:NOT and TOU violations. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 12:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Businesspeople , and Women . CptViraj ( talk ) 12:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC) This does seems to be more of a LinkedIn profile of a successful person in business than someone who meets WP:GNG, so deletion seems to be in order unless significant coverage of her directly is found. -- Milowent • has spoken 13:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC) NOTLINKEDIN . — siro χ o 15:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC) Plenty of Forbes contributor pieces written by this person in Gnews, no sources about this person. What's used now isn't good enough to the article. for lack of coverage in RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Has written a few books, but I can't find reviews for any of them. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have two references, out of interest this woman is notable. There's notability associated with. [ [23] ], [ [24] ] and [ [25] ] only are enough to establish notability. Thus generally pass GNG 102.91.71.127 ( talk ) 05:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure the first is an independent/reliable source. The other two quote the subject but don't give much information about her. Looks marginal with what's currently on the table. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 15:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] First is not independent coverage so no good for GNG. Others are just comments from her, not coverage about her so also not good for GNG. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 02:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC) No WP:SIGCOV , fails WP:NIO . Sources provided here are insufficient per above. Admittedly, it was difficult to search for coverage due to the large amount of articles she wrote. ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 21:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kunduana House: Fails WP:GNG . BookishReader ( talk ) 00:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 00:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Pakistan . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 01:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I can't find anything about the building, but perhaps the article's creator used a non-standard English spelling. The claims in the article (being a listed building, being ""one of the finest country houses in Pakistan"") would indicate notability if they can be verified. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] my first reaction was the same as Eastmain’s, but I can’t turn up any sources for this in English or Urdu. Oddly the article describes the building as unfinished, suggesting it’s not a historic palace at all. Anyway the whole thing is so garbled there’s no real way of knowing what is going on, so we should not this hanging around any longer. Mccapra ( talk ) 02:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] also here’s the article listing both protected and unprotected sites in Gujrat district. Kunduana House isn’t on the list. Mccapra ( talk ) 02:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC) HOAX . this version - they tried to built it based on Montacute House . Why I can't find this house on maps? BookishReader ( talk ) 11:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC) GNG . Insight 3 ( talk ) 05:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] based on lack of sources. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 07:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Speakerpunch: This award has zero coverage and neither does the band, clearly not passing WP:BAND InDimensional ( talk ) 23:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Netherlands . InDimensional ( talk ) 23:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC) No coverage for this band that I can find in RS. Gsearch is simply their website and various download or streaming sites. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Tried . nl sites, you only get about 5 hits in Gnews for concert listings. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rap Rakesh Sethulingam: I can't find any notable works or significant coverage about the subject. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 17:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 17:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I can't find any notable works either. DareshMohan ( talk ) 06:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Devart Ltd.: All I find it self-published sources, press releases and listings. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 17:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Czech Republic . Shellwood ( talk ) 17:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Articles for deletion/Devart * Pppery * it has begun... 17:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Linux (detergent): This does not appear to be a valid notability justification. I think whether this type of page belongs should be discussed. Ldm1954 ( talk ) 09:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions . Ldm1954 ( talk ) 09:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. In the paragraph headed Controversy (by far the longest part of the article) the article itself provides the reasons why it should never have been accepted in the first place. Athel cb ( talk ) 16:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Other than being a running gag in Linux forums since the early 2000s (it's not even controversial, everybody just thinks it's funny), there's nothing noteworthy about this product. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC) 50, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Arghushal Swati: Article was previously d and creator is blocked and indicated they are Swati and wanted to get the word out. The nature of the material appears editor generated with references cited only for factoids in that creation. One reference is just for land ownership, one for a geographic fact, and two are a blog talking about info derived from DNA. North8000 ( talk ) 13:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Pakistan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No coverage found for this sub-group/ethnic group. I tried using the native language, but I can't tell which sources are RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Qasim Ali Shah: This same story also states he has ""no credentials or experience."" Most of the media coverage he's received stem from his controversial appointment as chairman of the Lahore Arts Council, which itself isn't a notable position or office. Additionally, while there is some press coverage on ""Qasim Ali Shah"" it's difficult to say if it all pertains to this same individual, given the commonality of the name in Pakistan. Moreover, considering his self-proclaimed status, it's plausible that he may have paid for promotional interviews like this one . — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 16:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 16:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. samee converse 18:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC) I can only find coverage of the the controversial statements made; the Dawn source used seems RS but it's still a small article. I don't think he's notable just for being shot down on Twitter over things said. I can't find sourcing about his other activities, so doesn't seem to be notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV . Corporate trainers are too common to have an article on every one of them . We have been very hesitant to article that are only sourced to ""controversial statements"" of BLPs . Bearian ( talk ) 14:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Systogram: However, of all the references in the article, none appear to actually refer to a ""systogram"" apart from those authored by Dikian. So I can only suppose that the concept is not-notable and the article was created only for self-promotion. Black Kite (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The article creator edits practically only to promote himself, this article is nothing more than advertising for himself. GraziePrego ( talk ) 10:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] nothing I can say that the original nom hasn't already said better. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 16:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , Wikipedia isn't for things made up one day . Samoht27 ( talk ) 17:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC) 18, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Article appears to be primarily promotional in nature. Waqar 💬 18:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Vipul Shah (businessman): He's interviewed in The Week as cited, but that's a primary source. Passing mentions, routine coverage in trade blogs and softball interviews was all else I could find in a WP:BEFORE search. Promotional tone and editing history of article creator suggests UPE. Wikishovel ( talk ) 07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India . Wikishovel ( talk ) 07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 22, 14 June 2024 (UTC) — 60.254.0.91 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . No significant coverage in secondary independent reliable sources. The page has mostly routine news coverage and announcements that are not sufficient basis for a page on this subject. Fails WP:BIO . RangersRus ( talk ) 12:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All of the cited sources are trivial mentions and I can't find any significant coverage. — hako9 ( talk ) 15:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Asha Empire Online: This article features 0 secondary sources nor could I find any secondary sources when searching for this game either, outside of a lot NFT/crypto related websites. Just seemingly nothing is ing this article afloat. Captain Galaxy 23:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Captain Galaxy 23:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Cryptocurrency . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The reason why there is not much information on the internet is that the game is released on Sunday, March 3. But the NFTs that will be used in the game have been previously published for Mint, so there is a lot of information for its NFT. -- VatooVatoo ( talk ) 04:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Unfortunately that's not how notability works. You might like to familiarise yourself with the general notability guideline . Generally, upcoming recently-released games that have no coverage are considered to be released too soon to justify an article. Happy to help if you have any questions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 07:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per no coverage indicating no notability. Suggest not draftifying as there is nothing indicating pending coverage for a recent release. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 07:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Vrxces. WP:BEFORE doesn't show sufficient sources to meet WP:SIGCOV . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 20:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Siege of Lahore (1800): Noorullah ( talk ) 20:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , and Pakistan . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] none of the sources in the article are verifiable and I can’t find any other sources that talk about a “siege of Lahore” in 1800. There was a conflict and apparently Gulab Singh Bhangi drank himself to death, but there wasn’t a siege. Mccapra ( talk ) 00:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Yusofjerd: Abadi are not notable. Hongsy ( talk ) 02:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions . Hongsy ( talk ) 02:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A small settlement with nothing much notable. And as per above does not meet WP: GEOLAND . killer bee 05:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"DXBM-TV: Perhaps a to GMA Network might be an WP:ATD ? Note that I created this page manually, since a previous stopped the script from working. Apologies if I've messed anything up. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bon Parfumeur: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Carrie Keller-Lynn: Sources are weak, either not third-party (itrek) or sourced to a ""site readers can rely on for smart, engaged, entertaining writing about all things books."" (Subject is not a book, nor an author of a book.) Brazilian Forum source, whether RS or not, has only eight sentences in the article which are about Keller-Lynn, even broadly considered. Searching found no better sources. Note: I have edited the article since filing the AfD in two ways: removed an unsourced claim that the subject is American-Israeli"", and remove a claim that a photo was d from a website, which was both not in the given source and provably false, as I indicated on the talk page. This claim had been being used to justify a fair-use basis for hosting a copyrighted photo, so I removed the photo itself from the article. Further: I have now removed claims sourced to a self-published source added after the start of the AfD, in violation of WP:BLPSPS -- Nat Gertler ( talk ) 15:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Journalism , and Israel . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC) JOURNALIST by a country mile. The irony is that often bios of journalists are puffery and apparently self-written. This article gives the opposite impression. That said, we have an article here that totally fails to show reliable sourcing such as to satisfy the stringent requirements of the guideline. A WP:MILL writer albeit one who has received negative attention from people who don't like her. Coretheapple ( talk ) 20:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . A regular person at work. Nothing that makes her stand out from the rest of the journalists. Fails JOURNALIST and even the GNG. gidonb ( talk ) 21:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As per nom. also Fails WP:JOURNALIST Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 09:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Fails notability requirements. BobFromBrockley ( talk ) 17:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Paul Morgan (architect): Fails to meet WP:ARCHITECT . Sources are either passing mentions or not independent. ARandomName123 ( talk ) 14:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Architecture , and Australia . ARandomName123 ( talk ) 14:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Currently citations are from the subject's personal website and a Wordpress page. Several pages of Google results also don't turn up any reliable sources covering him. -- Tserton ( talk ) 21:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looks like a resume and mainly based on primary sources. Fails WP:BIO . LibStar ( talk ) 01:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Seeed (disambiguation): Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. This probably qualifies for speedy, but it's nice to give people a chance to find possible new listings. NotAGenious ( talk ) 16:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC) to all: could you please help in improving the Seeed Studio page (currently machine-translated from Japanese Wikipedia)? Thanks in advance! -- Yuriz ( talk ) 19:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy per G14 . Seeed Studio has now been d per A7 and G11 , leaving only the band Seeed . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 02:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Per Unnecessary disambiguation pages . dxneo ( talk ) 22:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Wang Meng (figure skater): PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and China . Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] there is sufficient independent coverage. -- Wish for Good ( talk ) 04:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wish for Good , are you going to share with the rest of the class or should we just take your word for it? Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 12:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Wishfully thinking assertions don't put a subject past GNG, ANYBIO, or WP:SPORTSPERSON (which requires at least one source which directly details the subject). Such sourcing hasn't been applied, presented or found. BusterD ( talk ) 22:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Unable to find the requisite WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG . Let'srun ( talk ) 21:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"U.S. Army Medical Materiel Center – Korea: I can find a few references in TWL but generally written by Army-affiliated people, destroying their independence . Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 15:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and South Korea . Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 15:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Appears to have been copied from a US Gov. source, as public domain text. But all I find are various Army sites that talk about the place, put out by the ""PR department"" of the Army. It doesn't have non-primary sourcing, but it's still reliable, I'm not sure how we handle this. We've always allowed PD text for the US Gov't to be copied... Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources found are always on dvids, [12] , which the military uses to publish their media, photos etc. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC) I've pulled up various US Army wiki articles at random, to see how often they are only sourced to US Army or gov't websites. Most aren't and have RS in things not related to the army. I suppose in this case it should be d for a lack of non-primary sourcing. I can't find any news articles not published by dvids. Even in Gbooks or Scholar, it's all sourced to military publications. We'd require sourcing not from the US Gov't or Army/military, that I can't find... Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , can't find any non-US govt news sources about it in either Korean or English. toobigtokale ( talk ) 13:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] can find no evidence of SIGCOV in independent sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 22:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This article (same article also published in Yonhap) is all I can find and is definitely routine . ~ F4U ( talk • they/it ) 13:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Justin Ackerman: All I found were routine transactional announcements ( 1 , 2 ). JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . No suitable per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Max Media Business: Emeraude ( talk ) 19:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Architecture , Organizations , Business , Companies , and Bosnia and Herzegovina . — Karnataka talk 20:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Close – no reason given for deletion. Thincat ( talk ) 20:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] definitely not notable. Local planning dispute. Mccapra ( talk ) 20:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . No trace of notability. P.S. ""Public toilet"" purpose mention just made my day. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 18:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Fascism in Africa: The current article consists essentially of three parts. First well-referenced overview where with inputs from academics questioning the existence of the article subject. Then a few examples of presence of fascist movements on the continent, but with the exception of SA these are essentially presence of European fascist movements in diaspora/colonial frameworks. Here there is really no WP:RS that connect the dots. Even if we are to accept the argument that Egyptian Greenshirts was a fascist movement, there is nothing sourced that would connect the Egyptians with South African far right politics. Whether And lastly some listing of leaders and groups that have been accused of fascism (with 'fascism' being reduced to a pejorative), conflating authoritarianism and fascism. There is nothing that glues together the article, apart from OR. Soman ( talk ) 13:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Soman|Soman. This article should have no place here. -- Bduke ( talk ) 07:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Africa . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC) 52, 11 July 2023 (UTC) 51, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Decision House: Only passing coverage ViperSnake151 Talk 22:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . ViperSnake151 Talk 22:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC) GNG Donald D23 talk to me 01:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - the only coverage I could find beyond IMDb and a couple of tv guides was a single NYT article from 2007 . Sgubaldo ( talk ) 10:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Conway Pretorius: All I found was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . No suitable per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Berti Brandon Diau: Not a G4, but perilously close to G11 with text such as "" His charismatic approach and evident desire to succeed"" Star Mississippi 00:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Germany . Star Mississippi 00:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Enough evidence for notability! Googling the Name shows enough News Articles from reliable sources Dietermueller76 ( talk ) 23:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Googling the Name Brandon Diau shows enough reliable News Articles. So many footballers on here who don’t have one mention in news articles are on Wikipedia Dietermueller76 ( talk ) 23:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , per prior AfD. Appearing in news articles is not enough for GNG. JoelleJay ( talk ) 19:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Read into: Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, and the sources available are not seem notable or relevant by themselves. Longhornsg ( talk ) 20:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Politics , and United States of America . Longhornsg ( talk ) 20:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Obscure term of art; someone searching for the phrase ""read into"" is more likely looking for information on the term meaning ""to infer"". This is not only a WP:NOTDICT violation, it's confusing to boot. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Arctic7: signed, Rosguill talk 19:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games , Companies , and Texas . signed, Rosguill talk 19:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Coverage is a bit light, but several articles have detailed info. The Forbes Article is by senior contributor and is acceptable. These also help: gamedeveloper.com and gamesindustry.biz . Royal88888 ( talk ) 20:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC) FORBESCON says senior contributors are not reliable. signed, Rosguill talk 21:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . gamedeveloper.com and gamesindustry.biz articles are PR reprints. ~ A412 talk! 20:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC) PROMO tone, the article is WP:TOOSOON given the studio has no history and no product yet announced. As a WP:ATD , given the pedigree of the team, it is better to shelve this to a draft until there is notable coverage of something the studio is up to. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 05:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think there's any reason to expect the situation to change within the next 6 months so I'm not sure I see the motivation for a move to draftspace. If things change a few years down the line the page can always be und. signed, Rosguill talk 13:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kingsbury Family: As far as I can tell, this family is not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page Pecopteris ( talk ) 23:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , History , England , and United States of America . Skynxnex ( talk ) 00:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC) This article doesn't even say anything, so trying to find sources only based off the non-uncommon surname and the fact they were colonial is impossible to ensure you're discussing the right one. Nothing would be lost with deletion, even if the family was notable. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 03:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC) Pecopteris is an old IRL friend of mine. He told me today that he had gotten back into editing Wikipedia, and that he was deleting an article I made back in the day. Surprisingly I remembered my old password and got into this account again. I agree with deleting the article, because it's garbage, and I made it when I was 11 years old. Chesslover96 ( talk ) 03:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's tough to beat an explanation that compelling. I too endorse the . Suriname0 ( talk ) 04:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong . This article was only twice since its creation back in 2009. Clearly not notable. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈ ) 06:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC) GNG ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 10:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. AryKun ( talk ) 15:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC) 35, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kim Taylor Bennett: But this is not linkedin WP:NOTCV . Not notable enough to have a page. JMWt ( talk ) 11:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Journalism . JMWt ( talk ) 11:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , England , and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Plenty of her interviews from Vice come up, but no sources talking about her. Routine position, working reporter. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Julius Oyedemi: Puff piece for yet another entrepreneur. How rarely are they notable. Fails WP:BIO . WP:ROTM businessman doing business. I doubt there to be any point in sending back to draft 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria . 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra ( talk ) 23:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Non notable businessman Princess of Ara 16:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] — entity does not meet the general notability guidelines . Best, Reading Beans ( talk ) 08:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC) Per norm... another PR/PUFF article. Jamiebuba ( talk ) 12:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Renzo Vitale: PROD declined. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Artists , Bands and musicians , and Italy . UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] — the subject has had an ordinary career, with no indication of encyclopedic notability. — Biruitorul Talk 12:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lisa Filipetto: The 2 sources provided are primary. Fails WP:BIO . LibStar ( talk ) 19:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Bilateral relations , Ethiopia , Cambodia , and Australia . LibStar ( talk ) 19:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Clearly not notable. If there were more sources then it would've been fine. Wolverine XI ( talk to me ) 15:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Moesa Pancho: Hence, seems to fail WP:GNG Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 12:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Indonesia . Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 12:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC) BEFORE before creating a deletion page [9] . He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [10] [11] . And there also other notable sources from CNN and a book that was cited in the article [12] [13] 202.43.93.9 ( talk ) 03:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] — 202.43.93.9 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 02:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC) no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV . Contributor892z ( talk ) 08:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jerry Estrin: It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn ( talk ) 19:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. I couldn't find anything on Newspapers Extended on either the books or on Estrin himself. No obituary, nothing. The magazines look self-published. Fails WP:GNG . BBQ boffin grill me 00:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC) BIO or WP:GNG and it is justifiable to propose deletion if these issues can’t be fixed. I’m going to try to fix these issues in the coming week, if possible. But if after that it is the consensus that the article should face deletion, I’m going to suggest merging this page or ing it to Laura Moriarty (poet and novelist) who was Jerry Estrin’s wife at the time of his death and Moriarty is the executor of Estrin’s estate and thus an important part of Estrin’s legacy and notability. I think a page Estrin~~>to Moriarty is a good faith compromise. Obviously these issues with the Estrin page would need to be cleaned up so an not to move the same houseing issues involving WP:BIO & WP:GNG over to Laura Moriarty (poet and novelist) page. - Christian Roess ( talk ) 18:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Laura Moriarty (poet and novelist) seems to suffer from the same notability issues and lack of sourcing. Maybe draftify both until sources can be found? BBQ boffin grill me 23:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes the Laura Moriarty page has issues, too. But that’s probably an easier fix. Jerry Estrin is a tough one. It’s difficult to establish notability. I’m surprised that he’s kind of fallen off the grid in the last decade. But yes, I may have to follow your suggestion and re-do these as drafts, so we can get additional input and hope they don’t get d. Christian Roess ( talk ) 03:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Last Empire-War Z: TWOrantula TM ( enter the web ) 23:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . No coverage whatsoever, apart from download links and databases. I've always found the gap between popularity and coverage in mobile games to be bizzare though. ~ A412 talk! 01:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Article cites no sources because there is no coverage. YordleSquire ( talk ) 15:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I have not been able to find any significant coverage of this topic. It therefore fails WP:GNG . Knox490 ( talk ) 00:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 06:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Hallie Lauer: Text used in the article is somewhat PROMO. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Agree with nominator; subject simply fails WP:GNG . User:Let'srun 18:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Slavcho Boychev: There are no other sources referenced, and nothing shows up in a search for news articles or other sourceable media. This article clearly doesn't meet the notability requirements. Kingsmasher678 ( talk ) 14:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Bulgaria . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC) Seems like he went on to have a political career . JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Arid García: I don't think there's enough here to pass WP:BIO . John of Reading ( talk ) 15:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Venezuela . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Doesn't seem to be notable. Aintabli ( talk ) 20:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article was created over ten years ago by a SPA, which has not edited again over all that time. I have looked after sources as a Spanish speaker, and failed to see anything that would allow this to meet WP:GNG . -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 22:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2021 Hong Kong Women's Premier League: This is not a top-class tournament and the article fails WP:GNG. A couple of sentences could perhaps be d into Cricket in Hong Kong . Batagur baska ( talk ) 06:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Hong Kong . Batagur baska ( talk ) 06:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Events . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per Batagur baska, just isn't notable. StickyWicket aka AA ( talk ) 19:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per nom. Fails WP:GNG . Not seeing any coverage on the competition in a search that would qualify it for GNG. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 20:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC) Articles for deletion/2023 Uzbek Women's Football Championship . Svartner ( talk ) 10:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Prabhat: CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I can't find anything for this, at least in English. Saucysalsa30 ( talk ) 02:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Convert to disambig page for ""Prabhat"", which is a fairly common Indian name. Furius ( talk ) 16:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC) NFILM Donald D23 talk to me 02:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Horace Pierite, Jr.: PigeonChickenFish ( talk ) 16:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Louisiana . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd have to agree with you on this one. On WP:NBASIC Mr. Pierite fits best into the category of Politician , and he has not held international, national, or state–wide office, has not been a member of a legislative body at any of the aforementioned levels, and has not received significant press coverage, to quote the guideline . This article should be d. WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) ( talk ) 18:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] He has held national office, as Native American tribes are sovereign per U.S. law. AvoyellesCajun ( talk ) 12:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do we have any citations that go in depth and demonstrate significant press coverage, beyond a mere mention of his name? In order to meet WP:NPOL and WP:NBASIC . PigeonChickenFish ( talk ) 19:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Horace Pierite Jr. appears to have been elected to tribal government as both a (Vice) Chairman and tribal councilor. Tribal government offices of federally recognized tribes, being sovereign nations, would typically meet WP:NPOL . Sources will definitely exist for a tribal (Vice) chairman who helped his tribe get federal recognition, but things like tribal newspapers from the 1970s and 1980s are unlikely to be available online. in mind here we appear to be talking about a former head of state for the Tunica-Biloxi tribe. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 16:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC). added (Vice) and struck wrong claim TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 16:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] TulsaPoliticsFan are you finding reliable citations that support this person was an elected official? PigeonChickenFish ( talk ) 23:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] this chapter from a book on tribes seeking federal recognition has a few chapters on the Tunica-Biloxi. It says in 1974 the tribe elected four council members, from whom the council then named Joe Pierite Jr. as the first tribal chairman; his sister, Rose Pierite White, as the first tribal secretary; Horace Pierite Jr., whose father had been chief before Joe Pierite Sr., as vice-chairman; and Sam Barbry Sr., the son of Eli Barbry, who was married to Horace Pierite Jr. ’s sister, as the sole councilman. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 16:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The University of Oklahoma Law Library and The National Indian Law Library of the Native American Rights Fund have copies of these docs. Here is an example showing Horace was Vice Chairman in 1974. https://thorpe.law.ou.edu/constitution/tunica-biloxie/index.html AvoyellesCajun ( talk ) 12:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Horace Pierite Jr held multiple offices within the Tunica Biloxi Tribal Government. He is also one of the four signers of their original legal documents filed with the State of Louisiana. The Tunica Tribe is a sovereign nation under U.S. law and treaty. I have no idea why PigeonChickenFish is trying to deny or diminish this Native American's contribution to his tribe and his nation. I have noticed a pattern with PigeonChickenFish regarding multiple Native Americans and their tribes in Louisiana. You can review PigeonChickenFish changes to those articles. AvoyellesCajun ( talk ) 12:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC) CIV . Also an AfD is not a denial of an entire Native American tribe, the issue here was notability. Lots of claims are made in the article with no sources or poor sources. When I tried to find the missing sources, I found none. PigeonChickenFish ( talk ) 04:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] After you extensively edited the article today, I am not seeing reliable sources still. Is anyone able to find more? PigeonChickenFish ( talk ) 08:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Who are you to state 13 citations to include those from newspapers, state university law libraries, state public records, and the US government to include the Bureau of Indian Affairs are reliable? Please explain how these are not valid sources per Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia accepts all of these as valid sources. If you continue to violate wikipedia policies, I will file a complaint. You have not presented a single source or valid argument in accordance with the policies for removing this article. 47.189.34.40 ( talk ) 19:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It has 13 citations to include newspapers, news stations, state university law libraries, state public records, and the US Government's Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is the overseeing federal agency for Native American Tribes. All of the citations are reliable, verifiable, and meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The editor responsible for recommending this article be d, PigeonChickenFish has failed to provide any argument, source, citation, etc to the page. Arguments without a valid reason with a verifiable source is not allowed. Since there has not been a single counter citation or reason to the article of this Native American leader and politician, the discussion should be ended and the article remain. AvoyellesCajun ( talk ) 19:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 05:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] LOL. PigeonChickenFish, why are you stating that newspapers, state records, and the records from the US Bureau of Indian Affair are not independent. What is independent to you? Wikipedia views those sources are independent. Geez. AvoyellesCajun ( talk ) 19:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC) NBASIC , which is still required. A passing mention does not amount to notability. Stop attacking me, this is not personal. PigeonChickenFish ( talk ) 03:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . He can and should be mentioned on the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana 's article but every member of every tribal council doesn't merit an article unless they otherwise meet WP:GNG . Most citations only mention his name in passing, including in his wife's obituary. Yuchitown ( talk ) 20:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC) NPOL has not been understood to include tribal council members in the United States. Failing NPOL means that we need to look a the sourcing to see if the subject meets GNG, and it does not appear that there are sufficient sources. -- Enos733 ( talk ) 18:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"window: If this concept is at all notable, then it can just be a one-sentence mention in software development process . Zim Zala Bim talk 14:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC) 49, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Han Won-chol: Simione001 ( talk ) 03:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 03:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 03:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 03:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC) GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 05:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC) GNG and WP:SIGCOV . Anwegmann ( talk ) 00:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jim Allen (4x4 writer): Tagged as not meeting the notability guideline for biographies since 2018. Schierbecker ( talk ) 00:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . Schierbecker ( talk ) 00:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC) NAUTHOR . McFilet O' Fish Fan ( talk ) 01:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Journalism . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 02:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC) 19, 6 August 2023 (UTC) 10, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This AFD received two editor's support for Deletion but they were both blocked so I'm relisting this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Auslogics Disk Defrag: StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC) SPAM . There are little more than a few ""best of"" lists as references. That fails WP:SIGCOV . Bearian ( talk ) 16:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ajay Kumar (politician): The notability claim here is that he's general secretary of a political party's state-level chapter in one state, which is not an ""inherently"" notable role that would instantly guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia — but with just two short blurbs announcing his appointment to the role and absolutely no ongoing career coverage about his work in the role, he has not been demonstrated to pass WP:GNG for it. There are also some BLP sensitivities here, because the article otherwise hinges on an unproven allegation of involvement in a murder case — but per WP:PERP , simply being accused of criminal activity is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself either. He would have to be found guilty in a court of law before we could even begin to consider the possibility of notability as a criminal, and even that still wouldn't be an automatic inclusion freebie — but this has failed to establish that he already has any notability as a politician. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India . Bearcat ( talk ) 14:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC) Secretary of a political entity isn't notable. Unclear what being a vip in a court case has to do with anything; unclear if he's a suspect, a witness or something else. Long way from notability either way. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC) Clearly failed WP:NPOL . Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 21:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC) The article are not currently meet to WP:NPOL . ~~ αvírαm | (tαlk) 19:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC) GNG and WP:NPOL . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A state general secretary position does not inherently establish notability. I cannot find significant coverage to show how this person meets the criteria of WP:GNG. Sk1728 ( talk ) 10:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If deleting, please restore this longstanding . Ajoy Kumar was born Ajay and is a politician. The matching talk still exists. Certes ( talk ) 16:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC) An article that doesn't meet WP:NPOL . I was almost trying to argue WP:ONEEVENT but after ASSESSMENT of SIGCOV; he is far way to notability. Per nom. ! All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk ) 13:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Cannamedical Pharma: References are routine business news, PR and interviews for this brochure advertising article. scope_creep Talk 10:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Medicine , and Germany . — Karnataka talk 11:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC) The Germans take their pot seriously. Here's a link to the Cannamedical section of their de:Liste der in Deutschland erhältlichen medizinischen Hanfsorten article. This salacious link is from de:Fabian Thylmann . This is an AfD from 4 years ago: de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/24. Februar 2019#Cannamedical Pharma (gelöscht) . This is a deletion review this year de:Wikipedia:Löschprüfung/Archiv/2023/Woche 17#Cannamedical Pharma (erl.) ; Cannamedical remains d. Germany have medical marijuana magazine that seems reliable and has a number of stories about Cannamedical. There's also this Australian story . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 16:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC) I was drafting a contribution to the first AfD when it was closed and the article soft-d. While the given sources verify that this is a firm going about its distribution business in its market, I was unconvinced that anything indicated it to be of encyclopaedic notability. Against that, though, were the reference items from FAZ and Handelsblatt: to me these provide verification, but I felt that others may regard such coverage as immediately indicative of notability. I also thought of suggesting draftification of this paid WP:SPA article, but that would shunt the dilemma about notability onto the AfC reviewer. The links posted above by A. B. are interesting in that context, as I see these sources were considered when the request to restore the d de.wiki article was rejected in June. AllyD ( talk ) 07:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC) ORGCRIT . In reference to draftification, I review regularly at AfC and would not have sent this to mainspace. Would suggest allowing the AfD to run its course instead. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 18:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - the refs I looked at earlier aren't quite enough for notability. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The article cites various reliable secondary sources such as Handelsblatt and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung . These sources are known for high-quality journalism. Please don't mistake them with ""routine business news"" or ""PR"", because that is what they are definitely not. -- Allianzwhen ( talk ) 18:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC) DISCLOSE page which I previously linked from your Talk page, ""As you have a conflict of interest, you must ensure everyone with whom you interact is aware of your paid status, in all discussions on Wikipedia pages within any namespace."" AllyD ( talk ) 06:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC) COI editor, then with no interest in following or understanding consensus based notability policy. scope_creep Talk 07:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC) Ref 1 [35] This is article built on an interview of Henn, with an image Henn from the company, with information from the company. Its it not independent. It fails WP:ORGIND . Ref 2 [36] Ref 11 in the article. This is PR plain and simple. It states from Henn ""We don’t get to see our goods here in the offices. It is delivered directly to a high-security warehouse and shipped from there,"" It is not independent. It fails WP:ORGIND ,. Both of these are classic PR. Both these references fail WP:NCORP . We will look at the rest of the references shortly. scope_creep Talk 23:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 15:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Frankly, I find this discussion strongly discouraging, and the assumptions that you have made and brought forward are concerning, to be honest. I understand why you want paid editors to disclose, and I believe it's a reasonable thing to do. This is why I disclosed the paid editing according to WP:DISCLOSE . The disclosure should be obvious to the educated editor because it immediately pops up when one hovers over my username with his mouse cursor. I'm conviced that you all are reasonable, knowledgable editors who understand this. Please don't overinterpret Wikipedia's WP:DISCLOSE policy too much by asking paid editors who have disclosed in accordance with the ToU to disclose again every single time they make edits. Please also note that not every single paid editor has ""no interest in following or understanding consensus based notability policy"". I am well aware of Wikipedia's core principle: It's an encyclopaedia that depicts, in a neutral manner, what is believed to be established knowledge. I strongly recommend reassessing the references that I have provided: The Handelsblatt article includes information derived from an interview of Henn, but it is not based on information from the company. German-language newspaper-like sources don't just copy-paste what they are told, they actually do journalism properly. The data Handelsblatt have used is actually from GKV Gamsi, and that is exactly what the article discloses. The photograph of Henn is obviously licenced from Cannamedical because that makes a lot of sense considering German copyright law. Cannamedical may allow free use of that photograph for journalistic purposes, and this way it is much easier for Handelsblatt to use a decent picture. Do you expect them to have their own photographer who visits eveyone for a quick photoshoot? I trust you know that this would be highly unrealistic. May I please beg your pardon regarding the FAZ? You are saying that FAZ's article is ""PR plain and simple"". Sorry, I strongly disagree. It should be immediately obvious to any knowledgable person that the FAZ article is not ""PR plain and simple"" because it is behind a paywall. Nobody in the right mind puts PR behind a paywall. It would have been honest and I would have appreciated if you had said or disclosed or noted that the FAZ article is behind a paywall. I don't wish to allege that you haven't read the FAZ article, but I hope it is understandable why I am in doubt regarding this. FAZ have included a direct quote from Henn, yes, but they put it into context and evaluate it. That is what good sources do, they depict what one party says, and what another party says, compare that, evaluate it and put it into context. This is how journalism works. You must not assume that this direct quote is depicted as ""the truth"" by FAZ, and I assume that every reasonable Wikipedia editor knows this. FAZ are one of the most, if not the most reliable German-language newspaper source, they are, if you will, the ""German New York Times"". They don't do PR. WP:CORPDEPTH includes examples of substantial coverage, and in this case we have got ""ongoing media coverage focusing on [an] organisation"", so Cannamedical is notable. Note that the article's original AfD nomination was a violation of Wikipedia's WP:SOCK policy. A German Wikipedia editor logged out of his account to nominate the article for deletion which is obvious from the way the article was proposed for deletion. The actions resemble exactly how on the German language version of Wikipedia an article is proposed for deletion, and the reasoning was typical of how a German Wikipedia editor would propose an article for deletion. It's highly problematic that nobody figured this and that the article was treated as having been prodded. Regards, -- Allianzwhen ( talk ) 11:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC) NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* . ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject . I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The references discussed above have no ""Independent Content"" and the facts/information are all attributed to people affiliated with the topic company. HighKing ++ 16:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC) SIRS -compliant) is needed here. The core problem becomes apparent when realising that basically everyone's been saying that the sources don't tick WP:SIRS's independence criteria, which is incorrect. The sources discussed above are independent per WP:SIRS, but that may be hard to see. I'm not even blaming anyone here, I know how the perception of FAZ and Handelsblatt not being independent sources comes to be, and I feel it needs some explaining. The fact that Handelsblatt or FAZ have interviewed Henn does not mean that Henn uses these sources as a vehicle to convey a message to the reader, or that the sources would even let him do that. Handelsblatt and FAZ are known for their high-quality journalism, and the articles do not include information or facts attributed to people affiliated with the company without fact checking. If you were able to read these sources thoroughly, you'd see that they are in fact not interviews, and that they include only what Wikipedia describes as ""original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking"". The sources (i.e., the writers) aren't affiliated with Cannamedical in any way. If, in an FAZ interview, an interviewed person lies, the FAZ are going to write that straight into their article(s) as they are known for fact checking. They express whether or not they believe (based on fact checking) that claims made in an interview are factually correct. The interesting bit here is that the FAZ article actually expresses doubts, discusses legal issues and gives a lot of background information. And it is at this point that I need to ask a serious question: Do you comprehend that Ref 2 refers to the source, but only shows one sixth of its contents? Reading FAZ or Handelsblatt requires a paid subscription as they aren't PR platforms. I honestly wonder how anyone can assess a source by reading only two out of twelve paragraphs. How would you know whether that source has ""no independent content"" if you cannot even read 85 per cent of it? Please do me a favour and think of this before making premature judgements. Thank you. Regards, -- Allianzwhen ( talk ) 15:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is a PR. scope_creep Talk 15:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm going through the articles (the pieces I can see) and *everything* about the company is attributed to Henn. You say its not an interview - it is. He was interviewed. The articles recount the details of the interview. You say that these statements come with ""fact checking"" - where does it say that or is this a big assumption on your part? Just FYI, most times the obligations for ""fact checking"" is to diligently repeat what was said, not to check the veracity of what was said. In this example we're not examining whether the publisher or journalist are independent (as per ""functional independence"") but whether the information is independent (as per ""intellectual independence""). The information must be ""clearly attributed to a source unaffiliated to the subject"" but all I can see is information attributed to Henn. HighKing ++ 21:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC) the pieces I can see . About 5/6 of the source's material is behind a paywall. The FAZ article is not a 200-word PR release, it is an in-depth article about Cannamedical Pharma that extends way further than just 200 words. Nobody puts PR behind a paywall. FAZ's article is also not an interview. FAZ have interviewed Henn, and they have cited some bits he said in their article; but that does not make the article an interview. The article just happens to cite Henn right at the beginning which might give the impression that it's an interview, but it is not. The FAZ are known for their fact checking, and they obviously don't do what you describe as ""diligently repeat what was said"". That would be indicative of poor quality journalism. I also know what you refer to as ""intellectual independence"". Look, the FAZ article cites Henn directly or indirectly on various occasions. But it's not a deep interview or something like that. The article would have worked without citing Henn. Whenever something he has said is used, it is put into context, and everything is explained properly. Henn's ""sayings"" are not conveyed as facts or ""the truth"". The article is the author's original text and has intellectual independence. Since the article discusses Cannamedical Pharma, it just made some sense to cite Henn here and there. But that's all. Regards, -- Allianzwhen ( talk ) 12:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're making incorrect assumptions about what is being said and I don't think you've correctly grasped the GNG/NCORP requirements (which don't exist on German language Wikipedia anyway). Lets leave aside the paywalled article for the moment (and I'll sign up for the 30day trial if it becomes necessary) since we need *multiple* articles that meet the criteria for establishing notability and I've yet to see even one. Start with the Handelsblatt article. Please point to any paragraph which you say meets ORGIND/CORPDEPTH requirements, that is, contains in-depth (about the company) (CORPDEPTH) original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject (ORGIND). I've looked and in my opinion this is regurgitated company bumpf that attributes the information (several times) to Hann. HighKing ++ 10:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Following from my Comment at the outset of this discussion, I feel that for an article on a firm to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability, more is needed than verifiable statements that at a particular time it had a quarter of a local import/manufacture/distribution market, be that in cannabis, Kimchi, cogs, or whatever. Proportionate presence would be fine for a Semdor / Cannamedical entry on a categorised business listing site under Medical cannabis suppliers > Germany > , but an encyclopaedia is distinct from that, and I see no claim to notability here (and although each wiki evolves its own inclusion criteria, the rejection at de.wiki is informative). There is also no article (here or on de.wiki) on the Semdor Pharma parent, and, trying an alternative perspective, the articles on Medical cannabis and Cannabis in Germany describe these markets in a non-vendor-specific manner, so there appears to be no appropriate target . AllyD ( talk ) 13:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Static interpretation of time: No references, written like an essay, would already be WP:TNT . All the useful content in this article is already covered under Eternalism (philosophy of time) . . Opal|zukor ( discuss ) 12:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Science . Opal|zukor ( discuss ) 12:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. - car chasm ( talk ) 12:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -- no one's permission is necessary to a page. Why not just it and discuss it with interested editors if anyone objects? The page history shows that no one has tried this. This would be much more appropriate than an AFD since nom's rationale already admits the subject is notable. Central and Adams ( talk ) 12:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A synonym for an idea much more widely discussed under other names (eternalism, block universe, B-theory), and not a synonym that is common enough itself to justify being made into a . XOR'easter ( talk ) 20:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nothing to save here. Next time try WP:PROD . Johnjbarton ( talk ) 13:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , not a common term, not needed as a . Artem. G ( talk ) 17:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Nothing to save. My very best wishes ( talk ) 22:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Black Stump Music and Arts Festival: Fails GNG. LibStar ( talk ) 07:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Events , and Australia . Shellwood ( talk ) 11:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If someone wants to put forth some effort to improve this article's sourcing, i could easily change my mind. As it stands, i agree that it fails GNG. Bonewah ( talk ) 15:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of uncertainty propagation software: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see any links to Wikipedia articles in there, just links to external sites. D r e a m Focus 21:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per XOR'easter , improving the list to cover (some of) the programs appropriately does not seem practical. . According to WP:NLIST , individual items in a list need not be notable, while the category the list is about does. As the category is already covered in its own article and is criticized as spammy/ indiscriminate , less notable entries should be culled as per WP:LSC . Holzklöppel ( talk ) 22:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) edited 03:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Propagation of uncertainty isn't about the software. No software is mentioned at all. Category:Lists of software shows how the many other lists of this type work, they list notable software that has its own Wikipedia articles. This list is old. Has any of the software listed on it gotten its own articles yet? D r e a m Focus 00:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The software listed implements the concept described in the article and should probably be wikilinked there. If lists of software on Wikipedia were just lists of Wikipedia articles covering software, deleting would be in the interest of consistency, but a cursory look at the category indicates otherwise . Outdated information should be corrected by editing . I don't know if any of the programs covered are notable enough to have an article. Holzklöppel ( talk ) 01:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC) edited 03:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] in the absence of sources that indicate this particular feature to be a noteworthy thing to organize software by, and the lack of secondary references to support the claims being made on behalf of these obscure tools/packages/scripting languages. XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2008 Scottsdale mayoral election: Still probably falls under WP:MILL . Okmrman ( talk ) 23:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . Okmrman ( talk ) 23:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Arizona . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , Scottsdale is large enough, being one of the 100 largest cities in the United States that its elections are almost certainly notable. I'm not sure how someone can argue the politics of a large city like this one aren't at all notable. - Samoht27 ( talk ) 19:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC) MILL ), and only sourced to election results - fails GNG. SportingFlyer T · C 00:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - It stands alone as the only Scottsdale mayoral election listed in Wikipedia. You should also the categories only associated with it and not other elections - Category:Mayoral elections in Scottsdale, Arizona and Category:Government of Scottsdale, Arizona — Maile ( talk ) 16:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Aerosvit destinations: To follow up as per subsequent AN discussion , it was discussed that subsequent AFDs may be nominated in a orderly fashion provided the link to the RFC is included and the closer takes the RFD discussion into consideration. The airline lists specifically nominated for this AFD are largely defunct and are no longer operating services. On their own, the lists fail WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and would largely fail WP:CORP . Some of the airline destination lists for nominated carriers such as Balkan Bulgarian Airlines and Air Vietnam were at one point Government-owned airlines, but would still fail WP:CORP based on the No Inherited Notability guideline. One other nominated airline destination list ( List of Continental Express destinations ) was part of a defunct mainline carrier ( Continental Airlines ) where some information could be d into a few sentences in the article of the (now defunct) mainline carrier. Per a brief WP:BEFORE check, most of the limited sources in the nominated articles are either from WayBack.org archives of the defunct airlines' websites, Airline blogs such as RoutesOnline or Airliners.net where users are allowed to put in their contributions, or mirror websites of Wikipedia. For the most part, the articles also largely fail WP:V or WP:INDEPENDENT . As per the past few AFDs, unless if there are any sources that may rescue the articles, I will nominate them for deletion as the nominator. Coastie43 ( talk ) 00:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation , Lists , Ukraine , Mexico , Bolivia , France , Bulgaria , United States , Armenia , Indonesia , Vietnam , Italy , and Spain . Coastie43 ( talk ) 00:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could be speedily d given the RFC consensus. Mangoe ( talk ) 02:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] all - as far as the pages themselves suggest, these are defunct airlines. As such this is essentually useless, probably inaccurate and unverifiable information that we don't need. WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt ( talk ) 08:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy all per above. The RfC presented a precedent for these kind of article's existence. Conyo14 ( talk ) 22:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] all per nom. Lorstaking ( talk ) 06:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Chhokar: So, this still fails WP:GNG . GTrang ( talk ) 14:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam , Hinduism , Pakistan , and India . GTrang ( talk ) 14:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , there does not seem to have been any attempt to find sources that actually prove notability, rather the reverse, a quick attempt to ignore the old AfD, notable or, as here, not. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 16:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC) The current sources don't seem to provide any substantial coverage. Waqar 💬 17:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Poor sources with some failing verification and others that have no significant indepth coverage. RangersRus ( talk ) 14:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nuclear Medicine Oncology & Radiotherapy Institute Nawabshah: I don't see it passing WP:ORG either. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 09:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 09:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 14:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Applus+ IDIADA: Reliant almost entirely on primary sources. No evidence of notability per WP:NORG * Pppery * it has begun... 16:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Engineering , and Spain . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] None of the references meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Surprised nobody noticed this Salt evasion till now too. HighKing ++ 11:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Artdc.org: All external links are minor references and most of the links on the article are defunct. Possibly could be salvaged at a later point, but WP:TNT seems the way to go unless it gets cleaned up. Tooncool64 ( talk ) 21:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts , Organizations , and Washington, D.C. . Shellwood ( talk ) 22:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just massively stubbed it, but I'm still confused by what it is, or was. It seems to have a tie to Artomatic , but I'm not sure a there makes sense. I'll try to working on it during the AfD if I can. Star Mississippi 23:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – no independent citations, either. The only citation is a self-reference. Ira Leviton ( talk ) . Redirecting to Artomatic would make sense if the page mention it. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 09:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"AdriPSX: Lack of SIGCOV. I tried to PROD, but can't becuase a PROD was attempted in 2009. TarkusAB talk / contrib 19:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 20:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Zero SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG completely. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC) No SIGCOV exists at all. Only shady download reposting websites. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lesbian Gay Bi Transgender Community Center of Metropolitan St. Louis: Fails WP:ORG . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 10:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Sexuality and gender , and Missouri . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 10:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Western Governors University College of Information Technology: The vast majority is unsourced, unnecessary, or about the parent institution. ElKevbo ( talk ) 15:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Utah . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC) It has a large enrollment, but that's about it. to main uni page. Kiran_891 ( TALK ) 22:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Western Governors University as this faculty is not sufficiently notable for a standalone article. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - a would be pointless as the search engine will bring up WGU before you even type the college name. 69.92.163.38 ( talk ) 13:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Fails GNG and ORG, all sources relate to the school not the department. A would be pointless as mentioned above. // Timothy :: talk 21:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Marsh Ecology Award: Fails the general notability policy. Merging to Marsh Charitable Trust could be acceptable. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards , Biology , and Environment . UtherSRG (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] but rebadge as a List Article. Since it is ""given by the Marsh Charitable Trust and the British Ecological Society in cooperation"" it wouldn't be helpful to it into one or the other of those, and as a list it makes perfectly good sense and is even rather decently cited, as lists go. The organisations are reputable and the material is quite notable enough for a list. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 14:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just can't find sufficient coverage to demonstrate that this award is notable. Virtually all the coverage other than the organizations' own announcements consists of press releases from the institutions that employ the award winners. I couldn't find any substantial coverage of the award in independent sources. Certainly no independent reliable sources that discuss the history of awardees as a group or set, and therefore converting this to a list is also inappropriate per WP:NLIST . Jfire ( talk ) 02:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC) Marsh Ecology Award laureates . Jfire ( talk ) 02:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC) pinging participants in the prior AfD (closed no consensus). Jfire ( talk ) 02:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No strong opinion. I think satisfying GNG will always be a problem with discipline-specific awards, publications, etc. like this one, which don't attract much attention outside their own communities. I guess a to the list of awards as suggested by Jfire would be appropriate. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 13:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as all possible outcomes (Merge, Redirect, and Delete) have been proposed here along with several different target articles. I don't like to see a renomination just hours after a previous AFD has been closed but I guess with a No Consensus closure, that isn't unreasonable. It's just that sometimes a bit more time (weeks, months, etc.) between visits to AFD can be effective at arriving at a more firm consensus outcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 17:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Could not find SIGCOV to establish notability. Both of the previous ! votes ran on the reasoning that ""the hosting organizations/recipients are notable"", which does not help since notability is not inherited. As for merging, all the other awards in List of biology awards have their own article (At least for now, although admittedly some of these awards only cited primary sources and/or trivial mentions as sources). I don't see the point of having an award that can not pass notability guideline occupying a space in that list. Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 02:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC) MILL . As an editor here for 16 years in ecology and energy law articles, being a twice-honored member of the Sierra Club and awarded the volunteer of the year award from Hostelling International , and having taught the subject many times, I can state that I've never heard of this. There are many such awards, and most of them, like mine, are run of the mill. Bearian ( talk ) 01:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Amy Odell: 2A00:23C6:880C:E101:F5F5:614A:868:AB5A ( talk ) 20:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above rationale was copied from one of the several places where the IP manually added discussion sections to various delsort categories rather than transcluding. I have no opinion of my own at this time. -- Finngall talk 23:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Bands and musicians , and United Kingdom . AllyD ( talk ) 05:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC) There is a review of a 2019 performance here , which could provide some basic verification as a reference, but doesn't demonstrate WP:MUSICBIO notability. AllyD ( talk ) 05:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Poetry . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. From the article and the editing history, it looks to be an unsourced fan-page (or maybe an autobiography, as it was edited within 5 minutes of creation by an account matching the subject's name). Does not look like a controversial case. 128.252.154.7 ( talk ) 17:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC) An article authored by a WP:SPA (who also removed maintenance tags), subsequently also edited by further SPA and IP accounts. Looking at the subject's activities, her music career seems well short of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria; offering a work for sale on the Saatchi Art site is not notable (and it is not a WP:RS ); no evidence of meeting the WP:NARTIST criteria. AllyD ( talk ) 07:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC) NARTIST . Elspea756 ( talk ) 13:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Aquadoodle: A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , There is only PR type articles about the product [10] is typical. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Originally PROD'd, so Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] content to Pilot (pen company) and Spin Master . - Indefensible ( talk ) 18:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC) I do not think we should be merging a mess of unsourced content. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to decide between Deletion and Merging. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As above. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No SIGCOV to prove notability has been found. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC) //www.proquest.com/docview/2055576160/C889464995794866PQ/4 - Indefensible ( talk ) 15:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In that case, I would be fine with a since it is a plausible search term. However, the article content has no sources, so I would prefer to not drop it into another article. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 16:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We cannot to 2 article targets. My point is the content needs to be d to multiple places and references can be found online to source it. - Indefensible ( talk ) 16:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, it turns out neither article mentions this product. What I am saying is that you should add new content about this product to the articles instead of merging content from here, since this article is in very bad condition. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 16:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Adding content for this subject on those articles would be a . - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not if you don't copy anything from this article. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 17:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There would be material copied from here such as being toy of the year, it just needs referencing. - Indefensible ( talk ) 18:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why copy it when you could just summarize it from the sources? QuicoleJR ( talk ) 18:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Besides, a would have to leave a behind, and where would the point? QuicoleJR ( talk ) 18:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The main point is to appropriately preserve the information somewhere on Wiki, not the . When the article says things like it earned toy of the year, that is already largely summarized. It just needs to be packaged into the other target articles with suitable referencing, which is the . - Indefensible ( talk ) 20:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Stanikzai: It's entirely possible that sources exist in Pashto, however it's long now beyond the point where the contents of the page either need verifying or the page needs deleting until someone can rewrite it with references JMWt ( talk ) 16:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions . JMWt ( talk ) 16:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify for the possibility of an Afghan adding sources for the page . Okay, 7,5 years is a lot. Just at this point. Youprayteas ( talk to me? | contribs ) 16:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Believing this article will get sources after 7.5 years is nothing short of wishful thinking. Beside that, this article is a vandalism magnet. As far as I can see, their are no sources available over this group. The Banner talk 16:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Pop Stefan: He is only apparently notable for his translation to Bulgarian/Slavic Macedonian of Daniel Moscopolites 's dictionary (which can easily be covered in Daniel's article) and for his connection to the Miladinov brothers . There is not much else that I see that is relevant. I've been reading about the Aromanians for years and I had never seen this figure mentioned before. I also struggle to find English-language sources about him. I do not believe the article's writer has a firm grasp of our notability policy. They had previously created a separate article for Daniel's dictionary, which is the only thing that actually makes him notable in the first place. I would like the assessment of some other editors, I am not 100% sure myself what the outcome should be. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 02:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , History , Albania , Bulgaria , Greece , and North Macedonia . Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 02:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC) 26, 11 November 2023 (UTC) 46, 11 November 2023 (UTC) 14, 11 November 2023 (UTC) 54, 11 November 2023 (UTC) Other than his work in the dictionary translation, it appears that there aren't any other notability about the subject. Toadette ( let's chat together ) 20:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC) This article is about a well known person from the Ohrid region. It is also significant because for the Macedonian language he was very valuable. I find it weird to read that you can't find sources about Pop Stefan, because there are numerous sources about him, Macedonian but also in other languages. Newspapers, foreign linguistics books, papers, Macedonian school books etcetera. Maybe you don't search properly? This article has been improved numerous times and was approved. I don't see why it should be d. This is about the Sakkellarios Pop Stefan. In most sources he is referred to as Pop Stefan or Pop Stefania. As well as Popa Stefan. In American linguistic research he is sometimes referred to as Stefan of Ohrid. He is important for linguists who are specialized in Balkan languages. For the current modern Macedonian language he is important because his texts are the first written texts of a modern Macedonian language dialect. It's notable and there are numerous sources. Mostly written books. Macedonian, Bulgarian, Greek, French, English. From thousands of Wikipedia articles about less known and important individuals this article is seen as a problem? I have been working on it for a year, finally getting approved recently. The OP seems to be having some sort of issue with me when editing on Wikipedia where Aromanians are mentioned. There is a reaction and calls for deletion or r from the OP on every article which I edited where Aromanians are mentioned. This was the case last year as well. As soon as the articles are approved. Though, the thing is that the Aromanian aspect of these articles are not the main subject. This history and this individual, Pop Stefan, is important for linguistics. Not being Aromanian. I don't understand. I see you are from Romania involved in Aromanian research. That's great, but there are others who research as well. This article was not intended to highlight Aromanians. This individual just happened to be of Aromanian ancestry. It is about the linguistic part which is important. That should be noted. Brooklynlegv ( talk ) 20:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC) 31, 15 November 2023 (UTC) While there is a rough consensus to this article, given User:Brooklynlegv 's comments, it would be helpful to see a source analysis from editors that have the proper language background. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC) ""Chrysostom (golden-mouthed) Sakkellarios Pop Stefan of Ohrid, presented the Macedonian language to educated Europe."", ""The hero of the Macedonia culture, Pop Stefan. This is one of the most modest ways to thank him."" Furthermore in his books about the Macedonian language he also writes more about Pop Stefan, his life, his family and his contact with Daniil of Moscopole. Other writers like Snegarov, Nichev, Kepeski, Lunt, Koneski, Theodor Capidan (dialectul Aroman) as well. Then there is the book ""Nikulcite na novata Makedonska Knizhevnost"" by Haralampie Polenakovic, Misla 1973, who wrote ""It is known that the Greek material was translated into Macedonian by the Ohrid priest Pop Stefan. For the history of the Macedonian language this text is very significant, because it is also the oldest printed Macedonian text."" There are even Greek sources who realise the significance of Pop Stefan for the modern Macedonian language: ""Ωστόσο αυτά τα «βουλγάρικα» του παπά Στέφανου, ήταν η σήμερα θεωρούμενη, από τους ειδικούς γλωσσολόγους, μακεδονική διάλεκτος της περιοχής της Οχρίδας. Και το μέρος αυτό του λεξικού, αποτελεί το πρώτο γνωστό γραπτό μνημείο της μακεδονικής γλώσσας."" ""The part written in ""Bulgarian"" is of great importance. This piece was not written by Daniel but by a certain Papa Stefanos who was then living in Ohrid. In his letter dated April 13, 1793 Daniel begs the above known pope to translate the manuscript dictionary into ""Bulgarian"", to send it by Easter of the same year to be printed in Venice. However, this ""Bulgarian"" of Papa Stefanos is today considered as the Macedonian dialect of the Ohrid region by expert linguists. And this part of the dictionary is the first known written monument of the Macedonian language"". There is also German research, for example in the ""Zeitschrift für Balkanologie"" by well known linguist/slavist Norbert Reiter who also wrote about on this subject. There are many more sources and most are also referenced in the article itself. Pop Stefan and his addition is very important for the Modern Macedonian language. A language which is studied extensively by linguists across the globe. Brooklynlegv ( talk ) 21:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Stefan is considered to have written the first Macedonian text by some authors. That's it. This can be covered easily in the article of the dictionary's main author, Daniel Moscopolites . Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 21:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You fail to realize the point here. The existence of Pop Stefan's addition is far more important for linguistics, for history of a nation than the whole dictionary published by Daniel. They are two different things. On one hand the dictionary by Daniel to motivate the 'barbarians' to learn Greek and on the other hand a source, a person responsible for a document which is of utmost importance for a (modern) nation, it's existence and it's language. It's a document which gives us insight and proves how they spoke this Macedonian dialect 200+ years ago. It proves that it was a Macedonian dialect and not simply 'Bulgarian'. Most countries have archives and sources and documents and what not. For the Macedonian language that is not the case. For a country like Macedonia and for a language like Macedonian these are the modest treasures for its existence. I mean, there are articles about which ships blasted their canons first to salute the United States thus recognizing the country. It is minor, but important. For a nation like Macedonia and the Macedonian language, this is a important piece of history. Brooklynlegv ( talk ) 22:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Issues of article worthiness as never assessed on the merits of importance for a particular nation or country, but on merits of citation . - The Gnome ( talk ) 12:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're gonna have to back all your claims with sources. Gane Todorovski in his book Книга нашинска сиреч славјанска (page 23, ISBN 9788636901199 ), which is also cited in the article, literally confirmed that there is no information about him - Автор на македонскиот превод, поп Стефан од Охрид, за кого буквално немаме никакви податоци ... (Author of the Macedonian translation, Pop Stefan from Ohrid, about whom we literally have no information ...) . What you wrote also really only confirms that he's only notable for the translation. Authors mentioning him in passing does not indicate any notability. Your contribution is appreciated, but you should find a notable subject next time. I'd also advise you to not make unfounded accusations against other editors. Focus on the content. Thank you. StephenMacky1 ( talk ) 22:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yet, Gane still managed to write a lot more about Pop Stefan. Not only about the translation, but also about his life, the friendship with Daniel, the connection with Miladinovci and his fondness of Pop Ioan and the importance of Pop Stefan to the Macedonian language. Have you read that as well? Also, I'm not accusing anyone. Brooklynlegv ( talk ) 08:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey. I was busy with exams. Well, admittedly I don't have full access to Gane's source, however the sources I have full access to and the ones that are cited here do not indicate any notability. The Contact Hypothesis Revised: DOM in the South Slavic Periphery (p. 67): The Lexicon Tetraglosson is a quadrilingual lexicon of Greek, Albanian, Vlach (Aromanian), and “Bulgarian” (Macedonian dialect of Ohrid) written by Daniel Moscopolites, an Aromanian priest from Moscopole. It is assumed that the Slavic version was translated from Greek by Stefan, an Ohrid priest of Aromanian descent (Nichev, 1997). - Mentions him in passing like most sources and also solely about his translation. The sources Извори за познавање на старата градска архитектура во Охрид (p. 218) and Зборник на трудови ПРЛИЧЕВАТА „1762 ЛЕТО“ - Симбол на непокорот на Македонецот (p. 11) mention Nikola Pop Stefanija, but not him. So, these sources cannot be used to prove his notability either. Ив. Снѣгаровъ. Македонски Прегледъ. Година I, книга 4, София, 192. II pp. 55–56: With a letter from 13 April 1793, the Moscopole Sakellarios and priest Daniil informed the Ohrid Sakellarios Pop Stefan (the progenitor of the current Ohrid family, Pop Stefanievi), that he was sending him the Greek dictionary with his student to translate it into Bulgarian within a week, because after Easter he wanted to send it to Venice for printing. At the same time, he asks him to listen to the speech of his parents, so that there is no mistake ... - Simply repeats what other and newer sources know him for - his translation. Koneski, Lunt and Friedman also mention him solely for that reason. StephenMacky1 ( talk ) 14:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) GNG in quite a convincing fashion. The keen interest of the article's creator is understandable but the personal attacks are a detriment to their case. - The Gnome ( talk ) 12:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Tariq Masood: The article was PRODded before, by User:Onel5969 . The BLP is at best a BLP1E, and even that is sketchy because there just is no reliable secondary sourcing to support a claim to notability. Drmies ( talk ) 22:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Individual is quite notable. this page up... Ah507 ( talk ) 20:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No reliable source available to claim that the subject is notable, Just a YouTuber. He has some coverage after the tongue-controversy with another YouTuber Muhammad Ali Mirza and about other religion. The subject having no proof of being a lecturer at the seminary. He is just known for having 4 wives, and not notable, thus agrees with the Nominator. Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 14:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While it is true that he is primarily known as a YouTuber, we cannot disregard the impact and influence he has had within the online religious discourse. His notable controversies and debates with figures like Muhammad Ali Mirza have garnered significant attention and discussion within the relevant communities. Ainty Painty ( talk ) 10:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ainty Painty He has no influence in my view, and if he is an influencer then also, he is not passing the notability criteria. Some websites covered the mouth-fight of Mirza and Masood, this cannot make an individual notable. I really recognize your contributions, but he isn't notable. Thanks Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 10:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not a shred of notability. Created for promotional purpose. Fails WP:GNG . Maliner ( talk ) 16:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agrees with the Nominators view and comment, also at first glance it seems more promotional content. and failed in WP:GNG . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjoegoldberg ( talk • contribs ) Comment @ Maliner and @ Mrjoegoldberg The criticism of being a ""promotional"" page should be addressed with improvements in the article's neutrality, rather than outright deletion. Mufti Tariq Masood's work has been influential in shaping discussions on religion and theology in the digital era. Ainty Painty ( talk ) 10:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Udini Square: The Malay version of this article is poorly sourced. A look at the existing sources: 1. a routine announcement about how much of the centre is leased. 2. a dead link 3. and 6. routine announcements about a store opening 4. dead link 5. appears to be a developer's website, doesn't link specifically to info on this shopping centre. 7. and 8. public transport information LibStar ( talk ) 01:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls , Companies , and Malaysia . AllyD ( talk ) 06:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV and the absence of worthwhile sources. -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 07:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SIGCOV is not a requirement for assessing notability; it is just one factor in a general process that requires careful judgement. The size and location of this shopping centre, which appears to be established by the sources, suggests that this mall is a notable entity in its local area, and to enough people generally to make it worthy for inclusion. Jack4576 ( talk ) 06:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""The size and location of this shopping centre"" are not criteria for notability. Nor it being ""notable entity in its local area"". It must meet GNG. LibStar ( talk ) 06:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We are looking for GNG evidence that the shopping centre is a notable entity. The sources, that show the centre is likely (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area; all suggest to me that this article merits its own article . The issues with the references are not so defective as to prevent one from establishing the above. GNG is met. Jack4576 ( talk ) 07:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "" (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area"" Again, please point to the notability guideline which gives shopping centres notability on the basis of these criteria you name. LibStar ( talk ) 07:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] GNG satisfaction gives rise to a presumption that a subject is notable. It is not a requirement that subjects pass GNG to be assessed as notable. The real-world features of this subject are strong reasons, that in the real world, to real people, this subject is notable, and thus it would be to Wikipedia's benefit to retain this entry. Jack4576 ( talk ) 08:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""The real-world features of this subject are strong reasons, that in the real world, to real people"". Again you are inventing your own criteria for shopping centres. LibStar ( talk ) 08:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not appealing to GNG criteria, I am appealing to the meaning of notability in the colloquial sense. As I have stated earlier, independent of the GNG guidelines (which I note, establish a presumption and are not determinative of the notability issue per se); I think there are reasons this subject are notable. I think the observation that notability is established by: (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area is inutitive, and grounded in common sense Jack4576 ( talk ) 10:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What you consider ""grounded in common sense"" may not align with meeting notability in Wikipedia. You are welcome to start your own online encyclopedia based on your ""intuition"". You could then include all shopping centres that are (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area. LibStar ( talk ) 10:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also I am curious to know what are your intuitive thresholds for large by floor space area, and how many visitors makes a large number. LibStar ( talk ) 10:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have provided reasons for my notability assessment, free to disagree with them. I do think those reasons align with the Wikipedia threshold for notability. I think its fairly arguable that this an important centre for a large number of people, based on my reasons provided above, based on the geography, building size, and the photographs and images that show the centre's size and location. (None of which are issues that are in dispute). Given the above tends towards the view that Udini Square is a , it would seem to me it is entirely unnecessary to start another encyclopedia. The guidelines for this one are fine as it is, usually. I have contributed my views, and my reasons, and my opinion remains is appropriate. Feel free to engage and provide counterarguments if you wish; but maybe it would be best to invite other editors in an RfC if consensus cannot be reached here. Jack4576 ( talk ) 15:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] RfC's are for content disputes, not deletion discussions, which are supposed to be here. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC) This is the first time I've heard this. You need to make it clear why you think this article should stay on Wikipedia, and article need to meet SIGCOV as a requirement to be on Wikipedia, which this one definitely does not. To be clear, my vote is unless someone can find sources or restore the dead links. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SIGCOV creates a presumption that a subject is notable Subjects are still capable of being notable without SIGCOV. With respect, I think you need to re-read GNG more closely. Jack4576 ( talk ) 07:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC) NPOL for politicians , WP:NACTOR for actors etc. There isn't a shopping centre notability guideline that gives notability for "" (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area"". LibStar ( talk ) 07:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Untrue. You are confusing guidelines that give rise to a presumption; they are not a requirement. This goes for all of the policies you have cited. I accept that this shopping centre doesn't meet the guidelines so as to give rise to a presumption. Nevertheless, I think taking a step back, the evidence we have available to form a view as to what this shopping centre is; tends toward a conclusion that it is notable enough that it would be to Wikipedia's benefit to retain this entry. Jack4576 ( talk ) 08:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You still haven't demonstrated how it meets GNG? Did you actually search for sources? Or WP:ITSNOTABLE . LibStar ( talk ) 08:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC) ITSNOTABLE My reason is grounded in an empathy for the persons in this local area, coupled with an intuitive judgement as to what would be notable to people and what people would reasonably expect to be in an encyclopedia. GNG establishes a presumption that an article is notable. it is not a requirement for notability; and as I have stated above, this subject has multiple inherent characteristics that I think warrant its inclusion for notability. Feel free to disagree. Jack4576 ( talk ) 09:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But we're talking about how this article fails GNG, not about the presumption of notability? This argument makes no sense, nor does the ""empathy"" for people in the area, because this is a notability discussion and not about the local community, WP:INDISCRIMINATE , and the fact this article receives just 9 average page views daily, most of which are probably editors. Your arguments, here and on other discussion, devolve into WP:POINT votes, including on an RfA (which you, thankfully, withdrew after extensive discussion), and numerous WP:ITSNOTABLE votes. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Some of the dead link sources have been updated with archived links, and they seem to also be routine announcements of store openings. Searches of the term did not returned with sufficient coverage, and searches in Malay and Chinese only yielded trivial mentions as well. Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 23:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV . We don't have articles with tons of openings and new shoppes, interviews of the hopes and dreams of 100 shopers, and the like. That's not significant coverage about the mall, and of them that are in local news or tourist authority press releases. Penang is notable, and a lovely city (I've been there, and it's one of my favorite places in the world; my alternate executor's husband was born there), but I don't see how this is any way notable. Routine coverage of businesses do not pass WP:NCORP . A southeast Asian market can be notable (see, e.g. , Carbon Market ), but it has to be shown to be notable. Bearian ( talk ) 16:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC) per nom source eval, and Tutwakhamoe and Bearian. The vote above seem to be explaining why the subject doesn't really need to meet GNG, rather that providing sources with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and and indepth , and showing the subject does meet GNG. // Timothy :: talk 06:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Totally agree. The voter has made zero effort to demonstrate existence of sources to meet GNG. Or maybe he has searched and found nothing. All he has done is invent his own criteria for notable shopping centres. LibStar ( talk ) 06:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – non-SIGCOV and ROUTINE-ish sources can't prove notability. I can't seem to find any sources that significantly cover the subject online either. Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 17:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Douglas Torr: BEFORE search revealed no significant coverage. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Science , and Alabama . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . No sources found about him, aside from four JSTOR mentions. Thus, no sigcov , no notability . Brachy 08 (Talk) 01:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . His citation record in Google Scholar is not bad, with quite a few double-digit citation counts and one triple-digit, but this is not strong enough in a high-citation field to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 . In the early 2000s he seems to have bounced around from UAB Huntsville to the University of South Carolina to Virginia Commonwealth U. (judging from publication affiliations) and then his academic career appears to have evaporated without trace, not a good sign. Now all that can be found are extremely fringy web sites . I don't think there's anything here on which to base an article. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 01:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Fails WP:GNG , WP:NPROF , and WP:ANYBIO . - UtherSRG (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . May pass WP:Prof#C1 from GS citations in this not particularly high citation field (not nearly as high as computer science or biomed). His move into fringy activities may prejudice some against him, but I think that his other activities are enough for a weak . Xxanthippe ( talk ) 02:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] for the reasons mentioned above. I see no demonstration of notability in this article or elsewhere. Ldm1954 ( talk ) 12:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . I think he actually does pass WP:Prof#C1 , as Xxanthippe mentioned, based on the number of citations as well as the number of peer-reviewed publications. But the article is a stub and needs significant improvement. If the fringy stuff makes him more notable then it should be included but if not, not. Qflib ( talk ) 17:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Qflib and @ Xxanthippe , just to check we are discussing the same person, I found his citations at Scispace which reports 151 pubs (reasonable), 4150 citations (low) and an h-factor of 29 (low). To me those numbers are too low. Ldm1954 ( talk ) 20:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If those statistics are reliable, and I have my doubts, they would lead to a . Xxanthippe ( talk ) 21:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] That h-factor is at the Associate Professor level. IMHO > 50 is a base level for an h-factor of a notable scientist, perhaps 30 for a mathematician. He would be marginal for promotion to full professor at an R1 university, particularly as many of his pubs are reports. Maybe I am harsher than many... Ldm1954 ( talk ) 01:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 30 for mathematicians would be a pretty high standard for anyone who doesn't do applied/CS stuff... JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Scopus has him at 2823 citations, 163 docs, and h -index of 23. For most subfields of physics that is very low, but I'll have to check what his coauthors' citation profiles look like. JoelleJay ( talk ) 21:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I looked at all 55 coauthors of his with 30+ papers (average paper count among all 105 coauthors is 64): Total citations : average: 4189, median: 2600, Torr: 2824 . Total papers : 113, 90, 163 . h -index : 29, 27, 23 . Top 5 citations : 1st : 473, 360, 360 . 2nd : 260, 173, 209 . 3rd : 187, 138, 201 . 4th : 150, 117, 132 . 5th : 133, 97, 129 . While he does have more papers and more highly-cited top papers than the median and sometimes average researcher in his field, what we're looking for is someone who is outstanding in their subfield, not slightly above average. Worth also pointing out that compared to people in the same subfield today, his citation profile is much less impressive (e.g. coauthors with far fewer papers who are still active include people like Maura Hagan , whose metrics are 7597, 102, 49, 621, 549, 415, 297, 267). JoelleJay ( talk ) 02:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Scott Pomfret: Reads like a resume. Kingsmasher678 ( talk ) 04:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Finance , Law , and Massachusetts . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC) A few obituaries (not about this person) are all I find; this reads like a Linkedin biography. Nothing notable, simply a working lawyer. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Not notable as a lawyer. If notable at all, this would be as a gay-catholic author. And then the article would need work. That part was already implied above. Rather than taking a clear position, providing my partial findings to those commenting after me. gidonb ( talk ) 19:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Christianity . gidonb ( talk ) 19:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Caroline Shotton: Possible WP:ATD would be to Mona Lisa replicas and reinterpretations , but I am not sure it would be helpful. Boleyn ( talk ) 19:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Women , and United Kingdom . Shellwood ( talk ) 19:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [41] . While this does count towards GNG - it is insufficient on its own. Resonant Dis tor tion 23:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 02:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2013 PDC-E: This fails our notability guidelines . Jontesta ( talk ) 21:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Jontesta ( talk ) 21:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC) I'd expect there to be a Planetary Defense Conference article that this could be d to. Is the conference itself not notable? SevenSpheres ( talk ) 14:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Good idea. A quick Google search shows the conference to be held in every odd numbered year. Last year was Vienna; next year Cape Town. Each seems to be reported by the United Nations and by some other reliable source. We could start by simply renaming the existing notional asteroid article to Planetary Defense Conference , then generalizing the first paragraph and adding bullet points or perhaps even sections about later editions. Jim.henderson ( talk ) 15:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Without a convincing argument to or an existing target article, it is likely this article will be d. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lanesborough School: The existing references are to the school's website. I cannot see three independent, reliable, secondary refs, and so don't think the school meets WP:GNG , WP:NCORP or WP:NSCHOOL . Tacyarg ( talk ) 21:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , United Kingdom , and England . Tacyarg ( talk ) 21:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC) agree with nom, does not meet GNG. S0091 ( talk ) 16:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Slapsoftware: As far as I understand, this project is dead, I tried searching for independent sources on Google, couldn't find anything. Official site shows something about music. Sourceforge page doesn't even have neither code nor license information. Most sources provided in the article are leading to 404 pages with no archived versions. Sources which are live are either unreliable or just briefly mention the subject. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 10:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics , Software , and Brazil . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 10:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC) Did not find any sources for the same. Sohom ( talk ) 21:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the above. Andre 🚐 06:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Josh Scheidler: microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 20:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support? : As I initially proposed it for miscellaneous deletion, I'm not sure my vote necessarily counts. Ominateu ( talk ) 20:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC) (sock strike L iz Read! Talk! 07:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] this article should have never been created. Catfurball ( talk ) 20:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC) Obituaries and a real estate agent in Michigan found, nothing about this pastor. Very much non-notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC) this was originally opened at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Josh Scheidler . microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 20:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC) ”[...] is a prominent local figure“ not only is very subjective but also cannot be confirmed. As a side note, a personal Instagram or LinkedIn profile does not qualify as a reliable source in most cases. Killarnee ( talk ) 21:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC) Clearly fails WP:SIGCOV . Anwegmann ( talk ) 02:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC) The only references are to his church's web site and his own social media profiles. A search finds no coverage in reliable sources. -- Gronk Oz ( talk ) 08:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC) As the person who made the article and contributed the most to it, most of my knowledge surrounding this topic is from real-life experiences. I am new to Wikipedia and editing, so if it needs to be d then I'll take an L, but this topic said nothing false and quite frankly helps locals learn more about Josh Scheidler, I was planning to add more onto it but I'm not sure I will since it's about to be d. Ignite Faith Church is a prominent non-denominational church within Redmond and contributes to the local politics and such. I will try to find more reliable sources, however the modern world doesn't like talking about churches' impact on society, especially Pastors. Happyjoshua ( talk ) 20:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to record a person's ""real-life experiences"". It is used to summarize the best of what reliable, independent sources say about a subject. If you can find those, please raise them here. Gronk Oz ( talk ) 05:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I said that I had real-life experiences to support the thought that the information provided was valid, not that I had any conflict of interest. I don't have independent sources about Josh Scheidler. I still support ing the page or at least merging it with another Wikipedia article, but I understand that it likely will be d. Happyjoshua ( talk ) 08:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC) immediate deletions as no GNG sources available, and citations are all primary and unreliable. Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 19:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC) GNG , WP:SOAP , and WP:NOTWEBHOST . I'm sorry, but the argument that ""I don't know"" was tenable in 2007, but not in 2024. Everyone knows at least vaguely what we are and we are not. Bearian ( talk ) 20:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bath Simple: Looks like company no longer exists and could not find any results on Google. Orange sticker ( talk ) 15:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] advert of a clearly nn business. - Altenmann >talk 19:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC) Per nom, just an ad page for a company with no SIGCOV . StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Coleman Tech Charter High School: The only source in the article talks about the small school that replaced it, ""SET"". No article has been written for that school. It is unclear that this SET school is notable either as that the source is a local news source which fails WP:CORPDEPTH , especially since that source only relies on school officials for information. Mottezen ( talk ) 02:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Mottezen ( talk ) 02:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The article has a 9 year old tag and hasn't been improved much since this article's creation in 2014. Even searching the web, almost nothing is notable about the now defunct school. 🛧 Layah50♪ 🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！ ) 08:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Alexander Benard: Note that having notable parents does not make one notable as per WP:INVALIDBIO . Socksage ( talk ) 17:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Politics , and United States of America . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria and New York . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC) 22, 19 May 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV . He's done a lot of things, but they are not covered in independent, reliable sources. More is spent on his parents and what they did, than about him . Bearian ( talk ) 16:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Single visit dentistry: Unsure if this term alone meets WP:GNG and especially a need for independent sourcing. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 08:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Medicine . Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 08:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Tellingly, there is no source provided for the article's claim that ""traditionally these procedures take upwards of two appointments,"" as it proceeds with marketing claims of CEREC supporting the creation of multiple dental restorations through rapid 3-D scans. As noted by Sammi Brie, virtually every online use of the term appears on a dentistry practice advertising that their office has the CEREC equipment, reinforcing a lack of notability. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 08:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nuruddin Sarki: Unsurprisingly, I can't find any sourcing for this person. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Not a memorial. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 02:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] . Not sufficiently notable. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib ( talk ) 03:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Rehsarb ( talk ) 01:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Al Badil Al Taharouri: The group's website has also been dead since 2009 and I can't find much information about them outside of the primary sources in this article. The only reference to them I've managed to find in a reliable source was a passing reference in Laura Galián's 2020 book "" Colonialism, Transnationalism, and Anarchism in the South of the Mediterranean "", which tells us that the group was the Lebanese counterpart of Alternative Libertaire founded in 1995 and dissolved in 2008, and provides a quote from their manifesto about libertarian communism. Given that this appears to lack significant coverage in reliable sources , and it doesn't appear this will ever grow beyond a stub, I propose it be d. Grnrchst ( talk ) 19:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics , and Lebanon . Grnrchst ( talk ) 19:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No sources establishing notability. I did manage to find some mentions however [7] [8] GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 20:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC) BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth . BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 19:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kollavarsham 1975: The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 09:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 09:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"WTHC-LD: PROD was declined without a rationale. Let'srun ( talk ) 16:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state) . Let'srun ( talk ) 16:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This station is notable only at the local level. TH1980 ( talk ) 03:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Topic is a part of a subset of obscure (but encyclopedic) information about an obscure subject. If we are to this page, it will create a hole in that subset of information. So either this (and all of the other pages in that subset that are effectively no different from this) into some larger page, or MNewnham ( talk ) 20:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Chabuk (film): AShiv1212 ( talk ) 07:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC) NFILM . LibStar ( talk ) 01:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC) GNG and there is no reliable Critics review. Monhiroe ( talk ) 04:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rita Puspa Zakaria: The majority of references in her article pertain to her work within her region, lacking significant national coverage as required by WP:BASIC . Additionally, her designation as a lecturer potentially qualifies her as an academic, yet fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:NACADEMIC . Ckfasdf ( talk ) 20:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 11 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 21:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Women , and Indonesia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . No evidence of notability. BLP seems to have been edited exclusively by banned editors. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 22:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already part of a bundled nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariah binti Ahmad so not eligible for a Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC) This reads as an extended family biography, I don't see notability with the sources presented. I can't find any in Gsearch, but there might be more in the native language. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Proforce Limited: Press is mostly press-releases BoraVoro ( talk ) 14:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Companies , Transportation , and Nigeria . Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Subhash Dhankar: Theroadislong ( talk ) 07:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC) NACTOR requires significant roles. Sources provided don't meet GNG threshold, cursory search does not help. — siro χ o 08:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] according to the nomination. RPSkokie ( talk ) 11:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. Vyvagaba ( talk ) 12:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC) N . 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 14:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article asserts that the actor has portrayed notable villainous roles but provides no credible sources to verify their roles. Based on the criteria outlined in NACTOR, the actor does not meet the required standards. AmusingWeasel ( talk ) 09:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR . Maliner ( talk ) 10:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:NACTOR . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 18:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - The roles are not major roles, so that acting notability is not satisfied, and general notability is also not satisfied. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 13:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. And per user Unitedmotionpictures sent me an email to approve their article which I denied. Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 10:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rahul Jaiswal: Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT . Not to be confused with the bodybuilder of the same name, who may very well be more notable. JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and India . JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per nom. Svartner ( talk ) 13:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as the editor who brought the name up in another discussion. Geschichte ( talk ) 18:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC) BLP, fails GNG and NBIO: One source in article is a database, the other is a dead link in all likelyhood to a name mention is a game recap (see ref text). Nothing found that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth . Sources found in BEFORE are name mentions and listings. BLP requires strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 18:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Daniel W. Wright (poet): microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 14:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Poetry . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 14:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 14:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – Fails NPOET , only sources found are bibliographies and self published sources. Toadette ( Happy holiday! ) 07:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC) NBASIC and WP:NPOET . I was unable to find significant, independent coverage of this poet or their works. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Abdulsamed Akin: Dr. Duh 🩺 ( talk ) 21:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Germany , and Turkey . Dr. Duh 🩺 ( talk ) 21:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC) I can only find match reports about games he played in, nothing in-depth about the person. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. A stub a decade ago and still a stub. Aintabli ( talk ) 02:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To be exact, a single-sentence stub, and nothing changed after a decade. Aintabli ( talk ) 19:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The article lacks any depth and fails to comply with WP:SPORTBASIC (prong 4) as it does not include any SIGCOV (just databases). Also, my searches turned up nothing that would constitute SIGCOV that might satisfy WP:GNG . Not finding a suitable target, so deletion unfortunately appears to be the right result. Cbl62 ( talk ) 19:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - A check for this player that is football base is next to nil. HawkAussie ( talk ) 08:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No indication of notability. Fails to meet criteria of WP:GNG . Not enough sources to confirm intrinsic value of an article. Villon411 ( talk ) 11:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Tree of Peace (World War I): Others are from the site of the already-d Servare et Manere , Sobola’s outfit. Either way, the self-promotion is clear. — Biruitorul Talk 16:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I completely agree. I see no redeeming features in this article. Wikipedia is not the place for it. Its WP:PROMO for the founder, self-aggrandisement and nothing else. scope_creep Talk 20:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC) REFBOMBed promotional article of a non-notable organization. Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 13:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"James Villa Holidays: lizthegrey ( talk ) 18:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No independent notability. Flurrious ( talk ) 21:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 09:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Feli Ferraro: The listed song credits are misleading, as she is not the primary recording artist of any of them; professional songwriters do not typically receive the same level of coverage for their work, and should not be presumed notable on the basis of having collaborated on notable works in the absence of actual RS coverage about their influence on the work. Searching online did not turn up any coverage better than what is already cited. signed, Rosguill talk 16:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women . signed, Rosguill talk 16:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have to go with . I don't find any reasonable sources beyond what is here, and since the editor who created this works on and creates many articles for modern music I have to assume that what is here is the best that can be found. What I see in the sources here are mainly name checks. The only significant piece about her is on a site that I presume is that of her agents (Arthouse Entertainment). The ""Genius"" site that includes her in ""best"" lists is crowd-sourced and therefore not a reliable source. Lamona ( talk ) 02:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Views on the Arab–Israeli conflict: Onceinawhile ( talk ) 23:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC) Basically a POV-ish WP:COATRACK for material not properly integrated elsewhere. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 07:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Middle East , Israel , and Palestine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Unneeded CFORK with substantial POV issues. // Timothy :: talk 13:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Balls Island: ""Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist . [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river"". The small island seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article. Geschichte ( talk ) 15:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , New York , and Islands . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This claims it was featured in national geographic [12] , any thoughts on how to confirm and evaluate the claim. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I don't know what to do. The link above is just a real estate ad, and they could be lying about national geographic. But if it's true then it might be notable. I can't find any mention in the newspapers for this. so I could accept that maybe there is a single secondary source on this place and still vote . But, I don't think others are going to go along with that. As far as I can tell, only national geographic subscribers can search their back issues, so. ... James.folsom ( talk ) 23:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Walter F. Burmeister's book The Susquehanna River and Its Tributaries gives this a sentence, and even then discusses this only as part of a group of islets. If even that doesn't document this island in depth, there is indeed little hope for expansion. Uncle G ( talk ) 01:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if the National Geo article exists, it's probably just a list of river islands or some such. If that article had said anything quotable about this place, the real estate ad would certainly have quoted it. James.folsom ( talk ) 22:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Md. Sayedur Rahman: Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bangladesh . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC) PROF evident, nor any other notability criterion. In particular the Google Scholar citation counts are too low for WP:PROF#C1 . This one caught me by surprise, because at first I thought it was about Md. Saidur Rahman , who is notable. But it's a different person, with I guess a common name. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 23:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC) CNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EngrShakamal ( talk • contribs ) 15:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC) PROF and WP:GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 04:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No SNG, No GNG, why to Keep? Okoslavia ( talk ) 06:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Tobi Mohammed: This is mostly based on WP:INHERENT and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL . Below is my source assessment; Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2022/09/13/the-plug-topboy-entertainment-formalise-r-announce-mohammed-as-managing-partner Promotional piece about the r of The Plug and TopBoy Entertainment Even though ThisDay is reliable per WP:NGRS , No byline used in the piece. Promotional nature of this piece also affects its reliability ~ Mostly about the r of The Plug and TopBoy Entertainment ✘ No https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2022/10/16/oluwatobi-mohammed-the-young-entertainment-disruptor Promotional piece that is not entirely independent Ditto ✘ No https://tribuneonlineng.com/tobi-mohammed-a-journey-of-innovation-from-tech-to-entertainment/ This source appears to be a promotional profile piece on Tobi Mohammed. Even though per WP:NGRS , Nigerian Tribune is reliable, the promotional nature of this article affects its reliability. ✘ No https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/11/from-dream-to-reality-the-inspiring-journey-of-topboy-entertainment/ This source seems to be a promotional piece about TopBoy Entertainment. Source is marginally reliable per WP:NGRS , and the promotional nature of this article affects its reliability The article provides significant coverage of the journey of TopBoy Entertainment ✘ No https://www.turntablecharts.com/news/1256 ~ This source is a promotional piece about Tobi Mohammed’s BlockParty series. Even though the promo from here oozes, it does not affect this context. This is about Tobi Mohammed’s BlockParty series and not Tobi Mohammed himself ✘ No https://digimillennials.com/music/offstage-alhaji-popping/ No byline used in piece and reads promotional ✘ No https://socialmediaweeklagos2020.sched.com/speaker/tobi27 This source is a profile of Tobi Mohammed from the Social Media Week Lagos 2020 event. Promotional profile ✘ No https://dailypost.ng/2023/06/09/tobi-mohammed-shares-invaluable-insights-on-soft-power/ Obvious sponsored content Even though Daily Post is reliable, this is an obvious sponsored content ✘ No https://notjustok.com/article/afrobeats-live-and-awards-power-players-2019/ No byline used Not specifically about the subject ✘ No https://www.turntablecharts.com/magazine/3rd/57 Ditto ~ Ditto ✘ No https://www.turntablecharts.com/news/1184 Ditto ~ Ditto ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 23:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , and Nigeria . Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 23:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC) We had this about a year ago, here we are again, still not notable. The source chart is overly generous with a few sources, but I agree it's a ! , this is PROMO. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Entertainment , and Management . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] looks like promotion per sources provided. No deep coverage by independent sources. Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The subject of this article has not been discussed in reliable secondary sources. Some of the sources ( ThisDay ) cited in the article are not independent of him and others ( The Nation newspaper) are promotional to say the least. The awards he has won or been nominated for aren't notable. Versace 1608 Wanna Talk ? 17:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC) only promotional content used as sources. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV . Contributor892z ( talk ) 09:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC) OUTCOMES . The nomination carefully lays out why this living person fails the significant coverage test . In any case, we almost always articles about music producers and managers, who are dime a dozen . Bearian ( talk ) 17:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2024 Suwon JS Cup: 2017 Suwon JS Cup has not been created or d 2018 Suwon JS Cup was created on by Junes1994 on 24 Apr 2018 with sparse refences 2019 Suwon JS Cup has not been created or d 2020 Suwon JS Cup has not been created or d 2021 Suwon JS Cup has not been created or d 2022 Suwon JS Cup has not been created or d 2023 Suwon JS Cup has not been created or d Please also see 2024 Suwon JS Cup Shirt58 ( talk ) 🦘 12:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and South Korea . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] all The content on the 2024 version appears to be a hoax. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 15:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – not notable, fails verification (very little reputable information available online). I'm not sure whether the two other blue links above are included in this AfD, but those should probably be considered as well. – brad v 16:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC) This article lacks sources, also barely and source available, but the 2018 edition won't as there are possible sources available about the score. ToadetteEdit ( chat ) / ( logs ) 16:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Suwon JS Cup its self is not a hoax, don't know about the the 2024 edition. I am not sure if its a senior competition or not, but I see sources for Under 19 and Under 17s being played in this cup competition in the past. It maybe possible that a main article of Suwon JS Cup could pass WP:BASIC , but who knows, it seems wikipedia has gone out of it's way to eradicate what it has here to help investigate or even build anything for that matter. From what we see on 2016 Suwon JS Cup , it appears to be a junior international friendly tournament. To be honest I am not impressed either. Btw, who are these guys [29] in that video? Does that not help todays notability? Govvy ( talk ) 19:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - as above. Giant Snowman 19:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment — too early for the 2024 Suwon JS Cup article as sources do not exist yet. The 2018 Suwon JS Cup article is not a hoax and I added references found from Yonhap News Agency , Việt Nam News , The Korea Herald and TheThaoVanHoa , with routine coverage of the matches played (coaches, players, etc.) with scores and a description of the event. I guess this discussion will determine notability of the event, but I say the 2018 article. — Isaidnoway (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON , and it remains to be seen if there will ever be enough coverage to justify a separate article (the 2016 and 2018 are very borderline non-notable, the 2024 one would need substantial coverage to pass WP:GNG ). Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 13:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - 2024 Olympics will not be held in South Korea, as the article claims, and the article does not cite any sources. MistakeReporter ( talk ) 16:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sergey Lapin (boxer): Regional accomplishments aren't enough and his silver medal at worlds was as a member of a team (WSB). Nswix ( talk ) 00:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Boxing , Martial arts , and Ukraine . Nswix ( talk ) 00:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per nom, fails NBOX, SIGCOV or GNG. Lethweimaster ( talk ) 14:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found no evidence of boxing success that would show WP notability. Zero appearances at a world championship at the amateur level and only one professional fight. Coverage seems insufficient to meet WP:GNG . Papaursa ( talk ) 16:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of members clubs in London: The information is in a slightly different format but I don't think there's much which is left to or would be lost with a . I'm nominating this page because it has an orphan hat whereas the other is arguably better linked and integrated. However I think there's an argument to say that the candidate for deletion should be List of gentlemen's clubs in London on the basis that there are clubs in London of this type which, strictly speaking are not and never have been for gentlemen such as the University Women's Club - but that doesn't seem to currently matter as it appears in both pages! JMWt ( talk ) 11:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom . JMWt ( talk ) 11:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] List of members clubs in London , move List of gentlemen's clubs in London to that title, and leave a . We don’t need to have 2 pages that describe the same thing with slightly different content and titles. - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌) 🔥 12:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . This should have been a technical move. I agree with the above that this article is d to make room for the move from List of gentlemen's clubs in London to List of members' clubs in London (correct grammar). Ajf773 ( talk ) 21:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with the above. -- Bduke ( talk ) 05:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nitish Rajput: Nor does wealth, revenue, and other size metrics. Fails WP:ENT , WP:GNG , Does not have sufficient coverage WP:SIGCOV in the reliable sources WP:RSP . Charlie ( talk ) 06:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and India . Charlie ( talk ) 06:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Internet , and Uttar Pradesh . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak or draftify and wait for a few more sources. I'm hesitant to , since this person clearly has large influence, but the sources here are currently pretty shoddy. Perhaps he'll be WP:N soon? Crunchydillpickle🥒 ( talk ) 04:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC) 27, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rajput is a notable YouTuber and influencer who have millions of followers and mentioned on many reliable websites. I think he passes WP:GNG . Rajeev Gaur123 ( talk ) 04:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Subscriber numbers do not establish notability. But a source analysis here would help. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC) N and they have not enough WP:SIGCOV ;so it can be d. ~~ αvírαm | (tαlk) 10:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This YouTuber has created several controversial videos with a number of views supported by credible sources, indicating that he meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. 171.76.241.85 ( talk ) 08:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC) The subject is covered by Times of India [25] , News18 India [26] , and Dainik Jagran [27] and these may be in-depth discussions about the subject. -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 17:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Having videos that get a lot of views is not an indicator that Wikipedia recognizes as establishing notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Only three pages in Gnews that come up, all appear to be that particular brand of Indian press coverage using the flowery language we see. I don't see notability. One he talks about various websites, others are the ""meet the influencer"" articles. Oaktree b ( talk ) 05:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC) 51, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Week Although some of the sources are reliable, however, YouTube views and subscribers doesn't make someone notable for Wikipedia. Atighot ( talk ) 16:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC) NEWSORGINDIA Economic Times seems to be mainly notable mention. Others are suspect Comintell ( talk ) 05:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Few citations i found in this article may pass SIGCOV. And Subject is notable for his controversial videos. WrestlersIndia ( talk ) 14:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Puma sponsorships: In no way meets WP:NLIST . Iskandar323 ( talk ) 21:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . Iskandar323 ( talk ) 21:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why are we as a non-profit doing this tracking of shoe/athletic wear sponsorships in this much detail to begin with? This isn't appropriately encyclopedic in the least and has major MOSFLAG issues (look at List of Nike sponsorships#Artists , which is so disconnected from so many policies that they're putting flag icons next to music artists). Leave this to whatever sneaker wiki tracks this stuff, it certainly doesn't fit our purposes at all (and any move to category classification isn't appropriate at all there either). Consider this an endorsement of any article in Category:Sports sponsorships to be taken to deletion. Nate • ( chatter ) 23:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] no RS covering this as a list, just press releases and the like addressing individual sponsorships, so fails NLIST. AryKun ( talk ) 06:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC) NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTADVERTISING . This is an encyclopedia, not the Puma marketing department, there is nothing encyclopedic about this list. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 09:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Subject clearly violates WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NLIST . Time to put this one to rest. Let'srun ( talk ) 06:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jacques Bonjawo: I think this is not enough to scratch notability yet. Cleo Cooper ( talk ) 00:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy per G11. Pure puffery, no evidence of notability. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 00:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] hello. I understand your point but if you check the link to the Microsoft Alumni website, you will see that all information's in my page are mentioned. I hope you known Microsoft Alumni is an association for Previous Microsoft Members. Emmanuel T. ( talk ) 06:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) — Moffo Cartele ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Science , Technology , Computing , Cameroon , Washington , and Washington, D.C. . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] i've just Updated the sources by adding a direct link for the Microsoft Alumni website. the link shows 80% of the information's on my page are verified. Emmanuel T. ( talk ) 06:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC) PROMO. Independent sources don't count towards notability and the association with Microsoft is a name drop. I don't find sourcing for this person otherwise. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All the link's in the article show that he did not just collaborate with Microsoft but he worked there for almost ten years. I don't really understand your point and i don't think saying the truth can be considered as a kind of PROMO. check the link below [8] https://www.microsoftalumni.com/s/1769/19/interior.aspx? sid=1769&gid=2&pgid=3131 Emmanuel T. ( talk ) 07:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] i don't really understand what is wrong about this article sources. as for me, all the sources shows notability of the article. Mercury Dev's Cartele dev's ( talk ) 08:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC) — Cartele dev's ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. A book review (?) here: [9] , but still not enough for author notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] your link show's his old books while the article is talking about his recent books. I think the link's of his recent books available contains all the necessary information's for author notability. Mercury Dev's Cartele dev's ( talk ) 22:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] complete and utter vanity spam dumpster filled to the brim with garbage (fake, black hat seo) which is a surprise to exactly no one. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 19:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While cursory searches have shown some newspaper coverage, I've been unable to verify the reliability of any of them. At the time I stumbled across this article and its AfD, most sources were user-generated (Microsoft wiki..?) and therefore unreliable. I still stand by my earlier speedy vote as G11. Phönedinger's jellyfish II ( talk ) 19:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Tam's Gold Seal Drugs: Pretzelles ( talk ) 19:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Indiana . Pretzelles ( talk ) 19:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - failed GNG and it also does not exist anymore today. Not much sources mention it. WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 20:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Putsil Valley: Certainly does not meet GNG, and does not meet even the lenient standards of NGEO. There's nothing in the sources or that I could find that even confirms that the ""Putsil Valley"" exists. Two of the sources are advertisements for resorts and even they barely mention it. The other ref is to support a water use fact and is just a book en masse ""Human Rights, Tribal Movements and Violence"" Per the SNG I'm very lenient on geo/place articles but there's not even an RS factoid that says that a place by that name exists. North8000 ( talk ) 22:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , India , and Odisha . Shellwood ( talk ) 23:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Eh, it might. A search for Putsil Odisha brought up a lot of ecotourism sites, but switching to Scholar I've found references to a folk song being from there, more information about the hydro power plant in several articles, and one reference in one unknown journal saying Bollywood movies were filmed there. Also mentioned in [12] at least. Poor article though. SportingFlyer T · C 00:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Coverage in the New Indian Express [13] ... All I find otherwise are photos or blogs. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe move to Putsil and make the article about the village of Putsil (or just a new article). I was interested in writing about the village, but it seems to actually be a pretty depressing/draining topic. 3df ( talk ) 05:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/move to Putsil . That appears to be a real place we don't have coverage of yet and what the sources are on, the valley is just a generic reference for around the Putsil Mountain. Reywas92 Talk 14:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails WP:GNG . There is no significant coverage even though we can tell such a place exists but there is not enough data in the references to have this place have an article of its own. RangersRus ( talk ) 17:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation: — TheresNoTime ( talk • they/them) 12:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC) 51, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - borderline spam created by someone who got blocked for spamming at later time. May not meet NCORP, and as another justification, the article is so fluffy that start all over is also reasonable. Graywalls ( talk ) 21:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Organizations , United States of America , and Washington, D.C. . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I did my best to find independent sources. There are some sources confirming that the organisation exists and has been involved in at least one legal case, but that's weak for establishing notability. Following what Graywalls said, the article was created by a user who is indefinitely blocked since 3 March 2022 for advertising spam, and in six years since the article's creation on 5 May 2017 nothing much has improved in terms of sourcing. Boud ( talk ) 00:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rocket Streaming Audio Server: No coverage in reliable sources that I can see, and most of the citations go to the official website. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk ) 19:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions . NinjaRobotPirate ( talk ) 19:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why this specific article, and why now? Should we also consider proposing Icecast and SHOUTcast for deletion as part of this cleanup, as they also have the same notability issues? GameGod ( talk ) 20:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're welcome to nominate those pages if you believe they have notability issues. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FWIW Shoutcast does seem to have better sourcing than this one. BuySomeApples ( talk ) 21:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why not this article, if it has poor sourcing, we can't it. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Per nom. Not finding independent reliable sources that discuss the software, nor does there appear to be anything particularly notable about the software. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't see much of anything in the way of sources after a Google search. If this were a niche topic maybe there would be print sources, but I would expect a streaming service to be mentioned in online publications if it was mentioned anywhere. BuySomeApples ( talk ) 21:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] no RS found. Also note that article submitted the day after that software released its 1.0.0 version, suggesting a bit of WP:RECENT — siro χ o 23:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per others. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 00:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Fails notability guidelines. Maliner ( talk ) 14:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . per nom and @ Siroxo . Can't find RS either. 🌶️ Jala peño 🌶️ Don't click this link ! 16:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hardly any mentions of this software, most hits are on SpaceX and rockets. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kins Ferna's: Rejected at AFC, moved to main space by creator, bringing here for community to decide. Theroadislong ( talk ) 09:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello to all editors and wikipedia administrators, I moved the artist's page to the main page and now the page has been sent for deletion. I would like to contribute to this page with some editors who have available Edmilsonreis2321 ( talk ) 09:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No administrator or editor has responded to me regarding this article to date. Edmilsonreis2321 ( talk ) 06:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I contributed this article, I think an article in the encyclopedia is more likely to be improved every day than an article in draft. So I came to appeal to all Wikipedia administrators and editors and other members of Wikipedia to come and contribute and debate about this article. Edmilsonreis2321 ( talk ) 06:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 13:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC) No RS sourcing used now in the article, I can't find any sourcing about this individual. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC) There is no Portuguese article to translate from, the Afrikanns article uses wikis or blogs for sourcing, so still nothing we can use. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC) No RS available, and I can't find anything significant online. Cited sources are mostly dead links, and the ones that aren't do not seem to be reliable. StartGrammarTime ( talk ) 02:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC) I've seen an article here on Wikipedia without any source cited, but okay, I understand, we're going to send the article for deletion since it's not qualified for an encyclopedia. Edmilsonreis2321 ( talk ) 12:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sipu River: Google tells me https://guj-nwrws.gujarat.gov.in/showpage.aspx? contentid=1845&lang=english should be a source, however that appears to be statistics and a dead link. Sohom ( talk ) 20:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , Gujarat , and Rajasthan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . Sohom ( talk ) 07:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Belleville, North Dakota: Mangoe ( talk ) 03:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: North Dakota and Geography . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 06:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No information found, nothing to suggest notability. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 21:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mau–Lokmanya Tilak Terminus Express: microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 01:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation , India , Maharashtra , and Uttar Pradesh . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC) looks like this is a new train route that started last month, and I found some coverage chronicling its launch. Left guide ( talk ) 11:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC) 1E ), I don’t see any WP:SUSTAINED coverage. microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 18:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC) GNG, page has no sources as well. Noorullah ( talk ) 01:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to whichever of the two train station that is more notable. Jothefiredragon ( talk ) 04:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Location-based authentication: It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, and unreferenced for longer, so hopefully we can get this resolved. Boleyn ( talk ) 13:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] comment It gets lots of Gbook hits but the article is so bad that it could just as well be TNTed. Mangoe ( talk ) 13:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software . Owen× ☎ 14:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - This article is a bizarre word salad. Llajwa ( talk ) 21:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and tag for issues if needed. It's a valid concept in the context of multi-factor authentication, and there is plenty written about it, but the article in its state is in pretty bad shape, and I wouldn't object to a back to Multi-factor authentication#Location without any restrictions against recreating it at a future point. I'm not sure how much of the current article can be salvaged. But really, the whole point of a wiki is so someone that comes along in the future could take a look at something like this and say, ""I could do better than that"" and make those changes themselves. RecycledPixels ( talk ) 19:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - per RecycledPixels, this is a valid concept in MFA. Not opposed to a as well. Sohom ( talk ) 08:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"HCA Florida Highlands Hospital: Every hospital has a history, and every hospital has services and ratings. I fail to see how this one hospital meets WP:GNG . — Paper Luigi T • C 07:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC) ROTM , or specifically about the hospital, from a reliable source for WP:GNG . And so also fails WP:SIRS to overcome WP:ORGSIG Shaws username ( talk ) 15:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] this article should have never been created to begin with. Catfurball ( talk ) 19:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rahul Varun: So I think now the editors should be allowed to decide. Thanks you. Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 07:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Journalism , News media , and Bihar . Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 07:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC) the deletion discussion about this page is already discussed and closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Varun Wikisfrog ( talk ) 07:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It was closed because the nominator was blocked, not on the merits of the page. — Moriwen ( talk ) 16:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 11:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC) Sources 8 and 14 are the only ones listed as reliable per Source Highlighter. 8 seems rather promo, telling people how to succeed. 14 is fine, but the rest doesn't add up to notability, only confirming what they've done as a career. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC) does not satisfy WP:NACTOR and the sources are weak. Perfectstrangerz ( talk ) 01:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dhananjaya Das Kathiababa: This article was a Frankenstein’s monster of religious fancruft, repeated material and appalling referencing. I removed unsourced material and then went through all the refs. Most were utter nonsense that had nothing to do with the article subject, or just mentioned his name but did not support the content of the article. There are only three sources left. One is not independent and I can’t access the other two. I’m prepared to believe that the subject may indeed be notable, but if they are this very poor article does them no favours. Mccapra ( talk ) 23:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Religion , Hinduism , India , and West Bengal . Mccapra ( talk ) 23:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Poorly sourced article and does not corroborate with the subject. I do not see any beneficial contribution and significant notability from this poorly sourced article. RangersRus ( talk ) 03:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Non-notable person. It is a recreation of an article that has been to AFD twice before. Most of the article appears to have been written by Srabanta Deb using various accounts to evade his/her block. Srabanta Deb usually recreates d articles using slightly different versions of the same name to make it harder to spot what he/she is doing. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Federalism in Indonesia: This article adds almost no information not included in that article. It is not being proposed by any parties. The article appears to be machine translated from the Indonesian, hence the lack of tenses. Davidelit (Talk) 12:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Indonesia . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - the existence already of a collection of articles about the federal state suggests the creation of this article is a problem, Federal_Consultative_Assembly Federal Constitution of 1949 for example, and the template for United States of Indonesia show the component articles and the range of events leading to the rejection of the notion of federalism, It is hard to understand why this article was created... JarrahTree 14:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sajjad Jani: Just moved back to mainspace by the creator without improvements that address the issues raised. Star Mississippi 12:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Entertainment , and Pakistan . Star Mississippi 12:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Internet . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . agree with nom... not have any rs Worldiswide ( talk ) 03:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . per nom. Mason ( talk ) 01:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Middle Walter: It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. He was connected to notable musicians and there are small mentions, but not enough. Boleyn ( talk ) 12:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Indiana . Owen× ☎ 13:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC) Barely any coverage from this book [26] , which is only sourced to his obituary. Does not appear to have left a lasting musical legacy. Other than the book, there is nothing I can find. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"MDTA Mahbatul Ulum: Firstly, their activities should have a national or international scope. Secondly, the organization must have received substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. However, in the case of this school, there are only two references available, and they do not directly pertain to the school. Moreover, there is no evidence indicating that the school is known nationally. Ckfasdf ( talk ) 10:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Indonesia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I cannot find sources about the school in a web search, hence there is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV . Redtree21 ( talk ) 07:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Samarth Kulkarni: All of the sources cited are about the company, apart from this paywalled article in Stat about him winning a ""best biopharma CEO"" award reader poll. He has appeared on television news to discuss the company and biotech more generally, but those are primary sources, and I couldn't find solid, significant coverage of him in reliable secondary sources to show that he's notable independent from the company. Wikishovel ( talk ) 18:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , Health and fitness , Biology , Technology , and India . Wikishovel ( talk ) 18:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi there Wikishovel, I sent a note on my Talk page but perhaps it's more relevant here. My vote is to Kulkarni, and I disagree that he's a non-notable CEO due to the sheer amount of media mentions he has--paywalled and non-paywalled, in affiliation with his tenure at CRISPR. I think he warrants a Wikipedia page alongside other biopharma CEOs of far less newsworthy companies, particularly since he's heading, as you mentioned, a notable company. Would it help if I added/provided different or additional secondary sources? I can have a look around and see what else is available on record. Nathan Evo ( talk ) 18:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC) if you can find reliable sources with substantial coverage of him, rather than about the company, then please do add them. Wikishovel ( talk ) 18:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC) Enough coverage about the company found, nothing for this person. This is all I can find in a RS [56] that isn't a PR item; he is quoted in a brief paragraph of a few lines in an article about a conference. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to CRISPR Therapeutics . - Altenmann >talk 19:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC) no in-depth coverage. failed WP:N . Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 21:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Added two additional sources underscoring his notability, principally as ""one of the top 25 biotech CEOs of 2020"" and ""11 Asian-American Executives Shaping the Future of Biopharma."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan Evo ( talk • contribs ) 19:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin : Nathan Evo ( talk • contribs ) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this xfd . He has more coverage than many Wikipedia execs and certainly enough news mentions to belong here, particularly given that he's in the top slot of biotech CEOs. passed WP:N . Georgieam 14:38 31 March 2024 (UTC) — Georgieam ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. : Enough coverage in media to be notable. -- Afus199620 ( talk ) 00:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC) The article appears to have been expanded since the last !vote was posted, although based on arguments made here the balance still favors deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC) 37, 12 April 2024 (UTC) He's notable as a biotech leader and has more than enough media coverage.-- Homerseditor , 11:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC) REFBOMBing , here's a source analysis: Source assessment table: prepared by User:Wikishovel Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? CRISPR Therapeutics Press release or paid placement ? Press release Press release, no byline, includes marketing phone numbers at bottom ✘ No All About Belgaum Press release or paid placement News blog with no byline, obvious COI as it talks about his ""proud parents"" user-submitted, not journalism ✘ No Fierce Biotech Press release or paid placement Biotech news blog, no byline Press release, no byline, includes line about ""our vision"" at end ✘ No CRISPR bio His bio on his company's website Company bio All companies publish bios of their senior mgt ✘ No Scientific American Well established magazine Byline given, and editorial oversight clearly outlined on website His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article ✘ No Time magazine Well established magazine Byline given, and editorial oversight clearly outlined on website His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article ✘ No Forbes Well established magazine Byline given, editorial oversight clearly outlined on website His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article ✘ No Fierce Pharma ? Sister title of ""Fierce Biotech"" above, independence unclear ? Byline given in this one, but reliability is unclear His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article ✘ No Healthcare Technology Report ? blog, unknown if it is user-submitted content, but it includes a posed photo, apparently from his company blog, click-bait ? One entry in a list on an SEO blog of the ""top healthcare CEOs of 2020"", with no explanation of inclusion criteria ✘ No Timmerman Report ? blog, unknown if it is user-submitted content, but it includes a posed photo, apparently from his company ? a post by grad student on a biopharma blog of unknown reliability One entry on a blog post about the ""Asian Americans shaping the future of biopharma"", with no explanation of inclusion criteria ✘ No Centessa His bio on his company's website Company bio Copypaste of his CRISPR Therapeutics company bio above ✘ No Black Diamond His bio on his company's website Company bio All companies publish bios of their senior mgt ✘ No ReparerX Board list on company website Company bios His name isn't mentioned on the page ✘ No Marketscreener ? Some sort of company listings website, might be independent ? no editorial oversight or even contact info listed, might be reliable directory listing simply confirms that he's head of a company ✘ No Biotechnology Innovation Organization membership listing page of an industry association seems reliable from its ""about"" page etc His name isn't mentioned in the list ✘ No India New England News clickbait news blog attempting to pass as a newspaper probably user-generated content as it's mostly a paste of his company bio (and photo) above, otherwise it's paid placement ? the American India Foundation is notable, but this post simply says he and another exec are being ""honored at a gala"", so the notability of the recognition is unclear ✘ No STAT+ newspaper has byline, editorial oversight ~ Some actual reportage here, but it's paywalled, and appears to be about him winning the newspaper's reader poll ~ Partial CNBC national TV network national TV network interview: primary source ✘ No CNBC national TV network national TV network interview: primary source ✘ No WSJ national newspaper national newspaper interview: primary source ✘ No Cura Foundation independent foundation with notable backers interview by notable foundation interview: primary source ✘ No The Hill Events The Hill is an established newspaper with well defined editorial oversight interview during event sponsored by newspaper interview: primary source ✘ No Forbes Forbes is an independent national newspaper... ? ...but per WP:FORBES they also publish ""contributed content"", and it's unclear whether this is Forbes' own content or ""contributed"". In either case, this is still an interview, therefore a primary source ✘ No FII Institute ? Future Investment Initiative Institute is a government-sponsored group interview during event sponsored by group interview: primary source ✘ No FT Financial Times is a national newspaper interview during event sponsored by group interview: primary source ✘ No CNBC National TV network news website of the TV network trivial coverage of his contribution in a highlights summary of a panel discussion ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . . WP:NOTCV and WP:NOTWHOSWHO , routine coverage and interviews are insufficent to write an article from. I don't think the content should be kept in article history either, though I suppose if it is I wouldn't be too broken up about it. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 10:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Maksim Kazlovich: I've searched in Russian, Belarusian and English and can find nothing better than Soccernet , which is clearly not significant coverage. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Belarus . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per a lack of GNG-passing sources. Agree with nomination's analysis. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 17:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"8XR (game engine): Created by a sockmaster (prior to block, not G5 eligible). I found that nearly every source used made no mention of 8XR at all. The two remaining sources are interviews/promo/non-independent. WP:VG/S 's reliable source search has zero results. General efforts to search up any other coverage, reliable or not, for an ""8XR engine"" found essentially nothing. -- ferret ( talk ) 15:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . -- ferret ( talk ) 15:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC) I can't access one of the sources (it's a dead link), but the one I can access, while it is a suspiciously promotive interview, does have a significant amount of non-interview content. It's like the first half of the article. You can maybe argue it's not reliable (it does seem suspicious), but it can't be immidiately dismissed as just an interview. Also googled and could not find sources, so I'll vote if no one can find any more sources than this. (given we have 1 dubious source and an unarchived dead link) Mrfoogles ( talk ) 17:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough, the top half isn't really an interview (though highly promotional). But there's no way I'd view that blockchain site as a reliable source. They are a paid group blog without apparent oversight. -- ferret ( talk ) 17:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] del no independent evidence of notability. - Altenmann >talk 16:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC) //blockster.com/membership ) or (2) inaccessible and unarchived, and also odd given the earliest available blog post on that website is from 2023 Mrfoogles ( talk ) 18:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , only sources given to indicate notability are deadlinks/primary. — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong ) 19:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - per the nomination. I can't find any evidence of it meeting the WP:GNG . Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Argentine Primera División broadcasters: The most fancrufty list to appeal to the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Also, sources are basically news announcement and does not help to assert notability. Those arguing for a claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 20:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Football , Lists , and Argentina . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 20:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Charter Vocational High School: Their original rationale follows: This school seems to fail WP:NORG and really all of WP:N as well. Oddly enough in my research to check if reached notability I found https://web.archive.org/web/20090315093609/http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/217375/state_warns_2_albuquerque_charter_schools__boards_could_face/index.html which *might* be enough for Danny Moon to get his own page but I still feel like the school is ancillary in all this. My involvement in this nomination is entirely procedural; I have no opinion or further comment at this time. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and New Mexico . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OMG, thanks I must have not been paying attention when checking if there was any prior discussion on the talk page. Moritoriko ( talk ) 23:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails WP:ORGIN and WP:GNG . The article has only one source and the subject doesn't seem to have significant coverage to prove its notability either. ZyphorianNexus ( talk ) 23:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Carinthian Matadors Rugby Football Club: Boleyn ( talk ) 18:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC) GNG , no suitable here either per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 20:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"DCAP-BTLS: PROD was contested without explanation * Pppery * it has begun... 16:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as DICDEF. Already exists on Wiktionary . Owen× ☎ 16:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] since it already exists on Wikitionary and while some acronyms are notable enough for their own wikipedia page there really isn't much information on this particular one. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath ( talk ) 03:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mohammed Najmuddin: Does not have coverage to establish notability WP:GNG or WP:NBIO , no evidence of research work for WP:NPROF for the claims of being a researcher. Also, created by an WP:UPE sockfarm — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c ) 14:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Medicine , India , Andhra Pradesh , and Telangana . — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c ) 14:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. Clearly fails WP:NPROF as well as general notability. -- hroest 18:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:NPROF . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 14:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jamia Mosque Sialkot: Fails WP:GNG . BookishReader ( talk ) 00:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Pakistan . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 01:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC) User:BookishReader , I don't like your opening so many AFDs about Pakistani mosques all at once. Open one or two of something and see how they go, instead. I tend to think you/we are just not finding the right names of places to search on, and you/we do not have access to the newspapers and other sources in local languages, so you just have the wrong idea about some or all of these (i think). Here, is this the masque subjected to attack in 2004, the Sialkot mosque bombing ? Is this the MOSQUE OF MULLA KAMAL UD DIN, SIALKOT ? If you think not, how can you tell? I do see there is mention of one being Shia, perhaps there are mosqes in Sialkot of multiple ""denominations"". Or there are mosques which have multiple names. --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 03:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've access to local sources (most of them are online) - no worries. Sialkot mosque bombing was an attack on Hussainiya (irrelevant to this mosque). Btw, it is not that difficult to find the right term to search. This mosque is commonly known as Jamia Masjid Donga Bagh in Sialkot, Pakistan (which is already written in the introductory sentence if you noticed. I found one mention about this mosque which I thought is not worth it to mention here. As far as I can tell, this is a non-notable mosque that fails WP:SIGCOV . Ping me when you find at least one in-depth article in a secondary source. Thanks BookishReader ( talk ) 11:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC) While the point brought up by BookishReader is true that this article has no reference thus falls the WP:GNG and warrant to AfD, but if we were to be more civilized in dealing with other Wikipedia editors who may not fully understood the detailed WP:GNG criteria, the first thing first is to tag an article as '{Unreferenced}' or need more citations before going straight away to AfD. Of course no genuine editor would be happy if many of his/her articles suddenly got AfD-tagged at the same time. No one. This will just discourage genuine (yet less experienced) editors from continuing to contribute to Wikipedia project. They will probably soon switch to become a full-time Instagrammers or TikTokers - I can guarantee that. So for this, if we see an articles has no reference, it's better to tag just one articles with that '{Unreferenced}' template and inform directly to the article creator (or the highest contributor (edit or bytes added)) on how to improve that particular Wikipedia article. Of course this comment of mine also applies to the Al-Muzaffar Mosque and CMH Masjid Jhelum articles who got AfD-tagged. Chongkian ( talk ) 05:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We've been tagging it as unreferenced since 2008 , including your tag . It was also tagged in 2013 . It is better to have a proper discussion about it. BookishReader ( talk ) 11:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Theo Klein: No indication of WP:Notability under GNG or SNG. No GNG references, In fact, no references at all except for a database entry on a website. Previously d. North8000 ( talk ) 18:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Laos-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC) 52, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"West Coast Cricket Association: Sources in article are all primary or passing mentions. Search for additional sources did not uncover any WP:SIGCOV . Triptothecottage ( talk ) 23:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Cricket , and New Zealand . Triptothecottage ( talk ) 23:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as their own entry on sporty.co.nz describes them as one of the smallest clubs in New Zealand. Can't see any coverage in NZ media. David Palmer aka cloventt ( talk ) 02:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Daily, North Dakota: Searching is hopeless. Mangoe ( talk ) 04:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and North Dakota . North America 1000 06:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could probably eventually find sources for the Sorenson Mill and James Daily the bridge builder [62] [63] [64] but should go in the county or township articles. fiveby ( zero ) 02:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Mangoe's argument against s. fiveby ( zero ) 04:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of battles in Kinmen: toweli ( talk ) 07:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Lists , China , and Taiwan . toweli ( talk ) 07:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC) Agree with nom. WP:SALAT and WP:NOTDIRECTORY per previous discussion . — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 10:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC) Agree with nom. Unneeded content fork, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY . Kierzek ( talk ) 15:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC) as a sort of set index page. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No need of this index. Zakaria ښه راغلاست ( talk ) 11:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC) CFORK . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 00:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC) This feels more like an index than a full article. The Kinmen article already covers the conflicts, so why have a separate page? Waqar 💬 17:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] fork. Lightburst ( talk ) 01:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"S Sacchidananda: -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 16:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , India , and Karnataka . Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 16:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear Wikipedia Editors and Contributors, I wanted to inform you that we have made significant updates to the article about S Sacchidananda in an effort to address concerns regarding notability. We have carefully reviewed the notability guidelines (WP:NPOL and WP:GNG) and have made revisions to ensure the article better aligns with these standards. We encourage you to revisit the article and provide your feedback. Your input is highly valuable in helping us improve the quality and verifiability of the content. We are committed to making this article a valuable resource for Wikipedia readers. Blackanu20 ( talk ) 07:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] May I ask why you are referring to yourself as ""we""? Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 16:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] notability for politicians is for office holders, not candidates. No other notability requirements are met. microbiology Marcus ( petri dish • growths ) 17:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've updated the content. Instead of removing the article, please try to improve it. Blackanu20 ( talk ) 11:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Still doesn't meet notability standards. If a subject doesn't meet the standard, there is no ""improvement"" or ""update in content"" that will change the result to a . GPL93 ( talk ) 12:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Henry Spencer (Psych): The one source that does is much more of a passing mention. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Well just based on the sources in the article I would be a ! , but others might find some sources. Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From my search, there is only part of a book that gives him any mention, and that is Arp's Psych and Philosophy . However, it is far from being enough to warrant a stand-alone page. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 20:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Books are definitely better than website articles in my opinion. However... per nom. I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV aside from the occasional recap. Although I am open to changing it if someone finds more. Conyo14 ( talk ) 21:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Poorly referenced, no analysis/reception, just ""characterization"" (but see my first point). Fails GNG as written. Ping me if better sources are found. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 00:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Piotrus. Not enough reception in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Michael Breen (human rights activist): WP:BEFORE search does not turn up significant coverage. Existing article is a WP:REFBOMB of sources that fail to demonstrate notability. Sources 1/23 , 6 , 7/9/11 , 15 and 25 are non-independent press releases or official bios, 2 , 3 and 19 are trivial mentions in long lists; 4 , 10 , 14 , 21 and 28 32 are passing mentions in coverage of other topics, 5 and 8 , 27 , 33 and 34 are WP:INTERVIEWS and thus primary sources; 13 , 16 , 17 , 20 , 22 , 26 , 29 , 30 and 31 are self-authored material by the subject. 24 does not mention the subject. Only 12 might qualify as SIGCOV, but we need multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 01:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Military , and Washington, D.C. . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC) The editor who created this article also created Human Rights First which is Breen's organization. Only edits theyve made. And the HRF in their username stands for Human Rights First- right? Appears to be undisclosed COI. Should I put my concerns on the talk page of Human Rights First ? Looking at the related pages here we could also be looking at WP:SOCK . — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaskedSinger ( talk • contribs ) 05:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My strong wasn't enough? ;) MaskedSinger ( talk ) 06:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC : It does appear there's connected editing here but just on the merits, IMHO, this subject fails GNG, ANYBIO, and any secondary guideline with which I'm familiar. It reads like a business card for his services. I agree with the source analysis by the nominator as well. BusterD ( talk ) 21:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Devora Radeva: Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of ing this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Skating , and Bulgaria . Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC) NSKATE -- Here2rewrite ( talk ) 16:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC) No WP:SIGCOV appears to be available for this subject to meet the WP:GNG . Let'srun ( talk ) 03:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kadidia Diarra: All that came up in my searches were passing mentions ( 1 , 2 , 3 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 08:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 08:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Marilyn I. Walker: May be notable, but insufficient sources for an article. Kingsmasher678 ( talk ) 02:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Artists , Authors , Women , and Canada . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 08:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Donating money to a university and getting something named after you in return (the Marilyn I Walker School of Fine and Performing Arts at Brock University) is not cause for notability, unless it leads to in-depth independent coverage, and even then it would be only one event. I found one published review of her one book [45] calling it a failure in meeting the purpose of its title, and useless for scholarship, but maybe nice as a coffee table book. Negativity aside, one review of one book isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR . Note: there is another person with a similar name who meets WP:PROF#C1 ; we have a separate article on her, Marilyn Walker . I found this discussion via the academics and educators deletion sorting list, but beyond her donation to a university Marilyn I. Walker does not appear to have been an academic. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment/question - is this a case where a is more appropriate? The Brock University article has a section on the Marilyn I. Walker School of Fine and Performing Arts. Almost all the coverage in newspapers.com talks about the building of the school. I imagine people will look up her name in that context, and a to the section on the Brock University article would be useful. DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 20:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Doesn't meet WP:GNG and I can't find independent secondary coverage about her. Contributor892z ( talk ) 17:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"St. John's Sr. Sec. School, Meerut: No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL . LibStar ( talk ) 12:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , Christianity , and India . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions . LibStar ( talk ) 06:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"David L. Cook: Subject does not meet guidelines for notability. Bennychloroplast ( talk ) 02:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC) A review of existing sources for the article revealed nearly all of them do not support claims made in the article or are written by the subject of the article. A thorough search for new sources turned up no sources referencing the subject of the article, save this article. Bennychloroplast ( talk ) 02:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC) it's a self-promotional piece with bogus referencing. -- Melchior2006 ( talk ) 07:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per above David L. Cook discography also should be d. — Maile ( talk ) 14:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC) David L. Cook discography , List of awards and nominations received by David L. Cook , The Cook Family Singers , and Artists Music Guild that all warrant deletion on the same grounds. Bennychloroplast ( talk ) 15:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . There's a lot of self-referencing here, but I think that he probably passes WP:ANYBIO #1 on account of several awards. These include an induction into the Country Gospel Music Hall of Fame , a 2012 Artists Music Guild Comedian of the Year award , among others. He has a number of Emmy awards that he's won (though most appear to be regional Emmys), but the quality of the article is simply not up to standards at the moment. I'm weakly opposed to deletion—I don't think this is TNT-level—but I do have some concerns about draftification given how old the article is. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC) looks like WP:ANYBIO is met here. should be tagged with proper tags instead. making it into a draft can also be explored. Password (talk) (contribs) 05:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Sources 4,5,6 are the only non-primary ones (and are RS per source tool). 4 doesn't link to an article about him, 5 and 6 are a list of several nominations, serving only as a name drop. The rest are primary... All sourcing I can find is to download or listen to his music. Nothing at all about this individual. I doubt this is a hoax, but there is no substantial coverage we can use. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Didi Gaga: Gsearch goes straight to Youtube videos and streaming sites, with very low subscriber numbers, also an indication of non-notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC) GNG , current sources listed are their streaming pages and an unreliable source stating information about the person. Karnataka ( talk ) 16:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Unless the subject is a big star and only known in Ethiopia and we're all missing it because all the sourcing about him is in Amharic and other major Ethiopian languages, I can't find much of anything. When I find good hits, it's about Lady Gaga. I'm requesting here that people who can search for sources in Ethiopian languages to assist. Saucysalsa30 ( talk ) 21:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Add Didi Gaga is notable Ethiopian musician. Unfortunately, most of the sources related to him are written in Amharic language. Rather than hastily deleting, it would be better to focus on improving. For my part, I will try to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ella Lachow ( talk • contribs ) 13:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Please list this on Ethiopia-related discussion. It has been listed in Bangladesh-related discussions but has no connection to Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 15:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions . Worldbruce ( talk ) 22:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Headed toward so far, but giving more time to see if anything comes from non-English sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 19:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as no evidence of any notability, Fails SIGCOV & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Amharic language sources have not been forthcoming. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 21:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , the only references are music providers. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓ 22:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I don't think it's worth waiting for Amharic sources. From what I can tell (though I could be wrong), many Ethiopian media sources have English editions with translations to Amharic and other regional languages, or vice-versa. If this musician is in any purely Amharic sources that have never been translated into English, that would mean that he has not broken into his country's mainstream (and reliable) media. Regardless, he seems to have no trouble uploading his own songs into all the usual self-promotional and streaming sites that do not operate in Amharic. And that is all he has so far. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 01:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per above. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 14:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Chepakovich valuation model: Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk ) 16:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 18:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Non-notable and highly-likely to be self-promotion given the editing history and the reference spam that I just removed from Alexander Chepakovich . Doesn't appear in any reliable texts about valuation. Jfire ( talk ) 19:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"The Bibites: There is nothing in the article that implies that the game satisfies game notability or software notability , because there is no mention of any significant coverage by third parties. An examination of the references shows that none of them are independent or secondary. Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary 1 the-bibites.en.softonic.com Appears to be the official web site for the game. No Yes Yes No 2 itch.io Web page to download the game No Yes Yes No 3 youtube.com A discussion of the game No Yes Maybe No 4 youtube.com An experience playing the game No No Maybe No 5 google.com Google search results No No Maybe No There is also a draft, which has been declined three times, after which the author copied the draft into article space. The article should be d. The draft can either be improved by adding evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources , or left alone in draft space. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 03:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Software . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 03:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC) Nagol0929 , but the PROD was removed by the originator. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 03:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are no independent and secondary sources for my Wkipedia page to start with, so that is the reason why I did not add any to my page. Plus,the reason that I copied the draft into article space is because 1(I was just too impatient to wait for my draft to get moved to article space) and 2(I did not know how to move drafts into article space myself). Rtyjhnghfn ( talk ) 04:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC) If, as the article creator says, no reliable secondary sources exist, this game does not qualify for an article. Also, @ Rtyjhnghfn : especially as an inexperienced editor, your impatience to get the article published is not an excuse to bypass the Articles for Creation process. TornadoLGS ( talk ) 04:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or draftify . Fails WP:GNG as written. A case of WP:TOOSOON (particularly in the context of the author writing ""I was just too impatient""...)? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. I can't find any third party coverage on the subject, and the article creator's comments speak for themselves. Blue Edits ( talk ) 10:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC) GNG and article creator's own words. Dawnbails ( talk ) 18:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Chris Lynne: Technically satisfies criteria 6 of WP:NACADEMIC but is in a position of power at a for-profit university (business) as opposed to a traditional university. Unsure if this qualifies. 30Four ( talk ) 04:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral - TJMSmith you need to do some editing to this article. It does indeed look like a resume, but that's because you put it together like a list of accomplishments. Please consider re-working this article into a flowing prose article, paragraphs, etc. — Maile ( talk ) 00:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This is written as a professional profile , and WP:NOTLINKEDIN . — siro χ o 01:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Not very familiar with American university system, but the profile makes the subject look like a businessman, not an academic, and the article on University of Phoenix does not suggest it is a high-quality institution. I don't think Lynne is the type of subject that WP:PROF #6 was designed for? Espresso Addict ( talk ) 02:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I think that for this institution, treating him as a businessman rather than as an academic makes more sense, so we should use WP:NBIO not WP:NPROF . I didn't find any news stories with in-depth coverage of him that would count, so I don't think he passes. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral . The University of Phoenix is in the process of becoming a state-related university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collegemeltdown2 ( talk • contribs ) 19:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC) PROF#C6 is talking about; I concur that treating him as a businessman instead of an academic is more sensible. And treating him in that manner, there doesn't seem to be anything substantial to make a wiki-notability case upon. XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"AF Compressors: I originally PRODed this but it was decline because sources might exist basically. It's a direct translation of the French article made by the same account, which was a SPA who made these articles then left. References given are hard to verify, and no inline citations are used. The French article uses the same references. Magazine Entreprendre exists and was around at the date given so you could probably find the issue, but Druckluftteknik is just the (mispelled) German word for air compressor technology and Pack News doesn't return anything useful. I don't think this has enough reliable sources to meet WP:NCORP but if it existed since 1870 like it claims it might have some coverage so I'll be happy to withdraw this if enough reliable sourcing is found. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as failing NCORP. I analyzed anew and reached the same conclusions as nom. The text is bad but not bad enough for TNT. Hence, just like the nom, I researched notability and could find very few sources for a company that claims to be world leaders in their field. All I found was niche and/or primary. gidonb ( talk ) 19:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC) 24, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jarret Davis: Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Belize . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Sardarkrushinagar: I don't know if it makes sense as a . Ben Azura ( talk ) 23:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Could not find a single secondary reference to it. Not even worth a . MNewnham ( talk ) 02:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Ben Azura ( talk ) 23:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Gujarat . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. I would not oppose a to Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University . Bearian ( talk ) 16:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This has some coverage of one of its departments. There is a ready-made here, providing it can be sourced. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 09:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Capture of Peshawar (1758): Its not a battle (even a minor one) and seems to have only the briefest of mentions in sources (one line, at most). Slatersteven ( talk ) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . Slatersteven ( talk ) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 13:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , History , and Pakistan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I had previously closed this as a soft , but only just realized that this article was formerly considered at AFD in 2022 under the title ""Battle of Peshawar (1758)"", see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Peshawar (1758) . Thus, it was ineligible for soft deletion. Relisting for further discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk ) 19:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Mohammad Umar Ali who made the following case that the article does pass the general notability guidelines on my talkpage here . I assume this user wants to add these comments below. Malinaccier ( talk ) 19:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC) GNG [11] but it actually does pass it. WP:GNG deals with following points mentioned below I have explained how this article passes every point. 1.) ""Presumed"" It's not an assumption but a fact as per the sources cited in the article (I have mentioned the sources in 4th point). Moreover it does require its own article as it helps to demonstrate the territorial peak of Maratha Confederacy which was in 1758 just after the capture of Peshawar Fort. Also it helps to understand the regional history of Peshawar which you could see as it has been included in History of Peshawar Wiki article. 2.) ""Significant coverage"" It does have significant coverage not just in one or two WP:RS but almost every WP:RS which deals with Maratha history or Afghan-Maratha wars, etc. Even various news articles including The Times of India have covered this event see this link; [12] 3.) ""Reliable"" As told before it's supported by multiple WP:RS sources. And as per the the wiki guidelines availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. 4.) ""Sources"" All the below sources are considered reliable WP:RS. i. ) Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 - Jaswant Lal Mehta - Google Books link [13] pg 237 quoting; Thus nature did provide a golden opportunity to the Marathas to establish their sway over whole of Punjab and northwest India, upto Attock and Khyber pass, although the spell of their rule proved very shortlived. ii. ) Pletcher, Kenneth (2010). The History of India link [14] pg 198 quoting; Thus in 1757 Ahmad Shah's son Timur, appointed governor of Punjab, was forced to retreat from Lahore to Peshawar under the force of attacks from Sikhs and Marathas. iii. ) Pradeep Barua,The state at war in South Asia link [15] page 55; quoting: The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758. iv. ) The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4) : New Cambridge History of India link [16] pg 132 quoting: First, we shall look at the expanding areas controlled by the Marathas, and there were many. Maratha leaders pushed into Rajasthan, the area around Delhi, and on into the Punjab. They attacked Bundelkund and the borders of Uttar Pradesh. Further east, the Marathas attacked Orissa and the borders of Bengal and Bihar. v. ) Moreover, Govind Sardesai, New History of Marathas Vol 2, It has a whole chapter based on this article and conquest of Punjab by Marathas (See the below links) Above book Pg 400 link [17] quoting; At Lahore, therefore, Raghunath rao and his advisors found the situation easy and favourable. Abdussamad Khan who was a prisoner in Maratha hands, with characteristic double dealing offered to undertake the defence of frontier agasinst Abdali on behalf of the Marathas. From Poona the Peshwa dispatched Abdur Rahman with all haste to Lahore with instructions to Raghunath to make the best use of him in the scheme he was now executing- Raghunathrao, therefore, consigned the trans-Indus regions of Peshawar to these two Muslim agents, Abdur Rahman and Abdussamad Khan, posting them at Peshawar, with a considerable body of troops. 5.) ""Independent of the subject"" All the sources stated above are independent as it includes both Indian as well as foreign authors. All these sources are considered reliable (WP:RS). Advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not included in the sources (4th point). So, it clearly does pass WP:GNG for which it was nominated for deletion. Also, I am not so active on Wikipedia nowadays due to certain reasons so I might not frequently reply to any replies (if any) to my comment here, don't take it as my unwillingness to participate in the discussion, kindly wait for my reply. Mohammad Umar Ali ( talk ) 20:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Some of those do not even seem to discuss its capture (or even it). Please read wp:v and wp:synthesis Slatersteven ( talk ) 09:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] *Suggestion I recommend changing this article's name to ""Maratha Conquest of Punjab"" and in territorial changes it could be mentioned that Attock, Multan, Lahore, Peshawar, etc. ceded to the Maratha Empire/Confederacy. Sources which I mentioned in my 1st comment support it. Then we can expand the article include background, have sub headings like Battle of Sirhind and Battle of Attock, Aftermath (the territories which were gained by Marathas, etc.) That will be more presentable and also address your concerns! Mohammad Umar Ali ( talk ) 15:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also I see you already had a detailed discussion with other editors when you nominated this article for deletion for the 1st time. So why nominating the same article for deletion again, you should have resolved your doubts when you first nominated it for deletion. Mohammad Umar Ali ( talk ) 15:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I did I accepted it was at least a battle, it is not even that now. Slatersteven ( talk ) 17:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Mohammad Umar Ali completely fails to understand what significant coverage means, a sentence or two in several books is not significant coverage. I can find no significant coverage of this, presumably for the rather obvious reason that (assuming the article is correct) the Maratha forces simply took control over a city bereft of Afghan forces. So as absolutely nothing happened during the capture, there's nothing for us to write about. I would object in the strongest possible terms to a move to Maratha Conquest of Punjab or anything similar, that would be a clear WP:POVFORK of Afghan–Maratha War where this capture can easily be covered in context. So I wouldn't be opposed to a to that article either. FDW777 ( talk ) 16:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC) NOTABILITY in the slightest. The event is not a significant at all and has no significant coverage in WP:RS . PadFoot2008 18:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] don't know why this was relisted. It's perfectly clear that Mohammad Umar Ali's arguments are specious, containing fundamental misunderstandings of the term "" significant coverage "". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 23:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Peter Bielik (journalist): No prominent awards or achievements BoraVoro ( talk ) 15:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Television , and Slovakia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Norrköpings IF Bosna: Modest history peaking on the 5th tier. Geschichte ( talk ) 06:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"ArX: Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 07:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 07:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC) GNG . I was unable to find significant coverage of this version control system in secondary sources. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kimber Henry: A quick Google search gives episodes recaps, interviews and information unrelated to the character. Spinixster (chat!) 10:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Spinixster (chat!) 10:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. I couldn't find anything either, and despite the article's numerous sources, I don't believe most of them demonstrate notability, as the vast majority are primary. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 18:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Intelitek: scope_creep Talk 05:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Education , Technology , and New Hampshire . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC) The nominator d a substantial amount of sourced (perhaps not pristinely-sourced, but sourced) content before then making this call for deletion. A scan of old newspaper archives does show about a half-dozen independently published stories that at least mention Intelitek, some in more than just passing detail. Seems that this article easily could be rescued, but as its creator, I hesitate to do so myself. Community consensus should prevail; but it just felt like this wasn't an objective nomination, initiated after nearly half the article had been gutted without any discussion. - Swiss Mister in NY ( talk ) 14:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per nom. Passing mentions and churnalism don't make notability. There's a strong possibility that UPE were involved which is why you get such coverage of non-notable subjects. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC) UPE as well. scope_creep Talk 15:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Oxygen trifluoride: The current article is misleading. Theoretical studies only have passing mentions, and are mainly on the OF 3 + ion. Graeme Bartlett ( talk ) 01:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [2] mention of heat of formation of ion in a table on page 33. [3] theoretical Ionization and dissociation energy on page 206 as entry in table. Secondary references include: [4] expands the table entries from 2 primary references into words. [5] mentions the dissociation energy from the price reference and speculates on a molecular shape. Graeme Bartlett ( talk ) 01:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ^ Wylegała, Anna; Głowacka-Grajper, Małgorzata (2020-02-11). The Burden of the Past: History, Memory, and Identity in Contemporary Ukraine . Indiana University Press. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-253-04673-4 . ^ Jolly, William L. ; Gin, Christina (September 1977). ""The estimation of heats of formation of gaseous cations from core electron binding energies"". International Journal of Mass Spectrometry and Ion Physics . 25 (1): 27–37. doi : 10.1016/0020-7381(77)80101-0 . ^ Price, W. C. ; Passmore, T. R. ; Roessler, D. M. (1963). ""Ionization and dissociation energies of the hydrides and fluorides of the first row elements in relation to their electronic structures"". Discussions of the Faraday Society . 35 : 201. doi : 10.1039/DF9633500201 . ^ F Fluorine: Compounds with Oxygen and Nitrogen . Springer Science & Business Media. 29 June 2013. ISBN 978-3-662-06339-2 . ^ Chase, Malcolm W. ""NIST-JANAF Thermochemical Tables for the Oxygen Fluorides"" Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 02:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per lack of notability, just a rare passing mention in a primary lit and in compendia of all related chemicals. Even one of the refs includes a CASNo that upon searching CAS notes that the number is d and s to a chemical with a different number of fluorines. And as nom noted, it's misleading or conflating the neutral and cationic entities. There was an objection to a PROD, with a suggestion to / to Oxygen fluoride . But I don't see enough here to merit listing there if we can't even be sure what actual entity the refs are talking about. And if there's nothing except (at best) database tokens and machine-calculated MW and confusion in the lit over WP:V details, there's nothing to or even say, and therefore the wouldn't be valid. DMacks ( talk ) 03:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - not a chemist so take this with a pinch of salt, but isn't this topic the same as Trifluorooxonium ? JMWt ( talk ) 08:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Trifluorooxonium is the ion (OF 3 + ) I mentioned above, formally derived by taking an electron off Oxygen trifluoride. So they are related but differ, and perhaps this page could be a to it. Graeme Bartlett ( talk ) 09:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At this point it's just an entry from a database table; one would think that if it were real, it would be showing up as an entry in Derek Lowe's "" Things I Won't Work With "" series, right next to dioxygen difluoride, which one has to think is less reactive. Mangoe ( talk ) 12:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Mangoe ; in the unlikely event of this existing, it would undoubtedly itself (and its immediate surroundings) with impressive rapidity and enthusiasm, and we should respect its wishes. Elemimele ( talk ) 13:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] for reasons given above, the creator of the article seems to be thinking of the OF 3 + cation. While we are at it, we should probably also OF 4 , since I can't find any documentation that substance exists either. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. This seems to be fantasy, maybe due to misunderstanding of statements about OF 3 + . Athel cb ( talk ) 18:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC) ATD ? ~ Kvng ( talk ) 15:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Articles for deletion/Oxygen tetrafluoride . ~ Kvng ( talk ) 15:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Mostly passing mentions of a hypothetical. Also, per User:DMacks . ARandomName123 ( talk ) 20:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Michael Aarons: Entirely void of reliable sources—removing uncited BLP content would leave the article blank. Other than IBDB and Playbill credits, the only source I can see mentioning Aarons at all is a passing reference in the NYT . Probably borderline A7. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits ) 21:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Theatre . Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits ) 21:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I cannot find significant coverage of this musician outside of irregular mentions in various Broadway blog sites, and I see nothing in the article which would suggest notability. Spiralwidget ( talk ) 22:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I have removed the obvious WP:PROMO and WP:PEACOCK . IBDB confirms that he played the guitar in at least 10 Broadway productions from 2004 to at least 2018, and has served as musical coordinator for more than two dozen Broadway productions since 2014. I don't think these roles necessarily convey notability, but just pointing out that the info in his article is now at least partly easy to verify. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 22:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC) https://www.allmusic.com/artist/michael-aarons-mn0000547167#credits More sources for Film and TV on IMDB.com https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0007497/? ref_=fn_al_nm_2 108.53.237.198 ( talk ) 00:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC) NMUSICIAN and WP:BASIC . Completely unsourced BLP. C F A 💬 00:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC) https://guitarcenterprofessional.blogspot.com/2016/05/ https://www.local802afm.org/allegro/articles/how-do-i-get-a-gig-on-broadway/ 108.53.237.198 ( talk ) 00:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Television , Advertising , New York , and Washington, D.C. . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fail WP:MUSICBIO AND WP:GNG . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 13:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per the multiple issues identified by editors above. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 21:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"IC 3403: C messier ( talk ) 10:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC) not notable. Praemonitus ( talk ) 13:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"WEYS-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 14:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Florida . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 14:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , Honestly surprised because this is a Franken-FM for one of the largest media markets. Would’ve thought there’d been more coverage aside from mentions. Danubeball ( talk ) 20:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Clinton Theron: All that comes up in my searches are trivial mentions in match reports and lineup announcements. JTtheOG ( talk ) 06:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 06:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC) GNG . No suitable per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ætherverse: DirtyHarry991 ( talk ) 06:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – 2004 game with practically no active sources. Svartner ( talk ) 11:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Nothing in the article suggests this is notable (no reviews, no awards). My BEFORE found nothing. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"William Rollason: No evidence of significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 23:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 23:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC) The article was first created around the time of European Home Retail / Farepak's collapse and has never been more than a summary of firms with which the subject has been associated. Despite the actions around Farepak, I don't see evidence that this person has had distinct biographic notability . AllyD ( talk ) 08:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , Per nom. not a notable businessman. Alex-h ( talk ) 11:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Scott Michaels: The best I could find in a WP:BEFORE search was a few interviews in essentiallysports.com, and the rest is social media, press releases, and some coverage in WP:THESUN and WP:DAILYEXPRESS. Strong aroma of UPE here, including this addition today of a selfie , unavailable on the source claimed at Commons. Please note that the first AFD was about a writer and filmmaker, and not about the football businessman. Wikishovel ( talk ) 19:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Football , and England . Wikishovel ( talk ) 19:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. Obviously promotional. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] —Almost feels like self-promotion. Anwegmann ( talk ) 21:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Does feel somewhat promo, agree with nomination, this should be a straight up . Govvy ( talk ) 21:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per above. Svartner ( talk ) 13:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Journal of Anime and Manga Studies: The current version of the article has 11 references. However, almost all are not independent, but either published by the journal itself or its publisher. One independent source is an article in The Washington Post, which is stated to have used the journal to ""source"" an article. This is somewhat of an exaggeration: the TWP article cites Billy Tringali, mentioning that he's the editor of the Journal of Anime and Manga Studies , so in fact this is just an in passing mention. Taken together, this article also misses WP:GNG , hence: . Randykitty ( talk ) 13:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Anime and manga . Randykitty ( talk ) 13:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Randykitty This journal is indexed in Art and Architecture Source. [35] https://www.ebsco.com/m/ee/Marketing/titleLists/asu-coverage.htm 2001:18E8:3:10AD:F000:0:0:72A ( talk ) 19:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I know, EBSCO databases are not very selective in the sense of NJournals. -- Randykitty ( talk ) 22:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC) B. 2001:18E8:3:10AD:F000:0:0:72A ( talk ) 21:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC) 41, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is nothing on the NJournals that notes that. You are making an arbitrary choice on what does and does not meet 1b. 2001:18E8:3:10AD:F000:0:0:72A ( talk ) 22:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's nothing arbitrary about that, but a long-standing consensus in this project. See our journal AfD archive . -- Randykitty ( talk ) 22:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC) 18E8:3:10AD:F000:0:0:72A ( talk ) 22:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON I think. Even in ResearchGate, it barely cracks the triple digit views [36] , hovering around the 1000 view mark. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC) 25, 21 February 2024 (UTC) 37, 21 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC) JOURNALCRIT states that a journal should be historically important. And Criteria 1 that it should be considered influential in its subject area. JAMS, according to an academic conference on the subject of anime studies, is one of only two journals in the field. The conference even named a session after the journal, ""MechaJAMS Symposium""--see the 2023 program. [37] I'll take whatever decision this process lands on in the spirit of WP:AGF . -- Jaireeodell ( talk ) 02:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC) 53, 22 February 2024 (UTC) 18E8:3:10AD:F000:0:0:72A ( talk ) 23:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC) 07, 7 March 2024 (UTC) 10, 7 March 2024 (UTC) 26, 28 February 2024 (UTC) 46, 4 March 2024 (UTC) 56, 6 March 2024 (UTC) 34, 7 March 2024 (UTC) Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 05:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC) 26, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Please read the nom again, there is no argument made to this journal article based on WP:NJournals . In fact, it is clearly stated that this does not meet NJournals. -- Randykitty ( talk ) 22:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC) 19, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Local university project. The article only aims to promote it. Svartner ( talk ) 05:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and or weak . Not seeing how this meets WP:GNG or such. Not indexed in selective databases, not noticed and discussed anywhere. Would prefer ing it to a publisher, if one is notable and can be identified - I looked at the journal about page and couldn't find anything. The article claims this is the founder, so it is plausible IUPUI University Library is the publisher? and would be preferable to deletion. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As noted above, although the editor works at IUPUI, the journal is published by IOPN ... a unit of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign University Library . -- Jaireeodell ( talk ) 15:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"New Life Radio-Moscow: UtherSRG (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Christianity , Russia , and Ukraine . UtherSRG (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC) This station has plenty of in-depth coverage in Christian news outlets, including one article which was republished in Kentucky Today. Could any of these sources be considered independent, or does their religious character discount them? I can't find anything specific in the guidelines. Akakievich ( talk ) 20:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC) 09, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If they are evangelical, they wouldn't have a neutral point of view on NLRM's evangelical purpose. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Post the sources here for evaluation and to help determine notability for this topic. Then if the article is kept, the sources can be copied there. --- Steve Quinn ( talk ) 06:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC) 15, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, here are my findings. Akakievich ( talk ) 17:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC) Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://thebaptistpaper.org/despite-war-new-life-radio-brings-hope-faith-to-christians-in-ukraine/ ? Baptist-affiliated ? ? Unknown https://missionsbox.org/news/new-life-radio-broadcasts-message-peace-ukraine/ Affiliated with mission organisation ✘ No https://chvnradio.com/articles/christian-radio-in-ukraine-pivoting-to-continue-reaching-russiansukrainians-with-gospel ? Christian-affiliated radio station Content produced by FM radio station in Canada ? Unknown https://evangelicalfocus.com/europe/17741/ban-on-russian-music-in-ukraine-makes-christian-radio-ministry-harder ~ Evangelical newspaper ? ? Unknown https://wng.org/roundups/christian-radio-station-broadcasts-in-exile-1649429917 ~ Evangelical-affiliated news site ? ? Unknown https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/russian-christian-radio-station-continues-to-broadcast-despite-war-tightening-restrictions/ Published by Southern Baptist Convention ? ✘ No https://mbcpathway.com/2022/02/22/russias-first-fm-christian-station-faces-another-crisis/ Published by Missouri Baptist Convention ? ✘ No https://evangelicalfocus.com/europe/15586/european-evangelicals-condemn-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-no-justification-for-actions-that-will-bring-death-chaos-and-misery ~ Evangelical news site passing mention ✘ No https://www.christianpost.com/news/evangelical-decries-orthodox-rift-underlying-russia-ukraine-saga.html ~ Christian news site Mostly reporting views of founder ✘ No https://archive.is/rEcIE ~ Baptist-affiliated local newspaper ~ Partial This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Based on this, I am leaning towards . If anyone would like to weigh in with their views on the usefulness of these sources, I'd be glad to hear comments. Akakievich ( talk ) 17:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC) BCAST and WP:NORG per Akakievich's analysis. SBKSPP ( talk ) 05:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Myanmar representatives at international male beauty pageants: The sources in the article are primarily social media posts. Let'srun ( talk ) 10:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Beauty pageants , Lists , and Myanmar . Let'srun ( talk ) 10:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] without prejudice in the event that better sourcing is found. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 19:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Cornelius III: Lefcentreright Discuss 20:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions . Lefcentreright Discuss 20:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC) there's already a proposal. Clyde [trout needed] 21:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. estar8806 ( talk ) ★ 21:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Articles for deletion/Sovereign State of Good Hope . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 17:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak , the 'state' article should be d, but the sources here feel like they indicate specific and sustained coverage. If anyone has full access to the Brill chapter that would be helpful. The article content such as it is would need a NPOV rewrite though. CMD ( talk ) 03:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC) 19, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I pointed out, Sovereign State of Good Hope ( AfD discussion ) is not merely unverifiable, but verifiably false and does not belong in any form in Wikipedia for being outright untrue. As such, it is not an appropriate r target in any way. None of its content nor edit history belongs here. The same holds true here. The only apparently independent source that supports this turns out to be authored by the article subject, as can be seen from both its byline and the contributor information for the photographs, and even has a disclaimer at the bottom that such content is the author's own and not that of South Africa Today . This is some shameful Wikipedia editing. The source provided in the very first revision even stated outright that this was one person declaring xyrself to be a king, and not being recognized as such by anyone else. Yet the article as written claimed the contrary, supposedly supported by that source. This blatant misrepresentation of sources is highly inappropriate, and the use of autobiographical sources from the only person making the claims is as wrongheaded as it has always been. Uncle G ( talk ) 00:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC) If there was more coverage, we could have a case for an interesting pseudo-king. This is just about one article, he went and told the person in charge they were evicted. Odd mix of PROMO or one event notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Re CMD 's question: the Brill book seems to be based on this dissertation . To be fair to our overlord Cornelius, it's not just one article: there is a little coverage of his 2018 eviction stunt – Citizen , Citizen , SABC – and then some of a 2019 court case – Argus , Dispatch , Sunday Times – and he's mentioned in the Cape Times in 2015 so may be known to Khoisan communities (I don't know). I could really go either way on whether these establish notability or whether they're just human-interest stories. But we can all agree he does not have a state, just a ragtag separatist movement, so if kept the article should be rewritten. Jlalbion ( talk ) 18:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC) 33, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Associate-O-Matic: No independent sources with significant coverage. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 14:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing , Internet , and Software . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 14:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Nothing found online for this defunct software ""thing"". Sourcing used now is barely anything... Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Robert Kee (lawyer): I see no other route to biographic notability as it news coverage seemed to come from the appointment Star Mississippi 03:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , Law , and New Zealand . Star Mississippi 03:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Can't find sources demonstrating that he meets WP:GNG , WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO from a WP:BEFORE search. Looks like he's been a Tenancy Tribunal adjudicator in recent years, which is a fairly low-level judicial appointment (the tribunal doesn't even have a Wikipedia page; arguably it should, but kind of demonstrates that the role doesn't add anything to notability). The press around his appointment to an HRC role (and not even the top role!) was mainly about the fact that he was appointed instead of a woman lawyer recommended by officials. Also seems the article creator was blocked for sockpuppeting during which they created several articles about non-notable alumni from St Peter's College ... Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 04:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as non-notable. The association with St Peter's College also struck me. We had another editor who mass-produced bios for non-notable St Peter's College alumni and that was a different editor to this article's creator (or any of their socks). We should go through the contributions and PROD other bios, too. Schwede 66 17:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not 100% convinced the ""other editor"" is not a sock, it's too much of a coincidence that there are 2 different St Peter's College promoters with the second account starting shortly after the first was blocked. I agree that there are bound to be many more articles of similar non-notability to this one created by both accounts. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs ) 10:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC) Schwede66 , I do believe you may have erred here. Rick570 created a lot of St Peter's cruft articles that were d here and went on to sock with Dome1000, Jam6700, Emendment and Yelsorc. If there is another could you please enlighten us as to who so we can check their contributions. Thanks. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 06:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The only non press release is single about how a politician gave a mate a high paid job over the recommended candidate. Not enough for a BLP. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 07:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Franciscan Bowl: Joeykai ( talk ) 00:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . My search at Newspapers.com turns up hundreds of hits for pottery ""Franciscan bowls"" popular in the 1930s but not much on the football game. The best I found was this and this which are coverage of particular games lacking depth on the rivalry or trophy. We need better than that to satisfy NRIVALRY/GNG. Cbl62 ( talk ) 02:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As noted above, my searches failed to turn up SIGCOV, and after ten days at AfD, no SIGCOV presented. Will reconsider if SIGCOV is found. Cbl62 ( talk ) 16:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for this to meet the GNG. The only source currently in the article is not independent as it originates from one of the participating schools. Let'srun ( talk ) 22:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Funsho Oladipo: Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO . Sources are just name drops and passing mentions of the subject. Jamiebuba ( talk ) 21:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria . Jamiebuba ( talk ) 21:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC) He's not notable, I'd perhaps to an article about the hospital, most coverage seems to be about that. He's just a working physician it appears. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Likewise; most of the sources if not all are not reliable, while the hospital is either. Nothing to WP:PRESERVE . All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk ) 16:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Fails WP:ANYBIO and per nom and Oaktree b. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 23:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC) An article about a medical person who is the owner of a neither notable company. Sources doses of unreliable written works; more focus on the hospital to the subject. Per WP:NGRS , few if not all seems reliable (but promotional). Case of inherent notability. All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk ) 16:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC) TNT , WP:MILL , WP:PROF , and WP:SPAM . This is written as a press release, not an article. Besides that, he runs a 200-odd bed clinic, not what most people would call a hospital. Just to be fair, I checked Google Scholar and found single digits of cites. Bearian ( talk ) 19:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Managing director of a non-notable hospital; his position in a non-notable organisation from 2019 to 2023 cannot confer notability either. There are no significant coverage in independent reliable sources either. Best, Reading Beans 06:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Revenue On-Line Service: If it was innovative in any way, a sentence or two on Revenue Commissioners , with an appropriate reference, would surely suffice. Iveagh Gardens ( talk ) 09:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions . Iveagh Gardens ( talk ) 09:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Completely unsourced, reads like an advert, and non-notable. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - a line in Revenue Commissioners will be enough. Spleodrach ( talk ) 18:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Websites . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . On initial review I had considered proposing a """" (as an WP:ATD ). However, as noted above, there is no supported/non-promotional/appropriate content that could reasonably be d to the Revenue Commissioners article. Absent anything to , there is nothing to which to . Just this SPAM. Guliolopez ( talk ) 20:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2004–05 Royal League statistics: – Aidan721 ( talk ) 23:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Europe . – Aidan721 ( talk ) 23:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark , Norway , and Sweden . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per nom. All the reasons listed for deletion at the linked AFD also apply here. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC) NOSTATS . Govvy ( talk ) 16:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] all per nom. Giant Snowman 18:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Green Day related projects: This seems like a no-brainer to me, though I am opening this up for discussion so others can have a say. JeffSpaceman ( talk ) 17:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 14 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 18:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - A completely unnecessary list of brief summaries of other articles for six different bands and one musical. Every single one of those seven articles are significantly more informative than this one, and all seven subjects are easily found via links in Green Day's main article and elsewhere. I'm not sure what policy is most relevant here -- possibly WP:CONTENTFORK but in an inverse fashion, or WP:NLIST as a non-notable list article that happens to have some extra padding. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lawrence G. Costanzo: Article survived a 2007 AfD but notability thresholds can change. Let'srun ( talk ) 21:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , Religion , and Arizona . Let'srun ( talk ) 21:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC) Zero coverage for this person, neither position is notable without an extensive sourcing to back it up. There has been no coverage added since 2007, so I don't expect notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC) Why is this person notable? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . SportingFlyer T · C 20:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of 8 Out of 10 Cats Does Countdown panellists: Even if completed, the page would contain no information not already covered at List of 8 Out of 10 Cats Does Countdown episodes . The programme is notable but, I would say, not so notable that we need a separate article listing all panellists. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom . — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC) OR and can be sourced, it otherwise. SportingFlyer T · C 19:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC) it's not original research because it's easily verifiable from the primary source of the episodes themselves. I would recommend against merging as this would either mean an incomplete list (which this list is at present) or take up an enormous amount of article space. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It may be original in the sense that this chart has never been compiled everywhere else. Just because it can be easily verified back to the primary source of each episode doesn't mean it's not still WP:OR . SportingFlyer T · C 19:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can't see the need for the list without any sort of sourcing or discussion about the panelists themselves. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Already covered in List of 8 Out of 10 Cats Does Countdown episodes and this unsourced and badly formatted spin-off article adds no additional value to the topic. Ajf773 ( talk ) 20:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sue Robbie: Redtree21 ( talk ) 06:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , and England . Redtree21 ( talk ) 06:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC) 32, 13 July 2024 (UTC) Not enough coverage for WP:GNG . — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong ) 17:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ronald Rieder: This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk ) 18:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New York . Shellwood ( talk ) 19:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Psychology . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC) all I can is an obituary [2] , could even be a different person. There isn't much in the article now for GNG. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO . The obit is a paid memorial notice so not independent. here is the NYT source ( ProQuest 110065074 ). The article is about Freshman orientation programs; he has a brief quote. Not SIGCOV. The Psychiatric News article has longer quotes from him, but again, he's not the subject. Jfire ( talk ) 03:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ke Hobe Biggest Fan: Tagged for notability since 2016 Donald D23 talk to me 23:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India . Donald D23 talk to me 23:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC) No longer meets WP:GNG . I could not find any WP:SIGCOV for the talk show. ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 15:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But did meet them in the past? Pelmeen10 ( talk ) 20:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 09:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"MartianCraft: Created by SPA . Maybe their app Briefs has some marginal notability (and that's a big maybe), but companies don't inherit notability from their products. Best source I could find – Tera tix ₵ 15:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Software , and Virginia . – Tera tix ₵ 15:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards, either in the cited sources or anywhere else that I found by searching. The short version of the cited sources: not even a single one of them provides substantial coverage of MartianCraft (many provide none at all) and some are not independent sources either. The longer version: the cited sources are: A link to a dead web site, domain up for sale. No mention of MartianCraft at all, though it does describe ""Briefs"", which is one of MartianCraft's products. Another link to a dead web site. A page on the company's own web site, announcing a business deal. A web site selling one of MartianCraft's products. Another page on the company's own web site, announcing another business deal. No mention of MartianCraft on the cited page, and using the website's search facility failed to find any mention of MartianCraft anywhere on the site. No mention of MartianCraft on the cited page, none found by searching other pages on the same web site, and the site describes itself as a ""digital marketing agency"". A company listing site, merely giving facts such as the number of employees, the city in which the company is based, year of foundation of the business, etc. ... another link to the same web page as the last one... ... and yet another link to the same page again. No mention of MartianCraft. The website calls itself a ""business media brand"", whatever that means. A page with a significant mentions of Rob Rhyne, cofounder of the company, and some quotes from him. Twice it mentions in passing that he runs a business called MartianCraft; there is no other mention of it. A dead link. A review of the software ""Briefs"", which in the first sentence describes Briefs as ""from MartianCraft"", and makes no further mention of MartianCraft. JBW ( talk ) 18:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Melissa (rock band): Notability seems doubtful so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra ( talk ) 14:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Malaysia . Mccapra ( talk ) 14:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Note the amateurishly Photoshopped pic in the infobox, which makes me suspect that someone affiliated with the band tried to create an image of various recent members for illustrative purposes. But on the other hand, how hard should it be to just get everybody into some chairs and take a real group photo? This is not relevant for notability but it may indicate a self-promotional effort for a band that is not in a stable state. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 16:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - They've apparently been around for a long time, and there may be a challenge with translation from the band's native tongue. Since this article includes no information on how their name may appear in other languages, there is no way to conduct a wider search and we will have to assume that the band is being promoted internationally under this name anyway. So a search for ""Melissa"" in conjunction with ""Malaysia"" plus various member names and other strategies will have to do. And even with some creative searches I can find nothing reliable and significant . The current footnote #2 is to an article explaining how the band decided to continue after one member's death, and footnote #4 is to an article about member Keff Melissa's solo career. Otherwise all I can find is social media posts and self-uploads. Perhaps they are disadvantaged by a shortage of rock media in their country, but maybe someone with sharper searching skills will find something. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 16:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada: Nominating this for AfD alongside List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada . Any individual events can be added to the respective Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict year-by-year event list. Longhornsg ( talk ) 19:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Terrorism , and Palestine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC) These pages are indeed all examples of what is discourage by WP:NOTMEMORIAL writ large, stringing together events without sufficient notability to have had pages created about them. The appropriate place for notable or significantly covered events is indeed at one of the appropriate year-by-year timelines at Template:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict . Iskandar323 ( talk ) 17:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per NOTMEMORIAL. AryKun ( talk ) 14:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Usefully compiled data for an intensely studied conflict. Can clean up any WP:NOTAMEMORIAL concerns. Mistamystery ( talk ) 20:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per NOTMEMORIAL. -- Shrike ( talk ) 14:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC) What about the other one ? It's a bit of an all or nothing issue. They are parallel lists, so surely either both or neither should go unless we want an NPOV crisis on out hands? Iskandar323 ( talk ) 16:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"On-Demand Trading: The sources are all paid PRs. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 06:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 06:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC) These are press releases. Cleo Cooper ( talk ) 06:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency , Companies , Alabama , Florida , and Wyoming . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC) NORG as none of the cited sources cover the subject in depth. -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . 2 primary sources + 5 copies of the same press release ≠ notability. — python coder ( talk | contribs ) 02:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Honestly feel like this should be speedy on A7/G11 grounds, but I guess since it's already here may as run it for the full 7 days so it's G4 as well next time. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 12:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mascherato: Orange Mike | Talk 20:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions . Orange Mike | Talk 20:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Largely PROMO, no reviews of the production found. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Not a notable musical -- it has never been produced, except in a workshop, and not a notable concept album -- it neither charted nor won any major awards. If it ever goes to the West End, we can write an article about it then. This is clearly WP:PROMO . -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 21:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Yep (software): Appears to be written like a press release. After searching, unable to find comprehensive, in-depth coverage of the software itself. Article was PROD on 19 January 2023, then self-reverted 23 January 2023. JoeNMLC ( talk ) 19:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC) - Created with cat=W Web or Internet ; should I have used cat=T Science and technology instead? I am clueless how to move this discussion, if necessary. JoeNMLC ( talk ) 20:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. - Master of Hedgehogs ( converse ) ( hate that hedgehog! ) 20:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. ConcurrentState ( talk ) 19:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] does not look notable to me. Article does not to show adequate sourcing and notability. Mevoelo ( talk ) 17:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Encoded Talk to me! 22:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC) indeed, written like a press release. the sourcing used is reviews and that doesn't qualify as reliable sourcing. it's quite hard to find sourcing apart from those, anyway. She was a fairy 09:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC) Per nom. The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 17:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Femi Babatunde: Other than the one source already cited, I can't find anything about this footballer at all. Unless significant coverage is found, Babatunde fails WP:GNG and probably even WP:SPORTBASIC #5, which requires at least one decent source. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Nigeria . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC) 19, 17 April 2024 (UTC) SPORTBASIC . Agree with nom. Anwegmann ( talk ) 22:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC) An article about a football player that needs more source to establish notability. The current state lacks SIGCOV and researches revolves other people's ID that may be 'Femi Babatunde', a notable Nigerian typical name. It's on other nire to day the article fails almost all the criteria for WP:SPORTSBIO , WP:GNG . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 20:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"John Joyce (musician): Could not find any RS about this person. Natg 19 ( talk ) 23:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , and United Kingdom . Natg 19 ( talk ) 23:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC) GNG . Suonii180 ( talk ) 06:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC) I couldn’t find anything beyond that he was a standard musician and a professor at Tulane university. If sources are found im willing to reconsider. Nagol0929 ( talk ) 12:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Azeus Convene: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC) NCORP , WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND . Routine coverage for a brochure article, adveritising the company on Wikipedia. Fails WP:DEL14 , WP:DEL4 . scope_creep Talk 21:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Leo Das: 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 ( ᴛᴀʟᴋ ) 16:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 ( ᴛᴀʟᴋ ) 16:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Tamil Nadu . Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - will set a terrible precedent for one-film character articles. Not notable. Neutral Fan ( talk ) 23:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] His backstory is not revealed yet that's why he seems like a one film character. 2600:1700:78E2:9010:7131:909A:C27:2A39 ( talk ) 03:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Not a great prospect when only one of the cited sources seemed to have any coverage of the character, as ""Leo"" was mostly used to refer to the film as a whole instead of the specific character. While the character is mentioned in sources that discussed the plot of the film, that does not seem to make the subject notable considering how many articles about characters that have received the same type of coverage were not kept in the end. Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 14:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC) not need as a character . Monhiroe ( talk ) 20:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC) All this is available at Leo . Kailash29792 (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] no separate notability from the fiction, where it is already covered in a more proportional way. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 15:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not notable enough to create a separate character article. Pinakpani ( talk ) 07:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Pawar/Bhoyar: Not Notable. There already exists a parent article at Paramara dynasty , drafts created on the AfD subject were already declined at 1 & 2 -- iMahesh ( talk ) 06:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and India . iMahesh ( talk ) 06:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC) Mirrors the Paramara dynasty article. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 00:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as a povfork. Source used twice can't be checked as no p9age numbers. Editor also created an article now moved to draftspace which is very similar. Draft:Bhoyar Doug Weller talk 16:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC) Bhoyar to draftspace. Also the editor has been blocked as a result of distruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibjaja055 ( talk • contribs ) ""Comment"" - we seem to have a meatpuppet (not a sock so far as my CU check shows). [24] Doug Weller talk 13:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - looks like a meat farm at work in pushing a sanskritisation agenda, the topic is covered elsewhere, the term in the article title isn't used in sources etc. - Sitush ( talk ) 19:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] mercifully per nomination. Subject fails WP:GNG . - The Gnome ( talk ) 17:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Hawaii Bowl broadcasters: Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE . Of the sources per WP:RS ; as with the ESPN sources, one s to the main page whilst the other is a 403. The other two are news report of the game itself, so not doing much to assert notability, which is used to argue about the notability of lists like this. One is a YouTube video, the one of a local paper leads to an error message. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 08:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , American football , Lists , and Hawaii . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 08:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - per above nom. I see no encyclopedic value or reason for this list. Editor who created it is now a blocked sock. — Maile ( talk ) 15:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC) LISTN . WP:NOTTVGUIDE —""An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc.""—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 ( talk ) 15:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC) LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet WP:LISTN . Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"National Association for Cave Diving: Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Environment , United States of America , and Florida . UtherSRG (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC) AFDLIST , specifically "" To avoid confusing newcomers, the reasons given for deletion should avoid Wikipedia-specific acronyms. "" AFD is one of the first ""behind the scenes"" places many new users ancounter, and a nomination like this is not goinjg to be coherent to them. Beeblebrox ( talk ) 16:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above point aside, it does appear that the article is sourced almost entirely to the organization itself, and the problem was noted shortly after it was created thirteen years ago. That seems like more than enough time, and what appears to have been done instead is to simply expand the coverage of the organizations programs based on their own materials. Beeblebrox ( talk ) 17:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"IKON Award for Best Actress: Fails GNG, sources exist for the award, but not to support an individual category within the award. No objection to a to iKON Awards . I am also nominating the following related pages: IKON Award for Best Actor ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) IKON Award for Best Director ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) IKON Award for Best Film ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) // Timothy :: talk 05:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Uganda . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC) N over a number of years to earn an article here, and aren't notable just for existing and need details about how the nominations and winners are chosen and balloted. Nate • ( chatter ) 21:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Blue Hill KF: Modest history peaking on the 6th tier. Geschichte ( talk ) 06:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Free Republic of Nias: Already covered somewhere else and only exist for a very brief amount of time and not notable as its immediatly transfered to Japanese control. Nyanardsan ( talk ) 06:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions . Nyanardsan ( talk ) 06:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hard - my mistake! Initially i've would have thought that this page could be revived with better sourcing via translation from the corresponding indonesian wiki. but i've come to a realization that there was the deletion discussion before (and that there was little to cite), thanks for the info! i'd allow the deletion of this page. Kaliper1 ( talk ) 06:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps creating a to Gunungsitoli#Mid-to-late 20th century or Nias#World War II would encourage later contributions to be added to those sections. CMD ( talk ) 11:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Since it was so short lived, its notability should be judged as an episode in history involving several significant events, rather as a republic. However, too much of the article relies on an Indonesian-language source that seems WP:FRINGE based on what Davidelit said in the previous AfD. I have asked Wikiproject Indonesia to take a look. small jars t c 18:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - If not a hoax or fringe theory, seems an encyclopedia-worthy topic with adequate sourcing to pass GNG. Sourcing is in Indonesian, however. I do not find the previous close as to be compelling. Carrite ( talk ) 15:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Green Park Boutique Hotel: LibStar ( talk ) 06:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Business , and Laos . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Post-harvest Technology Application Centre: JMWt ( talk ) 11:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or dratify - found a few potential sources- most results are on facebook or blog sites. There's some other government sources with one or two paragraphs here and there (e.g DOCA webpage ) and a non-government website that mentions in passing only. I think it fails WP:SIGCOV , but with two sources that discuss it slightly, a more detailed search could find more information. EmeraldRange ( talk / contribs ) 15:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC) GNG . I was unable to find significant coverage in secondary sources. The government website is a primary source and there is no point in draftifying an article created in 2008. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Federation of Anarchist Communists: I checked through my own sources at hand and couldn't find anything other than a single passing reference in The Continuum Companion to Anarchism . As this article appears not to meet our general notability guidelines , I'm proposing it for deletion. Grnrchst ( talk ) 13:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics , and Italy . Grnrchst ( talk ) 13:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. The only mentions of this are on Anarkismo, which seems un-RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I got a hit for it here , if anyone has access. -- asilvering ( talk ) 08:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 14, 20 July 2023 (UTC) I can't access the above source, sorry. I did find some extra information in Black Flame , but it's very sparse. Summary style would say: FdCA was formed during the 1980s while many new platformist organisations were being established (van der Walt & Schmidt 2009, p. 259); it joined the International Libertarian Solidarity (van der Walt & Schmidt 2009, p. 224); it supports ""historical materialism"" (van der Walt & Schmidt 2009, p. 107); and it advocates ""organisational dualism"" (van der Walt & Schmidt 2009, p. 126). This doesn't seem like enough for an article, even a stub. -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 11:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] imo even basic stubs like that are useful, especially if the information isn't available in continuous paragraphs and is scattered through a book like the one you used to write that summary. But that's still only one source, so... -- asilvering ( talk ) 17:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft . Lacking significant coverage per nom's reasoning and source analysis. czar 12:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ricardo Santos Silva: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Possibly, though that would concern the company rather than the individual. Aside from that, regarding the individual, there is the ""Entrepreneur of the Year"" award claim, though the provided reference doesn't work. AllyD ( talk ) 14:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Ricardo Santos Silva's diverse accomplishments, influence across various sectors, and recognition through awards demonstrate his notability. As a Portuguese businessman and technology entrepreneur, he co-founded multiple successful companies, all of which have made significant contributions to their respective industries. This showcases his impact on the business world and further supports his notability. I have added a new source (including his picture) for the ""Entrepreneur of the Year"" award, which highlights his innovation, leadership, and contributions to society. His achievements extend beyond founding companies. For instance, before establishing his own ventures, Ricardo Santos Silva served as the deputy president of Lyxor Asset Management, a role that highlights his professional expertise and industry experience. Additionally, his co-founding of Dorae, a technology firm specializing in supply chain transparency and sustainability, led to the company being recognized as a World Economic Forum 2020 Technology Pioneer, which further underscores his notability. Moreover, Ricardo Santos Silva has received prestigious awards, such as the Entrepreneur of the Year by the Presidency of the Portuguese Republic in 2019, acknowledging his innovation, leadership, and contributions to society. His career as an entrepreneur, marked by both successes and controversies, has had a significant impact on the Portuguese economy. He clearly meets WP:GNG , as there is substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The Entrepreneur of the Year award, his involvement in the founding and management of multiple successful businesses, and his impact on various industries all contribute to his notability and warrant the preservation of this article. ScottWillis45 ( talk ) 13:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC) fails GNG and BIO. BIO1E. I started a source eval, but everything is basically a mention or about 1E. :BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per V, BLP and BIO. // Timothy :: talk 13:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per ScottWillis45. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 15:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:BASIC per my below source analysis. If anything is incorrect in my analysis, please ping me. I'm also deeply concerned about the extremely promotional language used by Scott Willis above. I would also ask Das and Scott to provide significant coverage addressing Santos Silva in depth because not one example has been put forward yet and, in my view, this article does not address the reasons for deletion at all. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - This is a tricky one, but my vote is because he has accomplishment in his field and as per ScottWillis45. SalamancaOntheBorder ( talk ) 19:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which reliable sources led you to this conclusion? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC) Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/Gq7KzXHTygpB0lDwPcs7BKJkowk/appointments Companies House lists every single director of a UK company so doesn't confer notability ✘ No https://www.portugalglobal.pt/PT/PortugalNews/Paginas/NewDetail.aspx? newId=%7B586C594F-18FA-4F0B-85A3-EF63E479C2F4%7D ? ? ? Dead link ? Unknown https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/list-confirmed-bidders-buy-chelsea-2022-03-18/ Mentioned once ✘ No https://www.eurosport.com/geoblocking.shtml ? ? ? Dead link ? Unknown https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60785496 Mentioned once ✘ No https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/mar/17/battle-to-buy-chelsea-bidders-so-far-roman-abramovich Mentioned once ✘ No https://www.publico.pt/2015/07/24/economia/noticia/estado-vende-efisa-a-accionistas-da-aethel-1703101 Mentioned once ✘ No https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/blog/silicon-valley-bank-uncovering-regional-bank-stress-with-equity-driven-credit-models Not even mentioned here ✘ No https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-a-mystery-bidder-spoil-portugals-novo-banco-sale-1489149069 Article is about a company he is associated with not about him specifically ✘ No https://www.cnbc.com/video/2017/05/15/portugese-government-does-not-want-to-bear-the-political-cost-of-heavy-decisions-pro.html Not mentioned in detail ✘ No https://www.techuk.org/resource/from-aspiration-to-implementation-lightbulb-moments-for-trade-digitalisation.html Not even mentioned here ✘ No https://www.weforum.org/organizations/dorae/ Not even mentioned here ✘ No https://widgets.weforum.org/techpioneers-2020/dorae/ Not even mentioned here ✘ No https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/legal/materials-firm-accuses-rival-of-copyright-breach-11-12-2020/ Mentioned twice ✘ No https://www.energy-transitions.org/publications/carbon-capture-use-storage-vital-but-limited/ Not even mentioned here ✘ No https://www.jornaldenegocios.pt/empresas/banca---financas/detalhe/comprador_do_efisa_pede_prudencia_aos_deputados Mentioned once ✘ No https://eco.sapo.pt/2019/12/04/newton-vence-premio-jovem-empreendedor-2019-da-anje/ Mentioned twice ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2023 Laurence Fox GB News scandal: Relatively minor controversy that did not have much of a lasting impact. Furthermore, it is already covered in the GB News article. Partofthemachine ( talk ) 11:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC) 23, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , News media , Events , and United Kingdom . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] An unnecessary fork from GB News and Laurence Fox. A is unnecessary as this is an unlikely search term. AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed with above comments. There is nothing here that can't be covered in the GB News and Laurence Fox articles. Resonant Dis tor tion 22:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Delta Gemunupura College: All of my searches in English and Sinhala (ඩෙල්ටා ගැමුණුපුර විද්‍යාලය) don't seem to yield any decent coverage for this to pass WP:GNG and WP:NORG or at least one of those guidelines. All that seems to come up is the school's own Facebook account and basic database entries like Lanka Information , none of which confer any notability. Furthermore, the article was created by a problematic WP:SPA and spam account that has repeatedly tried to promote this school here. See User talk:Chathura prabhashwara 0 . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Sri Lanka . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nothing in gnews. Fails WP:NSCHOOL . LibStar ( talk ) 00:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC) NSCHOOL and WP:GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 18:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Malaysian football transfers 2010: Avilich ( talk ) 23:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Category:Lists of Malaysian football transfers . Ajf773 ( talk ) 08:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - this topic of football transfers can be notable, but this one doesn't look to be. Giant Snowman 10:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] unreliable sources, one being a blog, the other Facebook. LibStar ( talk ) 09:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC) RS aren't covering this specific topic, neither should we Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"SponsorBlock: elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 10 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 23:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , or if a suitable candidate can be found, emphasize on can . Most of the sources provided are primary and don't prove notability as compared to other adblockers which have articles and have survived AFD. Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 00:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is marginal on GNG (though that is only a notability guideline , and other factors can point to notability as well). However the claim of ""zero reliable or secondary sources"" is just false. This was featured on Mozilla's extension spotlight ( [2] ) as well as on ghacks ( [3] ). There is not really a good target either (or I probably would've just mentioned this there instead of making a separate article). Elli ( talk | contribs ) 01:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mozilla is not a news source, such as ZDNet . Ghacks alone can't support this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC) Your claim was that there are ""Zero reliable or secondary references"". That is pretty clearly false; there's a pretty big difference between two such sources and zero. As for Mozilla... while their site is branded as a blog, I have no reason to assume they would not be a reliable source for this subject. It's a blog with editorial oversight (by a pretty major organization) that reviews extensions. Citing them for a review of an extension is a very reasonable thing to do. Elli ( talk | contribs ) 04:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC) 33, 11 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Although I disagree with the nom's claim that there are zero reliable or secondary sources, it is hard to find sources to establish this source's notability. Only having two or more reliable sources for verifiable content would make this a permastub. 0x Deadbeef →∞ ( talk to me ) 12:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , I'm pretty sure that if you don't include MOU do to not focusing of SponsorBlock and include Mozilla and Ghacks.com (Most reliable name ever⸮) it would only have maybe two sources contribution to GNG. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 15:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two sources contributing to GNG is often enough. And of course GNG is just a guideline and not the only thing that can indicate notability either. Elli ( talk | contribs ) 17:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SponsorBlock is notable enough for its own article. (yes, I am really going to do this) Wikipedia is designed to be an encyclopedia for everything, The sum of all human knowledge , as you will. SponsorBlock has notable events in its history (including being the most popular browser extension on Firefox). I think that some links would also be broken, because this browser extension is quite popular. All I'm asking for is for SponsorBlock to no longer be nominated for deletion. ObsessiveScribe ( talk ) 17:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is the sum of all knowledge, but it's not everything . SWinxy ( talk ) 20:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak This certain verifies in reliable sources . It has been around for at least three years, and now appears on a number of lists of desirable software add-ons. I note that it is now on majorgeeks.com, and is generally rated as 5/5 by users in user reviews. None of the computer oriented websites reviewing the software give much detail, but it seems if this is appropriately encyclopedic. -- Bejnar ( talk ) 18:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting although this could conceivably be Deleted. But there are several comments here that don't officially state but are definitely arguments to this article. What matters of this project is not how many users are fan of this extension but secondary, independent reliable sources that give this subject SIGCOV. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Very little depth to the coverage it's received, except for the Mozilla blog post (which should be reliable). The rest I've found are listicles. It needs to be the main topic of at least a few independent secondary sources ( WP:SIGCOV ). SWinxy ( talk ) 20:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The ghacks review is pretty in-depth as well (given how much there is to write about this). Elli ( talk | contribs ) 21:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC) 48, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You don't pay to be in the recommended extensions program or anything. It's just ""extensions that the Mozilla team thinks are good"". Of course those are the ones they write about. See here . Elli ( talk | contribs ) 02:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mozilla is the organization behind Firefox. I don't think we can suggest that Mozilla would be able to provide independent reporting of web extensions for their own platform. 0x Deadbeef →∞ ( talk to me ) 02:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , as mentioned above, no in depth coverage. Cinadon 36 23:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"WLLP-CA: Let'srun ( talk ) 16:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Religion , and Tennessee . Let'srun ( talk ) 16:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 17:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Gresham Police Department (Oregon): It certainly exists, there is coverage, but what I've found is run of the mill , no deep coverage. The content is poor enough that it's been turned into a in the past, which . . the city of Gresham article can't even be bothered to find a passing mention to the police department, making it a confusing . See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_17#Gresham_Police_Department_(Oregon) . tedder ( talk ) 16:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Oregon . tedder ( talk ) 16:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV . scope_creep Talk 16:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No claim or references for notability. Llajwa ( talk ) 14:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Cotton Bowl Classic broadcasters: Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE . Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 07:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , American football , and Lists . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 07:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , it's an important college football bowl game, with sourcing from [50] , [51] , [52] . Esolo5002 ( talk ) 16:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC) ROUTINE and WP:ITSIMPORTANT applies. This is not about the notability of the games itself. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC) LISTN . WP:NOTTVGUIDE —""An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc.""—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 ( talk ) 18:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC) LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 ( talk ) 22:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC) WP:LISTN is not met due to a lack of RS. Let'srun ( talk ) 04:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dunihi: DefaultFree ( talk ) 01:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC) GNG , couldn't find any coverage suggesting that the article's subject is at all significant or notable. - Aoidh ( talk ) 01:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Social networking pedagogy: It looks possible that the topic is notable but the current page reads like an unverified essay and needs WP:TNT JMWt ( talk ) 14:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Education . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I've yet to complete a search on this, and I have to head offline now, but I will note this paper that describes a ""social networking pedagogy"", but attributes its creation to David Trend and Henry Giroux rather than Thomas Patrick Huston and Hallie DeCatherine Jones. This article also mentions the term, and gives a bit of an overview about applications in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Article text at present will need to be wholly rewritten if kept, so I'm half-inclined to go towards WP:TNT , but I want to complete a more comprehensive search first. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [7] . Regards, HaeB ( talk ) 21:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 23:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Eleven years should have been enough time for adding citations, and as pointed out above, the content would likely need to be thoroughly rewritten and corrected anyway even if suitable references are added. Regards, HaeB ( talk ) 21:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Different for Girls: Women Artists and Female-Fronted Bands Cover Joe Jackson: Very little/no notable coverage. As far as I can tell, it didn't chart, get certified, etc or meet any criteria of WP:NALBUM DeputyBeagle ( talk ) 14:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC) There's an AllMusic review , but that's all I could find. Doesn't appear to have a suitable target, unless there's room for a tribute albums section of Joe Jackson discography . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 15:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I agree with the previous voter. The album was fortunate to snag an AllMusic review, but even that accomplishes little more than a list of who's on it. Otherwise it went unnoticed by the press and public. Most of the contributing artists are themselves non-notable. No place to because Jackson himself was uninvolved. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 15:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . In my view, at the very least a (to a new section in the article about JJ ( Joe Jackson (musician)#Legacy, for example) should be considered, anyway. I dPd the page and added sources including. Trouser Press review that states:""Whether by accident or intent, Jackson has written a lot of his songs from a non-gender-specific viewpoint. This makes them remarkably open to interpretation, just as his melodic gifts make his work appeal to artists from a wide range of genres. (As of early 2010, Jackson’s songs have been covered by artists as diverse as Tori Amos, Anthrax, Buck-o-Nine, Goldfinger, Guttermouth, Mandy Moore and Sugar Ray.) The 14 female artists and female-fronted bands that perform on the 2004 tribute disc Different for Girls uncover layers of woman-sympathetic insight that many of Jackson’s fans may never have apprehended in his tunes. Elaine K underscores the loneliness and rejection implicit in “Is She Really Going Out with Him?” with a solo folk approach. Fabulous Disaster rocks out faithfully on “Got the Time”; Beth Thornley strips the same song down, singing the lyric over acoustic guitar and funky keyboard underpinnings, emphasizing the weariness that waits at the end of the busy day. Essra Mohawk recasts “Steppin’ Out” with a light, frisky ska rhythm; Whitney McCray performs “Breakin’ Us in Two” as a sad waltz. Maxine Young turns “It’s Different for Girls” into blissful dream-pop. Idle Mirth brings the guitar noise to “Another World” while turning the melody inside out; the result is something that My Bloody Valentine fans would admire. (“I stepped into another world,” indeed.) Alice Lee’s rendition of “Sea of Secrets” makes it sound like the best hit single Sheryl Crow never had. darkblueworld has the last word with its version of “Take It Like a Man,” alternating trip-hop verses with a guitar-heavy chorus. Track after track, Different for Girls shows that when it comes to writing songs with an unforced yet intuitive grasp of the feminine point of view, Joe Jackson is the man."" A brief presentation of what is the 1st tribute album to JJ indicates: ""Mr. Jackson himself has said: ""I LOVE the idea of an all-female tribute album! Let them know I can't wait to hear it. "" Also noted there is the presence of ""Joy Askew, whose album credits include Jackson's ""Big World,"" ""Live 1980/86,"" ""Blaze of Glory,"" ""Laughter & Lust,"" and ""Heaven & Hell."" And to which one can add indeed an All Music review stating: ""Over the years, the lyrics of Joe Jackson's songs often appeared to be sung from a female point of view, the best example being ""It's Different for Girls. "" So it's only fitting that an all-female tribute to Jackson was assembled in 2004, Different for Girls: Women Artists and Female-Fronted Bands Cover Joe Jackson. Now before you get all excited with thoughts of Fiona Apple, Chrissie Hynde, and Joni Mitchell covering Jackson classics, the 14 artists that appear on the album aren't exactly household names. As with most tribute albums, some of the artists stick close to the originals (Lisa Mychols' ""Look Sharp!,"" Fabulous Disaster's ""Got the Time,"" Fiona Lehn's ""On Your Radio""), while others try new approaches (Elaine K's ""Is She Really Going out with Him?,"" Idle Mirth's ""Another World,"" Maxine Young's ""It's Different for Girls""). Also included is an appearance by Mary Lee's Corvette (""Home Town""), who is a favorite of Jackson (and has opened shows for him on numerous occasions). Of course there's nothing like the classic original versions, but for longtime fans who are looking for something to spice up their extensive Jackson CD collections, Different for Girls: Women Artists and Female-Fronted Bands Cover Joe Jackson may just do the trick."" - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC) I'm not sure any of that makes the album more notable as such. It's had a handful of reviews, sure, but it's not significant coverage. Maybe the album is great, but it could be the greatest album ever and it really wouldn't matter, it's just not notable. DeputyBeagle ( talk ) 08:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I already voted above, but just wanted to concur that those sources mention the album and provide lists of who's on it, but don't really provide much insight with which to build an encyclopedic article. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 21:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ... I am sorry but I am really surprised by your comments and have to respectfully disagree with both of them. It's had a handful of reviews, sure, but it's not significant coverage. sounds a bit self-contradictory, doesn't it? It is significant according to what WP defines as such and the album (not great, according to the reviews, but that is not the point) seems therefore notable enough. And those sources mention the album and provide lists of who's on it, but don't really provide much insight with which to build an encyclopaedic article is in my view simply not true, at all. They don't only mention the album and who's on it!!!! That is exactly to avoid this kind of generic comments that I quoted them verbatim although they were inserted in the page.... Thank you. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A handful of reviews does not make it significant. Most any album out there has some reviews. Those were not from major publications, which is an important part of it being significant coverage. Besides, an album should be notable beyond having reviews. It didn't chart, it hasn't been certified, it's barely even been mentioned anywhere. It just simply isn't a notable album DeputyBeagle ( talk ) 01:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No. This is not true. An album does not need to appear in the charts to be considered notable on WP. Just read the guidelines , please. What it needs is significant coverage in reliable sources. You repeating the album is not notable and I understood such was your opinion. But saying it's barely even been mentioned anywhere is in contradiction with the existing sources I presented and even with what you say yourself when you claim that A handful of reviews does not make it significant , which is not the consensus here. A handful of reviews is considered significant on Wikipedia. I will leave it at that now, thank you, even if you reply one more time that ""this album is not notable"". I disagree, and explained why by presenting sources. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have read the criteria. It has to fulfil at least one of the criteria and it doesn't. It should be the ""subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works"" - those works are trivial. They're reviews that, as Doomsdayer mentioned, mention that the album exists and who's on it and not much else. I mentioned the charts and certs as a means of saying it doesn't meet the other criteria either. Also, if you read the last paragraph in the notability guidelines it says ""a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article"", which this doesn't fulfil DeputyBeagle ( talk ) 10:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Al-ʿArabiyya (journal): Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 12:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Academic journals . Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 12:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hard to consider the journal of a redlinked institution should itself be a bluelink, right? But this journal, published by the Georgetown University Press, is now in its 47th Year (from 1967-1974 it was published as Al Nashra ) and therefore already passes criterion 3 of WP:JOURNALCRIT, ""The journal is historically important in its subject area."" Then consider its distribution by Project Muse, ""Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources"", and you'll note I bolded 'essential' there. I note that articles by scholars in the journal get pretty widely cited, which deals with Criteria 2. I can't speak for C1 - but do note that a journal should pass any of the three. Also, as an English language journal focused on a discipline that deserves a great deal more focus in the West than it gets, it's a relatively rare beast - and therefore definitely worth a from me!!! Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 14:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't entirely agree with your assessment that being nearly 50 years old translates to historical importance. Anyone could start a minor village newspaper, then hand down ownership to their child(ren), making it probably over 50 years old (if not more), but that wouldn't make the newspaper notable. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 18:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd be inclined to this. See the arguments I made in WP:SJ . — S Marshall T / C 16:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . WP:JOURNALCRIT is an essay that attempts to override GNG with inherent notability criteria that do not predict NPOV SIGCOV. Per WP:N, it does not carry weight at AfD. If we do not have independent sources providing direct discussion of the journal, then all we have is a database entry sourced to what the journal says about itself. JoelleJay ( talk ) 18:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . Having existed for 50 years does indeed not mean that something has an ""historical purpose"", nor are the numbers of citations very impressive, but citation levels are almost always low in the Humanities. However, this is the official journal of a major academic society in this field. Unfortunately, the association has no article, so we cannot there. It is abstracted and indexed in several databases, but apart from Scopus, none are highly selective. Scopus indicates 2019-2021 as coverage years, but does not say that coverage is discontinued, I think this is just reflects the fact that the 2022 and 2023 volumes are a double issue that is not published yet (or was published very recently). So while I don't think that JOURNALCRIT #2 or #3 are met, I think this squeezes by on #1. Also: WP:HEY . -- Randykitty ( talk ) 09:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC) GNG , and per User:JoelleJay there's no good target here. If the journal is ""historically important"", I would expect to see that reflected in reliable sources, even as passing mentions. More modern summaries in other (independent) journals like this one that describe the journal and its impact would lead me to vote Keep, although I wasn't able to find anything obvious. (Other sources: not independent but useful context ; couldn't access this, but may contain relevant coverage ) Suriname0 ( talk ) 04:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Georgetown University Press . - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Worldwide Records: Most of the currently cited sources aren't reliable, and those that are reliable only provide passing mention or provide routine coverage . GSS 💬 14:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC) The article was created and mostly edited by now-blocked socks of Alizulfikarzahedi, along with a few anonymous users who could potentially be the same individuals evading blocks. I haven't observed any substantial edits by others, so this could be eligible for deletion under WP:G5 . GSS 💬 14:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Companies , India , and Bihar . GSS 💬 14:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC) Appears to be spam. Too much press release and unreliable sources used as source. @T.C.G. [talk] 17:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Mostly unreliable sources, sources with link errors and somewhat reliable source there is like BBC, it has no depth coverage about the company or its background. It is more about who the company signed or dealt with. Per nom, the page is also eligible for deletion per WP:G5 . RangersRus ( talk ) 13:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Conductor support system: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 14:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lisa Winning: Lacking WP:SIGCOV about her. Interviews where she is quoted talking about her product is not WP:SIGCOV about her. Possible self promotion. LibStar ( talk ) 03:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women , and Australia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC) NBASIC . MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Also, an editor recently added content including references to the article, an evaluation of sources would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Purely promotional with primary sourcing and reads like a resume. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 18:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Minami Aizawa: Sourcing is all red or orange linked per sourcebot and I can't find mentions of her in rS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Japan . Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Can't find significant sources to pass notability bar. Noneate ( talk ) 14:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"The Cooters: FMSky ( talk ) 19:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC) GNG -satisfying coverage, music charting, or anyone referring to them as ""critically acclaimed"" as the article baselessly asserts. Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also strongly disagree with the 2009 AFD consensus. They argued that releasing 2 albums on a major record label was enough, but none of any of the labels they've been signed to are anyways near major level. I can't believe no one called them on that...though the standards were way more lax back then. Sergecross73 msg me 22:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The band has an album article at The Moon Will Rise Again , which will have to be addressed if the main article is d. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC) A9 'd personally. Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - This is unfortunate because the band has a long history and a surprisingly large number of albums, though they are mostly self-released. They are almost purely local and probably have a loyal fan base in their town, but the only coverage I can find is friendly interviews in local entertainment papers: [3] , [4] , [5] . Most of the article's claims about their success and influence cannot be backed up. It is also important to reiterate that notability rules were softer when this band survived an AfD back in 2009. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Peace gaming: DirtyHarry991 ( talk ) 07:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC) NOTNEO . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 07:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC) NOTNEO . Sergecross73 msg me 02:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:NOTNEO . Videogameplayer99 ( talk ) 11:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC) NOTNEO . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 09:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Gregorio Maria Paone: Only one local source covers him directly, and the small amount of articles he's written do not seem enough to meet WP:NPROF . Why? I Ask ( talk ) 20:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bands and musicians . Why? I Ask ( talk ) 20:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Searches on Google, Italian news sites, and JSTOR turn up nothing aside from what appears already in this article. Does not meet the criteria of WP:BASIC , WP:ANYBIO , and WP:MUSICBIO . — CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 00:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC) per forementioned reason above. Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Michael S. Bogren: No objections here for a to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies , where he is already listed. Let'srun ( talk ) 19:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Michigan . Let'srun ( talk ) 19:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * I agree that this does not meet GNG guidelines and this entry would certainly not stand the test of time. Delete. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 21:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"José Silva (parapsychologist): ""Sources"" findagrave, silvanow and mindvalley are not RSs. Ixocactus ( talk ) 23:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions . Ixocactus ( talk ) 23:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychology and Texas . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. We had that article before, with sources just as bad, and it was d. -- Hob Gadling ( talk ) 04:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC) 37, 29 May 2023 (UTC) 15, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Mccapra ( talk ) 04:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , maybe revisit later. I dispute the claim that he was a parapsychologist. It appears his works were later redefined as paranormal-like to tap that more lucrative commercial market. One of his own lecture ads from 1987: ""Mr. Silva who has no formal education, never went to school to learn,..."" . There are plenty of self-taught geniuses in history, yes, but they have more notability and a wider impact. He appears to have been more of an entrepreneur and lecturer. The article on the Silva Method is sparse at present, which includes a bio section. If notability ever improves, such as a movie made of his life with wide coverage, then revisit as a stand-alone bio, but not as a parapsychologist, imo. 5Q5 | ✉ 13:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 20:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kim Bok-man: Simione001 ( talk ) 23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC) GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 14:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC) Can't find sigcov, not enough games to pass threshold of notability. toobigtokale ( talk ) 03:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann ( talk ) 03:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC) 27, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Indian Premier League players: Most teams have their own articles for players e.g. List of Chennai Super Kings cricketers , there is no reason why we need this article which is a less easy to understand version of that data, when the team lists are perfectly fine, and in line with cricketer lists we have for other non-IPL cricket teams. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 14:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Cricket , Lists , and India . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 14:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC) 50, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per nom, we already have lists for cricketers by cricket teams. it per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST . RoboCric ( talk ) 15:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is why we have team categories, folks. Nate • ( chatter ) 18:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Simply too big to be reasonable. Individual lists for teams (which are fine) already exist, so this list is major overkill. StickyWicket ( talk ) 18:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We have categories for players from separate teams, a list like this is going to be enormous with the number of players who've played in the competition. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Already too long and can only increase. Need to have more selective criteria than this. Rupples ( talk ) 19:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Olancha Earthquake Sequence (2009): This is a non-notable event. The article lacks encyclopedic value and it cannot be re-shaped into something that is. At the time its occurrence, this probably wouldn't even have been appropriate for Wikinews. Dawnseeker2000 18:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 20:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC) WikiProject Geology and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Earthquakes . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are no news articles whatsoever about this. My only hesitation would be in deleting the liquefaction bit, which if I am to believe this article is the event's one claim to fame in scientific circles. However, I don't think liquefaction actually has a minimum magnitude at which it can occur, so I personally suspect there's not going to be anything - or - worthy there when someone finds the time to double-check the papers cited. Even if the liquefaction bit ends up actually being a unique thing worth mentioning, it's probably better off being d somewhere else. -- Licks-rocks ( talk ) 12:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For California, this is not a notable earthquake as indicated by the lack of news articles. Even the liquefaction has occurred with other, more notable earthquakes. That said, I would suggest merging the ""Tectonic setting"" of thie article with the ""Geology"" section of Owens Valley . I can find one dedicated source and several more references but I didn't check if they establish GNG. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk ) 19:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Andy Daro: Possible attempt at self-promotion. Patrick J. Welsh ( talk ) 19:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Politicians , Italy , Connecticut , Florida , and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - not notable and likely written for money by BheekAam along with other articles . As for the tone, most people would blush if they had a Wikipedia article about them that promotional. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 23:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC) Articles for deletion/J. Luke Bennecke - another article by the same author. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 23:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trance Fury (2nd nomination) -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Sources in article fail to prove notability (no sigcov/not independent), and a google search shows nothing that would meet WP:NBIO . ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 02:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , not notable and Wikipedia is not a CV. Kierzek ( talk ) 03:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - non-notable subject. Very little coverage exists. Upper Deck Guy ( talk ) 19:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC) No coverage found for this individual, does appear PROMO. Gsearch is largely social media or legal filings. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] promotional bio that fails all notability standards. Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 16:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC) UPE to me. ☆ Bri ( talk ) 18:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] like do I have a choice? This article is certainly promotional, large parts of the article are unsourced, and very little coverage is included. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 19:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looking like snowball. Promotional and the organization you ""started"" is not even mentioned in the Compass article -- VViking Talk Edits 14:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC) AVALANCHE . — siro χ o 16:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"St. Paul's Church,Banda: No WP:RS provided. Fails per WP:GNG . Fylindfotberserk ( talk ) 10:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Religion . Fylindfotberserk ( talk ) 10:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Uttar Pradesh . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - not notable. My search came up empty after refining it to ""St. Paul's Church""+""Banda""+""Uttar Pradesh"". -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - can't find anything other than a Facebook page for the church. If this is somehow kept, it should be moved to St. Paul's Church, Banda Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC) MILL . Neither the building nor the congregation has any particular claim to notability. St Anselm ( talk ) 15:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above and nom. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 02:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mirianée Zaragoza: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Puerto Rico . JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. Locating sources may be complicated by some official sources, such as FPF , referring to her as ""Mirianée Hernandez"". - Socccc ( talk ) 16:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] More non-SIGCOV mentions in PR when also searching for Nené Zaragoza ( 1 , 2 , 3 ). - Socccc ( talk ) 16:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Paywalled Record article may mention her but doesn't appear to be SIGCOV. Contract renewal press release and non-IS republication by Portuguese public broadcasting . PR student media source with quotes about Maritimo. 2018 PR PotY nomination. - Socccc ( talk ) 16:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC) GNG ; I can't find any Portuguese- or Spanish-language sources that cover the subject in-depth. Jogurney ( talk ) 13:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Beretta 92 models: There is little encyclopedic value in listing every single variant of a particular pistol that has ever been produced, many of which have minimal changes between them. Loafiewa ( talk ) 00:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Firearms . Loafiewa ( talk ) 00:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per the nomination. Can we get this cruft off of Wikipedia already? Those who are looking for certain models will already know where to look. IncompA 02:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC) this seems like a legitimate WP:LIST on the different types of firearms, serving essentially as trivia. If this was just a collection of blue links, I'd agree, but there's also specification information as well. DarmaniLink ( talk ) 02:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC) I hesitated between and as it does present little encyclopedic value but at the same time lists such as List of firearms (B) exist so it seems that a more specific list in a similar vein would be justifiable per Spiderone. Darron4 ( talk ) 10:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom and NOTDIRECTORY. I'm no firearms expert, but the specifications don't appear to show a great deal of variation, not enough to justify a standalone list IMO. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 12:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC) NOTPROMOTION . Beretta is a for-profit maker of firearms. This reads like a catalog listing, for selecting the model that best suits you. While the editor is no longer active, their editing history seems to be specifics of individual weapons, often with a link to the manufacturer's website ( Glock Ges.m.b. H. ) — Maile ( talk ) 15:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge, mostly NOTPROMOTION doesn't apply, as a list of stats does not advocate their superiority, value, reliability, or award-winning qualities. Really, this is a list primarily of specifications, which are uncontested but unreferenced, and mostly seems to be a series of links to the same page, Beretta 92. I don't see why this should exist as a standalone list rather than within the Beretta 92 article itself. I'm also suspecting it would be reasonable to the various other articles that exist (92R, 92G-SD/96G-SD) into the main Beretta 92 article as well. Jclemens ( talk ) 21:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC) SPINOFF DarmaniLink ( talk ) 22:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no crystal ball to know this. Regardless, if it's d into the main article and then trimmed, the data will still be in version history. Jclemens ( talk ) 23:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The vast majority of these links go directly back to the main Beretta 92 article as already noted, and that article doesn't contain any pertinent information about some of the linked models (I noticed this especially with the various Brigadier versions). Not seeing any real value added here, especially if someone starts on that list looking for specific model information. They're not going to get it in most cases (of the 55 pistols on the list, one is a red link and only 7 have unique articles). Intothat darkness 23:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"CP 009 Évidemment: As always, every song is not automatically entitled to its own standalone Wikipedia article just because it exists, and has to have notability claims (charting, awards, coverage and analysis about the song in media, etc.) and reliable sourcing to support that -- but existence is the only notability claim being attempted here, and no referencing is cited at all. Bearcat ( talk ) 13:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs , Belgium , and France . Bearcat ( talk ) 13:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is about all I can find [29] , a brief mention of the new song coming out. RTBF is the Belgian national broadcaster. Few other sources found. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does not appear to have charted, no mentions in media. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Joe Wragg: The article fails WP:GNG . Robby.is.on ( talk ) 08:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Robby.is.on ( talk ) 08:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC) GNG per my BEFORE search. Jogurney ( talk ) 14:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Paul Soniat: Nothing much on the page seems to be sufficient notability for a BLP. Seems unlikely that being a talented amateur musician is notable, and I'm dubious whether being the director of a botanical garden is enough. Either way, this page has been unreferenced for way too long. JMWt ( talk ) 20:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Louisiana . JMWt ( talk ) 20:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC) GNG by the looks of it. - KH-1 ( talk ) 01:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"South Bay Tower: LynxesDesmond 🐈 (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Massachusetts . LynxesDesmond 🐈 (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC) 00, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see any further news (or anything) about this proposed tower that I think was never built. The small one paragraph now hardly seems worth ing. Nothing has appeared since the two sources used, and I don't think anything will at this point... Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Per nom and others. I'm not convinced work for this tower was ever even started based on an apparent lack of news coverage. Bsoyka ( talk ) 05:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"The Skyscraper (Dubai): I'm sending this to AfD rather than using PROD because the title is so generic that it's basically impossible to search for sources. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and United Arab Emirates . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC) If any skyscrapers in Dubai are not notable, this article, along with The Peninsula will be removed as it fails WP:GNG . CastJared ( talk ) 21:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another Dubai vaportower that has no tenant or use information listed. Nate • ( chatter ) 01:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC) GNG. You'd have to try pretty hard to make a tower stand out around here, particularly one that is still to be constructed... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 04:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC) GNG , Alex-h ( talk ) 16:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , per nom. Suonii180 ( talk ) 08:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sanders Saurajen: Now, GIFC is obviously not an independent source as it was his employer at the time, so does not count towards WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC , both of which require multiple sources independent of the subject. In terms of independent sourcing, I found nothing better than Straits Times , a trivial mention, SPL , also a trivial mention and from the FA of Singapore as well so probably not independent, and Active SG Circle , which contains 4 mentions in a match report. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Singapore . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC) SPORTBASIC . Two partial matches in an entire career...no shot. Anwegmann ( talk ) 00:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Fails WP:GNG . Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bruno Rendón: Coverage is limited to affiliated press, and even then is light on biographical detail. I was unable to find additional coverage searching online and on Newspapers.com signed, Rosguill talk 16:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Cuba . signed, Rosguill talk 16:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet GNG. JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Tax attribute: It seems to me like the most sensible option would be to with Tax accounting in the United States but I'm not sure about a , as it appears that the term is used outside of the USA and as it stands the page doesn't mention other jurisdictions. JMWt ( talk ) 08:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and United States of America . JMWt ( talk ) 08:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC) little cleanup action has occurred since the last nom in 2010. I think it now needs attention. JMWt ( talk ) 08:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] this is a specific taxation code definition, that has several meanings in various jurisdictions. This would need a clean up and re-write, but tax law isn't my forté. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment feel free to anything that you think is able, but I see no merit in this article as it stands. It reads like the personal statement of a tax advisor (i.e. I agree about OR), it plunges straight into a discussion of how to get out of paying tax in the US jurisdiction by exploiting a particular piece of tax legislation, without explaining what this has to do with the term ""Tax attribute"", and yes, those words are used for other concepts outside the US, which should at least be acknowledged. I'd have no objection to straightforward deletion. Elemimele ( talk ) 12:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of electroacoustic composers of color: Original (endorsed) rationale: I see no indication that this specific yet subjective and undefined cross-categorization meets WP:NLIST . ""Of color"" is a very American-centric phrase that essentially categorizes people as ""white"" or ""not"", smushing everyone in the ""not"" category into one homogenous mass with no respect to actual cultural differences that may be relevant. Japan, for example, might have a particular style of electroacoustic composition where it would be relevant to discuss Japanese composers (and their non-Japanese adherents) together, but there's no indication that every ""non-white"" electroacoustic composer should be grouped together in this way. (And that's not getting into how we may or may not be defining ""of color""). DePROD'd by creator with the following rationale: Removed deletion proposal because this is a useful resource for teaching. My students (who are not in the US) use this page, as do other lecturers. As much as I respect that, whether or not something could be useful to a small subset of people is not a basis for ing a list. ♠ PMC ♠ (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. List of acousmatic-music composers doesn't have all of the entries on this list so a may be of benefit. — siro χ o 19:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah! I didn't realize that existed. I'm happy for a / instead of deletion. ♠ PMC ♠ (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Music . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. This list exists for the same reason lists of women composers exist. It's to simplify research for people who are trying to find representation. The history of this genre has been heavily whitewashed to the point that it's usually credited to being invented in France by Schaeffer. In fact, the origin was in Cairo from El-Dabh. He was not an obscure composer. He moved to the US and moved in all the important musical circles of the post-war era, but his contribution has largely been neglected. I'm using him as an example, but this is a systemic problem, similar to the one that has also historically impacted women. I understand that this is a 'smushing', but systemic erasure is also a smushing. Drcchutch ( talk ) 20:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Understanding ""of color"" as an exclusively North-American phrase is a very limiting way of framing the rationality of this list. It also conveys non-Western artistic practice, and art manifestations from the Global South, which, in the context of the history of electroacoustic music, includes a highly-relevant number of practitioners, past and present. Since this kind of list page is very useful for discoverability by the general public as well as by students in the field, deleting it would be a mistake, and the rationale presented for deletion would not speak very highly of the principles of the Wikipedia community. Kamen~enwiki ( talk ) 21:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The assumption that all ""people of color"" are non-Western and/or from the Global South is, itself, a limiting point of view. The color of one's skin does not determine their artistic practice. Do you have any reliable sources which treat all ""people of color"" as coming from a single or related electroacoustic tradition? Presenting sources would be the most useful argument towards ing this list. ♠ PMC ♠ (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I never said ""all 'people of color'"" above. I clearly stated ""It also conveys"". Kamen~enwiki ( talk ) 22:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But my point is that that's what this type of list conveys, unintentionally or otherwise - that somehow all ""people of color"" are the same. It's one thing to create a list of ""List of composers from X"" or ""List of composers in X style"", but ""people of color"" is a subjective term that homogenizes all these people. Again, if there were sources that discussed ""people of color"" as a specific group within electroacoustic music, that would be a much stronger argument for ing this list - do you have any? ♠ PMC ♠ (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So you want this broken down by country of origin or what are you looking for? And what time frame are you looking for it in? It's my first week of term and I did not have refactoring this list in my schedule. Drcchutch ( talk ) 22:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm reinstate my vote to , on the grounds I stated above. Further arguments for this have been made by others below. Kamen~enwiki ( talk ) 01:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. I've been thinking about it and there's no obvious way to refactor this list and retain it's current utility. This list exists because of historical and ongoing racism in music education and textbooks. Racism lumps diverse populations together and sees them as interchangeable. Dozens of different countries and cultures become ""Asian."" Educators and researchers trying to mitigate the effects of this use the same terminology, because anti-racism is a reaction to racism. Breaking this list up into ""Asian"", ""Black"", etc, however, becomes more specific to a particular western country, rather than less. The categories used in the UK differ very significantly from the ones used in the US and neither is exhaustive. This list is of most use to academics, musicologists and students, who are a small subset of people, it's true, but they're also the experts in the topic. Again, wikipedia does have artificial, homogenous groupings like ""women"" in other places for very similar motivations, utility and audience. Drcchutch ( talk ) 08:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC) NLIST clause, Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability , as a list that is both informational and developmental. I would entertain other options that serve the purposes this one does including renaming the list. I currently view as a subpar but viable alternative. I will also note that an editor removed several redlinks from the list recently, and I'm not equipped to know if they should be restored per the intended informational and developmental purposes of this list. — siro χ o 08:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those names were there for developmental purposes. Drcchutch ( talk ) 09:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From a UK perspective the 'of colour' term does seem extremely broad in a way that centres whiteness, while excluding many people who experience racism such as Roma and Jewish people. More specific information is already there in existing finer-grained categories, e.g. someone might be in both a 'Indonesian composer' category and an 'Electroacoustic composer' category. Does wikipedia have functionality for selecting/grouping by category and presenting that as a meta-list? That would allow suppressed histories to be brought to light without the USA-centric 'smushing'. Nonetheless I'm going to vote because fundamentally I think this should not be framed as a deletion discussion and would be better as a more expansive discussion on the category's talk page. Yaxu ( talk ) 09:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no ability to create a list on the fly based on categories. You could run a query using an offwiki tool to pull entries in Category X that are also in Category Y, but that's offwiki. I'm not sure what a discussion on the category talk page would have to do with ing this list article or not, as regardless of the outcome of any categorization discussion, this list would still exist. ♠ PMC ♠ (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC) CROSSCAT , but especially due to the generally racist overtones of lumping anyone not ""white"" into the group of ""of color"", whatever that even means. Racial identity is extremely thorny, and what constitutes ""of color"" is almost always going to be WP:OR . Even though WP:PANDORA is about s, I'm going to invoke it in spirit here as a good reason why this list shouldn't exist. Every single list of people could be split off into an ""of color"" version. I also find the pleas to NLIST's clause of valid ""informational"" or ""developmental"" list completely ludicrous grasping at straws. Any list could be ""informational"", and any list with red links could be ""developmental"". You forgot the qualifier of recognized , which this isn't. In any case, this is just a glorified WP:ITSUSEFUL and doesn't justify ing this. 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 13:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. For what it's worth, ""lumping anyone not 'white' into the group of 'of color' is racist"" is itself a well-known racist concern troll that attempts to support white supremacy by forcing every other ethnicity to act independently against it instead of working together to dismantle it. It's roughly the equivalent of union-busting tactics that convince workers they're better off negotiating on their own. Assuming you're operating in good faith, you should probably rethink why you think that argument is valid - and regardless, I don't think it's a valid argument for deletion here. The entire point of the article is to attempt to de-whitewash the genre. Etherjammer ( talk ) 12:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am operating in good faith, and I don't appreciate the insinuation that I or anyone else in this discussion is ""supporting white supremacy"" or engaging in ""union-busting tactics"". I would appreciate if you would strike this bad-faith assumption. ♠ PMC ♠ (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC) RGW . If you have sources on which to base a list, then by all means, let's see them, and we can reconsider. But until then, WP:RGW and WP:NOR forbid this list. 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 13:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] following Siroxo's reasoning. It seems that people's knees started jerking when they read ""of color"". Any entries in this list should also be included in List of acousmatic-music composers . Apocheir ( talk ) 03:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC) 59, 30 September 2023 (UTC) NLIST as the sourcing does not satisfy the guidelines at WP:CSC which states that a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources . I would ask that those arguing for or against this list for any reasons other than policy language should take a step back and calm down. Topics involving racial identity or social justice often draw controversy, and in the end the best thing to do is not argue for or against a topic for ideological reasons because that is WP:POVPUSH ING. Our goal as an encyclopedia is to include the sum total of all human knowledge; even the knowledge that we may personally find distasteful for whatever reason. There is absolutely nothing wrong with including lists of this type if reliable sources exist which use similar language. For example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of black Academy Award winners and nominees ended in a result because of the sources available on that topic. However, this list is entirely unreferenced and I am unable to locate any sources discussing ""electroacoustic composers of color"" as a group or set. As such the list is entirely WP:Original synthesis and is not suitable for Wikipedia because of our policy of no original research. While I appreciate and agree with the decolonial ethics of Drcchutch and Etherjammer this is a case where academics need to first do the work of discussing this topic as a group/set in published literature before we can create such a list on Wikipedia. @Drcchutch and Etherjammer, wikipedia is not the place to pioneer new decolonial scholarship, but we can include existing sources and topics of this kind and update the encyclopedia as new sources are published which decenter whiteness from the academic canon. Best. 4meter4 ( talk ) 16:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC) //doi.org/10.25370/array.v20213269 (See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf1WNUQQ-DA&list=PLnr5LpGO6hU0siuZfAwYKe13PMzGhQdZN&index=8 ) George Lewis, one of the artists on the list, writes that there is a specific style of white music production, which implies that being unbound by those constraints would have stylistic implications: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1513376 Lewis also writes about ""race-aware genre scholarship"" in the Journal of the American Musicological Society, in an essay that posits this applies to every genre. https://www-jstor-org.chain.kent.ac.uk/stable/26908092 I'm sure there are other examples, but again, I wasn't expecting a list to have this sort of citation Drcchutch ( talk ) 17:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Verifiability and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists . For examples of high quality lists you can browse Wikipedia:Featured lists . However, lack of citations alone is not a valid reason for deletion if we can locate sources in a WP:BEFORE type search per WP:NEXIST . The issue here is that our notability language for list topics requires the identification of multiple independent sources which address the group topic of the list directly and in detail per WP:CSC and more generally WP:GNG . If you were to locate a couple of sources which discuss ""electroacoustic composers of color"" as a group directly and in detail (such as journal articles or books from a reliable academic publisher or even a article in a The New York Times or other similar publication) than we should be able to the list. It looks like the first source you provided above is one potential source, although it doesn't use the exact language of the list title which could be a problem for some editors in this discussion. (not for me though) The other sources look to be related but too tangential to the topic to be used to prove notability. Ideally we would have an academic publication that already has a list of ""electroacoustic composers of color"" which it discusses as a group. Usually ""multiple sources"" is interpreted as three sources with in-depth coverage of the topic at AFD. Please ask me if you need further clarification or have any more questions. Best. 4meter4 ( talk ) 21:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC) 28, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good points PMC. @ Drcchutch If this discussion closes as , you might consider trying again by attempting to better delineate a topic that more accurately reflects the exact language of the references being used. It's important that the language of the title of the article comes directly from the sources supporting the article. For example, if you located multiple articles on ""Black composers of electro-acoustic music"" you could create a List of black composers of electro-acoustic music . I'm sure there are many potential related articles that could be created from the available academic literature. Best. 4meter4 ( talk ) 22:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . If views (before the discussion) are anything to go by, this isn’t a particularly useful navigation tool, and it otherwise doesn’t hold up to NLISTS. Mach61 ( talk ) 02:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"1900 CCNY Lavender football team: Let'srun ( talk ) 12:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , American football , and New York . Let'srun ( talk ) 12:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Merger into a grouped season article is not viable as an WP:ATD as this is the only CCNY season article from the 40-year period from 1882 to 1921. If and when someone cares enough to create such a grouped season article, this topic might later be revived, but as things now stands deletion appears to be the only viable option. Moreover, given that this is a one-sentence sub-stub, nothing of real substance will be lost as a result of the deletion. Cbl62 ( talk ) 00:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Teachers RFC: Broc ( talk ) 13:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Rugby union , and Caribbean . Broc ( talk ) 13:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC) GNG , doesn't appear to be a suitable here per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 10:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Alex Shieh: For example, the middle name listed (Kim-Hyunchul) can't be found anywhere else on the internet. This is either entirely made-up or created by someone who knows Shieh personally. Same can be said about his exact birthday. Overall, this article is entirely favorable of Shieh and fails to include any dissent of his opinions, which there have been plenty of. Additionally, creator of the page User:Stopasianhate has been blocked for sockpuppetry, and the user who removed the User:Keepabortionlegal35 hasn't created any other articles, let alone without an AfC. Vergilreader ( talk ) 17:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. The unsourced information has been removed. SoniaSotomayorFan ( talk ) 22:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Massachusetts . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak This fellow did something interesting in high school - one thing. It got attention and he appeared on TV, and there was a short bit about him in the New Yorker in the more chatty section of the contents. He is quoted in some articles, like in Wired, but is not the focus of those articles. He also has been writing articles for reasonably impressive journals. Yet I do perceive him as a one-trick pony until proven otherwise. (I also did some editing, moving his writings outside of the references, and removed an unnecessary ref. The article is fairly ref-bombed.) Lamona ( talk ) 02:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC) TOOEARLY . Also worth noting that the consensus on the ""something interesting"" he did in high school was deemed not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Vergilreader ( talk ) 00:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] However, part of my point is the article is not at all neutral. Before being removed, lots of unsourced information seemed like it could only have come from Shieh or someone who knows him personally. The alternative is it was completely made up. Either way, none are fit for a Wikipedia article. Vergilreader ( talk ) 00:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] *I was going to stay neutral on this but now I'm leaning towards . Nom's concern with sourcing/unsourced info seems to have been addressed. As for the 'one thing' critique, a quick scan of the sources shows at least two 'things' have gotten WP:SIGCOV in big national outlets like the New Yorker, ABC, or Fox: the political polls and the affirmative action controversy. However, I'd be willing to change my ! vote if nom can give us a WP:DEL-REASON , because the current objections (neutrality, sourcing) can be/have been fixed though editing per WP:ATD . Right now, I'd say that this guy technically meets WP:BASIC , albeit not by much. SoniaSotomayorFan ( talk ) 14:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A few things. First, I'd argue that the coverage doesn't meet the general notability requirement because it is not ""independent of the source."" Aside from Rolling Stone and CBS Austin, which make passing mentions of Shieh's opinions, all the other sources include Shieh either on screen as a speaker or are his actual columns/op-eds. Note the WP:GNG says specifically, ""'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it."" And, taking a closer look at WP:JOURNALIST , Shieh meets none of the following criteria: 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or 4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Vergilreader ( talk ) 19:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm ( talk ) 20:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Known for one thing that is, itself, not worth an article. ""National attention for a column"" is.. . not saying much in 2023, particularly when the sources are two video blurbs, one of them from an unreliable source . That adds effectively zero to the scale, leaving us with not enough. XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The only two votes are accounts created within the past couple of weeks (after a separate page was created), while votes all are experienced editors. Vergilreader ( talk ) 06:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Now one of those has been discovered to be a sock. So, now one new account and an IP. Vergilreader ( talk ) 02:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC) Notability . Regarding WP:JOURNALIST (taken from my comment here ), Per WP:NBIO , "" People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below [such as WP:JOURNALIST in our case]. "" In reference to various additional occupation-specific criteria, such as WP:JOURNALIST, the policy also states, "" Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. "" Thus, even if the subject does not the meet WP:JOURNALIST standards, this alone is not valid reason for deletion, if WP:NBASIC is still met. I believe it is, as significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources exists. Here is a source assessment table: Source assessment table: prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? New Yorker Story is written by a journalist at the New Yorker based on several interviews and original reporting. The journalist draws his own conclusions, makes independent observations, and editorializes levying judgements and criticism. The New Yorker follows established journalistic standards and is a reliable source. The entire magazine article is focused on Alex Shieh and his classmate and their doing polls. ✔ Yes Fox News The subject is talking about himself. Consensus says Fox is not reliable. The entire article is dedicated to Alex Shieh. ✘ No ABC News Yes. Statements of fact are fact-checked by the anchor/author of the article and said in ABC's authoritative voice, such as where the subject is going to college and the specific details of the court ruling. The subject's opinions face scrutiny from the other guest and the host. Consensus says ABC is reliable. Alex Shieh, and another student, are the focus of the coverage. ✔ Yes Rolling Stone Yes. Written by an independent journalist who compiles information from interviews and court rulings. Rolling Stone is not reliable for politics, but the article is used to verify biographical details, not political facts, which falls under culture and is considered credible. Alex Shieh, his biographical details, and his views, are analyzed and rebutted for over WP:100WORDS . ✔ Yes WHDH Yes. This segment features clips of the subject speaking but is narrated by an independent reporter who makes independent judgements and conclusions based on interviews and original reporting. This news station is credible. The subject is the main focus of this coverage. ✔ Yes Time Yes. Time is an independent news organization. Time is credible. The article is about Nikki Haley, not the subject. ✘ No Columns These are written by the subject. The Boston Globe is a reliable source. The subject is not the mian focus of his own writing. ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . IAmHuitzilopochtli ( talk ) 01:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree with your analysis here. To start, this doesn't even address the point User:Lamona brought up about WP:1E . Even if the source analysis is completely accurate, this would warrant a by summary judgment . The source analysis seems to suggest there may be two events (Phillips Academy Poll coverage and affirmative action coverage). However, the consensus I pointed to previously is that his polling was not notable, and he therefore cannot be known for that event. Wikipedia's policy is ""The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate."" If the editors of a page such as Affirmative Action believe his role is large enough to be in that article, perhaps he can be added there. But, Shieh's role in the Affirmative Action movement simply is not large enough to warrant a separate article. He is known only for his opinions leading up to and immediately following the SFFA v. Harvard case. But, for the sake of argument, I'll also discuss the source analysis. The analysis seems to confuse significant coverage from count of quotations or speaking time. Wikipedia policy is defines significant policy as something that ""addresses the topic directly and in detail."" The topic of this article is Alex Shieh. Someone discussing an affirmative action argument Shieh made does not address Shieh, it addresses an affirmative action argument. Most of the sources included only address Shieh as an affirmative action critic and Brown University student, before allowing him to speak to the screen about his opinions (not himself). A true source with Shieh as a subject may describe something like his college application journey or story of getting involved in Affirmative Action, for instance. My main objections are below: ABC News: Lindsey Davis introduces Shieh for less than five seconds at the start of the video, before he debates affirmative action with another student. Shieh is not a subject of this source here, affirmative action is. Rolling Stone: Firstly, this is definitely a political piece, as it fundamentally addresses affirmative action, a political issue. The article is filed under the ""Politics"" section on the header, so any assertion to the contrary is misleading. So, the reliability of this source is questionable. And, WP:100WORDS is just an essay, not consensus wikipedia policy. But regardless, little information about Shieh's background aside from his ethnicity and education is given, with a little more attention to opinions he has. WHDH: Again, Shieh is simply a messenger in this clip, not a subject. He is described briefly (less than 15 seconds total) with his title, age, school, and organization, before Shieh and the anchor discuss polling results. Subjects here are Phillips Academy and the Phillips Academy Poll, not Shieh. To summarize, below is my source analysis table (excluding the ones you already labeled as not counting toward GNG, leaving blank the ones I agree with your reasoning and judgment): Source assessment table: prepared by User:Vergilreader Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? New Yorker Significant parts of article the article are focused on Alex Shieh and his classmate and why they started doing polling, as well as future plans. ✔ Yes ABC News Shieh is not a subject of this source and only receives a brief introduction. ✘ No Rolling Stone Rolling Stone politics is not considered a reliable source, and this article is in the politics section. Shieh's opinions are briefly featured, but he and his actions are not the subject, even though the article may discuss opinions that he has. ✘ No WHDH Shieh is shown here because he is discussing a non-notable organization's polling results. He only receives a brief introduction and is not a subject. ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Vergilreader ( talk ) 05:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. As the user who originally created a separate article on this topic, I think I have a unique perspective on this matter. I'd originally interpreted Wikipedia guidelines like User:IAmHuitzilopochtli , but after reading User:Vergilreader 's analysis, am inclined to agree a separate article is not needed. If an article creator has any special permissions in an Afd, please expedite the process. Jfkadmirer ( talk ) 23:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just some context about Jfkadmirer's claims above looking through their edit history. Jfkadmirer previously engaged in an edit war to instate a bizarre one-sentencer (",delete
+"K30MF-D: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 02:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Arkansas . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 02:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC) About the only thing that sets this apart from many of the other run-of-the-mill short-lived defunct HC2/Innovate LPTVs (though the ""defunct"" status is a bit of a red herring — notability is not temporary when there is notability to speak of) was that potential MyNetworkTV affiliation — but absent any substantial sourcing (that was only sourced to their own, not always updated well, affiliate list, and most of the other sources in this article are about other subjects and don't count for notability), that counts for very little (MyNetworkTV isn't even much of a ""network"", anyway). Much of the article has always tried to peer into the crystal ball — we don't allow that , and there's probably some OR and synthesis somewhere in there too. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC) All sources in article are listings, none provide any in-depth coverage. Also found no sources online that meet WP:GNG . ARandomName123 ( talk ) 01:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Łuknajno-Leśniczówka: The name of this article means literally ""Łuknajno-Forester's lodge"", and the location given in the article is a house, surrounded by nothing but forest for miles in every direction. The subject of the article is therefore an individual building, and as such falls under WP:NBUILDING , not WP:GEOLAND . There is no entry for this place in the Polish 2015 regulation on place-names, only for Łuknajno, Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship , which we already have an article on and the location for which is essentially identical. Whilst the article for Łuknajno is not in a good state, looking at the corresponding Polish language article for Łuknajno , and at our article for Łuknajno Lake , it looks like a meaningful article could be developed covering the lake and the manor-house, probably at Łuknajno , which presently s to the lake. Until there's a meaningful article at Łuknajno I don't see the point in ing there as it would be a double- at present. EDIT: I've WP:BOLDly d the content at Łuknajno Lake and Łuknajno, Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship to Łuknajno , and added the history content from the PL wiki page, so I'm OK with a to Łuknajno as an ATD. TL;DR - This is essentially a WP:V fail as stands, and can never meaningfully pass WP:GEOLAND since it lacks legal recognition. FOARP ( talk ) 12:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland . FOARP ( talk ) 12:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . For this one I cannot confirm it exists, not to mention that it has any GNG. No pl wiki interwiki. Some failed OR? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Piotrus - My guess is that here is where the state forestry office used to be (or still is?) and so that's why it got listed as a locality. However, these are also being removed from TERYT sometimes so we are left with no way of verifying it. This is the main problem with TERYT - lots of communist-era government stuff, that weren't actually towns/villages/hamlets, was put on to the register, and in some (not all) cases has been removed. FOARP ( talk ) 13:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ FOARP Interesting. How do you know stuff is being removed from TERYT? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’ve seen SIMC ID numbers cited that can’t be found on TERYT, and I don’t think these were made up. The most obvious explanation is these numbers used to be in TERYT but we’re then removed. I wouldn’t take a former listing in TERYT as evidence of legal recognition - it’s just a database, and the former listing could have been an error that was later corrected. FOARP ( talk ) 07:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] E.g., see Pieniężno Drugie -the PL Wiki page has a SIMC ID no. of 0155100 listed for this place, but that doesn't give a result on TERYT. The PL Wiki page anyway explains that this isn't an official settlement, so I wouldn't expect to find a listing on TERYT, but then where did the number come from? Likely it was an error on TERYT that has since been corrected, or the status changed, or something else - the site itself is just some kind of industrial facility so maybe there was some communist-era facility there that was listed on TERYT and then d - not possible to say. FOARP ( talk ) 08:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Andre Olwagen: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV . JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Amature player with minimal coverage. Mn1548 ( talk ) 13:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC) BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 19:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jana Labáthová: Corresponding article on Slovak Wikipedia is an unsourced stub, which may help copy over English article otherwise. No news about Labáthová have been reported since then either. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Olympics , and Slovakia . ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [31] [32] [33] . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 18:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Source #1 mentions Labáthová in the first five paragraphs, Source #2 does not address her in-depth, and Source #3 mentions her in one paragraph repeated from the title. None of these provide significant coverage that is required for notability; Labáthová still needs to meet SIGCOV and GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) GNG , and I don’t think the links given by @BeanieFan11 help a lot. Could not locate anything that would help the subject to meet WP:SIGCOV . All in all, doesn’t fit WP:SPORTCRIT Vorann Gencov ( talk ) 16:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Fisayomi Abebi: Article says she has ""worked on set"" with notable actors, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. The only reliable source I can find for her online is the Nigerian Tribune interview cited, but interviews are WP:Primary sources, and I can't find coverage of her in independent, secondary sources, just a lot of social media, and some passing mentions in gossip articles about a purported relative. Wikishovel ( talk ) 05:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , and Nigeria . Wikishovel ( talk ) 05:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Wikishovel The article will be worked upon. It will be properly restructured to meet wikipedia guidelines completely. Jutos222 ( talk ) 16:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please do not remove the deletion tag! That's disruptive to the process here and counter-productive to our efforts. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, the deletion tag has been removed from the article, so that's an issue... I can only find this [14] . Rest is celebrity gossip articles about having a child and the like. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Tried restoring the deletion tag, but an edit conflict won't let me. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. The creator has tried the remove the AfD tag six times and multiple editors are in 3rr territory. I have left a warning on the creator's talk page. If they persist, please take this to the 3rr or ANI notice board. • Gene93k ( talk ) 18:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the info. Appears they've also removed the notice from their talk page. Oh boy. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Page creator's sort of unofficial mentor here. This is a noble effort to improve the encyclopedia made by an editor who is trying to learn, but I am afraid that there simply isn't adequate sourcing for notability yet. I concur with Oaktree b; I could only find interviews and unreliable stuff. As for the edit warring, I left a message on their talk page, which has since been blanked by them along with their userpage. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 22:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC) NACTOR at this point in time, could not find multiple instances of significant coverage in secondary sources. Article creator can request undeletion if this changes in the future. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 05:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC) NACTOR right now, so WP:TOOSOON . Un if that changes. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Fails NACTOR. Sources are entirely unreliable. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 16:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per reasons above. Nothing to add. Best, Reading Beans 17:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] due to lack of sufficient sourcing. GraziePrego ( talk ) 05:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If this article would be retain, we will try our best to work on the sourcing, to meet with up with wikipedia demands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jutos222 ( talk • contribs ) 22:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Fallen (Transformers): Most articles that mention him are just about the film and don't go in depth on this character. Searching for the alt name Megatronus gives no better results, just TFwiki and sporadic toy announcements from Transformers fan sites. The previous AfD had one vote without policy rationale and closed due to the nominator being blocked, the article has not improved since then. Impressive piece of WP:FANCRUFT though, but we're WP:NOTFANDOM . StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy , Television , and Comics and animation . StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources seem to be either announcements or the script of the Revenge of the Fallen movie, which cannot be used as it is a primary source. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Industrial Insect. Doesn't appear to reach WP:SIGCOV and it's already covered in other related articles. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 15:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Fiorenzo Manganiello: Non-existant refs. scope_creep Talk 18:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Finance . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Only one source seemed to focus on the subject, and I'm not sure it's reliable. Articles authored by the subject or short profiles do not establish notability. YordleSquire ( talk ) 02:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC) It passes the notability criteria under WP:NBUSINESSPERSON as he was the vice president of Banque Profil de Gestion [2] , a professor at Geneva Business School [3] and was named as Swiss Blockchain Expert for 2018 by Acquisition International [4] . He has significant coverage in [5] and [6] . The issue of ""Non-existant refs"" can be resolved using wayback machine like this [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesfab ( talk • contribs ) 16:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC) SPA editor. scope_creep Talk Comment Ref 1 is a profiles and they are not considered significant coverage and general non-rs. Ref 2 is another profile is a non-rs. Ref 3 states he is a new ambassador which means WP:NPROF can apply here. Ref 4 isn't significant coverage. It is another profile and non-rs. Ref 5 is another profile and is not significant. Ref 5 is another short report. None of these references have byline informations. They are just profile and are junk. As regards satisify WP:NPROF , an examine of both Scopus and Google Scholar finds nothing of worth. This is a WP:BLP , the subject fails the three criteria for WP:BIO . scope_creep Talk 16:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC) SPA by any mean. Even if, let's say for the argument, I was, in the very article it says ""The SPA tag may be used to visually highlight that a participant in a multi-user discussion has made few or no other types of contribution. However, a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comments be given full weight regardless of any tag placed on them."" Mesfab ( talk ) 20:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ref 1 is a classic profile likely written by the person himself. It states in the description ""Profil de Gestion"". scope_creep Talk 20:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Banque Profil de Gestion is a Swiss Bank. Mesfab ( talk ) 21:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Ref 1 [8] Former contributor, written by himself, like much of coverage. That is non-rs Ref 2 [9] Content appears to be written by Manganiello himself. Unable to view the vlog. Ref 3 is linkedin. Non-rs Ref 4 [10] 404 Ref 5 [11] Raw url search listing. Don't see his name. Ref 6 [12] 404 Ref 7 [13] Interview Ref 8 [14] A landing page non-rs Ref 9 [15] 404 Ref 10 [16] Another very short exclusive interview. Not a single one of these references show that WP:BIO , or WP:SIGCOV for that matter. They are shockingly trash. UPE article. scope_creep Talk 17:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are multiple other reliable sources which have significant coverage of the subject such as [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] . Mesfab ( talk ) 20:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One could argue that the article needs improvements but it is a notable subject. Mesfab ( talk ) 20:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No its not. It far from notable. scope_creep Talk 22:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC) NBUSINESSPERSON . Mesfab ( talk ) 22:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] He satisfies notability requirements, but you need sourcing that talks about him. ""Just because"" isn't really what's needed here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Ref 16 [22] It states: ""publié par La rédaction en partenariat avec Lian Foundation"" The Lian foundation was created by Fiorenzo Manganiello. So that is PR and non-rs. Ref 17 [23] This is TedX profile. It is WP:PRIMARY and its a profile. Ref 18 [24] This states ""Par L'agence Delta pour Lian Group"" So this PR. Ref 19 [25] That site is probably non-rs but it does state: ""Lopez told HackerNoon this story exclusively."" Lopez is part of the Lian Group. So that PR as well. Ref 20 [26] That has no author information and looks and reads PR. It states ""Content produced on behalf of The LIAN Group"". So all these PR and are non-rs. scope_creep Talk 22:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC) There needs to be coverage as its a WP:BLP . In an Afd you must be able to show evidence that the person is notable. The standard best-practice per consensus since last summer is a provide WP:THREE references. Provide three secondary sources that prove the person is notable. scope_creep Talk 22:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion so I'd like to see input from more editors who frequent AFDs. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC) PROMO. Sources are all primary or in non-RS. Cite Highlighter has none that are green, most are red/orange, meaning non-reliable sources or PR items. I don't see any we can use from the extensive list above. I can't find any either. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And the crypto items don't fill me with hope; an article about crypto as the future of banking, when most NFT's are worthless now and FTX has gone bankrupt, don't paint a rosy picture as to the reliability of such sources as used here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Promotional article, sources do not prove notability or are promotional as said above. Spinixster (chat!) 03:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Any significant coverage comes from non-reliable/paid sources/non-independent sources. TLA tlak 04:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Charley McMillan-Lopez: Fails WP:GNG . Hack ( talk ) 01:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -This article is a mess from long-standing edit wars. As it stands, it does not appear that the player meets the most recent GNG requirements but I suspect that there are a decent amount of sources about the player that have been lost or overlooked along the way-- Gri3720 ( talk ) 01:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Caribbean . Shellwood ( talk ) 11:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Johan Hallström: Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , and Sweden . UtherSRG (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Bit-part actor. Nothing major. Fails WP:NACTOR . scope_creep Talk 05:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Garvita Sadhwani: The article has no substancial work, awards, roles aur sources to pass WP:GNG Sssaaraa ( talk ) 21 August 2023 (UTC) Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 21 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 16:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , and India . Skynxnex ( talk ) 19:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Not only are none of these sources independent, they're all about a single thing: that makeup for this role took three hours. Extremely trivial. -- asilvering ( talk ) 21:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - No independent reliable source available supporting notability; clearly fails GNG. Ekdalian ( talk ) 07:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rolph Gobits: UtherSRG (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Photography , Netherlands , United Kingdom , and England . UtherSRG (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC) GNG . PARVAGE talk! 05:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Commercial photographer. Fails WP:ARTIST . - WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I think WomenArtistUpdates summarizes it best thus far. There were some beginnings of a diversified career and early hints at emerging notability. Now he is just a professional. Probably a good one. That does not equal notability. gidonb ( talk ) 01:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mackenzee Wittke: This isn't really making a particularly strong case that she would pass WP:GNG : there's a magazine article, a news story about the publication of that magazine article in another media outlet, and a (deadlinked but waybackable) article that briefly mentions Wittke's existence in the process of being fundamentally about somebody else with the same condition who doesn't have a Wikipedia article. (I've also already d two other footnotes that were really just repetitions of the magazine article in different forms, such as a PDF of the print copy of the magazine issue that the same article appeared in, and a ""sneak peek"" preview of the same article in the magazine's ""coming in the next issue"" newsletter.) So there's really only one genuinely GNG-worthy source here, which isn't enough, and even on a WP:BEFORE search I'm just not really finding much else of value: the only new source I can find that's been published since that magazine article just rehashes the same information without adding anything new. The first deletion discussion eight years ago foundered on the question of whether she would be subject to WP:BLP1E or not, as it wasn't clear whether anything in the article constituted an ""event"" per se -- but essentially the notability claim here amounts to ""young girl who once had a magazine article published about her"", which clearly counts as an event. She just doesn't have the depth or volume of coverage necessary to justify a permanent intrusion into her and her family's privacy rights, and we have an established rule that due to the potential of a Wikipedia article to cause harm, we have to be especially careful about the notability of minors. So we would need far more than just the absolute bare minimum number of usable footnotes for a technical GNG pass before an article about her was actually warranted. Bearcat ( talk ) 15:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada . Bearcat ( talk ) 15:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Medicine . Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC) A subject to WP:BLP1E . Which isn't tolerated on Wikipedia . CastJared ( talk ) 17:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Still seems relevant, she was featured in a 2016 news story [27] . And she may hold the secret to aging acoording to a Macleans article (a reputable Canadian magazine) [28] and in Ars Technica [29] . And a mention in 2021 for a gov't program to study pediatric conditions in Alberta [30] Oddly enough, there is no coverage in Gscholar or Jstor. More than enough sustained coverage for GNG. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Maclean's article is the same Maclean's article that I already addressed in the nomination statement (i.e. it's fine, but not all by itself enough ), the 2016 news story is the same additional source I already addressed in my nomination statement with when I said ""the only new source I can find that's been published since that magazine article just rehashes the same information without adding anything new"", and the Ars Technica source is just a republication in a different source of the same article I already addressed in my nomination statement when I said ""a (deadlinked but waybackable) article that briefly mentions Wittke's existence in the process of being fundamentally about somebody else with the same condition who doesn't have a Wikipedia article"". And ""mentioned in passing within coverage of other things"" doesn't assist notability at all — she isn't the subject of that 2021 piece, and instead just gets briefly glanced at in coverage whose core subject is something else, so it doesn't add any new GNG points above and beyond the sources that were already under discussion. As a low-profile figure with personal privacy rights, we would need a lot more coverage than that to justify intruding into those personal privacy rights. Bearcat ( talk ) 19:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would consider her condition to be a BLP1E even though it isn't strictly an ""event."" The articles about her are all brief and reiterate the same facts, sometimes using exactly the same sentences. The one possible reason to either this article or add information to the article on Aging is that if medical research turns up substantial information it will be anonymized for reasons of privacy. However, it probably will not be possible to link actual medical research to this person, and Wikipedia should not do so without confirmation. (Her name does not appear in G-Scholar.) Lamona ( talk ) 18:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - a to Brooke_Greenberg#Comparable_cases may be feasible - the Maclean's article compares Wittke's condition to Greenberg's, and notes ""Brooke's story attracted national media attention—she was on TLC, Katie Couric, in People—and other families reached out to Walker about their kids,"" etc. Beccaynr ( talk ) 23:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC) s assessment. The combined sources do not approach GNG nor allow the creation of a basic biographic article. Draken Bowser ( talk ) 01:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC) COATRACK for an apparent extraordinary claim that this child has a condition which according to the article, ""may hold answers to the scientific study of aging."" So in addition to the WP:BLP policy issues related to privacy for the child and her family who appear to have primarily received in-depth coverage in the Maclean's source, this article appears to functionally not be about the purported subject. As I noted above, a brief mention on a related article may make sense (the condition does not appear to be formally named, and Richard Walker, the scientist who has studied the condition in multiple people, does not appear to have an article), but the sources are identified in this discussion and there does not appear to be substantial content available to . Beccaynr ( talk ) 20:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC) BLP issues, and not notable. SportingFlyer T · C 23:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Anna Stolli: No prose, but simply a list of credits which makes this akin to a WP:RESUME for an actor as opposed to encyclopedia entry. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG . 4meter4 ( talk ) 03:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , Music , Theatre , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I believe that this article is worthy of being kept. It has 12 different footnotes and would seem to, therefore be relevant. Also, Anna Stolli is mentioned by name in the online footnoted references. -- Howard352 ( talk ) 20:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The citations are mainly to self published and primary sources. We require independent secondary references to prove notability per WP:GNG . The few secondary references that are there only mention the actress briefly in cast lists, and do not address Stolli's work as an actress in detail as required by WP:SIGCOV . 4meter4 ( talk ) 21:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 06:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Unable to find significant coverage in independent sources. — Moriwen ( talk ) 15:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. There are many sources on the internet about her work, but none of them are independent sources unfortunately. Contributor892z ( talk ) 00:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Poupette Kenza: I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 17 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 15:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , and France . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak The Huff Post is rehashing celebrity gossip, the Monde and Parisien seem ok-ish, Le Monde appears to be a decent article about her, but it's pay-walled. She's accused of mistreating her children and is under judicial watch (I'm not familiar with the intricacies of French child-welfare laws, but she's being monitored by the authorities). Rest are typical fluff articles. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Brief profile of her on France Inter, [1] , I think she's notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Morocco . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . A portrait in Le Monde ... and the list goes beyond... — Preceding unsigned comment added by CassiJevenn ( talk • contribs ) Comment There may be sufficient sources for an article, but just because we could have an article does not mean that we should. Elinruby ( talk ) 17:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, if it meets GNG, she's notable. ""Influcencer"" is a job now, we recognize it. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is a short-term notablity. Sources have been produced in end 2022/early 2023. Panam2014 ( talk ) 21:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Several of those sources mention her as the most followed French influencer, that's something. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - The 28 Dec 2022 France Inter piece appears to be a podcast opinion post, so not really a news profile that could otherwise be stronger support. Based on what I can view of the 18 Mar 2023 Le Monde source, that looks like a news profile. But there does not seem to be WP:SUSTAINED coverage to help us write a balanced biography or more than a WP:BROCHURE at this time. I also removed content from the article that seems problematic per WP:BLP policy, and I think WP:BLP policy adds support for deletion at this time. WP:GNG is not the only consideration for notability; per WP:N , we should also consider WP:NOT , and this appears to be an article that should be excluded per e.g. WP:NOTSCANDAL (which links to BLP policy), and WP:PROMO (what seems to remain after problematic BLP content is removed). Beccaynr ( talk ) 23:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There's also this from Le Parisien [2] which discusses her legal issues in a neutral tone. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC) BLP policy is about more than the tone of coverage, and the brief 21 Feb 2023 Le Parisien report is filed in the ""Faits divers"" (""Miscellaneous facts"", per Google Translate) section, opens by introducing Kenza as ""Habituée des polémiques"" (""Accustomed to controversy"", according to Google Translate), reports allegations against her, her quotes, and mentions the Le Monde profile. Overall, the limited available coverage appears to focus on scandal / WP:BLP problems - coverage includes her statements (not independent), scandal and gossip (not encyclopedic), allegations of criminal conduct (which we should seriously consider not including) related to children (see WP:AVOIDVICTIM ) over a limited time , mixed in with mentions of how popular she has recently been on social media. Deletion policy seems to support deletion under these circumstances. From my view, trying to construct a biography based on limited mentions of her recent popularity and a general description of her social media activity creates an advertisement , not an encyclopedia article - there appears to be no support for WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER notability that we would typically expect to help balance articles. Per WP:BIO , ""Notable"" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary and WP:BASIC states, Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, [...] such as those listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not . At this time, this article seems squarely within WP:NOT , and there also does not appear to be sufficient depth, independence, and sustained coverage in reliable sources to support WP:BASIC notability for a standalone article. Beccaynr ( talk ) 15:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] no long-term coverage. Panam2014 ( talk ) 15:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Panam2014 ( talk • contribs ) has already cast a vote above. (as AfD nominator) Beccaynr ( talk ) 15:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nominating an article does not necessary imply that the people supports the deletion. Panam2014 ( talk ) 16:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC) SUSTAINED . MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC) Source eval: Comments Source Promo bio 1. ""Poupette Kenza : qui est cette nouvelle influenceuse ?"". Ohmymag (in French). 2023-01-16. Retrieved 2023-03-28. Seems like gossip column news 2. ^ """"Elle pleure comme si elle avait perdu un proche"" : Poupette Kenza effondrée après avoir perdu son compte Snapchat, les internautes se moquent d'elle"". purebreak.com (in French). Retrieved 2023-03-28. Meets IS RS SIGCOV 3. ^ ""Rouen. L'influenceuse Poupette Kenza visée par une enquête pénale réagit dans TPMP"". actu.fr (in French). Retrieved 2023-03-28. Promo 4. ^ Jump up to:a b ""Poupette Kenza débarque sur TikTok et pulvérise tous les records !"". MCE TV (in French). 2023-01-24. Retrieved 2023-03-28. Meets IS RS SIGCOV 5. ^ ""Poupette Kenza, la Française la plus suivie sur Snapchat"". France Inter (in French). 2022-12-28. Retrieved 2023-03-28. Meets IS RS SIGCOV 6. ^ Jump up to:a b ""Poupette Kenza exhibe sa vie de femme au foyer à son million d'abonnés sur Snapchat"". Le Monde.fr (in French). 2023-02-18. Retrieved 2023-03-28. Promo 7. ^ ""TPMP - les internautes atterrés par l'interview de l'influenceuse Poupette"". Yahoo News (in French). Retrieved 2023-03-28. Photos, not SIGCOV 8. ^ ""Découvrez les photos des nombreuses robes de Poupette lors de son mariage féerique !"". Public.fr (in French). Retrieved 2023-03-28. Routine entertainment news 9. ^ ""People: Poupette Kenza quitte la France et s'installe à Dubaï"". 20 minutes (in French). 2023-04-08. Retrieved 2023-04-19. Meets IS RS SIGCOV (from above) https://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/poupette-kenza-visee-par-des-accusations-je-nai-jamais-maltraite-mes-enfants-21-02-2023-WTW2VEFJ5JFCHHGYH5I4RYNMNM.php Two of the above I've marked IS RS SIGCOV are questionable. I can't ! v to even though subject has sources; I don't think this passes BLP policy. Just because there can be an article, doesn't mean there should be an article and // Timothy :: talk 17:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the above source evaluation. The subject is not convered in depth in reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation in the future should additional coverage develop. BD2412 T 01:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Susan Respinger: She has not won any major award nor received major recognition. Fails WP:ARTIST . LibStar ( talk ) 03:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote , but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts : {{subst: spa | username }} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed | username }} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry : {{subst: csm | username }} or {{subst: csp | username }} . Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Women , Visual arts , and Australia . LibStar ( talk ) 03:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - In a BEFORE search I'm not finding the coverage one would expect from a notable artist. Mostly social media, blogs, user-submitted content and primary sources. I don't think she meets GNG and she does not pass NARTIST. Netherzone ( talk ) 03:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 05:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] sources adequately cover the topic. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 06:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources merely confirm her work exhibited in very minor exhibitions like Karrinyup Community Centre, Churchlands Senior High School? Has she exhibited in a major exhibition or major state art gallery? LibStar ( talk ) 06:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] She has primarily become a mural artist with several prominent murals in Perth and Whanganui that are landmarks for people living in the cities. Where she was exhibited earlier in her career is more background now than the primary story. MarcusCaeruleus ( talk ) 09:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC) — MarcusCaeruleus ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] @ LibStar I originally created this entry several years ago when the artist was mostly focused on exhibitions. Most of her work now is large scale murals that are well known in Perth, Australia and Whanganui, New Zealand. I believe that this meets the criteria for Creative Works: The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. In Whanganui, New Zealand, I do not believe that there are any more prominent public artworks than that done by Susan Respinger and I believe that that should be considered a significant monument as per Wikipedia's definitions. MarcusCaeruleus ( talk ) 08:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC) — MarcusCaeruleus ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] @ MarcusCaeruleus , have these murals received independent significant coverage in the press, academic journals, art magazines or books to substantiate that they are significant monuments? If that exists, please post those links here, as I'm not finding them, however I'm not located in the Southern hemisphere (which may or may not affect what shows up in an online search.) Her work is beautiful, but because WP is an encyclopedia, she needs to meet certain criteria for inclusion per WP:N and WP:SIGCOV . The article has recently been ref-bombed with non-independent sources, press releases, blogs, user-submitted content, art sales sites, etc. And promotional WP:COPYVIOs by a couple of new SPAs. Netherzone ( talk ) 16:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Google news comes up with a mere 2 hits. I find no evidence that her work is a significant momument. LibStar ( talk ) 06:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and how come I can find zero coverage of her in the New Zealand Herald ? Claims of working on a significant monument are fanciful. LibStar ( talk ) 13:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Netherzone , did you intend to cast a ! vote here? LibStar ( talk ) 11:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC) NARTIST . Additionally the more recent activity indicates that the subject of the article (and the large number of photos recently added as ""own work"") the article is moving towards being an autobiography WP:AUTOBIO while not forbidden, I would not consider it best practices. But there also seems that there may be some coordination with the creator, therefore I do think that there is a WP:COI present, and possibly coordination/canvassing. So yes, WP:PROMO . Netherzone ( talk ) 13:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] apologies, my mistake, I should have seen your vote on January 11. LibStar ( talk ) 13:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC) Not enough indepth coverage to pass WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , per Randy Kryn. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 12:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC) PERX LibStar ( talk ) 12:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I also searched Australian search engine Trove for zero hits not even a passing mention. I suspect the 2 SPAs working on the article may be the article subject so possible self promotion. LibStar ( talk ) 13:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Road signs in Lesotho: There's basically zero prose and it only exists to include related images. The only sources provided appear to be primary. The scope of the article does not appear to be providing information outside a collection of images. These belong on Commons, which actually does host galleries with little to no prose. G M G talk 16:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Africa . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also the articles on the ""See also"" section which has the same problems (created by others), as well as the Road signs in Cyprus article created by the same editor. The editor has been here for over a decade and they should know better by now. These are just some of the articles I've checked. There maybe others with the same issue. The editor should look at Road signs in the United Kingdom for inspiration if those are the types of articles they are interested in. Tamsier ( talk ) 12:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] into a single article about road signs in countries that use the SADC system (South Africa, Botswana, Tanzania, Namibia; possibly others?) with a few examples of common signs of each type and highlighting any that differ from the standard. There is the start of useful encyclopaedia article here. The present format is not great, but deletion is not the solution to a poorly structured encyclopaedia article. Thryduulf ( talk ) 08:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Eh...There are like 100 of these, and they're not really attempts at writing an encyclopedia article in the first place. What you're suggesting doesn't sound very much like a , but more like writing a new article. Having two broken primary web links, a primary gov manual, and two lines of prose doesn't really give you a whole lot to work with. G M G talk 22:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's definitely an encyclopedia article to be written about road signage practices in Lesotho. But unfortunately we have a giant gallery with no encyclopedic information. I'm not opposed to Thryduulf's suggestion, but for this article I would advocate WP:TNT without prejudice against someone recreating an actual article at this title. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 01:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC) TNT as per the above. Mr.choppers | ✎ 16:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Robert L. Ord: Fails WP:GNG . FinnPanda ( talk ) 12:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 26 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 12:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Maryland . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I found one substantial article about him in the Washington Post . I see the court case, but that doesn't say much about him, and the short ACLU article about that isn't independent as they were representing him. Many of the sources listed here do not mention him. I found one brief quote, also in the WaPo. Lamona ( talk ) 20:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"George Santos biographical misrepresentations: A slightly different focus, but still the same underlying BLP and POVFORK issues. Daniel Case ( talk ) 03:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - This is a split (if you want to call it a ""fork"" be my guest) from the main article, George Santos . The main article has the template {{too long}}. Per WP:LENGTH , when an article has over 15,000 words it "" almost certainly should be divided or trimmed "". To me, this seems like an obvious choice for splitting. Isabela ciao ( talk ) 03:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please reread the linked AfD. LENGTH does not trump BLP. And creating an article whose sole purpose is to aggregate bad stuff about a living person goes against BLP. Daniel Case ( talk ) 04:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems strange that content that is perfectly OK in the biographical article is not OK when split out to an article of its own. Isabela ciao ( talk ) 04:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I said, reread the previous AfD. You're missing the point. See WP:POVFORK : "" This second article is known as a 'POV fork' of the first, and is inconsistent with policy: all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. "" This takes on extra importance when the article is about a living person. Daniel Case ( talk ) 16:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since Consensus can change , the previous AfD is not binding. This is especially true when the previous AfD did not attract too many votes. WP:POVFORK is a subsection of WP:CFORK . CFORK specially says that under most circumstances forks are OK. I don't see how this could be an unacceptable POVFORK given that it's the exact same content from the original article. Isabela ciao ( talk ) 17:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, consensus can change, but consensus cannot change policy. The previous AfD was underlain by the summerlong talk page discussion I alluded to in my nomination , which was formally closed as establishing no consensus to split off an article like this. While that does not mean that consensus is against splitting off an article at all , it definitely does mean that consensus should be on the side of a proposed split before it is made. And since this split was made without even bothering to initiate any such discussion, it is by definition against consensus, an even stronger argument for deletion than POVFORK. As to which, it boggles my mind that you would so completely ignore the quoted language from POVFORK. It's there for a reason. It's there because when you say ""in most circumstances it says forks are OK"", you should probably go to some length to enumerate those situations when they are not . POVFORK is one of them. To returning to the idée fixe you have about the content being identical is to so widely miss the point I am making (nor would I be the only one) that I wonder if you are trying to do so on purpose. It is how the split article would use that content ... as basically a bill of indictment. When it is within the article, we can justify it in the broader context of a warts-and-all biography. As a stand-alone, it is as TulsaPoliticsFan } observed at the other AfD a ""dumping ground"", a ""bad stuff about George Santos"" (or in this case ""lies George Santos tells or told on himself"" (and would you include in that article times where his stories have checked out?). It would be by definition not neutral. And really, there is not the urgency to make the article smaller that you seem to feel. The servers will not crash because it is too big. It is better that when we split the article, we do it right rather than do it fast. Daniel Case ( talk ) 19:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dumping ground ?? ? How would the split off article constitute any more of ""a dumping ground"" than the current section within the bio? Isabela ciao ( talk ) 23:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 10:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC) SPLITOUT . I fail to see how this violates BLP or POV. His numerous, brazen lies are very well-documented and well-known. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 15:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then I can only assume you're not very familiar with BLP. No one is doubting the sourcing. BLP requires, however, that we be especially circumspect for reasons beyond that. Daniel Case ( talk ) 16:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why would being circumspect make any sense when he's known round the world as a Trump-class liar, the butt of jokes by late-night talk show hosts? That horse (or rather herd) has long since left the barn. Should we also tiptoe around Pol Pot and say he made a mean fish amok ? Clarityfiend ( talk ) 01:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC) 12, 24 December 2023 (UTC) 50, 23 December 2023 (UTC) NTEMP , if something is notable now, it's notable forever. As for the size, it's all about what has been reported in WP:RS . Isabela ciao ( talk ) 17:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC) CRYSTAL . And in any event, yes, Santos himself will always be notable by virtue of having served, however briefly, in a national legislature (After all, we have an article about a woman who served in the U.S. Senate for one day , although to be fair that's not the only thing she's notable for). But whether that long-term notability requires a separate article on his biographical misrepresentations is an entirely different question. Daniel Case ( talk ) 19:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was of course referring to this article, and saying something will still be notable in 50 years is also Crystal balling, notability is not temporary, but it must be lasting. We only need a few choice examples in his bio, not every example no matter how trivial. Slatersteven ( talk ) 11:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC) I have WP:BLP concerns with a split that is ""Person's biographical misrepresentations."" I'd prefer to split out sections on major events he's involved in (split to election articles, the ethics report, his expulsion, specific legal cases). I will note that discussion on his talk page has not found consensus for any specific split despite the fact there tends to be consensus a split is needed. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 20:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC) BLP does it say that an article titled ""Person's wrongdoing"" is unacceptable? Isabela ciao ( talk ) 20:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC) George Santos regarding a (different) page split, but there is not a consensus to do so. As it stands, the article is a copy-paste of George_Santos#False_biographical_statements , done without following split procedures in a potentially contentious case. The user who did the split left the article with this useless rump section (now reverted) rather than with appropriate summary style that includes all the main information, so this was an inappropriate content fork that hides the information from the main article rather than an agreed-upon, properly-performed split. Reywas92 Talk 04:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I thought that what you call ""a useless rump section "" was an ""appropriate summary style that includes all the main information"". But if it wasn't you're free to improve. I don't see why that should be a reason to . Isabela ciao ( talk ) 23:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Slatersteven. There is no need for Wikipedia to a laundry list of every falsehood this guy has spun. Such details are trivial and, quite frankly, just not interesting or notable enough to warrant inclusion (see: WP:NOTEVERYTHING ). We should instead focus on the most critical details (if there are any), summarize, and just leave it at that. Kcmastrpc ( talk ) 23:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC) as a blatant violation of WP:BLP . बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 04:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Gregory Doc Rossi: I could not find significant coverage in independent sources. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 02:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ohio . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 02:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France , Italy , Portugal , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – fails notability guidelines with no relevant entries on Google. Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 16:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC) per nom. Subject does not meet MUSICBIO . Drowssap SMM 19:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC) No notability or significant coverage InDimensional ( talk ) 14:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"New Horizon Scholars School: Ratnahastin ( talk ) 11:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Muhammad Ahmed Bello: A distinguished career in journalism might do, but I’m not seeing the sources that would support that. Mccapra ( talk ) 12:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Nigeria . Mccapra ( talk ) 12:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC) TNT and WP:NOTRESUME . What a huge mess. We are not LinkedeIn . Bearian ( talk ) 15:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC) BLP. // Timothy :: talk 22:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"GEC Medical: Can't see anything that could be added. - Rich T | C | E-Mail 15:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Medicine . - Rich T | C | E-Mail 15:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Aintabli ( talk ) 16:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Fabiana de Barros: Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Studied at notable places, related to notable people, but notability is not inherited. Boleyn ( talk ) 15:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Sources in the article are primary or don't even mention the subject. I couldn't find any significant coverage. Of the sources I found, virtually all were mentions of Fabiana de Barros in the context of her father Geraldo de Barros . WP:NOTINHERITED . Jfire ( talk ) 19:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not finding any reliable sources for this article. It is a promotional article. I agree that the existing sources are weak or fail verification. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Interior Design Masters series 4: Fails WP:GNG , lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Mostly original research . Dan arndt ( talk ) 07:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom . Dan arndt ( talk ) 07:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC) GNG Donald D23 talk to me 02:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"David Hu (IIG): Case of WP:BIO1E . Onel 5969 TT me 12:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC) sources are enough for GNG. Wei Yuqi ( talk ) 22:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , has Bloomberg and Washington Post as sources so there's GNG. Martin Augustyn Zhou ( talk ) 17:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC) GNG . BLP1E requires subject to have small role in event, but that is not the case here (see WP:NOTBLP1E ). Shubham BaGi ( talk ) 05:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can we get some input from some uninvovled editors, please? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 13:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC) 38, 3 April 2023 (UTC) what onel5969 wrote is not true. There is significant coverage from [46] , [47] , [48] on David Hu's work as CIO before 2022 when he was sentenced. Coverage meets WP:GNG . Kwwis ( talk ) 22:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What are you talking about? Those links are all about his scam - it's even obvious from the URLs alone. -- asilvering ( talk ) 00:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you read closely, the sources [49] , [50] , [51] give in-depth coverage of Hu's role at IIG, how he provided loans for Central and South American SMEs, using fish and food as collateral. It discusses how Hu advised a Venezuela fund and how Hu made money from a management fee. This is coverage of his work outside the crime. Kwwis ( talk ) 03:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC) Completely agree with what others have said above. Also, this was not a single event. Article is backed by reliable sources, meriting WP:GNG and describes David Hu's decade of work experience outside of his prison sentence. Moreover, according to WP:NOTBLP1E , WP:BIO1E , the criteria is that the individual's role in the event is not substantial or well-documented. However, this is the complete opposite here, where David Hu's role in the Ponzi scheme is substantial and backed by reliable sources as mentioned above. Zipperlock ( talk ) 16:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC) RSP , Washington Post and Bloomberg are reliable sources. Moreover, article cites the US Department of Justice. -- Caishikou ( talk ) 04:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Policy based input please, hint: there are no grounds for a speedy Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Onel is right on the money here, all coverage is in relation to this one event, and the presence of background information in that coverage doesn't change that. WP:BLP1E doesn't require that somebody have done literally nothing beyond the one event to be non-notable. What it does require is for the subject to have received no coverage beyond that one event. Seeing as how by at least one voters' own admission that background can only be found if you ""read carefully"" in coverage relating to the Ponzi scheme, that additional coverage isn't there. - fuzzy510 ( talk ) 16:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC) NOTBLP1E the article should be kept. Zipperlock ( talk ) 02:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to IIG Capital - BLP1E applies here. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 17:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC) BLP1E states that we offer subjects the courtesy of not writing articles about them if they are only known for that event, if they wouldn't otherwise be known, and if the event was minor, their role was minor, or the event was poorly documented. In this case, the event was reasonably substantial, and his role was major, so by BLP1E, the article should be kept. If we because people are known for one negative event only, we wouldn't have an article on Elizabeth Holmes either. Elemimele ( talk ) 22:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Agree with Elemimele and others. First WP:NOTBLP1E requires the subject's role to be minor, but here David Hu played a significant role in the event. Second, article sources satisfy WP:GNG . Third, Bloomberg, Washington Post are WP:RSP , and article further cites US government DOJ and SEC. Gan Zuolin ( talk ) 03:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC) NOTBLP1E is an essay. WP:BLP1E only says that if those 3 conditions are not met, ""We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met"". It does NOT say that if all 3 ARE met than the person is notable. And regardless, all 3 conditions are met. 1. Absent the event, no significant coverage of the person is available; 2. The scarcity of non-event coverage shows that the person was low-profile; and 3. the event was not significant. Onel 5969 TT me 09:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The third condition says ""If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented "" but here the individual's role is substantial and well documented by reliable sources, so the third condition fails. Thus, by WP:BLP1E the article should be kept. Gan Zuolin ( talk ) 12:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Artisan Furniture: Sources are a combination of primary sources, WP:FORBESCON pieces and advertorials. KH-1 ( talk ) 01:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen#Artisan Furniture - I'm not even sure if this would qualify for being the primary topic for the name. I did a google search, and its website was buried in the results, even when I tried to specify the location and all. Most of the refs are are either self-published or from Furniture News, with the Forbes references consisting of a collage of articles and a WP:FORBESCON violation. Additionally, the article creator @ Bas009 has repeatedly been accused of WP:COI editing in the past (see User talk:Bas009 ), and given that he didn't bold the company's name in the lead but instead hyperlinked it to it's website, I highly suspect this to be a paid article creation. - Knightsoftheswords281 ( Talk - Contribs ) 01:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, Thank you for your response, whilst I can confirm I’m not financially remunerated by this and, as said before, have an interest in the British-Indian space, I understand this fails to be notable enough and I have a better understanding of sourcing now. Thanks for providing your reasons! Bas009 ( talk ) 04:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Rajasthan , and United Kingdom . AllyD ( talk ) 06:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I would say but the only references I find are reprinted or rewritten press releases. Nothing reliable about him launching this collection. His page has this referenced to the Artisan Furniture website so would recommend removing it from that page altogether. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 07:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC) An article about a firm verifiably going about its business, but supported by announcement-based advertorial coverage (e.g. the several Furniture News / Furniture Today items). Searches find listings of the firm's goods, as well as broader discussion of ""artisan furniture"" as a term of art. For the latter reason, I think ing to the LL-B article would be inappropriate, and I don't think there is enough for WP:NCORP here. AllyD ( talk ) 08:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Utterly generic dropshipper with an utterly generic name shipping utterly generic furniture. Nate • ( chatter ) 19:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Fábio Marques: There is no in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources; the best I could find is this signing announcement which touches on his youth training with Atletico Madrid, but doesn't go into detail. There is a fair amount of routine coverage like injury announcements, squad call-ups as well as coverage that isn't independent like club press releases. Overall, WP:GNG is not met. Jogurney ( talk ) 15:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Portugal . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No sign of notability. -- Random person no 362478479 ( talk ) 16:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with nomination, doesn't appear to be any special GNG noteworthy. Govvy ( talk ) 18:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC) 58, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"WOH G17: It doesn't. Also fails WP:NASTRO . As per the PROD, the article was created on the weak assumption that this was an exceptionally large star, as shown in a database rather blindly assuming it was an LMC star rather than a more conventional foreground object. Lithopsian ( talk ) 20:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions . Lithopsian ( talk ) 20:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak @Lithospian, you seem to be one of the primary authors who made most of the contributions to this page. Someone else proded it, but you took it upon yourself to AfD it? Why? you are unhappy with your work? What made you change your mind? 67.198.37.16 ( talk ) 00:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't create it. I tried to improve it but at the end of the day it still doesn't meet the grade. I felt the PROD was appropriate and was disappointed to see it rejected on such weak grounds. Lithopsian ( talk ) 13:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC) DEPROD was disappointing. I was under the impression this was reported as one of the largest known stars. That's not correct but I assumed the claim and the correction may have garnered enough coverage to meet WP:GNG . I apologize that, since we have only 7 days to review and WP:PRODPATROL is understaffed, I don't have time to do comprehensive research on all the PRODS I review. Thanks for bringing this to WP:AFD for discussion. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 20:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, you summarised it very well. The article claimed the star was one of the largest known, but nobody else ever really made that claim and it very probably isn't true. Just an outlier in a large dataset with limited sanity checking. Lithopsian ( talk ) 21:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Clearly is not notable for the reasons I mentioned when I proposed it for deletion. SpaceImplorer ExplorerImplorer ( talk ) 14:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom and SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer. The weak vote should be discounted about because it gives no reasoning besides asking the nom questions. Should have been a comment instead. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 02:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC) it is clear that the subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NASTRO . The weak assumption that this was an extremely large star is likely untrue, and even if there is merit to it there is still no WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 10:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC) This isn't notable at all. No WP:SIGCOV . CastJared ( talk ) 11:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bash-n-the-Code: Boleyn ( talk ) 17:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Christianity , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Question is the Keith Lancaster mentioned Keith Lancaster ? It seems likely to me they're different people based on the genre and timing. Jclemens ( talk ) 20:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment they had quite a few charted songs, see [22] , including biographical bit that could be used as source. Broc ( talk ) 20:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC) N and is not WP:OR . I find it hard to believe a ""musical derivative"" of a band not deemed notable enough to have its own article (Found Free), is itself notable. — Mjks28 ( talk ) 03:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . Online I found this review , but this seems more like a blog . There are some coverage regarding shows , and on Newspapers.com all the coverage are of that nature. Mark Lee Townsend was a member by the way. Geschichte ( talk ) 04:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I found this but not much else. Contradicts information found here, but is worth checking out. ❤History Theorist❤ 01:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Fáilte: While I see why we have Alba and éire , (Scottish Gaelic and Irish for Scotland and Ireland respectively) because it refers to a country, do we really need a dictionary for a specific world in another language? For anyone wondering, fáilte is the Irish word for welcome. JuniperChill ( talk ) 13:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Ireland , and Scotland . JuniperChill ( talk ) 13:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak ; make it more explicitly a disambig page. —Tamfang ( talk ) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would turn it into a DAB, as Tamfang suggests. I concur with JuniperChill that it is not appropriate to as a dictionary-like entry, but since there are three Wikipedia pages containing the word, a DAB may be appropriate. Cnilep ( talk ) 00:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not sure how turning it into a disambig would work since the only other pages containing the word are Fáilte Ireland and Fáilte Towers . This may be an example of partial title match, but I am not sure if people simply refer it to 'Fáilte'. JuniperChill ( talk ) 10:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a fair cop . I won't be too sad if the page is d. Cnilep ( talk ) 04:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 16:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - On balance, I think it is difficult to justify this as an article as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dunarc ( talk ) 22:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC) that article gets more page views than Fáilte Towers . After ing, add a {{ }} hatnote targeting the TV series. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 04:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and do not . The existence of a would inhibit searching, and a DAB is no good since there's nothing but PTMs here. 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 13:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC) NOTDICT ), and this is English Wikipedia, not Irish – this is especially not a translating dictionary, nor a dictionary of all the world's languages. The greeting makes no sense as a , either. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 13:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sports broadcasting contracts in New Zealand: The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Also, sources are basically news announcement and does not assert notability. Those arguing for a claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 20:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports , Lists , and New Zealand . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 20:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC) LISTCRUFT and not encyclopedic. David Palmer aka cloventt ( talk ) 02:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"John Englart: The majority of sources are primary or don't provide significant coverage. There is only one source that contributes to notability. — GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 14:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Websites , and Australia . GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 14:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography , Politics , and Internet . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""'Delete""' - agree that the Herald Sun / Moreland Leader source is the only one contributing to notability - this is insufficient for establishing wider notability. Combined with the primary sources, it is overall insufficient at this time to merit inclusion. WmLawson ( talk ) 23:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] • * . A lot of primary sources; many are self-published - fails WP:BIO . Includes partisan commentary – fails WP:NPOV . Consider adding mention to 1998 Australian waterfront dispute depending on sources. Spinifex&Sand ( talk ) 23:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC) GNG standards and sources are minor, partisan or questionable. Delete. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 18:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"KJWY-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 16:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Oregon . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 16:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 17:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Stephen Meade: PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 11:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 14 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 11:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not finding any independent sources. I also note that the WP article history is full of SPAs, many editing as IPs. Some of his companies seem to have disappeared as their home pages are blank. (Why blank and not 404 or a DNS-available page? No idea.) Lamona ( talk ) 04:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Colos (rapper): Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , Albania , and Germany . UtherSRG (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC) who ! voted ""Weak Keep"" in the previous AfD, might have something to say. 4 years have passed and if no new, in-depth coverage has been published, this AfD should be carefully considered. Ktrimi991 ( talk ) 16:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If more RS are found, I am happy to change my stance. Ktrimi991 ( talk ) 21:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unless we can find sources in German. There is nothing in English we can use. ""Colos"" appears in everything from various African websites to Vietnamese ones, none of which are about this person. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I think at least one source FOARP found last time, [6] does indeed have SIGCOV of the subject. It's not enough on its own though, we'll need another source. — siro χ o 05:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Tracefs: Only significant coverage (ie. not press release republication or forum post etc.) is a paper by the authors of the software. https://www.usenix.org/conference/fast-04/tracefs-file-system-trace-them-all Jonathan Deamer ( talk ) 05:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 08:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs ) 07:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC) per nomination, clearly fails WP:NSOFTWARE , as well as WP:GNG . Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 14:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mohammad Bahiraei: searching his name in English gives almost nothing, even in Persian there are only very few things about him. the article says he won a gold medal at the Asian Championship in 2007 which is wrong (probably just a junior medal) he also never played in a pro league or even a major national tournament. Sports2021 ( talk ) 23:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 23:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 23:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 00:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I removed some of the called out unverifiable information about a medal at the Asian Championships after attempting to verify (AFAICT the national team has never medaled in such a competition). That's not promising for this article, but I don't have a ! vote as of now. — siro χ o 01:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , unremarkable athlete who does not seem to pass GNG, the only sources available are passing mentions. Devonian Wombat ( talk ) 13:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Zhou Yusen: (I'm not convinced the one remaining source is reliable either, the author is a lab leak conspiracy theorist). He doesn't seem to warrant a standalone article per WP:1E , any reliably sourced information could go into an article related to COVID-19 if due. JaggedHamster ( talk ) 07:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories and COVID-19 . JaggedHamster ( talk ) 07:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Military . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails WP:GNG . The article is a WP:COATRACK for COVID-19 lab leak theorizing . At best it could be ed, but Zhou is not currently mentioned there. Jfire ( talk ) 19:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC) please note that the subject is also known as ""Yusen Zhou"" (Zhou is a surname). Per Scopus , Zhou has an h-index of 49 with over 140 publications. I am not advocating for retaining of the article, yet, but it is possible that the subject may be notable under Wikipedia:Notability (academics) . Remember, do not base notability judgements on the current or former state of any article . --Animalparty! ( talk ) 23:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC) 43, 15 January 2024 (UTC) NACADEMIC satisfied? Bon courage ( talk ) 03:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and China . --Animalparty! ( talk ) 00:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I don't see how to write an article on this subject without succumbing to problematic WP:FRINGE sourcing since there are lots of unvetted conspiracy theories swirling around about this character that are so obscure as to not warrant inclusion and the academic inclusion criteria, as good faith as it is, does not seem able to deal with situations like this. If a full professor dies in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound? jps ( talk ) 23:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC) BLP1E , not worthy of a separate article. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 19:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Avinash Chate: All sources on the page are regurgitated paid PR articles. A Google search brings up more such paid PR publications. Teemu.cod ( talk ) 06:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Businesspeople , and India . Teemu.cod ( talk ) 06:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - These sources appear to be paid, yet there is no conclusive evidence confirming them as such, as they lack disclaimers and are not featured in the ""brandspot"" section. The suspicion arises due to the absence of credited authors and the promotional nature of the articles, which deviate from typical news formats. Grabup ( talk ) 09:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC) Very PROMO with flowery language in multiple sources. Non-notable corporate communicator person. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Every news story cited here reads like paid placement. Per WP:NEWSORGINDIA , Indian news sources require careful consideration due to weak controls on advertising and sponsored content, and almost all of the stories would trigger caution (for example, their lack of a bylined author). We should not use the available sources to validate notability under GNG or BIO. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 16:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Michael Yingling: Article only has one citation, which only relates to the aforementioned exhibit winning an award and has nothing to do with the article's subject. Furthermore, the article has a COI issue as it appears to have been created the subject himself years ago. – WPA ( talk ) 02:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC) GNG and WP:NACTOR due to lack of reliable sources. I cannot seem to find any reliable sources that mention Yingling, and even if sources do exist the minor nature of the roles played would still probably warrant deletion. ReedyTurnip ( talk ) 16:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . – WPA ( talk ) 02:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Comics and animation , Amusement parks , and Oregon . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not seeing any coverage on this person. Hkkingg ( talk ) 07:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nabin Luhagun (thespian): (Note the existence of an equally poor article at the Hindi Wikipedia here , created by translating the now-d and similarly-protected Nabin Luhagun (actor) , which indicates that the subject is Nepali, as was the case with the d versions here, rather than Indian. ) The given references only include mentions in cast lists and are of dubious reliability. A search suggests that there is not enough third-party coverage to warrant a biographical article and that the subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR . Kinu t / c 02:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . Kinu t / c 02:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] •Keep . and move to Nabin Luhagun without (thespian) if possible, since there isn't any other articles which exists with that name. Thank you. AasifShrestha ( talk ) 05:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As you are the creator of the article, it would be helpful for you to address the notability concerns raised in the nomination. -- Kinu t / c 05:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC) 43, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Every source has mentioned the subject as an actor, and this is enough for WP:GNG . RomanRaju ( talk ) 10:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC) GNG literally says ""significant coverage is more than a trivial mention"", this !vote makes absolutely no sense. -- Kinu t / c 14:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC) GNG . RomanRaju ( talk ) 14:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC) BLUDGEON . -- Kinu t / c 14:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC) It is unclear the extent to which the subject may have a role in Waltair Veerayya : even verification requires more than inclusion in a list of names. But, regardless, this is insufficient for WP:NACTOR , and the present instance's creation under this variant title indicates evasion of the protection applied with the deletion of prior instance titles. AllyD ( talk ) 12:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom does not meet NACTOR. Tame Rhino ( talk ) 00:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC) NACTOR . AasifShrestha ( talk ) 06:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . . The title is connected to Waltair Veerayya ; it is better to the page to Waltair Veerayya , no deletion. 2400:9700:113:1547:45B5:4F14:BC2E:F828 ( talk ) 10:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RomanRaju ( talk ) 08:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Regarding the IP's suggestion of ing to the Waltair Veerayya article, I would prefer if there was some solid source for associating the subject with the film. The subject is not mentioned at the film's IMDb article's full cast and crew , for example. AllyD ( talk ) 09:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Given the deletion history of this article in its previous forms, I'm almost inclined to believe that this is some sort of astroturfing campaign. I find absolutely nothing reliable to support the alleged acting credits except for name checks from the content aggregator-type sites like those presented as sources in this version. Is some or all of it a hoax? I don't know for sure, but if nothing else the sourcing is hardly sufficient to support a WP:BLP . Kinu t / c 03:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This is actually the second relist. The one indicated on top of mine was tagged incorrectly by a discussion participant so the discussion was not reposted. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . While additional citations appear to have been added to the article since the nomination, precisely zero of them constitute significant coverage from reliable sources . -- Kinu t / c 16:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Since the nomination, additional citations have been added from reliable sources. If possible, move to Nabin Luhagun without (thespian), since there isn't any other article with that name. AasifShrestha ( talk ) 05:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The page can be improved; regarding AasifShrestha 's suggestion of moving Nabin Luhagun without (thespian), it can be moved where reliable sources have been added since nomination, and it would be sufficient for WP:GNG . RomanRaju ( talk ) 11:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is not possible to improve the page if no reliable sources exist. Kinu t / c 16:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Gilbert Taument: A web search finds passing mentions but no WP:SIGCOV . His brother Gaston is a notable footballer. There may be offline sources but it seems doubtful to me. The article fails WP:GNG . Robby.is.on ( talk ) 00:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Robby.is.on ( talk ) 00:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Netherlands . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 01:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Hakim Arif: Promotional writing and insignificant coverage. — T. 10:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . — T. 10:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC) GNG . Also notability is not inherited. -- আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk ) 17:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. — Yahya ( talk • contribs. ) 18:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Graeme Blevins: While there are a number of sources, I couldn't find anything that is both reliable and provides WP:SIGCOV . GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 04:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia . GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 04:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for flagging. Have improved the article with additional authoritative news sources. We are talking here about one of the very best saxophone players of his generation. In the Brit Awards 2024 (the leading awards in UK for music), RAYE won more awards than any other artist, so for Blevins to have a track named after him on her album is notable. He has been regularly in the bands of several household name stars and played in a Grammy award winning album. Wikiwikiwwwest ( talk ) 00:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC) GNG criteria. GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 13:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC) 35, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which sources? I wasn't able to locate any. GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 04:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Coverage in the article is now about the Raye group, which isn't helping this person's individual notability... Listed here [8] , but it's always in a long list of other people. Playing on an album with a group of others doesn't meet notability here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC) NBIO . I couldn't find any indication it meets WP:MUSICBIO either. The additional references do not solve the problems highlighted by the nomination. Lots of WP:REFSPAM overall. Pilaz ( talk ) 09:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Pumping Station: One: 16 of this article's 27 citations are from the website of the company itself, and the rest have little to no notability. Dawnbails ( talk ) 19:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Technology , and Computing . Dawnbails ( talk ) 19:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , this looked promising, but it's in Winnipeg [20] . No sourcing found for this makerspace in Chicago. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I think the coverage from the American Bar Association Journal , Columbia Chronicle , Time Out Chicago, Gapers Block , Northwestern University . This might help as well: ""Avondale's TARDIS Calls Pumping Station: One Hacker Space Its Home"" . DNAinfo Chicago . Retrieved 2023-05-30 . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 20:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can see where you're coming from here, but the sources still generally aren't any good. The ABA Journal source is just a brief mention about one of the article's main subjects having spent time with the company. Same thing goes for the Northwestern article. The other sources you mention seem to lack credibility or just noteworthiness in general. Dawnbails ( talk ) 20:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom, reads like ads. Artem. G ( talk ) 09:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: to discuss the sourcing identified Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC) NCORP criteria apply. Sourcing fails to meet the criteria for establishing notability. The Avondale article is a blog so fails WP:RS and has no "" Independent Content "" since it relies entirely on information provided by the company and/or people closely associated with it. Similar issues arise with most of the other references, relying on information provided by the company or people closely associated with the company, failing WP:ORGIND . The remaining are brief mentions with insufficient in-depth information about the company to meet WP:CORPDEPTH . HighKing ++ 13:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"ACW American Joshi Championship: The promotion doesn't even have an article HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 15:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and United States of America . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 20:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the promotion had an article until it was d for notability concerns in December 2022. This isn't notable either. LM2000 ( talk ) 19:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per LM2000. -- Mann Mann ( talk ) 02:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"American National Business Hall of Fame: Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 22:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Business , and United States of America . Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 22:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WIU Libraries are managing these 2 sites starting July 2023  . we have been busy making it accurate .194.113.131 ( talk ) 21:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 07:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - non-notable. Found no refs. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 07:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC) GNG . I failed to find proper sources or references. Charsaddian ( talk ) 18:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC) GNG . Like others above, I failed to locate any reliable secondary sources on the subject whatsoever. Sal2100 ( talk ) 20:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"R. Michael Givens: Givens is a former Sons of Confederate Veterans commander who was frequently quoted and who commissioned articles for SCV's magazine. The role does not confer notability, and commissioning the articles renders them not independent. He's in the news for his role, but I'm not sure that's enough for biographical notability nor does he necessarily merit a mention in SCV or the magazine, so not sure a is helpful to the reader. The subject (self disclosed) would prefer it says less, but then there's no notability as the film work doesn't rise to the level. Thoughts? Suggestions? Star Mississippi 18:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , History , and United States of America . Star Mississippi 18:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Nothing here merits inclusion. He was affiliated with an organization that is notable but he doesn't seem to be a particularly notable member of it. He's quoted in articles speaking for the group and that's basically it. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 22:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I think it is possible that Givens's film work rises to the level of WP:NCREATIVE or WP:GNG . See for instance [8] , [9] . However the article is currently in violation of WP:BLPBALANCE , so unless someone steps up to address that, I think that policy compels us to . Jfire ( talk ) 00:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Wonder If U Care: The Billboard TikTok Top 50 chart placing and streams/views alone don't help with notability as per WP:NSONG . pinktoebeans (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America . pinktoebeans (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Artist redlinks, no other songs; it's yet another Tiktok background song nobody would think is a standout song of 2023, much less look up. Nate • ( chatter ) 22:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Does not appear to have any coverage outside of the Stereogum article. No apparent valid / targets available. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 08:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Article is also an orphan . It was linked from list of shoegaze musicians , but I've removed that since the artist appears to be non-notable as well. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 08:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Yes it got some buzz from social media watchers but professional coverage is very limited, and the journalists involved should have done their research to give us some sort of story about the musician himself. It would make more sense here for the musician to have his own article first, but that would be unlikely to survive our notability rules either. For song or musician, an encyclopedia needs more than some minor commentary on how something that nobody ever bothered to investigate got noticed by streamers. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 15:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Fanery: A google failed to yield any related hits that did not come back to this page. Subject fails WP:V . Ad Orientem ( talk ) 01:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (here from AN/I) . Undecided, see below Access to sources about Madagascar is quite limited, as I learned writing a GA in the topic area , so it's worth giving this the 7 days at AfD on the off chance someone finds something. But I cannot find anything remotely approaching verification. Googling fanery -wiki -wikipedia I see a jewelry company called FanerySue and a few random people with Fanery as a forename, but nothing about Malagasy currency/jewelry (and it's suspicious to begin with how the article is unclear on whether it's about currency, jewelry, or both). I wouldn't be shocked if some small portion of this proved true, but the article as a whole is most likely a hoax. -- Tamzin [ cetacean needed ] (she|they|xe) 01:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC) //malagasyword.org/ is, but it defines fanery as either ""forced"" or ""milk"". (The former meaning gleaned through looking up the words in the Malagasy definition, clarifying the ambiguous French definition ""presse"" [ sic ; presumably intended pressé ].) -- Tamzin [ cetacean needed ] (she|they|xe) 01:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh and ping @ Red-tailed hawk , my coauthor on the aforementioned GA, in case his Madgascar searching skills are any better than mine. -- Tamzin [ cetacean needed ] (she|they|xe) 01:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Un outil traditionnel en bois nécessaire pour presser le canne à sucre pour de liquide sucré. "" (""Fanery: A traditional wooden tool needed to press sugar cane [...]""). Grmbf ( talk ) 09:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Parts of the article are verifiable, fanafody is Malagasy a medicinal charm [21] , coins were first used as jewelry or charms and monnaie coupée is French for 'cut money'. [22] . Maybe not a hoax but something obscure, misunderstood by the author or OR. fiveby ( zero ) 02:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . In addition to the above points, note that edits to this article and uploads of the associated images are the creator's only contributions ever. In the case of a suspected hoax, this is invariably a bad sign. Coincidentally, last night I attended a live performance of the Depths of Wikipedia show, and Annie Rauwerda mentioned the Jar'Edo Wens hoax . I could barely restrain myself from yelling out ""hey, I'm the one who d that page after it lasted for ten years!"" It's embarrassing that the ""Fanery"" page, which also is blatant nonsense, has survived for even longer. Newyorkbrad ( talk ) 01:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Ad Orientem, Tamzin and Newyorkbrad, although I agree with waiting a full week. The jewelry company with Fanery in the name is entirely unrelated. I searched Google Books and Google Scholar and came up with nothing except that there is an academic named TF Flannery who writes about Madagascar. Cullen328 ( talk ) 01:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Tamzin - I googled and got a similar set of results (although, not speaking French, I also had to google for the meaning of the French word, which sent me to Google which gives ""a drink made from freshly squeezed fruit juice, sugar, and ice"". Whether or not it's a hoax, it's almost completely unreferenced (the only reference seems to be to off-line information about the historical practice of bisecting or quadrisecting coinage). It also doesn't have a corresponding page in the Malagasy Wikipedia, and I have left a note on their ""messages from people who do not speak Malagasy"" page advising them of this AFD. Daveosaurus ( talk ) 02:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Nuke it from orbit; only way to be sure. Really, no need to wait. Beyond My Ken ( talk ) 03:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC) uncited, potential hoax, but really just a failure of WP:V . StartOkayStop ( talk ) 04:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , History , Archaeology , Economics , and Africa . Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , seems pretty clear by now that this is a hoax. Daniel Case ( talk ) 05:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , no sources. Rjj iii ( talk ) 05:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC) as this pagewas likely a hoax, failing WP:V, and per everyone’s votes above my vote. Signed, 64andtim ( any problems? ) 05:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hold on a sec! This does partly verify! With thanks to Red-tailed hawk, who found this and sent it to me for translation: On voit encore parfois, attaché à l'extremité des ceintures, un morceau de fer ayant vaguement la forme de deux triangles accollés par leur pointe sous un angle de 80 degrés. C'est le fanery , que servait autrefois de tournevis pour le fusil, mais n'est plus aujourd'hui qu'un simple ornement. One sees sometimes, attached to the ends of belts, a piece of iron vaguely in the form of two triangles glued together by their points at an angle of 80 degrees. It is fanery , which once served as screwdrivers for guns, but now are nothing more than a simple ornament. That's still a long way from verifying every claim in the article, but does suggest at least that the objects in the images can be correctly described as fanery , and that they are a once-relevant thing that has become less common. -- Tamzin [ cetacean needed ] (she|they|xe) 05:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC) You appear to be the only active user listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Madagascar . Do you have any insight? -- Tamzin [ cetacean needed ] (she|they|xe) 05:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's astonishingly embarrassing, Tamzin . I am afraid I cannot add anything here beyond what has already been said below. @ Lemurbaby : , are you still active? — Brigade Piron ( talk ) 01:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also I don't have access to the source myself but French Wikipedia [23] cites Briant, Joseph, L'hébreu à Madagascar which says about the Antandroy people "" Une de leurs amulettes, le fanery , semble la copie d'un bijou des tombeaux du Nil, les ""abeilles"" "" ("" One of their amulets, the fanery, appears to be a copy of a jewel from the Nile tombs, the ""bees"" ""). Grmbf ( talk ) 09:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also from Raymond Decary, ""L'art chez les Antandroy"", "" Je représente ici (Fig. 8) un de ces bijoux, en raison de son élégance ; il est d'ailleurs assez rare et ne porte pas de nom spécial. Il est dérivé du fanery qui servait autrefois de tournevis pour le fusil du guerrier. Les deux lamelles triangulaires du fanery , au lieu d'être jointes par leur sommet, se trouvent chacun à l'extrémité d'une barrette horizontale en argent massif [...] "". Grmbf ( talk ) 10:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC) c'était le fanery qui servait de tournevis. Aujourd'hui [...] le fanery est devenu un bijou féminin ; de plus petite taille et fabriqué en argent, il s'est transformé en pendentif chez les femmes Antanosy. "". Grmbf ( talk ) 10:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment Einzig, Paul (1966). Primitive Money: In its Ethnological, Historical and Economic Aspects second edition page 125-126 lists two currencies used in Madagascar. One was cattle money. The other was cut up silver coins or “cut money” with their value derived from their weight. ©Geni ( talk ) 07:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] no hits for fanery Madagascar on JSTOR, Nature or ProQuest. Couldn't find anything related on archive.org either, got some mis-spellings of infantery and Fanery can be a surname (perhaps that is the ""motivation""?). Assuming this is a hoax, is someone ""fixing"" the Commons side of things? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 07:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Like I said above, that those objects are called fanery does appear to verify, albeit so far only in one 100-year-old source. The rest is less certain. -- Tamzin [ cetacean needed ] (she|they|xe) 07:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC) 44, 16 September 2023 (UTC) 52, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, it does start with ""Fanery - Traditional money from Madagascar"". Also ""As far as prior to 1895 no real money or decimal currency existed in Madagascar"" sounds unlikely (though perhaps possible) per Merina Kingdom . Anyway, I appnoted a couple of WP-projects. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 08:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per Wehwalt below, it does seem that they didn't mint coins. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 16:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Gråbergs Gråa Sång It's not a fix as such, but I have done some rewording and removing of tags on Commons so that Fanery is no longer described as a currency. ManuelKomnenos ( talk ) 16:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 17:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Malagasy Wiktionary defines ""fanery"" as ""fomba entimanery"" ( mg:wikt:fanery ); which according to Google Translate means ""training method"". My very superficial research suggests that 10 or 12 years ago, a bot was adding large numbers of Malagasy words to that Wiktionary even without definitions; negative evidence which casts a shadow over the article under discussion, en:fanery . That article mentions ""fanafody"" as a name for traditional medicine, which seems to be true; see mg:fanafody . Narky Blert ( talk ) 08:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as hoax . Not mentioned in Campbell, Gwyn, "" Currency and Currency Problems in Imperial Madagascar, 1820–1895 , Currencies of the Indian Ocean World , pp.93-112, August 2019, Springer , DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-20973-5_5 - which looks about as RS as it's possible to get. Narky Blert ( talk ) 09:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC) //nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/520966 ) is focussed entirely on monnaie coupee with no mention of fanery. Cabayi ( talk ) 10:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (summoned here by note at WikiProject Numismatics) I can't say if fanery exists as a decoration, but from James T. Harris, ""'Cut' Money of Madagascar"", The Numismatist , March 1956, pp. 263-264, available here though you may hit a paywall (I'd send a screenshot to anyone who emails me), ""From the early days of European contact with the island various coins were used, but as the Malagasy had no national or native coinages, foreign coins were used. The chief coin was the Spanish dollar which became the money of account and the standard of recoining. This coin predominated until the early years of the 19th century when increasing trade with foreign nations introduced to the islands a weird mixture of the dollar-sized coins of the world. United States, Mexican, Peruvian, and other American states, Belgic, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Austrian, Sardinian, or any other dollar-size coins were accepted. By the middle of the century the French five franc piece was the main coin in circulation. Referred to in Primitive Money (P. Einzig) p. 135-6, Madagascar and Its Peoples (James Sibree, Jr. , London, 1870) and Three Visits to Madagascar (W. Ellis, London, 1859). ""Ellis says of the Tamatave market, ""the money changers were busy cutting up dollars, half dollars, quarter dollars, and smaller pieces, cut silver valued by weight being the universal currency. "" Sibree gives the following valuation list. The dollar had a high relative value when divided into 720 parts. For the payment of all amounts less than a dollar, coins were cut into irregular pieces of varying sizes and weights and weighed by means of a neat little scale and weights which every person carried for that purpose. ""Money weights: Loso — Half dollar Kirobo — Quarter dollar Sikajy — Eighth dollar Roa-voamena — Twelfth dollar. Divisions of the dollar: Grain of rice one vary-venty 10 vary-venty — one eranambatra 9 eranambatra — one sikajy 8 sikajy — one dollar The use of money scales and weights was strictly regulated by law. Four money weights marked by government stamps were used for weighing money. Other amounts were obtained by varying these weights in the opposite scale and adding rice grains. ""Originally money changers charged a small fee for cutting up the coins but subsequently the cut segments passed at a discount from the whole dollar. Occasionally this discount amounted to one-sixth or more but about 1880 it was officially established at one-sixteenth. ""Attempts to introduce a national coinage took place during the reign of Radama II in 1855. This ruler, while still a prince, had granted a charter to a French subject which included the right to coin money with the king's effigy. In 1862 steps preliminary to preparation of this coinage were taken. :""The death of Radama II in 1863 and the repudiation of the charter by his successor caused the project to be abandoned. Another attempt took place in 1866 and originated from a proposal made by the French Resident that instead of chopped off silver from French five franc pieces and other dollars, a national coinage to be minted in France should be instituted. This suggestion was rejected by the Hova Prime Minister who was not prepared to see Madagascar linked with the French Empire, but in the same year orders were sent to England for the minting of a coinage with the head of the queen and an inscription in Malagasy. Like the earlier attempt, this project was abandoned on the death of the queen in 1868. ""After the establishment of the French protectorate in 1896 and the abolition of royal power in the following year, the cut money was prohibited, by the French government. For a time, great difficulty was experienced with the natives in monetary transactions, especially in the interior, but the introduction of vast amounts of silver and copper divisions of the French franc by the protecting power, soon restored public confldence in the islands and the cut money passed out of use. ""-- Wehwalt ( talk ) 13:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC) 36, 16 September 2023 (UTC) 17, 16 September 2023 (UTC) L'Androy, extrême sud de Madagascar (1933) mentions it on pages 61 and 163; Revue d'ethnographie et des traditions populaires , Volume 7 (1926) mentions ""Fanery"" on page 49 (this is the thing Tamzin quoted); Coutumes guerrières et organisation militaire chez les anciens Malgaches (1966) appears to have some discussion of Fanery on page 65; The index of Végétaux et groupements végétaux de Madagascar et des Mascareignes (1969) indicates that ""Fanery"" is discussed on page 817 (index entry given by google books as page 1317). Revue internationale de botanique appliquée et d'agriculture tropicale , Volume 12 (1932) mentions Fanery as being the name of a plant (unrelated, but noting here for completeness sake). My french is not good enough to see whether or not all of these are spurious, and I don't have access to the full sources, but I'm noting this here in case someone with access can check. On a separate note, the translation of the one source provided by Tamzin above indicates that this is probably actually Fanery , and the existence of an object called this is not made up. Whether or not this was used for money, I can't tell. I'll refrain from !voting on this, since I was alerted about this by ping, but I think it's worth digging into sources a bit more before declaring the whole thing to be a hoax. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Ombiasa.jpg by the article creator is used in the mg-WP article Ombiasa , that may be perfectly ""legit"" too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 16:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC) I managed to find the Coutumes link in Google search myself. My French is a tad rusty, and it's high school level, but with the assistance of Google Translate (a little) I get the following: ""Especially for the rifle, the belt's trim is completed, adjacent to the buckle, by a piece of iron vaguely in the form of two triangles attached at their point at an angle of around 60 degrees; this was the fanery which served as a screwdriver. Today, same as the felana , the fanery has become a woman's jewel: smaller in size and made of silver..."" So this is something that did exist, even a century ago, but not for the purpose accorded to it by the article, so far as I can tell. Hope this is useful. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 17:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC) - Can you provide links to scans of your finds rather than to title pages? I'd be happy to have a look at the French originals. Narky Blert ( talk ) 20:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC) My finds are only what's available through the google books preview. I don't have access to anything else. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I had a look for scans or full texts, but no luck; not even on the old stuff. Narky Blert ( talk ) 17:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment As of this post, and after reading the above comments including some serious digging by editors, I think we have reached a point where we can make two observations. First, that some doubt seems to exist as to whether this is a deliberate hoax. And secondly, that despite an exhaustive search of available sources, the claims of fact made in the article remain almost entirely unsourced and suspect as to their veracity. - Ad Orientem ( talk ) 18:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would say that it isn't important whether it was a hoax, really. But there's enough doubt as to the major assertions in the article to dictate that we should , if only in an excess of caution. If later it appears we have erred, why, we can always restore the article. Wehwalt ( talk ) 18:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree. Though I'd be a bit more emphatic to the point that we just can't have an article where 99% of the claims of fact are completely unverified. Unless somebody uncovers a trove of reliable source evidence for this article, it has to go. And although I didn't mention it in my opening statement above, obviously an article that is effectively unsourced would also fail GNG. - Ad Orientem ( talk ) 18:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC) V . Narky Blert ( talk ) 19:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, I think this is a fair point. The reason I've emphasized that part of this verifies is because, if someone does manage to find sources for a ground-up rewrite someday (because who knows, maybe said trove of evidence does exist, undigitized, in a Malagasy or French library), I wouldn't want that getting G3 'd or G4 'd based on a misunderstanding. But WP:V is the most basic requirement for an article (even if for argument's sake we assume that SIGCOV exists somewhere on planet Earth), so unless someone comes up with something in the next week, deletion is the right outcome. -- Tamzin [ cetacean needed ] (she|they|xe) 20:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC) 03, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kelsey Griswold: Let'srun ( talk ) 23:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Beauty pageants , and Oklahoma . Let'srun ( talk ) 23:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sports broadcasting contracts in Thailand: The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL . I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 08:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports , Lists , and Thailand . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 08:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC) No opinion on the page in its current format, which does seem to be WP:LISTCRUFT , but it's a notable topic with potential for a valid article, especially given the long-standing legal and political issues surrounding broadcasting rights for major sporting events (mostly football) since 2012, which have been widely covered. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] If the page does get d it should be without prejudice to the creation of a proper article. -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 11:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 10:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] based on sources found. Deletion is not cleanup. Esolo5002 ( talk ) 15:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC) NLIST . A list wihtout body text for context will never pass GNG too. This is 2024, not 2004. Wikipedia standards has gone a long way since. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 21:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a tv guide, this fails to meet the WP:NLIST . Let'srun ( talk ) 14:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Andreas Paraskevas: On review of search results, I can't find any English-language sourcing, and a comprehensive Greek-language search reveals the following sources: [7] 2019 article about his speculated transfer from APOEL to Doxa. [8] [9] 2022 and 2023 articles about two separate ACL injuries (very unfortunate I must say). Overall I just don't see a level of coverage in these sources that would meet the threshold of significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSCRIT . GGT ( talk ) 20:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Cyprus . GGT ( talk ) 20:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC) GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney ( talk ) 18:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Balgzand Gas Plant: Boleyn ( talk ) 16:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Environment , Geography , and Netherlands . Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC) COATRACK , Extremely little of the content is actually about the gas plant. As this article is a huge failure even before examining notability, the is without prejudice on the topic. gidonb ( talk ) 00:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm surprised there were not more sources for this, even the gas fields have more sources than this. I will cite lack of Reliable sources, Lack of Secondary sources. And add, that it's just an industrial facility. We probably don't want to have articles on every factory that exists. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Per nom. Questionable notability with no secondary sources with SIGCOV. The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 10:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Afonso Caetano: The best sources that I can find are Maisfutebol , which is a basic transfer announcement with only the bare minimum of details, and Record , which confirms his age, length of contract and briefly summarises his previous teams. It provides no more info than a database source would and, on its own, is not enough to pass GNG or SPORTBASIC. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Portugal . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Michael Yebba: Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn ( talk ) 17:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Massachusetts . Owen× ☎ 19:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Fails notability guidelines for actors. There are some minor mentions in a couple of news articles but they do not convince me of sufficient notability. Sgubaldo ( talk ) 21:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Passes the GNG even with what is in the article. And, importantly, per the golden WP:NEXIST rule: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article . AFDISNOTCLEANUP applies. gidonb ( talk ) 03:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC) BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth . BLPs require strong sourcing. Ping me if WP:THREE sources are posted. // Timothy :: talk 20:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Karad district: Not notable. Aintabli ( talk ) 06:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and India . Aintabli ( talk ) 06:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC) 21, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. No sources found, terrible article. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 23:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Gong Mun-chol: Simione001 ( talk ) 00:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 00:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 00:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 00:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 04:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Patti Garamendi: The strongest notability claim here is that she's been an appointed bureaucrat in a state government department, which is not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of WP:GNG -worthy coverage about her work in that role -- but otherwise, what we've got here is that she's been an unsuccessful candidate in state legislature elections, which is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself, and recently won a ""local woman of the year"" award that is not nationally or internationally prominent enough to make its winners ""inherently"" notable for winning it. And all of this is referenced entirely to primary sources , like her staff profile on the government department's self-published website and raw tables of election results and the self-published website of the presenter of the local award, with not even one piece of GNG-worthy reliable source coverage shown whatsoever. This all reaches far enough back into the past that I'd be perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived Sacramento-area media coverage than I've got can find enough proper media coverage about her work as a public servant to get her over the bar, but nothing stated here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced a lot better than this . Bearcat ( talk ) 21:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women , and California . Bearcat ( talk ) 21:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . No serious claim of notability, nor can I find any by independently searching. She's been an unsuccessful congressional candidate a few times; has been named ""woman of the year"" of one county (said naming apparently being within the discretion of a single state senator); served as an ""associate director"", a ""deputy secretary"" and even an ""assistant deputy administrator"" (but not even either assistant nor deputy) of some notable agencies and organization (or at least, in the case the USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service, a subunit of such an agency or organization), but never an actual director / secretary / administrator. If there's a colorable claim to notability here, I can't see it. TJRC ( talk ) 00:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . At least one of the claims in the Dodd ""Sacramento Woman of the Year"" item is highly inaccurate, so that citation is obviously non-independent and more of a political favor to her husband. Unless significant coverage and notability can be demonstrated from truly independent sources, this thrice-failed political candidate who last ran for office 32 years ago, and who has been a very minor functionary and the wife of a Congressman, fails notability. Persingo ( talk ) 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] since subject clearly lacks independent notability . Failed in politics; fails WP:NPOLITICIAN . And the general notability criteria . - The Gnome ( talk ) 14:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] not independently notable. Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 12:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of South China AA footballers: Let'srun ( talk ) 14:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Sports , Football , and Hong Kong . Let'srun ( talk ) 14:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – With South China AA . The information about the players is relevant to be in the main article, but the fork isn't necessary. Svartner ( talk ) 04:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - indiscriminate list. Definitely do not , the club's article should not be bloated with a massive list of (apparently randomly selected) past players - no evidence of notability. These kind of articles can be notable, this one is a mess. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as per nom. -- Wish for Good ( talk ) 04:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Extraterritorial crossroad: Concern, by Chidgk1 ( talk · contribs ) was: Most of the sources I found were likely copied from this article – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 02:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Geography . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 02:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] but possibly rename. I'm not sure about the words in the title but the concept seems sound. For example there are lots of sources talking about the concept in this part of the world: Zangezur corridor also historical examples such as Berlinka . I might be missing some nuance from the nom so am open to changing my ! vote. JMWt ( talk ) 08:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . No such term as far as I can find. Half the definition (""a strip of land that formally belongs to neither country"") seems is absurd and does not apply to any of the examples listed. The other half (""or with other special arrangements"") is so vague as to be useless. Part of this is already covered in Enclave and exclave#Unusual cross-border transport channels . Clarityfiend ( talk ) 10:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Couldn't find anything regarding the term, barring sources that more than likely copied from this article, as mentioned by Chidgk1 ( talk · contribs ). Mooonswimmer 16:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ri Jo-guk: All sources are match reports. Simione001 ( talk ) 23:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 23:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 23:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 23:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – Do sources of footballer club/national team debut and them scoring goals count as significant coverage, or are they more like routine? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It should ultimately depend on how in-depth the coverage of the subject is. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Paranga (football): Angryapathy ( talk ) 18:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Football , and Greece . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The concept is probably a part of Greek discourse. The article is a WP:TNT candidate, written in bad English, even translating team names (Iraklis to Hercules). Geschichte ( talk ) 09:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] this abomination of a text as soon as decently possible. Nothing of note and even less coherence. - The Gnome ( talk ) 12:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. It's not even clear what this article is about/trying to do. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Horrifyingly poor writing. Obviously a quick, unthinking translation. Candidate for WP:TNT if there ever was one. Anwegmann ( talk ) 04:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC) 54, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Aneel Murarka: Someone more familiar with Indian news and corporations might be able to find something. BuySomeApples ( talk ) 23:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India . BuySomeApples ( talk ) 23:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC) 1,2,12,14,18 — error 404 7,15,16,18 — other access errors (maybe for me) 3,4,5,6,11,13 — laudatory articles with no byline 8 — the same text from 6 9 — this domain is for sale 10 — he didn't mentioned 17 — the first article with a byline, but it's a trivial mention I haven't made an attempt to find reliable sources myself, but I suppose if he even suddenly has notability, the article should be rewritten using better materials. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 18:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 09:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Budhiya (film): Sources in article are release promo and database. BEFORE showed more promo and database, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 08:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Message I left to evident no avail, on nom's TP a few minutes before he took the page to AFD (after I had removed the Prod tag from the page, that the same user had put 1 1/2 h after the page was created...):An expert should, in my view, establish if it's really the 1st FL in Bagheli before further action is taken on the page. — MY, OH, MY ! 09:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a fair question but it doesn't seem to be the case; this article mentions a Bagheli-language film from 2019. Sojourner in the earth ( talk ) 21:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not an easy one to find sources for, since searching in Hindi returns a lot of results for Budhia Singh who is also the subject of a film. I didn't find any sources that aren't already in the article, which as the OP says are promotional in nature. ! Voting for now, unless better sources can be found. Sojourner in the earth ( talk ) 21:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: ineligible for soft deletion Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 10:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Daniel Otter: Jon Kolbert ( talk ) 19:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Coverage is all press release items or articles about other people where he's mentioned. I don't find any extensive sourcing in Canadian sources either. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom/above. BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources found are all routine mill news, name mentions, listings, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth . BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 02:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see significant independent coverage of him in reliable sources. I found a number of passing mentions, mainly in articles on events describing him as the promoter, but merely doing your job does not prove WP notability. Papaursa ( talk ) 04:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"BTB Electric: Sources all appear to be press releases. — Trey Maturin ™ 14:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . — Trey Maturin ™ 14:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Can't find any reliable sources. Salsakesh ( talk ) 22:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC) Could someone with a reading knowledge of Vietnamese please have a look at the references? To me they mostly look reasonable but some might be press releases as nom said, and some might be promotional. Well-sourced for a short article, but the source independence is going to be the deciding factor. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Before I nominated this, I ran the sources through Google Translate, which is, obviously, not very good, but was enough to give the gist of the stories. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 appear to be press releases, paid-for articles or puff pieces. Very promotional language of the ""strives to provide the best…"" type of thing. Most of the text is repeated in the other 5 articles, and simply describes what the company does (or aims to do in future), which suggests a press release. 3 is a report on a trade show, with a single quote from a director of the company just listing the products they have brought to show. — Trey Maturin ™ 15:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] based on the explanation above. I can't find sources for this business either. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the clarification, agreed. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 17:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Vietnam and Turkey . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] — The lack of any Turkish-language sourcing for a supposedly 40+ year Turkish company is quite telling IMO. In my search for BTB Electric or BTB Elektrik, I only found articles on the Bursa Commercial Exchange Market (Bursa Ticaret Borsası) , and absolutely nothing on this company. The trwiki article was speedied 4 days ago based on notability. Given that the Vietnamese sources are promotional, there is no way that this company meets WP:NCORP , which is a guideline that sets the bar really high for for-profit entities. Styyx ( talk ) 19:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also another interesting note, I tried to read some news stories on their official website (eg. this ) and the Turkish used here is anything but natural. I wouldn't believe the person writing this actually knows Turkish. Styyx ( talk ) 19:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not directly relevant to the discussion, but… yeah. The references to Turkey in the promotional articles used as sources came over as weird, gtranslate's weirdness notwithstanding. I wondered if this was a mistranslation of a place or term in the original language, although that would prove me wrong for how convinced I was/am that the article's creator has a CoI. — Trey Maturin ™ 19:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"M3 Communications Group, Inc: Stevie Awards are described as ""fee-based"" with 30-40% of nominees receiving an award, so carries no weight. Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 00:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Bulgaria . Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 00:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising , Management , and Internet . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Davina Reichman: Refspam is also evident TLA (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women , Fashion , and Australia . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 10:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m leaning towards deleting based on reading the two previous nominations. I find the lack of linking in the reflist telling. Notability not demonstrated, CoI issues…if the topic is notable it can be recreated RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 10:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC) Notability is not inherited and can someone explain why two of the sentences have 11 citations? Tar nis hed Path talk 00:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources are not indepth of her. and nothing in gnews, fails WP:BIO . LibStar ( talk ) 01:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Darshan_Singh_Sur: Yamantakks ( talk ) 08:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC) G11 . I went ahead and removed the blatant advert from the article (""here's what events I do and my contact details"") so I don't think the rest meets G11, but fails GNG anyway. CoconutOctopus talk 10:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC) No violin players found in any sort of sourcing using this name. Very likely PROMO. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC) While it looks like this person exists, no sources that I could find help in meeting WP:GNG . - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 08:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC) Per all above, WP:TNT Seawolf35 T -- C 19:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Interdisciplinary Contest in Modeling: The hits on both google search and google news are either passing mentions or not-independent-enough sources. Duckmather ( talk ) 04:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Mathematics . Duckmather ( talk ) 04:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sports broadcasting contracts in South Korea: The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . The only source are simply announcment, just not worthy of an encyclopaedic value. Those arguing for a must be advised of WP:USEFUL . I also advise those to create a Fandom page for your favorite sport if you want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 23:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports , Lists , and South Korea . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 23:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . A jumble of sports contracts, not encylopedic or maintainable. Desertarun ( talk ) 11:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Pocket Monsters RéBURST chapters: The article is sourced only to the manga's publisher and has no notability as a stand-alone list . – dudhhr talk contribs she her 07:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan . – dudhhr talk contribs she her 07:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . – dudhhr talk contribs she her 07:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Clearly, if the anime isn't notable enough for an article, as decided by an AfD, neither is a list of its episodes. Bensci54 ( talk ) 16:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . WP:NOTCATALOGUE . But maybe one day this will be a notable series, so SOFTDELETE is ok. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 13:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Relisting, I just want to check, is List of Pokémon manga#Manga not released in English being proposed as a target article? Or is there another article that is more appropriate? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC) 57, 23 October 2023 (UTC) 19, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Abdurahman Nasser: My Arabic searches have yielded no decent results about this particular Abdurahman Nasser and so there is no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Qatar . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"URL Snooper: Fails WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing . UtherSRG (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Adetola Salau: 17:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Having a teaching license doesn't get you a wikipedia article. Adjunct professor is not notable either. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Women , Nigeria , and New Jersey . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does not seem to pass PROF or NPOL. Little to no sourcing found. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC) Source 11 is puffy, the rest are only trivial mentions of the individual. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC) Non-notable politician or academic. The article is bombarded with references in an attempt to get prove notability. But none of these sources in my opinion are fully reliable, independent, secondary or have significant coverage . Also, I have UPE or COI concerns as how these images ( File:Adetola Salau 01.jpg and File:Adetola Salau 02.jpg ) which has EXIF data intact, where gotten. Best, Reading Beans ( talk ) 19:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC) I have gone through the sources (and have improved the citations) and find most to be mainstream, major newspapers. Sources 1, 5 and 10 are about her, not just mentions. Although 10 is partially an interview, that is allowable when building a case for notability. Source 8 is a magazine feature. Source 16 is a print magazine feature from the University of Buffalo. Although not all of the sources are significant coverage, they demonstrate a pattern of ongoing media coverage. In addition, she has now been appointed to two government positions, meaning she is not known for just one thing. Rublamb ( talk ) 22:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC) prepared by User:Reading Beans Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://dailypost.ng/2023/11/11/kwara-gov-appoints-ex-lagos-sa-as-education-adviser/ ""According to a press release by the Chief Press Secretary...""—Press release A strong source if you need information from Northern Nigeria ? ✘ No https://thisislagos.ng/investing-in-great-teaching-to-truly-prepare-our-students-for-the-future-of-work-adetola-salau/ She wrote this piece herself ? This is a blog of questionable notability This is not talking about her ✘ No https://www.gessleaders.com/dr-adetola-salau ? Can't really tell if this is reliable She has significant coverage from this organisation ✘ No https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1099-162x.1978.tb01004.x Her father's book... ~ can’t judge ~ I don't have access to book (I didn't try to) ✘ No https://leadership.ng/kwara-gov-appoints-stem-expert-28-other-aides/ Press release, same as one National daily ? see #1 above ✘ No https://newsbulletin.com.ng/2023/05/15/adetola-salau-graduates-from-us-varsity/ This information was gotten from her WhatsApp status and is the same author as #6 ~ ✘ No https://punchng.com/tags/dr-adetola-salau/ National daily ~ same as #1 and #5 above ✘ No https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/02/match-skills-with-opportunities-to-retain-skilled-workforce-in-country-adetola-salau-adviser-to-lsg-on-stem-education/ A lot concerns raised by some people concerning of some piece published by this newspaper cannot expressly remove its reliable (use with a pinch of salt though) It’s an interview, so... ✘ No https://sunnewsonline.com/lagos-govt-partners-getbundi-to-massify-stem-learning-across-state-schools/ Press release about a partnership National daily with no affiliation with UK's The Sun ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Continued below: Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2023/05/11/stakeholders-highlight-role-of-technology-in-digitalising-education-for-cognitive-learning-in-schools ? couldn't even find her name mentioned here ✘ No https://ed.buffalo.edu/magazine/issues/fall-2021/salau.html ~ This is almost an interview about how great University of Buffalo's GSE program is and how it helped this lady in her job ✘ No https://www.citypeopleonline.com/we-need-to-focus-on-educational-programs-that-help-graduates-develop-skills-dr-adetola-salau/ ~ ✘ No https://www.womenspheremag.net/sphere-woman-of-the-month-opunimi-akinkugbe/ ~ Appearing on Forbes 30 Under 30 cannot make one notable exclusively... ~ ~ ~ Partial https://womenofrubies.com/9to5chick-recognises-top-100-career-women-in-africa/ apparently, a blog called ""9to5 Chick"" releases a list of people and Women of Rubies reprints it. ? ~ ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Best, Reading Beans ( talk ) 15:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Thanks for the review. Can you please revisit the Vanguard article? Although part of it is an interview, it has a long intro written by the reporter. I believe that does apply to notability. Also, just because an article cites a press release does not mean that it is a complete copy or lacks review by a newspaper's staff. For example, in the articles mentioned, several have a byline and some some rewriting. Also, if the press release is from a governmental institution (which they are in this case), don't you think there is a different level of accountability and reliability? At least, I do not think it is fair to say that an announcement of a government appointment is a puff piece; rather this should be considered news. Rublamb ( talk ) 01:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't say it is a puff piece. I only said it is a press release; which is what it is. Best, Reading Beans ( talk ) 15:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I concur with ReadingBeans' analysis of the sources. These are largely non-independent puff pieces. No evidence of meeting NPROF or GNG. JoelleJay ( talk ) 20:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Xenogenders: A Google News search finds a handful (8 at last count) of non-RS sources and the one LBGTQ Nation source. There does not appear to be any mainstream coverage of the term or topic. Google Books shows only self-published works that reference fandom.com and wikis. The only work on Google Scholar that looks halfway legit is in what appears to be a non-peer-reviewed journal that describes itself as ""Journal SA daring and controversial leader in the field of cultural studies, the journal consistently focuses attention on questions of gender, sexuality, race, and the environment, publishing key works by the most influential social and cultural theorists. "" Eve rgr een Fir (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions . Eve rgr een Fir (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Given Evergreen's search, it won't surprise anyone that there's nothing in ngrams as they have already covered Book search. And as Evergreen already did a regular search at Scholar, I decided to look at Scholar in a different way, restricting the search to articles in which xenogender appears in the title as a kind of proxy for WP:SIGCOV , as one would expect that articles that had it in the title would be the most likely ones to have significant coverage of it in the article (you'd still have to test that theory and prove SIGCOV by reading the articles; test search query as a control: cisgender ). However, the search results there tend toward the same result we are finding elsewhere, i.e., nothing serious has been written about it yet; hence by failure to meet WP:GNG . I see nothing WP:DUE in the article now that deserves merging. If the search results looked more promising, Normally I might consider draftifying, but at this point, I don't see where solid sources are going to come from. Maybe try again with a Draft in a year? Mathglot ( talk ) 05:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC) 46, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I have found a decent source mentioning xenogenders and have cited it in the article (Beattie, Michael; Lenihan, Penny (2018-03-21). Counselling Skills for Working with Gender Diversity and Identity. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. p. 102. ISBN 978-1-78450-481-6). However, considering GNG and such, this topic is probably best covered as a sentence or two within non-binary gender (which it presently is). 🔥HOT m̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃ 🔥 ( talk ・ edits ) 19:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Xenogender ) 🔥HOT m̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃ 🔥 ( talk ・ edits ) 11:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The current form of the xenogenders article lacks real substance and notability. Xenogenders to my knowledge are a particularly niche subset of non-binary and transgender identities which are already mentioned in the aforementioned articles. After a brief review, the low number of reliable sources and the general lack of notability brings me to the conclusion that this topic currently does not warrant a dedicated article per WP:GNG . The low number of reliable sources contributes to the potential difficulty of building a reliable well-sourced article on the topic at the moment. I believe the optimal course of action as of right now is to relevant information into the preexisting section on the non-binary genders article and then either xenogenders after draftifying it or turn it into a to non-binary . Perhaps in the future, it could be revisited but as of right now, it is my opinion that it does not meet Wikipedia standards. Thanks. ZombiUwU ( 💬 ~♥~ 📝 ) 18:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to the same target of xenogender ( Non-binary gender § Xenogender ). WP:TOOSOON . -- MikutoH talk! 01:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or as above and per EvergreenFir and Mathglot. It doesn't seem to meet GNG (which, I emphasize, requires significant coverage from quality sources). I'm not sure the sentence on this at non-binary gender is reliably sourced, so I'd be okay with deleting it outright, otherwise just it. Crossroads -talk- 00:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose / , as wide swaths of xenogenders don't fall under the nonbinary umbrella whatsoever. Simply . Tdmurlock ( talk ) 00:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Israel Association for Automatic Control: I'm not seeing the refs which could be considered to show notability to the inclusion guidelines. JMWt ( talk ) 10:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Israel . JMWt ( talk ) 10:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Business . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment are there any RS in Hebrew? FortunateSons ( talk ) 09:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no idea. But there's been plenty of time to add Hebrew sources if they exist. If Hebrew speakers/readers find RS, all to the good - but we don't ! on the off chance that there WP:MUSTBESOURCES JMWt ( talk ) 14:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – In its current state, shouldn't be here. If someone wants to add a lot more to the page, could be a different story. MaskedSinger ( talk ) 20:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Herbert Obele: Can only find some tangential coverage like [64] , [65] , nothing of much substance. Dr. Duh 🩺 ( talk ) 08:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Germany . Dr. Duh 🩺 ( talk ) 08:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. Doesn't even have an article at de.wiki. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC) GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney ( talk ) 13:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as non-notable. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 09:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ennepetal hostage taking: Article has sat largely untouched for the past two decades. There are sources exclusively from the day this happened. The only thing I found that wasn't from the actual day this occurred was a 1 paragraph mention in a list of German hostage crises from 2010, which does not have enough detail to build an article from. Fails WP:NEVENT . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 23:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Germany . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 23:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I don't speak German but I'm not seeing a reason to think this has lasting coverage. WP:NOTNEWS JMWt ( talk ) 09:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC) This article doesn't seem to cover a topic that has significance importance. Deletion might be the best course of action here. Waqar 💬 17:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mini Ladd: Even ignoring his recent work (a channel with 4.5m subscribers failing to get 100k views per video, and his last upload was 5 months ago), the article made it clear for almost 2 years that there's a lack of secondary sources in the article, and the lack of a biography, personal life, or even the bare minimum acknowledgement of his pedophilia scandal indicates that there's very few reputable secondary sources covering him, thus failing the notability guideline. Red olta 📱 Cont ribs 09:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC) I've thought about nominating this article for deletion before, mostly because of the lack of secondary coverage. Idiosincrático ( talk ) 09:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] YouTuber, undersourced. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 09:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC) Source 4 is a list and brief coverage, rest aren't RS. Coverage seems to be about him messaging fans that were underage and an ""I'm sorry"" video that fell flat with the public. I'm not sure either of these makes this individual notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Initially was on the side, but came across several sources that may prove notability. First, I found a scholarly source that analyzes his controversy - looking at the abstract alone it seems he is the primary topic . Second off, I do see some newspapers that also write about him significantly, such as this News Letter article and the already cited Derry Journal and Derry Now pieces. Finally, The Sunday Times listicle is a pretty solid claim of importance, and is over 100 words, making it a bit more than trivial. I think this in total should be enough to pass WP:BASIC . PantheonRadiance ( talk ) 00:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even taking into account the source mentioned above, the use of it will be problematic. He hasn't been convicted of any crime, hasn't even been charged with one, and to the best of my knowledge hasn't even had a formal police complaint made against him. So any use of that source for in-depth coverage of the allegations causes WP:UNDUE and, if we're saying that source makes him notable, WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIMINAL problems, as if the majority of the article is about things he's never been charged or convicted of there's problems. FDW777 ( talk ) 13:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mullaly's Siding: Not a notable topic. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 21:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia . Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 21:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC) I don't see significant coverage in independent sources required to meet WP:GNG . Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 21:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm confused why in the world a few yards of track to a flour mill would need an article. There's probably a few dozen sidings like this within ten miles of my house, dozens more that were removed since the area deindustrialized. Reywas92 Talk 01:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Efthalia Siakalli: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . This was the most I found. JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Cyprus . JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Scott Danough: I didn't find sufficient sources through with a WP:BEFORE search to pass NMUSIC or WP:GNG . Suonii180 ( talk ) 12:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , United States of America , and California . Suonii180 ( talk ) 12:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does not meet GNG criteria and is not notable, so should be d. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 20:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sports broadcasting contracts in Hungary: The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Also, sources are nonexistent. Those arguing for a claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 08:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports , Lists , and Hungary . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 08:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Unnecessary list. Shankargb ( talk ) 17:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Note that ""unnecessary"" is not a valid deletion rational. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC) NLIST BrigadierG ( talk ) 10:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia isn't a TV guide, this fails to meet the WP:NLIST . Let'srun ( talk ) 14:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC) 12, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"AutoTheme: ... disco spinster talk 18:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . ... disco spinster talk 18:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Zero citations or sources have been added after ten days anda couple-dozen edits. Last1in ( talk ) 19:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - This is clearly a marketing page . The only significant contributor to the page was Spidean , and the software's homepage was ""www.spidean.net"" (which is now parked). On top of that, the only references to the plugin I can find are a CVE report, a forum post by the author, and a couple pages of this book that appear to be copied directly out of its documentation. There's clearly not enough here to claim notability even if the style and COI issues were addressed. Box of wolves ( feed ) 01:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 07:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Antul Teotia: Times Now Hindi article is an Interview. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 09:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , Women , India , and Uttar Pradesh . Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 09:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are 7 links i have added. How much media links does an editor needs to create a article? Shivamco19 ( talk ) 09:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Shivamco19 Just media links does not make an individual Notable, the subject should pass the Notability guidelines. For a politician pls read WP:NPOL . — Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 11:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India . Owen× ☎ 14:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . She has not held any role that would constitute a pass of WP:NPOL , and simply having a smattering of run of the mill campaign coverage is not sufficient to make a person in local politics more notable than everybody else in local politics, since everybody in local politics can always show a handful of campaign coverage. At this level of significance, the key to notability is not ""she exists"", but ""she's a special case of significantly greater importance than most other people in local politics"", and that hasn't been shown at all. Bearcat ( talk ) 17:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Fails GNG and politicians of district council doesn't passes NPOL. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk ! 11:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Athulya Chandra: Monhiroe ( talk ) 06:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Only one notable/lead role ( Gulu Gulu ). The sources suck. DareshMohan ( talk ) 17:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Kerala . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mac (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia): Discussed at a previous AFD . No notability outside of the show itself. I'm including the following articles in this nomination: Dennis Reynolds ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Deandra Reynolds ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Charlie Kelly (It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia character) ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Mbdfar ( talk ) 19:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] all nn outside the fictional universe. - Altenmann >talk 21:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC) FANCRUFT . The language is also unencyclopedic. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Only hesitation is that these articles are rich with information about the show, albeit questionably edited at times. For deleting nonetheless because indexing by character does not feel encyclopedic. Rather, imo the per-season articles seem more fit for any notable information about each character, as their tables describe each episode. - HeDisconnected 23:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dennis Reynolds and Deandra Reynolds as reasonable search targets. The other two are less likely to be search targets due to the disambiguators so I would consider or for those. RunningTiger123 ( talk ) 01:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mario Villanueva (footballer): No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Belize . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"B'laster Holdings: The three articles are: B'laster Holdings ( edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs ) , the subject of this AFD; Draft:B'laster Holdings ( edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs ) User:BB38532/sandbox ( edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs ) The first and third are the work of User:BB38532 , who is a single-purpose account , and the second is partly the work of BB38532, and also of another SPA who has declined to answer whether they have a conflict of interest . The existence of the two articles in draft and user space is only evidence of an apparent campaign to publish an article. The draft was declined five times and has been rejected twice. So does B'laster Holdings satisfy corporate notability ? An article should speak for itself and explain why the company is notable, but the article consists of what the company says about itself, not what third parties have written. The references are not independent secondary coverage, but include press releases, an interview, and trade publications. Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary 1 news5cleveland.com One in a series boosting Ohio businesses No - See organizational independence Yes Yes Yes 2 prnewswire.com A press release about an acquisition No Yes Yes No 3 counterman.com Another press release about an acquisition No Yes Yes No 4 americanmotorcyclist.com A story about being the official rust remover of motorcycle races No - See organizational independence Yes Yes Yes 5 aftermarketnews.com An interview with the COO No Yes Yes No We can conclude that the AFC reviewers who declined and rejected the draft were right, and the article should be d, and the draft and the sandbox can be ignored (unless they are resubmitted). Robert McClenon ( talk ) 22:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ohio . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 22:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak It's not clear how AmericanMotoryclist.com is not independent of this company, trade publications being marked ""use with care,"" but yes, the sourcing is overall weak. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 00:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] on account of notability - supporting sources being inadequate in both number and quality. And that's not an assessment proffered before the necessary work was done . - The Gnome ( talk ) 12:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"United Rail Passenger Alliance: I do get some brief mentions in newspapers [49] [50] [51] [52] but none contribute to notability as far as I can tell. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 15:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 15:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. They seem to have the experience to do a complete BEFORE, so I believe this fails GNG> // Timothy :: talk 04:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ryo Nakano: The only Japanese source that I could find that might be about him was Gekisaka , but this is an interview of a school student so clearly falls foul of WP:YOUNGATH . In Singaporean media, ignoring all the coverage from Albirex, which is not independent of Nakano, we only have SPL1 , SPL2 and Borneo Bulletin , all of which are just trivial mentions. Based on this evidence, doesn't look to pass WP:SPORTBASIC . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Japan , and Singapore . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC) SPORTBASIC , as nom explains. Anwegmann ( talk ) 00:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Fails WP:GNG . Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Siaka Haidara: His highest accomplishment seems to be playing at the 2nd tier of Greek football in 2021-22, totaling 3 appearances in a season (0 goals). The single source is a soccerway.com link, of unknown reliability. Place Clichy ( talk ) 15:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Place Clichy ( talk ) 15:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions . Place Clichy ( talk ) 15:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions . Place Clichy ( talk ) 15:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Place Clichy ( talk ) 15:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Yattee: This article seems to be for promotion and only has primary sources; the only non-primary reference does not mention the subject. Indefensible ( talk ) 00:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 07:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I cannot find any in-depth coverage in independent sources, even unreliable ones. No evidence of genuine notability. — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 15:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Wollo Kombolcha: Source in article is a database record, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth . // Timothy :: talk 05:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Ethiopia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already brought to AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC) GNG due to lack of detailed football coverage found in English or Amharic. All I can find is their Facebook page and the GSA source already used. I do note that there is one Amharic source listed in the previous discussion but it's not enough on its own and the source itself doesn't really give any opportunity to expand the article into anything meaningful. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Shreyash Shandiliya: Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 09:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music , India , and Bihar . Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 09:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is a LOT of coverage from what are normally RS. They can't all have sponcon or syndiacted press release warnings I've missed. Mach61 ( talk ) 12:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is clearly labelled ""Brand Stories"" [11] , this is advertising/sponsored [12] . Rest is about as colourful, PR type stuff. for no coverage outside of PR content. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] sourced to PR/advertorials. - KH-1 ( talk ) 01:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Georgian campaign against the Eldiguzids: [10] The original creation of the article dates back to 2018 by a blocked user named Georgiano, but it was d in 2020 due to various violations of core policies, including instances of copyright infringement, among other issues [11] - [12] Following a hiatus of 3 years, the article now reappears on Wikipedia, under the watchful eye of another batch of WP:NOTHERE accounts and IPs. Subsequent edits to the article of significance are obvious IP socks linked to the original sockmaster, as well as new sockpuppets (such as user:Caucasian127). Strangely, the prevalence of sock and meatpuppetry did not suffice as a reason to accept the CSD 5 request. [13] Similar to its previous iteration, the article is marred by violations of Wikipedia's policies on original research ( WP:OR ), as well as those on verifiability ( WP:VER ) and reliable sourcing ( WP:RS ). There is also a likelihood of copyright violations. - LouisAragon ( talk ) 16:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Iran , and Georgia (country) . LouisAragon ( talk ) 16:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment can't this be speedied if it was created by a banned user? Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: G5 was declined by Robertsky due to there being ""substantial edits by other editors"". Relisting to establish consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 20:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Zamindars of Kanihati: Very little sources to support notability claims and some citations in the article make no mention of the family. As per WP:BIOFAMILY , notability of one person is not sufficient for the entire family. Jaunpurzada ( talk ) 18:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India . Jaunpurzada ( talk ) 18:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mosab Al Khateeb: It is lacking in citations for his biography. An article that appears to be intended as a promotion. Dl.thinker ( talk ) 07:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music . Dl.thinker ( talk ) 07:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft ? Okoslavia ( talk ) 22:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC) A WP:SPA biographical article on a musician, much of which is poorly translated into English; for example ""After that I release my current status and Jordan and cut off."" is an incomprehensible sentence. In its short history, the article has been draftified twice, rejected at AfC, moved to mainspace, and had a CSD removed by an IP. If this was to remain, it would need significant copy-editing to bring it to an acceptable standard. If there is notability, it would seem to rest on the subject's participation in a season of Star Academy (Arabia) talent shows, but short items such as the JordanZad agency pieces do not establish attained notability . (A WP:REALITYBIO could be an option, with protection to avoid it immediately reverting to an article.) Note also that the WP:SPA article creator has also created a Draft:مصعب_الخطيب here about the same person. AllyD ( talk ) 08:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Tong Tong, South Sudan: We should not be creating WP articles based on a single tag/term from Google Maps (which is contrary to WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well IMO). If this is a real populated place, we might a to the legal jurisdiction it is part of. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions . P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not a good enough citation, and searching indicates that this is a person/organization name; I get nothing decent indicating a place. Mangoe ( talk ) 21:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - a spot on a Google map is insufficient to satisfy verifiability and I could not find anything else to even verify. -- Whpq ( talk ) 22:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Failed to find sources. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 01:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is short and vague, saying, ""It is an old village filled with greenery and huts and is situated nearby similar villages called Langogu/Gbutugu and Kopalli."" This reads like something out of a guidebook, not an encyclopedia, and nothing is offered to readers about why Tong Tong is a notable place. TH1980 ( talk ) 02:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Oxygen tetrafluoride: At any rate, it doesn't have a CAS number and there's nothing here that suggests that there's any empirical validation of any property of the stuff, much less that anyone has any idea of how to synthesize it. Mangoe ( talk ) 02:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 02:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , just because the compound is hypothetical and almost impossible to exist doesn’t mean it should have its own article. Take radon hexafluoride for example. Brachy 08 (Talk) 04:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All the more reason to the latter. The article on hexafluorides doesn't mention a radon version, and neither should we. Mangoe ( talk ) 04:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC) . Athel cb ( talk ) 08:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Inadequate coverage of something that doesn't exist. Reywas92 Talk 13:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Hypothetical compounds can certainly be notable, but this one hasn't been the subject of any systematic study that I can find. ""Predictions"" about donor-acceptor interactions are not systematic study, and one of the two papers cited for that claim never mentions the compound at all, only lists it in a table alongside a bunch of other oxygen-fluorine compounds they admit probably cannot exist. Database entries do not count toward notability, and this compound doesn't even have that: No CAS number, nothing in PubChem or Chemspider. The article cites an AP Chemistry study guide as a source, for crying out loud. Come on . I could draw a helium atom with nineteen vanadium atoms bonded to it; does that mean WP should have an article on ""helium nonadecavanadide""? . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) WeirdNAnnoyed . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC) ATD ? ~ Kvng ( talk ) 15:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Given that the OF article does no more than mention OF 4 , I think not. Mangoe ( talk ) 03:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC) Articles for deletion/Oxygen trifluoride . ~ Kvng ( talk ) 15:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC) WeirdNAnnoyed . ARandomName123 ( talk ) 20:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC) 28, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sri Ram (film): There are no reviews, and there are only passing mentions in sources, except for a website viggy.com which gave content in a news capsule form. The film is also known by alternate spellings ""Shri Ram"" and ""Shreeram"", however I could not find any coverage. Jay 💬 10:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Karnataka . Jay 💬 10:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC) Per the nom, this has no identifiable notability. UtherSRG (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . Finding sources for Kannada films of the early 2000s is a difficult task. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annavru (2003 film) , Viggy can be considered as a reliable source for older Kannada films (since the writers are hired and the articles are entirely about the film). This source from August 2003 claims that the film was still running (the film released in May 2003). If someone can help navigate the Deccan Herald archives , we can search for a review. DareshMohan ( talk ) 09:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As metioned, viggy is the only source with any substantial content, but even that is in capsule form. Perhaps move this to draftspace to give time to someone to look at the archives? Jay 💬 11:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 22:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC) There is no reviews in the archives . Close the discussion. DareshMohan ( talk ) 08:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nikolay Averin: There's some brief mentions in Russian-language writeups of local youth chess tournaments, but no significant biographic coverage. The strongest source I could find was this . signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Games , and Russia . signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 22:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can't find any SIGCOV. It's also a BLP that is entirely negative, consisting only of a couple of trivial incidents of supposed bad sportsmanship. Pawnkingthree ( talk ) 23:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I hadn't thought about the coverage of the chess matches being negative, but you're right. With that in mind, it's worth noting that the subject is not only a living person, but also a child. signed, Rosguill talk 23:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Abbas Musa: No in-depth coverage, only passing mentions and stats. fails GNG. X ( talk ) 11:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Crime , and Bangladesh . X ( talk ) 11:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC) GNG , and given there isn't a suitable list to to here per WP:ATD , . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Tarrant effect: There are a few verifiable ""copycat"" attacks, but not enough for a separate article. Ben Azura ( talk ) 21:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Australia . Ben Azura ( talk ) 21:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC) Christchurch mosque shootings copycat crimes to be made, so surely there is enough for this. Also, Tarrant’s influence in particular is significant due to his live-streaming of the attack which was a new aspect and inspiration for others. Genberg47 ( talk ) 21:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC) 38, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Tarrant effect is simply a made up phrase by a single person. That there are copycat crimes is beyond doubt but they have not as yet got a tag. OrewaTel ( talk ) 08:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC) //www.jstor.org/stable/27158149? seq=4.- gadfium 08:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I also oppose creating a . - gadfium 23:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC) Agree with gadfium. WP:OR and glorifying a mass murderer. Nothing encyclopaedic here. Tar nis hed Path talk 09:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Phrase is not notable enough. Roger 8 Roger ( talk ) 09:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as non-notable. Alextejthompson ( Ping me or leave a message on my talk page ) 15:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Christchurch mosque shootings Not notable on its own and most of it seems to be original research. Information about the ""Tarrant effect"" would be better suited to the Christchurch mosque shootings article. GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 20:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But since the Tarrant Effect doesn't exist no-one will search. Consequently a will never be used. OrewaTel ( talk ) 00:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [1] [2] GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 16:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . A to Christchurch mosque shootings might also be appropriate, although I cannot decide whether anything about this so-called effect might be mentioned there, and whether a would be justified in the absence of anything. — Compassionate727 ( T · C ) 15:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I see there's a stable mention in the lead. So definitely . — Compassionate727 ( T · C ) 15:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Where is this reference? Christchurch mosque shooting does not mention "" Tarrant effect "" and neither do the citations in Tarrant effect OrewaTel ( talk ) 05:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not something we should give any notability to. Teraplane ( talk ) 22:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and possibly . Not independently notable and much of the material that makes up the current page appears to be original synthesis . Generalrelative ( talk ) 23:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the concerns raised above. Parenthetically: isn't it a real duality-of-man doozy that this neologism for worthless losers gaining fame through mass murder is named after one of said losers in a way that makes him sound like a brilliant pioneer??? jp × g 🗯️ 00:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not think this should be a either. jp × g 🗯️ 03:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While consensus is clear against ing this as a standalone article, it will be nice to hear more views regarding the proposed as an AtD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. I don't think a makes sense, since the phrase ""Tarrant effect"" does not appear in Christchurch mosque shootings . This is potentially confusing to readers. Pichpich ( talk ) 19:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Viola Pettus: Running a one-room school was not unusual and neither was working as a nurse during the Spanish Flu epidemic (even if there were a reliable source for that claim). Google searches for Pettus turn up an image of her gravesite on facebook, a local blog post from 2007, more references to the Montoya play and some census records. Pettus's sole even arguably noteworthy attribute appears to have been a minor appearance in the Montoya play. Jbt89 ( talk ) 05:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Health and fitness , History , and Texas . Jbt89 ( talk ) 05:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Google Books search brings up a few references and this person appears to be notable. I'll make changes to the article after work tomorrow. Dr vulpes (Talk) 07:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC) ""REAL NURSING: Every Second Counts!! "" which makes essentially the same unsourced assertions as the article does, and ""Revealed The Kingdom of Locs Nazirite Vow Continues, Volume 2"" which copied the passage from the nursing book verbatim and generally seems like it was generated by a web scraper. Personally I'd be a lot more comfortable accepting that she's even locally famous other than in connection with the Montoya play if there was a book or newspaper article stating that from before this article and the play were written in 2010, but I'm curious to see what you find. So far the argument for her notability all seems to boil down to that play IMO, which isn't good enough for a standalone article. Jbt89 ( talk ) 22:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Dr Vulpes. Expand and improve; do not . Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 14:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More specific discussion regarding sourcing would be helpful in establishing a consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ( edit conflict ) * Comment - The only addition I was able to find through Google Books was a Lulu.com publishing, which means self published, and it's recent enough it may have copied Wikipedia. Searching newspapers.com I found a short paragraph in the Los Angeles Times from August 16, 2010 and the Hartford Courant from September 9, 2012, but both of these are in context of the Montoya play. There well may be better but more obscure sources, but I'd recommend a re-list so experts might possibly find them, rather than a close at this point. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 17:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC) Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth . Source eval: Comments Source 404 1. Glover, Mark (2008). ""African-American school in Alpine seeks historic recognition"". The Big Bend Sentinel. Retrieved 2010-08-16. Census 2. ^ US Census (1910) Census Place: Justice Precinct 3, Brewster, Texas; Roll T624_1533; Page: 6A; Enumeration District: 6; Image: 608. Census 3. ^ US Census (1920) Census Place: Justice Precinct 3, Brewster, Texas; Roll T625_1781; Page: 7A; Enumeration District: 14; Image: 1071. One sentence ""In “American Night” Kimberly Scott plays an almost forgotten historical figure, an African-American woman from West Texas named Viola Pettus, who during the 1918 flu epidemic nursed the children of whites, blacks and Mexicans."", fails SIGCOV 4. ^ Taylor, Kate (2010-08-10). ""American History, With Shakespeare as Inspiration"". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-01-15. 404 5. ^ Montoya, Richard; Culture Clash (2010). ""American Night: The Ballad of Juan José"". OSF 75th Season. Oregon Shakespeare Festival. Retrieved 2010-08-16. One sentence ""Not much has been written about Viola Pettus, but playwright Richard Montoya is as insistent on including her in the annals of American history as she was insistent on treating the sick of all ages and colors."", fails SIGCOV 6. ^ Morris, Steven Leigh (2012-03-15). ""American Night: The Ballad of Juan Jose, From Richard Montoya and Culture Clash"". LA Weekly. Retrieved 2020-06-23. votes provided no sources or guidelines to eval. // Timothy :: talk 06:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Prakriya Green Wisdom School: Created by a single edit editor. LibStar ( talk ) 13:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Karnataka . LibStar ( talk ) 13:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC) While this discussion appears to have no quorum , it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd . Logs : 2008-05 ✗ PROD -- Cewbot ( talk ) 00:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [1] 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 17:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV about any encyclopedic content. estar8806 ( talk ) ★ 01:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Fails GNG. This source from above [1] fails WP:IS (eg: ""We found eight acres of land, with Eucalyptus plantations on it, close to a small lake (which did have water in it then). After clearing the eucalyptus, the first thing we did was to plant over 108 species of trees."", the extensive use of ""we"" in the source shows this is in an WP:IS. ) None of the sources in the article or BEFORE showed WP:IS WP:RS, with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth . // Timothy :: talk 00:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jean-Yves Bouguet: Boleyn ( talk ) 19:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science , Computing , Software , and California . Owen× ☎ 19:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as not meeting any guideline. Do say if anything is found. Geschichte ( talk ) 23:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Celebrity Samurai: Scarlet Violet ( talk • contribs ) 06:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 21 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 07:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Games , and Philippines . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Garden Networks: - C HAMPION ( talk ) ( contributions ) ( logs ) 21:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Internet , and Canada . - C HAMPION ( talk ) ( contributions ) ( logs ) 21:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC) both this and GTunnel seem very thinly sourced. Fails NCORP, as far as I can tell. Owen× ☎ 22:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:NCORP . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC) Found nothing online meeting WP:SIRS (though ""Garden Network"" isn't the easiest search term to work with). One reference also provides insufficient in-depth coverage. ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 19:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Evil entities in Christianity: Pepper Beast (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bible and Christianity . Pepper Beast (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC) WP:SYNTH has a clear definition of ""Synthesis of Published Material"". I fail to see how "" Evil entities in Christianity "" satisfies it. Please explain. Peter Brown ( talk ) 22:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think this is a place for an argument about policy, but the topic of ""Evil Entities in Chrisitianity"" is the author's synthesis of various Biblical and non-Biblical sources, none of which is actually about ""evil entities"". Pepper Beast (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Evil"" should be identified by its Christian definition (or definitions) rather than saying meaninglessly that it ""exists."" Likewise, ""sin"" is not defined but is said to exist and to be personified by entities. Evil exists, sin exists, but it is not evident in what sense the entities exist ""in Christianity."" Are these ""entities"" metaphorical personifications, according to the Christian imagination, or do Christians believe that they are real? My first objection to the article is that it does not define any of the terms of its title. It's unclear where these entities are found ""in"" Christianity. Are we talking about ""in"" Christian scripture, doctrine, tradition, literature, art, or an article in Christianity Today? Most of the cited material is Biblical, but an extra-biblical back-story stands behind the interpretation, such as what is proposed by Seventh-Day Adventist writers, for example. The article doesn't say. What is clear is that if you can find Christianity, you will find these characters there. That is my second objection. It is not written like an encyclopedia article but like notes from a visit to a nature park called ""Christianity,"" which is populated with this and that sort of creature. The Satan exhibit is especially interesting In fact, the guide is so fascinated by the devil that whatever other entity is met on the tour, there's really only one highlight, and that's the Devil in Christianity . This is my third objection. It is nothing more than an expansion of Devil in Christianity , which has many of the same problems. But assuming that article should be kept, this article does not substantively expand on that topic and, therefore, should be d because it is redundant. However, I really like the artwork that has been collected in this and the related articles. — Mark ( Mkmcconn ) ** 00:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As the creator of this article I fully see and agree with these points, and I wish for it do be d as well. RileyXeon ( talk ) 01:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While the article creator has okay'd deleting the page, other editors have contributed to it so CSD G7 is not eligible. L iz Read! Talk! 03:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the discussion above, especially the article's creator's concurrence to deletion. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or move to userspace if the author prefers. There is very little here that wouldn't work better in Devil in Christianity or Christian demonology . 'Allegorical representations of evil in Christian texts' could be another topic but it would need sources addressing the topic as a whole and not just a synthesis of examples to be viable as a separate article. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 01:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dhaka Dazzlers: Not enough coverage from reliable sources to establish notability. Fails WP:NSPORTS . CycloneYoris talk! 01:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Football , and Bangladesh . CycloneYoris talk! 01:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Badminton , and Cricket . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC) ATD also. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – fails notability guidelines with no reloable sources to establish notability. Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 16:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] there's not enough documented history or reliable media coverage to establish its notability on Wikipedia. Dejaqo ( talk ) 00:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dispersive PDE Wiki: Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 20:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or, failing that, put back to being a . There's no way to make an article about a niche, nearly quiescent website with no secondary-source coverage . Content from this page was d into Terence Tao on a flimsy rationale and then removed shortly thereafter. If the edit history of material that has been gone since summer 2007 and won't be coming back is actually necessary to preserve, then we can have this cruft hang around as an {{ R with history }} . XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Zero coverage beyond the wiki itself, a mathoverflow question or a blog post found online. At the absolute most, (i.e. insert a single sentence about it) to Terence_Tao#Dispersive_partial_differential_equations . Sgubaldo ( talk ) 18:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Folasade Omotoyinbo: The sources about the subject are promotional pieces. Does not meet WP:IS . Nswix ( talk ) 00:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women , and Nigeria . Nswix ( talk ) 00:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of the awards sound fishy, the City People awards has an article, but it also seems suspect. I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per nominator . DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 22:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Non-trivial coverage in the Nigerian press. See Newspapers published in Nigeria . I don't know about City People but The Nation , Vanguard and This Day are major national newspapers I read when in Nigeria. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC) JoelleJay at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omogboye Saheed Ayodeji . It cites a journalism expert discussing rampant Nigerian journalism corruption. (That said, the Nigerian reporting style during my brief time there was florid even when reporting stuff like the weather.) -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I sampled 10 of the sources and all of them were non-independent Q&A interviews, non-independent coverage of announcements from her (""Omotoyinbo said..."", ""according to Omotoyinbo"", etc.), clearly promotional non-independent pieces (especially from orgs she is affiliated with, like City People ), or NCORP-failing coverage of her business. Does not meet GNG. JoelleJay ( talk ) 01:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nigerian papers use a different writing style to the Western style you are probably familiar with. The tone may seem promotional, but it would be way more blatant if it actually was. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 05:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, note that several participants were actively canvassed to this and similar deletion discussions. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 05:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see what that has to do with me? I wasn't canvassed. JoelleJay ( talk ) 18:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Regardless of the reasons for a promotional style, the current refs still lack independent SIGCOV of her as they are almost all just repeating things she said. JoelleJay ( talk ) 18:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I got canvassed to some Nigerian politicians page, and didnt vote, cause I dont know enough about politics. Nswix ( talk ) 19:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Chodhyam: The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 09:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 09:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Create a section titled ""Remakes"". Kailash29792 (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and into Tarka (film) , as Kailash29792 suggests above, seems a correct solution. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no reliable source to claim that this is a remake of Tarka , or that this project has even started filming. Non-notable production, is redundant. -- The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 12:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Check page 301 . Kailash29792 (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC) NFF. Unlikely to search for a non-notable production, hence redundant. There's also other released Malayalam films with the same title: [1] [2] . -- The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 13:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough then (possible compromise) as a disambiguation page with at least the 2 films mentioned above, to help the reader. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC) (Edited Nov 21: make it a disambiguation page if that 2017 film can be linked to something blue, if not as !voted above)- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC) (edited Nov, 24, see below for further clarification) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fails to show notability. Flurrious ( talk ) 02:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Per WP:NFF the production itself would have to be notable because the film was never released – this doesn't appear to be the case. I agree that there's really nothing to because there's nothing sourced to demonstrate that this film was a remake of Tarka . Not sure how this could be replaced with a disambiguation page; we would need articles to disambiguate first. Tollens ( talk ) 10:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, the 2 films to be disambiguated are the ones mentioned above, one being a to Tanka (with the source mentioned above, that is perfectly all right), the other a so far a red link. I’ve only changed to Disambiguate to find a compromise, being challenged. This would help the reader as at least 2 films have this title. Best - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh! I somehow didn't see that source in the discussion above, thanks for pointing it out. I'd support a then – the production doesn't have to be notable for it to be included in another article about a notable topic. @ Mushy Yank : Is there an existing article you're aware of that mentions the other film? To convert the page to a disambiguation we need more than one bluelink – see WP:DABMENTION – otherwise the current page should be ed. Tollens ( talk ) 03:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not as far as I can see but The Doom Patrol might know. Thanks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC) The Doom Patrol Tollens ( talk ) 06:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No. Cannot be ed. I have mentioned the reason above. -- The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 17:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you . . ... But that was not the question! Quite the opposite. A disambiguate page would include the 2 films, do you have an idea where to the second? I still think the / you oppose is quite appropriate (it can include a note and source about that other film) and do not find your argument against it compelling; but if others do, then, again, as a compromise, a disambiguate page can be considered, in my view, but in that case it would certainly need something to to, for the second film. (the first has a target, most evidently) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC) GNG as well as WP:NFILM . - The Gnome ( talk ) 13:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Achol Jok Mach: As always, people regardless of occupation are not ""inherently"" notable just because they exist, and have to pass WP:GNG on third party coverage and analysis about their work to externally validate its significance -- but five of the six footnotes here are primary source content self-published by organizations she was directly affiliated with, which are not support for notability at all, and the only independent third-party source is a glancing namecheck of her existence on one page of a book about her country's fight for independence, which isn't substantive enough to single-handedly vault her over GNG all by itself. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she actually has enough of the correct type of sourcing, but nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG. Bearcat ( talk ) 13:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women , Radio , and Africa . Bearcat ( talk ) 13:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC) - I think you're right about this one. Lajmmoore ( talk ) 10:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. The sources invoked are extremely lame: A self-written cv ; a fellowship announcement where our subject is not mentioned at all; one single mention in a book about ""Africa's longest war""; then a few more routine listings. Her work seems admirable but Wikipedia is a not a political promotion vehicle either way. - The Gnome ( talk ) 20:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All sources either are passing mentions or not independent. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] RS does not exist at this time. Lightburst ( talk ) 18:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per The Gnome and a lack of notable coverage. Giraffer ( talk · contribs ) 20:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bahrain–Spain relations: In fact, all sources are primary. Lacking elements of notable relations like embassies and state visits. The agreements are minor. Fails GNG. LibStar ( talk ) 01:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Bahrain , and Spain . LibStar ( talk ) 01:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] -- I can find no sources at all that would make this notable (fails GNG). It appears to be part of a trend to make a stand-alone article for every combination of countries on the planet, regardless of how insignificant the relationship might be. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 13:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC) per above. Lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG . -- 12:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"John Garbett: As always, film producers are not ""inherently"" notable just because they and their work exist, and have to show external validation of their significance in third party reliable sources -- but two of the three ""references"" are his own LinkedIn and his IMDb profile, which are not notability-building sources, and the only third-party source is a single article in a minor local-interest magazine, which isn't enough to singlehandedly vault him over GNG all by itself if it's the only starter source on the table. Nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and better sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk ) 15:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America . Bearcat ( talk ) 15:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC) Fails WP:NFILMMAKER and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC) there is no source about the subject other than two unreliable sources, Egeymi ( talk ) 14:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Latter Day Saints and Utah . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Iskandar Shirali: Thenightaway ( talk ) 12:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Azerbaijan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Badly sourced and promotional. As the nominator states, he does not appear to meet WP:GNG , WP:NPOL , nor WP:PROF . I tried multiple spellings of his name in Google Scholar but did not find publications with significant citations. The closest thing to a claim of notability is ""Corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Engineering"" but as a lower-level membership in an association that prominently charges a membership fee [30] I'm skeptical that this is the sort of scholarly honor that passes WP:PROF#C3 . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 08:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Genset trailer: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 12:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Diamondbacks–Rockies rivalry: This topic does not pass GNG based on the below source analysis table. Article reads as WP:FANCRUFT and the only sources available on a WP:BEFORE search are routine mentions or fan blogs. Frank Anchor 16:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Frank might I ask the process to nominate articles for deletion? I know of several who are candidates PontiacAurora ( talk ) 21:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Articles for deletion#Nominating article(s) for deletion . Frank Anchor 21:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Frank Anchor Source assessment by User:Frank Anchor Source Comments ARI vs. COL WP:ROUTINE list of head-to-head records N Who Should Colorado Sports Fans Call a Rival? Refers to the D-Backs/Rockies series as a ""disagreement"" and says series ""could become"" a rivalry but does not have the history of other rivalries for Denver-based team. This article was posted in 2008 and there is no ""follow-up"" suggesting a rivalry between the two teams. N ""Rocktober"" When the Rockies accomplished the impossible in 2007 WP:LOCAL coverage (though not directly affiliated with either team). Article summarizes the Rockies' 2007 playoff run that included a series against the D-Backs. It does not describe the two teams as being ""rivals."" N Knudson: Rockies-Diamondbacks have quiet rivalry going Describes teams as ""quiet rivals"" or there possibly being a rivalry. Not enough for SIGCOV establishing the two teams as rivals. N NL West’s best, worst teams meet as D-backs seek sweep of Rockies Routine game summary. Only uses the term ""rival"" once as a routine mention that the teams are from the same division. N Rockies host Arizona Diamondbacks, look to break home losing streak Routine game summary. Does not describe teams as ""rivals"" N Arizona Diamondbacks vs. Colorado Rockies Betting News Individual game betting lines N Arizona Diamondbacks vs. Colorado Rockies Article describes the teams as ""rivals"" several times, but fails to describe any animosity between the two teams while only making routine statements about head-to-head performance. ? Rockies Diamondbacks rivalry on deck Local coverage (though unaffiliated with either team), describes the potential of a rivalry (and this article is from 2007, which gives plenty of time for a rivalry to have developed but it never did). N 2007 NLCS just start of D-Backs Rockies rivalry Local coverage (though unaffiliated with either team), describes the potential of a rivalry (and this article is from 2007, which gives plenty of time for a rivalry to have developed but it never did). N Rockies Confident Jon Gray vs Diamondbacks Local coverage (though unaffiliated with either team), routine pregame coverage that does not describe teams as ""rivals"" N Rockies against D-Backs Zack Greinke Local coverage (though unaffiliated with either team), routine pregame coverage that does not describe teams as ""rivals"" N Twitter Non-independent (from the D-Backs twitter page) and only references Phoenix and Denver's basketball teams facing off in a playoff series N 2007 NLCS Game 1 Routine box score N 2007 NLCS Game 2 Routine box score N 2007 NLCS Game 3 Routine box score N NLCS Game 4 Routine box score N Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions . Frank Anchor 16:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions . Frank Anchor 16:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Sources demonstrate that the Rockies and Diamondbacks play against each other, not that their matchups comprise a ""rivalry"". – Muboshgu ( talk ) 17:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One of the only sources mentioning the rivalry is a tweet, not exactly the most reliable, same with the others (either unreliable or mention it in passing). Not enough to justify a full article. ULPS ( talk ) 18:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Pretty much the exact same case as the recently d AstrosBraves rivalry article. I see nothing here indicating a rivalry outside of the teams playing each other, which does not a rivalry make. Nohomersryan ( talk ) 19:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I feel like the Rockies are far too under-represented across wikipedia, or in the baseball archives as a whole, there's enough to warrant a substantial existence of a lower-key divisional rivalry, particularly during the 2000s and the 2017 NLWC. PontiacAurora ( talk ) 21:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A user’s claims of a team being underrepresented are not grounds for ing an article that fails GNG. Also, any claims of a “lower-key divisional rivalry” are not supported by references. Lots of pairs of teams go through stretches in which both are simultaneously playoff contenders for a few years and possibly meet ina playoff series. That however does not establish a rivalry. Frank Anchor 21:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per convincing nomination and SA table. WP:NOTEVERYTHING . ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's enough evidence to suggest that the Arizona Diamondbacks & Colorado Rockies should be considered as divisional rivals. I have multiple non primary sources to suggest this is a rivalry, per SBNation. & DenverPost.com . Charlesaaronthompson ( talk ) 06:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The SB nation source is a fan blog which explains that the two teams have been simultaneously competitive for a brief stretch in the late 2010s. It includes language of ""starting to grow a rivalry"" and that maybe this series ""could be up there with that of the Dodgers and Giants or the Red Sox and Yankees"" (two well-known MLB rivalries). But it does not establish a rivalry is present (and there wasno follow-up from that continuing coverage of a rivalry) N . The Denver Post source is routine coverage of a single game which happens the term ""rivalry"" in the title and describes the teams as ""geographic rivals"" in the prose, but does nothing to describe the teams as ""rivals"" in a way that could not be used for any set of two teams N . Certainly not enough here to establish the existence of a rivalry by GNG-standards. Frank Anchor 12:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ahmad J. Naous: It's a bit hard because the critieria mention the subject's ""discipline"" and stratetxology is not a conventional discipline (like chemistry or English literature). Most of the sources appear to be interview puff pieces. The article was not ready for mainspace, but the author insisted it be moved from draft space. Bbb23 ( talk ) 02:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Economics , and Lebanon . Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Nothing for WP:PROF ; I think ""their scholarly discipline, broadly construed"" suggests we should look at the discipline of ""business"". Nothing for WP:NAUTHOR ; only one book and I can't turn up any RS reviews for it. I haven't found a single source that looks like solid WP:GNG coverage. ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 03:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Notability very distant. Xxanthippe ( talk ). : Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF . Maliner ( talk ) 04:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Making up a word and then calling yourself an expert in it is not by itself enough for notability, but we seem to have nothing else. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 05:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC) G5 . Aintabli ( talk ) 03:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC) BASIC but couldn't find any. Wasilatlovekesy ( talk ) 07:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Astros–Yankees rivalry: Their matchups in the postseason are already adequately covered elsewhere. Nemov ( talk ) 14:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions . Nemov ( talk ) 14:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Frequent playoff matches can always create a rivalry, but you still need reliable sources to prove it, not just WP:FANCRUFT . At the present time both the Yankees and Astros have not met consistently enough to warrant their own article, and subsequently, pass GNG. Conyo14 ( talk ) 15:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York and Texas . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article does not demonstrate a ""rivalry"". It is a history of Astros-Yankees matchups. Similar pages could be created for all possible MLB matchup histories, but it would be FANCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE . – Muboshgu ( talk ) 15:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Subject appears to contain enough WP:SIGCOV with which to pass the WP:GNG , including from CBS Sports [ [9] ] and the NY Post [ [10] ] User:Let'srun 15:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC) RS/PS / WP:NYPOST . Some editors have supported making an exception for sports coverage, but that has not achieved consensus. ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure . I clicked on this expecting to vote """". As someone who was raised on MLB in the 1970s and 1980s, the idea of a Yankees-Astros rivalry struck me as absurd. Having clicked on the sources cited by User:Let'srun , I'm not so sure -- those are two major media outlets clearly defining it as a rivalry. Cbl62 ( talk ) 16:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] New York Post is only considered semi-reliable. CBS Sports is a good source for this, but otherwise, it still does not pass WP:GNG . Conyo14 ( talk ) 16:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sports journalism has a promotional aspect to it, and thus uses the term ""rivalry"" to cover a broad set of cases, as any two teams that compete against each other can be said to have a rivalry. As there's no official definition, it falls to editorial judgement to decide on what version of the concept is best suited to be described in a stand-alone article. Personally, I feel the concept that meets English Wikipedia's standard of having an article is a sustained competition over years to be recognized for superiority, encompassing fans, players, organizations, and to some degree, the broader citizenry of the associated geographical areas. For better or worse, though, there isn't a simple test to determine this. isaacl ( talk ) 18:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC) GNG , with the mentions of ""rivalry"" or synonyms therein. We don't have WP:NSPORTSRIVALRY though it would be a neat project to do. Conyo14 ( talk ) 21:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC) it is explicitly written to ramp up interest in the players, teams, games, competitions, and so forth. This means it will play up conflict, bestow monikers on people and events, and use non-neutral language, for instance. We retain the ability to use editorial judgement to decide what is the best way to cover important events in a team's history, and Wikipedia may not be well-served by having independent rivalry articles for every pair of competing teams. isaacl ( talk ) 22:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is a rivalry for sure as the teams meet consistently in the playoffs, but this is partially influenced by New York and Yankee fan media being much stronger nationwide about a rivalry than say, Royals-Cardinals, and the rivalry outside of a certain situation involving wastebaskets seems to be the Yankee fans being annoyed about another team being better than them lately...and the Houston/Astro side being more 'just get better then' than anything else, along with the Yankees' futility as of late. Outside NY media beyond the AL playoffs, there's not much to be found about these teams playing. Nate • ( chatter ) 16:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Note that Houston based media (in this case, the Houston Chronicle) has also labeled the Yankees as a top rival, so coverage exists in both markets [ [11] ]. Let'srun ( talk ) 16:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per Cbl62, but it is not just the Post and CBS. The Daily News also calls it a rivalry [12] . As does Newsday (in one article a Yankee player calls it ""obviously a big rivalry"", and both teams' managers call it a big rivalry) [13] [14] [15] . While normally I would be skeptical of a rivalry of short duration like this, the resentment the Yankees (and their fans) still harbor from Houston cheating their way to beat them in the 2017 ALCS makes this more significant than most rivalries of similar duration. Rlendog ( talk ) 20:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Daily News is semi-reliable, so we chalk that to a partial. As for the Newsday articles #4 is ROUTINE, #5 Interview of a player, so it's technically not independent, #6 I'd say is quite significant. I might change my ! vote as a result. Conyo14 ( talk ) 21:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For me for something to be considered a rivalry there needs to be a long historic narrative. A few months ago a similar article was d from the same author for the Astros/Braves. Those two teams have a much longer history, but they weren't traditional rivals. The Braves and Dodgers have played a lot against each other the past few years, used to be divisional foes, but it's not a historic rivalry. There needs to be more than a few playoff series to justify an entire article. Nemov ( talk ) 00:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In most cases, including Braves/Astros and even Braves/Dodgers I agree with you. But in spite of those teams being in the same division for a while and in an undivided National League before that, and perhaps some playoff games, there is nothing particularly unusual about their interactions. But Astros/Yankees became unusual with the 2017 cheating scandal and then they continued to have high level playoff interactions since with that as a background. Rlendog ( talk ) 02:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The only reason there's any coverage is because it's the Yankees so it's covered from multiple angles. The Dodgers lost to the cheating Astros and there's no need for an article either. Nemov ( talk ) 02:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We already have a full article about the cheating scandal plus reactions. It's moreso the WP:SIGCOV quite a few meetings may have sparked a rivalry. Conyo14 ( talk ) 02:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The cheating scandal itself is covered elsewhere. But it also created an environment that made subsequent Yankees-Astros interactions far more intense than it other would have been, raising them into rivalry territory. As for ""The only reason there's any coverage is because it's the Yankees,"" that is hardly a valid deletion rationale. Our notability guidelines are based on the coverage of the subject, with no exception for coverage involving Yankees. The Yankees and Dodgers are somewhat different in this issue because the Yankees and Astros have had more subsequent interactions to generate a rivalry beyond the initial cheating scandal. Rlendog ( talk ) 13:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . You can write an article like this for every team matchup that has faced each other over many years... doesn't mean we should. To be worthy of it's own article it needs more long term and cultural significance. . for example Yankees/Red Sox, Dodgers/Giants, Cubs/Cardinals are significant historical rivalries. . this one is not. The ""rivalry"" as it is has only existed for a few years... it needs to extend over decades for it to be notable. Spanneraol ( talk ) 21:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC) What guideline is that, exactly, that a rivalry has to exist over many years? Let'srun ( talk ) 19:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What's included in this article that's not included elsewhere? This brief mention on the New York Yankees article pretty much covers it. Per WP:NOPAGE , there's not a clear explanation for why this article should exist when it only covers stuff mentioned elsewhere. Nemov ( talk ) 20:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC) CFORK of Houston Astros sign stealing scandal . WP:NOTEVERYTHING also applies. ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Myriam Joire: Of numerous refs, only 3 are not by her: two are intervierws with her (one of which which descrives her ""...a technological pioneer has a diverse career behind her, during which, as one of the world's leading technology journalists..."" -- oh, rlly?, another is 100% about her sexuality, hardly a claim of notability today) and one more is a brief note that she was fired without explanations. So much for WP:GNG . - Altenmann >talk 22:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 13 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 22:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Journalism , Video games , Technology , France , Canada , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC) Lots of articles written by her for Endgadget and TechRadar, nothing about her. for lack of sourcing; what's used in the article isn't helpful. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Sourcing in the article is mostly primary; TechCrunch is an iffy source per source toolbot. Rest aren't helpful Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . On Newspapers Extended she's quoted in 2007 (re keyboards) and again in 2014 (Oakland Tribune, re Pebble product) but no SIGCOV on her. BBQ boffin grill me 20:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Meridean Overseas Education: Most sources are based on PR releases, thus inherently not independent. Churnalism. It is likely that this is a result of WP:UPE as the creator Zehnasheen has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion. A dime a dozen edutech company. Recommend deletion. Classicwiki ( talk ) If you reply here, please ping me . 18:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Education , Technology , and India . Classicwiki ( talk ) If you reply here, please ping me . 18:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Page reads as advertising and promotion. Fails WP:NCORP . The sources do not meet the criterias to be counted towards establishing notability. RangersRus ( talk ) 13:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC) NCORP . Promotional article with PR sources. Ciudatul ( talk ) 09:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Era Tak: Current references are mostly primary or from YouTube. There are a couple to Amar Ujala , but they don't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV . There doesn't seem to be much improvement in terms of references when compared to the previous afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Era Tak . ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 23:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Artists , and India . ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 23:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Rajasthan , and Uttar Pradesh . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC) CREATIVE . Couldn't find SIGCOV in RS in English or Hindi (इरा टाक) - apart from what's cited here already all I could find was a typical WP:NEWSORGINDIA softball interview on News 18. Wikishovel ( talk ) 05:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV . The article seems to be more promotional. Ciudatul ( talk ) 10:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Poor unreliable sources on the page. Page reads as publicity WP:PROMO . Fails notability with no significant achievement or influence notable by the subject. RangersRus ( talk ) 14:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. Agree with others that this is a poorly ref-bombed WP:PROMO . No significant coverage. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Talakayan Ng Bayan: No good hits on GSearch, GNews and GNews Archives. Found several false positive as Talakayan ng Bayan means ""People's Dialogue"" and is used by several entities aside from DWBL. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 05:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines . Lenticel ( talk ) 05:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC) I created the article almost 15 years ago without being aware about WP:GNG . I haven't touched the article since then. Safe to say, I barely found any source about the now-defunct radio show. ASTIG 😎 🙃 13:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 08:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] since the creator agrees the topic isn’t notable. Mccapra ( talk ) 11:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Vishuddhananda Paramahansa: While some attempts have been made, no edits have stuck due to unreliable sources (blogs or wikiclones that clearly sourced past versions of this page which again, offered no reliable sources). Zinnober9 ( talk ) 01:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Hinduism . Zinnober9 ( talk ) 01:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Seems to have a website and several facebook pages, about the extent of coverage I see for this person. Not meeting notability with a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] unless reliable independent sources are found in Bengali or other languages. Mccapra ( talk ) 07:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . No sources on the page and simple search brings up blogs and Facebook pages. No independent reliable source I can find that can run parallel with what's on the page. Page fails notability guidelines. RangersRus ( talk ) 12:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please don't this page. He is a great spiritual master and was extremely influential in his era and has done huge amounts of service to humanity. We will update the page soon with all details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.47.72 ( talk ) 17:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] After removal of CV, there is effectively nothing remaining. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) ( Talk ) 22:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please dont this page. Vishudhananda Paramhanshaji is a Jesus Christ like figure among his his followers. Below are some credible links that support his existence and contribution:- Credible news reposts like indiatimes have quoted and acknowledged his contribution 1) Refer the below link in Hindi https://www.indiatimes.com/hindi/trending/human-interest/gyanganj-math-land-of-immortal-mysterious-places-in-himalaya-614266.html 2) refer chapter 5 of this book 184.19.192.234 ( talk ) 22:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"WXSX-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 16:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state) . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 16:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Nothing but national programming services, undoubtedly no significant coverage — this article is a clear remnant of the much looser standards of 2006. (Disclosure: I was the creator of this article back in those long-ago days and would never create anything like today.) WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Samuel Adeyemi: Even WP:NBASIC is mostly impossible. As such, non-notable pastor. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 12:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , Christianity , Africa , and Nigeria . Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 12:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Sourcing is largely interviews or asking his opinion on topics. Rest are in non-RS. I don't see anything further we'd use for sourcing in my web travels. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Tommaso Cancelloni: Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV , as all I could find was nothing more but passing mentions, empty stats pages (mostly automatically generated), occasional transfer reports and little more, including passing references to his current professional activity in the food industry (he has apparently retired from the game). [1] Angelo ( talk ) 23:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football . Angelo ( talk ) 23:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , I couldn't find sources that showed sufficient notability. Suonii180 ( talk ) 14:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Children of Vietnam: Only one source provided in 15 years. LibStar ( talk ) 10:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Vietnam , and North Carolina . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Stc Bahrain: BEFORE shows no substantial RS. StartGrammarTime ( talk ) 08:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies , Bahrain , and Saudi Arabia . StartGrammarTime ( talk ) 08:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ian Brumby: There are quite a few matches in the British Newspaper Archive, but none of the ones I saw provided significant coverage. I also checked the issue of Snooker Scene that reported on Brumby turning professional, and that contains only a passing mention (and the results of his play-off match). BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 01:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Cue sports , and England . BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 01:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC) 07, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sanjiv Ahuja: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - this is not Sanjeev Ahuja , who is probably notable. (Erased prior erroneous post). Bearian ( talk ) 12:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Geadly Salome: A web search finds articles about BV Veendam mentioning him but no WP:SIGCOV . The article fails WP:GNG . Robby.is.on ( talk ) 12:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Netherlands . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC) GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney ( talk ) 15:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Qazi Jamil ur Rehman: Of the 5 references, 3 are announcement of his promotion to the same office and two are announcements for his demotion from that office. Reviewed during NPP. North8000 ( talk ) 15:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Pakistan . Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 15:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Non-notable person and sources are not enough. Citadeol (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Appointed to the position for less than a year and sacked for non-performance. Didn't have much time in the position to become notable. Google search mostly shows him being quoted because of events which are not to do with him, he just happened to be there doing his job. No broad in-depth coverage of him in and off himself. TarnishedPath talk 07:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bagumbong High School: Alternatively , to Caloocan#Education . -- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Philippines . Lenticel ( talk ) 03:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC) 35, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting given recent expansion of article. I'm surprised the editor didn't come here to comment. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the article was expanded with the directory type websites that I mentioned in the nomination. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 11:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Erddy Titaley: The best that I could find were squad listings in Bola and Indosport . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Indonesia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC) GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 22:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC) I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV . JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV . Anwegmann ( talk ) 18:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per all above. There is no information available about him at all. Ckfasdf ( talk ) 16:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"KHBA-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Christianity , and Washington . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] this article should have never been created to begin with. Catfurball ( talk ) 15:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Global Excellence Awards: The award is created by a marketing agency for seemingly promotional purposes only, and the basis for awarding process is unclear. Additionally, the major contributor has removed the paid editing and advert maintenance tags and has yet to address the UPE notice given. Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 19:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and India . Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 19:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Global Excellence Awards has successfully completed 3 editions and 4th edition is in process. Its an initiative by Brand Empower to honour and encourage artists, entrepreneurs and organisations for their outstanding work in their own respective fields. On the website brandempower.org and globalexcellenceawards.org, process of nomination to selection has been already mentioned. There is no thing thats unclear. On social media pages of brandempower, all the activities are getting published. Big media covering this award and big celebs attend this award. This page has not been created for paid advertising, but solely to display awards received by popular celebs for their outstanding work. People are searching GEA awarding list on Google and this award has good significance and deserves to be on wikipedia. Shouryasbaghel ( talk ) 07:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your contributions [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] suggest that you are working for Delhi-based companies named Webpulse Solution Pvt. Ltd and Brand Empower Pvt Ltd, the latter being the creator of this award. You have been given an undisclosed paid editing notice on your userpage which you have yet to address. Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 12:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC) राहुल रंजन सिंह (Rahul Ranjan Singh), the founder of both companies, suggesting you are in fact being paid to edit Wikipedia. I am doubtful of your claim that this page “has not been created for paid advertising”. Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 12:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. ManaliJain ( talk ) 19:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC) per nom. In light of the above, this is G11 territory. // Timothy :: talk 18:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nail Alishov: Best I can find is a squad list mention as an unused sub in Report.az and a quote from him at the bottom of Matc.az . The latter is not significant because there is no meaningful third-party analysis of what Alishov said. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Azerbaijan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC) 56, 28 April 2023 (UTC) GNG . Jogurney ( talk ) 20:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC) BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article are database records (ref + el) and BEFORE showed nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). // Timothy :: talk 01:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Standard telegraph level: I couldn't even find any usage of this phrase outside dictionary definitions. Not sure if there is a reasonable target; maybe it could be moved to Wiktionary. Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 02:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions . Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 02:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft - I've had time not to research this after deprodding it and have not found sufficient sourcing to establish notability or even provide additional context to what is being presented here. There are no important incoming links so deleting without prejudice is unlikely to create any issues for readers or editors. I am unable to identify any WP:ATDs . ~ Kvng ( talk ) 13:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Samantha King: She does have a couple of Canadian Country Music Award nominations in down-the-line categories like Independent Female Artist of the Year (which I had to correct, because the article was falsely claiming she had been nominated for the topline Female Artist of the Year, as in ""Shania Twain/Terri Clark/Tenille Townes level superstar"") and Rising Star, so a neutrally-written and properly sourced article about her would be fine -- but this, as written, is promotionally toned and poorly sourced, and has been tagged for that problem for over a decade without resolution. The article additionally claimed a Juno Award nomination that I have been completely unable to verify, as her name fails to show up even in the Junos' own self-published database of its past winners and nominees -- I've already removed that due to its unverifiability, but it still leaves a lot of article's other claims also questionable in the absence of better sourcing than this. But apart from the nominal verification of the CCMA nominations themselves, this is otherwise referenced entirely to a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, one glancing namecheck of her existence in a source that isn't about her, one source that completely fails to support the claim being cited to it (it's ""sourcing"" a concert , but is about a hockey game ), and just one piece of coverage about her in the weekly hyperlocal of a suburb of her own hometown. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can salvage it with a neutral writing tone and better sourcing, but particularly in light of the {{ tone }} template having been on the article for 13 years without repair, it's time to fix it or lose it. Bearcat ( talk ) 13:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women , and Canada . Bearcat ( talk ) 13:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Shenin Hoseyn: From WP:GEOLAND : Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Hongsy ( talk ) 08:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran . Hongsy ( talk ) 08:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jennifer M. Adams: As always, ambassadors are not ""inherently"" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about their work in independent third-party sources such as media or books -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source content self-published by the government (i.e. her own employer), with absolutely no evidence of WP:GNG -worthy sourcing shown at all. Further, this was draftspaced last year per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer M. Adams , before being arbitrarily moved back into mainspace earlier this month on the grounds that her nomination had finally been confirmed by the Senate -- but since the notability bar for ambassadors hinges on GNG-worthy coverage, and not on the simple fact of having been confirmed into the position per se, that should never have happened without the draft being significantly improved with stronger sourcing first. Nothing here is ""inherently"" notable in the absence of significantly better sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk ) 21:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America . Bearcat ( talk ) 21:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Bilateral relations , England , Maryland , North Carolina , and Washington, D.C. . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . Ambassadors are not inherently notable, and there's no secondary coverage of her. SportingFlyer T · C 00:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC) I agree with Bearcat: ambassadors don’t automatically become notable just by existing. They have to meet WP:GNG or criteria such as WP:NPOL (if they have a political background). I checked the sources and found they are primary, which can’t establish notability. She fails WP:GNG . Grab Up - Talk 08:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC) BIO and ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar ( talk ) 23:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2017–18 Israeli Noar Premier League: Nothing to suggest that a season of a youth football league is notable. JMWt ( talk ) 07:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Football , and Israel . JMWt ( talk ) 07:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jonatan Oliveira: In my opinion, being ranked #9 on one website in Kickboxing, a loss in Boxing with no other notable acheivements and mostly passing mentions/event results is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG and WP:NKICK . Lethweimaster ( talk ) 15:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Brazil . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 14:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"William John Corbet: Escaping the German occupation of Guernsey in the Second World War is not especially notable and does not make him, as his article claims, a ""World War II hero"". Clarityfiend ( talk ) 10:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom . Shellwood ( talk ) 11:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC) GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 13:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC) GNG . Mztourist ( talk ) 05:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"NLS Debate: Additionally, the article has pretty significant issues, including random sentences from unrelated articles. Tejas Subramaniam ( talk ) 12:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I'm not seeing much coverage in English, which I believe is the language of the competition. JMWt ( talk ) 13:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"St. Ignatius High School Gumla: No reliable sources found despite Google search including news, books, and news archive. StartGrammarTime ( talk ) 04:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . StartGrammarTime ( talk ) 04:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Jharkhand . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Only primary sources provided. Fails WP:NSCHOOL . LibStar ( talk ) 09:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Shah Sharabeel: And per WP:SIGCOV, multiple publications from the same author or organization usually count as a single source , so at most, they count as one source. And I did find coverage on his show in other RS such as the Express Tribune like this , but nothing else. Also, it appears he has only directed this one show, which received some coverage in RS. So, is merely directing one show enough to pass WP:NDIRECTOR? Seems like a very ROTM DIRECTOR to me. This also raises the question: if anyone just directs a drama and gets some press coverage on it, do they automatically qualify for a Wikipedia BLP? No offense to the creator of this page, of course but only a UPE would bother creating a BLP for such a ROTM director. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 19:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 19:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First of all Saqib , i am not a UPE, and don't get personal everytime by calling this term without any evidence as admin has already warned you multiple times. Secondly if it is a case of UPE, then why the article is stub and with that much less data. You can check history i never added material or promotional tone after creation. As to why i voted , I saw his work in a theatre and created his page after checking coverage in RS. Anyways, Did'nt even remembered him since then. Although he still has a coverage on reliable sources but i dont think theatre actor can have a wikipidea article & i am not a UPE who will be affected after deletion. Libraa2019 ( talk ) 20:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Theatre . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Libraa2019 I didn't explicitly call you or anyone a UPE. I simply mentioned that only a UPE might create a BLP for a ROTM director, so no need to stress about it. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 23:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC) 36, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Generic character (fiction): ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 07:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 07:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to stock character as the much more comprehensive and referenced article this duplicates. Jclemens ( talk ) 08:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to stock character per Jclemens. CoconutOctopus talk 18:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV . Looks to be a neologism and an unlikely search term. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 15:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's existed for 19 1/2 years and s are cheap. Jclemens ( talk ) 05:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - While the text of the article seems like it is most closely describing a stock character , I cannot find any actual reliable sources that actually uses the term ""generic character"" to describe either what is being described in this article nor being used as a synonym to a stock character. That makes this appear to be a non-notable neologism, which would not really be appropriate to use as a . Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I was going to close this as a but there is an objection so I'm relisting the discussion to see if there is more or less support for that option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I get lots of hits for this, all of which use it in the obvious sense of talking about various works of fiction (or bodies of such work) as a whole, not about single characters. And the is plainly wrong: a stock character has a particular but standardized nature, while being generic implies (ironically) a character without character, more or less like the background extras in a crowd scene in film. I think this is just made up. Mangoe ( talk ) 13:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . A to stock character would not be appropriate - that is not what the article as currently written describes, and I can find no evidence that ""generic character"" is used to mean stock character Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk ) 14:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Pemba (red panda): Groupthink ( talk ) 10:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Biology . Groupthink ( talk ) 10:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] appears to be a common red panda name [19] . I was thinking a to the zoo, but there isn't coverage for this animal. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC) GNG ; there's also multiple unrelated red pandas named Pemba (as per Oaktree b and this article ). Sgubaldo ( talk ) 16:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Felipe Leal (influencer): The only attempted claim of notability here is that he exists, which is not automatically enough in and of itself, and the article is referenced entirely to unreliable sources that are not support for notability, with not one bit of reliable source coverage about him shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform, and simply existing as a self-appointed ""influencer"" is not inherently notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced properly. Bearcat ( talk ) 16:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Internet , and Brazil . Bearcat ( talk ) 16:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC) GNG . Its also a case of WP:RECENTISM , the influencer is only notable in his bubble of followers. Svartner ( talk ) 10:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Usha S. Kakade: Cited references are paid per WP:NEWSORGINDIA . Aronitz ( talk ) 13:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Maharashtra . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 13:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 13:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The sources do not deal with the subject in-depth and, as the nominator correctly states, are not independent. There is mention of some book, but the book was not written by Kakade. Neither of the awards is such a well-known and significant award or honor that WP:ANYBIO would be met, and the fact that the award was given did not receive meaningful independent coverage, but is carried by promotional outlets—for example: Gravittus Foundation Founder, Usha Kakade felicitated by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh is by ""NewsVoir"" which is a ""Press Release Submission Services in India"". — Alalch E. 13:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Safer Internet Day celebration in Nigeria: Suggesting incorporating such content in the nonexistent Safer Internet Day as it got media interest beyond Nigeria only. Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 20:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Nigeria . Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 20:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Hellspawn (Spawn): In my opinion, a Spawn (franchise) article should be created, but literally nothing from this article is salvageable anyway. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Comics and animation . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Fails WP:GNG without more reliable sources talking about its reception. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 21:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not independently notable. Fails WP:GNG . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 22:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Guarana (energy drink): Admittedly, the name doesn't make searching the easiest, but I haven't found any significant coverage. ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 20:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Products , and Serbia . ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 20:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC) V . Svartner ( talk ) 09:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC) SPAM . In 2024, everyone knows we are not a free web host for businesses to profit from a United States tax-exempt charity . Bearian ( talk ) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2023 Smederevo explosion: No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG and also per NotNews. An explosion of a fuel tank in a residential building. North8000 ( talk ) 20:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Only routine news coverage. Something happening and being covered in the news does not make it notable. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 20:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC) 4 [ reply ] - Completely irrelevant and not really Wikipedia article. Боки Write to me! 22:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sri Gowri Parameswara Temple: — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c ) 18:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Nothing to salvage and no clear target for or Redir. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 02:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC) Intervals of patent nonsense, and sources are not relevant to the article's content. HarukaAmaranth ( 話 ) 17:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC) It is an unimportant and unneeded article. JustAGrook ( talk ) 17:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC) fails WP:GNG and has not enough WP:SIGCOV . -- Wesoree ( talk · contribs ) 17:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Chapter Four Uganda: The sources were solely based or more about the founders arrest. Hence if this is going to be beneficial, I would consider ing to Nicholas Opiyo . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Africa , and Uganda . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 10:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC) I want this to be notable. However it does not seem to me to have a valid claim to notability, and the references, or lack of useful references, confirm this. Most are about the founder and his arrest, Others are snippets actually about C4U, but are not independent dent, not significant coverage 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sonatafy Technology: The London Daily Post link doesn't work, rest are staff directories and an award that doesn't seem notable. PROMO. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nevada . AllyD ( talk ) 17:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC) 46, 28 April 2023 (UTC) The London Daily Post ref has a misspelt URL, presumably because the site is blacklisted and edits cannot be saved with the actual name. AllyD ( talk ) 05:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe this article was created by a UPE farm account. There exists a draft, Draft:Sonatafy Technology , that was created by a user ( User:Pegsthais ) who is now blocked as a sockpuppet of a UPE farm. The London Daily Post, Los Angeles Tribune, and NY Weekly sources might suggest notability, however I'm not sure how reliable they're considered—I'm guessing not very, since none have Wikipedia articles. In addition to the London Daily Post URL as the user above suggested, I also noticed the NY Weekly URL is misspelled, potentially to also avoid blacklisting or detection otherwise? Nonetheless, looking over these articles, they read like paid articles rather than genuine journalism. Uhai ( talk ) 15:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , the sources are hot garbage. Known and blacklisted SEO sources (with the URLs slightly tweaked to avoid the filter), paid placement SEO-friendly sites, Forbes paid council posts, other PR. The awards are nonsense. Sam Kuru (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC) As per submission. Samuel R Jenkins ( talk ) 05:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 03:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC) An article about a recent IT staffing firm. The awards listed in previous versions do not appear inherently notable and while searches find articles by the company principal about their operating field, I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability . AllyD ( talk ) 07:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Not seeing sourcing sufficient to pass GNG/NCORP. Rupples ( talk ) 03:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Adam Kendrick: One is a passing mention and the other is an interview with a family member in the local paper. I don't believe he meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR . Tacyarg ( talk ) 04:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Film , Television , United Kingdom , and England . Tacyarg ( talk ) 04:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dendi Suryadi: The subject of the article is not notable enough. A promotion to Brigadier General is not the ground for notability. There are no claims of notability other than his promotion and rank. There are no references that cover him in-depth, the iNews.id is just listing his military service record which does not satisfy notability in my opinion. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions . ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Seems to meet WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . It seems he is only notable for being the first person Kutai to be promoted as Brigadier General, so basically it's a WP:SINGLEEVENT . However, I dont think ""first person from xxx region to be promoted as flag officer military itself"" is really notable, if we accept this criteria then there will other page like this. Ckfasdf ( talk ) 02:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak may pass GNG but reliable sources are not persuasive. 185.104.138.35 ( talk ) 04:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 03:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We are not going to make pages for every single first person from hundreds of Indonesia ethnics becoming a military officer. That on its own shouldnt make the person notable. Nyanardsan ( talk ) 03:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rectifi: Very little coverage available online DirtyHarry991 ( talk ) 06:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet . DirtyHarry991 ( talk ) 06:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not seeing much beyond routine listings and passing mentions. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC) 45, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Marija Žižić: All that came up in my searches were passing mentions ( 1 , 2 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Montenegro . JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Babak Taghvaee: The only substantial coverage is from a local student newspaper, and it's an interview. The rest of the sources are things he wrote. Fails WP:RS and WP:GNG . Juxlos ( talk ) 07:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 31 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 07:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Journalism , Aviation , and Iran . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . No significant recognition as a freelance journalist, with limited noteworthy coverage. The remaining sources primarily consist of the individual's own written work. Fad Ariff ( talk ) 12:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jaczemir: Fails WP:NNAME , WP:NOTDICT and WP:GNG . Has no WP:SIGCOV , as I cannot find any reliable sources outside of dictionaries and databases. The only person listed is an unnotable fictional character. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 06:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , namecruft, not suitable for an encyclopedia. Geschichte ( talk ) 18:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Fails WP:NNAME . Would be better on Wiktionary. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"No Mafia: I don't believe it's technically eligible for G4 as the prose has changed, but it's still the same subject with the same notability problems. – brad v 18:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies , and Australia . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The only non-local coverage seems to be a bare mention in the SMH? Valereee ( talk ) 19:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No sourcing found in regular Gsearch, limiting it to . au websites [10] , hardly anything else turns up. One review from the Perth area. Delete, and nothing has changed since the last AfD less then a month ago. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC) No SIGCOV. 〜 Festucalex • talk 21:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per Valeree, only passing mention in SMH. Fails WP:AUD despite being a rewritten article. LibStar ( talk ) 23:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Coverage is not sufficient for NCORP. And come on, the notability arguments out of mainspace; passages like After moving publications to the nation-wide newspaper the Sydney Morning Herald, he reviewed the venue again in 2022; re-evaluating the restaurant to a score of 15.5/20 in a ~970 word review are transparently non-encyclopedic. JoelleJay ( talk ) 05:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC) 04, 21 July 2023 (UTC) 22, 22 July 2023 (UTC) 33, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and salt to prevent further recreation. SportingFlyer T · C 14:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Transcendental perspectivism: I see essentially no attestation to third-party independent notice . jps ( talk ) 17:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy , Religion , and Psychology . jps ( talk ) 17:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - No secondary sources in the article and practically nothing turns up on Google Scholar (a few papers use the same phrase but in a completely unrelated sense). No indication that this is an idea which has made any significant impact on scholarship, and there are no independent sources with which we could write an encyclopedia article about this topic. WJ94 ( talk ) 08:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No assertion of notabillity. NW1223 < Howl at me • My hunts > 03:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (until further notice). It does seem there is a COI-issue, as noted at the talk page of the article. But that is not reason to it. Also, lack of citations in the article, doesnt translate to lack of citations in general. There is some literature on ""Transcendental perspectivism"" [33] . I am open to discussion though. Cinadon 36 18:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've looked through the GScholar results myself and most of what comes up is either passing mentions, authored by Krieglstein himself, or about a completely different topic. Could you link to the specific sources which you think provide significant coverage? WJ94 ( talk ) 16:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Seems to be part of a WALL of the creator's parents (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Krieglstein and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryann Krieglstein ). I would add to the above TP is mentioned only in passing in a handful of books (GBooks). Krieglstein mentiones TP in his own papers, but these are barely cited. It seems this idea was never taken up by others, nor did it make any impact. 128.252.154.2 ( talk ) 00:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Artem. G ( talk ) 20:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As written, it verges on vanispamcruftisement , and there's nothing we can do to improve it in a policy-compliant way. I agree with WJ94 's evaluation of the literature. XOR'easter ( talk ) 15:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV + sources are from the philosopher's books ( WP:PRIMARY ) Tirishan ( talk ) 21:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Erica Iverson: Could not find reliable, secondary source significant coverage. Only source cited on article that offers this is a primary source from UMass. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 17:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and United States of America . Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 17:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 18:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Has multiple third person sources to demonstrate notability. Dwanyewest ( talk ) 00:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Sources in the article are not covering her directly and in depth. #1 is stats N . #2 is non-independent N . #3 is a hyper-local interview of her and her husband and covers them as a couple, not her specifically in detail N . #4 is non-independent N . #5 is hyper-local news with <1 sentence of passing mentions of her N . #6 is a contributed piece (so of unclear independence or editorial status) published in the same outlet as #3 and containing little more than quotes from her/her husband N . JoelleJay ( talk ) 05:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Meets WP Football Notability by playing for a fully professional team in a nation league. Better sourcing would enhance the article. Demt1298 ( talk ) 20:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Demt1298 , NFOOTY was deprecated last year and does not carry any weight. JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JoelleJay Is there a discussion I can read on this? Demt1298 ( talk ) 01:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Click on the WP Football Notability, then go back a level to Project Football and scroll down to notability; that essay has been replaced with GNG. Here's the link [7] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC) NSPORT . NFOOTY is no longer listed there (and never superseded lack of GNG coverage even when it was). JoelleJay ( talk ) 02:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC) This subject does not meet any notability guidelines, merely being mentioned in match reports which do not meet WP:SIGCOV . WP Football Player Notability is an essay, and is not a substitute for the subject lacking third party sources. The votes have so far not provided any sources to show notability. User:Let'srun 23:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jhalra Jama Masjid: - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 09:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam , India , and Uttar Pradesh . - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 09:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . There are two sources and neither have any coverage on the title. One of the source indiastan.com shows a location of different mosque with unnamed street address. Fails WP:N and per nom fails WP:GNG . RangersRus ( talk ) 13:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , no indication of notability. Fram ( talk ) 08:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mabbly: The article is completely promotional and really says very little. Checking for secondary sources finds some fluff PR pieces. Qcne (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . Qcne (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Illinois . Skynxnex ( talk ) 19:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , as it seems promotional, especially in the second paragraph. 2NumForIce ( speak | edits ) 23:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - self-promotional and not notable enough. I couldn't find any significant coverage. Sgubaldo ( talk ) 21:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I see some references, but not independent ones. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 13:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2026 Clarksville mayoral election: There's been no coverage of this election in WP:RS given that it's in three years . No listed candidates appear to have made an election bid, they're just copied from 2022 Clarksville mayoral election . A412 ( Talk • C ) 05:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Tennessee . A412 ( Talk • C ) 05:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom, there is currently no coverage available about this event. Left guide ( talk ) 06:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This article can always be re-created should significant coverage of the election come up. Cortador ( talk ) 09:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] for lack of RS. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 17:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Séra Mummi: All the references appear to be fake. Another one for the WP:HOAXLIST . I only removed the PROD because an IP user did so, even though they appear to be some kind of LTA/vandal. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 20:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Iceland . Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 20:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. I looked up the references before PRODing and they appear to be made up. The only info out there in the 'net are mirrors of this article. Jip Orlando ( talk ) 20:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Non-notable if not a hoax. Knowledgegatherer23 ( Say Hello ) 20:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy a blatant hoax with zero sources in Iceland. Alvaldi ( talk ) 20:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Looks like a pretty evident hoax and the sources appear equally made-up; for example I could find no evidence that anything called Holyman Times exists or has existed. While the other two references have names that match actual living people, none of the people with those names are journalists or appear to have ever written any articles, let alone ones about this supposed individual or with those titles. The article not only completely fails any relevant notability guideline, it fails basic verifiability. - Aoidh ( talk ) 21:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I too have scoured the internet trying to find Icelandic originals of the references or Icelandic echoes of any of the info. Mummi = Guðmundur. There is a Bergið, founded in 2018 and not an exclusive club but rather a drop-in counselling centre. The creator, the eponymous Seramummi , started the article on 20 March 2014 and does not appear to have edited anywhere else (including to upload File:SéraMummi on Commons; he added it to the article ). The account was created on Icelandic Wikipedia on 25 March, probably automatically when he opened a page there; no edits. So agree with Knowledgegatherer23; probable hoax, in any event non-notable. Yngvadottir ( talk ) 21:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Non-notable, or a hoax - either way doesn't belong on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 22:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy - hoax. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC) 54, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as a likely hoax. DFlhb ( talk ) 02:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Apparent hoax. Holyman Times does not appear to exist as a publication; other sources do not contain sufficient bibliographic detail to verify for sure but I can find no evidence of them. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk ) 12:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"The Backrooms (upcoming film): Perhaps it can be drafted for the time being , though. Also a note for anyone who saw the previous template: I confused one of the AfD templates for the current one that is up. The previous AfD template did not make it so a discussion page was open. I do not think it screwed anything up, but if it did, please let me know via my talk page so I can better learn what to do in the future, and I apologize in advance. I have withdrawn my nomination for deletion, I have switched to draftify . Also, I am an idiot who had no idea what I was doing when I tried to close the article’s discussion, I was wrong to do that. This was a huge learning experience, and I apologize for the inconveniences I caused, I should’ve been more careful. Not0nshoree ( talk ) 19:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, I am the creator of this article. I'd heavily advise deleting my article, but if you wish to not have in public view, change it into a draft, please. Also, the film is likely already in principal photography as several articles have stated that filming will begin in the summer of 2023. Like I said, the film is likely in a quiet development phase, so let's just let it be. Thank you. TheEpicApartmentLord ( talk ) 19:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No source has confirmed that it is in principal photography though. Also, Kane (the director) said in a live stream two weeks ago that the final draft of the script was done. So as far as we are concerned, it hasn't even begun pre-production. The Deadline article said filming would take place during summer as a joke due to Kane being in high school at the time. Not0nshoree ( talk ) 19:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What kind of news company lies about basic information? Oh right, everyone basically. Well, I think this article should stay up for people to get actual updates and basic information. If it's not ready, don't erase it, just turn it into a draft. TheEpicApartmentLord ( talk ) 19:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It definitely is not filming. The line you are referring to about filming in the summer very much reads as a joke given his age. No lies were stated. No casting was ever announced, no announcement filming had begun was announced, nothing since the initial announcement. ""If it's not ready, don't erase it, just turn it into a draft"" it very much isn't ready to be in the mainspace, which is why I created a draft for it last year. It is linked down below, and frankly you would've been informed it existed when you intiated creating this page. They put in a big red banner up at the top of the page whether the topic had a draft article or not. We do not need two drafts about the same topic. So deletion is appropriate. Rusted AutoParts 19:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy , Film , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment is there any particular reason why a discussion that is, to date, between two major contributors to the article AND doesn't advocate deletion, only dratification, is at AfD instead of the talk page? Jclemens ( talk ) 23:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC) NFF no production news since first announcement so extremely premature; Draft:The Backrooms (film) already exists. Rusted AutoParts 02:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per Rusted AutoParts. While researching, I didn't see any coverage that would warrant an article before it's even started production. — V ORTEX 3427 ( Talk! ) 04:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's merely in development - and not even active development from the look of it. It doesn't meet guidelines for inclusion in the main space. TheMovieGuy The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Vann Tailamey: The only available sources are WP:ROUTINE game coverage, which does not convey notability, and reference/database sites. No evidence of the minimum one piece of WP:SIGCOV required for athletes. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 23:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Cambodia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 14:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nana (C++ library): There are no independent sources Mdggdj ( talk ) 13:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I agree with nominator, I tried searching for the sources, but couldn't find anything, just random blogs (e.g. ""The 7 Best C++ Frameworks""). Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 13:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 14:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per nom. Skt34 ( talk ) 15:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC) sock strike. Daniel ( talk ) 21:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC) PERNOM , in short, it is a bad habit to just post without providing your reasons. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 15:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are at least two books that refer to this library (The German book ""C++ Schnelleinstieg"", ISBN 9783747503249, page 45, that praises ease of use for C++ beginners, and Soft Computing Applications, ISBN 9783030519926, page 289). At the time I wrote the initial version of that article, I found out that many other GUI libraries on wikipedia (see some to the ones mentioned in section ""see also"") did not have more notability evidence (e.g. some have no references at all, some have only blog references, some have only self references except one reference to a financial transactions), and the sources provided appeared sufficient in comparison. I do not object to the deletion , especially as this library does not seem to be maintained anymore, but if this article gets d, there should be equal treatment and those other ones lacking notability should be d as well. Christophe ( talk ) 12:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"FXCentrum: Jack4576 ( talk ) 08:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC) the article has several links to various independent sites, the links are sites that provide ratings and they are negative but also positive, a small CFD provider that is active mainly in African countries František Végfalvi ( talk ) 07:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC) the article has several links to various independent sites, the links are sites that provide ratings and they are negative but also positive, a small CFD provider that is active mainly in African countries František Végfalvi ( talk ) 07:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC) The write-up contains numerous references to a variety of independent platforms, which offer mixed reviews, both negative and positive. It belongs to a minor CFD trader predominantly serving countries in Africa. Paolodc13 ( talk ) 07:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Frantisek, did you literally regenerate that sentence in ChatGPT and log in as a sock to Ctrl+V that in? I don't think I've seen a more naked attempt to do so in all my years here. Nate • ( chatter ) 01:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 17:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The US and other countries are a no-go with this platform, it's based on a random island in the middle of nowhere for tax purposes (the company's principal officers haven't even bothered to visit Seychelles), and the votes only have contributed to this article and nowhere else and sound like they wrote their statements with ChatGPT. It's a COI PROMO SPAM piece that needs to go. Nate • ( chatter ) 22:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Administrator note",delete
+"Mainstream Media (media group): Doesn't meet WP:NCORP standard. Aronitz ( talk ) 17:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 30 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , News media , Companies , Websites , Bahrain , and United Kingdom . Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC) G11 Kinopiko talk 20:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC) This organization definitely exists, because I can find several passing mentions of them in directories. But their name appears designed to make it hard to find information about them, possibly so that a blatantly promotional Wikipedia article like this one is the only source of information (same goes for Big News Network, below, about which I could find more). We shouldn't help them. But if someone could find reliable sources I would reconsider. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC) G11 as @ Kinopiko mentioned. Couldn't find good sources. Infomemoh ( talk ) 02:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Peter Donnelly (artist): Fails WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Artists , and New Zealand . UtherSRG (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC) NARTIST . Mostly what was found online is social media and blogs. There is a little local human-interest coverage, but not enough to meet WP:GNG ; I can't find anything that one would normally see like reviews of his work in notable art magazine, museum collections, etc. Netherzone ( talk ) 19:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC) ARTIST . LibStar ( talk ) 06:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not find good sources for this person. Lots of Peter Donnellys, but this one is not notable. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 22:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mariners RFC: Broc ( talk ) 13:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Rugby union , and Caribbean . Broc ( talk ) 13:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC) GNG , doesn't appear to be a suitable here per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 10:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Joe Turner Classic: Joeykai ( talk ) 00:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC) Subject meets the WP:GNG with sources such as [ [63] ] and [ [64] ] Absolon S. Kent ( talk ) 17:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC) The sources you've cited don't come close to being SIGCOV of the Joe Turner Classic. I have an open mind, but we need far better than that if we are going to this. Cbl62 ( talk ) 17:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC) Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV to show this meets the WP:GNG . Let'srun ( talk ) 20:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . After ten days at AfD, no SIGCOV presented. Will reconsider if SIGCOV is found. Cbl62 ( talk ) 16:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Black Thorn (character): I tried a search combination of ""Black Thorn"" + ""DC"", ""Black Thorn"" + ""Kupperberg"", etc. but I can only find WP:USERGEN blogs. I'd suggest a to List of DC Comics characters: B § Black Thorn , but I don't think much of the actual biographical text is usable. . – MJL ‐ Talk ‐ ☖ 05:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation . – MJL ‐ Talk ‐ ☖ 05:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC) ALLPLOT . Adding more plot to a list that already fails WP:LISTN does not improve the situation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 10:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article doesn't even try to hide the fact that it's non-notable. There is zero reception. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 18:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] yet another cruft article about some exceedingly minor superhero. Dronebogus ( talk ) 22:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Very minor character. Searching for sources using both her superhero name as well as her ""real"" name tuned up nothing in reliable sources. Not even notable enough to be d or mentioned at any kind of character list article. Rorshacma ( talk ) 15:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Aromanticism (disambiguation): The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 01:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 01:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC) DABMISSPELL , but is recommended to be listed in See also (or a Common misspelling section), but is thus more than one other topic for the DAB page. Raladic ( talk ) 01:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC) DABMISSPELL . NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 02:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] retracting vote, changing to per your and other other people's explanation, apologies for the churn. Raladic ( talk ) 02:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. The hatnote can not be made more complex by replacing the disambiguation link with the one other meaning. BD2412 T 02:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] clearly an unnecessary dab page. Only WP:ONEOTHER meaning for the exact term, hence a hatnote is preferable. estar8806 ( talk ) ★ 02:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Takeshi Nakashima: 日期20220626 ( talk ) 01:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Japan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Without being able to read, write, or search reasonably in Japanese, I am trusting the nom that they could not find any sources on this player in that language. As I see it, though, a four-year career in the Japanese top flight and nearly 30 total appearances verges on notability. Anwegmann ( talk ) 23:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Aldin Aganovic: My own Austrian search yields only user-generated content and database sources, which are clearly not acceptable per SPORTBASIC. I found Sky Sports , which mentions him once, Lokal Sport , which is just standard match report coverage, and Fan Report , which mentions him only twice. Soccerway suggests that he's been playing at a low level for the last few years, which explains why coverage is hard to find. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Austria . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC) GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney ( talk ) 12:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Higher Education and Research Opportunities in the UK: previous AfD was ""no consensus"" but arguments didn't seem to go past USEFUL (even then I can't tell if they were saying that the article is useful or the website itself) and the article has not had any sources since then. The generic name makes searching difficult, but I find it highly unlikely that what was only ever an information portal would have seen significant coverage. I did find all of one entry in a directory which doesn't really establish anything. -- D'n'B - t -- 10:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Websites , and United Kingdom . -- D'n'B - t -- 10:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC) 45, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Unreferenced and nothing to suggests notability. TheLongTone ( talk ) 14:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Hugo Cuevas-Mohr: Does not pass WP:GNG, no RS presented and no enduring record of creative impact or literary review/recognition. Own website, PR Newswire and a divers mixture of sources about poetry and the remittances business. Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 06:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Poetry , and United States of America . Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 06:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PROMO. He's likely using this to help build notability for his remittances business, sending money to relatives overseas. I can't find sourcing for this person, most of what's in the article are orange or red sources per sourcebot, so non-useful. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - the existing sources are not reliable, not independent, or not in-depth. Cannot find any coverage that would suggest notability in Spanish-language media. — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 20:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mohammed Khalfan (footballer, born 1994): Soccerway shows a very brief pro career but I can't find any evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC being met from my Arabic searches. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Qatar . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per nom. Fails in WP:GNG . I can't find out if there are sources in Arabic, if anything comes up I'll rectify my vote. Svartner ( talk ) 17:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Covenanting Association of Reformed and Presbyterian Churches: All but one citation (which is trivial coverage) are to self-published material, the organization's own website, or other non- RS . Further research indicates that significant coverage does not exist and thus the subject fails the notability test. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 20:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Christianity , and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC) being a denomination does not make you notable. Jfhutson ( talk ) 13:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"House of Romay: These sources do not validate or prove the claims made within the content. Furthermore, please see major news sources that discredit the information presented on the page and existence of the House of Romay. Below are the sources discrediting the information on the page. List https://laexpresion.com.mx/2023/11/15/desacredita-la-existencia-de-la-casa-de-romay-y-el-conde-de-monterroso-por-la-real-academia-matritense-de-heraldica-y-genealogia-ricardo-de-romay/ https://galiciadiario.com/web/frontend_cargar_noticia.php? id_noticia=121300 https://nybreaking.com/the-rise-of-fabricated-aristocracy-house-of-romay-and-ricardo-de-romay/ https://ultimasnoticiasenred.com.mx/local/falsa-nobleza-desmentida-la-casa-de-romay-y-el-senor-de-cadro-por-la-real-academia-matritense-de-heraldica-y-genealogia-en-relacion-con-ricardo-de-romay/ https://www.terra.com.ve/2023/12/fraude-nobiliario-expuesto-la-verdad.html https://www.http.uk.net/2023/12/falsos-aristocratas-desacreditando-la.html https://www.imakinaria.com/2023/12/fraude-y-mentira-de-la-falsa.html Even from WikiCommons: https://commons.m. wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diego_de_Romay_Basail-_Fraudsters_and_Obsession_with_Aristocracy.jpg More official documents can be provided upon request. This page is spreading misinformation through irrelevant and unreliable sources. -- Daliaxer ( talk ) 17:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC) ( talk • contribs ) AFD ? This is not formatted correctly and if you didn't post it to the daily AFD log, then it probably will not be seen by other editors. And next time, please sign your deletion nominations. Thank you. L iz Read! Talk! 18:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions . Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions . Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 18 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 14:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Casa do Romay ) is a fictional Spanish house in northern Spain. According to an investigation carried out by the newspaper El Universal , it was created to carry out fraud and falsification of noble titles, where several families are committing fraud by making fraudulent use of said titles. 1 ​2"" If that is correct, and the subject meets WP:N , some changes are needed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 16:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Similar kind of socking and edit-warring is going on over there too. Someone who can Spanish will have to identify a couple of reliable sources on the topic and give our article a proper reboot. I suggest that such an editor, if short of time, should comment out the current article and add a good sentence or two to display for the readers in the meantime. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] -- The very sources put forth to show this is a fraud also show that it meets the GNG. As my colleague Gråbergs Gråa Sång notes what's called for is not deletion but a rewrite reflecting the fact that the subject is fictional. Central and Adams ( talk ) 16:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC) N or WP:GNG . Below is the brief explanation of each source used in the page so far all of which have been unreliable. source analysis Source 1: is a blog that should be removed as it is unreliable and written by someone who advertises his services. It doesn't provide any evidence or mention of the House of Romay or their nobility. Source 2: dead link. Unable to verify any information regarding the House of Romay or their nobility. Source 3: A book written in 2006 that briefly mentions Vasco de Romay, who was the husband of Doña Ginebra de Araujo. However, it doesn't provide any evidence of the House of Romay being noble or prominent. Source 4: Only states that Diego de Romay constructed the body of ships and façade of a church in 1670. No evidence or mention of the House of Romay being noble. Sources 5: A book written in 1997 where no information regarding the House of Romay or their nobility was found. Sources 6: A book written in 1984 that doesn't mention anything about the House of Romay or their nobility. Sources 7: A book written in 2003 that doesn't mention anything about the House of Romay or their nobility. Source 8: A dictionary-like book that describes Romay as a field of red, gold, and silver, with its paws holding two fig tree leaves. However, it doesn't provide any evidence of the House of Romay being noble or prominent. -- Daliaxer ( talk ) 16:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Striking duplicate !vote -- your nom already registered your preference for deletion. You don't get to weigh in twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Central and Adams ( talk • contribs ) This article has been written by Diego de Romay, who is a known scammer according to major news outlets. The article proves nothing and has no sources that can substantiate and validate the information present in it. Following are the sources that do not validate the content present in this article: list https://www.amazon.com/Fake-Aristocrats-Investigation-Nonexistent-Ancestors-ebook/dp/B0CQT9TN2S? dplnkId=b153d89e-0b97-4557-8c42-31053d5f4c66&nodl=1 https://strongufabet.biz/the-rise-of-fabricated-aristocracy-house-of-romay-and-ricardo-de-romay/ https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/204252845-fake-aristocrats https://www.xinxii.com/childrens-ebooks-730/young-adult-759? product_id=521675 https://todosmisapuntes.com/2023/10/entre-mentiras-y-nobleza-ficticia-el-desmantelamiento-de-la-casa-de-romay-y-ricardo-de-romay/ -- Elene13 ( talk ) 17:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [38] More sources discrediting the Romay Family as fake: list https://www.ukinsider.co.uk/education/discrediting-the-existence-of-the-house-of-romay-and-its-false-noble-titles-ricardo-de-romay/ https://uknewswallet.co.uk/fashion-and-lifestyle/false-nobility-exposed-ricardo-de-romays-titles-and-the-house-of-romay-do-not-exist/ https://lanotita.com/el-fraude-de-la-casa-de-romay-y-los-titulos-nobiliarios-inexistentes-del-conde-de-monterroso-ricardo-de-romay/ https://www.parpix.es/entre-mentiras-y-obsesion-por-pertenecer-a-la-aristocracia-diego-de-romay-y-ricardo-de-romay/ https://www.ideporpalencia.es/la-falsa-nobleza-las-mentiras-y-fantasias-de-diego-de-romay-y-ricardo-de-romay/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.141.129 ( talk ) Other than being a source of misinformation, this article compounded with that of its Spanish counterpart doesn't just invoke WP:N and WP:GNG as already highlighted but also goes as far as to encourage original research at this point. This cat-and-mouse chase only ends when this article gets recreated by someone at some point and passes through current regulatory standards. Besides, the majority of the refs at this point, refer to the lack of credibility regarding their own existence. Virtualmistik ( talk ) 22:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability isn't based on the sources in the article, it's based on the sources in the world. Encouraging original research isn't a deletion criterion. It's perfectly fine if the sources say that the subject is fictional. We have plenty of articles on fictional subjects. Central and Adams ( talk ) 22:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note I have modified comments from multiple editors, changing spacing and indenting in a few comments and collapsing the lists of external links to make this more readable. I have unstruct the ! votes from Elene and the IP. Participations in this AFD are suspicious but they need to be blocked before the votes are struck if the votes are to be disqualified. Signed a few unsigned posts. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The entire article contains incorrect information and cites unreliable or dead sources. Many articles have exposed them as liars. Including the Ministry of Justice and Spanish Nobility have discredited them. There is a whole book on them being fake: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/204252845-fake-aristocrats Letters from Ministry of Justice in Spain and Spanish Nobility discrediting them: https://commons.m. wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diego_de_Romay-Basail_-_The_Fake_Aristocrat_and_the_Nonexistent_House_of_Romay.jpg https://commons.m. wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diego_de_Romay-Basail_-_debunked_by_Spanish_Nobility_and_Ministry_of_Justice_in_Spain.jpg And other sources: https://laexpresion.com.mx/2023/11/15/desacredita-la-existencia-de-la-casa-de-romay-y-el-conde-de-monterroso-por-la-real-academia-matritense-de-heraldica-y-genealogia-ricardo-de-romay/ https://galiciadiario.com/web/frontend_cargar_noticia.php? id_noticia=121300 https://www.ukinsider.co.uk/education/discrediting-the-existence-of-the-house-of-romay-and-its-false-noble-titles-ricardo-de-romay/ https://nybreaking.com/the-rise-of-fabricated-aristocracy-house-of-romay-and-ricardo-de-romay/ https://ultimasnoticiasenred.com.mx/local/falsa-nobleza-desmentida-la-casa-de-romay-y-el-senor-de-cadro-por-la-real-academia-matritense-de-heraldica-y-genealogia-en-relacion-con-ricardo-de-romay/ Mopertcasocp ( talk ) 02:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] TNT - my assessment of the available sources is that we currently have no credible citations that discuss the House of Romay as a real noble house. Unfortunately, the available sources calling it a hoax are also weak: a collection of articles in tabloid and local papers which are far from high quality RS for history. The one (relatively) higher quality source cited would be the article in El Universal . Unfortunately, the article appears to have been unpublished, as despite having been put online only this month (see internal search results ) it is currently inaccessible. Without a single solid secondary source on either side of the hoax debate, deletion seems to be our only option. If El Universal ever republishes a relevant piece, or if this draws the attention of other high-circulation newspapers and/or academic publications, we may be able to write an article then. signed, Rosguill talk 14:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ( edit conflict ) as an unacknowledged hoax. None of the individuals linked to is referred to by the title in their own independent articles, for example, while there is no House of Romay aligning with any of the official, linked offices. The only pages to mention them ar WP mirrors and blogs, and nothing in the literature . A thorough search of the relevant scholarship reveals no trace whatsoever: The European Nobility, 1400-1800 , Sex, Gender, and Illegitimacy in the Castilian Noble Family, 1400-1600 , nobility&f=false Blood, Land and Power: The Rise and Fall of the Spanish Nobility and Guardianship, Gender, and the Nobility in Early Modern Spain , for example. An important noble house would get at least a footnote in history. But they do not. TNT this, as it contains no information about the real article and therefore no history worth salvaging to — House of Romay hoax , etc—and is misinforming the WP:READER. Indeed, with its references to living people, it probably amounts to a BLPVIO in parts. ——Serial 14:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC) HOAX as per statements of others above. ASmallMapleLeaf ( talk ) 17:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC) Maybe hang it on the wall too depending on outcome of this AFD. ASmallMapleLeaf ( talk ) 17:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC) 14, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] solely based on lack of notoriety, but disagree on hoax. These articles, as pointed above, are all very disreputable publications, without sources and an evident personal tone. The only reputable one, El Universal, took it down less than a week after being published. Besides that I invite people to look at the Talk page, where I originally posted the findings of a light research based on some vandalisms by user @ Giganoto48 . The page was then protected to allow discussion, and user @ Mopertcasocp began attacking me for posting my findings, accusing me of being the subject and other very personal remarks -- I naturally walked away. I now see that every user here pushing for this family to be presented as a fraud in this debate have apparently been blocked as sock puppets of @ Mopertcasocp , see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elene13 . Do r eview the research in the Talk Page a while back, before I stopped helping this page, which includes National Archive of Spain and National Nobility Archive information on the Romay family, including two family trees etc. So, it is most certainly not a hoax, and I get the feeling this notion is a personal attack to make them look as such? Who knows. That said, it is however perhaps not meeting WP:GNG , so deletion is a possibility. Benzeneshamus ( talk ) 18:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC) Spain's National Archive grants digital access to its database. I did a quick search and found the following documents held in Spain's National Archive: 1) "" Genealogical Tree of the Romay family: from Juan de Romay down to Antonia de Romay (married to Lorenzo de Puga) "" ( http://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas20/catalogo/description/12670510?nm , Government of Spain, Historical Archive of the Nobility) 2) "" Genealogical Tree of the Romay family: from Basco de Romay to Catalina Sarmiento de Valladares, II Marchioness of Valladares (married to García Ozores López de Lemos Noguerol, IV Count of Amarante). (http://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas20/catalogo/description/12671470?nm Government of Spain, Historical Archive of the Nobility) Clearly not an invention and distinguished enough to have two family trees in the Historical Archive of the Nobility. I don't see any claims of a living person on this current page claiming any titles, which confuses me as that seems to be the main issue. I do agree that they perhaps are not relevant enough for inclusion in wikipedia, which is why I voted """". The two emails , one from the National Archive in the Ministry of Justice and the other from Diputación de la Grandeza (which from what I read is not the ""Spanish Nobility"", that is a group of nobles, but an official regulatory body that catalogues titles and their holders), are simply replying to a query asking if the Romay family holds certain titles in Spain. The answer is a clear no from both, but it doesn't make any reference, let alone comment on anyone pretending, nor does it discredit the family's relevance or history . Perhaps some of you don't speak Spanish, but please review. What confuses me, is that several users here, @ Daliaxer @ Mopertcasocp @ Virtualmistik @ Elene13 , (all now blocked sock puppets) appear to push that the letters discredit the family and call it a fraud. @ Jpgordon has now protected the page in an edit that I believe to be quite unethical and potentially defamatory, stating that the family ""was created for the purpose of fraud and forgery"" in the introduction. Surely a non potentially defamatory version should be protected instead, until the evidence is reviews by all? Benzeneshamus ( talk ) 18:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC) THEWRONGVERSION . --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 19:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC) 30, 21 February 2024 (UTC) NOTHERE user welding a sockpuppet network. Also, excellent work, that is one of the best efforts I've seen from any editor to verify a hoax is true or not. I applaud you 👏 ASmallMapleLeaf ( talk ) 20:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC) Not a hoax, but not notable either way. Drowssap SMM 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC) “The Romay family is recognized by their ancestors, who were kings of Spain and France, and who are currently one of the most important and powerful families in Spain.” “Don Ricardo de Romay y Hernandez-Chazaro, 44th Count of Monterroso, 47th Señor de Cadro and Monterroso, who succeeded the head of the family in 2018 and is one of the most influential people in Spain. He lives with his family at the Palace of Cadro . Its construction dates from the 13th century, its tower from the 15th century and the rest of the palace from the 18th century. The name ""Don Juan de Romay, Count of Monterroso and Señor de Cadro"" is inscribed on the main entrance.” This whole hoax is insane and twisted. Who in their right mind would claim that Ricardo lives in the Palace and belongs to one of the most current influential Spanish families? There was a whole investigation done on this family and every sentence they have ever said was not true. The sheer audacity to come up with so many made-up names and outrageous stories is mind-blowing. This whole fabricated saga is so wild that it definitely deserves its own movie. I'm writing this up into a script just waiting on more testimonies from witnesses. So please don’t this page! @HouseofRomayhoax should be made or d. @ ASmallMapleLeaf @ Benzeneshamus @ Central and Adams @ Cyberbot I @ Gråbergs Gråa Sång @ DrowssapSMM Mariechristineh ( talk ) 21:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC) //es.m. wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Academia_Matritense_de_Heráldica_y_Genealogía ) referring to them as ""disparate,"" which means ""nonsense"" on page 25: http://www.ramhg.es/images/stories/pdf/boletin/boletin-126-127.pdf The House of Romay claims to be from Galicia, Spain and the local newspaper in Galicia debunks them: https://galiciadiario.com/web/frontend_cargar_noticia.php? id_noticia=121300 Yes, I agree that the sources supporting the hoax of House of Romay's claims are weak. However, it is important to note that this family is considered irrelevant to major newspapers, which makes finding larger sources challenging. The Romay name is not a known name in Mexico or Spain, and newspapers like El Universal have shown little interest in preserving articles related to this matter. For example, this topic only made it to a weekly ""tendencias"" section in El Universal. This was the article: https://web.archive.org/web/20240209193517/https://www.eluniversal.com.mx/tendencias/mexicanos-que-utilizan-titulos-espanoles-nobiliarios-falsos-casa-de-romay/? outputType=amp I believe we should create a page discussing the “House of Romay hoax”. Here’s why: Please review all the topics on the talk page to see how every single sentence was a lie designed to deceive others into believing they had noble and royal origins. Additionally, take a look at the old versions of this page going back to a few years to see how it was excessively exaggerated and fabricated, even going so far as to claim fictional characters ran the Royal Habsburg-Romay House and that the Romay family owns the Magdalena Palace inherited in 1995 (palace owned by Spanish royal family) and Palace of the Kings of Navarre of Olite since 1937 (a national monument). There is a whole book on this Romay hoax on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Fake-Aristocrats-Investigation-Nonexistent-Ancestors-ebook/dp/B0CQT9TN2S? dplnkId=b153d89e-0b97-4557-8c42-31053d5f4c66&nodl=1 @ Benzeneshamus , Regarding the two letters mentioned, one of them is indeed from the official Spanish nobility website’s email and the other is from the Ministry of Justice of Spain. If you visit the contact pages of both official websites and submit a message, you will receive a reply from these two emails. Official Spanish nobility website: https://www.diputaciondelagrandezaytitulosdelreino.es/contacto/ . And Ministry of Justice in Spain: https://www.mjusticia.gob.es/BUSCADIR/ServletControlador? apartado=buscadorGeneral&tipo=RC&lang=en_gb Both of them claimed the Romay family did not have noble titles or any noble origins: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diego_de_Romay-Basail_-_The_Fake_Aristocrat_and_the_Nonexistent_House_of_Romay.jpg https://commons.m. wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diego_de_Romay-Basail_-_debunked_by_Spanish_Nobility_and_Ministry_of_Justice_in_Spain.jpg An example of falsehoods still remaining on the page is: “Jose Sarmiento Valladares Arines de Romay” (1643-1708), 1st Duke of Atrisco, 40th Viceroy of New Spain “Romay” is not the Duke of Atrisco's second last name. This has been said in many news articles. Don José Sarmiento Valladares was the son of Gregorio Sarmiento de Valladares and Juana Sarmiento y Niño de Castro. He was the grandson of Luis Sarmiento de Valladares and Inés de Arines Troncoso y Romay, and the great-grandson of Juan de Arines Troncoso and Ginebra Núñez de Romay. Don José Sarmiento Valladares, who was a viceroy and knight of the Order of Santiago, never used the surname Romay of his great-grandmother, which would be his sixth last name. Additionally, there is no evidence that the great grandmother belonged to a house called House of Romay. Also this individual was not a “Romay” who also still remains on the page: José Alfonso Correa Cortés de Mendoza Ozores de Sotomayor y Romay, Count. He was the son of Don Alonso Correa Ozores de Sotomayor Alemparte Oya y Silva, Lord of Casa do Pegullal, and Dona Leonor Cortés de Mendoza y Sotomayor. He was also the maternal grandson of Don Juan Cortés de Mendoza and Dona Aldonza de Romay y Varela. His sixth last name was Romay. There are no known nobles with the surname Romay. While the Duke of Atrisco and José Alfonso Correa Cortés de Mendoza did have the name Romay through the female line, their connection to the Romay lineage was separated by six degrees. It is also worth noting that the military rank of Captain, held by Ramon Romay, does not confer noble status. Additionally, given that Romay is a fairly common surname, it is uncertain whether these three individuals were even distantly related. There is no historical evidence to support their affiliation to a noble house called Romay. Local sources: https://laexpresion.com.mx/2023/11/15/desacredita-la-existencia-de-la-casa-de-romay-y-el-conde-de-monterroso-por-la-real-academia-matritense-de-heraldica-y-genealogia-ricardo-de-romay/ https://nybreaking.com/the-rise-of-fabricated-aristocracy-house-of-romay-and-ricardo-de-romay/ https://ultimasnoticiasenred.com.mx/local/falsa-nobleza-desmentida-la-casa-de-romay-y-el-senor-de-cadro-por-la-real-academia-matritense-de-heraldica-y-genealogia-en-relacion-con-ricardo-de-romay/ https://www.ukinsider.co.uk/education/discrediting-the-existence-of-the-house-of-romay-and-its-false-noble-titles-ricardo-de-romay/ @ ASmallMapleLeaf @ Benzeneshamus @ Central and Adams @ Cyberbot I @ Gråbergs Gråa Sång @ DrowssapSMM @ Mariechristineh Limbonesao ( talk ) 01:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC) 39, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The answer to that question is simple. The horoscopes article won't get you killed in Mexico. Over the past few years, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) documented the tragic killings of at least 52 journalists in Mexico. Therefore, there are strict laws protecting the rights of journalists and freedom of speech. In cases where articles are deemed controversial, they are usually published anonymously or under the name ""redacción"". To delve deeper into this matter, I contacted El Universal today and conducted an interview with an editor who has been in touch with the Romay family (who will now be featured in my Netflix series). According to the editor, the Romay family has allegedly sent dozens of threatening emails and claims of ""defamation"". It is worth mentioning that Mexico does not have any defamation laws. So their threats to no where. Furthermore, the aforementioned article did not contain any insults or defamatory remarks directed towards the Romay family. Instead, it was an academic and genealogical investigation supported by dates, facts, and credible sources, aimed at debunking the noble titles and existence of the House of Romay. It seems that the Romay family has gone to great lengths to conceal their falsehoods. Even hiring a reputation company in London, who has no idea about Mexican laws and rights. Moreover, the article also did not constitute invasion of privacy, as the Romay family willingly made their lives public by creating Wikipedia pages in an attempt to deceive others into thinking they had noble and royal origins and lived in palaces. So they put themselves in this whole hoax. Mariechristineh ( talk ) 03:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"John Ronald Tovey: It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn ( talk ) 19:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The only information I found on him is referenced back to Wikipedia. Does not meet WP:GNG . Paulpat99 ( talk ) 21:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jessi Jae Joplin: Article orphaned for a decade. Pepper Beast (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Pepper Beast (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Journalism , Fashion , and California . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of the independent coverage is focussed on the band rather than the individual. Therefore the sources don't seem to support that the WP:NBASIC threshold is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"James Garcia: Article was d by discussion in 2007 and then recreated in 2014. It's different enough to not be speedily d, I think. Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS . – Muboshgu ( talk ) 00:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Baseball , and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , as per nom. - Samoht27 ( talk ) 19:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC) The various stat sites (baseballreference.com, milb.com), one scouting report, but that's about the extent of coverage. Nothing at length beyond confirmation of his playing days. Not meeting notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV . The sources are all stats databases or are primary, and a WP:BEFORE check didn't find anything better. Let'srun ( talk ) 14:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"IC 838: C messier ( talk ) 07:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC) it shows up in a few studies, but there isn't a significant amount of coverage. Praemonitus ( talk ) 13:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ali Alawi: Every Wikipedia that has an article on him only uses database sources, which do not confer notability. I can find plenty on Ali Allawi but nothing about the footballer of this name. Even his Goalzz page makes no suggestion of notability, only showing 2 goals from over a decade ago in the 'Syrian Youth League', which does not give me any confidence that we will see significant coverage. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Syria . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC) GNG . Jogurney ( talk ) 22:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Databases records and a few promo mentions, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). // Timothy :: talk 14:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2023 Ujjain rape case: Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Wikipedia is not the place for news. WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 19:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Per WP:NOTNEWS . This article hasn't changed much since October of last year, and I did make an argument around that time on the talk page that this would most likely qualify for deletion under said policy. I will not object to recreation if circumstances change regarding this case. Deauthorized . ( talk ) 21:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as per nomination. Sk1728 ( talk ) 14:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC) NOTNEWS . LibStar ( talk ) 01:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Empire of Kitara: This article conflates 4 things: legends of ""The Bachwezi"", a legendary group of ""ghost people"" said in the local oral tradition to have had an empire and then ""gone away"", (as an absolutely last straw maybe this article could be converted to articles on the mythology of the Nyoro people), the Kitara historical sites, which have been analyzed to some degree but are not the same thing, the Kitara language, and the similarly-named-but-completely different Bunyoro . There are no reliable sources discussing an ""Empire of Kitara"" (outside of sources referring to the Bunyoro, which are again, a whole other thing). This whole article is just WP:SYNTH . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 17:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Azerbaijan in the Turkvision Song Contest 2016: Except for ref #2, all refs are eurovoix.com. More generally, this is about a country's possible participation in a cancelled event. How relevant is that? See also previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of languages in the Turkvision Song Contest . Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 13:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Events . Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 13:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Azerbaijan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Relies on a single source and the contest in general is not notable enough to warrant a spin-off article on a specific country's participation for an event that was subsequently cancelled ( WP:GNG ). Sims2aholic8 ( talk ) 08:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bharatha Chaitanya Yuvajana Party: Sohom ( talk ) 11:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics , India , and Andhra Pradesh . Sohom ( talk ) 11:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sofía Mendoza Valencia: The only sources I can find are forums, the gerontology wiki, which notes her claim as unverified, and then a bunch of Facebook posts from her family. Although she may very well jave been 114 years old at the time of her death, there is no documentation to suggest such, and even doing sleuthing myself in the 1930 Mexican census of Michoacan fails to find any reference of Sofia in the Michoacan state. EytanMelech ( talk ) 02:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC) No sources found, in regular Gsearch and Gnews, and using . mx sites. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Mexico . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination and Oaktree b, found nothing about her online in RS including Gbooks, though nominator's search of the 1930 Mexican census of Michoacan is impressive. If reliable sources could be found, her name could be added to Oldest people or List of the verified oldest people . Note that not all entries in those lists have separate articles, and some are s to a list. Wikishovel ( talk ) 07:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"WRBD-LP: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 06:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Florida . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 06:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Completely unsourced and no evidence to suggest notability. AusLondonder ( talk ) 13:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Károly Konstantin Habsburg: WP:NOTINHERITED , WP:BLPFAMILY - relationships do not confer notability and they are not notable as an equestrian. D1551D3N7 ( talk ) 13:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility , Austria , and Hungary . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 20:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"The Published Reporter: Some of the references don't even mention the subject and the rest are either unreliable or not in-depth. CNMall41 ( talk ) 06:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Websites , and Delaware . CNMall41 ( talk ) 06:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The publication has gone through significant changes from what I know and for the record, I'm going to second the suggestion for deletion. Fishnagles ( talk ) 01:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jacques Masquelier: The only links are to Masquelier's own site. The article says almost nothing about him: where did he study? where did he work? what did he publish? Web of Science lists 89 publications for Masquelier J , but a high proportion of these were written by other people with similar names, and 29 were published long after he died. Web of Science gives h = 15 (not too impressive if taken at face value) but h = 7 is a more plausible value if one tries to correct for homonyms. Although this was supposedly a distinguished French scientist, no one has thought of posting an article in French: the only translations are German and Egyptian Arabic. The article was created by an editor who is now blocked. Athel cb ( talk ) 07:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't seem to have done this correctly. (This is the first time I've nominated an article for deletion.) It should refer to the article Jacques Masquelier . Athel cb ( talk ) 08:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems to be OK now. At least, it looks the way I expected it to look. Athel cb ( talk ) 11:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Science , and France . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC) You know that an article being a stub and an article not having a corresponding language version are not suitable for deletion, so I don't know why you included these in your rationale, as they make your total argument weaker. I think there is something to this article, but have not yet determined a ! vote. He seems to have been the creator of condensed tannin (Oligomeric proanthocyanidin), based on these obits ( [28] [29] ). His methods do appear to be researched by others, such as in this article in Nutrition Journal . Haven't yet made a determination on a ! vote. Curbon7 ( talk ) 18:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liamyangll ( talk to me! ) 00:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak The peer-review study cited and explained by Athel cb is of concern, but that's how research gets done, drug companies sponsor studies. The honorary awards are probably the best proof we have for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The article used to be significantly longer, but another editor removed a bunch of text as unreferenced. See this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Jacques_Masquelier&oldid=1044714873 Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 01:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Not just unreferenced. The edit summary said ""There is absolutely no source for these grandiose claims. The links are to a company selling Masquelier-brand snake oil."" I agree. Athel cb ( talk ) 08:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This article in a peer-reviewed journal shows that his work had a lasting impact. Weseler, Antje R. ; Bast, Aalt (2017-01-19). ""Masquelier's grape seed extract: from basic flavonoid research to a well-characterized food supplement with health benefits"" . Nutrition Journal . 16 (1): 5. doi : 10.1186/s12937-016-0218-1 . ISSN 1475-2891 . PMC 5248468 . PMID 28103873 . His death notice mentions two honorary degrees, the position of rector at a wine-lovers' association, and the position of ""dean of the faculty"" at Bordeaux (presumably the University of Bordeaux). Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. Yes, but notice that the authors of that article say ""This work was financially supported by International Nutrition Company (INC) BV, Loosdrecht, The Netherlands."", and the web site of that company says ""INC​ is the exclusive worldwide supplier of MASQUELIER's Original OPCs / ANTHOGENOL ® and MASQUELIER's ® FRENCH PINE BARK COMPLEX. Dr. Jack Masquelier is not only the discoverer of OPCs, he is also the inventor of both products' original production methods. INC's MASQUELIER's ® products are being made per the scrupulous manufacturing standards ""set"" by Dr. Masquelier."" Back to advertising, it seems to me. However, I accept that honorary degrees from Laval and Bordeaux are legitimate evidence of notability. Athel cb ( talk ) 09:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Week . I'm just not seeing independent coverage needed for GNG or WP:NPROF in the above conversation. In the existing article, the only thing that maybe gives a little weight to notability is being a dean, but that is not good enough for NPROF under Criteria 6. The only thing I do notice is from a Google Scholar search where Masquelier is frequently mentioned for identifying the compounds (though that's about it). That's flirting with WP:BLP1E a bit, but I think there's just enough to have a stub. If it is kept, I do think it will benefit from combing out the promotional or closely tied sources, non-MEDRS health sources, etc. I could switch to if the google scholar search isn't what it appears to be though (e.g., they turn out to mostly be health woo articles). KoA ( talk ) 16:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV . It wouldn't take much for a few sources to get this person past the notability bar though given what I have seen, but we'd still have to be careful that they aren't of the fringe or WP:PUFFERY variety if such sources show up in the future. KoA ( talk ) 03:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC) TNT . ""Masquelier.com your guide to MASQUELIER's Original OPCs health benefits"" as the main source?? Really? This looks like a blatant fail of WP:MEDRS and a WP:COATRACK to cite this non-MEDRS source. None of the sources listed appear to be all of in-depth, reliable, and independent of the subject. There is no real evidence of WP:PROF nor WP:GNG notability, and I agree with the ""snake oil"" comment above. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is very weak. I agree with drletion. Ldm1954 ( talk ) 12:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neither the general nor the specialized notability criteria are met; there is no indication that we need to write about the person rather than the compounds . XOR'easter ( talk ) 06:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC) The argument by David is sound that while there may be something here, it horribly fails any medical reliability criteria. Curbon7 ( talk ) 22:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"ITV Specials: Unrelated ITV programmes are lumped together under a ""ITV specials"" banner that doesn't exist. The subject as a group fails GNG. Dougal18 ( talk ) 11:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Television , and England . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 11:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nothing found about the topic as a group, except the usual databases and sites that mirror Wikipedia. Article has extremely poor sourcing, with almost all sources to a single special. List is too long to navigate easily; might be ok as a category but not like this. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I am not seeing anything to suggest that what is included here is ever routinely grouped together. Dunarc ( talk ) 22:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC) I don't think this is a banner, branding, or grouping that is actually used by anybody, much less ITV itself. (It also arbitrarily suggests that there were no specials of any kind on ITV before 2000, which is highly unlikely—if not outright inaccurate—for a network that has existed since 1955.) On top of that, is there any real reason why the six main ""types"" or ""series"" of music specials aired on ITV are only listed here, and not in the list of television programmes broadcast by ITV ? WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Larceny (Scheme implementation): Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A niche software without much recognition. killer bee 12:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dominant CZ: The page was obviously written as self-promotion. After restructuring in 2021 and renaming to DOMINANT Genetika s.r.o., it has only 10-19 employees (according to the Business Register). The page is said to have been translated from cswiki, but it has already been d there as well. FromCzech ( talk ) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Czech Republic . FromCzech ( talk ) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC) An article here gives a more detailed history of the firm's several restructurings (prior to the most recent restructuring mentioned in the nomination), indicating Dominant CZ was founded in 1998. AllyD ( talk ) 07:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC) An article on a family firm, consisting mainly of a product list referenced to their own site. Searches find mainly routine coverage (company listings, distribution partners, trade shows); the Redcomb Genetics item linked above is the best available but falls short of demonstrating notability . AllyD ( talk ) 14:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC) I can't find anything about this company outside of routine coverage. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 23:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Order of Accendo: The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism that is cited few times is just a generic and pretty short article on Discordianism [11] . Search of reliable sources (Google Books and Scholar) turns up nothing. Викидим ( talk ) 19:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Veverve ( talk ) 20:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Religion . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , sources are adequate and article was recently restored via RfD. Skyerise ( talk ) 21:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment is it just me, or is this in effect an edit war in progress that has spilled over into AfD? Jclemens ( talk ) 23:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC) Don't see how it could be, since the target has been a since 2015 that was just restored today. Unless you are referring to Veverve 's nomination of 23 Discordian s to RfD on 5 April as edit-warring, in which case, yes. Skyerise ( talk ) 23:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC) couldn't find a single source even mentioning this, not even the sources cited in the article give a single passing mention as far as I can tell (although I don't have access to the The West Australian article or Cosmic Trigger ). Shapeyness ( talk ) 10:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , perhaps speedily, as a hoax. Like other commentators, I can find no reliable sources whatsoever that so much as mention ""Order of Accendo"". It seems to be completely made up. Jfire ( talk ) 21:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - there is, sadly, a dearth of good, independent, secondary sources on Discordianism-related topics, which has the knock-on effect of making them non-encyclopedic. Psychastes ( talk ) 18:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC) nn since time began and not really worked. Fails WP:SIGCOV . scope_creep Talk 09:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was going to suggest ed to Discordianism until I noticed from the discussion there is a longer history here. The doubts about the verifiability that an ""Order of Accendo"" exists is convincing enough for me. Ben Azura ( talk ) 00:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Priya Hays: Potentially notable. scope_creep Talk 11:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Biology , Medicine , and Women . XOR'easter ( talk ) 14:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Our article explains that she moved from research science to teaching and communication early in her career, explaining the low h-index but also putting WP:PROF out of reach. She has several published books but I didn't find any reviews that might give her notability through WP:AUTHOR . And when the best source is a student-newspaper article about how litigious they think the subject is, available only through archived copies, WP:GNG also seems a stretch — it is an independent source with in-depth coverage of the subject, but of questionable reliability for its material, and not really the sort of thing you want to base an article on. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Low H index and only 137 academic citations. I also agree with all that David Eppstein said. Royal88888 ( talk ) 22:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC) NPROF. Shoerack ( talk ) 13:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Politics & War: The sole source here is its own non-independent website, and my BEFORE mainly found user-generated context which aren't reliable. This is almost an A7 but because the article is mainly about the game and not the website I don't think it unambiguously falls under web context, so am bringing it to AfD. VickKiang (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites . VickKiang (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC) GNG . An edge case regarding A7: since it's a browser game it does fall under the category of web content, but the claim of 6.5k weekly users plausibly counts as a credible claim of significance. Either way, this should be d. WJ94 ( talk ) 11:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does not demonstrate any evidence of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NO coverage at all for this game. for lack of sourcing, PROMO. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Article self-evidently lacks the sources to justify general notability. There is minor coverage providing more context to the game ( [13] [14] [15] ) but these fall short of establishing reliable or significant coverage. Vrxces ( talk ) 12:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Looks like a promo. Also, I left an Uw-coi alert on the author's Talk page. Deckkohl ( talk ) 13:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Douglas Lucas: Fails WP:GNG , WP:BIO and WP:NMG . WP:BEFORE search turned up many people with the same name, but not this person. The MySpace link in the Infobox only leads to a collection of music tracks, with the rest of the page lacking content. Geoff | Who, me? 04:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Kentucky . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , unsourced BLP which should have been d long since. Cabayi ( talk ) 10:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC) fails WP:MUSICBIO , unsourced BLP. Spinixster (trout me!) 14:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] for all the reasons stated by other editors above. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 20:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"88 (Arracan) Battery Royal Artillery: PercyPigUK ( talk ) 13:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or and to 4th Regiment Royal Artillery . Given its long history I'd be very surprised if there wasn't information out there. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Fails general notability. Based. Kashmiri (🗨️) 08:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd be interested in hearing more viewpoints as those editors advocating Deletion are relatively new or inexperienced. Is there more support for a or Redirection? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Freddy McKinney: This is the only notable coverage he has ever received. This article fails notability guidelines, specifically WP:1E , and should be d. wxtrackercody ( talk · contributions ) 17:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 15 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 18:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC) A burst of coverage in the last 10 days around his rescue of the family, but nothing outside that event found besides brief mentions in one or two articles for the last few years. Likely PROMO, but nothing found for this youtuber. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Television , Environment , Internet , and Nebraska . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Well, no, isn't there significant coverage of the subject here and here ? If we're looking for a person to be notable, then the sources should have at least several paragraphs in reliable sources. Here, McKinney isn't just notable for his rescue of a Texas family. There's coverage of him before that as per above; I think that with the enough coverage provided in the article's reliable sources, McKinney should meet WP:GNG ! ~ Tails Wx ( 🐾 , ⛈️ ) 20:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The first one is a bit local. Hopefully someone here can provide the link to the relevant policy on these not counting towards GNG. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 03:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC) GNG into question. These aren't much different than, say, local human-interest stories about a local restaurant owner, which would generally be insufficient to satisfy notability guidelines. Not really any good targets for a , so deletion seems apt here. — The Austin Man ( Talk ⬩ Edits ) 03:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak While I do know of him outside of the recent coverage burst, he honestly isn't very notable. MemeGod . _. ( My talk page , my contributions and my creations! ) 11:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nike Mercurial Vapor: 2) Fails WP:GNG . After removing a bunch of unreliable sources there are only four left and the four that are left I'm still iffy about. I'm only on the fence with them because another editor found an editorial staff member on LinkedIn. The sources left mostly detail product releases and that is it. They do not provide in depth coverage of the product in and of itself. A google search does not uncover any additional WP:RS . Pure garbage. TarnishedPath talk 06:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products , Sports , and Football . TarnishedPath talk 06:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to a new article on Nike football boots or similar, which would be a notable general topic. Giant Snowman 10:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, we need a to a target ARTICLE not a target Redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It was an article - ed - now restored. Giant Snowman 07:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I don't think it is impossible to have an article about a product line. For instance, a car model may clearly be notable for a page, but what makes it notable is significant coverage, independent of the subject in reliable secondary sources. From what I have been able to find, this is not the case here. The sourcing primarily leads back to advertising copy and product releases and lacks independence. The creation of a football boots stub seems like a bold move to provide a WP:ATD , but I don't believe that, at this stage, even the general subject has been shown to be notable. A to Nike, Inc. would be more useful at this time, if anyone feels is suitable. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC) , can you sign your vote please. TarnishedPath talk 09:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] done. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 10:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC) TNT . Not needed, Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Muhammad Riswan: The reason for all of the news coverage is the current frenzy around him;his Instagram reel had over 350 million views. Thilsebatti ( talk ) 03:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Kerala . Thilsebatti ( talk ) 03:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Dance , and Football . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC) ANYBIO -( Freestyler ) [28] ] A champion in WFFA ) and As such there are sources where the article is a WP:SPORTSPERSON pass, and Article as an Instagram record holder [29] [30] WP:BLP1E notability policies be included to this article, if it passes I think the article should be kept. ---- Owner of magical cat 🐈 ( talk ) 12:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since you wrote the article yourself, I would like to let you know that you are adhering to wrong notability guidelines. WP:ANYBIO states that the person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; or the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field or the person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary. Being a champion of World Freestyle Football Association is not considered a major achievement. According to WP:SPORTSPERSON , a sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The subject is not even a professional footballer. Entire coverage is because of his one viral Instagram reel ( WP:BLP1E ). Thilsebatti ( talk ) 14:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Entire article is based on a Instagram reel. Page is being used to show the record only. killer bee 09:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC) BLP1E notability potential ?? ? -- Owner of magical cat 🐈 ( talk ) 10:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC) You have wrong understanding about WP:BLP1E . It states that being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event and the person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Every single source is about his viral Instagram reel. You should also read Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill . Thilsebatti ( talk ) 04:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC) BLP1E notability potential?? -- Owner of magical cat 🐈 ( talk ) 10:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Non-notable, almost all references are about his Instagram reels. Kkb091 ( talk ) 18:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC) BLP1E quantifier of owning individual reels views on Instagram (405+ millions)? -- Owner of magical cat 🐈 ( talk ) 10:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry not on reels but reel. Kkb091 ( talk ) 18:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"SMA Negeri 5 Bandung: The articles on id-wiki is unsourced as well. The article in id-wiki showed notable people that are alumni of this school, but such things didn't show notability to the school. There are some passing mentions of the school - such as the school having events but it didn't show notability. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Indonesia . ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2023 Thatta accident: Onel 5969 TT me 15:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC) This is too serious. This can't fit into Wikipedia because it's not a newspaper . CastJared ( talk ) 19:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC) NOTNEWS . JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Pakistan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"UWC United States Championship: The promotion doesn't even have an article HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 18:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and United States of America . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fails GNG. LM2000 ( talk ) 12:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per nominator and LM2000. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 20:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Emily Wilson (gymnast): Although she is in the early stages of her career and has received some team medals, she does not meet the WP:NGYMNAST criteria which require individual medals. Also, there isn't enough significant coverage to meet the WP:GNG criteria. Mercenf ( talk ) 10:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , and New York . Shellwood ( talk ) 11:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC) Agree with nominator; fails WP:GNG . Only sources I could find lacked WP:SIGCOV . User:Let'srun 14:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - This nom is vandalism. 5 medals at international events for team usa... team USA website is as credible of a reference as they come. She is inherently notable. The published medal results from these events make her inherently notable. . Just like playing in the NFL or another major league. 69.238.162.225 ( talk ) 00:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] vandalism comment . Has tagged team the entire set of pages in editing war. . Both are from upwork. . He nominated 2 pages and didnt even leave the required notifications on the talk pages. This is vandalism. This user has over 5m views on his pages. . All articles are well referenced before they were attacked. 135.148.232.242 ( talk ) 14:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify to afford time to gain some notability. It is very seldom I suggest draftification, however I do think an article on this athlete may be just a little WP:TOOSOON , yet can't think of an appropriate target in the meantime (though i'd support either as an WP:ATD ). The next Olympics is a good shout, but is still a year away. Strictly speaking, as per nomination, she doesn't quite meet the criteria set out at WP:NGYMNAST yet. Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 19:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Doesn't meet WP:NGYMNAST or WP:GNG . I also note that the article is a product of paid editing and the article (and this AFD) are being edited by ipsocks of the blocked paid editor. - MrOllie ( talk ) 19:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've temporarily semi-protected this AFD due to persistent IP-hopping ! votes from a blocked editor. I recognize protection on an XFD page is somewhat unusual, but given the circumstances I believe it is the least disruptive option. If any legitimate editor has an issue, please reach out on my talkpage and I'm happy to discuss. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC) NGYMNAST or WP:GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 07:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Boukari Laouali: It’s all coming to me till the end of time 10:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Africa . Shellwood ( talk ) 11:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even the French articles are just about him writing a book, all appear PROMO. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Eternity's Crossing: BuySomeApples ( talk ) 00:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and West Virginia . Shellwood ( talk ) 02:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support if nobody can come up with other sources or evidence of notability. It doesn't sound particularly notable, and as long as the nominator took the time to look for sources that might demonstrate it, deletion is probably appropriate. It's a relief to see WP:BEFORE observed in the nomination—far too many articles get nominated for deletion without any effort to establish whether the topic is notable, leaving it up to everyone else to do the work for the nominator, and more often than not spending the day demonstrating that the subject was in fact at least marginally notable. P Aculeius ( talk ) 13:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Pavel Micheev: WP:NHOOPS might apply to ""played most minutes"" but, unless there is already consensus on this, I'd argue playing most minutes isn't that statistically important. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ( Talk ) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 20:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails GNG. If sources from another language could be found and verified, then maybe. But as is, he's not notable. SportsGuy789 ( talk ) 05:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Venus International school: No indication of the roll of the school although there appear to be only 16 staff suggesting it is small. No third party references. Need to find third party information - or question notability. Newhaven lad ( talk ) 16:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and India . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Upon my checking, I found only passing mentions in The Hindu and DNA , which do not provide in-depth coverage. Consequently, the article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP . Grabup ( talk ) 17:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Grabup's findings -- Lenticel ( talk ) 23:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Poor sources and per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL . RangersRus ( talk ) 14:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Signe Førre: Article creator is blocked indefinitely. Wikipedia is not the chronicler of every live gig in the jazz world. Geschichte ( talk ) 14:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , and Norway . Shaws username . talk . 15:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"XrOS: Apple has registered the xrOS trademark with no indication that it will be a VR operating system. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 20 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 04:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . xrOS isn't a thing currently, and there is nothing notable to say about it. Companies have trademarked all sorts of things to use in the future - until they exist, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. WP scatter t / c 05:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC) 19, 20 May 2023 (UTC) 19, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] xrOS will be the operating system created by Apple for its virtual reality system is plainly false. If the operating system will be called xrOS and that has been established in a reputable publication such as The Verge , then the article can be recreated. This is a three sentence stub regardless. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC) Hi everyone, I am the user that created the article. I've just edited a little bit the article itself, in order to for now my sentence of the OS belonging to the virtual reality area. I took off even a the relative category. If it may helps, let me know... LucaLindholm ( talk ) 08:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It does not. The article is inherently not notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify or . Borderline WP:TOOSOON , but this article's time will probably come extremely quickly, since Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference is approaching, and whatever OS Apple ends up running on its AR devices will certainly be notable. The rumors have been confirmed by a few RS by now [5] . Notability is admittedly still iffy, but unless the rumors turn out to be false, we'll probably end up just re-creating this article very shortly after its deletion. -- Tserton ( talk ) 15:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify and salt to work to the draft page. TOOSOON, as (I suspect) it'll surely pass N once announced. SWinxy ( talk ) 19:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 10:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify struck, see below until June 5 (WWDC announcement). The name ""xrOS"" was confirmed by Bloomberg based on internal sources rather than trademarks [6] [7] [8] , but this is WP:CRYSTAL . We don't have articles on future products unless the development process itself meets the GNG. Almost never the case, and isn't the case here. DFlhb ( talk ) 18:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Striking purely due to the current date. By the time the ""relist"" expires, it'll be Saturday. xrOS will be announced Monday. , pointless to draftify for only two days and potentially clutter WP:RMT afterwards. I've brought the article into solid shape with good sources; there's no resemblance with what was nominated. Do any other /draftify voters favour closing this as rendered pointless? DFlhb ( talk ) 12:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Article is speculative and therefore too early to exist. No substantial GNG can be met for something that wasn’t even announced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 ( talk • contribs ) 15:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Víctor Morales (Belizean footballer): Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 00:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Belize . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 00:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"CollegeDekho: Shellwood ( talk ) 11:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC) There are significant coverage from many reliable sources. Most importantly from [3] , [4] , [5] . These all are not routine coverage. Pentashantha ( talk ) 04:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per above. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 04:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC) NCORP . Unable to locate any WP:CORPDEPTH coverage in the sources linked above by the article creator. The WP:ADMASQ tone used in the article raises COI/UPE suspicion. Maduant ( talk ) 22:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a company therefore GNG/NCORP guidelines apply. I am unable to locate a single source (including the sources listed above which are regurgitated company PR) that meets the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 10:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Gas pipe clarinet: Mach61 ( talk ) 17:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions . Mach61 ( talk ) 17:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd have thought there was coverage and detail of this term, but I'm not seeing it. JMWt ( talk ) 17:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC) I can't find much beyond what are name drops [33] [34] , simply using the term. DICDEF applies. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Per nom GrayStorm ( Talk | Contributions ) 04:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ritchie Zanga: The only non-database coverage available online is the very brief transfer notice included as the article's only source. This is not even remotely close to significant coverage. PROD was contested after adding that source - even though it is not plausible SIGCOV. Jogurney ( talk ) 18:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , France , and Italy . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC) TROUT for misuse of the deprodding process. The deprodder did a disservice by necessitating an entire AFD for such an utterly clear-cut case. Geschichte ( talk ) 01:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No significant coverage. KeepItGoingForward ( talk ) 01:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Semi-amateur athlete and based on a single source. Fails WP:GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 02:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ridhi Arora: Furthermore, the amount of unreferenced BLP statements and need for complete rewriting to make it encyclopedic mean that a WP:TNT is needed in any case. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs ) 12:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , Television , Theatre , Finance , Maharashtra , and Uttar Pradesh . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC) PROMO. Zero coverage I can find about this person; only hits that come up are for a fashion show or designer. Could be a hoax for all we know. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Full of promotional language but no reliable sources . Mike Turnbull ( talk ) 17:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Absolutely nothing I can find to show notability. This could also be d as a webhost violation or moved to a draft. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm very much guessing these are likely the same person. Userpage appears to have already been speedy d twice but quickly recreated, I'll tag it again. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs ) 20:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC) 26, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Interviews, IMDB and YouTube do not establish notability. Press articles only do if they're from independent reliable sources. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs ) 22:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Daraja Press: Suggesting to Firoze Manji . IgelRM ( talk ) 02:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the article now meets the standards required to not be d. Grantennis ( talk ) 11:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please check the article now? Please advise if more sources are needed. Grantennis ( talk ) 05:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC) AELAQ. “Daraja Press.” The Association of English-Language Publishers of Quebec, 2023. http://darajapress.com . Alllitup.ca. “Daraja Press,” 2024. https://alllitup.ca/publishers/daraja-press/ . Radical Publishing Futures 5: Daraja Press, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=_64q7S7IB-A . Here are the books published by the publisher available on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/s? k=%22Daraja+Press%22 Here are the mentions of Daraja Press on Archive.org: https://archive.org/search? query=%22Daraja+Press%22&sin=TXT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantennis ( talk • contribs ) 05:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Of those 3, only Radical Publishing Futures is not a database etc and the podcast episode is an interview with the founder. IgelRM ( talk ) 21:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC) 55, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a book publisher - They are well known for their books. What are examples of sources from other publishers to substantiate relevance, that are not present here? It seems that the source requirements requested are incredibly high. If the sources provided so far are not enough, it would seem that most publishers releasing books primarily from minority authors from developing countries would be excluded from wikipedia. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantennis ( talk • contribs ) 11:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It might be possible to convert the article into ""List of books published by Daraja Press"", but I am also uncertain if it fits the criteria. The Manji article describes the publisher and maybe it could also be expanded. What benefit to you think having a separate article has? IgelRM ( talk ) 14:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for this IgelRM. This is an important book publisher for marginalised voices and ideas from around the world. At the moment most of the publishers on Wikipedia are only those that publish western authors or ideas related to western perspectives. Should those be the only publishers with their own articles on Wikipedia? Publishers, by definition promote their books and not their brand - that doesn't mean they don't deserve to be part of wikipedia but it means that when we make articles for them we need to recognize that the ""sources"" are going to be quite different. Do you see where I'm coming from? Eager to know your thoughts. Grantennis ( talk ) 08:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think, but Wikipedia as an encyclopedia unfortunately can only reflect what gets covered in reliable sources and not what one believe is important. IgelRM ( talk ) 13:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was replying to your previous point on sources and your question - ""What benefit to you think having a separate article has?"". The benefit is(, in addition to above,) having independent presses well represented. Would it be helpful to add sources to that point? Like: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/07/why-american-publishing-needs-indie-presses/491618/ or https://www.economist.com/culture/2023/11/27/small-publishers-are-sweeping-the-booker-and-nobel-prizes . These smaller publishers promote their books, not themselves. They are extremely important for writers and readers; providing a hugely important societal benefit from behind the scenes. Grantennis ( talk ) 15:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources added to the main article. Please advise. Grantennis ( talk ) 15:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, if sources have systemic bias, we have to reflect those sources. A ""List of books published by Daraja Press"" might be better as a category. — V ORTEX 3427 ( Talk! ) 14:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources added to the main article. Please advise. Grantennis ( talk ) 15:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering ( talk ) 04:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources added to the main article. Please advise. Grantennis ( talk ) 17:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. We need more participation here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC) 03, 14 April 2024 (UTC) NORG . I see only one source that might come close to meeting NORG requirements, [14] . Not enough. Jfire ( talk ) 04:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are many high quality sources on the article. It's not clear what your referring to. This is normal news-coverage for a publisher. Grantennis ( talk ) 20:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Grantennis , high quality sources are those that provide significant coverage and are not passing mentions. It's not enough to know that a subject exists and has been mentioned, they need to be the subject of newspaper or magazine articles, books, stories on mainstream news websites. Which are the top 3 sources that provide this kind of significant coverage? Because it's not about how many sources there are, it's about quality and depth of their coverage. L iz Read! Talk! 22:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – The article currently presents 33 sources, some of which are academic, such as Google Scholar. The user @ Grantennis seems committed to updating and maintaining the article in accordance with the project guidelines, I believe that the deletion in this case would not be applicable. Svartner ( talk ) 05:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I looked at the sources. Only one of them even comes close to the requirements of WP:NORG . The ""Google Scholar"" source is a search results page , and doesn't help the notability case ( WP:GHITS ). Some of the books published by the press may meet WP:NBOOK , but that doesn't make the press notable. WP:NOTINHERITED . Jfire ( talk ) 05:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here's a source assessment. Sources beyond these are all for individual publications of the press, so as I've said they don't matter for notability purposes. Jfire ( talk ) 05:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC) Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? Thiong’o, Ngũgĩ wa (August 15, 2023) ""With permission from Daraja Press"" ✘ No Pradhan, Pritika (August 3, 2022) Founder is quoted ✘ No Hudon, Roxane (June 1, 2021) ~ Publisher's association, Daraja is a member ~ Partial CL (October 28, 2020) ✘ No Repeat of #1 ? Unknown AELAQ Subject-provided copy ✘ No Fallon, Helen (2019) Mention ✘ No Malec, Jennifer (August 6, 2018) Mention ✘ No Yamada, Seiji (November 9, 2020) WP:COUNTERPUNCH Mention ✘ No Amazon.com ✘ No Google Scholar ✘ No RPA (5 September 2020) Member in list ✘ No AELAQ (14 February 2012) Member in list ✘ No RBC Member in list ✘ No LPG Member in list ✘ No MRO Self-published ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . as per the source analysis, none of the sources meet GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability of this company. HighKing ++ 10:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as per the source table above. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"1980 Buffalo State Bengals football team: Let'srun ( talk ) 19:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and New York . Let'srun ( talk ) 19:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems they were just a club team in this season ? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Yes, according to this and this they were a club football team in 1980 and moved to NCAA D-III varsity status for 1981. Ejgreen77 ( talk ) 15:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . As noted above by User:Ejgreen77 , this was a ""club"" level team, i.e., not a varsity level school team. To my knowledge, we have no other artices on ""club"" level teams. Cbl62 ( talk ) 15:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Volunthai: Their website - volungthai.com - widely quoted in older online pages and previously in their wiki page (until I removed the reference) - points to a 'free hookup' site. The organisation appears to have always been very small. Can't find any associated organisations that I can link it with. Newhaven lad ( talk ) 17:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , Internet , and Thailand . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC) It does not appear the organization exists anymore so if suitable sources exists, they will be hard to find. I searched ProQuest for the Washington Post and other sources mentioned in the article but those and others were all first hand accounts so WP:primary or brief mentions. The only source that seemed it might be secondary SIGCOV is ProQuest 308904716 , an 26 August 2003 piece by The Bangkok Post titled ""Building bridges"" but only the abstract is available. S0091 ( talk ) 16:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ann-Blair Thornton: Let'srun ( talk ) 03:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Beauty pageants , and Kentucky . Let'srun ( talk ) 03:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC) Only two hits, one talking about prize-winning hams [12] , then confirmation of pageant participation [13] , both of which don't really help notability Delete, lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC) BIO . Mooonswimmer 00:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sports broadcasting contracts in France: The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports , Lists , and France . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Unnecessary list. Shankargb ( talk ) 17:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Note that ""unnecessary"" is not a valid deletion rational. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Linwood, Iowa: It's the same story as before: we have no information about the spot except it appeared on an old map, which isn't good enough. There is no reason to to the township because the latter's article has nothing to say about the spot, which is, after all, because we don't know anything about it except the location of a name on an old map. We need to stop this lazy solution for making these s as they do next to nothing for the reader; we need to just admit that there's not enough information for an article and it. Mangoe ( talk ) 17:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd rather pages may be ed and links to them removed. I continue to appreciate your extensive efforts in tackling mass-created place articles, but there's not enough manpower to discuss each one of them. Even if not mentioned in the main article (sometimes perhaps it should be), leaving this record may be appropriate when there's at least some source on it, even if not enough for notability. Reywas92 Talk 19:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirects get AfDs closed because they satisfy the inclusionists, but the problem with these "" to the larger area"" pages is that they are misleading. We shouldn't try to trap searches for places we cannot tell anything about: in this case, we don't even have evidence good enough to say that Linwood was a real place of any kind , as we've found far too many such dots on maps that were entirely spurious. And while it would be nice to these s directly, often enough the people in the reviewing side force them to be pushed through AfD again anyway in order to get rid of them. I hate to ""waste"" time on this too, but if we didn't have these IMO bad AfD outcomes— or I could just stop caring about the matter at all, which is a state I getting driven to by the way some of these discussions go— less time would be wasted all around. Mangoe ( talk ) 20:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , as before. I've added a bit in the Summit Township article. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with Mangoe. We already know these post offices are sometimes not located in towns or populated areas. Presence of a post ≠ populated place. Sometimes the post office is just somewhere in the middle of nowhere central to several communities, and provides shelter along the postal route. The claim is that nobody can find any info about the location. I agree with that, and the claim we don't need to this to the township. What's the point in ing it anyway? James.folsom ( talk ) 22:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC) GEOLAND . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The sad thing is how much that same logic is repeated here in Wikipedia. It's shown on the 1905 map because maps don't get magically updated immediately that post offices close. Surveys happen at intervals of several years, rather. And then some poorly researched WWW site turns that persistence of a dot on a map into a ""ghost town of Iowa"". Uncle G ( talk ) 18:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Readers looking for the railway station that served the mine of the Linwood Stone & Cement Company, later the Dewey Portland Cement Company, at Linwood, Iowa, would likely be mis-served by a for a barely documented post office in the wrong county. Of the two Linwoods, the railway station and mine is the one that is in the history books, such as William John Petersen's The Story of Iowa: The Progress of an American State (Lewis, 1952). This should be a redlink until someone writes about the one of the two Linwoods that we have more than 1 sentence (""a discontinued postoffice"") about to go on. Uncle G ( talk ) 02:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The previous AFD was closed as in 2021 so why has this been restored? If deletion is desired it could be d at RFD. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 17:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Because, I suspect, over the past few months RFD has consistently undone such s when nominated there and sent them to AFD, to be nominated for deletion there. It's an enormous amount of bureacracy and buck-passing for what are in the main false articles misrepresenting long-extinct post offices as if they were current towns/villages. This post office closed over 120 years ago in 1903 and it has been open farmland all along. We've been calling it an ""unincorporated community"" founded in 1905 for 7 of those years. Welcome to how maddeningly difficult it is to clean up the GNIS mess and the geographic lies that Wikipedia has been telling the world for years. Uncle G ( talk ) 18:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] When a bold / occurs and that's contested yes but if there was a previous consensus at least at an AFD then they should be d at RFD. There has been some debate about what can be d at RFD but everyone seems to agree that article content ed/d at AFD can be d at RFD. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 18:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And yet it doesn't happen in practice. We cycled through this with a bunch of ""unincorporated communities"" that were in fact housing estates in California in December, for example. Even though the will is there, the actual outcomes don't reflect it a significant fraction of the time. I can understand why the nominator perceives RFD as just a place that sends things back to AFD when push comes to shove. You can read Mangoe's own words above. See also Lena Park, Indiana ( AfD discussion ) for how much of a struggle it is to even get places that never happened fixed. This is the nominator's experience. Uncle G ( talk ) 19:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC) Surely we have better things to do than decide whether this should be a or not exist; restoring the article just to have an AfD seems unnecessary to me. Its a plausible search term since it was at least once a post office. Kudos to Firsfron for adding a bit to the township article; credit also to Mangoe for indeed finding place name articles over time that should not exist. Also I am no Wikipedia parliamentarian but don't s get discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion ? ; I raise that point of order to also support my inclusionist vendettas. :)-- Milowent • has spoken 14:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the ""plausible search term"" argument died about ten versions of Google and Bing search ago, never mind DuckDuckGo. Normal searching will find the thing where it is mentioned; after all, that's what we do to write the articles in the first place, or to find out that the information we have isn't any good. And that is exactly why this has come around: people wanting to create s so that people will come to read what we have to say about the thing even if we don't have an article, but we don't have anything accurate to say! And as far as discussing s, it seems to be a coin toss as to whether RfD punts the discussion to here because the discussion is really about the article the replaced. Mangoe ( talk ) 17:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This is here before us now and it makes no sense to argue over whether it was brought here the right way. What is done is done. Plus, Uncle G made a damn good assessment of why it shouldn't be ed. It shouldn't just get put back to a because someone thought it was improperly done. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Sounds like there is a good reason not to retain the , and a good reason why sending this to RfD wouldn't be productive. We have no info beyond that this was named on a map, and it has no actual coverage at the target, so it should be d. JoelleJay ( talk ) 03:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kimo Sampson: JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Grenada . JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rotimi Williams: My before came up with little. Fails WP:GNG Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 21:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions . Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 21:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 22:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Joaquin Avila: Most of the sources used in this article are primary, with a direct connection to the subject. It was created by a WP:SPA back in 2006, and seems to have slipped through the cracks of review. It reads like a promotional article to an obscure financier, which is easily confused with the notable lawyer of the same name — Joaquin Avila (lawyer) . GuardianH ( talk ) 12:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Finance , and Mexico . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Plenty found for the lawyer, nothing for this fellow. It appears he's no longer with Carlyle either. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] existing sources are primary or just mentions and do not contribute to notability. Upper Deck Guy ( talk ) 19:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Probably need to review the articles of this author since it seems the purpose is to just advertise Yale alumni and staff. - Imcdc Contact 05:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Emerging and growth-leading economies: It's time revisit the status of this article and my view it's time to the article. The reason for the deletion is this: This is a flashy term coined by a company which has occasionally been regurgitated by low-quality sources. The article was literally created by a COI account working for the company. There is no sustained significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The purpose of the encyclopedia is not to advertise slogans and labels that companies bandy about to advertise their services. The term overlaps with terms such as Emerging market , Newly industrialized country , developing country , Less developed country and half a dozen similar concepts. The existence of countless non-notable versions of the same concept leads to articles of worse quality and wastes the time of editors. Since the 2018 AfD discussion, no changes have been made to this article to make the article of any interest to readers or in compliance with content policies (the article is solely sourced to the company's own documents). If there is anything worth ing in this article (there isn't), then the content should be d with any of the aforementioned articles. Thenightaway ( talk ) 02:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Chidgk1 ( talk ) 08:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics , Business , Economics , and Lists . Skynxnex ( talk ) 03:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Haven't checked earlier discussion but it makes sense to now. NavjotSR ( talk ) 15:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Theresa Bubbear: Appears to fail WP:GNG . Uhooep ( talk ) 10:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Bilateral relations , Estonia , Finland , and United Kingdom . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - Finnish sourcing appears very limited. There are a some interviews relating to NATO from the likes of Helsingin Sanomat [13] and Iltalehti [14] , but as interviews I'd heavily discount their contribution towards notability. Especially when the interviews are not really about them as a person, but rather about their (or the UK goverment's?) views about a then-future Finnish NATO membership. The rest of the coverage looks like the standard ""the UK ambassador warned Brits that it gets slippery in Lapland"" (no, that's a real headline [15] ) nothingburgers. That said, I'd probably be pushed to a (weak) by even one very good article about them as a person/individual. - Ljleppan ( talk ) 09:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] google news search yielded a few routine news mentions and the interviews that Ljleppan mentions above. But not enough to meet WP:BIO . LibStar ( talk ) 10:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Heights and weights of US presidents : In addition, we also already have Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Politics , and United States of America . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Di (they-them) ( talk ) 19:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC) This list is already included as part of the aforementioned article. Weight isn't a notable detail about these people, either. Samoht27 ( talk ) 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I simply created the list because I was unable to find any website that allowed me to compare my self to a US president. Also if we are arguing that this is trivial then I feel that US presidential nicknames would qualify in that category more than this would. I would also like a specific reason for deletion because I feel that it is currently based off of their being a similar article ( Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States ). I think this article is a valuable supplement as the Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States article dives deep into comparison of heights amongst candidates this article over the broader scope of the presidents general body size. Pickup Andropov ( talk ) 01:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How are US presidential nicknames trivial? They are often important aspects of the presidents campaigning, or important aspects of how the presidents are viewed in popular culture. Furthermore, there being a similar article is a valid cause for deletion, since such articles serve as a Redundant Fork . Samoht27 ( talk ) 19:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC) per nom. Reviewer here. I wasn't aware of Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States when I accepted the draft, which was my mistake. ""'[[ User:CanonNi ]]""' ( talk | contribs ) 02:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States , as this list is already part of that article. BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions ) 18:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We already have a list for height and the weight is a trivial aspect. The weight being included in the title makes it a bad to a list of only heights, so just it. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 22:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] for the reasons above. Ben Azura ( talk ) 00:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , I don't think height or weight are notable characteristics of US presidents. J I P | Talk 11:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as a fork of a list. Bearian ( talk ) 17:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Embassy of Egypt, Baku : There's just no coverage. There are some mentions of the embassy in Azerbaijani state media (like Azertag, Azernews), which are not independent from the subject, given that they are publicly-owned and tightly controlled by the regime (RSF and Freedom House give some of the lowest marks for media freedom to Azerbaijan). Pilaz ( talk ) 19:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Egypt , and Azerbaijan . Pilaz ( talk ) 19:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fails GNG. The last paragraph isn't even about the embassy. LibStar ( talk ) 19:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sara Caldiero : The article literally just says that she exists without even trying to show any evidence that she has any meaningful notability claims (e.g. noteworthy literary awards, etc.), and its sole ""source"" is an online bookstore, which is not support for notability at all. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to deep American resources (literary journals, etc.) than I've got can find stronger WP:GNG -worthy coverage about than I've been able to locate on the google, but ""the availability of her books in an online bookstore proves that she exists"" is not enough for a Wikipedia article in and of itself. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Poetry , and United States of America . Bearcat ( talk ) 14:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. No coverage at all for this person. No critical reviews of any kind in Jstor, or Gscholar. No mentions in newspapers, this is about all there is [8] , confirming she read a poem at an event. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC) BASIC or WP:CREATIVE guidelines at this time. Beccaynr ( talk ) 17:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ping, Washington : No information at all found about this place; satellite view of coordinates shows a rural intersection with a couple of scattered farms in the area. GNIS is insufficient for notability, as is the onetime existence of a post office. The place-names guide (reference 4) does call it a ""town"" but I have strong doubts about its reliability; it uses the word ""town"" to describe countless other places that were nothing more than railroad sidings or individual farms. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, here's why you can't always trust placenames books. Mr. Meany cites An illustrated history of southeastern Washington , and you can in fact download a copy from the LoC. And you will find on the page 49 that he cites a narrative concerning some conflict between the settlers and the natives, but no mention of Mr. Ping. However, on page 49 8 you will find the sort of hagiographic capsule biography of Elisha Ping typical of the period and of works such as this, and it doesn't mention this place at all or that he had any association with it. Also, there's the distinct problem that he was in a different county. However, on pages 548- 549 , there is a short mention of ""Ping postoffice"" under ""Other Towns"" in Garfield County, and it does line up with Meany's statements. But in reading the section as a whole it's clear that these were places that, by and large, didn't become towns, and therefore the post office evaporated. So, even the place that is supposed to be saying this was a town, doesn't really say that. And that's pretty much it. Mangoe ( talk ) 03:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also available as JSTOR 40473644 , which also says 49. One lesson of Artesian, Washington ( AfD discussion ) is indeed to follow up Meany's cited sources and beware of transcription errors. Uncle G ( talk ) 09:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC) You missed page 286 of An illustrated history of southeastern Washington, including Walla Walla, Columbia, Garfield and Asotin counties, Washington at the Internet Archive which points out that Elisha Ping's homestead became Dayton. Garfield County was Columbia County until 1881, by the way, if that's what you mean by Elisha Ping in Columbia being in a different county. The Dayton on Patit Creek is at 46°20′57″N 117°55′46″W  /  46.3491°N 117.9295°W  / 46.3491; -117.9295  ( Dayton ) some 44 kilometres (27 mi) away, which seems to contraindicate Elisha Ping and Dayton being this other Ping. However, the explanation on page 292 of how in 1875 Columbia County was originally going to be Ping County is illuminating. Elisha Ping and the failed Ping County are, it turns out, Dayton, Washington . Page 603 tells us about William Long, farmer and (relevantly) postmaster, notice. Uncle G ( talk ) 10:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Firstly, I believe what Mangoe says, secondly there are no mentions in any news paper in the area. There are not any sources in any of the usual places. It's already known that post offices in the 1880s were frequently place central to populated rural areas to better serve them and provide a place for the postal carrier to stay at overnight. So It's not proof of anything. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Measuring programming language popularity : AtlasDuane ( talk ) 19:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing , Internet , and Software . AtlasDuane ( talk ) 19:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - reeks of original research . -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC) NOTESSAY . This is the very definition of WP:OR . The thesis is here: ... that sum up to say Python is the top programming language of 2021. The rest is original research. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 19:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC) OR disaster. Take 'em down chief. IncompA 19:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC) 06, 10 August 2023 (UTC) OR . 0x Deadbeef →∞ ( talk to me ) 00:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment As evidenced by all the primary sources in the article, measuring programming language popularity is an active field of endeavor and possibly a notable topic. What we would need would be secondary reliable sources comparing and contrasting the kinds of metrics developed and how they are measured. There are secondary sources like [13] and [14] that take this approach, but I don't believe they are reliable. Hence I agree with deletion for now, but am happy to reconsider should secondary RS be found. -- {{u| Mark viking }} { Talk } 17:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC) OR, but in principle, it could be promising once the research catches up. Mason ( talk ) 13:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mojo Pizza : Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and India . Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 01:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I couldn't find anything other than PR sites. Pilaz ( talk ) 23:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak , no SIRS sources available in English, barely any non-trivial independent/secondary coverage at all, no CORPDEPTH. Best I found was a short mention in a hospitality trade journal [2] . Unsure if there are non-English sources. — siro χ o 01:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Gotham, Inc. : Found only one independent source with in-depth coverage: https://archives.lib.duke.edu/catalog/gothaminc . Flounder fillet ( talk ) 03:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising , Companies , and United States of America . Flounder fillet ( talk ) 03:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No evidence of notability. There's literally no content in the article, just a list. Sources are all press releases. 💥 Casualty • Hop along. • 07:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] really, no reliable secondary sources available. -- Old-AgedKid ( talk ) 10:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mangrove Institute of Science and Technology : Most of the references are from the institute’s website. The other link https://theorg.com/org/mangrove-institute-of-science-and-technology is from an internet directory. Wikilover3509 ( talk ) 05:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC) I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools , Science , Technology , and Bangladesh . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Pretty underwhelming in terms of WP:NSCHOOL to the point I don't think there's much else to even say here. KoA ( talk ) 14:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of participants at the Battle of Badr : blow it up. ltb d l ( talk ) 01:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . ltb d l ( talk ) 01:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Battle of Badr . A bit messy, but still not a good reason to the article. Plus the battle is already notable . Draftification can be an alternative based on what you gave. Brachy 08 (Talk) 01:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , History , Military , Islam , and Saudi Arabia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Nothing of value in this article, just a whole lot of non-notable names, even the blue linked articles are very questionable. Ajf773 ( talk ) 09:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Even if it were possible for such a list to be reliably sourced (which it clearly isn't currently, and almost certainly never could be), there is nothing inherent in mere participation in a battle that would justify it under Wikipedia notability criteria. Were such lists permitted, we could potentially end up with monstrosities like a List of participants at the Battle of Stalingrad with entries running into the millions. Not what Wikipedia is for. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 19:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Brachy0008. Shankargb ( talk ) 14:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , would be more useful to include in the battle of Badr page via a ""participants"" section or something like that rather then outright deletion. Noorullah ( talk ) 09:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A question for those proposing a . What source are you suggesting should be cited? Even if a list of this length were to be appropriate (I contend that it isn't), we cannot add it without proper sourcing meeting WP:RS requirements. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 09:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC) RS . Noorullah ( talk ) 18:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Two references and neither reliable. References for history pages need to be from a scholarly literature. The page fails wp:n . RangersRus ( talk ) 21:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relist to discuss the merits of merging vs deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 23:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I've got to agree with the main points stated above. Merely being in a battle doesn't merit a list article. Merging isn't appropriate, because there's nothing to : a reliable source, currently lacking, is required for each item to be d. Larry/Traveling_Man ( talk ) 23:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I've also got to agree with the main points above, merely being in a battle doesn't give an individual any notability, it feels very WP:COOKIE to include every person, and as AndyTheGrump said, articles listing the participants at other battle would run into the millions. It would be little more than a database . Shaws username . talk . 00:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jack Rankin (British politician) : Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG . Coverage is routine for any election candidate. AusLondonder ( talk ) 14:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , Conservatism , and England . AusLondonder ( talk ) 14:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC) Fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG . Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 15:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — they must either win the election and thereby hold the seat, or already have some other claim of preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them a Wikipedia article anyway. But the former hasn't happened, and the latter hasn't been shown here at all. No prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article now. Bearcat ( talk ) 22:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Draftification might be an ATD to consider here since this is a pretty safe seat for Rankin's party and this would be a good start to an article if and when he is elected to this seat. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 01:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think draftspace should be a repository for campaign literature nor a repository for articles on individuals potentially notable one day. AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Tamás Giák : There is a BOON article about him, but it's mostly just a long quote from him and the writer does not address Giák in depth. Nemzeti Sport has some coverage but it's just very brief transfer announcements like Egri transfer and leaving for Austria . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Hungary . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously d by WP:PROD , ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC) GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT . JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dejan Denkovski : Only one of the included references is still accessible, and it is not actual coverage, his name is merely listed on a list of casualties. Given that the other references are given the same description here, I would imagine those sources would have been similar. Searches for both ""Dejan Denkovski"" and ""Дејан Денковски"" did not appear to bring up any significant coverage on this particular individual, but I am bringing it to AFD rather than WP:PRODing it, in case others are able to find non-English language sources. Rorshacma ( talk ) 15:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and North Macedonia . Rorshacma ( talk ) 15:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC) GNG . Mztourist ( talk ) 04:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC) GNG . The article Oliver Petrushevski should likely also be d under the same rationale. Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 21:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Timber City Academy : A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. or partial matches. Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 12:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Philippines . Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 12:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] no in-depth sources in GNews Archives and GBooks for Timber City Academy and its former name Butuan Chinese School. Alternatively , to Butuan#Education as it is briefly mentioned there -- Lenticel ( talk ) 05:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. HueMan1 ( talk ) 00:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Zarulizwan Mazlan : He is mentioned in passing on his FA's website about a youth fixture, NST , which mentions him in passing in a match report, and Bharian , another passing mention in a report about youth football. His entire career lasted only 170 mins and consisted only of games for Terengganu's reserve team . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Malaysia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC) SPORTBASIC and WP:SIGCOV , as nom explains. A career wholly lacking notability. Anwegmann ( talk ) 23:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Joelyn Aimi : I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Oceania . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lineage of Ether : Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 21:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. I could not find any reliable sources about this subject matter. I don't know why this article even exists. StephenMacky1 ( talk ) 18:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As the nominee indicates, this subject has no secondary sources outside of apologists. Unlike the Genealogy of Jesus , there is little information outside of the Book of Mormon in regards to these individuals. Any possibly noteworthy information can be d to other articles. Rollidan ( talk ) 19:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC) NOR . Killarnee ( talk ) 00:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC) 08, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom and other comments. (Let's do Lineage of Alma the Younger next, please.) Trevdna ( talk ) 18:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"BetterMed : Sources are press releases and mentions. CNN coverage is not in-depth. My WP:BEFORE did not show a presence of NCORP-compliant sourcing. There is seemingly in-depth coverage in the Grit Daily article , but that web page strongly resembles sponsored content and is, in terms of form, a press-release/interview hybrid with the claims obviously being sourced to the company with no outside, journalistic, analysis, scrutiny or contextualization; includes tell-tale promotional verbiage such as What’s next for BetterMed? . — Alalch E. 17:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Medicine . — Alalch E. 17:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is not a PR repository. I concur with the nominator's evaluation of the available sources. XOR'easter ( talk ) 18:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC) CNN is a trivial paragraph mention. Rest of the sourcing used is PR. I can't find anything about this organization, there was a string of medical clinics with the same name that was bought out. I don't think it's related to this; rest is entirely PR items that I find. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Advert for NN company posing as article. -- Tagishsimon ( talk ) 21:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The company doesn't have that much coverage in major outlets but it is very notable. The CNN source alone should be enough to consider it notable. CNN is a reliable source as per Wikipedia guidelines. Evanzoe ( talk ) 10:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC) CNN coverage is not in-depth . It is not in-depth because it only contains one short paragraph about the subject. There's a second paragraph but it is a quote of someone from the company, and that doesn't count. Coverage must he in-depth for a source to count toward notability. There must be multiple such sources, not just one, and there are none. If there is no significant coverage in multiole sources about a company, it is not notable. So it can't be ""very notable"". It can't be non-notable due to insufficient coverage and very notable at the same time. ""Notability"" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. — Alalch E. 12:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify . Given that notability is not ruled out, but there are problems with WP:SIGCOV. Also, the page is new. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 14:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Voice of Hope : Not finding much on a google search. UPE creator. Valereee ( talk ) 16:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Texas . Valereee ( talk ) 16:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to draft space, mostly unreferenced and not up to article quality standards. - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC) OR from their own web pages, nothing found in my usual lists of Texas sourcing. The IP that contributed to the article is the church's IP. [38] Craigpanza only edited this page, plus one edit to add this page to Index of Texas-related articles . A web search returns nothing but their own postings, such as Facebook , which is average for that geographic area. Like most churches, they have a local outreach program for various things, but that in and of itself is average for probably the majority of religion-based organizations. — Maile ( talk ) 18:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Tetramind : None of the references pass the quality bar being typical PR generated stuff. MarcGarver ( talk ) 17:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising , Companies , India , and Telangana . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] rewrote the article, there's obviously little to no coverage for agencies, I contest, with its notable campaigns with Mattle & Sunrisers shows it. bɑʁɑqoxodaraP ( talk ) 22:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - non-notable company. After Paradoxodarap and Queen-ambi's cleanups, the remaining references are: [2] : an article about social media and affiliate marketing for the hospitality industry, which mentions Tetramind only once to identify the speaker in a short quote. ( WP:PASSINGMENTION ) [3] : the program of a youth conference which is used to support the finish results of a sailing team which the company sponsored. The company is not mentioned in the source at all. [4] : reference cites a marketing campaign with a shoe brand and a cricket team; article is paywalled but the company doesn't appear to be mentioned at all. [5] : article about a marketing campaign with a popular toy car brand. This article not only doesn't mention this agency, but mentions a different agency that the brand worked with. I'm not sure why this is used as a source at all. [6] and [7] both refer to the agency winning a ""Foxglove Award"" in 2017, also for the Hot Wheels campaign mentioned above. The awards recognize young and small agencies in India, and indicates that Tetramind won one of the organization's ""regional"" awards, a step down from their ""national"" winners, and shared a silver medal in their category. There were roughly 100 of these awards given out in that year. Googling just gives the usual business directory websites; no significant coverage whatsoever. Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 19:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Revert to Draft at this moment, a lot of these comments are seeming like a target on my back, I am moving this article back to draft and will later resubmit via AfC and let other admins decide it. Thank you everyone who took time on this. bɑʁɑqoxodaraP ( talk ) 09:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Moving a page to avoid a deletion discussion is disruptive ; I've reverted your move. Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 15:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose draftification per my comment directly above. This is a topic which does not merit inclusion; no amount of work here or elsewhere will improve that. The draft namespace is not meant for indefinite storage of draft articles on non-notable topics. Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 15:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per Ivanvector. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as demonstrated by Ivanvector the sourcing fails to meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. While moving to Draft is an option if the author wishes to address the sourcing deficiencies, it is not for the purpose of avoiding AFD in the hope that ""other admins"" will allow the topic. HighKing ++ 11:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per Ivanvector. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 13:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC) 45, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment as I mentioned it above already, please allow me to rephrase that. I have based my study and research on DDB Mudra and Savage Humans , the only two other ""agencies"" from India on Wikipedia. So, if I have it right according to my knowledge, either all three (DDB Mudra, Savage Humans and Tetramind) can stay or all three have to go. do give it a thought! Thank you :) bɑʁɑqoxodaraP ( talk ) 15:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Danish conductors : I can find no other list of conductors which is nation-specific. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 18:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Music , and Denmark . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 18:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as superfluous. Doesn't add anything (other than redlinks) that Category:Danish conductors (music) doesn't already provide. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 08:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per my previous PROD. Uffda608 ( talk ) 09:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Almost Friday Media : The only reference I can find that is significant coverage in an independent, reliable, secondary source is this (note 3, and it's an edge case for notability since it seems to come from VinePair's WP:TRADES coverage.). All other sources in this article, as well as WP:BEFORE sources offering significant coverage, are press releases or sponsored content once you click through, even the Yahoo Finance pieces. Other references on this page are to LinkedIn, the subject's own website or other primary/user-generated sources. One item of significant coverage in an independent, secondary, reliable source is not enough; we need multiple. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 15:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment , Popular culture , and Internet . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Agree with the Nom. We are nowhere near CORPDEPTH with the sources in the article or elsewhere. My searches find very little at all, and nothing useful. This fails WP:NCORP . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC) According to my check, I agree with the nominator. WP:GNG and WP:NCORP require multiple in-depth coverages, but I found only one in-depth coverage. Other sources are just press releases and promotional materials. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP . Grab Up - Talk 08:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Labor Order (Azerbaijan) : It's one of countless awards given out by the Azerbaijan government. Thenightaway ( talk ) 11:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 31 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 12:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Azerbaijan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sounds unreasonable to me to the article just because because it's one of the awards established by the Azerbaijani government . The civil and military awards of the republic are, of course, established by them. It's one of the highest decorations in the country — Toghrul R ( t ) 12:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Subject fairly pass GNG. -- Surə 🗯 16:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Would like to see one to two more editors contribute. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLA (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC) Fails GNG. Just because an award is from a government does not make it automatically notable. An annoucement that an award has been awarded is obviously doesno't establish notability. Sources in the article and BEFORE fail WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if independent reliable sources with SIGCOV about the award are found. votes provided no sources showing notability. // Timothy :: talk 06:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of FLOSS Weekly episodes : This list of episodes fails WP:NLIST . The show, itself, is probably not notable so a list of episodes is unreasonable. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 18:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 18:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (copy from the talk page prior to this deletion request) One of the most notable features of this list is the large number of luminaries in the Free/Open Source community that have appeared in episodes. Some quick examples: Miguel de Icaza , Randal Schwartz , Guido van Rossum , Eben Moglen , Jeremy Allison , Jon ""maddog"" Hall , Ward Cunningham , and many more . This alone should be enough to confer notability. However the thing that really makes it notable is the ability to see what other guests were able to be peers (in that they were also guests on the show) of the big players. There is certainly some subset (but definitely not all!) of these people/projects that are notable enough that they deserve their own pages, but have been missed by our community. Teeks99 ( talk ) 11:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But this isn't a list of notable guests on the show, it's a list of episodes. The episodes aren't notable. Also, nobody deserves their own page . Wikipedia has articles about subjects; the subjects do not have Wikipedia articles . Notability is what WP:N says, not what you think it is. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 21:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is very much a list of guests, they have a full column here, it just isn't how it is indexed. I would agree that without the guests/project columns this should be d. However, as I said before there are so many notable entries here that it clearly meets the criteria in WP:NLIST : ""The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable"" Teeks99 ( talk ) 02:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC) NLIST . TipsyElephant ( talk ) 02:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] no evidence of notability separate from the show (if that's even notable) and is completely unsourced. This really is a no-brainer . estar8806 ( talk ) ★ 01:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – as others have identified, the list is completely unsourced, and even the show itself is of dubious notability. Tollens ( talk ) 07:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Poojya Dr. Sharanabasawappa Appaji : Remsense 诉 22:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Karnataka . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Notability not found. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 23:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC) . This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG ; definitely does not meet WP:NPROF . Qflib ( talk ) 20:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Fails GNG and NBIO. Appears to be a promo bio by a follower. Article and BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth . // Timothy :: talk 07:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - possible G11 candidate. microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 16:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC) SPAM , WP:NOT , and WP:SNOW , and WP:SALT it. In 2024, everyone knows, Wikipedia is not a place to post a page about your spiritual guide . We are a non-sectarian charity, period. 19:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Screen Machine Industries : Zero non-promotional references. Maintenance tag since 2013. No significant coverage on Google at all. Qcne (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ohio . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] for PROMO. All I find are in industry trade publications ( [5] ), which don't help notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails WP:NCORP . Suitskvarts ( talk ) 08:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dan Russell-Pinson : Source eval: Comments Source Interview 1. ""One-Man Development Firm Finds Sweet Spot in Educational Apps"". www.gamesandlearning.org. Retrieved 2023-05-23. App review, no SIGCOV about subject 2. ^ Hodgepodgedad (2012-02-02). ""Stack the States App Review"". Your BEST Homeschool. Retrieved 2023-05-23. One sentence about subject. 3. ^ Ravindranath, Mohana (2012-09-05). ""App developers wary of children's online privacy law"". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2023-05-23. BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). // Timothy :: talk 21:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Businesspeople , Video games , and North Carolina . Skynxnex ( talk ) 21:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Non-notable, undersourced BLP. The entire music section is unsourced. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 14:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC) Mostly unsourced, questionable sources for a biographical article, minimal relevance. -- ProtoDrake ( talk ) 13:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nuclino : * Pppery * it has begun... 00:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and improve. A simple WP:BEFORE effort would have shown that this app has 40-odd Google Scholar mentions, some of them substantive. I have looked through some of the more promising English language articles and added use cases along with citations. I also edited the article so it's not so stub-like. It would appear this is an app with an active userbase and some longevity and it is likely people will come to Wikipedia to find out more about it. One comment - the ""discussion"" at Talk:Comparison_of_wiki_hosting_services was one user advocating for inclusion of another piece of software in the article, citing the inclusion of Nuclino as an example of something that should not merit inclusion, followed by a comment by User:Pppery about that other piece of software. I believe this is all good faith, but it's not exactly a lengthy conversation. Oblivy ( talk ) 02:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ... and then someone else deleting Nuclino from the article. I filed this AfD because I saw a consensus there that Nuclino was not notable, and felt that consensus needed to be ratified in the proper venue for making such decisions. I will admit that I failed to check Google Scholar before starting this AfD. But, looking at the sources you added, only ""Top 10 Nuclino Alternatives & Competitors 2023"" is in-depth coverage and I'm not convinced it's reliable. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I share your doubts about the alternatives and competitors article, but after looking at it I found it substantive in the sense that it identifies specific shortcomings in this software (as opposed to the many list-of-product tech articles which just include a blurb and a link to buy), which is why I included it. The other mentions discuss specific deployments of the software so even though the actual treatment of the software is limited the articles show it has an ongoing userbase. Oblivy ( talk ) 03:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia's notability criteria depend on depth of coverage, not the size of the userbase. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Software , and Germany . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Received some routine coverage in German, deutsche-startups.de , gruenderkueche.de . Could to some list with it instead of a standalone article, because the article is mostly citation overkill? IgelRM ( talk ) 20:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Of the sources already in the article: listicle, non-RS blogs, and passing mentions. (I couldn't find any mentions in the Workgroups eAssessment source, strangely.) I've also found a Russian-language source and a Czech-language thesis and a second thesis from GScholar which, while it isn't the primary topic, can be used to support factual statements. I've trawled GScholar and translated a bunch of sources (I'm a little surprised at how many non-English scholar sources exist). Most seem to be citing Nuclino's blog, while others give a surface-level examination of the site. What I'm gleaning from Google News results is that they are ""alternative to XYZ""/""comparison of"" posts. My digging hasn't dug up anything that would pass notability. SWinxy ( talk ) 20:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more go… Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . All coverage appears to be routine or surface-level. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Most coverage is routine and there's nothing especially notable about the company. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 11:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Coreeda : Most of the citations fail verification. Prod was contested with reasoning that significant coverage exists in books, good faith search found that is not the case. Spagooder ( talk ) 05:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts , Wrestling , and Australia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not seeing significant independent coverage to show WP notability. The art isn't even mentioned in a number of the sources. There are links to organizations with ties to the art, a single mention in an article about a wrestler who once studied coreeda, links to blogs and the Coreeda Association of Australia, and a link to a self-published book--but no reliably sourced significant independent coverage of the actual art. Papaursa ( talk ) 00:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kuwait and the International Monetary Fund : There isn't significant coverage in reliable, independent sources , as Kuwait does not have a relationship with the IMF that is worthy of an article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 22:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Business , Economics , and Asia . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 22:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC) nothing here notable enough to into International Monetary Fund , and the title is too unlikely a search term for a . Owen× ☎ 00:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom and above nothing notable here. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 12:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Michael Wallis-Brown : I reviewed all sources in this WP:REFBOMB and found no WP:SIGCOV in any of them or in BEFORE search; all coverage is WP:TRIVIALMENTION . Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 01:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - this is a South African business executive resume and nothing more. The entire article tells us his education background, and all the corporate positions he has held, but nothing about any accomplishments while holding those positions. — Maile ( talk ) 01:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and South Africa . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ziyad Al-Mutairi : My Arabic searches failed to yield anything about a footballer of this name and only gave me some coverage on a fencer of the same name. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Saudi Arabia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 14:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Taj Anwar : The only source identified so far that discusses Anwar in detail is the self-published iUniverse Rebel Moms book, which is clearly not a reliable source per WP:RSSELF . My WP:BEFORE search found only a handful of non-independent interviews in various outlets as well as a little bit of Atlanta Voice coverage that doesn't rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV . That's not enough for notability under WP:BASIC or the GNG , in my view. Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 00:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Georgia (U.S. state) . Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 00:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - definitely approaching notability, but most existing coverage is brief mentions or of marginal reliability. Does not meet any current notability standard. — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 15:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC) NBASIC . I did not find significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources on the subject. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rapid resolution therapy : Google scholar, books, news search turns up nothing. I encounter ""accelerated resolution therapy"" and ""rapid transformation therapy"" too, though. These all seem to be just marketing buzzwords, I cannot see a single news article or peer reviewed study or university endorsement/publicity. The only two sources which I could find to specifically refer to the term which wasn't on a therapist's personal website, was: - [23] Which has a link to J Connelley's website (which is flagged as phising by my ISP so I'm not going to check it). The article seems to ramble about a lot of topics, it is not peer reviewed, and writes as though RRT is a cure-all. - [24] . This one puts RRT in the same sentence as ""tapas acupressure technique, emotional freedom technique, thought field therapy, body psychotherapy, and biodynamic massage"". Sure looks like psuedoscience to me, and I cannot make out anything substantive about RRT in this article other than the author likes it, and that it can supposedly treat ""anxiety, panic attacks, PTSD, sexual trauma, childhood trauma, sexual violence, guilt and shame, social anxiety, rage and resentment, insomnia, addiction, and phobias and fears"". Darcyisverycute ( talk ) 17:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions . Darcyisverycute ( talk ) 17:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There might be enough coverage to the article but probably only in stub form with most of the content removed. I think it should really only state who created it, the intended use, and the lack of studies to confirm its efficacy. There are some references and books on Google Scholar and ProQuest including https://www.proquest.com/docview/1418171748/17C57E2356AB44A8PQ/19 to support inclusion however. - Indefensible ( talk ) 23:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to note, that source you provided is paywalled and I could not find a safe alternative download for the article. It does not mention RRT in the first few paragraphs of the visible free preview. It is also a magazine article, which are generally not subject to academic review. Darcyisverycute ( talk ) 05:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well this is quite the mess. It does not seem to be notable, and it has a promotional feel; further, the name RRT is trademarked; and the topic is as nom indicates close to fringe medicine. The sourcing is poor, and worse than it looks: 1 is RRT's founder Connelly's page on Psychology Today, so it is not a reliable independent source. 2 is about ""inspiring stories"". I found a URL for it and the text does not mention ""Rapid resolution therapy"". If the claim is only the preceding sentence then it is just off-topic; if it's the preceding two sentences (of the lead) then it fails verification. 3 is RRT's founder Connelly's book on RRT, published by ""Rapid Resolution Therapy"" so it is not a reliable independent source. 4 is about approaches in general, not RRT, so it's off-topic. 5 does not mention RRT, but the paragraph it claims to support does, so it fails verification. 6 failed to load, appears to be a dead link. Its title is on PTSD so the comment on 7 and 8 below probably applies. 7 and 8 do not contain the words ""rapid"" or ""resolution"". The entire paragraph they support is off-topic, on PTSD not RRT. 9 is Elsevier's Scopus welcome panel requiring a login, no use for anything. 10 is just a Google Scholar search, not a valid citation. It appears therefore that the article as written is entirely without reliable sources. The items retrieved on Google appear to be purely commercial. The items retrieved on Google Scholar are not much better, with ""helpful tips for counselors"", personal statements, and woo-woo articles such as Bowles (""For survival, humans need safety. Without safety, the thriving brain does not work to its full potential."") There is no sign of a systematic review as required by WP:MEDRS . We should this article as non-notable, probably fringe, and making unverifiable medical claims. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 14:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dingtone : Fails GNG, NCORP. BoraVoro ( talk ) 10:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Products , Software , and California . ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 13:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] nothing special about it to differentiate it from any other VoIP app; fails NCORP . Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk ) 18:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Hoipolloi : I see some references which seem to mostly focus on Shôn Dale-Jones so unless anyone can find something that meets the notability standards, I suggest and/or . JMWt ( talk ) 13:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre , United Kingdom , and Wales . JMWt ( talk ) 13:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC) PROMO . Most of the refs (mostly dead now) were to their own webpage. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 16:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Security Compass : Specifically lacking reliable sources. Brandon ( talk ) 22:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Computing , and Canada . Brandon ( talk ) 22:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC) NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* . ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject . I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 10:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ahmad Nasir Safi : He played at a very low level in Germany but I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV there either. Does not seem to pass WP:SPORTBASIC #5, which is the minimum requirement for any sportsperson. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Afghanistan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC) GNG per my BEFORE search. Jogurney ( talk ) 14:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Anne-Lot Hoek : A writer writes articles, so we really don't have notability. Everything else in here is WP:NOTCV. We have the publication of a book on Bali, but the grounds for notability for the work or its author are scant - vide being shortlisted for a redlinked prize. In total, we fail WP:GNG - despite the polish that has been invested here. Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 06:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC) I removed the links to her website, her publisher and her booking agent... Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 06:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi. May I ask why that is? E.g. on the site of David van Reybrouck they are also shown? 41.13.243.178 ( talk ) 07:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , History , Indonesia , and Netherlands . Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 06:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for including her on your list. 105.245.233.60 ( talk ) 15:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If it can be proved she is a journalist-in-residence at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study then she would likely be notable. It not the kind of placement that is handed out in a lucky bag. The prize she was awarded seems quite minor. I can't find any reviews on the book. Perhaps some in dutch. It took 7 years to write so likely notable. Its a major historical work. The article is a completely unsourced, but could be trimmed if a source could be found for the placement. There is likely dutch language refs that could found. I think on the whole she will probably be notable. scope_creep Talk 10:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC) https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2021/11/25/dit-boek-doet-gruwelijke-onthullingen-over-de-geheime-nederlandse-gevangenissen-op-bali-a4066801 105.245.233.60 ( talk ) 14:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The book De strijd om Bali was also chosen by Dutch prize winning author Adriaan van Dis as the book that has most influenced him (more than any other novel or scientific book he ever read on the subject). He explains this in the Rudy Kousbroek lecture. https://www.atlascontact.nl/2023/11/03/de-kolonie-mept-terug-10e-rudy-kousbroeklezing-door-adriaan-van-dis/ 105.245.233.60 ( talk ) 14:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC) 32, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added some news coverage of her book. (I'm not personally familiar with finding scholarly sources in this field – I feel that would be better to look for). This 2015 article in the NRC opinion supplement, on the violent history of the Dutch East Indies and looking back at this period in history in the present, generated a response in NRC ( alternative link ) from Gert Oostindie , director of the Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies . Bridget (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC) 04:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . A journalist who has penned down one book. The setup of the article in English and Dutch is misleading and double-dipping. From all I could find, the nominator stands correct in this nomination! gidonb ( talk ) 14:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear sir/madam, it is not intended as double dipping but meant to make them available to a wider audience. The lage landen (renowned magazine in Belgium) made the translations into French and English in separate magazines due to their significance. 105.245.233.60 ( talk ) 14:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does source 5 not make her notable? She was nominated for the ""De Libris history prize"", which seems to be a big deal. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not really IMHO - the bluelinked Libris Prize is a prize for novels, the history prize isn't this. Additionally, the novel was shortlisted, not a winner. WP:BOOKCRIT tells us, ""the book has won a major literary award."" My bold! Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The prize is a big deal in the Netherlands, also being shortlisted from 230 books into the top 5 (which also receives prize money). There is a Dutch Wikipedia page for the Libris History Prize (Libris Geschiedenis Prijs). It is the top prize for non-fiction. The top 5 is widely promoted in the country. 105.245.233.60 ( talk ) 14:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC) based on the discussion of the award and lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear sir/madam, With all respect, the argument she has only written one book I believe doesn’t hold. She worked on it for seven years and was chosen as one of the best 5 history books of 2022 of the Netherlands. There is a fiction prize (Libris) and a non-fiction prize (Libris History Prize). In addition she writes for national newspapers. The fact there are translations of articles is not to blow things up but because a well known publisher in Belgium (de lage landen) has published those articles in multiple languages due to their significance. It makes them also accessible to people from multiple countries. In case you have more questions please let me know. Kind regards and thank you for your non-paid effort to optimize Wikipedia! Kind regards, Ewout — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.245.233.60 ( talk ) 13:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The bar is higher than that. Plus the argument she has only written one book does hold. It would not hold if she had published a number of books different from one. The long work on the book was mostly the author's PhD studies and her dissertation research/writing. A well-received book is a career accomplishment. Let's appreciate that and not make it more than it is! gidonb ( talk ) 01:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Gideon, I am sorry, I didn’t know it was that important to add other books she also published and contributed to as well. I have added a range now, including books in Belium and the UK. 41.13.243.178 ( talk ) 07:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, Anon. I will give this another look, given the additional information! gidonb ( talk ) 11:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"RC Qanot : I can't see any evidence of WP:GNG and the only reference used is a forum post, which is an unacceptable source. I can't find any significant coverage in the Latin or Cyrillic alphabets in my own searches. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and Uzbekistan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Left guide ( talk ) 06:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC) GNG , no suitable here per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Shakir Hasanov : Thenightaway ( talk ) 12:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Engineering , and Azerbaijan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jessica Fortin : A412 ( Talk • C ) 07:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . A412 ( Talk • C ) 07:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Not remotely near a pass of WP:Prof . Created by an spa. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 08:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] agreed, probably nothing wrong with her as an early-career scientist, but way too soon for an article, doesn't meet NPROF. Elemimele ( talk ) 08:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine , Canada , Indiana , and Michigan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC) //scholar.google.com/citations? user=YGcW8CEAAAAJ isn't especially notable, seems like WP:TOOSOON at best. - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 13:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Promising early career with some awards, but too soon. -- Jaireeodell ( talk ) 15:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Swayambhar Public Library : Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unsure - I'm inclined to believe that libraries are generally notable, particularly in countries where there are not many of them. There appears to be a few Bengali news reports (fwiw I don't have full access to relevant sources) but there may be questions about independence of those sources so I'm not offering them for consideration here. Also this from bn.wiki appears to be a deletion page, perhaps indicative of something. I think we really need people who can read the language to have a proper AfD discussion here. JMWt ( talk ) 11:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - This is not a public meaning government-owned library but a private library open to the public. From the photo, it would seem to be a small, possibly one-room, library. Bn Wiki d it as A7. The library has no coverage and does not even show up on Google Maps. There is nothing to suggest notability of any kind. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 10:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] a private library open to the public . Now there are thousands of libraries not clear how this one is notable fails WP:GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 03:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of FIA World Endurance Championship broadcasters : All the sources are WP:PRIMARY ; all but one is by fiawec.com and the other one is from Discovery+. Not a single reliable third party source. Fails WP:LISTN . In short, WP:NOTDIRECTORY . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Motorsport , and Lists . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC) 17, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Obviously non-notable list. 5225 C ( talk • contributions ) 09:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mad Wax: The Surf Movie : The only notability claim in evidence here is that the film exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of a WP:GNG -worthy volume of third-party media coverage about the film to externally validate its significance -- but the sourcing consists of two directory entries that aren't support for notability at all, and one short blurb on a blog that doesn't represent enough coverage to vault this over GNG all by itself. In fact, I strongly suspect that this was really meant as a WP:COATRACK for the soundtrack album, since the creator's edit history pertains much more strongly to music (including the band credited with the soundtrack's creation) than it does to film -- but albums aren't ""inherently"" notable just because they exist either , and still have to be shown to have GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about them, but absolutely none of the sourcing here addresses any potential notability under WP:NMUSIC either. Nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt this film, or its soundtrack album, from having to be the subject of quite a bit more media coverage and analysis than this. Bearcat ( talk ) 13:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Music , and Australia . Bearcat ( talk ) 13:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC) Found a few articles that may be enough to establish notability: [4] [5] WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC) MEDIUM , and the Forte link isn't taking me to an article about this film, but just to a blank page that s feeding me ""recommended"" other articles it wants me to read. Bearcat ( talk ) 12:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Forte link does dwell upon the film and is signed (John Foss). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not only a COATRACK for the soundtrack, but it was certainly also made as an infomercial for the surfboard manufacturer's products, as most surf and ski films are. Nate • ( chatter ) 16:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Sources exist: https://www.surfertoday.com/surf-movies/mad-wax-the-surf-movie https://www.surferrule.com/mad-wax-the-surf-movie/ https://www.surf30.net/2020/01/mad-wax-la-parafina-magica.html mentions in studies on surf films: https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1994/940602/06020042.htm ; https://filmlexikon.uni-kiel.de/doku.php/s:surfenimfilm-2483 - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We're not looking for blogs, directory entries or glancing namechecks of its existence in lists, we're looking for analytical coverage about the film in reliable sources . Bearcat ( talk ) 21:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Add. The film is repeatedly presented as a cult-classic of its genre. See: https://campaignbrief.com/world-wide-minds-ben-nott-pays/； https://surfingworld.com.au/watching-making-surfing-motion-pictures/ ； https://www.theinertia.com/gear/altra-olympus-5-hike-low-gtx-hiking-shoe-review/ , https://www.surfertoday.com/surfing/the-magical-surf-wax-with-teleporting-powers etc. There are many other sources. This film seems clearly notable and I will leave it at that. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) Comment But are there any sources outside of the surf industry? That's what's more important; we don't want circular references. Nate • ( chatter ) 16:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Circular references is a valid concern, but sources being industry specific is not, only reliability matters for sources. ★Trekker ( talk ) 18:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC) GNG -worthy at all. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Sure, there is a source for the film's release and its spinoff. But what about the soundtrack? As of now, I don't see it. Also, because of Wikipedia's demand for sources, just having one clearly isn't enough. HarukaAmaranth ( 話 ) 02:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] IMDB is the first in google search, then a surf website, then pinterest and amazon. There is nothing to be found for this film, making it non-notable. for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Fails NF; clearly not notable at all! Ekdalian ( talk ) 14:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Hammy Down Versace : Clarityfiend ( talk ) 04:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] zero sourcing found. It's all about anything related to Versace (the brand). If he was an artist to watch in 2014, then nothing's happened since, he isn't notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC) 48, 11 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Illinois , and Wisconsin . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - In 2014, he announced in every conceivable social media and self-promotional outlet that he was entering the studio to record a song. Then what happened? Nothing. In other words, he doesn't even have one single recording. Not even any social media chatter since that fateful day 9 years ago. It's hard to imagine anyone less notable than this. I wonder what he's doing today... wait, no I don't. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Promo Nonescence. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips ( talk ) 00:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Behnke Ranch : Possible WP:ATD of / to Hines Interests Limited Partnership but I am not sure it really fits in that article. Boleyn ( talk ) 17:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 17:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems the development of the ranch basically got absorbed as a development. A ranch usually becomes its own thing like Lakewood Ranch or Wellen Park . Going to say as it appears that the ranch ceases to exist. [4] [5] – The Grid ( talk ) 20:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC) COATRACK for the relatively young neighborhood. Mangoe ( talk ) 03:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nonnotable ranch getting made into a nonnotable house development. Why do we need this on Wikipedia? James.folsom ( talk ) 01:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Peter Kolomiets : The sources are not enough to establish notability Waterproof fish ( talk ) 11:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] it as the article is nominated by one of Bodiadub's socks. I’m also asking to do a check on User:Hypeconomist , user:Shefeditor along with the user:Waterproof fish account. All accounts are united by the fact that they have a small number of edits. All three accounts remove the same information from the article, which is related to Global Ledger company. I ask the User:MER-C checkuser to pay attention to this information. Король мавп ( talk ) 11:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , Israel , and Ukraine . UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"TV5 Užice : Fails GNG beyond citing itself as source. Iljhgtn ( talk ) 20:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Serbia . Shellwood ( talk ) 20:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails WP:BROADCAST as an non-notable TV network with extremely localized coverage. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 18:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Adnan al-Bakkour : Nothing notable here as far as I can see. Aintabli ( talk ) 21:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Law , and Syria . Aintabli ( talk ) 21:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . There are other means to find information than Google. Geschichte ( talk ) 22:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course! By ""Google search,"" I mean I also checked publications other than news articles such as books, and there isn't anything that passes WP:NBIO . As evident from the article's history, the content (1 sentence, 26 words) did not change for more than a decade, because the subject is only notable for their resignation, nothing else. Aintabli ( talk ) 23:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC) NPOL , as an attorney general of the Hama Governorate . SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC) international, Not an international position. national, Not a national-level but local position. or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. Syria is not a federal state. Aintabli ( talk ) 00:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough, striking vote. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This was previously WP:PROD 'd and isn't eligible for soft deletion. Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering ( talk ) 02:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Raybak Melk Abdesselem : He won only junior championships which doesn't show notability, 3 articles in Wikipedia are paid PR and blacklisted by Wikipedia. Calling @Rosguill who AFD'ed previously. The person who created this article has changed the name from Raybak Abdesselem to Raybak Melk Abdesselm and it was created by sock puppets who are banned. The Athlete doesn't pass the notability Wprep ( talk ) 17:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 15 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So, while this doesn't meet G4 as the article text and sources are different from the past revision, it does meet G5 as a creation by IntelisMust , a blocked sockpuppet, with only cosmetic edits (and a reverted addition by an IP) since then. I'll let another admin swing the axe as I am nominally involved by way of the past AfD. signed, Rosguill talk 17:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Martial arts , and France . Shellwood ( talk ) 17:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and Salt per reasons listed in both this, and previous AFDs. Youth and regional titles don't demonstrate notability. Nswix ( talk ) 19:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Non notable athlete with no independent coverage found and upon checking I have seen sock-puppets were involved in making his page which was d and another sock puppet recreated this to divert attention of Wiki editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.190.110.20 ( talk ) 20:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No sign of notability all are mentions as he won junior championships, I agree with OP, per nom. I found 3 websites on Google with paid disclosure about Raybak which he has paid to write for himself. -- JanAminK ( talk ) 09:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Junior martial arts events do not show WP notability. I see no success as an adult that would support a claim of notability. My search did not find examples of significant independent coverage that would meet WP:GNG . Results, databases, and passing mentions are not enough. Papaursa ( talk ) 02:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and salt as per Nswix. Lethweimaster ( talk ) 14:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Berea, Kansas : There is a source saying there was a post office that closed in 1870. Otherwise, I can't find any evidence of this town existing (if you look for sources, be wary of Berea, Kentucky). Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 23:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions . Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 23:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Bowling Green, Kansas , Hackett, Kansas , McCandless, Kansas , Pansy, Kansas , Shermansville, Kansas , Dennison, Kansas , Forrest Home, Kansas , Pleasant Hill, Kansas , Garlington, Kansas , Coburn, Kansas , and Greenwood, Kansas . Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 23:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is probably best not to bundle those, even though they are currently all boilerplate GNIS mess dren that turns post offices into ghost towns with zero sourcing other than that unreliable GNIS computer database. You've picked the one article to nominate that is different to all of those others in its edit history. Uncle G ( talk ) 10:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unbundled per Uncle G. The others have been moved to this conversation . Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 19:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's definitely some evidence of existence in newspapers, for example this newspaper clipping from The Evening Herald in 1905 (and there's a few more of that same variety). Likewise with this clipping from The Greeley News in 1882. Can't find any good coverage of the town itself but these sources should prove its existence for a non-trivial period of time. Elli ( talk | contribs ) 02:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There was at least a church as well. [1] Well there's always the source that the article was reportedly copied from: Raitinger, Laine (March 2012). ""Berea, Franklin County"". Chapman Center Research Collections . hdl : 2097/41054 . Uncle G ( talk ) 09:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The abstract of the Book states the town was short lived, which suggest non-notability. The book claims that the people and institutions that form there were notable. But that notability is not transferable to the town. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC) https://krex.k-state.edu/bitstream/handle/2097/41054/2a40590251c95941ce77b68746e2adc2.pdf? sequence=1 . If this is a valid secondary source, then someone could write an article that might be compliant with policy. I think there are still questions around if the coverage is sustained and widespread. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I find I'm unsure, the ghost town is listed on a ghost town Website as well. But beyond that and that book, that seems to be it. The material in the book is suggests it could be notable, so it all swings on that. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC) the location is ""Berea Cemetery "", presumably attached to the apparently former church. We've had a great deal of trouble dealing with the many Kansas 4th class post offices out of insistence that they are nonetheless ""communities"", but in this case we don't even know where the post office or church really were. I really don't think we should have articles on these places unless there is some evidence of an actuall settlement as opposed to a locale defined by a post office. Mangoe ( talk ) 20:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC) I believe we've demonstrated evidence of an ""actual settlement"" here? I'm not sure what else you're looking for to demonstrate that. Elli ( talk | contribs ) 21:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I read the whole book, and I think the only potentially notable thing is the slave underground railroand stop that was there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.folsom ( talk • contribs ) 00:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have not been able to find any mention of this place in the underground railroad literature. Though Franklin County was a hot spot in Kansas Underground railroad history. It was probably a stop on that railroad. It's going to be real hard to find anything. It's best that any articles on the counties role in the Underground railroad deal with this one source. James.folsom ( talk ) 00:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Newspapers.com turns up mentions of the churches – two tiny snippets about the first church erected by the United Presbyterians in 1858 and the presbytery of nearby Garnett meeting at Berea – plus a second advent (Millerite) being organized in a large mission tent in Berea in 1873 . There are passing mentions of people who lived there including a man who committed suicide and another young man who was declared insane, plus others. Anyway, doesn't meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG . Cielquiparle ( talk ) 01:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC) no significant coverage. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 19:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri (TV series) : — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 19:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 19:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC) NTV series meets WP:GNG , substantial sources, free images available on Google search. Have million of views on YouTube . Popular in South Asian region as well. Rather than WP:AfD , should have been tagged for ""Additional Citations"". Sameeerrr ( talk ) 10:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet ) THREE best coverage that you believe is sufficient to meet GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 10:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - The only references that discuss it at length are NEWSORGINDIA so not reliable. Having ""free images available on Google Search,"" ""million of views on YouTube,"" or ""popular in South Asian region"" is not a policy based reason to . @ Sameeerrr : , I would invite you to add the ""additional citations"" you feel it should be tagged for. If you are able to do so I will take a look as maybe I missed something in my search. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 16:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC) 09, 16 May 2024 (UTC) NEWSORGINDIA as they are all churnalism with the exception of one. Looking closer, this page looks more like a way to promote a film for Khushhal Khan (actor) , not surprisingly both pages were heavily worked on by undisclosed paid editors. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC) RS . Not sure if it's a way to promote XYZ actor or promotion by a UPE. I added ""Additional Citation"" which I was asked for. Sameeerrr ( talk ) 20:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC) NEWSORGINDIA . I am questioning which SPECIFIC link does not fall under that criteria. These are all reliable publications but the specific sources are not. There is a difference when evaluating that guideline. Also note that adding more sources is not helping as it only clutters the page and those attempting to evaluate. It is the quality of the sources that matter. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 22:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC) NEWSORGINDIA isn't what I'm concerned about, that's your opinion and I respect it. IMO, sources added are adequate enough to establish WP:GNG . Sameeerrr ( talk ) 09:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC) 52, 17 May 2024 (UTC) 23, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't ask you to change your vote @ CNMall41 . Sameeerrr ( talk ) 18:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"University Scholars : I don't think the programme has stand-alone notability; and a to the charter school wouldn't be appropriate because there are many similarly titled initiatives at other institutions. Cheers, gnu 57 15:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Pennsylvania . gnu 57 15:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the nominator has it right. Searching for potential sources finds unusable web churn , the occasional passing mention of the program in a news story about something else [6] , and a government document [7] . Nothing is what I'd call suitable. Given these sources, it would be hard to say anything about this program in the article about the school, let alone have an article on the program by itself. XOR'easter ( talk ) 18:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I fully agree with the above. -- Bduke ( talk ) 05:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kiboy (gamer) : 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games . 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The article has sources, and searching for this guy brings up a few more (e.g. 1 2 3 ). The names pops up in dozens of articles, most of them in Indonesian, and while I don't think that those are all pristine sources, ""Obviously fails GNG"" would only be a valid complaint if there were no sources at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador ( talk • contribs ) 13:11, June 30, 2024 (UTC) Excuse you? the three sources you've given are not reliable. 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 06:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those sources would not be sufficient. I'd recommend looking more into things listed as reliable at WP:VG/S or WP:RSP . Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those two sites list few to no Indonesian sources, so they aren't very helpful here. Also, reliability doesn't require a source to be listed there. Cortador ( talk ) 15:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I did not suggest otherwise. But this is a WP:BLP . It requires sourcing stronger than a few obscure video game blogs. Sergecross73 msg me 17:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Tribun Network - which is currently cited twice in the article - is a mainstream Indonesian news outlet. What gave you the impression that is is a ""video game blog""? Cortador ( talk ) 18:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was referring to the three sources you (or whoever it was who failed to sign their own comment) presented in the actual discussion. The ones with names like ""Oneesports"", ""VCgamers"", and ""Duniagames"". Those are the ones that sound like low-level gaming blogs. Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Did you dismiss them based on the name alone then? Cortador ( talk ) 20:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, I evaluated them. You have an awful lot of (bad faith?) questions for someone who never even bothered to advance an argument for their reliability in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 22:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's no base assumption of unreliability for sources. Also, do me a favour and don't accuse me of arguing in bad faith when you are the one dismissing sources based on what their name sounds like. Cortador ( talk ) 04:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's no base assumption of reliability either. It's your prerogative if you don't wish to explain yourself, but it's certainly a bizarre choice in a discussion where you're trying to persuade others of your stance. Sergecross73 msg me 11:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've explained my stance above. Cortador ( talk ) 11:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You saying this as if that was self-evident. Can you read Indonesian? If so, what makes see these sources - or any others you should have found during WP:BEFORE - unreliable? Just declaring that anything on this guy is unreliable isn't sufficient Cortador ( talk ) 15:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is not promotion , and a name popping up in a few places is insufficient for notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC) GNG of a WP:BLP . Everything thing seems to be brief mentions and obscure/unreliable gaming blogs. Nothing to build a case of notability around. The article is largely devoid of content anyways, so no big loss. Sergecross73 msg me 11:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Beautiful and Unemployed : No evidence of wider impact or reception. Nominated for deletion on pl wiki. My BEFORE fails to find anything beyond the standard information summarizing plot and casting, and the usual these days ""will there be a second season"" stuff that might as well be AI generated. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Poland . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sabir Alasgarov : The article says that he was a radio announcer. The on-line source had only a brief listing of him. Was not able to review the other 2 sources; they are off line Azerbaijani sources. (one appeared to be on line but that was just a link to a Wikipedia article about the source in general.) but content is indicative of them not being GNG sources. North8000 ( talk ) 02:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Radio , Television , Azerbaijan , and Georgia (country) . Skynxnex ( talk ) 03:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. My very best wishes ( talk ) 00:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of career achievements by Chris Paul : Let'srun ( talk ) 18:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Sports , Basketball , and Lists . Let'srun ( talk ) 18:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom; once you toss aside the stats, the rest of this belongs in Chris Paul . OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per nom. I see only stats and no content. Lorstaking ( talk ) 05:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The important facts should already be in the main Chris Paul article. I'd be in favor of deleting everything in Category:Career achievements of basketball players . These articles are difficult to maintain over time, and sourcing/updating the content is more trouble than it is worth. Some of these stats are just silly and arbitrary (""Only player in NBA history with 6,000 assists through his first 9 seasons and not reach the Conference Finals in that span""). Zagal e jo ( talk ) 23:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] anything important and encyclopedic can be added/should already be in main Chris Paul article. This is a clear WP:NOTSTATS violation, that doesn't meet WP:NLIST , as it doesn't have enough encyclopedic content for a separate list article. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 11:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwyane Wade (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwyane Wade . I personally enjoy going through these career achievement lists, assuming they are up-to-date and sourced. In the case of Chris Paul, I don't think he has a achieved enough to warrant his own page. - BeFriendlyGoodSir ( talk ) 23:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Alamo Bowl broadcasters : Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE . Of the sources per WP:RS , barring five Wikipedia articles; two duplicate source is about the BCS game itself, not just this. One is about the Bowl games itself, one is about the coverage of the Bowl games and the rest about the game itself with the goverage being given a passing mention. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 09:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , American football , Lists , and Texas . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 09:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC) LISTN . WP:NOTTVGUIDE —""An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc.""—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 ( talk ) 15:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC) LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet WP:LISTN . Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - per above nom. I see no encyclopedic value or reason for this list. Editor who created it is now a blocked sock. — Maile ( talk ) 19:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Amaron : A minor character in the book of Mormon with no independent reliable sources. Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 18:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion , Christianity , and Latter Day Saints . Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 18:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . If we have decided that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day does not apply to Mormonism, chipping away at little bits of Mormonism is a bit pointless. Here are some references that I found using Google Books which the nominator ought to have found while doing WP:BEFORE : Reference 1 , Reference 2 , Reference 3 . Лисан аль-Гаиб ( talk ) 01:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC) and before making this comment you should have checked whether the linked sources contain significant independent coverage... They do not appear to. Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 17:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC) * As the above users sources demonstrate, this person is only mentioned in-universe, such as the devotionals linked The Trash Compactor ( talk ) 00:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC) NOTHERE — Maile ( talk ) 18:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , not finding the sort of significant coverage in independent reliable sources that would suggest that the topic is suitable for a stand-alone wikipedia page. Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 17:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - not notable and as per the nom. Bhivuti45 ( talk ) 18:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per filer & Horse Eye's Back's reasonings. If appropriate, to a suitable (and notable) article. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 16:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"East Meath : It seems to be defined within the page as the area of County Meath within the Louth (Dáil constituency) . That wouldn't in itself satisfy notability (aside from the fact that this area is set to be reduced to the Drogheda suburbs part only), as that's a common feature of many counties. It does have a profile on the Meath County Council website . A Google search gives some results, such as the Protect East Meath lobby group, and East Meath United. However, contrast that with a search for West Cork , with 6,360,000 results, including newspaper coverage. The sources on the page or elsewhere don't suggest to me that East Meath is a generally notable distinction within the county, as opposed to what coverage might be given in Drogheda , Laytown–Bettystown–Mornington–Donacarney , or County Meath . Iveagh Gardens ( talk ) 07:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions . Iveagh Gardens ( talk ) 07:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - sorry I did not see the AfD sooner, and for that matter, that I did not catch this article. This is largely an ""invented topic"" and the sources do not support it as a separate entity. East Meath historically was largely what is now called County Meath, and this other definition requires OR. The idea could be briefly discussed in the Co. Meath article, but I'd question even that. SeoR ( talk ) 21:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Premalatha Vijayakanth : Fails WP:NPOL . News coverage seems to primarily be about her husband, and the party in the context of the upcoming election. AusLondonder ( talk ) 23:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , India , and Tamil Nadu . AusLondonder ( talk ) 23:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Per nomination. Non-elected politician without constitutional office, fails WP:NPOL . General Secretary role in an unrepresented party is not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Sk1728 ( talk ) 11:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC) Per WP:NPOL . Notable largely for being the wife of a notable person. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk ) 12:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC) NPOL . -- Devoke water 01:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - fails NPOL. Bhivuti45 ( talk ) 10:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC) 44, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Myanmar–Spain relations : Level of trade is extremely low. Most of their interactions are between the EU and Myanmar rather than Spain and Myanmar. Fails GNG. LibStar ( talk ) 06:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Myanmar , and Spain . LibStar ( talk ) 06:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per nom. No WP:SIGCOV , so there shouldn't be an article. Yilloslime ( talk ) 15:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"BK Saturnus : Modest history peaking on the 5th tier. Geschichte ( talk ) 07:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"W34EY-D : While the subject did survive a 2020 AfD, it was under a looser set of notability criteria for television stations than we have today, and the bulk AfD it survived last year was more about some other stations in it that were notable than this one itself. Let'srun ( talk ) 03:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Alabama . Let'srun ( talk ) 03:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC) A run-of-the-mill 3ABN station turned a run-of-the-mill HC2/Innovate station with no local content, undoubtedly without any significant coverage at any time. The first nomination was in that ""transition"" period where the walls were (very) slowly starting to close in on the overpresumption of notability for broadcast stations, but before the 2021 RfC that established that there was no wider consensus for NMEDIA being anything more than an essay that provides advice as to how GNG can be met. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sergem : Kazamzam ( talk ) 20:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions . Kazamzam ( talk ) 20:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC) 19, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your response. I am unable to view the page for the first reference, and I have my doubts about the reliability of both The Northeast Today as a site and Cheese for Dummies . The third reference only mentions sergem and Tibet once in a table - I don't think that meets the criteria for a quality reference to establish notability or determine the nature of the topic itself. Kazamzam ( talk ) 21:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Pure original work - that's also quite lazy. The links invoked above are inadequate: two passing mentions in books for dummies and about another subject altogether, plus a write-up about Chhurpi , which they misspell. There's very little here, practically nothing. - The Gnome ( talk ) 11:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Abdulrahman Al-Kuhaili : I can find Arriyadiyah but it's only a trivial mention. No evidence of WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Saudi Arabia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV in a league that gets decent coverage. Anwegmann ( talk ) 00:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC) An article about an unverifiable content drawn to a footballer who doesn't meet our general entry guidelines. Per WP:BEFORE, as usual, were databases soccer way, transfer..., etc. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 01:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Tom Rogan : -- Beland ( talk ) 22:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and News media . Beland ( talk ) 22:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Politics , England , and Washington, D.C. . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Lack of independent coverage other than possibly regarding one single event. Persingo ( talk ) 01:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC) GNG . Most sources are primary, e.g. this or routine listings. Some are even without pulse , e.g. this . - The Gnome ( talk ) 14:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Uzair Shah : One source for all 3 claims; two sentences; four images; zero facial indicia of significance or importance. This looks like a vanity piece. JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 04:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Journalism , and Pakistan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC) N --— Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 11:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC) BLPN , unfortunately the wrong venue. I just canned and shipped it here. Thanks, Crosji! JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 20:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC) — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 09:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC) 07, 30 April 2024 (UTC) 36, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Solanum verrogeneum : We discussed this article a few months back at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive75#Solanum_verrogeneum . The name appears on the website that was used as a source in the article, and we confirmed that the plant described on the website is ""certainly Solanum quitoense "", but there is no reason for Wikipedia to maintain a bogus name that appeared in a not-very reliable source. Plantdrew ( talk ) 21:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions . Plantdrew ( talk ) 21:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC) Since it's not a published name, and the source cited to justify the article is confusing it with another species, then we should it. -- Mr Fink ( talk ) 21:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC) 58, 17 June 2023 (UTC) PLANTS discussion. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sustainability at the University of British Columbia : Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Canada . Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC) PROMO. sourcing is primary, a 404 link (?) and sites that talk about the school in passing. Could perhaps a line or two into the University article, but this reads as a PR piece. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC) PROMO and WP:ESSAY . This is not notable as a standalone topic or as a search term for a . Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 07:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC) I do not think that a seperate article is justifiable. Fey1995 ( talk ) 23:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , sources are primary and I do not see its viability as a stand alone article even if there are secondary sources to support it. Piscili ( talk ) 12:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom and above. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ivanova and Olga Tamarin : It was tagged for speedy deletion but I think it deserves the consideration that an AFD can bring rather than a quick admin evaluation. Please review the talk page for the ongoing discussion. L iz Read! Talk! 07:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If participants here believe it to be an obvious hoax, well, we can always close this early with a speedy deletion decision. L iz Read! Talk! 08:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Russia . L iz Read! Talk! 07:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for nominating this. I removed the PROD because it seemed to me worth discussing and, therefore, not an obvious hoax. This story seems to have crept it's way into some otherwise respectable newspapers, probably to fill a space. Ideally there'd be reliable sources saying it isn't true and it's just trash journalism – but that is maybe too much to hope for. My reason for deletion isn't based, so far as I know, on any policies or guidelines but simply because I don't like the article and think we'd be better off without it. Thincat ( talk ) 09:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Although the article is related to Russia, I could not find any mentions of these characters in Russian on Google Books. I seriously doubt its contents because Ivanova (Иванова) is not even a proper name but surname with a female ending. ThegaBolt ( talk ) 15:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You'd expect lots of reliable sources for something like this. Instead nada. Unless someone can come up with reliable sources we all missed we should assume that this is a hoax – and not a notable one. -- Random person no 362478479 ( talk ) 02:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Khingz : Promotional piece showing some local fame. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , United States of America , and Washington . UtherSRG (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . All we have are reviews of albums, some of them not even exclusively about our subject's creations. Nothing on Khingz that would support independent notability . Subject fails WP:GNG and, by a mile, WP:NCREATIVE . - The Gnome ( talk ) 17:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - does not meet the criteria of notability , per the comments made above. W.G.J. ( talk ) 21:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2022 Deir ez-Zor attack : Ecrusized ( talk ) 13:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Terrorism , and Syria . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kitulu Day Secondary School : Fails WP:NSCHOOL . Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 14:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Kenya . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 16:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lakeview Christian High School : There have been two years for people to find sources and so far, none have been found. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 23:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 23:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools , Christianity , and Indiana . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment, leaning D . There are a couple hundred articles on newspapers.com, available to you at the wikipedia library. Most of it is passing mentions in obituaries, wedding announcements and such, that do not establish notability . I suggest searching on alternative names, including but not limited to Lakeview Christian Academy, as the school was known when it opened. There are some stories about a woman who was on the run from the FBI in the 90s who enrolled her child at Lakeview for 3 1/2 years before getting caught. Interesting, but does it establish notability? Probably not. Jacona ( talk ) 14:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - per SCHOOLOUTCOME. Fails SIGCOV. Bhivuti45 ( talk ) 18:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] — was unable to find SIGCOV or SECONDARY sources enough to satisfy GNG scrutiny. microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 20:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES . 4meter4 ( talk ) 22:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Shifting nth root algorithm : Appears to be original research. Better (but still not great) coverage of computation of roots is at our main article nth root . My prod saying all this was removed as the only edit by a new editor without improvement, and with the only rationale being WP:ITSUSEFUL . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 19:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 19:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yep, looks like OR . And explained rather opaquely, at that. (Opaqueness isn't itself a reason for deletion, of course, but in this case, I think it does point to a lack of interest in improving the page.) Wikipedia is not a repository of stuff somebody noticed about basic arithmetic one day. XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It's a bit unclear, but it looks like it may be a different derivation of the algorithm described in Methods_of_computing_square_roots#Digit-by-digit_calculation . That's a well-known algorithm - e.g. it's described in Hacker's Delight and First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC , and I've seen it suggested that it originated as an abacus technique. Adam Sampson ( talk ) 23:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Nth root computation algorithms are certainly an area of study ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ). My question is more or less whether this shifting algorithm is part of that area of study that's been covered, and frankly my insufficient mathematical competence is hampering me in completing a source search. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC) Listings in a Stack Exchange post and Wikiversity are what I'm able to pull up for sourcing... I'm not sure this is properly sourced, but it's too long to be made up. I don't see how we can this without some specialist mathematical sourcing, which I can't find. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Yes, original research and not well explained. Athel cb ( talk ) 10:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Tommy Graham (singer) : Natg 19 ( talk ) 00:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada . Natg 19 ( talk ) 00:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC) TNT . There are charting claims here (which a cursory check of the RPM database did verify), so he would be eligible to a properly written and properly sourced article, but just having a couple of modest chart hits on genre charts (but never the main national Top 40 chart) is not ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any sources at all, and the article as written has a significant advertorial skew that can't stand under WP:NPOV requirements. No prejudice against recreation if somebody can write and source something significantly better than this. Bearcat ( talk ) 15:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and recreate if sourcing could be found. Agree with above, this is written in such a promotional tone that it needs WP:TNTing . Surprised I could not find copyvio in there, searched for a few choice lines. Hits a 0% on Earwig. With proper sourcing and improvement, subject may pass GNG, but as of now is just a completely unsourced promotional BLP. -- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏ (ring-ring) 16:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Abdullah Baiat : Potentially fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC due to lack of significant coverage. Kooora , a stats site, and 2lkhbr , a trivial mention, were the best that I could find when searching in Arabic (عبد الله بيات). Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Qatar . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC) 33, 13 April 2023 (UTC) BLP, fails GNG, BIO. Nothing in article or BEFORE shows any notabilty. WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). // Timothy :: talk 08:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ,Not notable. Alex-h ( talk ) 10:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above, no notability. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 19:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Trams in popular culture : It includes works that mention trams even if said trams are not relevant to the story (ex. ""The opening scene is set on W2 class tram 260"") or ""n the third of his Thomas Kell novels, A Divided Spy, Charles Cumming has a hitman arrive on a tram"") or totally ridcolous trivia-level stuff like ""Tramway, North Carolina, is an area of Lee County, North Carolina which politically forms part of Sanford."" This is a terrible violation of WP:GNG , WP:NLIST , MOS:TRIVIA , WP:IPC and WP:NOTTVTROPES , in descending order of policy importance ( WP:V too I guess, given lack of footnotes for most stuff here). I will note that AFAIK even TV Tropes itself doesn't have an entry for trams. Perhaps this could be transwikid to some tram fan wiki ( https://trams.fandom.com/wiki/Tram ?), but it is certainly not encyclopedic type of content (obscure trivia and nothing but). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Popular culture , Transportation , and Lists . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC) INDISCRIMINATE coatrack of original research; none of the sources provided actually describe ""trams in popular culture"" as a concept. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 05:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yet another targeted assassination of a section hived of from the main article, justified by a scary bombardment of policy links with mostly no relevance at all. By no means all of it is obscure or trivial, though more refs would be nice. Johnbod ( talk ) 14:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How do sources on the overarching topic— Trams in popular culture —treat it? TompaDompa ( talk ) 18:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC) TNT threshold. It would only work if rewritten in prose format. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC) GNG . And even if it did, this current article, a poorly sourced list of mostly trivial examples, would need to be removed so a proper article on the topic could be rewritten from the ground up. Rorshacma ( talk ) 15:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV or WP:IINFO . Even if someone wanted to write a more encyclopedic entry about this topic, it would be best to write it as a section in the main article, with no reliable information to WP:PRESERVE from this article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 00:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is exactly what was done! But then it was decided to move it off to here. The old deletionist two-step. Johnbod ( talk ) 18:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Respectfully, when it was split the first revision of this article looked like this (and correspondingly, the last version of the main article before the section was moved looked like this ). Clearly, the section was not constructed properly in the first place. TompaDompa ( talk ) 18:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC) AGF ? ""Targeted assassination,"" really? Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 19:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC) 28, 5 August 2023 (UTC) 52, 5 August 2023 (UTC) Articles for deletion/Tonfa in popular culture : Listing every time X appears in fiction (or popular culture, or whatever) is what TV Tropes does, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTTVTROPES . The essay WP:CARGO has it right—fiction is not fact and collecting raw data does not produce analysis. That same essay makes another point which is relevant here: Moving bad content into a separate standalone article does not get rid of the bad content ; wanting to the main article ""clean"" is not a valid reason for having an article like this one. If editors add examples to the main Tram article based on primary sources (or more likely no sources whatsoever), the proper course of action is to remove those examples per MOS:POPCULT . I would have no objection to recreating this as a proper, encyclopaedic prose article about the topic—as was done for WP:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction —in the event that sources that would allow us to do that while abiding by MOS:POPCULT e. None of the current content would be of any use for that, however, so there's no point in retaining this version. TompaDompa ( talk ) 01:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC) 20, 6 August 2023 (UTC) 08, 6 August 2023 (UTC) ITSUSEFUL / WP:ITSINTERESTING ... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC) 32, 6 August 2023 (UTC) COATRACK it onto an existing one because it works if you squint real hard. Dronebogus ( talk ) 09:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC) 46, 6 August 2023 (UTC) CARGO and other things. TompaDompa ( talk ) 12:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC) 11, 6 August 2023 (UTC) 17, 6 August 2023 (UTC) 21, 6 August 2023 (UTC) Core content policies create that significance ourselves or decide what it is by way of WP:Original research . We have to let the sources do that for us—what do sources say the cultural significance of trams is? What sources on the overarching topic of Trams in popular culture are there even? Surely you understand that the entirety of this article is an exercise in original research, proclaiming that this is the cultural significance of trams in the absence of reliable and relevant external sources saying so? I shouldn't have to explain this to you—you're a very experienced editor—but articles need to be based on sources on the topic of the article (in this case Trams in popular culture ). If those sources do not exist, the article likewise cannot. Some things appear frequently in culture without having been analysed in that capacity by relevant sources—I doubt if there are sufficient sources analysing the role chairs play in culture to write a Chairs in popular culture article, for instance. Other things that appear somewhat frequently in culture do actually receive that kind of analysis from relevant sources. If you'll excuse the shameless self-promotion, Wikipedia has to the best of my knowledge only ever had a single piece of WP:Featured content about X in fiction/popular culture/whatever : Mars in fiction , a WP:Featured article that I worked on, which was promoted less than a month ago. The reason that was possible is that there are actually high-quality sources on the overarching topic (Robert Crossley's Imagining Mars: A Literary History and Robert Markley 's Dying Planet: Mars in Science and the Imagination , to name just two). This is all to say that there is a known way to construct proper articles on topics like this, but it requires actually doing the legwork of locating sources doing the analysis and summarizing it in our own words (as with every other article on Wikipedia), not just collating raw data from WP:PRIMARY sources and calling it a day—the latter being in violation of policy, as this article is. This is not some revolutionary new idea, either— Uncle G wrote the essay WP:CARGO which outlines all of this back in 2008, fifteen years ago. TompaDompa ( talk ) 13:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC) 16, 7 August 2023 (UTC) 18, 7 August 2023 (UTC) 03, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Merging into trams is fine . I already supported at the beginning of this chain! The article is a SPINOUT. gidonb ( talk ) 00:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC) LISTCRUFT . Full of indiscriminate examples and original research. Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC) 48, 9 August 2023 (UTC) INDISCRIMINATE and failing WP:NLIST , as I can't find any sources about the topic of the article (that being ""Trams in popular culture"", not ""Trams"", per WP:NOTINHERITED ). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC) 39, 10 August 2023 (UTC) 56, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Notability . TompaDompa ( talk ) 10:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC) 31, 10 August 2023 (UTC) (1) the topic is notable, sources discussing it independently; (2) some other article on a notable topic had a subsection that got too big. Many -voters here are deleting on the basis that the topic isn't discussed as a subject in sources, which is true. But our article on Trams has no ""in popular culture"" section because the section got too big and was split out to here. So really we're in a cat-flap situation (the cat that is In wants to be Out, while the cat that is Out wants to be In...). The cat can go out of the cat-flap by deleting this article and recreating an in-popular-culture section in Tram , and then that section will be too big, so it will have to be split out, and the cat will want to come back in again. Ultimately this is a clean-up situation, not really a deletion. The objection to the list is it contains a load of really tenuous stuff that shouldn't be there, and the same objection will exist if it's d. So really, we would be spending our time better if we started to sort out the material rather than debating where to put it, as a whole. Elemimele ( talk ) 06:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC) instead of splitting off uncited and incongruous information to a new page, it should've been trimmed out. The ""in fiction/culture"" section wouldn't be this big if it contained 18 entries. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC) 16, 10 August 2023 (UTC) 26, 10 August 2023 (UTC) 59, 10 August 2023 (UTC) 22, 10 August 2023 (UTC) LISTN , for a stand alone list, there must be sources that discuss the topic, in this case ""trams in popular culture"", as a group or set , and that is the argument that is being made here. I don't think that anyone has said that there is absolutely no notable example of a tram in a piece of popular culture, and a few comments have even mentioned that any truly notable example should be described on the main article. Its the lack of reliable sources that discuss ""trams in popular culture"" as a group or set that is missing here. Rorshacma ( talk ) 18:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC) 24, 11 August 2023 (UTC) CONTENTSPLIT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE some overflow is just useless or harmful for an encyclopedia. WP:NOTTVTROPES , etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 10:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC) MOS . Trimming would not have solved the issue, the entire section needed to have been removed and, if properly sourced, rewritten from scratch. But, instead it was just moved so we wound up with a terribly sourced list of trivia on a subject that does not pass the notability guidelines for stand alone lists that we have to deal with now. Even the singular example of A Streetcar Named Desire listed here does not actually contain any kind of sourced information - it is literally just ""this thing exists"" mentioned three times. That kind of content would have been useless to in the article after a trim, and would be useless to try to back now. Any kind of genuine coverage on the topic in the main Tram article will need to be created from scratch, not taken from this. Rorshacma ( talk ) 14:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC) 49, 10 August 2023 (UTC) 23, 11 August 2023 (UTC) 27, 11 August 2023 (UTC) 49, 12 August 2023 (UTC) 52, 12 August 2023 (UTC) OR . Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC) 51, 12 August 2023 (UTC) USEFUL is one of the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions . Also, please sign your comments by typing four ~ after you’re done commenting. Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC) 06, 12 August 2023 (UTC) 23C5:E99B:C101:21F5:E0FA:3F3C:F743 ( talk ) 21:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:E99B:C101:28B2:9A17:728F:BB96 ( talk ) Original research . That's the reason we are here in the first place. The ideal outcome would be such sources being located so we could actually write that article. TompaDompa ( talk ) 08:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC) 23C5:E99B:C101:55AC:38D7:1FCF:FB93 ( talk ) 11:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC) TNT applies. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 00:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC) 24, 12 August 2023 (UTC) LEDE before twe break into the list of crud. No links to e.g. academic articles which discuss what trams might symbolise in media or how they are systematically used by creative artists etc which would evidence that this was an encyclopedic subject that had been researched by reliable secondary sources. TV Tropes should be the place for this sort of user-generated content without secondary sources. -- Dronkle ( talk ) 20:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC) 39, 13 August 2023 (UTC) RULEOFTHUMB , which discusses that if a solid argument is present and agreed on by several long-time editors, then that argument should automatically prevail. Many relistings, I haven't checked this one, are done at a rapid pace without the relister really giving the discussion the full reading needed to make a complete mental map of the various points. This can be checked by looking at the times on the edit history of the relisters/closers. Bottom line: There are many good faith editors who should not be doing closes or relistings, and if a discussion has a valid argument then it should be kept (there should be no such thing as borderline consensus, a tough call - if a discussion is a close call then the article should be kept). Randy Kryn ( talk ) 10:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC) 34, 13 August 2023 (UTC) 42, 13 August 2023 (UTC) 53, 13 August 2023 (UTC) 56, 13 August 2023 (UTC) 54, 13 August 2023 (UTC) 34, 13 August 2023 (UTC) 16, 13 August 2023 (UTC) 31, 13 August 2023 (UTC) 59, 13 August 2023 (UTC) IAR which includes language which trumps guidelines and random complaints. Many editors think of IAR as utterly poisonous, like some random essay which on its face has no policy merit . But some editors believe that if a deletion discussion has a logical argument embedded within it, and going the other way actually harms the project by not maintaining the collection of topics related to that article, IAR should automatically take precedence. It is policy, not opinion, and for good reason. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 15:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC) 19, 13 August 2023 (UTC) 26, 13 August 2023 (UTC) 28, 13 August 2023 (UTC) 40, 13 August 2023 (UTC) NLIST : Notability guidelines apply to the creation of stand-alone lists; notability also applies to spinouts: See Wikipedia:Splitting#Content split : Before proposing a split, consideration must be given ... to notability of the offshoot topic ... If one or more of the topics is not notable on its own, it may be more appropriate to simply remove the material from Wikipedia than to create a new article. Per MOS:POPCULT , cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist, and these references are precisely included only because they exist. There is no depth. With this in mind, the page is not a valid WP:SPINOUT per what is discussed in Wikipedia:Article size#Breaking out trivial or controversial sections (this is a ""trivial section"" type of content) and Wikipedia:Article size#Breaking out an unwanted section (this would be a magnet for unhelpful contributions as a section and is a magnet for unhelpful contributions as an article). — Alalch E. 17:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC) INDISCRIMINATE . I understand that some consider trams a rare thing, but they are really not to the point that no-one would think about creating Buses in popular culture or Airplanes in popular culture . – sgeureka t • c 15:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC) as someone who has been cleaning up 'in popular culture' categories for the last few years, I think you are wrong: folks have created the weirdest 'in popular culture' articles, from most obscure things to most mundane. And notability varies. Take a look at that category: Category:Topics in popular culture - sad thing is, 75% of the entries there are at the level of what we have here, and many AfDs (and rewrites) are needed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC) 07, 15 August 2023 (UTC) NOT . There is no context as to why ""this thing was shown in 3 seconds of this movie"" actually matters for readers to know. That's because that sort of thing can only really be explained in prose, relating some things to other things. TVTropes style lists are for that Wiki, rather than Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's... novel. I also enjoy working on fiction content, but I do it over at fandom (formerly, wikia). Becase of WP:NOT etc. I don't fully agree with our community decision to outlaw ficiton summaries and TVTropes like content, but I respect it. I do wish we had a better way to transwiki content as well as link to it, to be honest. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 23:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Example-farms fail NOT, and no one has provided evidence there are any sources that cover the topic as a whole in any detail. This is just a poorly-referenced hodgepodge of trivia and OR. JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Stan Rose : Couldn't find any mention of him in RS, only press releases. Morbidthoughts ( talk ) 20:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Biology . Morbidthoughts ( talk ) 20:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - The references are a collection of company statements and press releases, many of which don't mention the article subject at all. The article doesn't show that it meets either WP:GNG or WP:NPEOPLE . - MrOllie ( talk ) 22:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:NPEOPLE. Over the next few days, asap, I will be removing references that do not comply with those standards, as well as any content that does not, and including appropriate references throughout. Kindly allow time to make the necessary updates so that the article does not need to be d Srose39 ( talk ) 22:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mr. Rose , please refrain from editing the article about you. Please stick to one account, and please check whether you're logged in before editing. Several editors here have put the time needed into looking for reliable sources for a biography. More time won't help; it hasn't since 2009. That said, closing admin, please note the subject/author's own implicit ! vote, and his rationale. Cheers! JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 20:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. I replied on the article's Talk page. I'm new to this, not a regular editor, and have no interest in editing. Was naively trying to be helpful. Found another article that is more focused on me directly, but will leave it to others to consider: https://www.newspapers.com/image/529144177/? terms=%22Stanley%20Rose%22%20CEO%20&match=1 The Capital Times, 22 Apr 2004, Thu · Page 56-57 I'm a scientist and entrepreneur who has started, grown and sold multiple businesses of note in the fields of DNA analysis and genomics, but have never sought personal publicity. I greatly appreciate everyone's help in trying to improve this article so that it is factually correct and compliant with your standards Srose39 ( talk ) 22:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I'm just not seeing enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. There is coverage, but it's all primary sources, business and local puff-piece coverage, trivial mentions, etc. —not significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Woodroar ( talk ) 01:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 17:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC) This seems to have been written mostly by User:Pioneer28 , whose only contributions have been to this article. Is this COI promotional editing? NeverRainsButPours ( talk ) 19:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It appears the subject has used at least two accounts to author/edit the article. He also sometimes just doesn't log in. It's textbook COI but not (yet) disruptive editing or intentional socking. JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 20:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC) I could not find any reliable, unrelated, third-party source providing substantial coverage, let alone several of them. JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 20:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . No evidence of meeting Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 22:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC) GNG , fails WP:BIO (and apparently also WP:AB ), and runs afoul of WP:PROMO . No evident, independent coverage by reliable sources. JoJo Anthrax ( talk ) 14:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Ed hist raises possibility this is a vanity autobio. Certainly does not pass in the primary content category of PROF. 128.252.154.2 ( talk ) 19:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:NPROF . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kim Yeong-uk : The articles didn't meet WP:GNG , WP:SPORTSBIO and WP:SPORTSCRIT for the time. May be notable in the future! Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 20:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football , Korea , and South Korea . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 20:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Veronika Bokor : Fails GNG and BASIC with no SIGCOV found. It only passes SNG barely and only in an single event . Timothytyy ( talk ) 10:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Tennis , and Austria . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or draftify. I've been able to quickly find [19] [20] and [21] , which, while individually short in length, are significant and entirely about the subject. Iffy ★ Chat -- 13:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . She is not notable enough - just one WTA Tour level appearance. JamesAndersoon ( talk ) 12:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON kind of thing. She may have done well nationally (which led her to some support from the Linz tournament), but that didn't really translate to the international pro tour. The coverage mentioned above is very weak (some of it being the results/tournament recaps, some of it relying on her quotations). My searches haven't produced something more meaningful, fails WP:GNG and the nominator described well why the SNG doesn't help here. Jovanmilic97 ( talk ) 00:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC) GNG ... I know she is not notable enough, but my question is then why so many other players deserved its page when they also barely passed? Why this one and others? Let then all of these pages. Otherwise, this is not fair. JamesAndersoon ( talk ) 10:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Veronika Bokor passed this criteria [22] . And in the past it was also the case that other players got page if they passed this criteria. What is now the problem? JamesAndersoon ( talk ) 10:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Let then all of these pages"" and that's the point. But most editors don't have the time to dig through all the tennis players that might be nor not be notable. There's a lot of articles after all. As for the criteria you cite, it says right at the top in the Frequently asked questions section, Q1: ""The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline."" Jovanmilic97 ( talk ) 13:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay. I didn't know about that. Thank you for informing me. JamesAndersoon ( talk ) 13:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While numerical support for is strong enough here to determine a consensus, no-one has really replied to or debunked Iffy's three sources and claim this meets GNG (despite all !votes) assering that GNG isn't met. Need an explanation from ! voters why these sources don't count before this can be closed as . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 16:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I thought Jovanmilic97 already responded to the sources? Timothytyy ( talk ) 02:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The sources mentioned above are two quote-heavy interview-based pieces in Nön and a slightly heftier blurb in MeinBezirk that nevertheless is not enough for SIGCOV. JoelleJay ( talk ) 03:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rachid Ghanimi : This might be a WP:TOOSOON situation. In any case, it clearly fails WP:GNG . It was also draftified previously due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV , but the original creator moved the article to mainspace without changing anything. Anwegmann ( talk ) 03:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Anwegmann ( talk ) 03:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Morocco . Kpg jhp jm 04:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC) Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV . Looking for sources only brings up stat pages like Transfermarkt and fbref . Kpg jhp jm 04:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON . Svartner ( talk ) 18:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Barrow & District League : Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 ( talk ) 19:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England . Owen× ☎ 00:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Non-notable local amateur league. Fails WP:GNG . J Mo 101 ( talk ) 12:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC) Can't find any sources nor establish how it fits into the British rugby league system - . Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Optimus Clix : No sources found on Google, or WP-refs. Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 22:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Companies , and Portugal . Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 22:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the very reasonable nomination, although I would not oppose a to Optimus_Comunicações as a search term. Bearian ( talk ) 15:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"JavaScript InfoVis Toolkit : ojdo ( talk ) 09:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe I am the major contributor to this page. I agree this is abandonware and the page should be d. 2620:10D:C091:500:0:0:4:4ABF ( talk ) 13:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as per nom. Samoht27 ( talk ) 18:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Cinebulle : toweli ( talk ) 10:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Aviation . toweli ( talk ) 10:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] me neither. no sigcov. -- BoraVoro ( talk ) 14:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Husejin Konavic : Fails WP:GNG 🌶️ Jala peño 🌶️ Don't click this link ! 10:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , Politics , Montenegro , and Yugoslavia . 🌶️ Jala peño 🌶️ Don't click this link ! 10:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I can't find a source for this guy. If the bio is correct, he meets WP:NPOL as a member of the Yugoslavia legislature. However, we still need to be able to WP:verify that. The website for the Archives of Yugoslavia appears to be dead. Anyone know where to look for information on lawmakers from the former Yugoslavia ? TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 15:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Vote changed TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 19:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure. My grandfather was a major diplomat and member of the SKJ, so he might have known that, but he's been dead for years. The website's also been down since June 8, according to the Internet Archive. P.S. This page is a copyright infringement. The entire contents of the page are from another website. WHICH JUST SO HAPPENS TO BE ON THE BLACKLIST. 🌶️ Jala peño 🌶️ Don't click this link ! 16:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And not even the site the G12 tag refers to (HowOld [dot] co) has him in their listings. Is there something I missed in the meantime? -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 16:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It does, I have the link. (HowOld [dot] co/person/husejin-konavic/biography) 🌶️ Jala peño 🌶️ Don't click this link ! 17:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] HowOld is a web scraper and copied the contents from Wikipedia. It says so right on the page. -- Whpq ( talk ) 17:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, my bad 🌶️ Jala peño 🌶️ Don't click this link ! 17:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which, upon further inspection, clearly seems to be copying from WP as a mirror (with attribution) rather than the other way around. On an additional note, this is the only remaining Wikimedia contribution from Frmtr123 ( talk · contribs ) (from way back in mid-January + mid-June 2012). -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 17:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On the verge of per copyvio / sourcing concerns respectively raised by Jalapeño and TPF (unless Wikipedians from Serbia and Montenegro chime in and try their best to give us a hand). For a late Eastern European politician of such purported stature, not even the barest amount of mention/attestation at the usual databases (GBooks/GScholar/PQ/EBSCO/Gale/JSTOR/newspaper outlets) is around to show for it. Nothing through basic Googling outside WP, a couple of mirrors, and a few more lesser sites. Sorry, folks—I honestly tried my best. -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 16:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as failing verifiability thought I am leaning towards hoax on this. It is simply not believable that a government cabinet minister (minister of education) has no coverage about him whatsoever. The article has never had any sourcing that I can see. -- Whpq ( talk ) 17:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Appears to be a hoax. No person like this seems to have existed; the article purports he was minister of education, but he does not show up in any issue of an annual publication like The Statesman's Yearbook . Also, despite purportedly having radical policies that were much discussed, there is nor a single mention of him at all on Google or GBooks in English or Serbian, which one would expect from a controversial national minister. Curbon7 ( talk ) 19:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] After spending an hour scrolling through Serbian Wikipedia 's categories relating to Yugoslavian politicians, I think @ Curbon7 is probably right here. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 19:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . There's significant evidence that this might be a hoax — and even in the event that it isn't, we would still need reliable sources to properly verify that he was real. Even for a real person whose article claims to pass NPOL, we still have to be able to locate legitimate verification that the claim to passing NPOL is true. Bearcat ( talk ) 15:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Possible hoax, fails verifiability and WP:GNG . Maliner ( talk ) 06:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC) per others, seems to be a hoax from a WP:SPA whose contributions include only this article. – Vipz ( talk ) 16:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mosaad Megahed : 2) There are concerns about paid edits. 3) I've gone through WP:PROF and I don't think the subject is notable. Dr. Vogel ( talk ) 11:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 12 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 11:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Medicine , Egypt , and Germany . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment appears to be a working dermatologist, I can't comment on the citation or impact factors. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy under G5 . CastJared ( talk ) 15:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] sources insufficient, mostly papers written by the person. Draken Bowser ( talk ) 07:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per above. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 14:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"PackCC : Shellwood ( talk ) 18:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC) I think the page content is encyclopedic enough even if it was derived from GitHub. Whether to be copied or not is irrelevant to the argument unless it violates copyrights. Next, the page has been supported at least by several editors, even if it might have been problematic that it was created by the software developer. Arithy ( talk ) 12:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the support of the page from other people has mostly been adding links. i think that it being entirely derived and created by the developer (you) stands as a violation of WP:FORUM and/or WP:PROMO . imo, having it in the Comparison of parser generators is sufficient. Howrued ( talk ) 02:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] also, i think it's a bit dishonest that you didn't mention that you are both the developer of the software and the creator of the page in your reply. Howrued ( talk ) 03:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC) The improvement of the page by others is a very important fact that proves the page interests several users. Since there are several voluntary editors, there should be much more viewers. This page should attract users because the editors wanted to improve the page content even if the changes were quite small. There have been slight changes because the page content has almost no critical defect. The facts and rational inferences above justify the existence of the page. Arithy ( talk ) 07:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC) it's irrelevant to this argument. I expect you to argue more logically. [ I'm honest because I use the identical user name between GitHub and Wikipedia ;-) ] Arithy ( talk ) 07:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC) We should see the current status, not the origin. Arithy ( talk ) 07:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as i mentioned before, articles being created by the person who made the thing in question is enshrined in policy as being bad. even if there was minor houseing, it doesn't change the fact that there is a clear conflict of interest in the article and it otherwise doesn't really establish any notability. Howrued ( talk ) 11:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the first paragraph lists features, but i don't think having those features simply grants it notability. if that were true, anyone could make a parser generator with those features and then immediately make a wikipedia page for it. Howrued ( talk ) 11:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's just your sentiments regarding software. According to your criterion, no one can create any pages. Is it really what Wikipedia should be? Arithy ( talk ) 13:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] i don't really understand what you mean by this. my criterion (and wikipedia's)? isn't that nobody should create pages—it's that people shouldn't create pages for their own personal projects that lack any verifiable sources nor any claims for notability. Howrued ( talk ) 13:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The policy does not say prohibition, just say difficulty to guarantee the content objectivity. I think it is already guaranteed by other users. By the way, I cannot understand that you continue to insist on attacking the page using account suddenly created few days before. I cannot help wondering if you have other intention. Arithy ( talk ) 12:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] i understand your concern, and i will not be dishonest and say that the primary reason i created this account wasn't to make this afd. i do not, however, have anything against you personally. i just think that the article violates the aforementioned policies, which are grounds for deletion: see WP:DEL-REASON . Howrued ( talk ) 13:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the article contains a single reference, which makes no mention of packcc and only says that packrat parsers in general can support left-recursion. Howrued ( talk ) 11:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC) I am unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources for this to meet the general notability guidelines . The only source provided does not even mention it. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC) The article's creator wrote a lengthy argument in favor of ing the article that concluded with ""I expect [the nominator] to argue more logically"". Ironically, nothing they wrote logicially addresses the question of notability. Like StreetcarEnjoyer, I couldn't find any significant coverage. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 23:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC) I can't find that this has any significant coverage. Does not seem to meet general notability criteria. Mgp28 ( talk ) 22:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2006 Zushi mayoral election : The winner of the election isn't even notable enough for a page, why then is the election? The city itself is a suburb of Yokohama and has a population of about 58,087, this would be fine, but the article gives me no reason to believe the elections of Zushi are actually notable. The article does not appear to be included on the Japanese Language Wikipedia either. Delete. Samoht27 ( talk ) 19:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 15 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 20:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Politics , and Japan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 20:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as there is nothing in the sources that suggests this particular mayoral election is notable. As nominator points out, there is no standalone article about this election in Japanese Wikipedia. There is, however, a biographical article on the winning candidate, Ryuichi Hirai , which strongly suggests there wasn't anything particularly notable about the 2006 mayoral election (when he was re-elected for his third term), either. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 01:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rich Julius : Subject doesn't appear to be notable. WP:NOTCV Pepper Beast (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California . Pepper Beast (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ireland , Michigan , New Jersey , and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The sources in the article are all associated with the subject. Many do not even mention the subject - and appear to be added to support other loosely related text and bolster ""notability by association"" claims. A search in other sources (like Irish Independent and Irish Times ) returns nothing at all. The WP:COI and WP:PROMO overtones are also difficult to ignore. Guliolopez ( talk ) 19:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom and Guliolopez. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC) 45, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Centre points of counties of the United Kingdom : Fails WP:NLIST . Clarityfiend ( talk ) 06:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC) List of geographic centers of the United States ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , Lists , United Kingdom , and United States of America . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Original research than of notability. I tend to think it is OR whereas the notability of lists seems to be entirely in the eye of the beholder. I see that this old version of the UK list does not look to be OR and it is short enough to be reasonably d into Centre points of the United Kingdom . That should be an editorial decision rather than one of deletion Thincat ( talk ) 11:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC) OR , which is forbidden. The fact that one county, Yorkshire, has had its centre professionally calculated indicates that this is a minor curiosity, not amounting to notability. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 17:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am finding the list of centres of US states very useful. I am going to visit them all and I will start by creating a an optimal tour based on the centres, to get a rough idea of the order in which I will visit them, for rough planning purposes. Then I will refine my trip by finding individual points of interest in each state and re-run the optimal tour algorithm. The list is a very useful resource - please don't it! Blaise ( talk ) 19:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC) ILIKEIT is not considered a valid reason to ! . JMWt ( talk ) 19:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC) OR . Unless someone can show a published book which directly addresses this topic, I can't see how we can possibly even consider ! ing JMWt ( talk ) 19:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per comments above. RobinCarmody ( talk ) 18:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC) -There is one source, which is for yorkshire, leading me to believe the rest is original research. -This does not apear to be a very useful article. I might change my opinion if the creator of this article can provide more sources. History person 2 ( talk ) 21:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I pointed out above, there used to be several sources in an earlier verson but they were removed. Thincat ( talk ) 08:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] both - The UK article is almost entirely OR since the author admitedly did the calculations in QGIS . The US one is at least sourced to a research paper, but again there's no SIGCOV sourcing to establish notability. – dlthewave ☎ 12:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the UK counties listing as original research and an unlikely term of reference. Tried quick Google searches for 3 random counties and nothing came up. However I'm moving towards for the US states version as it's more likely credible sources exist. For example, there's this for Texas [24] and this for Georgia [25] to take two at random. There are sources for the grouping to support WP:NLIST here [26] and here [27] even if the latter contends there are no official centers. The topic looks notable. It requires narrative on the formal recognition of the centers (or lack of), but that's a content issue. Rupples ( talk ) 05:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I don't think it was a good idea to bundle the two nominations. They're not inextricably linked. Looking at the comments left so far it looks as though only dlthewave and myself have specifically expressed opinions/! votes on each nomination. There's a risk of one article being d by default. Rupples ( talk ) 06:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC) OR Listcruft. // Timothy :: talk 10:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Suburban Hostage : - Rich T | C | E-Mail 01:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Vanity page created and maintained by multiple SPA editors and IP addresses. A small time group, self-record and release own work. Gained no significant third party coverage. ShelbyMarion ( talk ) 10:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Raphaël Bohren : Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Switzerland . Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC) NSKATE #2 requires gold in national championship. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 19:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 12:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Futurama crew : We're not IMDB; we don't simply retain contextless credits lists of everyone who's ever worked on a longrunning TV series. ♠ PMC ♠ (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Television , and Lists . ♠ PMC ♠ (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The names of the writers and directors can be where the episodes are listed. D r e a m Focus 01:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Sweet media of Wikipedia, the names of the writers and directors are in the List of Futurama episodes , producers and creators in the main article, so this list is pointless and redundant ... and redundant. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 06:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Definitely fails NLIST as nom has said. Spinixster (chat!) 08:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom and others. Conyo14 ( talk ) 22:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Both is redundant with all of infromation being listed on either the main article or episode list and with only one source fail WP:NLIST . Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC) 04, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This information is presented in Futurama , but better. While this article could be useful as a navigational aid, at this point it appears it's better suited to it in the article about the show. Jacona ( talk ) 20:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mildura Senior College : Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG . UtherSRG (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Australia . UtherSRG (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote , but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts : {{subst: spa | username }} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed | username }} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry : {{subst: csm | username }} or {{subst: csp | username }} . : I found some local coverage of this school, but that was not in sufficiently reliable publications to establish notability. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 12:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC) AUD . Fails WP:NSCHOOL . LibStar ( talk ) 00:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Are we really saying that a large, century-old secondary school in a western country has no sources, not even printed ones? I really cannot believe that. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC) 17, 25 July 2023 (UTC) 34, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I mean, it‘s neither particularly big, nor does it seem to be very special in any other specific way. I‘m not sure that the fact that it‘s old by itself guarantees that appropriate sources exist . Actualcpscm ( talk ) 15:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nearly 1,000 pupils is hardly small! -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC) NSCHOOL . LibStar ( talk ) 12:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I could not find any reliable sources via Newsstream (database of Australia & New Zealand newspapers-- wider and deeper than Google), just many passing and routine mentions like this but nothing substantive that would meet GNG. Fails WP:NSCHOOL . Cabrils ( talk ) 00:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"DDamage : Fails WP:NBAND . UtherSRG (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France . UtherSRG (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] even in the French article, it's not much of anything for sourcing. This is the best I can find and it doesn't help [9] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC) NBAND and WP:GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Franco Vermeulen : I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV . JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC) Amature player with minimal coverage. Mn1548 ( talk ) 12:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Sugar Bowl broadcasters : Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE . Of the sources per WP:RS ; one is about an announcer, each one of the others is about the Bowl games, with this being given a passing mention. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 06:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , American football , and Lists . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 06:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] with sourcing from [28] and [29] . : the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN . This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article. Sources above are merely routine mentions or ratings numbers. Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Yanet Núñez Mojarena : I can't find any evidence that this player complies with this guideline. She also doesn't meet WP:NTENNIS as playing in the Fed Cup is no longer part of that guideline. She does meet the essay detailed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines but the notability guidelines do supersede WikiProject essays and, in any case, her achievements don't give any room for WP:IAR imho. She has never played in a major tournament, never won a tournament above 10K nor has she ever held a decent ranking (she hasn't even ever been in the top 400). Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Tennis , and Cuba . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per the nomination. She is more notable than most, but still not notable enough. The fact that she never played, or won in any notable tournament is the nail in the coffin. IncompA 20:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Penthouse Pets : There are numerous magazines in this genre which use a monthly featured model as a marketing gimmick, and it is really nothing more than that. Sourcing is not great for showing that the list itself is notable. The vast majority of names on this list are non-notable people. If anything, the existence of the designation should be discussed in the Penthouse (magazine) article, and an abbreviated list should be presented there, limited to notable individuals who happen to have been so-named. BD2412 T 18:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Popular culture . BD2412 T 18:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC) MutterErde : ""This user has been banned from editing the English Wikipedia by Jimbo Wales"". Don't know the issue(s) involved - maybe BLP or the like - just surprised it was Jimbo. — Maile ( talk ) 21:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notification of the article creator is automatic, but I don't think that weighs into the propriety of the article itself one way or the other. BD2412 T 21:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] COMMENT I don't think this can be compared to regular periodicals as it's an integral part of the identity, just like Playboy centrefolds. It's something people will be interested in. I also don't think the notability of any people should weigh in here as it's about the notability of the list. Obviously such a list should be complete. I think any decision should be based on the quality and sustainability of the list. So unless there's obvious problems in that regard I'm leaning towards as I haven't seen any valid criticism against the list itself. Biofase flame | stalk 00:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We don't (and shouldn't) have a freestanding List of Hustler Honeys or List of Gallery Girls Next Door or List of Genesis centerfold models , or any of the other magazines in the genre outside of the List of Playboy Playmates of the Month , which contains a substantially higher caliber of notability of its membership (despite also having a dearth of sources). The obvious problem is that the list is unencyclopedic in the first place. BD2412 T 02:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure why you're singling out one list to the exclusion of others. It sounds more like you're applying notability as a competitive criteria and not a value criteria. So I'm sticking with my criteria unless the article itself is problematic there's no reason not to it. Also I hope you're not referring to the old ""wikipedia is not..."" argument which has been put to death already as false. Wikipedia is whatever an encyclopedia is and encyclopedias do include how-tos and lists when they are relevant to the time. Biofase flame | stalk 20:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC) NOT policy, and in this instance, there does not appear to be support in independent and reliable sources for the notability of this group. I found this article while working on another, because of vague mentions in low-quality tabloid-style sources about the subject having been a Penthouse Pet. And from a general AfD view, this also does not appear to be a notable honor, because of the lack of independent, reliable, and secondary support for the encyclopedic significance - without support in such sources, it appears reasonable to exclude what also appears to be a mostly unverified list of people who are not well-known . Beccaynr ( talk ) 21:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the list itself is unverifiable it's one thing but this seems to be a made up reason not in the policy as a list is an encyclopedic tool and does not need to be supported or even exist in sources. That's why I said if there are problems with the content of the list then mention it but there are no obvious problems with such a list itself. Actually just did a quick google search and ""penthouse magazine"" returns about 30m results while ""penthouse pets"" return about 20m with many sites dedicated to lists and archives of pets so the topic itself seems pretty notable to me. Biofase flame | stalk 21:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I shouldn't have mentioned verification when this discussion is otherwise about encyclopedic notability of the group, and sufficiently independent and reliable sources to support notability. So on that topic, the use of a Google test does not help identify specific sources to support notability. If this is a notable distinction in a modeling career, then let's establish that with sources; otherwise, this list appears to lack encyclopedic significance. Beccaynr ( talk ) 22:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC) NOTPROMO and WP:NOTDIRECTORY , because WP:NLIST notability of the group does not appear supported by independent and reliable sources. WP:NLIST also does not appear to support inclusion of a list of the notable subjects in the Penthouse (magazine) article because of the lack of support for the notability of the group. Beccaynr ( talk ) 06:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] penthouse pets are mentioned many times in media and independent sources like 1 2 3 4 etc. This topic seems pretty notable to me. Polarbear678 ( talk ) 18:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC) NYPOST and WP:DAILYMAIL (the second and third sources linked in the comment above) are not suitable for supporting notability . The first source is a Youtube video of a ""The Penthouse Pet of the year, 1977"" interview by the CBC , posted in 2010 and described as ""In this clip from 1977, the Penthouse Pet of the year - Vicki Johnson - talks about why she posed for the magazine at a time when Penthouse was considered more controversial than it is today"" on the website, which does not appear to support the notability of the Penthouse Pets group. Beccaynr ( talk ) 18:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those aren't the only sources. Penthouse group is often in the news. There are so many reputable sources that have mentioned it. They have been mentioned in news sources of all political spectrum. I don't see why it is not notable. Polarbear678 ( talk ) 18:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The New York Post article isn't even about someone who was a Penthouse Pet ! It's about a girl literally living in a penthouse suite (a top-floor apartment). BD2412 T 19:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That was a mistake. I just updated it. Polarbear678 ( talk ) 19:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Guidelines and policy indicate the notability of Penthouse magazine does not contribute to notability for Penthouse Pets as a group - the organizations and companies notability guideline , which has a focus on some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion and a need for quality sourcing, has a section about no inherited notability , e.g. An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not ""inherit"" notability due to their membership. For this article, we theoretically could verify group membership with the Penthouse website, but this would seem to be WP:PROMO if independent and reliable sources do not support the notability of the Penthouse Pets group. Beccaynr ( talk ) 19:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Literature , and Sexuality and gender . • Gene93k ( talk ) 10:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions . • Gene93k ( talk ) 10:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the above discussion. Looks like fancruft with an extra flavour of female objectification. -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH ) 07:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC) 32, 25 November 2023 (UTC) 49, 25 November 2023 (UTC) 38, 26 November 2023 (UTC) 48, 27 November 2023 (UTC) KITCHENSINK . Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. TarnishedPath talk 10:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC) This article is 18 years old and averages over 1000 pageviews a day. Because of the subject matter, some editors have never preferred this type of content. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates of XXXX (August 2021). Whether we want to have this content is ultimately a value judgment, because no one is debating whether the magazine is notable.-- Milowent • has spoken 22:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Yes, the magazine is notable. I have no objection to content on the concept of the ""Penthouse Pet"" being included in the article, Penthouse (magazine) , including a list of notable persons so designated, but there is strangely almost nothing in the article on the magazine about this subject (two lines in the lede, nothing at all in the body). BD2412 T 22:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC) NOTCATALOG . Unless more robust independent sourcing can be found, I don't think the article in its current state is worth ing. -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 08:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration . Thriley ( talk ) 08:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Colleen Madden : A Google search doesn't return much, such as an IMDB which may or may not be her, a news article that is definitely about a different Colleen Madden, and an obituary. Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 19:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Artists , and Women . Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 19:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC) RS guidelines can be identified, this seems like an easy call. One does not become notable by referencing themselves in their own books. This article fails to meet WP:GNG guidelines. I vote to . Go4thProsper ( talk ) 01:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Sources are very weak, her agent has edited this article, and seems to function as promotional vehicle. 128.252.154.2 ( talk ) 21:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 21:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Maxime Jobe : JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league , and France . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - professional footballer who played at the elite level, multiple sources to prove that fact. Fleets ( talk ) 10:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC) SPORTBASIC . J Mo 101 ( talk ) 11:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 19:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . No evidence of IRS SIGCOV, which is required to be cited in the article for all sportspeople. JoelleJay ( talk ) 21:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC) Young Catalans player and will likely have more coverage later in his career. Should be expanded, but currently not sufficient coverage. Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So you agree that there is not sufficient coverage? JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC) BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth . BEFORE found routine mill news, name mentions, listings, nothing with SIGCOV from independent reliable sources. BLPs require strong sourcing. Sources in article are a database record and a name mention in routine game news. Ping me if indepth SIGCOV is found. // Timothy :: talk 09:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election : Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to the election, once actual sources start discussing it. For similar recent AfDs, see - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Next_Goa_Legislative_Assembly_election (July 2022), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Goa Legislative Assembly election (2nd nomination) (2 April), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 Goa Legislative Assembly election (19 May), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election (19 May) I've found some sources for this election, but they're mostly in passing, so I don't think an article right now is appropriate - [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] Soni ( talk ) 13:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India . Soni ( talk ) 13:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC) CRYSTAL . I'm not sure what makes this one different. (Especially considering the sourcing.) SportingFlyer T · C 23:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC) MULTIAFD by my read). So I'm going to make all general comments about evaluation of NCRYSTAL and similar on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Assam Legislative Assembly election instead of replying the same things 5x. I'll finding sources or replying about sources in each specific AFD. Soni ( talk ) 23:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ SportingFlyer The problem is that the sourcing is completely in passing or just vaguely alludes to things. 1 literally mentions the assembly elections once (in title) saying ""The upcoming Lok Sabha elections will be a test for the 2027 assembly elections (this article)."" 2 is the same, it's a listicle style video news, asking ""Why is Akhilesh Yadav not fighting in Lok Sabha elections"" and answering with 5-6 reasons, only one of which is ""Because he has an eye out on 2027"". 3 is similar. The only mention of this article is in one throwaway line saying ""They're ready to make OBC govt in 2027"" 4's only mention is ""Congress may extend their Lok Sabha election alliance to 2027"" 5 is again only saying ""The Lok Sabha elections may tell us how the 2027 elections will turn"" Each of those sources have exactly 1 sentence that talks about the article (the next UP LA election) and it's always in context of the Lok Sabha. It's consistently throwaway and never actually covering the topic in any way. There is no electoral plans or promises or schedules or anything, it's pretty much just ""What we do in this election may also affect the future"". That's not coverage Soni ( talk ) 23:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The event is a notable one and almost certain to take place, which is your only deletion rationale - there's no rule that we have to have specific election dates in order to include an article on an upcoming election, and there are sources which do clearly allude that it will be taking place. SportingFlyer T · C 18:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, I'm just rebutting your ""Especially given the sourcing"" because I have gone through the sources and noted that none of them actually discuss this election other than to say ""Something in this other election may also affect the next UP LA elections"". And that's as good as passing. Compare this to the next Tamil Nadu elections , where there's multiple sources about parties directly discussing the specific next election ( ""PMK aims to form TN government in 2026: Anbumani"" , for example). There's a more general discussion to be had on ""Should we have an article even if no sources discuss the next election"". I don't plan on repeating my arguments for it in all 5 related (but not the same) XFDs, so mentioning in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Assam Legislative Assembly election . I believe there should only be an article if we also have some sources about the election, and local consensus at other AFDs agrees. Soni ( talk ) 02:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Yet another WP:TOOSOON article. Based. Kashmiri (🗨️) 07:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Same here. WP:TOOSOON . Way down in the future and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. RangersRus ( talk ) 11:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Francisco Andra : A Chilean source search failed to provide any suitable sources for WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC . Best source that I can find is Soccerway , a database source which SPORTBASIC specifically says does not confer notability. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Chile . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC) GNG per my BEFORE search. Jogurney ( talk ) 13:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Monkey tree phenomenon : Also primarily created by Sengkang , so WP:PDEL might apply. Darylgolden ( talk ) Ping when replying 09:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Singapore . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions . 5Q5 | ✉ 12:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC) NOTNEWS and a probably a candidate for speedy deletion: G12 Unambiguous copyright infringement , see [55] . Article was created by Sengkang who was blocked indefinitely for copyright violations [56] . JimRenge ( talk ) 11:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC) I can only find articles about monkeys in trees, nothing for this cultural item Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Story has no lasting impact. It is just a naturally caused illusion that would no longer be visible today with the tree constantly growing. ""Monkey tree"" also. 5Q5 | ✉ 11:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC) Per nom. EVENT notability is not exactly fulfilled. Highly doubt the long term effects. The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC) NOT NEWS . Scorpions1325 ( talk ) 03:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Gopalji Radhabihari Ashram (Santdham) : There do not appear to be any reliable sources on it in the English-language. A search on Google produced no hits. The two ""citations"" in the article are to a Wikipedia article and a blog. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since the above was written, the creator of the article has added eight citations to news sources, but the article does not use the information in these eight news sources. They are just padding to make it look as though the temple was notable. Citations [1], [5], [7] and [8] are about local protests about encroachment or seizure of temple land; I think it they are probably about the same temple as the Wikipedia article, though they give it a different name. There is not enough information to understand the dispute (or maybe Google translate is just not good enough). [1] This is to a news story in Sylhet news, 20 February 2019, ""Human chain demanding rescue of temple site in Lakhai"", and concerns a temple called the ""Gopal Jiu Ashram"". It does not support any of the information it is cited for, and none of the information in the news story is used in the Wikipedia article. [2] This is sanatantv.live, which is a spiritual channel ran by Sanatan India Networking Pvt. Ltd. [3] A Bengali Wikipedia article that has two ""citations"": (a) to sanatantv.live, and (b) to an English-language Wikipedia article. [4] This is a blog post. It is not a reliable source. [5] This is a news story in dainikbanglarodhikar.com, 26 June 2020, ""Lakhai of Habiganj accused of grabbing the 163-year-old Shree Shee Gopal Ashram - Daily Bangla's Odhikar"", and concerns a temple called the ""Gopal Jiu Ashram"". The content contradicts some of the information it is cited for in the Wikipedia article. [6] This another citation to sanatantv.live, a spiritual channel ran by Sanatan India Networking Pvt. Ltd. [7] This is a news story in amadernikli.com, 20 February 2019, ""Human chain to free the land of ashram in Lakhai"". It contains similar content to citation [1]. It does not support any of the information it is cited for, and none of the information in the news story is used in the Wikipedia article. [8] This is a news story in the Habiganj Express, 20 February 2019, ""Human chain to free the encroachment of ashram land in Lakhai"". The photograph in the news article suggests that it is about the same temple as the Wikipedia article. It contains similar content to citation [1]. It does not support any of the information it is cited for, and none of the information in the news story is used in the Wikipedia article. [9] This is a news article in the Daily Khaborer Alo, 6 September 2023, ""Appearance of Lord Krishna is celebrated in Lakhair"". It does not support any of the information it is cited for, and none of the information in the news story is used in the Wikipedia article. [10] This is a news article in the Daily Khaborer Alo, 11 December 2022, ""Sri Sri Rasbihari Katia Maharaj is coming to Sylhet"". It does not support any of the information it is cited for, and none of the information in the news story is used in the Wikipedia article. [11] This is a news article in protidinbangladesh24.com, dated ""2 weeks ago"": ""Mangal Shobhayatra on the occasion of Lord Krishna's '5249th' auspicious Janmashtami in four districts"". It does not support any of the information it is cited for, and none of the information in the news story is used in the Wikipedia article. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC) 55, 17 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Bangladesh . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC) I do not find any notability-inducing references. Fails WP:GNG . UtherSRG (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Property Institute of New Zealand : Fails the general and organizaiton-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New Zealand . UtherSRG (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Fails GNG. It would be helpful if someone familiar with the colloquialism of New Zealand could explain what this article even means. I assume it is related to real estate. It reads to me like it's a real estate group, that offers the services of ""Web advertisement, conferences, networking, websites"", etc. Something along the lines of a real estate umbrella group. The Wikipedia Pageviews Analysis shows mostly no views, with one or two views here and there. — Maile ( talk ) 20:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sachal Afzal : The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one Inherently notable. — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 19:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 19:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Sachal was a well known model before starting his acting career. The sources Express Tribune and The news International have written about his modeling career and also his background too. ( BeauSuzanne ( talk ) 07:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] As the creator of this BLP, you've to provide references to support claims made about her significant roles. — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 09:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In these sources both are news international mentions his career and education. His significant roles are in dramas Mannat Murad , Sara Sajeeda , Bakhtawar , Adawat and Zulm . ( BeauSuzanne ( talk ) 11:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC) ) [1] [2] [ reply ] References ^ ""More than meets the eye"" . The News International . ^ ""Sachal Afzal"" . The News International . These paid interviews = primary sources. Do you have any substantial evidence ? — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 11:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not a paid interviews. The News International newspapers has interviewed many other actors and models too and it writes every important news. The News International is owned by Jang News Group which is one of the oldest newspaper in Pakistan. The News International is a major English newspaper in Pakistan. ( BeauSuzanne ( talk ) 12:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] I'm not questioning the credibility of the sources, but rather the interviews themselves. While it's common for actors to be interviewed, these interviews alone may not sufficiently demonstrate that the subject meets the WP:GNG or WP:N. Additionally, these interviews (primary coverage) are not sufficient to verify claims of significant roles in TV dramas/films — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 12:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As someone who contributed to this page, how can we substantiate if these itws were ""staged"" or not, and if we can't, shouldn't we assume that the default position is that they aren't ? Also he's one of the leading male models of the country and one of the rising actors as well (secondary roles in the leading productions of the country), he has awards and nominations in both fields, shouldn't that be enough to assert his ""credibility"" ? Metamentalist ( talk ) 16:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC) COMMONSENSE when assessing coverage to asses its credibility. In this instance, the coverage seems to align more with WP:NEWSORGINDIA and exhibits characteristics of WP:CHURNALISM-style reporting. Your statement seems to suggest WP:ILIKEIT. To substantiate your stance, you'd need to provide evidence demonstrates the subject meets WP:N — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 16:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""The News International"" is a credible newspaper of the country, not some ""yellow journalism"" directed towards rumors about celebrities or something, so I was submitting the proposition that the first assumption should be positive and not negative, and my second point is that even if you do admit the source are refutable the man is still one of the best known male models in the country as well young actors (as substantiated by awards and nominations, also sourced). Metamentalist ( talk ) 19:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC) RS and establish subject's WP:N. — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 19:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC) N is met by the fact that he's one of the most awarded male models of the country + an actor in some of the country's most watched dramas produced by the best known media houses ? Metamentalist ( talk ) 19:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] BeauSuzanne and Metamentalist The subject clearly fails to meet the GNG, and neither of you has been able to provide solid evidence thus far. When examining this through the lens of WP:NACTOR, a Google search also hasn't yielded anything substantial to prove that the dramas/films in which he acted are significant works . Therefore, the subject fails to meet the NACTOR - even if he played lead roles in them, BUT I haven't seen verification of that either. It appears he only did MINOR roles, and I can say this with certainty. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 21:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Promo BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, are mainly promo bios, interviews, and name mentions in routine mill news, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS. Above sources are interviews , [45] . BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 19:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * - Award winning model and an actor. Meets WP:GNG . Sameeerrr ( talk ) 16:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet ) S0091 ( talk ) 14:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC) ATA. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC) Both of The News articles are interviews that mostly rely on what Afzal says so are primary , as is Geo News. Galaxy Lollywood is a WP:blog so cannot be used to establish notability and likely should not be used at all. Same for HI! which specifically states their content may not be accurate so fails WP:REPUTABLE . Other sources are brief mentions or not in-depth. S0091 ( talk ) 16:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I do not see anything as far as reliable sources that would show notability and the ! votes have not presented anything that would. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 18:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sydney Cooke : A PROD was converted to , into a recreated mini-stub, thus listing here. Викидим ( talk ) 06:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women . Викидим ( talk ) 06:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC) NSKATE , I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT . JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC) GNG and meets none of the five criteria demanded by WP:NSKATE . - The Gnome ( talk ) 15:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Absolutely fails WP:NSKATE . Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Elena Dahl : The main notability claim on offer here is that her work exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of sufficient coverage and analysis about her work to get her over WP:GNG -- but the only reference cited here is a primary source that isn't support for notability at all. As I don't read Swedish, I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived Swedish media coverage than I've got can find enough to salvage it -- but nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Women , and Sweden . Bearcat ( talk ) 14:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 1 Seven Russian poets in Stockholm: ISBN 91-7906-004-8 2 Collection of poems ""Summer time and Winter Clocks"": ISBN 9189424069 (1999), ISBN 91-89424360 (2000) 3 Novel ""Always returning to you"", ISBN 978-91-7327-089-2 My translations of Swedish poets are published in four literary magazines. Shall I provide publication years/numbers? My membership in Swedish Writers' Union can be confirmed by the Union. My Ph D about Boris Pasternak is from 1978, it can be confirmed by Göteborg University, the only number I can find is 9 9901417317. If you search my name (Dahl, Elena) in Libris, the database of all books in Swedish libraries, you will find a complete list of my published work. Sincerely Elena Dahl 178.174.247.84 ( talk ) 21:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A writer's notability is not established by citing the article to the publication details of her own work as proof that it exists — a writer's notability is established by third party coverage about her and her books in media , as proof that they've been externally validated as culturally significant by somebody other than the writer's own employers. Bearcat ( talk ) 12:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I searched in 2 major Swedish newspapers (Aftonbladet and Dagens Nyheter) for her name and got nothing. I don't speak Swedish so I can't go further than that, but we would need 3rd party sources to this. (I think WP is being confused with LinkedIn, which is designed for self-promotion.) Lamona ( talk ) 15:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC) GNG MaskedSinger ( talk ) 05:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"College of International Education : It is clearly not notable - there are no articles online about it I can find. It seems to be largely sourced from the CIE website itself, or unsourced. DansterTheManster ( talk ) 17:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I totally agree. The organization seems completely unimportant in the scheme of things and surely not deserving of an article. Gnilhtrae ( talk ) 17:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - per SCHOOLOUTCOME. Fails GNG. Bhivuti45 ( talk ) 10:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"International Credit Insurance & Surety Association : Tagged for over 10 years - Altenmann >talk 00:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Organizations , and Netherlands . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Tiny organization. Seems confused about the ""Netherlands"". gidonb ( talk ) 05:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lacks proper sources. Is sourced from their own website. killer bee 06:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC) ADVERT and likely not WP:NCORP passing. Graywalls ( talk ) 09:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This is a WP:BROCHURE . — siro χ o 10:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . There are sources to support the notability of the organization. See here . The reports published by ICISA are considered relevant, see here and here . True, the article as it stands is promotional, not encyclopedic, etc. But the organization is notable. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 22:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] not properly sourced with reliable independent of the subject sources. In its current form, it resembles a brochure, as someone previously noted. -- BoraVoro ( talk ) 10:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bilal Abu Samaan : The SPORTSPERSON and NATH is questionable. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 18:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Coverage is in Arabic, and there are references in English as well! Bilal is the coach of the Palestinian national athletics team, and represented Palestine in many international tournaments. It meets the criteria of notability. --— Osama Eid ( talk ) 19:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you please specify which criteria for notability, as outlined in our rules, it satisfies? With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 17:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails WP:NATH . Zanahary ( talk ) 05:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC) NATH , there is a clause that says: Coaches who have coached many notable athletes, including at least one non-relay Olympic medalist, World champion, or senior World Record holder during the time of the athletes' notable accomplishments. Referring to the article, the Palestinian team, which was coached by Bilal, won the silver medal in the athletics delegation in Sharm El-Sheikh. He also "" was the official coach of the Palestine Olympic track and field team. "" — Osama Eid ( talk ) 10:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article talks about a well-known sports figure in Palestine. He is the international coach of the Palestine Olympic Games and long track team. He won the gold medal in the Olympic Games tournaments in Sharm El-Sheikh, and he represents Palestine in international sports competitions. --— Osama Eid ( talk ) 12:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] He is not well known. He has no proper coverage. There is no info on any medals. And he doesn't comply with the Wikipedia rules. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 21:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Striking duplicate ! vote. What even is ""the gold medal in the Olympic Games tournaments in Sharm El-Sheikh""? Geschichte ( talk ) 19:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC) SPORTCRIT . Geschichte ( talk ) 19:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rudi Bogaerts : Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 21:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Arts , Photography , and Belgium . Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 21:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting list for People . Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 22:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC) NOTLINKEDIN . The article itself doesn't establish notability. BEFORE shows a couple passing references in books and web, but nothing that establishes notability of the subject. — siro χ o 22:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I too am leaning towards d*elete, but will hold off on ! voting after I see what might be out there for sourcing. I think it is a COI or UPE creation for two reasons, 1) the promotional quality of it per Siroxo 's observation and 2) because the professional, posed profile photo of the person was uploaded by the article creator as their ""own work"" so it is clear that there is a connection between the artist and the article creator, or perhaps it is an autobiography. While that is not necessarily a reason for deletion, it could mean that claims (esp. unsourced) are puffed up. Netherzone ( talk ) 22:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Well, it did not take long to find that there are not reliable sources that we would normally find for an artist, such as reviews of exhibitions in art magazines or newspapers, chapters in art history books or journal articles, works in the permanent collections of notable museums or national galleries, and the like. What I did find a lot of is social media where it seems this artist is active in promoting themselves, as well as a few primary sources and user-submitted content. He does not pass WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG for notability. Netherzone ( talk ) 22:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC) ARTIST . I am not finding any RS on the subject. I took a look at the images of work included in the article and have nominated them for deletion over at the commons. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 00:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Dniproavia destinations : EDIT: A subsequent AN discussion concluded that these articles should be AFD'd in an orderly manner with a link to the original RFC discussion and that it should be taken into account in any close . Additionally fails WP:NOT (specifically WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIRECTORY ). Even if the RFC were to be overturned somehow, and the NOT issues removed - neither of which appears possible - WP:CORP would still be failed since the only source for this article that is clearly about the activities of a commercial organisation and falls within CORP, is the website of the company itself and an article on a blog/specialist website. WP:BEFORE searching is not required here since the failures of this article are more fundamental than a mere lack of notability (and BEFORE is anyway not a strict requirement), but I did a search anyway and found nothing that would remedy this. I note from the talk-page of this article that it was previously nominated for deletion in 2015. With all respect to the people who ! voted in that AFD, I think we can now see that this was a mistake, and was super-ceded by the 2018 RFC which was at a higher WP:CONLEVEL . FOARP ( talk ) 10:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation , Lists , and Ukraine . FOARP ( talk ) 10:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC) NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, and the AfD on the exact subject of lists of airline destinations. So, specifically not encyclopedic. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 11:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC) BUNDLE henceforth. Rosbif73 ( talk ) 07:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Carlos Ariel Then : Gseach goes straight to social media, no mentions in RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , New York , and Rhode Island . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , per nominator. Alexcalamaro ( talk ) 03:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , removed common paid-placement garbage. Remaining sources are a blog-like post in a sketchy ""magazine"", and a self-published pamphlet. Sam Kuru (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bob Pool : LA Times sources are not WP:Independent , and thus I do not see them as justifying notability. Couldn't find any independent coverage of him. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum . ♠ 19:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Journalism . — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum . ♠ 19:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . No independent sources turn up in WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 20:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. No independent coverage. Ktkvtsh ( talk ) 04:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sweble : Their rationale is as follows: I am really struggling to see how this wikitext parser is notable. The page has been tagged as being of questionable notability and using primary sources since 2011, so I think it's about time it went to AFD. There doesn't seem to be a single source in the article that demonstrates third party coverage of this software. Citations 1, 2 and 3 are links to the software's own website. Citation 4 is an announcement that the authors of the software will be presenting it at a conference. Citations 5, 7, 10 and 11 are papers written by the authors of Sweble. Citation 6 is a dead link to what seems to have been an open source community page? Citations 8 and 9 are pages on the mediawiki wiki, unusable as sources. A few google searches failed to turn up anything usable, mostly software repositories and the papers written by the software's authors. 86.23.109.101 ( talk ) 11:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Liu1126 ( talk ) 12:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software . Liu1126 ( talk ) 12:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Little to no independent, reliable coverage. The top Google Scholar hits are student theses from advisees of the software creators. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 01:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ali Nasman : Longhornsg ( talk ) 03:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politics , Internet , and Palestine . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Nothing found for this person. Non-notable person before dying, the death doesn't add to notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 05:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Mccapra ( talk ) 06:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. nf utvol ( talk ) 14:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC) No indication of notability, Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPEOPLE Seawolf35 T -- C 18:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . In addition to the questionable notability of the article, it also has problems with neutrality. Deckkohl ( talk ) 20:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC) per all forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not notable before death, only press coverage due to his death. Can be ed to List of journalists killed in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atighot ( talk • contribs ) 01:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nulloy : HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 18:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC) As per nom. failed WP:GNG . Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 19:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This article has been edited quite a lot since the nomination. What did you think of the additions, Youknowwhoistheman ? L iz Read! Talk! 08:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think so. Thanks, you with warm Regards! Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 11:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC) I don’t think any of the sources that have been added thus far establish notability, because there is no way to establish the reliability of the sources. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 18:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Cecilie Bjergen : I found no evidence of significant coverage in a Danish source search despite playing in the internet era. I found some coverage in a local Nibe -based newspaper but Nibe Avis 1 and Nibe Avis 2 clearly both fail criterion 2 of WP:YOUNGATH , which states The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability. Routine game summaries in a local paper are not enough. The only other non-database source that I found was Badminton Bladet , which is also entirely trivial coverage of Bjergen. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Badminton , and Denmark . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * I agree with this recommendation and the points that have been made. This seems like a clear . Go4thProsper ( talk ) 10:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Micro-Cosmos: A Science Fiction Podcast : TipsyElephant ( talk ) 02:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy , Radio , and Entertainment . TipsyElephant ( talk ) 02:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Unable to find a significant amount of GNG level coverage here to warrant an article about this subject. User:Let'srun 13:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Silcox, Manitoba : I can find no testimony to it as a settlement, and in the US at least we have consistently d these rail locations, where at least GNIS misleadingly labelled them as ""populated places"". In this case we don't seem to have even that. Mangoe ( talk ) 03:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's basically a point on a map. No settlement there, the train stops to pick up wilderness adventurers, it's not easily accessible. I can't find notability for this place in any kind of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . Kpg jhp jm 04:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I can't even understand why we're calling it ""Silcox station"". It's a flag stop. Do we normally call these ""stations""? There's no station, you literally have to call the railway company and tell them where you want the train to pick you up and drop you off. -- asilvering ( talk ) 04:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Many flag stops are physical buildings. This one is now (it is only a signpost), but based on what I understand of Canadian railway history, it is likely to have been a physical building in the years when railways needed agents in stations to communicate with crews and customers. The use of radio and cheap long-distance telephony led to the elimination of many station agents, and the buildings were either demolished or allowed to deteriorate to the point that demolition became necessary. In a Canadian rail context, though, station does not always mean a building. It can simply be a named place on a timetable. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm familiar with Canadian rail. My question was about Wikipedia norms. -- asilvering ( talk ) 05:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The province of Manitoba appears to recognize this community. See this list of cities and towns on the province's website: Province of Manitoba,Infrastructure and Transportation. ""Index to Cities and Towns | Transportation and Infrastructure | Province of Manitoba"" . www.gov.mb.ca . Retrieved 2023-07-28 . A google search for Silcox is made difficult by several instances of Silcox as a surname. Travel Manitoba https://www.travelmanitoba.com/ doesn't seem to have a listing for Silcox. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC) see a town here? [51] . -- asilvering ( talk ) 05:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found their ""Populations for incorporated centres over 1 000 as per Statistics Canada 2016 figures."" suspicious and checked. Here is the census for Silcox: [52] . That is to say, there isn't one - it's part of a large unorganized census division, and the entire population of the area is in the low hundreds, with a population density of 0.0. I'm not sure what the province used to make their list, but it's certainly not a list of ""incorporated centres over 1000"". That phrase is obviously misleading. (I have no guesses for what it could possibly mean otherwise in context.) -- asilvering ( talk ) 05:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually going for the map in question is very revealing. First of all, the main page there is an outdated mess: in the case of Silcox, it says it's on a sheet which doesn't exist. But a look at this 2022 map tells all. It's easy to locate Churchill on the shore of Hudson Bay (because there isn't anything else man-made there), and as soon as you increase the magnification enough to see any detail at all, a thin line heading south from the town appears. This is the rail line in question, and on it are a series of ""towns"" exceedingly regularly spaced, among which may be found Silcox. The complete lack of roads or anything else except glacial lakes reveals these for the series of flag stops which they surely are. It would make sense to have a list of these in the train article, but it's patently clear they aren't real towns as soon as one gets away from highway maps, which not incidentally have a terrible record as far as these things go. Mangoe ( talk ) 12:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mangoe My favourite bit is how the Silcox station is barely closer to Silcox Creek than Thibaudeau. -- asilvering ( talk ) 06:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silcox station -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . ""There's no 'there' there"" looking at satellite imagery at the coordinates listed. Look at the image for yourself -- bogs, bugs and boreal forest for miles. You'd have to wade or canoe to get to it. No siding or structure. Also, Via Rail indicates the Silcox ""station"" is a sign post . My guess is that it's used by tourists (canoeists) in the summer. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silcox Creek -- Silcox ( talk ) 15:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC) 16, 30 July 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silcox Creek -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 21:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Non-notable whistle stop. – dlthewave ☎ 19:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Igor Kogan : But same issues still apply, will simply repost the original editor's ( Oliver Virk ) nominating comment: ""Not passing WP:ANYBIO; deputies of the banks are not notable. looks like advertisement. WP:PROMO, cross-wiki spam. Russian Wikipedia is marked as Undisclosed paid editing and is being AfDed https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD,_%D0%98%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 Onel 5969 TT me 14:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Finance , Turkmenistan , and Russia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC) 29, 8 April 2023 (UTC) per nom and above, promo piece, probably would quality for G11. If ru.wp thinks its a problem there, its definitely an issue on en.wp. WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). // Timothy :: talk 01:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC) GNG set down by Wikipedia. As to the Forbes piece allegedly praising Kogan for managing ""Nordea Bank to become number one in 'The most stable banks in Russia' "" I'm still trying to find it. A bank manager, like millions of others. - The Gnome ( talk ) 16:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC) 53, 14 April 2023 (UTC) GNG . This manager made Nordea Bank (Russia) the most reliable in country. Else he developed the legal framework for the Credit Bureau, which is an integral part of the Russian financial market; made a significant contribution to Aeroflot. All facts was confirmed by independent media, is not just ""bank manager, like millions of others"". ЖуковАФ ( talk ) 09:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC) 45, 15 April 2023 (UTC) Again with the non-arguments ! Well, thankfully, our perennial pest, the simple assertion of notability , still does not cut it. Neither do the simple claim that there are sources out there nor our personal opinion about the text's usefulness . Sourcing is paramount. And after examining what little is already cited and what very little else can be found , it is trivially ascertained that our bank manager's notability cannot rise above millions of others'. Wikipedia is not a vanity project . - The Gnome ( talk ) 09:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC) BASIC . Bearian ( talk ) 15:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC) 09, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] More assertions that ""the person is important"" and ""surely, there are sources"" . - The Gnome ( talk ) 06:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more go… Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] for PROMO. Non-notable business person, links given don't discuss the subject, or only mention them in passing. Being important is fine, but we have no sources discussing the person that we can see are in RS. COI in the Russian wiki is also a red flag. Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC) BASIC guidelines while writing the article: “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria.” OnIPliOn ( talk ) 20:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , notable business person from a big bank. Article has a WP:RS , and person passed WP:BLP . Article is subject for work, not for . Can't make a links to ru.wiki because rules are different. Kasfe ( talk ) 21:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Igor Kogan is not only a notable figure in the Russian banking business, but also a significant public figure, initiating the development of a legislative framework for the creation of the institute of credit history bureaus in Russia, and was also a columnist for the leading Russian newspaper Vedomosti, which makes it possible to this article about him. Криворучка ( talk ) 00:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sydonia : Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia . UtherSRG (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per the nomination. Wow, how are you finding all of these band articles? I'm impressed. IncompA 18:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""tagged for notability since 2010"", as they said in their many previous deletion statements. casualdejekyll 23:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Solarball : Reywas92 Talk 15:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems like every 5 years one of these water purification devices is the next big thing but sadly. ... MNewnham ( talk ) 02:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Products , Environment , and Australia . Skynxnex ( talk ) 18:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Searches via WikiLibrary and Newsbank databases failed to find any reliable sources. Given the product was launched over 10 years ago, if it was going to garner notability, we should have seen it by now. Fails WP:GNG . Cabrils ( talk ) 21:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mars Roberge : Sadads ( talk ) 01:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Not enough coverage to meet film notability, this [109] and a review [110] on a site I don't see listed as a RS over at Project Film [111] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Canada , California , and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Director of at least 2 apparently notable films that received coverage, so that WP:DIRECTOR is met in my view. Trimming the page seems necessary, though. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC) DIRECTOR criteria are met: (A) an important figure...widely cited by peers or successors Nope. (B) originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique None that we're aware of. (C) created -or played a major role in co-creating- a significant or well-known work There are 2 films directed by Roberge that have Wikipedia pages of their own but that does not mean that their director is worthy of an article himself. First of all, we need independent notability, and, segundo, the films might be Wikinotable but they are certainly not some ""significant"" work. And (D) [his] work has become a significant monument, been part of a significant exhibition, won significant critical attention, or been represented within permanent collections No, no, no, and no. - The Gnome ( talk ) 14:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC) 44, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Mushy Yank. Marokwitz ( talk ) 12:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please note, Marokwitz , above response to Mushy Yank that the criterion invoked clearly and explicitly does not hold. - The Gnome ( talk ) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Subject fails WP:GNG and is not saved by WP:ARTIST . Wikipedia is not a directory of everything. Nor is it a collection of indiscriminate information . Completists, and I am one, please look elsewhere! - The Gnome ( talk ) 14:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm wondering if this article is getting edited with a bot or an outside script rather than by a person doing normal edits. Please see the major contributor's talk page. I am wondering why he continues to add information, mark every edit as ""minor"" despite several warnings. This suggests script driven editing. Graywalls ( talk ) 13:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I totally agree with Mushy Yank. Although an underground producer and filmmaker - he is still well known in the film industry. See e.g. his IMDB profile . GidiD ( talk ) 16:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] IMDB can often be used as a source of information but not as proof of notability . IMDB offers, just like Wikipedia , audience-created content. What Wikipedia demands are not reputations but numerous, significant, independent, third-party sources . You are totally welcome to locate and post them up and make people change their minds. - The Gnome ( talk ) 16:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC) IMDB is WP:UGC and generally trash and unacceptable as a reference. Graywalls ( talk ) 20:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are both right. Mea Culpa. GidiD ( talk ) 08:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Care to perhaps revisit, then, your above suggestion, GidiD ? - The Gnome ( talk ) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Watch this list, Please, if there is a good intention, a prior, help me integrate then into the article. מתיאל ( talk ) 09:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC) Mars Roberge is an emerging voice and the l.a underground filmmaking scene, and also won some prizes and gained some good reviews and recognition Fabiorahamim ( talk ) 18:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Any sources you can provide to support the above? - The Gnome ( talk ) 11:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 30, 26 April 2024 (UTC) מתיאל [ reply ] And also the two articles about his film with stating prizes and nominations. מתיאל ( talk ) 12:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But there's still nothing about the director himself! And the ""external links"" section is irrelevant to notability. - The Gnome ( talk ) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A list of further reliable sources will be uploaded to the talk page of the article tomorrow. If people will google him (And other artists) and also see the interview with him on Youtube and put the energy into that, instead of rushing to , Wikipedia will be a much better place. מתיאל ( talk ) 20:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC) מתיאל [ reply ] Look here below. מתיאל ( talk ) 09:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . per Graywalls and The Gnome Priscilla256 ( talk ) 06:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I must say that I am shocked by the enthusiasm of some participants to an article about a real film director. Erasing artists is something typical of dictatorships, 1950s style. Have you seen his movies? Is a director who makes kitsch films and is more successful worthy of value? The high-quality and less popular director has greater historical importance and that's what Wikipedia is for. Not for censorship or promoting kitschy pop. Nor does it matter the identity of the author of the entry and what his editing style is. Only relevant arguments. There are criteria for evaluating works of art and his films certainly meet them. For a better world, we need to create a community that promotes quality culture and deals with quality criteria. A community that acts for noble motives only! מתיאל ( talk ) 09:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) מתיאל [ reply ] I find your comments sad and insulting. I reject your accusation of ""enthusiasm"" as a motivator for my opinion. This verges on a personal insult, because it is presented in tandem with your insinuations about me or others with whose suggestions you do not agree as supporters of ""dictatorships."" I'd greatly appreciate if you retract these personal attacks and concentrate on the discussion about the issues at hand. As to your claim that this ""director has greater historical importance and that's what Wikipedia is for"", I'm sorry but that is just your personal opinion. Wikipedia is not here to assign historical importance on the basis of personal opinions. I could actually agree with you about the person's importance! But personal opinions about notability do not matter in the slightest in Wikipedia. (I'm sure you're aware of this .) We need sources . Wikipedia clearly and explicitly does not aspire to be a ""complete"" encyclopaedia, such as Britannica, or other such. Wikipedia is written by the public, essentially, on the basis not of contributors' personal opinions or expertise but on the basis of third-party, independent, significant sources . ""Noble motives"" are what has brought all of us here to contribute but they're not the decider on notability . - The Gnome ( talk ) 11:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't meant to offend anyone. I suggest that the people who are trying to him, will watch his movies before they decide. There are critics, and bloggers who are hardcore movie fans who liked his movies and wrote positive and detailed reviews about them, out of love for cinema and this is a sufficient indication. מתיאל ( talk ) 11:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC) מתיאל [ reply ] Another thing, when people (not you) write nasty things to me on my page and act like bullies and work to remove an article about an artist who has proof of his successes, how should that be interpreted? There is a behavior of some users that is necessarily forceful. Why remove an entry on a film director? This is beyond my moral perception. מתיאל ( talk ) 11:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC) מתיאל [ reply ] The historical importance is not only my opinion, i have stated all the true cinema lovers. And Also, if we lose the criteria, then only ""The market"" and financial success will be the criteria, and this is a death sentence for art. מתיאל ( talk ) 12:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC) מתיאל [ reply ] Source? Industrial Insect (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 45, 28 April 2024 (UTC) you are actually claiming that Wikipedia not having an article on this obscure filmmaker is a death sentence for art? Really? Seriously? Ravenswing 18:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC) For any personal attacks in your user talk-page or anywhere else, you should submit a complaint against the miscreants. This decreases the noise and helps the Wikipedia project. As to your suggestion that only those who have seen the subject's movies can have an opinion in this AfD, that's patently absurd and I hope that upon some further thinking, you'll see it too. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk ) 15:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How do I file a complaint about him? About the other thing, doesn't it make sense that only film experts will write about movies and only music experts will write about Music etc? A list of further reliable sources will be uploaded to the talk page of the article tomorrow. מתיאל ( talk ) 20:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] By the way, the offender has already d his bad slander. מתיאל ( talk ) 09:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC) 59, 28 April 2024 (UTC) מתיאל [ reply ] No. It doesn't make sense, and Wikipedia has never worked that way. We do not kowtow before the authority of ""experts"" -- the more so in that so very many ""experts"" are self-proclaimed. WP:GNG plainly sets an objective standard that any editor with a modicum of experience can gauge, and that holds true for articles on athletes, on historical figures, on actors, and on filmmakers. Ravenswing 18:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC) NDIRECTOR , WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG , of the sources presented none meet the level of RS required. Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 11:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC) //myindieproductions.com/mars-roberge/ https://winterfilmawards.com/performer/mars-roberge/ https://dmme.net/interviews/interview-with-mars-roberge https://www.stage32.com/profile/178978/about https://mubi.com/de/cast/mars-roberge https://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/mars_roberge https://www.beltondf.com/post/mars-roberge-a-path-of-his-own https://www.imdb.com/name/nm5054055/ https://torontoguardian.com/2017/05/mars-roberge-artist-profile/ http://punkglobe.com/marsrobergeinterview0115.php https://entertainment.ie/person/mars-roberge/ https://www.fred.fm/tag/mars-roberge/ https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=iL2r0FesH6I https://www.wemakemovies.org/blog/make-your-feature-competition-film-stars-is-in-production-pov-mars-roberge https://filmthreat.com/tag/mars-roberge/ https://dangerousminds.net/comments/scumbag_a_movie_for_anyone_who_has_ever_hated_their_job_would_do_anything_n https://behindtherabbitproductions.wordpress.com/2022/01/18/episode-1017-mars-roberge/ https://winterfilmawards.com/film/wfa2023-stars/ https://www.wemakemovies.org/blog/production-post-mortem-on-stars https://originalrock.net/2021/10/06/mister-sister-film-review-director-mars-roberge-delivers-another-heavenly-splash-of-back-alley-americana/ https://play.acast.com/s/soho-radio/jim-sclavunos-speaks-to-mars-roberge-debra-haden-john-robb https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=fqv7v5yrYXI&pp=ygUMbWFycyBSb2Jlcmdl https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=Qj-LuSZ_SnU https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=yoF0rhYTAk4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scumbag_(film) https://www.gonzocircus.com/blog/mars-roberge-scumbag-the-movie http://absolution.nyc/2017/02/09/die-j-mars-is-bringing-his-latest-film-%C2%93scumbag%C2%94-to-queens-for-the-north-american-premiere/ https://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/article/Sex-Drugs-And-Telemarketing-A-Look-At-Mars-Roberges-SCUMBAG-20180208 https://reviewfix.com/2017/04/review-fix-exclusive-inside-mars-roberges-scumbag/ https://www.fred.fm/linda-lamb-scumbag-iffr2017/ https://www.fred.fm/camille-waldorf-scumbag-iffr2017/ https://winterfilmawards.com/film/wfa2021-mister-sister/ https://filmthreat.com/reviews/mister-sister/ https://winterfilmawards.com/2021/10/wfa-2021-nominees-winners/ https://www.destroyexist.com/2021/08/rise-nyc-rock-n-roll-manifesto-remix-by.html third-party, independent, significant sources! Prosecution of artists is unacceptable!!! מתיאל (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל You are again engaging in personal characterizations , calling editors ""prosecutors""! Whatever the motive might be for such persistent behavior, it is unacceptable. You are already taking up too much of this discussion , so it's evidently advisable to step away , as I will do too, if I do not have to address some further input from you. - The Gnome ( talk ) 12:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC) I took the liberty of numbering your list. #1 is the artist's agent who's simply promoting their client. Come on! #2 is an entry in the list of all participants in a certain film festival. #3, #10, #12, #13, #22 are interviews, and we've already been through this; interviews are not, on their own, evidence of notability. #4 is a Netflix listing of every person under the sun connected, however remotely, to that streaming service. Same goes for #5, a MUBI listing; all we get from these listings is proof that the subject does exist and is indeed an artist. #6 looks like a joke but it's not; it's our subject's Rotten Tomatoes page, which reads, in its entirety : ""Highest Rated: Not Available. Lowest Rated: Not Available. Birthday: Not Available. Birthplace: Not Available."" What possessed you to include this I have no idea - it's actually evidence of non -notability. #7 is a write-up by a fellow up-and-coming artist on his blog; not a source for notability. #8 is the IMDB entry and, per WP:NFILM , IMDb is not considered a reliable source for proving notability . #9 is a glowing write-up by our subject's sister. Do you truly count siblings as independent sources? #10 and #11 are yet more typical listings. #14 is a write-up by a ""production services"" company related to our subject. #15 is a review of Stars . #17 is yet another enthusiast's blog entry. #18 is one more listing/announcement. #19 is the same as #14. #20 is a review of Mister Sister . #21 is one more interview, this one of a bunch of people, among whom is our subject. #22, #23, and #24 are all YouTube interviews. Enough. I am raging, this is not fair, especially about 7, so what, it is a good review, and what was written by his sisters?!? Youtube interview are media, it is not videos made by him. You can't pass up 15 and 17, they are legitimate film reviews by true film lovers. All I ask for is some fairness!!! מתיאל ( talk ) 09:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC) מתיאל [ reply ] You openly dispute the premise of accepting the good will of your fellow contributors. Then you admit you are raging . And you continue to invoke not just flocks of meaningless links as ""sources,"" ignoring the reasons they cannot be such (e.g. blogs are not, on their own), but ""arguments"" specifically unacceptable in AfD discussions, e.g. ""The quality of his work is enough for an article"" , ""It benefits Wikipedia"" , ""He is popular"" , ""What's the harm in having this article?"" , etc. I will suggest one final time we both vacate the space here and allow input from other editors. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk ) 09:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Some blogs are legitimate, Some wikipedia's policies are wrong. i added much more reliable sources. Help me, instead of being against me or the article. מתיאל ( talk ) 09:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC) מתיאל [ reply ] You're welcome to disagree with Wikipedia policies, and you're welcome to try to get them changed, but until and unless you do so, you need to abide by them. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk ) 17:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm raging for the lack of goodwill. Logical מתיאל ( talk ) 09:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC) 27, 29 April 2024 (UTC) 37, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Large slab of mostly unhelpful text Assuming goodwill [ edit ] Sorry, as a community we must help each other and not fail each other. I get a lot of hard time here, instead of helping. מתיאל ( talk ) 09:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC) מתיאל 45, 29 April 2024 (UTC) מתיאל [ reply ] Further sources [ edit ] ""24th Annual Dances With Films Festival by Robin Menken"". www.filmfestivals.com. Retrieved 2021-11-25. ""Mister Sister | Film | Winter Film Awards International Film Festival"". 2021-07-25. Retrieved 2021-10-24. Grobar, Matt (2021-08-24). ""L.A.'s Dances With Films Unveils Lineup, Sets Paul Greengrass & Michael London As Speakers For Inaugural First Films Series"". Deadline. Retrieved 2021-10-25. Wild, Stephi. ""NYC's Winter Film Awards International Film Festival Returns For 10th Annual Celebration Of Indie Film"". BroadwayWorld.com. Retrieved 2021-11-25. Weekend, No Rest for the (2021-08-02). ""Winter Film Awards International Film Festival Returns for 10th Annual Celebration of Indie Film…"". Medium. Retrieved 2021-11-25. ""MISTER SISTER | Dances With Films"". Retrieved 2021-10-24. Rabinowitz, Chloe. ""MISTER SISTER Screens At The Winter Film Awards In NYC"". BroadwayWorld.com. Retrieved 2021-10-25. ""Mister Sister Pictures and Photos - Getty Images"". www.gettyimages.in. Retrieved 2021-11-25. Hipes, Patrick (2021-07-23). ""L.A.'s Dances With Films Returning With Expanded In-Person Festival; 'The Art Of Protest' Opening-Night Film"". Deadline. Retrieved 2021-11-25. ""Mister Sister – suicidal straight guy finds love within NYC's drag community"". TheBUZZ Magazine. 2021-10-06. Retrieved 2021-11-25. ""Drag Queens, Chinese Food, A Nun, NYC, ""Mister Sister"" Film Premieres at Dances with Films Festival (dir. Mars Roberge)"". The WOW Report. 2021-07-29. Retrieved 2021-11-25. Chat with Massively talented Mars Roberge. DJ, Artist, Screenwriter, Editor, Award winning Filmmaker, retrieved 2021-12-22 ""Rise NYC: Rock 'n' Roll Manifesto (Remix by Genesis Breyer P-Orridge)"". Destroy//Exist. 11 August 2021. Retrieved 2021-10-25. ""'MISTER SISTER' Film review. Director Mars Roberge delivers another heavenly splash of back alley Americana"". OriginalRock.net. 2021-10-06. Retrieved 2021-11-25. Dina (16 August 2021). ""Mister Sister 2020 | MyIndie Productions"". Retrieved 2021-11-25. ""Mister Sister"". Film Threat. 2021-09-23. Retrieved 2021-11-25. ""WFA 2021 Nominees & Winners | Winter Film Awards International Film Festival"". 2021-10-04. Retrieved 2021-10-25. ""Scumbag | IFFR"". iffr.com. Retrieved 2021-10-24. Dunn, Bryen (9 February 2017). ""Die J! Mars is bringing his latest film, ""Scumbag"", to Queens for the North American premiere"". Absolution. ""Interview with MARS ROBERGE"". DMME. Retrieved 6 September 2018. ""2017 JURY HONORS"". Hollywood Film Festival. Retrieved 6 September 2018. ""Patricia Field Documentarian Has A New Film ""ScumBag"""". The WOW Report. 6 December 2014. Retrieved 5 September 2018. - ""Scumbag"". SugarBuzz. Retrieved 20 June 2018. """"A Day in the Life"" with local Toronto filmmaker Mars Roberge"". Toronto Guardian. 16 May 2017. Retrieved 6 September 2018. ""Mars Roberge - Scumbag"". Fred English Channel. 4 February 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2018. ""Household Filmmaking - Interview With Scumbag Director Mars Roberge"", Youtube, 25 September 2018, retrieved 26 September 2018 ""NFMLA 1/2015 MovieMaker Magazine Interview with Dir. Mars Roberge"", Youtube, 7 April 2015, retrieved 5 September 2018 ""Cult Film ""SCUMBAG"" (dir. Mars Roberge)"". Zeitgeist World. Retrieved 6 September 2018. - Karmiya Nicola Interviews Mars Roberge on Scumbag, retrieved 6 September 2018 ""Celebrity Interview - Mars Roberge"". BlogTalkRadio. Retrieved 6 September 2018. My Gay Toronto (26 April 2017), Scumbag Comes To Canada, retrieved 6 September 2018 Bellini, Paul. ""Scumbag"" (PDF). TheBuzzmag. - ""Scumbag Interview Brainwashed Radio KCLA99.3FM 09.29.16"", SoundCloud, retrieved 5 September 2018 - ""scumbagthemovie"". Instagram. Archived from the original on 2021-12-26. Retrieved 27 September 2018. ""KATIE CHATS: MARS ROBERGE, FILMMAKER, THE LITTLE HOUSE THAT COULD"", Youtube, 24 March 2013, retrieved 27 September 2018 ""Mars Roberge"". Punk Globe. Retrieved 5 September 2018. ""Queens World Film Festival's 2017 Line-Up"". Queens Gazette. Retrieved 5 September 2018. - ""Queens World Film Festival Unveils Diverse Lineup"". Queens Tribune. Retrieved 5 September 2018. Dina. ""Scumbag: Written Review"". MyIndie Productions. Retrieved 5 September 2018. ""'Scumbag': A movie for anyone who has ever hated their job & would do anything not to be there"". DangerousMinds. 31 July 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2018. ""Scumbag"". SugarBuzz. Retrieved 27 September 2018. ""Scumbag"". Punk Globe. Retrieved 5 September 2018. ""Mars Roberge over Scumbag - IFFR 2017: de mafste film van het festival"". VPRO (in Dutch). Retrieved 5 September 2018. """"SCUMBAG"", THE DARK COMEDY BY MARS ROBERGE FT. IN INDIEGOGO"". FBF. 27 December 2014. Retrieved 6 September 2018. ""Mars Roberge"". www.punkglobe.com. Retrieved 5 September 2018. - """"Scumbag"" The Movie by Mars Roberge"". Rank and Revue. Retrieved 5 September 2018. Christopher Moonlight Productions (25 September 2018), ""Household Filmmaking - Interview With Scumbag Director Mars Roberge"", Youtube, retrieved 27 September 2018 ""Mars Roberge over Scumbag The Movie"". Gonzo (circus) (in Dutch). Retrieved 6 September 2018. Finnie, Nikki. ""Mars Roberge and his movie 'Scumbag'"". The Punk Lounge. Retrieved 6 September 2018. ""Mars Roberge - Director of Scumbag"", Youtube, 11 June 2016, retrieved 5 September 2018 ""Kate Hudson Gushes Over BF Danny Fujikawa: 5 Things to Know About Him!"". Us Weekly. 11 May 2017. Retrieved 6 September 2018. Ciccarelli, Stephanie (14 May 2009). ""Voice Over Contracts | Growing Your Business - Getting The Gig"". Voices.com Blog. Retrieved 6 September 2018. ""Linda Lamb - Scumbag #IFFR2017"". Fred English Channel. 4 February 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2018. - ""Camille Waldorf - Scumbag #IFFR2017"". Fred English Channel. 4 February 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2018. BWW News Desk. ""Austin Pendleton, Charles Busch and More Set For Theater for the New City's LOWER EAST SIDE FESTIVAL OF THE ARTS"". BroadwayWorld.com. Retrieved 2020-05-28. Scumbag, ""Scumbag"" U.K. Premiere Q & A w/ Ryan Beard, retrieved 2018-12-20 ""Mars Roberge's autonomous SCUMBAG movie is now available to watch in Europe"". OriginalRock.net. 2021-12-01. Retrieved 2021-12-02. ""Scumbag (2017)"". Cinema Crazed. Retrieved 6 September 2018. ""Recensies; boekrecensies, filmrecensies, muziekrecensies, theaterrecensies"". www.derecensent.nl. Retrieved 5 September 2018. ""Inside Mars Roberge's 'Scumbag'"". Review Fix. 28 April 2017. Retrieved 6 September 2018. ""#MustSee: Cult Film ""SCUMBAG"" (dir. Mars Roberge)"". The WOW Report. 23 April 2018. Retrieved 20 June 2018. ""沒有最怪，只有見怪不怪 ！ 獨立電影的天堂：荷蘭 IFFR 鹿特丹影展"". POLYSH (in Chinese (Taiwan)). 18 February 2017. Retrieved 20 June 2018. ""15 Best Things to Do in L.A. This Week"". LA Weekly. 29 March 2018. Retrieved 20 June 2018. ""Scumbag"". Film Threat. 4 April 2018. Retrieved 20 June 2018. Finnie, Nikki. ""Mars Roberge and his movie 'Scumbag'"". The Punk Lounge. Retrieved 27 September 2018. ""Club Kid, Superstar DJ Keoki, Arrested and Under Investigation"". The BUZZ. 19 January 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2018. ""2017 JURY HONORS"". Hollywood Film Festival. Retrieved 4 September 2018. ""Sex, Drugs, And Telemarketing – A Look At Mars Roberge's SCUMBAG"". BWW News. Retrieved 20 June 2018. Dunn, Bryen (9 February 2017). ""Die J! Mars is bringing his latest film, ""Scumbag"", to Queens for the North American premiere"". Absolution. ""Interview with MARS ROBERGE"". DMME. Retrieved 6 September 2018. ""2017 JURY HONORS"". Hollywood Film Festival. Retrieved 6 September 2018. מתיאל ( talk ) 09:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC) מתיאל [ reply ] Stop! Just stop. This is pure bludgeoning ! You admitted you are posting in a state of rage. Have pity on us and stop. - The Gnome ( talk ) 09:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But my claims are rightful. From now on i will post only sources. מתיאל ( talk ) 09:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC) מתיאל [ reply ] Why aren't you answering? מתיאל ( talk ) 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC) מתיאל 56, 29 April 2024 (UTC) מתיאל [ reply ] A lot of blugeoning here on a article for some reason, perhaps indicative at best of being non-notable. Closest to notability is WP:NDIRECTOR but I don't think he passes the criteria. The rest, bit part actor, writer somewhat (nothing notable), producer, nothing stands out. I think it is fail on WP:SIGCOV . scope_creep Talk 11:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources are completely unreliable. The director is not the focus of them. It is trite that IMDB entries do not establish notability. And being the director of a couple of barely notable indie films does not make the director independently notable. Local Variable ( talk ) 11:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC) THREE best sources above. He's close, but not quite. BrigadierG ( talk ) 12:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC) DIRECTOR. ——Serial Number 54129 14:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC) No notability per DIRECTOR and no SIGCOV either. WP:THREE not met either. The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 14:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] not notable. Lightburst ( talk ) 15:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Add me to the list of editors raising a serious eyebrow at the bludgeoning . Whether or not you like Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding notability and the requirement for ""significant coverage"" of the subject (not his works) in multiple, reliable, independent sources is not an issue for this AfD. Those are the policies and guidelines in place, honed over twenty years of debate and struggle, and that's what we use to determine notability. The subject here does not meet those standards. Ravenswing 15:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC) I suppose there could in theory be some evidence of notability in that massive link dump above, but there isn't enough in the article as it stands. Even if d, article could be improved as a draft, and then re-added. Deletion isn't necessarily forever. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk ) 16:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC) BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth . BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 17:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC) GNG . If you look at the articles for his films Scumbag and Mister Sister, those too are questionable, thus diluting these films as a basis for notability. Although I haven't done a thorough check on those films Graywalls ( talk ) 19:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] obviously. I hope מתיאל can find a way past the ""psychological violence"" of this ! vote. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 21:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of unicorns : The article lacks citations, and contains no indication this list topic has ever been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources as required per NLIST . ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) See also MOS:TRIVIA and WP:POPCULTURE . ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Fictional elements . ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Way too undereferenced. WP:NOTTVTROPES , WP:IPC . -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC) I really, truly hate to defend thinly-sourced cruft like this article, but a handful of sources could be found: [72] , [73] , both of which cover unicorns in popular culture. This suggests the topic of the list has been discussed as a group. If kept, this article needs a LOT of work, and any unsourced entry (i.e. essentially all of them) should either be removed or given a proper secondary reference. If nobody is willing to do that, . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 03:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . List of legendary proportions. LISTN per above. Hyperbolick ( talk ) 06:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC) this is just trivia. Contrary to @ WeirdNAnnoyed , I don't think the subject would be supported by the sources they found. Those sources might justify an article called 'Unicorns in popular culture', but not a list of unicorns without anything else. I would say that some of this content could be moved to a new 'Unicorns in popular culture' section in the main Unicorn article. If the page is kept it should at least be moved to 'List of unicorns in popular culture'. Jtrrs0 ( talk ) 16:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per WeirdNAnnoyed and common sense (of course reliable sources have discussed unicorns as a group or set, as I'm sure have fictional horses ). -- Jfhutson ( talk ) 20:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course unicorns in general have been discussed, but unicorns in popular culture as a set? That is what this list is about. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC) not s Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 05:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Just giving this discussion a bit more time. But I have no idea what ""wp:not s"" refers to as it doesn't correspond to a policy page/section, at least none I could find. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to draft to see if this can possibly be sourced. BD2412 T 03:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC) I'm fairly certain that ""wp:not s"" should be parsed as "" WP:NOT s"", which I reckon refers to the likes of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE . Could be wrong, of course. TompaDompa ( talk ) 17:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] An article about unicorns in popular culture could possibly exist, but this list is way too broad. Unicorns are way too common in fiction for a list like this to exist. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 21:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"New Hope Church : Unable to locate any coverage in reliable sources except for the three sources cited in the article, and of those, two sources are local newspapers, and one source is a church magazine. Magnolia677 ( talk ) 17:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Texas . Magnolia677 ( talk ) 17:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] comment This is an extremely common church name and would need to be disambiguated even if there doesn't happen to be an article on any other such church in WP. Mangoe ( talk ) 18:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is easy to fix. Nathantx ( talk ) 19:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above name is now a Dab. It s to New Hope Church (Manvel, Texas) . — Maile ( talk ) 20:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (with regret) -- I see noting in this to distinguish it from many run of the mill local churches. A magazine classified it as (relatively) fast growing one year, but I doubt that is enough to make it notable. I would love to articles on all local churches, but we do not. Peterkingiron ( talk ) 17:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Run of the mill local church"" - The average size of an American church is 200 people, so if a church seventy-five times larger than an actual ""run of the mill local church"" still falls under that categorization, then, respectfully, I think your math is not mathing. This church is 75 times larger than the average church and is a major cultural hub for the community surrounding it. Nathantx ( talk ) 03:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak as the Houston Chronicle is a regional rather than local newspaper with the third largest Sunday circulation in the US. The magazine is an evangelical organization publication. More sources are needed so it's a weak , imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is the correct option, as Wikipedia itself states that things don't need to be perfect when they're published. This is a cooperative space and things continue to grow. There is enough of a case to the page, as the information is reliable and if someone is looking for this information, they can find it. There is not any amount of ""harm"" in ing this article, but only potential for net positive gain. The freedom of information and information access is valid in both the large and small strokes; just because someone else does not care to have this information, this does not mean there is no audience for this information. Even then, information access is not about audience, but the virtue of knowledge itself. This page for 'New Hope Church (Manvel, Texas) deserves to stay and be added to over time as I run across more articles, or anybody else has things to contribute. Nathantx ( talk ) 03:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC) THREE (and no more) sources that pass WP:SIRS . - UtherSRG (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as the article has been written and improved according to the suggestions above. This is my first article, and I have been targeted by some really nasty editors, sadly. In ing with ""do not bite the newcomers,"" I would have hoped for some more helpful dialog rather than running me through the wringer over this. I am open to helpful dialog to make this article the best it can become, as this is my first article and it has already been nuked to oblivion by other editors. Nathantx ( talk ) 15:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as the sources used are reputable and there is a precedent to . More sources can be added, in addition to those already in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OzyXCV ( talk • contribs ) 23:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG . None of the references pass WP:SIRS . - UtherSRG (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC) ATD . I don't see a reason why it can't have a mention on the article of the city its based in, and could easily be condensed to 2 paragraphs (minus the growth ""recognition"" section, which is questionably sourced). If there is no appetite to , then I'd be concurring with UtherSRG 's concerns and leaning . I am unconvinced there are sufficient independent significant references to assert notability for a stand-alone article. Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 10:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per nom, fails GNG and NORG. Sources in the article and found in BEFORE are mill news, event promo, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth . If there are WP:THREE soruces with WP:SIGCOV posted, ping me. // Timothy :: talk 19:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of The Incredible Hulk home video releases : Ajf773 ( talk ) 01:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC) NOTCATALOGUE -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 17:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mimsville, Georgia : cited to databases. ltb d l ( talk ) 05:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Georgia (U.S. state) . ltb d l ( talk ) 05:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yet more GNIS-import fake ghost-townery. The contemporary USPS directory has this as a post office in Baker, and Brimley reporting things near to the post office in 1910, which I suspect people are going to use for the usual fallacious ""near XYZ"" argument, doesn't magically make it more than a post office. Furthermore if USGS Water-Supply Paper 339 supported this being a town or a village, it would actually say that as it does for Newton and Elmodel in Baker, rather than more ""near Mimmsville"". Uncle G ( talk ) 11:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment What fresh hell is this? https://www.hometownapparel.com/towns/georgia/mimsville/mimsville-georgia-classic-established-mens-cotton-tshirt/black/915912/A1? path=29821_31227_127598&ink=WT Looks like GNIS gets printed on Tshirts now. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] after making sure the community is listed on county page I already know that rural Georgia is not sufficiently covered by newspapers. So I cannot rely on that source. The Atlanta paper mentions it as a community a few times. This is the best mention, https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-savannah-morning-news-mimsville/140827964/ , it establishes the existence of a named community prior to the post office. This website lists it as a community. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Baker_County%2C_Georgia . I feel like I've heard of it. But it doesn't have enough reliable sources to merit an article. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] with Baker County, Georgia . This appears to be another post village (but could be a poorly-attested town, per James.folsom), with some relevance to the history of the surrounding rural area (best described in the Baker County article), but there's no clear evidence for notability in its own right. Jbt89 ( talk ) 06:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm getting a lot of hits regarding different recorded specimens there. A list of Yale graduates said George King moved to a farm near there and began collecting reptiles, so perhaps that explains it. SportingFlyer T · C 00:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I see no reason to point this probably-just-a-post-office to the county article. It's not a notable place, and we don't have a definite character for it. Mangoe ( talk ) 02:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Mangoe. I really don't understand why people want to / these stubs, when the target has no mention of the subject (or mentions it only as an item in a bulleted list, as is the case for Baker County, Georgia ), nor any relevant section where the information would fit without being WP:UNDUE ...particularly when all the information we have about this place is from trivial passing mentions in databases and gazetteer tables. That just introduces confusion and irrelevant clutter. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 16:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The doesn't have to be that way. I was just for making sure that this vague community is listed on the county page and the article there. I agree that GNIS crap should be dumped on the floor. I believe some editors also place value on all contributions no matter how useless they were. In those cases at least preserves those. So, I think that's why you get that also. Another thing that's on my mind is many of these counties are not much more than stubs anyway, so if the even lesser known communities get listed there, then somebody could add a little info about each minor community. I've always thought it would be good to just list the unincorporated communities that actually exist but have few good sources on the county page with a little paragraph about. That just makes a better article in general, and I don't understand why so many editors prefer they have their own articles. James.folsom ( talk ) 00:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Vicente Delfin : Also the source that was cited in the article is an incomplete external wiki entry. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , and Philippines . Lenticel ( talk ) 00:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC) NPOL , searched to find other sources but was unable to locate any. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] functionally unsourced, fails NPOL and GNG. SportingFlyer T · C 03:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rick Burke (musician) : What little coverage I can find featuring this person's name is about his bands, not Burke himself Mach61 14:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia . Mach61 14:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This page we should given that the musician written about has a long-term and ongoing authentic discography as cited on reliable archival / data sites such as Discogs with news features on various media outlets. If for some reason it is a problem for the information to be listed under “Rick Burke (musician)”, I would strongly recommend that rather than deleting the article on superfluous grounds, the content should be split into 2 pages: one for “Comacozer” and one for “Tropical Sludge” with a from the original “Rick Burke (musician)” page. In saying that, it does not make sense to split the information into several pages therefore it should be retained as one to the information tidy on Wikipedia. NEXUS6N6MAA10816 ( talk ) 06:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ NEXUS6N6MAA10816 Having a long-term and ongoing authentic discography does not count towards inclusion in Wikipedia. With regard to your suggestion the article be split, there is not enough content about those bands for one to be viable. Mach61 16:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Mach61, thanks for your kind suggestions. The article is important as it streamlines information on Rick Burke which people actively search for on the internet within the context of ""Underground Music"" (see Wiki entry for this) and fits into the scope of ""WikiProject Music"". Associated acts such as Kikagaku Moyo, Electric Wizard, It's Psychedelic Baby and so on have existing entries on Wikipedia and this article will complete a missing part of that academic puzzle as it increasingly gets fleshed out as a public document. Best wishes. NEXUS6N6MAA10816 ( talk ) 05:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC) notability is not inherited . Mach61 15:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC) An article that doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO . If the band is notable, there can be option for ing/merging by ""hell no!"", it isn't either. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 07:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC) Sources do not establish that WP:MUSICBIO is met. LibStar ( talk ) 20:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Biaklian Paite : Best sources found were Arunfoot , Goal.com and Indians in Kuwait , all of which only mention Paite once and are clearly not WP:SIGCOV . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Manipur . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Katerin Alfaro : I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and El Salvador . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Trance Fury : Google search shows no reliable secondary coverage, and the only source in this article seems unreliable . ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 01:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - not notable and likely written for money by BheekAam along with other articles . If someone should turn up refs, please ping me. See also these articles by the same editor: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Luke Bennecke Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Daro Buy one, get two free! -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC) User talk:Jmertel23/Archive 2018 11#re: Deletion of Trance Fury page Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 322#Trance Fury - deletion recovery We appear to have an entitled, persistent self-promoter. Consider salting after deletion -- this will be the third deletion. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC) TFRRecords",delete
+"Untitled A. L. Vijay film : Film does not yet exist and does not have a title. Right now coverage is more just about the ""event"" of announcing in November 2023 that they plan to make a film. North8000 ( talk ) 14:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I would have said Dratify but as the case has been where many such drafts get added back to the mainspace, its better off to it. Way too early for an unnamed movie to have a page of its own. There is not enough significant coverage and there is no title given to the film. RangersRus ( talk ) 20:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"RAAM BAND : Macbeejack ☎ 15:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Nothing for this person found. Many hits for a group called Hypernova, one member shares a similar name I think. for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Majority of the sources that featured RAAM BAND are in Arabic (Eypytian language) where he's well known. I've also added a few. I guess he met the WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG Endik Zamuiri ( talk ) 05:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new sources added. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC) MUSICBIO InDimensional ( talk ) 14:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kozłowski coat of arms : I cannot find any sources demonstrating notability for this coat-of-arms. Tooncool64 ( talk ) 07:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft - I deprodded this unintentionally. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 15:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Georgian Attacks during Russo-Georgian War : Not the first article created by this new editor that is of low-quality and with problematic nationalistic overtones; additional scrutiny may be needed. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 22:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Georgia (country) . Walt Yoder ( talk ) 22:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] DELETE. I can't even understand half of the things in the article. This article is nonsense, terrible grammar, and like what the nom said, it's just a CFORK of the Russo-Georgian War . Also, the entire article is critical of Georgia . The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 (The Garage) 12:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello. I am the Owner of the Article. Since I am new to this Wikipedia Page, I am Trying to Make it More better. I am really, AND. This article is Part Of Russo-Georgian War So count it as ""CFORK"" if u want to. Imakewikipedianpages ( talk ) 15:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, Imakewikipedianpages , No one, not the article creator nor the chief contributor, ""owns"" a Wikipedia article. You can see this in this AFD where the community comes to gether to evaluate whether it should be Kept, Deleted, Redirected, Merged or Draftify. Decisions here are made by consensus. L iz Read! Talk! 07:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC) 21, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I think we can count the article creator's comment as a ""Keep"" so Soft Deletion is not an option here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - for the time being. This is the work of a new editor trying to do it right. We were all new once. And the situation itself is in constant evolving. We should let this new editor get his stuff together and finish it. It can be tidied up afterwards. — Maile ( talk ) 02:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How is the situation ""constantly evolving""? We're talking about things that happened more than 15 years ago. FOARP ( talk ) 18:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - This is a plain and simple POVFORK of Russo-Georgian War . You cannot just divide a war into the ""attacks"" of one side absent any support in reliable, secondary sources for that division, which there simply isn't one here. A war between two sides consists of both sides shooting at each other. FOARP ( talk ) 17:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as content fork. Srnec ( talk ) 14:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Daniel Sepiol : Doesn't meet WP:NBIO . - UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople , Games , and United States of America . UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] World Championship win + bracelet win should merit inclusion. Now satisfactory backed up. PsychoticIncall ( talk ) 10:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC) As I've asked in other AFDs, please read and understand WP:SIRS and then list WP:THREE references you feel are SIRS. WP:BURDEN is on you to prove notability, not just assert it through non-policy means (which is what you are attempting). - UtherSRG (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And again - the sources are all there backing up the main statement probably even more obvious than ever before (Las Vegas Review Journal isn't just providing routine match reports). PsychoticIncall ( talk ) 11:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk ) 17:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] weak sourcing depth just isn't there for a biography IMO. It might just scoot over WP:N, but I really don't think we have enough for a biography. Hobit ( talk ) 17:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Of the current sources, the only one I'd say meets the WP:GNG (marginally) is the first one from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which does delve into a significant event. The remaining sources are of the routine coverage variety with little in the way of actual in-depth coverage needed to meet notability guidelines. Let'srun ( talk ) 01:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Wonder Woman storylines : Seems like a fairly indiscriminate list of books that the character has appeared in. WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt ( talk ) 06:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Comics and animation . JMWt ( talk ) 06:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . WP:NOTCATALOG states ""Wikipedia articles are not: Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit..."". Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 08:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Enderson George : JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Caribbean . JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Monika Grikšaitė : I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Lithuania . JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Karin Van Der Laag : Badly sourced, possible sockpuppetry and/or UPE. Fails WP:BIO . 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , and South Africa . 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC) NACTOR and WP:GNG . Theroadislong ( talk ) 09:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC) I found only one potentially WP:RS online, but that is not enough to establish WP:GNG . The actress is also not eligible for any of the WP:NACTOR criteria (no significant roles in notable films or significant contributions to the field). Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 14:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC) at least 2 significant roles in notable productions. The page needs improvements, though. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which 2 significant roles in notable productions? Theroadislong ( talk ) 16:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Isidingo /Maggie Webster; The Story of an African Farm /Tant Sannie. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is nothing to suggest that her role in Isidingo is significant, it is one of many small parts. Theroadislong ( talk ) 16:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You're welcome. https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/celeb-news/breaking-karin-van-der-laag-maggie-from-isidingo-where-is-she-now-20-september-2023/ ; https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2013-07-09-isidingo-gets-a-15-year-rewind/ ; https://www.dstv.com/kyknet/af-za/blad/desember-2017/vat-n-vet-kans-om-gewig-te-verloor/nuus ; https://www.republikein.com.na/nuus/vat-n-vet-kans-2018-09-07 ... - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) The South African article above was written by a creative content writer with a versatile writing background and is a promotional fluff piece with claims like her talent transcends borders , artistic prowess extends beyond acting and multifaceted career serves as an inspiration to aspiring artists . Creative writing indeed. The others are mentions and the ones used in the article are WP:UGC . S0091 ( talk ) 16:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC) S0091 ( talk ) 16:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC) //www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/celeb-news/breaking-karin-van-der-laag-maggie-from-isidingo-where-is-she-now-20-september-2023/ were written by AI. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Timtrent doesn't surprise me. This is the third or so article I have come across published in The South African that was promo, with the others being written by marketing/PR professionals so likely paid for. S0091 ( talk ) 17:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Paul A. Singh : Previously prodded, and draftified and returned to mainspace without substantial improvement in source quality, so per WP:DRAFTOBJECT taking to AfD. All currently-cited sources comprise passing or trivial mentions. I was unable to find additional coverage of Paul Singh in academic sources or in news coverage (e.g. the British Newspaper Archive). Despite plentiful sources on the history of dashcam adoption, the subject appears not to have received significant coverage in those sources. Suriname0 ( talk ) 01:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Engineering , and United Kingdom . Suriname0 ( talk ) 01:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Suriname, Happy to help out with your cutting research. I've just been over press cuttings in the Press Reader system, and there are several more press cuttings on Paul Singh which couldn't be included to the wikipedia references because they were print only. Yorkshire Post, Sept 2015 in an article entited ""Footage Admissible in Court Due to Special Software"" refers directly to Singh's SmartWitness camera footage which was now admissible in court as proof of fault in accidents and in insurance disputes. This was a major breakthrough for motoring disputes. Western Mail, May 2016 - reports on Singh's call for cameras to be compulsory for autonomous vehicles. Daily Star, reported Singh's findings that British trucking firms had been fined £60m in fines for having stowaways onboard coming back into the UK from the continent. Daily Express, July 2018 reported on Singh's findings that July 21, would be the busiest day on British roads and that motorists should be careful to avoid accidents. Daily Express, Oct 2018, reported on Singh's evidence on growing incidents of commuter road rage, especially between motorists and cyclists. I am happy to send you copies of all of these print cuttings if you like, or you can see them in the Press Reader search here - https://www.pressreader.com/search? query=%22paul%20singh%22%20smartwitness&in=ALL&date=Anytime&hideSimilar=0&type=2&state=2 So as you can see Singh's work on road safety goes back over years, and these sources are independent, varied and all refer to Paul Singh in person. Sean Matthew Obrien ( talk ) 12:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Sean Matthew Obrien , unfortunately, none of those sources constitute significant coverage. The Yorkshire Post article doesn't mention Singh at all, and the other newspaper articles are trivial mentions. Per WP:SIGCOV : ""Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."" Sources 2-4 would be perfectly acceptable reliable, secondary sources for verifying that Singh was CEO of SmartWitness, but don't meet the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG . Suriname0 ( talk ) 15:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please note these five print newspaper sources are in addition to the other 12 digital sources cited. Also road safety and dashcams are seldom the topic of national newspapers so it's remarkable that there is this much coverage. Sean Matthew Obrien ( talk ) 13:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC) not addressing Singh directly, or being trivial name-checks. One common piece of advice at AfD is WP:THREE : much less impressive than many low-quality sources are 2-3 high-quality sources with a depth of information. You're more likely to persuade commenters to vote by giving them a small list of high-quality sources that demonstrate the subject meets WP:GNG . Suriname0 ( talk ) 14:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Daily Star and Express aren't RS. Yorkshire post is meh. I don't see much more for sourcing we can use. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are some more sources for you. The Independent ran a piece on the SmartWitness campaign for children's road safety in 2016 . [31] AutoExpress ran a story about how SmartWitness was helping motorists with the steep rise in cash for crash incidents in 2014. [32] Another cash for crash incident was reported in Surrey Live in 2014. [33] Paul Singh also did research into how cash for crash hotspots were affecting car insurance premiums which appeared in Daily Mail. [34] and Fleet News [35] in 2014. I'm happy to add these to the wiki entry. There are quite a few stories in Daily Mail online also about road safety, but I believe Wikipedia does not recognise DM online as source material. [36] Sean Matthew Obrien ( talk ) 14:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These would be great, if they discussed Paul Singh directly and in depth. (Singh is not mentioned in any of the linked sources.) Are you aware of other reporting that directly discusses Singh and his role in this important research? Suriname0 ( talk ) 14:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Suriname0, all the work and campaigns of the SmartWitness company were driven by Paul Singh and were created by him. Some pieces quote him by name, but not all. That's journalistic style unfortunately but the company and everything that it did was driven by him. Sean Matthew Obrien ( talk ) 10:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Sean Matthew Obrien left an additional argument in favor of ing the article on their user page. See here: User talk:Sean Matthew Obrien#Nomination of Paul A. Singh for deletion . Suriname0 ( talk ) 15:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with Oaktree b 's assessment. It's not a matter of ""journalistic style"", significant coverage by reliable sources is very common for notable subjects. Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 15:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of night vision devices : It also does not indicate what the criterion is for inclusion, and so does not satisfy list notability . The criterion isn't having a Wikipedia article, since some of the entries are not linked to articles. This list was moved to draft space by User:BoyTheKingCanDance with the statement that it has no sources (because it has no sources). It was then moved back to article space by its creator without adding sources. This is a contested draftification and so is being sent to AFD . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 05:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Technology . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 05:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the lack of sourcing is a red-herring. Our List of botanists , for example, has no sources, and rightly so: it's a navigational aid to find articles on notable botanists, and all the sourcing required to establish that they are botanists and notable is to be found in the articles on each botanist. The question is whether we really need a navigational aid to find articles on individual night-vision devices. Lists can also be useful to articles on the general topic more concise, but since our article on night-vision devices already lists everything, mixed up with the text, this stand-alone list isn't achieving anything particularly useful. Also stand-alone navigational lists shouldn't contain items that don't have a corresponding article. Elemimele ( talk ) 06:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I generally prefer lists to categories, but this list is not in a good state yet. Either this ends up no different from Category:Night vision devices , or it adds red links, or the non-linked entries need sources so they aren't removed. — siro χ o 09:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per siro 's point above. This list already exists as a category and has nothing to add to that category. Night vision devices that are notable will end up in the category, while non-notable devices don't really belong in the list anyway, because they end up running afoul of WP:NOTADVERT and the list specificity requirements. My vote could be swayed under the condition that the list adds something that the category does not while also having strict enough entry requirements to avoid just becoming a list of every night vision device ever invented (or dreamed of, for that matter). -- Licks-rocks ( talk ) 12:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No reason for the article to exist. Article creator even moved the article back to the mainspace after another editor moved it to the draft space for incubation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urban Versis 32 ( talk • contribs ) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Chris Kibermanis : In hockey he only ever played at the WHL level, which is not a level at which a person is ""inherently"" notable enough for an article, and was drafted by, but never actually played for, an NHL team -- and as a politician he was only ever an unsuccessful candidate , and never held any notable political office that would pass WP:NPOL at all. A prod was recently declined on the grounds that he has ""many mentions in newspapers due to his political aspirations"" -- but run of the mill campaign coverage does not secure the notability of an unelected candidate in and of itself, because every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage. (Which means that if campaign coverage were all it took to give an unelected candidate a WP:GNG -based exemption from NPOL in and of itself, then every unelected candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL would be rendered unenforceable and meaningless.) So campaign coverage does not build passage of GNG in and of itself: a person who had already passed a notability criterion (either as a hockey player or by winning the election and thereby holding the office) can use their campaign coverage as supplementary support for fleshing out the article with background information, but a non-winning candidate who has no other preexisting basis for notability does not clinch inclusion in Wikipedia on the basis of campaign coverage alone. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Ice hockey , and Canada . Bearcat ( talk ) 14:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If he won the seat in the provincial legislature, he would pass NPOL, but the article isn't on that point. An Alberta MLA is notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He didn't win the seat, and wasn't an MLA. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Concur with Bearcat. The subject's hockey career comes not within a light-year of meeting any notability standard, he doesn't meet NPOL, and no evidence of passing the GNG beyond routine campaign coverage has been proffered. And somehow this article's already slipped through the cracks for seventeen years? Ravenswing 16:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC) But isn't the fact that he was initially declared the winner of the incumbent's seat by only 5 votes and the recount gave it back to the incumbent by only 3 votes worthy of note? The incumbent's career could have ended after less than four years; instead, it lasted 14 years. That said, I can't say that his hockey career alone would warrant an article. MauriceYMichaud ( talk ) 01:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed, the incident is discussed extensively in the Edmonton-Castle Downs article. It doesn't therefore follow that Kibermanis himself merits a standalone article, when it would just reiterate the same information. Ravenswing 09:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC) the final certified results (in which he wasn't the winner) are what's definitive when it comes to NPOL, not the initial media call. While things like that don't always happen in every election, it happens often enough that it isn't special in and of itself. The recount can be addressed in the electoral district article and/or the BLP of the winner, and doesn't automatically require a BLP of the loser to coexist on that basis alone. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Garuda Aerospace : Gsearch goes straight to company profiles and social media. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Aviation . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was able to find a business today article and a economic times article on this company. Nagol0929 ( talk ) 12:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found them on BBC Today (YouTube) and all over MSN. Spaceeditor123 ( talk ) 22:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC) I found this title notable as it has enough good references on trusted websites. The company was inaugurated by Prime minister Narendra Modi and Mahendra Singh Dhoni is the brand ambassador. Alamaflin ( talk ) 07:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alamaflin ( talk • contribs ) 07:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk ) 17:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notable enough. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 01:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above and i found this. Chennai Super Kings onboards drone tech startup Garuda Aerospace . FXBeats21 ( talk ) 05:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC) NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* . ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject . In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no ""Independent Content"" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. I'd invite any of the ! voters above to indicate the particular paragraphs in whatever sources meet CORPDEPTH/ORGIND. HighKing ++ 19:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further analysis of whether the sources meet WP:NCORP would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 07:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC) Forbes India article interviews various executives connected with the drone market in India including the CEO of the topic company. The article relies entirely on information provided by the CEO and the company for the purposes of the article and does not contain an ""Independent Content"", fails ORGIND Indian Express article is based entirely on a company announcement to set up a factory in Malaysia. There are numerous articles regurgitating the same information, fails ORGIND The Hindu article is based entirely on the announcement of their sponsorship of the Chennai Super Kings, no ""Independent Content"", fails ORGIND This Hindau article is also based entirely on an announcement of plans to raise funding, no ""Independent Content"", fails ORGIND This Hindu article is based on an announcement of having raised funding, no ""Independent Content"", fails ORGIND This India Express article is another regurgitated announcement about how a former cricketer, Dhoni, invested in the ""start-up"" company and become their brand ambassador. Fails ORGIND Government of India Press Release , not ""Independent Content"". Another Hindu article where the CEO tells the journalist of their road-map and plans. No ""Independent Content"", fails ORGIND Hindu BusinessLine article with yet-more-regurgitated information directly from the CEO, no ""Independent Content"", fails ORGIND Another Hindu article , same result. Garuda CEO must have these guys on a speed dial. No ""Independent Content"", fails ORGIND. I think I'll shorten that to NICFO, my fingers are getting tired. HighKing ++ 19:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] India Times also publishing info directly provided by the company/CEO. NICFO. Another Hindu , same result, NICFO. Another Government Press Release . NICFO. New Indian Express article based on interviewing a young student drone pilot who works with the topic company. Also features the mandatory interview with the CEO. NICFO WION article where the company talks about looking forward to being a Unicorn one day. NICFO Tech Circle article based entirely on a company announcement. NICFO While I think the topic company's PR department are doing a great job and the CEO is wheeled out at every opportunity, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. The only people talking about this company are themselves. Recent analyst research reports into the Drone market in India either do not mention the company or do not provide sufficient in-depth information on the company. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. HighKing ++ 19:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Road crime unit : Elshad ( talk ) 18:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Police , Transportation , and United Kingdom . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No sources or claim to notability. Reywas92 Talk 23:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of companies of Australia : It has everything from large listed companies to small family businesses. The article may have been more relevant when created in 2002, but as Wikipedia has evolved, lists of companies with more defined boundaries have ed, e.g. List of largest Australian companies , List of banks in Australia etc making this one redundant. The only criteria for inclusion appears to be that the organisation operates through a Ltd or Pty Ltd company. Hamienet ( talk ) 02:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems far too ill-defined a criterion to have a list, especially when more narrowly-tailored lists exist. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 02:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Lists , and Australia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Agree with everything above. Bduke ( talk ) 04:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I tend to agree that the current list is overly broad. But I don't think history needs deleting. I'd suggest cutting this down to the ""See also"" section and renaming to Lists of companies in Australia to improve the navigational utility. Preserving history can be useful for editors looking to continue to improve organization of articles about Australian companies. — siro χ o 06:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Have no idea what this page is doing here. Pure clutter. MaskedSinger ( talk ) 07:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Narrowly defined list of companies articles are a better alternative. Knox490 ( talk ) 08:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Lists of companies by country it appears this type of list is very common. Jenks24 ( talk ) 08:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC) per nom ––– GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 11:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , other countries have these lists too. Besides, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database. You can't expect a single article to include every company in a country with millions of people. This article should be improved instead of being d. SouthParkFan2006 ( talk ) 16:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact that Wikipedia is not a database is the exact reason this page should be d . Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 15:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC) KITCHENSINK . Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. TarnishedPath talk 00:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Drowssap SMM ( talk ) ( contributions ) 02:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"HeavenMayFade : It was listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 June 16 by User:Sapols . No consensus was found in the DRV, and as such it is being listed here. . Clearly fails WP:NMG ; sources are not from significant publications and merely prove the band existed. Stifle ( talk ) 16:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . Stifle ( talk ) 16:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC) GNG and the WP:NMG (the appropriate SNG to this field). Sources found in the article and on a basic Google search are promotional in nature. Only claim to significance is that a member of this band joining Miss Fortune (a more notable band) and that does not make a band notable. Willing to reconsider if more SIGCOV is made available. Frank Anchor 16:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] fails GNG. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 21:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Frank Anchor . The deficient sources in the article and per my before search demonstrate a patently obvious failure of GNG and NMG. VickKiang (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Does not satisfy either musical notability or general notability . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon ( talk • contribs ) 22:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - In agreement with everyone above. The band only released a single EP locally and are only visible in the usual streaming services. The article's content is copied from their own social media self-promotions. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 22:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC) 51, 30 June 2023 (UTC) 28, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Hasan Hüseyin Can : This screams not WP:N . Aintabli ( talk ) 04:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Turkey . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. It's a bad sign that there doesn't even seem to be an article in Turkish for them. If there are insufficient sources to support an article about a person in their native language, it's doubtful we'll be able to do any better. The Squirrel Conspiracy ( talk ) 09:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Alyson Avenue : I am also nominating the following related pages because they do not meet notability or WP:NALBUM either: Presence of Mind (album) ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Omega (Alyson Avenue album) ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Changes (Alyson Avenue album) ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) HorrorLover555 ( talk ) 23:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Sweden , and Bands and musicians . HorrorLover555 ( talk ) 23:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC) NBAND , WP:GNG , and WP:NALBUM . I found absolutely no coverage at all on newspapers.com, EBSCO, ProQuest, archive.org, or Google Books. General web hits are all streaming services, directory listings, or content farms. As the sole WP:ATD I would support a of Alyson Avenue to Anette Olzon . Jfire ( talk ) 02:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Advance Concrete : Minimally sourced. Reads like product advertisement. Kleuske ( talk ) 10:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Software . Kleuske ( talk ) 10:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC) Reads like an ad, only primary sources, search brings up nothing but the company's website and this very Wikipedia article. Cortador ( talk ) 11:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Engineering . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 13:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC) per above. Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 08:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"George Washington University College of Professional Studies : Unclear notability. Mostly reads as a directory and promotional piece. Wozal ( talk ) 20:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Wozal ( talk ) 20:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Virginia and Washington, D.C. . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL . 33ABGirl ( talk ) 14:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC) SCHOOLOUTCOMES . And maybe we should check George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences , too. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 08:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Niggs Creek, Tennessee : To avoid 'move-warring' a discussion is now needed. 'Naive' search does not reveal additional SIGCOV. Eagleash ( talk ) 12:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Tennessee . North America 1000 13:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC) N for a there at all. Nate • ( chatter ) 15:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] minor stream with nothing said about it. Mangoe ( talk ) 21:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No reliable sources available. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 02:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - No SIGCOV sourcing to establish notability. – dlthewave ☎ 12:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No reliable sources and it is a small non-notable body of water. History person 2 ( talk ) 15:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nikolaos Argyriou (footballer, born 1994) : only sources i could find are database entries. Password (talk) (contribs) 01:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Greece . Shellwood ( talk ) 01:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC) V . Svartner ( talk ) 06:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Luis Mendez (Belizean footballer) : Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 05:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Belize . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 05:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Abington, Louisiana : Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 22:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Louisiana . Shellwood ( talk ) 22:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No sources, no article. All I could find are junk SEO content farm sites, most of which probably get their content from Wikipedia. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Abington, Louisiana . But that is not reliable . Plus the sock-puppet accounts including Futurewiki ( talk · contribs ) have quite a set of now-d bad Louisiana (and Texas) ""unincorporated community"" articles, and has made a habit of never citing a single source. This is not worth the time to even investigate. This isn't even a competent GNIS importer. Effectively this is a zero-context article. . Uncle G ( talk ) 01:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A quick look for sources turns up a few mentions of Abington as a place name, but nothing substantial, and there's next to nothing at the site now. If someone eventually finds sources in a place I didn't look, I wouldn't be opposed to recreation, but there's no use ing an unsourced one-sentence article if we can't find them now. TheCatalyst31 Reaction • Creation 19:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In general, as above, found a few usages of ""Abington"" as a place name, but nothing substantial enough to indicate any notability as a populated place. Searching can get confused because one of the geologists, who has published research on the Red River is named Dr. Abington. 1. Google Earth - location in the middle of Red River Parish currently lacking any sign of populated place at the junction of Abbington Lane and Louisiana Hwy. 1. 2. The 1948 Coushatta 1:62,500, USGS topographic map shows loose cluster of four buildings marked ""Abington"" at above interesection. The 1957 Coushatta 1:62,500, USGS topographic map shows intersection still marked as ""Abington"" with only two buildings. The 1980 Harmon 1:24,000, USGS topographic map still has interesction marked as ""Abington"" and shows none of the buildings remaining. 3. Soil map, sheet 11, of the ""Soil Survey of Red River Parish"" by the Soil Conservation Service (1980) shows the above intersection marked as ""Abington"" with no buildings evident in the aerial photography. Go see Soil Survey of Allen Parish, Louisiana. and Internet Archive PDF file. 4. The 1948, 1:62,500, Red River Parish geological map in ""Geology of De Soto and Red River Parishes"" by the Louisiana Geological Survey also marks the junction of Abbington Lane and Louisiana Hwy. 1 as ""Abington."" Abington is mentioned a few times in the discussion of the geomorphology of the Red River in ""Geology of De Soto and Red River Parishes"" as a trivial point of reference. 5. Found, but could not access: Nichols, R.R., 1941. Locating neighborhoods and communities in Red River Parish, Louisiana. . It appears to fail WP:GNG and coverage. Zenomonoz ( talk ) 03:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Prevention Point Philadelphia : Fails WP:NCORP . Graywalls ( talk ) 18:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Organizations , Companies , Medicine , and Pennsylvania . Graywalls ( talk ) 18:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] run on the mills and only own website citations (or mostly). Notability concern is obvious here. Rodgers V ( talk ) 14:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"KCCE-LP : Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 01:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 01:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Border Areas of Punjab, India : Chaotıċ Enby ( t · c ) 15:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Geography , Pakistan , India , and Punjab . Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC) OR , sources used are about specific border areas or just listing/mapping parts of Punjab that border. Certain parts of the article may be worth merging into appropriate other articles, but the subject/scope of this article is OR. EmeraldRange ( talk / contribs ) 20:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. This AFD was started about 30 mins. after the article was created and it has been edited quite a lot since its nomination. Could the article be re-reviewed? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nominator, article mainly provides synthesis of border districts articles, there's a list too where all the districts of Indian Punjab are given. Muneebll ( talk ) 10:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Maksud Agadjani : It doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 14:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , Business , and Azerbaijan . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 14:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom, and per absence of reliable sources. BD2412 T 14:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Oh dear. Hard . Mccapra ( talk ) 18:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion , Internet , and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC) GNG . Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 14:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] not notable and promotional content. Sideriver84 ( talk ) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nimbarka Ashram, Sylhet : Fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Hinduism , and Bangladesh . UtherSRG (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No evidence of notability. I checked the five citations, none of which supported the content they are cited for. Four of the citations mention the temple in passing; I cannot find anything in citation [2] that mentions the temple. Nothing relevant found in English-language searches on Google. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Thethaotocdo : Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bryony Ross : Contested PROD. JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Scotland . JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - the Daily Record piece doesn't contain enough non-quote content on Ross and I can't find anything else. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lunden Roberts : (1) Reliable sources exist, but only cover her in the context of her involvement with Hunter Biden, (2) she otherwise is and likely will remain a low-profile individual, and (3) her association with Hunter Biden is not a significant event from an encyclopedic standpoint. WP:BIO1E states the general rule is to cover the event, not the person . I believe ""the event"" is sufficiently covered at Hunter Biden#Relationships . – Muboshgu ( talk ) 15:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America . – Muboshgu ( talk ) 15:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Subject is notable for one thing. Coatrack smear political narrative. SPECIFICO talk 15:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC) NOTINHERITED . Sources mostly about her daughter and relation to Joe and Hunter Biden. GNG not shown, and has less chance of showing notability than her daughter's quickly d article. WikiVirus C (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - This article is about child support litigation against the son of the US President masquerading as a biography. The lawyer for the woman, Clint Lancaster, also represented the Trump campaign, the main rival to the US President in the previous and next election. The woman is not known for anything otherwise. The creator of this article also created the now d article about her daughter. This info is already covered in other Hunter Biden articles and there really isn’t anything else here. Fails WP:BLP1E and is an obvious WP:COATRACK . O3000, Ret. ( talk ) 16:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""an American woman"" is the lead? This is a smear article. Nothing at all notable here, she had a kid with someone famous. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - We usually don't have such bio pages, unless it involves royalty. GoodDay ( talk ) 20:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Six citations for the claim that she is an ""American woman"" made me chuckle. An obvious WP:COATRACK that serves no other purpose. Agentdoge ( talk ) 21:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC) 07, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to American Woman for reasons explained by the nominator. XOR'easter ( talk ) 22:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC) NOTINHERITED . Almost all sources refer to Hunter and her relationship with him. LibStar ( talk ) 23:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Clear breach of BLP1E. WWGB ( talk ) 02:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This is a disruptive BLP page creation IMHO, the page creator previously created an article about the daughter and has been made aware of BLP policy concerns during extended talk page discussions at Talk:Hunter Biden and Talk:Family of Joe Biden . I'd close this as snowball myself, but I closed the child's AfD as snow, so I'll allow fresh eyes to assess this discussion. BusterD ( talk ) 04:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC) NPOV . Propaganda piece. Can't be called an article. scope_creep Talk 08:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mc bess : Drmies ( talk ) 04:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC) ARTIST . I can't find any RS on the subject. APK whisper in my ear 05:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and France . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Georgios Velkov : Best sources found were Kerkida (translated) , a brief transfer announcement with a copy and paste of a club press release, Sport FM , a passing mention about being fined for poor behaviour, and Thema Sports , a brief mention about being suspended. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Cyprus . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bence Krakovszki : Onel 5969 TT me 13:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Handball , and Hungary . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I agree. I found stuff like Nemzeti Sport but it's not good enough Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kai Dahlhaus : ALSTROEMERIA 🌸 Čijukas Kuvajamas 07:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . AllyD ( talk ) 07:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC) promotional article created by now-indeffed editor. Note that this person is a ""keynote speaker"" trained by Simon Hofer (speaker) , whose article was created by the same editor (and Speedied G-11). The ""world championship"" seems to have been in the 20-24 age group only. The creating editor seems to have access to information such as date of birth which does not seem to be in the sources. Pam D 07:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , essentially advertising for this person's speeches. — Kusma ( talk ) 14:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, agree this is PROMO. Nothing notable for this individual found. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC) There was a substantial discussion on de.wiki leading to the deletion of an article on this person: [22] , although that was in 2016, before the subject's Triathlon age band wins. AllyD ( talk ) 18:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Doon International School (Palia Kalan) : Unreferenced since 2011. I tried looking in all major Indian reliable sources, newspapers, magazines, journals and found nothing. Only links found were for the iconic The Doon School , which this page and many other 'Doon' pages (have also Afd'd Doon Public School ) ride on. This is not a notable school by any measure. [ BiblioFreedom ( talk ) 15:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Uttar Pradesh . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Agree with the proposal to the article as it lacks references and does not meet the general notability guidelines of Wikipedia. I was only able to fine one reference on web which is also not reliable, and the article has been unreferenced for over a decade. Macrobreed2 ( talk ) 16:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: article ineligible for soft deletion Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 22:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:NSCHOOL . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 06:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"AI era : Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Remove the speculation and the hyperbole, and there is nothing covered here that isn't already done better elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a platform for crystal-ball gazing essays. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 18:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Feel free to remove any speculation, I don't believe it belongs in the article or at least should be reworded to be more neutral and merely quoting and documenting the various perspectives of what people and organization are anticipating. Mr Vili talk 18:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Economics , and Technology . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC) PROMO . If there is an age, it doesn't even have shape cognition yet, and that 'period of AI era section'...this is why we have WP:MADEUP , except I'm sure a kid's game would actually be playable compared to this grown adult's invented nonsense. Nate • ( chatter ) 02:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC) OR . It cites a June 2024 publication for the 'nomenclature', while citing an article from 2019 for 'defining events'. The 2019 article (paywalled unfortunately) can not possibly be defining words before they were invented. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 11:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No question it's OR, and it looks like it's sourced from a blatant pay-for-play paper mill. Nate • ( chatter ) 14:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC) CRYSTAL that needs to be suppressed before it's used by the unwary to bring this monstrosity to life in the internet wilds. Mangoe ( talk ) 13:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not just the LLM era, practically all experts at this stage agree that AI will continue improving and surpassing humans at more and more tasks with no signs of a coming plateau from scaling. This will inadvertently lead to the development of AGI, significant job losses and restructuring of human society. Nothing about it is really hype, and nothing in the article is predicting anything in the future as fact, its merely documenting what independent and notable sources are anticipating. Mr Vili talk 18:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I got my copy of Computer Power and Human Reason when it was brand-new and I was in high school, so I think I have a sufficient history of seeing the various World-Changing Advances In Artificial Intelligence go by the wayside, one by one, to be dubious about this one whose experience by the public is only a year or so old. We are still in the hype/panic stage of LLMs, and there's no telling whether or not they're going to be a dead end like all the rest. For all we know, in a couple of years everyone could be saying ""well, THAT was a bad idea"" or it could become a festering backwater like blockchain. It's simply too soon to proclaim an era, and an encyclopedia doesn't get points for being the first to jump on the bandwagon. Mangoe ( talk ) 21:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC) 12, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Black Kite can you please let me know which other article there is on wikipedia dedicated to documenting the large-scale ongoing effects of AI. Clearly there is hundreds of media articles, scholarly articles and reports from extremely notable organizations that are clearly pointing describing it as the next industrial revolution and a new era in human history. The closest is the AI boom, but that is merely covering the technological perspective, but as far as I'm aware there is nothing documenting the ongoing effects and anticipated post-AGI world... Even if a post-AGI world is never actualized, it's large-scale anticipation is worthy of encyclopedic coverage, considering Google, Meta, OpenAI, Microsoft, and many other of the largest tech companies are all narrowing down to develop AGI, with some explicitly making that their mission. To say that doesn't deserve any encyclopedic coverage seems absurd Mr Vili talk 18:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - a tertiary source. It should encyclopaedically cover subjects as discussed in independent reliable secondary sources, and is not a publisher of original research. This page is not a summary of a subject in independent reliable secondary sources. No anthropologists are writing about the mesonoetic period. That table of periods, for instance, is sourced to an article on Daniweb, an online technology forum . Is it reliable? the writer claims to be a journalist, but I see not sign any editor seriously touched that piece. It is, in any case, a primary source for the information it is supporting. If the writer makes up the period names, it's a primary source used here. And he certainly seems to have made them up. He definitely doesn't reference anything for them. Building an article from a mishmash of this kind of information is fundamentally flawed - and what s true there is true throughout. This is OR, and should be d per WP:NOT . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 18:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Not encyclopedic. The predictions are unsubstantiated and are sourced from those profiting from them. There are more than enough articles about actual current developments in the field. Swinub ( talk ) 19:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A of any relevant content into AI boom may be the course of action which should be taken. This was proposed a few months ago , and while these two articles cover slightly different timespans, they have related topics. – Gluonz talk contribs 23:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Any content d would first require verification to ensure that it was cited to a reliable source, and that it accurately represented what the source had to say. Having looked at the sources cited, and what they are supposedly being cited for, I suspect that there would be very little left to . AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 23:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I oppose of what would be OR being d into the AI boom page. A would damage that page. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , not all hyped news pieces need their article, it should be covered either in AI boom or in the History of AI. Artem. G ( talk ) 15:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Global Balkans : So not clear if this organisation was notable. (Nothing very helpful on the otherwise strong Andrej Grubačić page). Newhaven lad ( talk ) 19:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delele . Google does show hits, but they are, like. ""designates as the “Global Balkans” – the strip of land of Eurasia, going from the Balkans to Central Asia"". WHich are quite disparate and definitely not about any org. - Altenmann >talk 19:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ana Makharadze : My searches yield nothing better than squad listings in GFF and Sportall . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Georgia (country) . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per nom. Svartner ( talk ) 05:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC) 13 page views. Apart from that, the subject has no move for notability. The cited references were all databases and thus, fails WP: ATHLETE . Otuọcha ( talk ) 05:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC) GNG . Demt1298 ( talk ) 15:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of former East Coast Wrestling Association personnel : ECWA would be amongst the lowest-ranking professional wrestling promotions in the United States and becoming an alumnus is not notable in of itself. For comparison, I don't believe any NBA team has a list of former personnel, even though being a member of an NBA team would make that person a much, much more prominent athlete. WP:LISTCRITERIA outlines that notability should be a factor in considering the value of a list, and in the case of List of former East Coast Wrestling Association personnel , a very high percentage of the list do not have articles. Therefore, that makes this largely a list of non-notable people. CeltBrowne ( talk ) 00:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While I understand alumni articles for big promotions like WWE, AEW or NJPW, I don't see any reason to include an alumni about a small independent promotion. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 18:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC) fails NLIST, NOTDIRECTORY as a list, and doesn't serve a nav purpose under WP:CLN. // Timothy :: talk 02:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sudden Death Seven-ball : WP:BEFORE turned up some passing mentions and a forum thread, with most mentions being in the context of a television schedule, not WP:SIGCOV . ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me! 17:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Sports . ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me! 17:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some mentions on a SportsBall website, that's all. Lack of any substantial sourcing in RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm, I think the issue here is going to be the timing. It's a 2000-2006 events. Despite what the article says, it did run for six years, which is a reasonable run, and clearly for it to be organised/broadcast by ESPN, it's a big enough event. here's AZBilliards covering the event for instance. However, with it being early 2000s, a lot of the sources will be offline or dead by now from my experience of pool sources. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 22:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for finding that! It looks like they covered it one other time but that article reads a bit primary to me given the ad at the top and bottom. I will do some additional digging later this evening and see if anything else comes up. ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me! 22:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, the other one is just a reformatted press release, but this one was written by AZBilliards themselves, so would be a suitable measuring stick. It's only one source though, but I would expect contemporary sources from this time period to cover this, which would likely be mostly offline. Maybe newspaper.com is a good place to check. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 06:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pool magazines like Billiards Digest and Inside Pool probably also covered it, but I don't have back-issue collections of them any longer. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC) My additional research tonight did not turn up much else. I found a decent number of passing mentions in the form of awards lists/sports database entries and two new articles. Unfortunately, Cuesight seems to be an online store and PoolRoom seems to mostly be unedited press releases. ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me! 00:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Found several trivial mentions of the subject in news articles/books or being part of some programming table. The only significant coverage that I came across is in this forum , which does not seem very reliable. For now it seems to lack enough appropriate coverage to pass WP:GNG . Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 20:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC) NOT#INDISCRIMINATE even if WP:Notability is a bar they're finding it hard to hurdle due to their niche-audience nature not generating coverage that is easy to find. If this one is d, please WP:REFUND it to User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/Sudden Death Seven-ball . There are some other previously d pool/billiards/snooker TV show and video game articles that I should probably have dug up out of page histories, as the old stubs on them would make reasonable list entries. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Anshul Avijit : Fails WP:NPOL , coverage appears otherwise routine. He can't inherit notability from his grandparents or mother. AusLondonder ( talk ) 20:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India . AusLondonder ( talk ) 20:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC) NPOL . However, if the individual wins and is elected as a Member of Parliament, they would then meet the notability criteria. Currently, there's a lack of in-depth coverage on the subject, with the cited sources being primarily press releases. Grabup ( talk ) 02:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC) he is national spokesperson of Indian National Congress and we have article like Nupur Sharma . Also, sources have done in-depth coverage of the subject starting from his grandmother Sumitra Devi (politician) to his mother Meira Kumar . - Admantine123 ( talk ) 04:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not yet won already — but this makes no claim that the subject has preexisting notability for any other reason. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but just standing as a candidate is not in and of itself grounds for an article now. Bearcat ( talk ) 18:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mini Europa : PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Poland . Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or drafify . No references, no pl wiki interwiki. Sadly, the author is inactive since 2019 so I doubt anyone would try to save it after drafticiation. is hard due to no sourcing. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLA (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify – Per Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus . Svartner ( talk ) 17:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC) SOFTDELETE . Adequate justification is needed for deletion direct or indirect via draft space. I don't see any indication that anyone (self included) has done any WP:BEFORE work. I don't see any strong arguments for deletion. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 01:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Again, this is a non-notable figure skating competition, no longer held, that was exclusive to junior and novice-level skaters only (ie. no seniors). The sea of red links shows that the skaters who did medal here were themselves not notable. The men's competition also frequently featured only one competitor. This was a Who cares? competition, and the article should be taken out back and given the Tonya Harding treatment. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Abu Raihan : This is not ""inherently"" notable enough to clinch inclusion in Wikipedia if it's all that can actually be said about him, and just makes him a WP:BLP1E rather than a person who has earned a permanent place in an international encyclopedia -- and furthermore, Wikipedia has a rule that due to the potential of a Wikipedia article to cause harm (e.g. becoming a magnet for vandalism or attack editing), we have to be especially vigilant and strict about the notability of minors. So winning a student-level contest just isn't grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions . Bearcat ( talk ) 14:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC) BIO1E and concerns about the notability of minors. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Agree that WP:BIO1E applies. Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 07:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk ) 07:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Meets WP:BIO1E . // Timothy :: talk 09:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dean Timmins : PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , England , and Australia . Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC) NSKATE and WP:SPORTSCRIT . LibStar ( talk ) 02:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV from reliable independent sources. Let'srun ( talk ) 01:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of songs about Bangalore : Because there are none. The deletion reason is the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad , Madras , Oslo etc.: The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE , WP:LISTN and WP:OR . There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context. Geschichte ( talk ) 08:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Lists , and Karnataka . Shellwood ( talk ) 08:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral None of these songs have their own articles, but some of the people singing them do, and the films they are in do as well. D r e a m Focus 03:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 19:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not a notable subject. The list shall never end. Shankargb ( talk ) 15:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No articles for any of the songs, no article for this topic. Nate • ( chatter ) 17:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the same reasons prior discussion closed as . Sergecross73 msg me 19:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Aiden Burn : Spinixster (chat!) 03:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Spinixster (chat!) 03:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Katelyn Polantz : Draft was declined by User:Umakant Bhalerao initially. My own take is that current sources don't satisfy WP:SIGCOV , an article in NYTimes about her wedding doesn't seem right for an article that is talking about her as a journalist. Sources do not look WP:INDEPENDENT to me. Needs more citations. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 09:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and United States of America . Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 09:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Pennsylvania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The information is drawn from several staff bios from publications Polantz has been involved with as well as the Politico Q&A and the NYT wedding piece (which I hold is valuable info for the personal life heading, as well as date of birth). The independence of the sources could certainly improve — does anyone have any sources with which Polantz is less personally involved? Thank you for the input 2600:1016:B077:6071:D945:4F5A:2CD3:167A ( talk ) 19:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lack of SIGCOV of her as a journalist. A wedding announcement doesn't contribute towards notability. The Pittsburgh Post Gazette article is not independent because it's an interview. Also does not meet NJOURNALIST . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 02:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Her work and coverage and has been cited in several books and journals –– I feel referencing these could bolster the credibility of the article. Would these fit under the ""Reporting"" section or warrant their own section? Patrickswain ( talk ) 17:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Being cited in a book/journal does not establish notability. There needs to be significant coverage of Polantz as a person, not just of her work, to establish notability. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 02:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Does being interviewed by your employer count towards notability? [24] , [25] . I wouldn't count the wedding article as SIGCOV, it could be used to flesh out an existing article, but can't be used to an article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Coverage is mostly found related to the Mueller Report, I think she was a reporter on that item at the time. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Being interviewed by your employer does not establish notability because that interview is definitely not independent. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This person is an average, mid-career reporter. The main claim to notability in the lede seems to be she was EIC of her school newspaper. 128.252.210.3 ( talk ) 18:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Helene Kvint : I am not finding reliable sources to add to this article WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 18:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions . WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 18:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Theatre , Czech Republic , Denmark , and Germany . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No sources or reference section in the article, every external link is a self-published primary source, and I am not finding any reliable sources. Elspea756 ( talk ) 19:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. aaronneallucas ( talk ) 19:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . No reliable sources. Even if this person is notable in Denmark or the Czech Republic, little would be lost by deleting this and starting again with some actual refs. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 21:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No sources or justification of notability. Easy . Go4thProsper ( talk ) 18:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"EFOSMO : If I understand correctly, EFOSMO is a proposed model that was presented in two academic papers that were published in several journals across the globe. Nothing further happened with the proposed model so I conclude that the subject does not meet WP:GNG and the article should be d. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 16:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions . Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 16:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC) The article has multiple issues, but chiefly does not seem notable. Constant314 ( talk ) 18:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusty4321 talk contribs 19:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Cannot find any sources outside of the two papers that invent the term. I also note that the article was created by User:EFOSMO so was probably intended as promotion of the concept or term. Lamona ( talk ) 04:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ian Rogers (character) : The character appears to also be an extremely minor one, and the article itself is rather small. A basic of character info to the list is probably more than enough to suffice here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 16:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation . Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 16:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Appears to be a very minor character, with only a handful of actual appearances. Searching under all of the various names given to the character turns up very little coverage in actual reliable sources (i.e., sources that are not fan wikis or official Marvel pages). There are just a few handful of sites simply summarizing a few of the issues he appeared in. On top of that, both entries in the ""In other media"" section are on two completely different characters, so I am not sure why they are even listed there, and of course those appearances would not demonstrate any notability for this character. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Rorshacma. Doesn't have enough coverage to pass the WP:GNG . Without enough sources, it might even have fundamental issues with WP:V . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 17:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC) R in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 17:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC) R per above, lacks IRS with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 22:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More discussion around the proposed alternatives to deletion would be helpful in attaining a consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment To address the proposed ATD as suggested by the relisting, the character is completely non-notable and poorly sourced. Merging anywhere would just result in the non-notable and poorly sourced information being shifted to another page, which would just mean the exact same problems that prompted this AFD would now just exist on a different page. Again, I want to point out that the listings in the ""Other Versions"" and ""In Other Media"" sections are not the same characters, meaning there is literally one very short paragraph of poorly sourced information in this article even about the subject. Citing WP:PRESERVE is not a a magic passphrase that means that one can completely ignore addressing the blatant notability and sourcing concerns with this fictional character. Rorshacma ( talk ) 03:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I wouldn't be opposed to a deletion verdict should that come to be the case, especially given the points acknowledged here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nanotech metallurgy : Well before nanotechnology became a buzzword, metallurgists and material scientists were using structure at the nano size scale (mainly) deliberately in commercial materials, for instance steels and more recently superalloys. There is nothing in this article which is not already covered better elsewhere, both within Wikipedia and outside. Beyond this the article also has structural problems with much of it a list that is not expanded upon, and many parts are written as WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:OR , although I think much (most?) of what is here is already established science. Neither Wikipedia nor scientists should be reinventing the wheel. (Yup, this page does annoy me!) Ldm1954 ( talk ) 06:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions . Ldm1954 ( talk ) 06:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC) after I posted the AfD I realized that the editor who wrote the article is also the one who invented the name, so I have added a WP:COI to the list of issues with this page. For reference, he does not appear to have made any other contributions to Wikipedia. Ldm1954 ( talk ) 06:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I have a lot of sympathy with the nominator here. A google search turned up a phenomenal number of hits for the term ""Nanotech metallurgy"" but they all seem to have very close links to MetaLi, a company owned by Xiaochun Li, whose name also bears an uncanny relationship to that of the creator of the article. I can't help but feel that the vast majority of the many sources available to support this article are actually direct or indirect-but-close products of Li, and the whole thing is extremely promotional, reeking of blowing one's own trumpet. This is not the place for autotrumpetery. We need evidence that a decent body of people other than Li are using exactly this term, or the article should be d. It isn't enough to find metallurgical publications that happen to mention nanotechnology. A glazier can use a screwdriver but screwdriver-driven-glazing doesn't automatically become a notable term. Elemimele ( talk ) 10:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] comment , looks a bit like SYNTH, but I'm not an expert in either nanotechnology or metallurgy so can't really assess it. Artem. G ( talk ) 19:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 15:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Well I am a scientist and this is a mashup of nanotech and metallurgy that has no basis in common usage that I know of. This article has been through AFC and was created in good faith, however I'm not interested in a COI editor (a university professor and his company) trying to create a new scientific discipline. I checked refs, the COI editor, and googled - the nom has got this bang on. Desertarun ( talk ) 16:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with your analysis, I am also a scientist and this is part of my area which is why I nominated it. Ldm1954 ( talk ) 23:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Eglė Raznauskaitė : All I found were passing mentions like 1 and 2 . JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Lithuania . JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I couldn't find news coverage of her, even in Lithuanian. CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 18:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Insufficient sources to meet GNG. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC) SPORTCRIT Lightburst ( talk ) 00:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC) SPORTCRIT . Powerviki ( talk ) 15:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Averell Spicer : LibStar ( talk ) 01:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , American football , and California . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment He does have a couple of significant articles in the Los Angeles Times in 2004 and 2008 (part I) (part II) . There is also this from rivals.com that is behind a paywall. Alvaldi ( talk ) 14:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC) ""NO DOUBT ABOUT HIM // USC recruit Spicer an easy choice for Inland Empire Football All-Star Classic"" . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . For two reasons. First, I couldn't find sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG . The ProQuest article noted above (which I can't read either) appears to be from his time in high school before even enrolling at USC. Second, he never played any regular-season NFL games, and moreover, it appears that he didn't win any signifcant honors or have a particularly notable college career either. See here (22 total tackles and two sacks in four years at USC) and here (USC bio indicating he was primarily a backup on the defensive line). Combining the lack of on-field notability with a weak showing of coverage, I find no basis for notability. Cbl62 ( talk ) 16:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first Los Angeles Times piece from 2004 ( here ) has depth of coverage, but it's an article written when he was in high school, part of a series on ""the Southland's top high school football players"". It appears he showed great promise in high school and was a top recruit, but he sustained injuries in college and never quite made the grade at USC. Per WP:YOUNGATH , an in-depth profile from his high school playing career doesn't support a stand-alone article -- particularly where he didn't fulfill the promise when he got to the next level. Cbl62 ( talk ) 16:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC) ""Trojans look for stopgap measures"" to fill the hole at nose tackle). Spicer was one of the ""stopgap"" measures to replace Ellis and thus received some coverage. USC during the Pete Carroll years was one of the super-programs where even a backup (or ""stopgap"") nose tackle received some coverage, but the fact remains that Averell never made the cut (whether due to injury or whatever) and doesn't IMO warrant a stand-alone article. Cbl62 ( talk ) 16:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Liberland Amateur Radio Association : All sources are self sources, not a single hit otherwise on Google. Fermiboson ( talk ) 02:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions . Fermiboson ( talk ) 02:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Europe , Croatia , and Serbia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added more external sources now. I mean other pages about amateur radio organisations have less scrutiny but since it is Liberland based than all odds are against you. Well LARA organisation has already 64 members from all over the world. See: https://lara.ll.land/callbook-list/ To countercheck the claims about membership you can check QRZ.com where many LARA members included and mentioned their membership in their page (also 1L callsigns). Organisation already operates for 7 years. It's non-profit and non-political organisation meant to gather radioamateurs from all parts of the world, and such it will stay as such. But you be the judge... DelphiColor ( talk ) 09:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC) BLOG and hence not suitable for determining notability. Nobody here has a negative opinion of (or, indeed, cares a single iota about) Liberland, see also WP:WAX . You are entirely free to scrutinise the other amateur radio organisations yourself if you wish, or nominate them for deletion if you have read through the notability guidelines I mentioned on my talk and genuinely think they do not meet them. Fermiboson ( talk ) 12:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have copyedited this article to improve readability, accuracy and compliance with Wikipedia quality standards. I also added some relevant details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillaumeroy ( talk • contribs ) 14:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. The organisation does not have the authority to issue ham radio licences and there is no ""1L"" prefix. The article does not assert notability nor does it cite any reliable, independent sources. Flip Format ( talk ) 14:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The organisation's legitimacy and non-membership in the ITU are political considerations that should not preclude notability and inclusion on Wikipedia. Guillaumeroy ( talk ) 14:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would agree. Not all organizations need to be connected to centralized UN organizations, as also all countries doesn't need to be members of UN to be considered countries. In fact there are plenty of examples in history using non-ITU allocated prefixes and some of them are still using them (S0, 1A, 1SL, etc. ) See non-ITU callsigns. I agree it is unusual one, but nonetheless it is as significant as any other organizations in their respective territories. And I don't know why it wouldn't deserve its own article. DelphiColor ( talk ) 14:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC) No hits in Gnews, which seems understandable... An amateur radio association from a non-recognized ""nation"" we'll call it. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Regular Gsearch is primary sourcing, their own website, then social media, then non-RS sites, so nothing for notability found there either. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (possibly) , the amount of information and notability is too small for this to stand as a separate article, but it could be mentioned in the main article if a good third-party source can be found. - Anonimski ( talk ) 16:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would support this idea. Maybe not with main Liberland article as it is too general but under article about organisations based in Liberland. DelphiColor ( talk ) 10:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing my vote to . I had a try at finding sources that are compatible with what's normally accepted on Wikipedia, but couldn't find anything. The current source coverage isn't even good enough for the main Liberland article, because it's self-published statements, and some blog texts. - Anonimski ( talk ) 17:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as entirely failing to meet Wikipedeia notability standards. But before doing so we should probably investigate who was responsible for the claim in the lede (now removed) that this 'association' is ""based in the Free Republic of Liberland"", given that this claim is an obvious, blatant, falsehood. The territory claimed by the so-called 'Free Republic' is entirely uninhabited, as anyone even remotely familiar with the topic will be aware. Utter garbage... AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 18:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not to defend the article if it's notable or not, but I would just like to inform that the statement that this land is uninhabited is false. Liberland settlers are constantly present there since 6th of august this year. Many independent sources can confirm that, as many journalist crews from different countries visited the area after august and interviewed settlers living there. So I wouldn't consider it falsehood. As for notability, well maybe it doesn't meet the standard for global English speaking community, as Liberland community is considerably smaller. But does present significant enough of organisation inside Liberland which is mostly English speaking community as many Liberland sources covered it. But anyway, if it doesn't meet the standards, well I guess it would then have to be part of some other bigger article, like Liberland organisations, as there are many of them. For example Liberland chess club that consists of over 10000 people. But that is probably on Wikipedia community to decide. DelphiColor ( talk ) 18:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please provide independent reliable sources for your claim that the disputed territory has had ""settlers... constantly present there since 6th of august"". Good luck with that... AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 18:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well I can provide you links of many journalist articles. There is also one historian documenting every week of events and life in Liberland, but if you consider this source reliable or not, you will have to decide on your own. Source: https://liberland.one/blog/ (documented every week with photos and videos) But it's like proving people still live on Pitcairn island, since it's so isolated they don't get much foreign media so the only source they are still there is if they make their own publications. In case of Liberland it is not so isolated, but media come by when they wish and if something significant is happening. And most of minor events are self documented. News about Liberland settlement: 23. October 2023: https://www.index.hr/magazin/clanak/proveli-smo-dan-sa-stanovnicima-liberlanda-zelimo-imati-slobodnu-drzavu/2506543.aspx 25. September 2023: https://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/hrvatska-policija-upala-u-liberland-samoproglaseni-predsjednik-vrijedjali-su-nas/2498405.aspx 23. September 2023: https://total-croatia-news.com/news/politics/croatian-police-liberland/ 10. September 2023: https://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/dnevnik-nove-tv-posjetio-je-liberland-samoproglasenu-drzavu---801368.html 30. August 2023: https://cnn.iprima.cz/komari-umorna-prace-potize-s-policii-a-velke-sny-jak-vypada-liberland-osm-let-od-vzniku-410529 26. August 2023: https://total-croatia-news.com/news/travel/visiting-liberland/ 20. August 2023 https://www.telegraf.rs/vesti/jugosfera/3734102-ekipa-telegrafa-uplovila-u-liberland-s-pecatom-nove-drzave-od-avanture-u-dzungli-do-ozbiljne-svetske-price This is some of them. DelphiColor ( talk ) 01:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Frankly, your suggestion that the 'historian' blog you cite is of any relevance here can only be indicative of your lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy. I don't have to decide 'on my own'. Even ignoring general Wikipedia policy on the non-reliability of blogs, a clearly-partisan website with an entire page entitled 'Help the Settlers' is absolutely not the independent sourcing I asked for. The website is revealing in one manner relevant to this discussion however: it makes explicit what has already been quite obvious to those watching Wikipedia 'Liberland' content for some time. Specifically, the blog page you cite states the following: Proving Liberland occupation is already useful now, eg concerning the informations published on Wikipedia. A clear and unambiguous admission that Liberland's publicity machine is actively seeking to manipulate article content. Not news of course, given the WP:CoI violations, socking, partisan spin, and outright misrepresentation of sources we have seen in the past, but nice to see it confirmed in writing from the participants. As for the remainder of the sources you cite, you need to note that first of all, statements made by Liberland supporters, regardless of where they are published, are not reliable sources for said supporters being 'settlers'. Interviews are useless as sources in this regard - they are not independent. And I'm not sure what you are attempting to prove by citing articles documenting the actions of the Croatian police: the only thing that article demonstrated is that earlier claims by Liberland supporters that Croat authorities had given tacit approval to their activities were false. And I'm not even going to bother looking at articles dating back to August, since they cannot possibly support your claim that there has been any sort of continuous presence in the area 'since 6th of august this year', much less that those there are 'settlers' - which is to say individuals who have taken up permanent residence . Proof of publicity stunts staged for the media is not proof of permanent settlement, and nor is citation of Liberland supporters self-descriptions. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 09:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just wanted to point out there are non gov sources inside Liberland and it's not all governametal propaganda. There are people out there that do their own thing. Also I wanted to point out, that despites actions of Croatian forestry company settlement continued to this day. Anyway not to get too off topic. I would like ask you for an advice how to document things in this case independently and objectively, if major interest group who produce reports is the supporters who live there and are envolved in the project, therefore can be biased. How to proof the truth of reality, if it interests mainly one closed group of people? (If we go a bit wider and philosophical, how to proof people actually live on earth to an alien who has just met one us, he doesn't have to believe us as we can be biased.) Anyway just asking for advice how to objectively document things and events that would meet Wikipedia standard, if you know the topic as you are somewhat involved in it and monitor it closely but the same thing make you less independent source as you can be biased. 194.165.116.33 ( talk ) 10:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC) WP:RS and WP:NPOV : this isn't a discussion about philosophy, and the only question is as to whether Wikipedia policies are being adhered to. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 11:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC) My search came up the same as Oaktree b . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ramil Hashimli : This is a promotional page create by Atakhanli (the user was blocked-the reason for the blocking was noted that the editor was engaged in paid activities.). There is no nearly enough RS about the subject to establish notability. -- Correspondentman ( talk ) 09:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 27 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 10:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC) The {{ subst:afd2 }} formatting was not fully implemented here; I have fixed this. No opinion at this time. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Science , Medicine , and Azerbaijan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I can't see anything here that would satisfy WP:NPROF , WP:NAUTHOR , or WP:GNG . Qflib ( talk ) 18:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kivika A Achumi : I could not find substantial, non-promo coverage for this individual. Notability seems to hang on the large number of Youtube views. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nagaland . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC) Five hits in Gnews, simply confirming appearances at various events. Nothing we can use for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ui-guk Kim : I couldn't find any reliable, independent sources that have significant coverage of the subject from a BEFORE search, and the only source that is in the article currently is unreliable. Tails Wx 01:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions . Tails Wx 01:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your concern, I added another citation for this information, I hope this is enough to allow for it to stay up. Yuri Iluliaq ( talk ) 02:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That source, FamilySearch , isn't a reliable source either. Tails Wx 02:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 02:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC) A7 , besides no indication of notability anyway 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 02:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Roger Cossack : Clarityfiend ( talk ) 00:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PROMO, other than being a lawyer that was interviewed on CNN, I don't see anything we can use for notability. Visiting prof at the university isn't notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per reasons above, and article is all primary sources. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 04:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC) ANYBIO given the lack of sources available. Quick citation check does not hint at possibility of this person meeting WP:ACADEMIC either MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 04:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Law . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. 2001:4455:61D:DB00:4184:9335:4EB4:685F ( talk ) 12:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC) IP has only three edits all in AFD MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 13:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Legacy Broadcasting : PROD was declined. Let'srun ( talk ) 14:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Companies . Let'srun ( talk ) 14:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC) GNG RetroCosmos talk 17:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The company's entire existence seems to be solely for regulatory purposes and the stations it ran were designed to be as non-competitive as possible in their markets until a new owner could buy them out under a more friendly FCC regulatory environment. The company's 'owners' were effectively caretaker managers who also fulfilled the 'minority and women' checkmark to smooth over the FCC until they could sell again, and this business was never a serious effort to establish a competitive broadcaster. Nate • ( chatter ) 18:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Mississippi . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC) There's really not much you can say about a company that basically only owns/owned ""excess"" stations following another company's rs, so the lack of the requisite significant coverage isn't exactly a surprise. Mentions of the company in the articles for their stations is sufficient; this never really warranted an article, and very little will be lost with its deletion. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC) GNG due to mainly press release sources. TLA (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mareh Khaneh Kharabeh : No english source, and Tageo is a database. From WP:GEOLAND : Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Hongsy ( talk ) 08:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran . Hongsy ( talk ) 08:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Gandhi Inter College : No significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL . LibStar ( talk ) 23:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uttar Pradesh . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 23:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Was this incident of vandalism at the same school? The district doesn't match, but sometimes districts are split or d. ""Mahatma Gandhi's statue desecrated in UP college"" . Deccan Herald . 2019-09-13 . Retrieved 2023-06-22 . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 00:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Jalaun district and Muzaffarnagar district seem to be quite far apart. - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 07:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Couldn't find GNG-level soures for this school. It doesn't help that its name seems to be shared with a lot of schools in the region. - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 07:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC) GNG . While you search the college, you will find several generalised links but nothing specific to this institute. Charsaddian ( talk ) 11:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC) 15, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above and my own search. Doesn't seem to be anything to work with here. Redirection to Charthaval#Education is tempting but would raise its own problems as this doesn't seem to actually be the primary topic (as noted, there are a great number of Gandhi Inter Colleges) and a dab page would run into its own complex issues. -- Visviva ( talk ) 02:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mobile file management : Article has unreliable sources and reads more like an advertisement than an article. Dawnbails ( talk ) 16:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software . Dawnbails ( talk ) 16:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I don't see how is it ads, but WP is not a manual, and the subject is not notable for an encyclopedia. Artem. G ( talk ) 09:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My bad, I wrote that wrong; the citations read more like an advertisement, linking to GroupLogic and some unknown and now-defunct website. Dawnbails ( talk ) 12:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Full with technical inaccuracies and written quite poorly. No substantial sources either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 ( talk • contribs ) 07:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Vishnu Dental College : No secondary sources with significant coverage available. Fermiboson ( talk ) 07:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools , Science , Medicine , and India . Fermiboson ( talk ) 07:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC) I can't find any independent coverage of this. Cortador ( talk ) 09:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also cannot find any independent significant coverage. Just review sites. Darcyisverycute ( talk ) 11:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC) 04, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of flyovers in Pakistan : This is a curious unreferenced list, whose individual entries are likely to fail the relevant notability guideline at WP:GEOFEAT . Only a handful of the list's entries have standalone articles, and I am not sure that reader interest really justifies a list article (though a category and See also mentions in the other flyover articles may be appropriate). I note that WP:NLIST says: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles. If editors can find sources that have discussed Pakistan's flyovers as a set, and save this article from deletion, that will be a very welcome outcome of this AfD. For disclosure, there are four other List of flyovers in [X] or List of flyovers and under-passes in [X] articles (for cities or regions in Pakistan or India) that currently have a PROD tag; if it es that there is reasonable doubt that this article should not be d, I will remove those tags – or of course, any editor may do so, without waiting to see the consensus that forms here. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 11:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 11:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 11:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 11:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 11:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC) I'm not seeing notability. Many don't even have trivial coverage of them, and a simple flyover isn't terrible notable. Zero sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC) Categories, lists, and navigation templates : ""Wikipedia offers several ways to group articles: categories, list articles (including item lists, as well as topical glossary, index, outline, and timeline articles."" There is no need to cite references when notable articles are listed for navigational purposes. HistoriesUnveiler ( talk ) 19:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Firstly, and most importantly, thank you for cleaning the article and merging the content from the regional lists, which hopefully will allow the related regional list PRODs to go through without contest. Secondly, I'm unconvinced by the navigational argument. With your cleaning, in the current revision , the number of bluelinks directing to flyovers per se is five ( Sher Shah Bridge , Muslim Town Flyover , Yousuf Raza Gillani Flyover , Chowk Kumharanwala Level II Flyover , Nishtar Chowk Flyover ), of which four are in Multan. The other entries are either interchanges, redlinks, or s either to the roads the flyovers carry or the neighbourhoods where they are sited. (The linked interchanges already have a navigational page: Category:Road interchanges in Pakistan .) The five remaining flyovers are small enough in number to justify inclusion in each other's See also sections, and they could be integrated into the navigational page at Category:Road bridges in Pakistan . In my view, the principal advantage of a category over a link is that it dissuades the kind of WP:OR that the nominated article suffers, from editors unfamiliar with the notability guidelines. Nor am I altogether convinced that anyone reasonably will care enough about ""Flyovers in [X] country"" as a category for a list article to carry encyclopaedic value; indeed, no other country has this kind of article to my knowledge. We also have Template:Bridges in Pakistan and List of bridges in Pakistan . IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 19:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are a lot of notable flyovers in Pakistan so a stand alone list is justified. We have to find a compromise. This list meets WP:NLIST as well. See this reference . There are many references if you do a search in Pakistani newspapers. HistoriesUnveiler ( talk ) 21:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The source you've shared isn't about the flyovers as engineered constructs per se , but a set of interviews with people who live under flyovers in Karachi. That might merit a mention in Karachi#Social issues , not an indiscriminate list of flyovers in Karachi. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 21:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Highway infrastructure like this is pretty generic, no indication that these are notable either individually or as a group. Reywas92 Talk 17:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More discussion around the extent to which this list does or does not have a reasonable navigational purpose in light of our list inclusion criteria would be helpful in attaining a consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC) per above. Codenamewolf ( talk ) 17:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mission 11 July : Other sources are about the actress Nattasha Singh and glamsham.com is questionable. In my search, I found this , which adds nothing. Another reliable review can save this film. Else to Nattasha Singh . DareshMohan ( talk ) 04:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn’t search hard but what about this ? - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] + this . Film quoted here and in ""The Shifting Terrains of Nationalism and Patriotism in Indian Cinemas"" (article published here ) (simple mentions but which indicates it's been noted as a film on terrorism and relates it to a more general trend, which the article can mention). Not a great source but the film has been called ""a debacle of Bollywood debut"" for Singh. All in all there seems to be enough in English only at least to expand the article, verify things, and attest some notability. For me it's a . - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The NewsBlaze plot summary (not a review) is functionally illiterate and clearly wasn't edited despite being on the main (Australian) NewsBlaze site. Master's theses are not reliable sources. Passing mentions do not contribute to notability in any capacity. JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . No appreciable coverage in RS. The Indian Express piece is just 7 short sentences of mostly snark, which is hardly SIGCOV. JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per above. killer bee 09:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Battle of Sutlej : Harish Dhillon is a self published source; the author was a headmaster/principal of schools which enrolled middle school children- [65] according to his book's acknowledgements . The coverage in both aforementioned sources fails Wikipedia's guidelines for significant coverage by a long shot- [66] as they only include a small paragraph about the battle. Southasianhistorian8 ( talk ) 06:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , History , Military , Sikhism , and Punjab . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While the battle happened, there are not enough reliable sources for it to merit its own article. We can acknowledge the battle by including a sentence in Mughal-Sikh Wars . Ixudi ( talk ) 20:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Häzel : The closest claim to notability is a Grammy nomination which was for another artists album that he had a hand in writing one song on. Searching for coverage brings up an interview with him on the PreSonus blog, which is just the subject talking about himself and not significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. InDimensional ( talk ) 20:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music , France , and Brazil . InDimensional ( talk ) 20:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC) A quick search does not bring anything to the table to present as WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV . Please ping me if sources are found. I might change my vote -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 21:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Obeid Rashid Nizam : Bangladesh Cricket Board is not a legislative body, so WP:NPOL does not apply here. I was not able to find any sources that establish notability WP:NBIO or WP:GNG — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c ) 15:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , Cricket , and Bangladesh . — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c ) 15:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Cullen Collopy : There is some minor coverage, but nothing non-routine. JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC) GNG here. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Eugene Kirwan : JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Antigua and Barbuda . JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC) 22, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kristin Hedger : Hedger would not qualify under WP:POLITICIAN . Only under certain circumstances would a candidate qualify for an article based on their candidacy either as their candidacy has some sort of notability to it (e.g. Lar Daly for his use of the ""equal time rule"") or are candidates who qualify for reasons independent of their candidacy (e.g. Joe Exotic ). Hedger as the ""youngest to be a statewide candidate for public office anywhere in the United States during the 2006 election cycle,"" does not reach the level of Daly and her business career does not meet GNG let alone the level of a Joe Exotic, Cynthia Nixon , or another GNG qualifying person who happened to also be a candidate for office. This will be added to deletion streams for politics, North Dakota, and business among others. Mpen320 ( talk ) 03:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . Mpen320 ( talk ) 03:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions . Mpen320 ( talk ) 03:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . Mpen320 ( talk ) 03:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Mpen320 ( talk ) 03:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Young person ran for office, lost and got job."" Just a regular working person at this point, I don't see any further coverage for her. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is about all the coverage I can find, could likely be her, but nothing for notability [21] . Still a ! . Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Can't find any sources that pass WP:GNG in article or on Google. Having never been elected to office, does not pass WP:NPOL . There is no election article to to. – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 23:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Fails WP:GNG . Maliner ( talk ) 09:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC) fails GNG and NPOL, there's only really two sources in the stub (disregarding the image referenced?) and one is only a passing mention. Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 00:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] non-notable political candidate. SportingFlyer T · C 09:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Consensus seems clear, but lending further support to an argument for deletion on the grounds discussed above. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Thomas L. Halkowski : Let'srun ( talk ) 13:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Law , and Delaware . Let'srun ( talk ) 13:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC) GNG as article creator. Safiel ( talk ) 18:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nominee for a position that he did not get. No sources about him other than his nomination. Lamona ( talk ) 02:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 22:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sumgayit Technologies Park : There is nothing that indicates that this facility is notable. One of many articles imported into English Wikipedia by a ring of editors from Azerbaijani Wikipedia who are singularly focused on promoting the government. Thenightaway ( talk ) 12:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Geography , and Azerbaijan . Skynxnex ( talk ) 13:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Did a search and I did find this Caliber article - but the article is not long enough to be significant coverage. Second source used from Trend News Agency likely meets GNG requirements, but still fails to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV for parts of this article unrelated to payment terminals. Feel free to ping me if more sources are found. EmeraldRange ( talk / contribs ) 20:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – per nom. TLA (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2023 Savannah mayoral election : The 2023 election is not WP:N and this article is purely WP:CRYSTALBALL . This election and quite frankly it seems that elections in years past are not notable either. The lack of reliable sources and sources overall are a by-product of this. It is possible that it may become notable in the WP:FUTURE but we have no way of knowing that. This project does not need an entire article dedicated to a non-noteworthy election. Grahaml35 ( talk ) 05:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Programme level : Boleyn ( talk ) 14:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Radio , and Television . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 14:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of second-tier formula racing champions : Unnecessary WP:FANCRUFT list that is only good for the most obsessive motorsport fans, also WP:LC and WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. Also, not notable enough to pass WP:LISTN , in fact fails all requirements. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 09:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Lists of people , Sports , Motorsport , and Lists . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 09:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – As I said on the first nomination in this set of articles, this is a very straightforward . Procedure wise, this could definitely have been handled as a batch nomination as the reasoning is identical for all articles of this type. 5225 C ( talk • contributions ) 09:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC) Not described as a group. Fails WP:LISTN . Let'srun ( talk ) 18:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - per nominator and Let'srun. EnthusiastWorld37 ( talk ) 07:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - Unlike many of the similar recent nominations, I think this has some potential. At the moment this article is stuck trying to be multiple things at once. I think it is possibly reasonable to a list of champions (and by default, seasons) of just the original F2 into F3000 into GP2 into the current F2. It is not unusual for these to be grouped together (indeed the navboxes on our articles such as 1984 European Formula Two Championship and 1985 European Formula 3000 Championship reflect this), and for example Motorsport Magazine considers GP2/F2 to be one championship, and on [8] if under ""group"" you select ""F2/F3000/GP2"", it gives all of the above, plus the FIA Formula Two Championship (2009–2012) and 1960 Formula Two season . So this is not a hard failure of WP:LISTN . I would suggest removing all but the above mentioned championships, and probably ing it into one table (with perhaps the ""revived"" F2 as a separate section). A7V2 ( talk ) 23:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Blood Red Throne : - UtherSRG (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote , but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts : {{subst: spa | username }} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed | username }} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry : {{subst: csm | username }} or {{subst: csp | username }} . Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Norway . UtherSRG (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Wasn't gonna renominate so soon since I'm told that's inappropriate, but as I said in the last AfD which I started, I found much too little evidence of notability to be convinced this should stay. Why it was even restored after soft deletion I'm unsure; no new coverage was presented that would've given it any more hope. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 18:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC) This band has not only been around since 1998, but has featured at least two (former) members of notable bands ( Emperor 's ex- Tchort and ex- Satyricon 's Daniel ""Død"" Olaisen). UndergroundMan3000 ( talk ) 23:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural Comment - This nomination was made just three days after a soft deletion due to minimal participation, and the article's creator apparently requested its reinstatement. I question the strategy of such a fast re-nomination as if something different will happen if you pounding away at it. I once did something similar and got yelled at by two different Admins for a procedural violation, with one actually threatening to ban me from AfD discussions. I have observed the current nominator practicing this same process several times in the past few weeks. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 01:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or - Keep, or to Tchort , Bernt Moen or Erlend Caspersen . -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 11:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC) 46, 15 October 2023 (UTC) 54, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply - I don't think that it is a big deal if I vote ""Keep or "". It is similar to voting ""Keep"", but saying that ""If the article cannot be kept, that it should be d"". The article should be d to the most notable member of the band. If they are all equally notable, then as BrownHairedGirl once said, flip a coin to determine to which member the band name should be ed. -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 21:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Now that I think about it, Ronny Thorsen is probably the best target. None of the current members have Wikipedia pages, and Thorsen is the lead singer. I think we should vote on who is the best target. -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 11:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (without prejudice) - My comments above are about procedural violations in the nomination and previous votes, though I have not yet voted myself. The band's situation is not quite as dire as the nominators in the two AfDs have implied. They have a brief biography at AllMusic ( [1] ) though it doesn't really tell us much, and they have a few occasional album reviews and genre mag interviews (e.g [2] , [3] ). Overall, they're kind of close to notability but I will have to cite the significant coverage rule in concluding that the coverage just doesn't add up to encyclopedic standards. However, if someone finds anything useful I would not oppose reviving the article in the future. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 16:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another Procedural Comment - I fear that this AfD is destined for an unsatisfactory ""no consensus"" - if an Admin simply counts votes. Instead, I implore the closing Admin to inspect the quality of the votes, because the """" votes above ( edit: and below) violate various provisions of WP:ATA . I also recommend that someone with authority discuss re-nomination procedures with this AfD's nominator. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 16:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC) UndergroundMan3000 174.193.134.31 ( talk ) 20:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC) — Note : An editor has expressed a concern that 174.193.134.31 ( talk • contribs ) has been canvassed to this discussion. [ reply ] even if there is not evidence of notability for this band. Austin Snake Boy ( talk ) 00:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC) — Note : An editor has expressed a concern that Austin Snake Boy ( talk • contribs ) has been canvassed to this discussion. [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Less meta, more sourcing and notability discussion please Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 11:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I can only echo Star Mississippi's comment. Also, even if there is not evidence of notability for this band is one of the most inexplicable comments I've seen at an AFD. Notability is generally the basis of a argument. It doesn't help that only an editor advocating is discussing the available sources which are typically the territory for those arguing Keep. Finally, closer's don't like to decide Merge/Redirect target articles by flipping a coin. That just increases the possibility of a Deletion review and being accused of casting a ""supervote"". Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 16:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote for / target [ edit ] Comment - I propose voting for the best target. -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 11:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC) REFUND after a previous soft deletion. Everything going on here is the result of conflicting policies. Good luck to the Admins who get stuck with this dog; consider discussing conflicting policies among yourselves instead of complaining about the resulting messy votes. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 16:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply - I disagree that ""There has been no viable argument presented for ing"". Thorsen is the lead singer, therefore, unless a good argument is made for a different band member, the history should be kept in tact by ing to him, or some other member of the band. -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 23:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC) ATA . The Admins will probably give up and declare ""no consensus"" anyway. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 17:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - To be perfectly clear, I am open to either or . -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 11:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC) 17, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Tes, that was my fault to say Merge/Redirect because they often get combined in opinions but there was only some support for a Merge, not Redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I am also open to a . -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 11:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC) NBAND under any criterion. Looking particularly at criterion 1, there is a book referenced on the page (McIver, 2005) which mentiones them on pages 41, 50 and 87. The mentions are brief and the main mention is on page 41, a short bio amounting to one good paragraph. The Allmusic bio is similarly short, and per WP:ALLMUSIC , there is no consensus on the source reliability, although past discussions tend to suggest SIGCOV may be supported by staff writer reviews there. However, this is not a review. Other sources are similarly problematic and self published sources shouldn't really be on the page. I don't believe this crosses the line, and although singers may be independently notable, notability is not inherited. Thus, I think this one is a . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 16:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply - Why does this preclude a or ? -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 19:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC) 19, 3 November 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV or WP:NBAND . This is a common pattern with that editor, which itself violates yet another policy at WP:JUSTVOTE . --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC) POFR says ""Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article (Such s are often targeted to a particular section of the article). -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 15:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC) IAR might also apply. -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 16:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC) IAR almost never applies in deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 16:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC) POFR is more important than the other policies already discussed, especially since that policy is almost entirely about pages with tricky titles and this AfD is about the completely different matter of whether a band is notable . Meanwhile, resorting to WP:IAR is disrespectful of the WP:CONSENSUS process. See also WP:JUSTAPOLICY . --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Protection note , tired of playing whack a sock so I have semi'ed for a week. I did relist but don't think this is controversial as any autoconfirmed editor remains eligible to participate, and the Talk is available to any legit newbies. Admins, feel free to revert if needed. Star Mississippi 14:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Helmuth Ehrhardt : It is difficult to WP:V the information currently on the page or whether this is the same person that several sources name as involved directly in Nazi crimes. Currently my thought is that this page should be WP:TNT until someone can do a better job of it, but I would be interested if others can find good sources to offer against the WP:GNG JMWt ( talk ) 12:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychiatry and Germany . JMWt ( talk ) 12:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Girabola players during 2014 season : Random compilation of players, without references and seems to be completely out of scope. Svartner ( talk ) 04:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Angola-related deletion discussions . Svartner ( talk ) 04:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Svartner ( talk ) 04:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions . Svartner ( talk ) 04:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 15 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 05:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] arbitrary list. We don't generally have article for squad lists for one season, these would be included in team season articles if those articles are created and notable, which wouldn't be the case for this team in my opinion. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - per Joseph, just nonsense. Giant Snowman 18:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] agree with others, list serves no clear purpose as its own article. Halfadaniel ( talk ) 05:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The list is pretty indiscriminate and unsourced, per nom. Govvy ( talk ) 19:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Per above! Unsourced! Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 13:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of NBA Saturday Primetime on ABC results : Nor does this list serve a valid navigational purpose; the individual games are not notable. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of (even interesting) information. Obviously a lot of work went into this page, but unfortunately I don't see any notability interest that warrants ing it. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 01:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Basketball , Lists , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A list that can be useful as a seasonal page but it already exists. Sources are more to do with the game itself, barely about the TV coverages. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 10:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC) LISTCRUFT that fails WP:LISTN . It's not even useful as trivia. Conyo14 ( talk ) 16:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC) Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN as a grouping which is not discussed in secondary sources. Let'srun ( talk ) 22:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nathan Asiimwe : Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG . Onel 5969 TT me 10:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Uganda . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments - It appears you messaged the creator about the previous draft move and the guy recreated again in main space, this appears to have happened before. SKennedy157 this is not healthy editing behaviour. You should work on articles in draft space, not recreate them again in main space. Govvy ( talk ) 12:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC) GNG . Jogurney ( talk ) 14:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Callie Withers : Some coverage found here , but not enough to justify GNG being passed. A little bit here , but not SIGCOV. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 15:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and United States of America . Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 15:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Simon Hebditch : A youth career in ice hockey and appearances for Saint Pierre and Miquelon is not much to go off either (just saying). Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 05:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and France . Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 05:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC) GNG , I tried to look for secondary sources online, however the name Simon Hebditch, there are a number of different people. But what I found on him was his name in those football databases, some hockey databases and a few one liners. Nothing suggestive of basic GNG, unless someone proves me wrong and finds good sources. It's a from me. Govvy ( talk ) 15:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Beatrix Holéczy : No World Cup results of note either; 49th and 68th places tend not to get coverage. I did not find any coverage when searchnig either, apart from passing mentions (and I did search in the Hungarian name order. Therefore fails WP:SPORTCRIT . Geschichte ( talk ) 21:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Olympics , and Hungary . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Paywalled newspaper archive Arcanum brings up ~300 matches for this person's name. @ Nenea hartia : Can you verify if any of the coverage is significant? Thanks, BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC) As you already mentioned, there are many references to her, most of them about the competitions she participated in. However, I also found some slightly more detailed articles, one of them in the ""Yearbook of the Hungarian Olympic Academy 2016"". Please see here . -- Nenea hartia ( talk ) 19:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Thanks. Do you know if the ""Yearbook of the Hungarian Olympic Academy"" is independent of Holéczy? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 20:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Yes, it is an official annual publication of the Hungarian Olympic Committee. It is a very comprehensive work, with many pages (Holéczy is mentioned on page 214), and in the same link above I added the first pages, which include the editorial board and the publishing house. -- Nenea hartia ( talk ) 20:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If it has been published by the Olympic Committee it is primary, if it has been published by an unrelated publishing house it is secondary. More importantly: is it significant or a passing mention? (Same with the 300 hits. Many of them would be mentions) Geschichte ( talk ) 08:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC) Edited and proofread by Dr. Pál Hencsei and Vilmos Horváth Photos: Hungarian Olympic Committee Hungarian Olympic Academy Hungarian Olympic and Sports Museum Judit Bódayné Blaha, József Erdélyi István Fucskó, JochaPress, Tamás Róth Domonkos Vígh and the authors ISSN 0238-0412 Publisher: Hungarian Olympic Committee Responsible for the publication: Zsolt Borkai, MOB president Printing house: Pátria Nyomda Zrt. , responsible manager: Katalin Orgován Printing preparation: János Kerényi @ Nenea hartia : It looks like it was published by the Olympic committee? Or is this a mistranslation? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC) : Unfortunately I don't speak Hungarian and I am not familiar with sports organizations in Hungary, but as far as I can tell, yes, it was published by the Hungarian Olympic Committee. Also, the Hungarian Olympic Academy ( Magyar Olimpiai Akadémia ) seems to be a structure within the Hungarian Olympic Committee ( Magyar Olimpiai Bizottság = MOB). -- Nenea hartia ( talk ) 18:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk ) 13:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Arora Akanksha : Since her 2021 run, she did absolutely nothing that is notable, so I'm renominating this article for deletion. All the sources fit squarely in WP:BLP1E territory. Mottezen ( talk ) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women , and Canada . Mottezen ( talk ) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC) Not passing WP:NPOL does not mean that she cannot be notable through any other criteria. The previous AfD from 2021 was kept on WP:GNG grounds; can you clarify why you think that result was incorrect? Curbon7 ( talk ) 05:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In the previous nomination, the 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection was not yet completed. While, most ! voters in the previous AfD did not even acknowledge the BLP1E issue, those that did exaggerated her importance in the election. Example for exaggerated importance: even if the coverage relates to one event (where both the event & the role of the subject is significant); such articles are usually kept. and Invoking WP:BLP1E here isn't right because she pretty clearly has a significant role in the selection . Remember, she got no votes and no country endorsements, so her role in the event was insignificant. Even the UN ambassador for her own country didn't reply to her request for a meeting to discuss her candidacy. Of note: about a year after the end of her campaign, her campaign website https://unow.org/ went down, and her last campaign post on facebook was before the 2021 selection. Arora moved on to become a lecturer . Mottezen ( talk ) 05:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC) BLP1E , since WP:GNG is clearly met. BLP1E states that we should not have an article if all 3 conditions are met. Here, Criteria #1 and #2 are clearly met (only covered in context of one event, otherwise low-profile). So is Criteria #3 met? Well, the UN Secretary-General selection is clearly significant, so that's ok. Was Arora's role ""not substantial"" or ""not well-documented""? As GNG is met, we can cross off ""not well-documented."" On ""not substantial"", we come to a matter of opinion. Since she received no backing or actual votes, I can see why those in favor of deletion would argue her role was insubstantial. On the other hand, this candidacy was outside the norms of the UN system and attracted reliable media coverage for that reason. I would argue it was substantial enough to merit her inclusion as a standalone page. However, a to 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection would also be a reasonable outcome. — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 13:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection. Not convinced there's enough here for WP:GNG. - KH-1 ( talk ) 02:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] a BLP1E similar to an article about a losing candidate - if there's anything to cover, it can be done on the election page. SportingFlyer T · C 04:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . As Ganesha811 points out, with the amount of coverage received this is not a case of Arora being ""not well-documented"". I see WP:GNG met in this case, and losses can be notable if covered in reliable secondary sources. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 08:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC) To those who argue her run for Secretary-general is ""well-documented""... it's just not, especially in the crucial stages of her campaign. Let me illustrate: these are the dates the 9 secondary sources in the article were published: AFP (February 19, 2021) Arab News (April 4, 2021) NYT (February 26, 2021) Hindustan Times (February 27, 2021) Business Today (March 2, 2021) The Print (February 13, 2021) CBC (April 4, 2021) Forbes (May 7, 2021) New Yorker (June 14, 2021) Note that there is only one source published in June 2021, the month the vote took place, and thus the month that attention to the UNSG selection was most warranted. Sadly, the most crucial period of her campaign is barely documented. The June New Yorker source is also one of the lesser quality sources because it merely recounts a day the author spent with her; it's storytelling rather than journalistic work. Mottezen ( talk ) 05:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree. Again, our standard is to or articles on unsuccessful candidates for political office. This was kept at the first AfD likely erroneously because those arguing for either met GNG was met (which is irrelevant for candidates, who always meet GNG - political candidates are exceptions to GNG under NOT) and that her run was significant for purposes of BLP1E (she ended up not even being eligible to run.) She's also not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T · C 06:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as BLP1E. Jake Wartenberg ( talk ) 14:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. There are widely diverging opinions/arguments in this discussion on whether or not this subject meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. Editors who are proposing a Merge/Redirect outcome must provide a link to the target article they are proposing. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as BLP1E. Apart from some glowing PR pieces, her self-declared candidacy for UN Secretary-General was irrelevant to that event. (She says her campaign was ""non-traditional"" to try to explain away that she got no nominations and no votes.) And there is no substantial coverage about her outside of that. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 20:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC) 56 8 May in response to Mottezen (immediately above). SF's comment addresses the prior AfD result in context of when it was resolved, and is correct in their assessment of our current standards regarding unsuccessful candidates for political office as I have seen at DRV over the years. Agree not notable and this falls in the 1E category. Daniel ( talk ) 03:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Cristian Marchi : Nothing exists in native language wiki for the person and would appear to have been d on multiple occasions. One should seriously question the notability in a case like this. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC) RS showing significant coverage. Plenty of promotional articles in dubious sources repeating always the same information. Broc ( talk ) 07:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"René van der Wouden : I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found references to add. The biography section has recently been blanked by another editor, but it was unreferenced and there isn't anything in the content to indicate that this person meets WP:NMUSIC or WP:ANYBIO . The article has been tagged with ""no footnotes"" since 2014. Tacyarg ( talk ) 02:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , Music , and Netherlands . Tacyarg ( talk ) 02:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC) No sources used in the article, nothing found in my search. Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - If possible, I recommend investigating the edits made by a new editor called EM-Librairian , who has never done anything for WP outside of this article. That person first added several items to the Discography section on 4 December, indicating a certain interest in improving the article, but then on 21 December they totally blanked out the Biography with no explanation, which seems quite fishy to me. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 15:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Before 21 December the article had a robust and rambling Biography of the musician, which was unsourced and probably copied from his personal website, but it included some facts that could be confirmed via a search for reliable sources. I attempted to do just that and found that the biography was probably accurate but the musician simply hasn't been noticed by reliable music media despite his prolific output. He plays occasional concerts which get basic newspaper listings, and he's present on all the usual self-upload and directory sites, but he simply hasn't broken through to the other side. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 15:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . MIA on Delpher and in the Dutch press. Deleted from Nlwiki. There's one book on Google Books that mentions him as notable in space music , with the name of a piece. That's a very modest beginning of importance and nowhere near the beginning of SIGCOV. Comes across as a music enthusiast who has recorded his own music and only occasionally performed. Nothing wrong with that except not encyclopedic. gidonb ( talk ) 03:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Chuck Spano : popo dameron ⁠ talk 23:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , Music , and Florida . popo dameron ⁠ talk 23:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC) I don't find anything about a musician with this name; first source is more about the St Patrick's Day event than this person. Rest are about as non-helpful for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Absolutely does not pass in terms of notability, sourcing, or overall quality. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The only coverage I am able to find that is not in the article is a trivial mention in The Palm Beach Post . There is indeed a Florida-based percussionist who matches this article's description, but I don't think that person meets WP:NMUSICBIO or WP:NBASIC / WP:GNG . — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kolmogorov–Arnold Network : It's generated some hype on webforums, but that's an extremely unreliable barometer of notability. Gumshoe2 ( talk ) 13:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC) In the field of machine learning, there have been various attempts to use neural networks modeled on the Kolmogorov–Arnold representation. In these works, the Kolmogorov–Arnold theorem plays a role analogous to that of the universal approximation theorem in the study of multilayer perceptrons . It doesn't seem to be the case that any particular attempt is very notable. Gumshoe2 ( talk ) 14:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Although less important than the issue of whether notability is established in reliable sources, I'd like to highlight that a main part of the preprint's self-reported notability is reflected in the wiki-statement ""KANs have been shown to perform well on problems from knot theory and physics (such as Anderson localization)."" This statement is extremely dubious. I'd encourage any mathematician to look at Table 5 on page 24 of the preprint or Table 6 on page 28. The KAN-discovered formulas are, in effect, nothing but classical regression with complicated functions. It has been possible to discover similarly complicated formulas for well over a century, and they aren't of any self-apparent interest whatsoever. The stark difference with the ""Theory"" or ""Human""-discovered formulas should be apparent to even non-mathematicians. The other examples in the paper are of (extremely) small toy data sets, nowhere close the scale at which machine learning is uniquely useful. As always, possibly papers in the future will develop this topic further, but at present it isn't remotely clear that this preprint is a significant development. Gumshoe2 ( talk ) 16:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 17:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article clearly situates the KAN as a recent addition to the long history of attempting to apply KART in a machine learning context. Given the standing of the researchers involved (e.g. Ziming Liu , Jim Halverson , Max Tegmark ), this is more than just a random arXiv preprint and I don't see any benefit to Wikipedia in deleting this information until it gets formally published somewhere in a year or two, no matter whether we personally find the paper's content convincing or important. calr ( talk ) 09:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry, it's absurd to suggest that these are particularly noteworthy researchers. For example, just the five most recent papers on machine learning on arxiv (the first 5 of the 95 uploaded yesterday) are authored by Mehryar Mohri , Yu-Pin Hsu , Pawel Herman , Vaneet Aggarwal , and Lalitha Sankar . If you judge by author notability and if Ziming Liu and Jim Halveson meet your standard, then it seems that nearly every new preprint on machine learning is something more than just a random arxiv preprint. It's true that Max Tegmark is somewhat famous for non-research work like Our Mathematical Universe and Life 3.0 and for various public advocacy. (At least in his former life as a physicist, he was often criticized for unscientific babble, see e.g. the criticism section in Our Mathematical Universe .) And even if the authors were top machine learning researchers, that wouldn't make any random new paper of theirs significant. Likewise it also won't be enough for this preprint to just be formally published. It has to be recognized as significant by reliable sources. Gumshoe2 ( talk ) 16:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""If we allow this article then we'll also have to allow many other articles"" isn't really an argument for non-notability. calr ( talk ) 22:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a bizarre description of (that part of) what I'm saying, which is that the word ""notable"" loses all meaning if just about every preprint is notable. I am suggesting that your usage of the word is not even cogent. Here's equally (or much more) notable authors from preprints #5-10 uploaded yesterday: Hao Li , Andreas Krause , Djamila Aouada , Dan Klein , Stefano Savazzi . So all ten of the most recent preprints on machine learning uploaded to arxiv are clearly 'more than just a random arXiv preprint' by your standard. Should I go through all 95 uploaded yesterday? Gumshoe2 ( talk ) 23:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You haven't raised anything for me to cogently respond to. You argument seems to be 1) you've personally reviewed the paper and didn't find it notable, 2) the article's title comes from a preprint, and some preprints aren't notable, so the concept isn't notable either (and even when it does appear in a journal, that still doesn't count unless some other source also says so), 3) vague insinuations about ""hype on webforums"". None of those are relevant to Wikipedia's definition of notability. calr ( talk ) 16:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC) (Clarified calr ( talk ) 16:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] ""the article's title comes from a preprint"" This framing seems disingenuous; everything except for five sentences in the History section comes from this new preprint. Those sentences belong naturally in the page Kolmogorov-Arnold representation theorem . Without much loss, they are even well represented by the sentence presently there, with two of the references included: ""In the field of machine learning , there have been various attempts to use neural networks modeled on the Kolmogorov–Arnold representation."" Gumshoe2 ( talk ) 17:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A preprint from last month is not a suitable basis for an encyclopedia article. Bulking up a page about a new proposal with ""background"" references that don't specifically discuss the new proposal is the wrong way to go about writing anything encyclopedic. Adopting the terminology proposed by an unreliable source, and taking that choice of terminology as so definitive that it establishes the article's title, violates NPOV. XOR'easter ( talk ) 18:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed, that a preprint from last month is not a suitable basis for an encyclopedia article. If something is here in two or three months, there will be another article. Especially in this technical space, we should be cautious that WP is not used to pump a company. RayKiddy ( talk ) 16:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In this case I'm not aware of any relevant corporate interests. However, I think wiki should generally tread very carefully on machine learning/AI topics, since many outwardly reliable sources in the field fail to provide any critical perspective - often (indirectly) because of corporate interests, but also simply because of lax standards within the field. For example, it's easy to find reliable sources saying that AlphaZero didn't use any knowledge about chess or Go except the rules, since this is how Google advertised their work - even though if you read the primary source material this is seen as, at best, an exaggeration. In many such cases it's hard if not impossible to find reliable sources taking a critical perspective, which is obviously unfortunate for wiki. But at least for this wikipage, that's a moot point for now, since there are no reliable secondary sources on this preprint whatsoever. Gumshoe2 ( talk ) 17:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's right, I made 16,000 edits over 20 years as part of a corporate conspiracy to, umm, write one article about a niche topic in machine learning and ""pump the stock"" of a PhD thesis topic. Well done on cracking the case, your username is truly justified! calr ( talk ) 10:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mitsuami Heroine : ♠ PMC ♠ (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan . ♠ PMC ♠ (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I couldn't find any evidence of notability in Japanese. Dekimasu よ! 06:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This even appears to meet WP:A9 criteria for speedy deletion: ""none of the contributing recording artists has an article and does not indicate why its subject is important or significant "". Jonathan Deamer ( talk ) 08:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, I should've mentioned that I would've A9'd except that it was no consensused in 2013. ♠ PMC ♠ (talk) 08:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah I see, thanks! It does say 2nd nomination, I should've spotted :) Jonathan Deamer ( talk ) 08:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I cannot find sources to meet WP:NALBUM and the article does not describe meeting any other WP:NALBUM criteria. - Lopifalko ( talk ) 09:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC) NALBUMS due to the complete absence of coverage in sources. Also ""unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs"". An artist article does not exist for the title to be ed to. -- N Ø 13:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - In agreement with everyone above. The album seems to be have gone unnoticed by the music media and I can only find brief mentions in lists of items tangentially associated with Polysics. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 21:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"UWC Heavyweight Championship : The promotion doesn't even have an article HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 18:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and United States of America . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fails GNG. LM2000 ( talk ) 12:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per nominator and LM2000. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 20:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mayolee : Fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article and BEFORE do not show IS RS have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Comments Reference Promo 1. Rapheal (2023-01-06). ""I see, hear, feel music beyond my physical boundary –Mayolee"". The Sun Nigeria. Retrieved 2023-04-02. Mention, not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 2. ^ Lari-Williams, Seun (2022-11-03). ""Way Maker, Miracle Worker, and Beatmakers: Are Music Producers Entitled to Royalties?"". The IP Press. Retrieved 2023-04-02. music video WAY MAKER - OFFICIAL VIDEO, retrieved 2023-04-02 award nominations 4. ^ ""Sinach's Way Maker Gets Multiple Dove Award Nominations – THISDAYLIVE"". www.thisdaylive.com. Retrieved 2023-04-02. dup promo ref 5. ^ Rapheal (2023-01-06). ""I see, hear, feel music beyond my physical boundary –Mayolee"". The Sun Nigeria. Retrieved 2023-04-02. Review, work might be notable, but does not support N for BLP 6. ^ ""In Awolowo, Mayolee blends creativity and skill"". The Guardian Nigeria News - Nigeria and World News. 2023-03-18. Retrieved 2023-04-02. About us page National Theatre, Nigeria, Iganmu, Surulere, Lagos"". 0202-06-03. Retrieved 2023-04-02. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Failed V, unable to locate 8. ^ Mayolee biography by Michael Oluwole dup promo ref 9. ^ Rapheal (2023-01-06). ""I see, hear, feel music beyond my physical boundary –Mayolee"". The Sun Nigeria. Retrieved 2023-04-02. BEFORE showed promo, but nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). Created by User:Hilspress possibly connected to this media company [1] . Image metadata suggests the author has a connection to subject. [2] // Timothy :: talk 20:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC) 45, 5 April 2023 (UTC) 39, 9 April 2023 (UTC) 40, 10 April 2023 (UTC) 42, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . The subject doesn't appear to be notable at this time. He is simply known for being the producer of ""Way Maker"" and attempting to sue the primary artist for royalties. Although the article cited ""12"" references, several of the references are a repeat of each other. The subject's debut album only got a single review in reliable coverage. In a few years time, he may become notable if he releases more music and get some accolades. I personally think it is WP:TOOSOON for him to have a stand-alone article. Versace 1608 Wanna Talk ? 23:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Avimator : Using Google Scholar, I can find plenty of mentions, but not anything substantial. toweli ( talk ) 16:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software . toweli ( talk ) 16:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . There are a lot of these old non-notable software articles. I usually find WP:PROD a good tool for dealing with them. Charcoal feather ( talk ) 16:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Fermax : TLA (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Technology , and Spain . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC) 19, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Blatant advertisement which cites no sources. - MrOllie ( talk ) 14:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"James Dring : However, WP:ANYBIO requires winning once, or being nominated multiple times. Is twice good enough? I read multiple as something greater than two. So, fails ANYBIO. Even more, none of the references pass WP:SIRS , so fails WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , and United Kingdom . UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails WP:GNG / WP:NBIO . Sources are database entries and press releases. No significant coverage. Jfire ( talk ) 16:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] — to add to what UtherSRG said, he was nominated for one Grammy, not two, together with four other people. Also, the article is by a banned sockpuppet and paid editor, which we shouldn’t reward. — Biruitorul Talk 18:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment As per this link [1] , as well as the Grammy nomination, he has been nominated for a Golden Globe . Also - clearly WP:MUSICBIO applies here. Resonant Dis tor tion 19:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC) MUSICBIO #8. There's also sufficient WP:RS to show the subject meets WP:COMPOSER #1. I have cleaned up the article including removing non-RS citations and adding several more, which may not be multiple lines in depth but do contribute per WP:BASIC , so any ""whiff"" of paid editor contribution no longer applies. Resonant Dis tor tion 23:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment per the Billboard reference just added to the article - Dring was a named credit in the nomination of the Feel Good Inc. Grammy award. So he does have two Grammy nominations, plus the Golden Globe; I've updated my ! vote. Resonant Dis tor tion 15:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per ResonantDistortion. X ( talk ) 20:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Subject specific guidelines are for guidance only - every topic has to meet WP:GNG when WP:AFD is invoked. It seems unlikely that we will find WP:SIGCOV about him. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO . 2A02:AB88:4C01:7500:84E:6485:B66C:DC73 ( talk ) 22:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC) NOTINHERITED . Article is rife with the requisite heavy namedropping and coattailing (Jamie T in particular) in attempt to cover for lack of individual notability and weak press-release sourcing. Being nominated just once for a soundtrack song all the way back in 2010, signing an agreement, and his recent production for an unknown indie artist (Terra Twin) aren't enough for SIGCOV. 💥 Casualty • Hop along. • 00:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC) NTEMP , (2) Dring has been a Grammy nominee twice not once, the first in 2005, which is verified by a RS in the article, (3) The reason the article is ""rife with the requisite heavy namedropping"" is because the subject has made credited and verified contributions to a number of notable works, (4) two credited grammy nominations does rather indicate that notability by association does not apply, and (5) There are c. 14 words devoted to Jamie T, which does not appear undue, given that, for example, on the album Trick ""sees Jamie T play all instruments alongside longterm collaborator James Dring"" ( [2] ). I know I am probably repeating myself, but WP:BASIC , WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER all apply. Resonant Dis tor tion 07:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC) MUSICBIO and fails WP:GNG . Can’t find independent reliable sources giving significant coverage. Contributor892z ( talk ) 05:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. This discussion is leaning towards but I don't see a rebuttal to the assertion that this subject meets WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER . It's also common for subject in music production to mention artists they have worked with and albums they have produced so that doesn't seem like name-dropping. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The article has been edited further - which includes a certain mount of tidying up, but also more text and RS that confirm further songwriting/composer credit on notable works. Resonant Dis tor tion 22:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC) the producer has worked with lots of notable artists and worked on notable songs and albums, however he doesn't seem to have the individual notability required to have an article. He has passing mentions in many references, but few of these could be called significant coverage of the subject himself. InDimensional ( talk ) 10:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Muhammad Amin Zakaria : Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 20:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Malaysia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - per NPOL. Bhivuti45 ( talk ) 21:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC) POLOUTCOMES , county-level legislators, including state-level official in this context, are not presumed to be notable. However, exceptions may apply if they receive significant coverage as outlined in WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG , which is not the case for this individual. Ckfasdf ( talk ) 23:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Chameleon (GIS) : Boleyn ( talk ) 18:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails WP:ORG and there are too many sections that sound promotional (especially the third paragraph). 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈ ) 01:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Subject does not meet the WP:NORG due to a lack of WP:CORPDEPTH . Let'srun ( talk ) 03:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Stradr : yvanyblog (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Well, google hits go first to their website, their web support site, then a reddit thread, I'm going with not notable. There is no sourcing for me to review in the article either. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] nothing, just a website with very little information, no press hits, nothing on scholar. Seems this was launched in early 2023. Perhaps just too soon, but quite possible it's just irrelevant. Possible undisclosed COI as well. The account that created this page declared a COI for a draft page called ""FloatingPoint"" which appears to be something created by Samuel Keller [17] . Oblivy ( talk ) 00:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"John Fasana : No WP:SIGCOV . Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas , closed as procedural due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 04:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC) I couldn't find any verified information on when John Fasana was born. Also, John Fasana's website is just a Chinese web page saying that the site was created successfully. Busition ( talk ) 20:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 00:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC) ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN . Shaws username ( talk ) 13:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Renata Christian : Let'srun ( talk ) 02:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Beauty pageants , Caribbean , and United States of America . Let'srun ( talk ) 02:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Virgin Island newspaper source used is fine, but that's all I can find about this individual. Nothing else we can use to source the article, not meeting BLP. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC) //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WAYV_(disambiguation) at the log page for September 23 for some reason. - Indefensible ( talk ) 02:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It just called for one space on the log page. L iz Read! Talk! 03:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, nice fix. Could not figure it out. - Indefensible ( talk ) 03:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Federation of Reformed Churches : Micro-denomination of (perhaps) six congregations; PROD contestor said poor sourcing is not a reason to , but no existing sources are valid for establishing notability, and WP:BEFORE searches provide no additional evidence of notability under WP:NORG . Review of existing sources: Link - Dead link; archived link here fails verification; it has not been updated since 2004 and confirms no other information about this church. Link - Self-published source citing other self-published sources; not updated since 2014. Link - Self-published source in discussion forum is not reliable. Link - Self-published source making a single passing reference to the subject that may verify existence but not notability. Link - A single passing reference that may verify existence but not notability. Link - Self-published source in discussion forum is not reliable. , 10, 11. Link , Link , Link - Webpages of member congregations and thus primary sources Link - Denomination's webpage and thus a primary source Link - Presbytery meeting minutes; primary source. I cannot identify any other independent, secondary, reliable sources that verify the notability of this denomination. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 17:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Christianity , United States of America , New York , and Ohio . Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per the excellent source analysis by the nom and the overall lack of sources available to demonstrate notability. AusLondonder ( talk ) 12:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Per nom. The souce analysis supports the rationale. So many non RS with little to none GNG. The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 18:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Imagine Sports : WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC) I can only find usage of the phrase ""Imagine sports without xyz"" but nothing for this company. for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC) Don't see any GNG level sources under any of the names this company has used. Fails WP:NCORP . Let'srun ( talk ) 14:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Aalay Pathu Malai Mathu : This does not list it , nor does this . Kailash29792 (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails notability. There is no significant coverage about this film and its release date in any reliable sources. It does look like there is a soundtrack for the movie but that's about it. RangersRus ( talk ) 17:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Charles Stiebel : Note tag. No indication of significance. scope_creep Talk 13:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom . CptViraj ( talk ) 13:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"BLEND : It's all routine announcements and trivial coverage, mainly in press releases. bonadea contributions talk 10:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . bonadea contributions talk 10:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC) NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* . ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject . I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 15:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . From what I could find, does not pass NCORP at this time. gidonb ( talk ) 02:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Malawi–Spain relations : Very little actual relations, trade is very low at 5 million euros in 2015. And Spain's assistance to Malawi is through multilateral organisations. Virtually no third party coverage of these relations. LibStar ( talk ) 10:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Africa , and Spain . LibStar ( talk ) 10:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] -- This is becoming tiresome, just another example of a standalone article for every combination of two nations, no matter how insignificant their connexion may be. I think this makes six nearly-identical, non-encyclopaedic articles of this stripe in a month. As per usual, the sources presented are all WP:PRIMARY (Spanish government press). I can find no scholarly treatment of this relationship nor mentions in reputable journals. There is no info particularly worth merging. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Foreign_relations_of_Spain#Bilateral_relations . Per Last1in , I agree that having a lot of these non-notable stubs is kinda annoying but might make sense to just turn these articles into s on-sight without AfDs? The content from stubs like this could be helpful in their parent foreign relations article imo, especially given how bare-bone some of those articles could be. Alternatively, a larger discussion could be held on whatever articles are remaining and get them over with in one sweep. Dan the Animator 18:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My only problem with merging is that we should hope for secondary sources even in the parent articles, and this one (and the others like it) are just paraphrasing foreign ministry press releases. If there is any value, though, I agree that a is good. Of course, one of the issues is the target. Do we pick the larger country and get accused of Eurocentrism? Or the one with the best press releases (ditto)? Or the most mature article (dit-ditto)? Or have duplicative info in both? Secondary sources will have a focus and that will usually guide us to one article or the other. I expect just such a discussion led folks to metastasise the plague of X+Y stubs. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 19:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with Last1in. There is inherent bias in merging to a particular target country. I dont believe that merging is the solution to all these bilateral stubs. LibStar ( talk ) 01:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC) True and great points and agree that secondary sources are very helpful for these sorts of articles. In the case of this particular article, I was thinking of merging to Spain's article just because it's the Spanish FM's press releases yk. Per your points above though, I don't see the harm in including the (duplicated) info in Malawi's article too. The only content I think that's valuable from the article at-present is the info about trade under ""Economic relations"" (which probably could be condensed quite a bit) and the Memorandum sentence under ""Cooperation"" which is genuinely interesting and valuable information (these sorts of agreements usually take time to negotiate and are noteworthy in themselves for signifying the start of a deeper partnership). Usually the dependence on primary sources is only a notability issue and still is perfectly valid for meeting WP:V (so content-wise, depending on primary refs shouldn't necessarily be an issue for merging imo). About secondary & primary sources though, the mere existence of secondary refs can't be used as the litmus for deciding whether to an article. In the last bilateral relations stub AfD I took part in, which was for the article on Micronesia–Ukraine_relations , it was similar to this where coverage was limited (article was almost completely about Micronesia's reaction to the Russian invasion) but that one relied exclusively on secondary refs. After thinking a bit over what you said though, if it's alright with you and LibStar , I might just start a mass-deletion discussion with all the bilateral stubs with questionable notability. Definitely don't expect all of them to get the same result but at least it'll be a much more efficient way in getting through them and figuring out which ones should be kept, d, or d yk. Probably would be similar in a sense to this discussion I took part in a while back which, while not directly successful, helped pave the way for how to effectively handle the RMs in the topic area. Anyways, sorry for not replying sooner on this and would be interested to hear y'all's thoughts. Cheers, Dan the Animator 19:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC) I might just start a mass-deletion discussion with all the bilateral stubs with questionable notability. You now have my undying devotion. I would so very deeply appreciate seeing a once-and-done on this. Thank you! Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 20:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC) as violating WP:OR . बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 01:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Southern Cross Drive, Canberra : Fails WP:GEOROAD . TarnishedPath talk 10:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia . TarnishedPath talk 10:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In 2010. ☺ It's a major road, but it's a largely undocumented major road. The only way for readers to verify things like the speed limits is to go to the road. There are no sources in the article, and although I can turn up generalities about road construction in the A.C.T., I cannot turn up specifics down to this level of detail of individual roads. . Uncle G ( talk ) 14:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the reasons already outlined. MaskedSinger ( talk ) 19:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Bduke ( talk ) 04:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sam's Chicken : The article currently has 3 sources: First, a primary report from a local government council about a small fine for illegal dumping of trash, shouldn't even be used, let alone establishes any kind of notability. Second, a Standard article about SCs being targeted in attacks for ethnic reasons isn't really about the company. It might belong on some kind of ""Sinhalese-Tamil relations in London"" article or something, but it doesn't help establish notability of the company itself. Last, a Guardian article about SC along with other fast food chicken joints being investigated for poor worker treatment/conditions. This is certainly the best, but it's not enough on its own, and it doesn't go into any real depth about SC itself. I was able to find no more sourcing beyond the above, either. TL;DR, this is a small local fast food chain, and there just isn't enough about it to warrant an article. Zanahary ( talk ) 23:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with the IP editor. I tried to protect this article from spam promotion, but I did not stop to consider that the available reliable sources were non-existent. Be done with it. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 23:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC) 08, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Looks tasty, but GNG doesn't stand for generalized noshing guidelines. Actually mildly surprised by how little independent coverage about a place with this many locations, but if the sources don't exist, neither can the entry. CoffeeCrumbs ( talk ) 00:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC) NCORP or WP:N . OhHaiMark ( talk ) 02:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] for the reasons already stated of lack of notability. The article hasn't gotten any better in the eight years since it was created (",delete
+"Melissa Sgambelluri : Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women , Television , and New York . Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC) The third link looks like it may have been SIGCOV at the time, but it is a permanent dead link. To stay on the safe side, I think we should assume that article contained significant coverage at the time and this article on that basis Jack4576 ( talk ) 14:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No we shouldn't. It is WP:BLP . scope_creep Talk 08:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd also be open to a to Idol finalists from that year. Jack4576 ( talk ) 14:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, she was not a finalist or even a semifinalist. A to the American Idol article would be inappropriate. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC) This already covers WP:SIGCOV , so, this needs more citations. CastJared ( talk ) 19:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . She doesn't meet GNG or NSINGER and there's no evidence she's notable (even if it were available, I don't think an article about an alum in a school newspaper is strong evidence of notability on its own). I'd have supported a as suggested by Jack, except on closer examination she's not even an American Idol finalist; she's not mentioned on American Idol (season 6) at all. According to her page, she appeared in the first few minutes of the ""Best of the Rest"" episode . Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits ) 16:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and possibly s a mention. I created this article when our standards were much lower than today. I was a fan of the show and thought that the ""best of the rest"" should get their own articles. She appeared in every show of the season, but was eliminated after the Las Vegas episode. She got her 15 minutes of fame, but that's it. There's been no ongoing coverage. At best, this is a case of WP:BLP1E . At worse, the coverage is primarily local and fleeting . I would not oppose a deletion, but a allows it to be re-created if she gets a second shot at fame. Bearian ( talk ) 17:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV with ultra local news. Single event. No significant coverage. Doesn't meet any of the criteria as far as I can see. Kudos to @ Bearian : for spotting one of his early prototype articles, recognising it lacked the necessary and promoting it to the Afd queue. Possible if a decent target can be found. scope_creep Talk 08:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC) BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval: Comments Source Fails V, nothing about subject 1. James Yeara, Review of Fiddler on the Roof: ""Raise High"", Metroland, Vol. 27, No. 33, found at Metroland on line. Accessed January 17, 2008. Fails V, 404, subject is alumni, Fails IS 2. ^ Saint Rose Magazine, Summer 2007, p. 18, found at [1][permanent dead link]. PDF. Accessed January 17, 2008. Fails V, 404, subject is alumni, Fails IS 3. ^ Jump up to:a b Kyle Griffin, ""Saint Rose alum makes it to Hollywood: She made it to Hollywood, but who is alum Melissa Sgambelluri?"", College of Saint Rose CSR Chronicle, February 4, 2007, found at: CSR Chronicle article[permanent dead link]. Accessed January 17, 2008. Fails V, 404, text indicates fan site, archive does to message board 4. ^ Jump up to:a b Idol Fan site Archived 2008-01-05 at archive.today. Accessed January 17, 2008. Fails V, 404, archive also 404 5. ^ Mark McGuire, ""For TV extroverts, silence is a harsh reality,"" Albany Times Union, January 26, 2007, found at Times Union story Archived 2008-06-05 at the Wayback Machine. Accessed January 17, 2008. Fan Page 6. ^ American Idol fan page Archived 2007-07-15 at the Wayback Machine. Accessed January 17, 2008. Interview 7. ^ Mark McGuire, ""No Reason to Watch,"" Albany Times Union, February 15, 2007, found at Mark McGuire's blog for the Albany Times Union Archived 2007-02-20 at the Wayback Machine. Failed V, 404 8. ^ Mark McGuire, ""Albany Singer Makes 'Idol' 100 Round: Spa Employee Melissa Sgambelluri Gets Nod From Abdul and Jackson,"" Albany Times Union, January 26, 2007, found at Red Orbit web site. Accessed January 17, 2008. Not a ref 9. ^ Judge Simon Cowell vetoed Sgambelluri's continued progress in that season of American Idol. Radio station promo, nothing about subject, fails SIGCOV 10. ^ Radio Station FLY 92 party Archived 2005-04-06 at the Wayback Machine. Accessed January 17, 2008. Youtube 11. ^ YouTube. Accessed January 17, 2008. Soundclick site 12. ^ Soundclick.com web site. Accessed January 23, 2008. Jack did a complete BEFORE, but was unable to show even a single source from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Their comments about still ing this BLP shows they have no regard for guidelines or even policy in BLP. WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). // Timothy :: talk 21:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] because of the lack of SIGCOV, and per scope_creep. Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 21:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jeremy Childs : बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 04:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 04:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Tennessee . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural , gah, the subject of this article is probably not notable, but the nominator has been banned at ANI for disruptive editing including a campaign of tendentious deletion nominations. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 17:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I would say ""No"" to a procedural close. बिनोद थारू has started a large number of AFDs and participated in even more. We only close AFDs started by block-evading editors or if no deletion rationale has been presented. L iz Read! Talk! 03:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then I'll change my vote to . Fails WP:NBASIC and WP:NACTOR . The subject has no significant coverage in secondary sources and has only had minor roles in notable productions. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 09:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"W17CT-D : Let'srun ( talk ) 02:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina . Let'srun ( talk ) 02:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC) A relatively new station (within this century) that seems to have only carried national services isn't likely to attain significiant coverage . It's apparently part of a group of low-power stations affiliated with a local radio group, but none of the other TV stations appear to have (or should have) articles (though that's completely irrelevant to this article's merits ). WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mohammed Barhouma : The page reads like a pretty classic curriculum vitae, and was worse before I trimmed the more gratuitous elements. On the face of it, the case for notability is poor to non-existent, and a search for the subject in English language sources is not promising. Better results may exist in an Arabic search, but there aren't currently any other sources on the Arabic version of the page either. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 08:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Journalism , and Jordan . Iskandar323 ( talk ) 08:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] an Arabic search throws up lots of author profiles on the sites of institutions he’s worked for/spoken at, interviews by him and pieces he’s authored, but zero in depth coverage in RIS. Mccapra ( talk ) 06:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 09:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Candela Corp : Makes many claims, so too long to be bunkum, but we should discuss. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC) the company was planning to go public , but in September 2022 withdrew its IPO . As a public company, we would have likely seen a stream of news about it. But by staying private, it remains in the shadows. Owen× ☎ 00:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Medicine , and Massachusetts . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the company had gone public, there would have been more sources to meet notability. I think it withdrew the IPO. Chaosbrigader64 ( talk ) 09:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Survivor (American TV series) winners : Furthermore, I even asked the one who rejected the draft whether the finalists list's scope should be narrowed to only winners. Unfortunately, I was told that the list already exists at Survivor (American TV series)§Series overview . In other words, implicitly, a separate biographical list of winners isn't needed. Seems to me this list is a response to recent individual AFD nominations on winners, like Bob Crowley and Natalie White. I can't help wonder whether this list meets WP:SAL and WP:BLP , and I wonder whether WP:BLP1E applies. Preferably, should be either d or draft-ified or ed to the list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants or Survivor (American TV series) . George Ho ( talk ) 01:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC) ; expanded, 03:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Lists of people , Television , and United States of America . George Ho ( talk ) 01:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Survivor task force . Schazjmd (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Per nomination. Arbitrary list that duplicates many existing pages. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nom's comment - Hmm... If the contestants list isn't a suitable destination target, how about Survivor (American TV series)#Series overview instead, which basically lists names of winners and runners-up? -- George Ho ( talk ) 00:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . List of series winners already exist in another list. If the individual is notable enough, they'll have their own article. Ajf773 ( talk ) 22:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC) clearly a duplicate article. // Timothy :: talk 06:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"The Southern African Times : The closest we get is citation #5 , an unbylined awards roundup of Zimbabwe Achievers Award , whose coverage of this subject is limited to the fact that they won this London-based award of unclear repute. Searching online, I mostly found self-promotional coverage of the SAT's founder, Farai Muvuti (e.g. [23] ). signed, Rosguill talk 20:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Zimbabwe . signed, Rosguill talk 20:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Websites . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per nom. , I too saw the reference to the Zimbabwe Achievers Awards and thought that sounded significant. Our page on those awards is problematic, but this would not be a problem if the awards were particularly notable, and/or if there were significant coverage about their award, but there is nothing. As per the nom. , the repute of the awards is unclear, and there is nothing here to build an article from. Other searches coming up blank. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 23:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Divine Temple Academy : Maliner ( talk ) 11:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Nepal . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I can't find any in-depth coverage. It is mentioned in Tulsipur, Dang and List of schools in Nepal so could be ed to one of those should anyone wish to. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Abraham Cruz : Fails WP:NACTOR . I was unable to find any references that shows that the actor or his films are notable. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 05:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Philippines . Lenticel ( talk ) 05:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Its hard to understand why this article still is live since it was tagged for deletion in 2016. The is nothing to indicate WP:Notability meeting WP:GLG . Easy . Go4thProsper ( talk ) 16:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"David Boulton : I don't see any independent sources with any significant depth. Daask ( talk ) 21:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Daask ( talk ) 21:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC) Courtesy ping as contributor to this article. Daask ( talk ) 21:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is nothing stated in this brief summary of me and my work that is untrue or misleading. I am not an actor. I am not a filmmaker, though I did produce and direct the Children of the Code documentary . I have no idea why anyone would want to this page? 2600:1700:9831:60B0:19D6:FBD8:3050:AF4B ( talk ) 23:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, it's sourced to your biography, so if anything is incorrect, I'd start there first. It's being looked at for deletion as we only have primary sources. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is nothing stated in this brief summary of me and my work that is untrue or misleading. I am not an actor. I am not a filmmaker, though I did produce and direct the Children of the Code documentary . I have no idea why anyone would want to this page? 2600:1700:9831:60B0:19D6:FBD8:3050:AF4B ( talk ) 23:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC) . IIRC I just passed through and gave it a quick cleanup while fixing underlinked tags. If there are no other independent sources to enhance the article and make it less self-promotional then I Support deletion. ZettaComposer ( talk ) 15:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, I am new to Wiki page procedures, may I request an extension of time to compile more independent resources. I am familiar with David Boulton and his work and feel confident we can update the page. David Boulton is currently ill with Covid and my correspondence with him is delayed. Is there a ""specific"" objection to any statements on the page or just a general lack of ""independent sources with any significant depth"" Kevin Kevin Manley ( talk ) 18:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote to KEEP. Not sure any objections are clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Manley ( talk • contribs ) 14:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC) Several hits on the name that I find, none that seem to be about this individual however. We only have primary sourcing or non-RS now in the article, so not much for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC) before search does not produce positive result to demonstrate notability. Search result brought up several different things not related to the information about the subject here. Metroick ( talk ) 05:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"W63AU : Let'srun ( talk ) 17:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pennsylvania . Let'srun ( talk ) 17:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , per nom. --Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Marlyn Williams : All I found was a few sentences here . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC) GNG pass. No suitable per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with Rugbyfan22that this article does not have enough legitimate coverage to merit an article. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 18:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jacques Kotzé : I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV . JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . No suitable per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 21:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Southampton City Primary Care Trust : Shellwood ( talk ) 17:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Medicine , and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Green Entertainment : The article has very little content other than a list of the channel's shows, many of which are former articles d for lack of notability, and/or for being repeatedly recreated under different titles by socks of Nauman335 , a committed sockpuppeteer or possibly a network of related individuals who give the impression they are being paid to promote the channel. They have formed a sort of walled garden with circular notability: the channel is notable because of its roster of notable shows, but the shows are notable because they're on the notable network. In reality, the sourcing is extremely weak: routine coverage , obvious press releases , and/or passing mentions in articles about the shows or about Pakistani television in general. I did not find any better sources in a brief Google search, just more of the same press releases and passing mentions. Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 18:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan . Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 18:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC) I've been on a bit of a deletion spree with articles about TV shows from this channel, so normally I'd support this deletion nomination. But I think it would be unfair to this encyclopedia, and not just the channel, to not have an article about a channel that's part of the military's ISPR. This channel might actually meet the basic GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 19:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't know what ISPR was (it's the Inter-Services Public Relations , the media wing of the Pakistan Armed Forces) and that's not indicated in the article. I'm not sure that lends itself to notability (per WP:NOTINHERITED ) but might be a lead on better sourcing. I don't have time to check at the moment. Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 20:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's probably something that would be useful to the article in general. The second source [19] seems to be the one decent source in the article and does mention that the channel is backed by ISPR. I think this gives a possible option to the article to Inter-Services Public Relations and add a blurb paragraph that they launched Green Entertainment with the date and anything else from the lead and call it done. Ravensfire ( talk ) 17:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A quick web search turned up nothing really useful. The best I could find was [20] , but I'm not convinced that's a reliable source. Otherwise, some social media / forum mentions and articles with a list of shows but not any in depth coverage of the channel itself. I'm leaning to to ISPR at this point. Ravensfire ( talk ) 17:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That does seem like a workable approach. We don't have the sourcing for a separate article, but what info we do have could be d to the ISPR article. Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 17:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC) I'm looking at the sources for something that focus on the company Green Entertainment and has in-depth coverage of the company, and it's just not there in the article. The SomethingHaute article is quite probably churnalism from a press-release and even then doesn't have actual in-depth coverage of Green Entertainment. WP:BROADCAST is the notability essay that best fits here and highlights the need for sources for the company itself. I think it is likely this should be notable, but we need the sources that actually backs up that it is notable. Unsurprisingly, there's a lot of interest from the Nauman335 sockfarm in this article, but it's mainly about the shows, not the channel. As an alternative to deletion, I would be okay with moving to Draft but move protecting it to force an AFC review (and semi-protecting at least the main article space name). Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ravensfire , But, just because we're unable to an eye on this page doesn't automatically mean we should trash it. I don't really spot any blatant PROMO happening in the article itself. The real issue seems to be with articles on TV shows, not so much with this one about the channel itself. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 19:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC) GNG or WP:NCORP for the channel itself. That is 100% what's needed for an article to stay on Wikipedia. Are there reliable sources that support this being a notable subject? They aren't in the article that I can see. Easy solution - find them and add them. Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Saqib, please do read WALLEDGARDEN. This page is exactly the issue. That aside, references do not meet ORGCRIT. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I had to take a step back to evaluate this since I have been so ingrained with sock reverts and UPE associated with this sock farm. I just assumed notability as it has numerous shows with Wikipedia pages but did not take WALLEDGARDEN into consideration. Many of the pages that were listed here are now d or up for deletion and searching online, the references I do find fail WP:NCORP . A lot of announcements about shows which verify they exist but verifiability is not notability. Also a ton of NEWSORGINDIA. I will place a bet now that this AfD will also be consumed with IPs, SPAs, and likely SOCKS in 3.. .2..1.. . -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC) GNG as we have at least two in-depth references about it. First of all, this is a very important topic, as the channel is operated by the ISPR (I concur with Saqib). Initially, they launched it as an ISPR-operated channel, so Youlin etc covered as such but since then public sentiment has changed in Pakistan and it is negative against military due to their interference in politics and media. So now the military is trying to hide this relationship using different proxy companies - they don't want to fail this project. In any case, we shouldn't censor this information. To best my knowledge, Youline is a perfectly reliable quality reference and it is wrong to assume that it is generally without any consensus - if any of you have some examples of wrong reporting from them then present it on WP:RSN. Just because Wikipedia doesn't consider it as a notable topic doesn't mean Youlin is unreliable now - I'm reinstating the content removed recently. So we have one in-depth article in Youline ( [21] ) and second in-depth article in Independent Urdu ( [22] ). Please don't apply Western standards to Pakistani articles and take into consideration of local circumstances, like the control of media by ISPR in which they forbid such reporting. 195.180.32.35 ( talk ) 21:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC) WALLEDGARDEN. I guess I'll just go ahead and say this. By the way, are you the same who claimed that Bol News is reliable? And just so you know, Youline ISN'T a RS. It's just a cultural website that allows guest contributions . Plus, your coverage is essentially a guest contribution, considering the author only contributed just two stories . Therefore, it can't be used to establish WP:GNG. Calling Youline a RS seems generous, given its meager history of just 06 editorials in 12 years . While the Independent Urdu coverage serves well WP:V, but it doesn't quite meet the threshold for WP:GNG - because it primarily relies on interviews with the CEO of the Green Entertainment. See you around! — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 22:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence : The only two references within are routine coverage. MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 00:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Kansas . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am adding more sources to the article but considering it is a local organization and one of the largest domestic abuse support groups in Kansas I believe it meets the criteria for inclusion. Des Vallee ( talk ) 16:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is not satisfactory to say ""it's a large domestic abuse support group"" and therefore meets criteria for inclusion. You actually need to point out which sources cover the article subject in-depth. This article needs to meet NORG in order to warrant inclusion and a thorough WP:BEFORE check shows plenty of small routine coverage ""hits"" but this does not justify inclusion. Even a local business often will populate a number of hits in a search engine. We need evidence of sustained, indepth coverage. Not hits here and there briefly mentioning the name of the organisation. MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 01:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This source for example does not count towards notability. It simply says Jessa Farmer, public policy coordinator for the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, said current Kansas statute left victims who endured years of violence to refile annually for extension of a protection order. She said the burden was on victims to navigate the court system, often without legal representation due to a shortage of attorneys in Kansas willing to take these cases. That is the epitome of ""routine"" and trivial coverage. The article has nothing to do with the organisation itself. It's about domestic abuse and they've just quoted someone from this organisation. That does not substantiate a claim to notability. MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 01:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] MaxnaCarta This source per example is entirely about the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence , a quick search shows it has been mentioned at least 245 times by reliable sources. Des Vallee ( talk ) 11:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That’s one source and not of sufficient depth to meet MNCORP. 245 hits means nothing unless the coverage is significant. Trivial mentions are not sufficient to meet NCORP. MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 12:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC) GNG . A quick search of news articles shows a measureable number of good sources. -- Paul McDonald ( talk ) @ Paulmcdonald : Please list the best three sources you believe are reliable, secondary sources that demonstrate significant coverage so I can withdraw the nomination? MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 23:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC) 44, 1 May 2023 (UTC) 00, 9 May 2023 (UTC) ""According to the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, SB 180 compliance could put more than $17 million in funding to Kansas agencies at risk. "" from Kansas Reflector ; WIBW interviewed the organization's executive director Michelle McCormick and was later quoted as an expert source in both the Lawrence Times and NPR ; the previous executive director was cited as an expert by the Hays Post ; another previous executive director sourced information on porn and human trafficing in the Topeka Capital-Journal back in February of 2019, over four years ago, meeting WP:SUSTAINED . These samples provided are not Trivial mentions but instead: they meet the standard of Independent sources , the sources speak to the WP:IMPACT of the organization, the coverage is clerly WP:NOTROUTINE , and the coverage meets the standards set forward not only in WP:GNG but also in WP:ORG . -- Paul McDonald ( talk ) 18:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV gives rise to a presumption that a subject is notable. SIGCOV is not a requirement for an otherwise notable subject to be notable under GNG. As Paul McDonald has noted, the coverage meets the standard of Independent sources , the sources speak to the WP:IMPACT of the organization, and are WP:NOTROUTINE Jack4576 ( talk ) 09:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC) 13, 12 May 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH . Onel 5969 TT me 15:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC) 19, 4 May 2023 (UTC) 11, 4 May 2023 (UTC) 14, 4 May 2023 (UTC) Relisting due to recent comment about the quality of coverage. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC) 10, 11 May 2023 (UTC) not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable. For example, just because Albert Einstein was a founding member of a particular local union of the American Federation of Teachers [Local 552, Princeton Federation of Teachers] does not make that AFT local notable. XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC) NOTINHERITED does not apply because there is no argument being made that any people are notable because of their attachment to an organization. I have no understanding why the academic bio criteria is mentioned as a reason to , that's never been brought up either. Resons to should be germane.-- Paul McDonald ( talk ) 03:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV . scope_creep Talk 22:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC) the first two references collectively amount to SIGCOV Jack4576 ( talk ) 08:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC) 14, 12 May 2023 (UTC) 20, 12 May 2023 (UTC) SIRS . scope_creep Talk 10:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC) SIRS . These are not ""brief, passing mentions"" but are instead the heart of many of the news articles. They are not trivial mentions, they are material sources. -- Paul McDonald ( talk ) 14:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC) WABBITSEASON . Hat tip to all!-- Paul McDonald ( talk ) 14:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – mostly per XOR'easter & Onel5969. The sources provided above and in the article lack significant coverage, thus causing the organization to fail the WP:GNG . Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 04:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Information fuzzy networks : Unsourced, but has two external links that may have been intended as references. Fails WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing . UtherSRG (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC) WikiProject Artificial Intelligence , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The title is wrong. It should be ""info-fuzzy networks""; the longer name is something people say because they read about it on Wikipedia [37] . Either way, there doesn't seem to be much secondary literature, i.e., things not at least co-authored by the originators, Oded Maimon and Mark Last. Most of the existing text is opaque not-prose. The second external link, ""A Comparative Study Of Artificial Neural Networks And Info Fuzzy Networks On Their Use In Software Testing"", is a dead link that turns out to be a master's thesis [38] (generally not a great kind of source) supervised at least in part by Last (so, not independent). XOR'easter ( talk ) 20:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. The page title can be changed if it's decided to this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 17:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC) //link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4757-4911-3_9 . Seems like a borderline case. - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC) NSOFT after further consideration. All of the sources appear to be WP:PRIMARY with no further referencing to support notability, so the article may be promotional to highlight the authors' work. If anyone finds additional sources, please send a ping. - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Baanty : Another article written in a way that, if not carefully looked at, will look like it clearly passes any notability guideline, whereas it critically doesn't pass any. Just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor Geezy , looking at the sources, they are either PRs/advertorials for music releases or lacking in WP:SIGCOV , they are also mostly unreliable pieces (without a proper byline). The source cited for the claim that they won an award Nigerian Books of Record in 2021, here utterly fails verification because there was no mention of Baanty, Ikpon Kelvin or even ""Creative Director"" which they won. It is also pretty dubious since the article says they've been active since 2022, so how come winning an award from the prestigious NBR? The other award and nominations isn't/aren't significant enough to make the subject presumptively notable under any criteria. Overall, fails WP:GNG . Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 00:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC) This article fails WP:NCREATIVE and WP:NMUSICIAN . The sources cited in the article are PR pieces. It lacks independent coverage and fails to establish notability. Further, the timeline and awards are inconsistent, further undermining the article's credibility and notability. -- AstridMitch ( talk ) 01:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , Businesspeople , and Nigeria . Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 00:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC) not enough WP:SIGCOV , most of it promotional. — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong ) 17:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC) The subject fails to meet WP:GNG , WP:NCREATIVE or even WP:NMUSICIAN . Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Cary Woodworth : Amigao ( talk ) 03:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , and United States of America . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Only sporadic minor acting credits, does not meet WP:NACTOR criteria. -- Tserton ( talk ) 20:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - There's nothing in the article or found in a Google search a claim of notability. Alansohn ( talk ) 01:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . SPA-created. SPA made a grand total of around a dozen edits over the course of a single day in 2007 creating this article and linking it to a number of other articles, then never heard from again. Very likely a vanity autobio. 2600:1700:8650:2C60:75C5:BDFD:1D63:1505 ( talk ) 19:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Asian Science Camp 2015 : Likely Confirmed COI editing, shouldn't have been moved into main space past AfC, but has been previously draftified twice already so won't send it back again. Declined multiple times at AfC, but author insists on publishing, so here we are. Fails WP:GNG and whatever other notability standards one cares to measure it against. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 07:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Science , Asia , and Thailand . DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 07:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC) 30, 16 January 2024 (UTC) 03, 16 January 2024 (UTC) 40, 16 January 2024 (UTC) 36, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Glen T. Martin : Just one award by person can't justify the whole article in my opinion and experience at Wikipedia. -- BeLucky ( talk ) 20:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 14 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 21:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Philosophy , New York , and Virginia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC) A7 because the article contains a credible claim of significance , specifically that the subject received the Gusi Peace Prize the ""Nobel Peace Prize of the East"". Further, WP:NACADEMIC point 2 states that a person is notable if ""The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level"". A Noble Peace Prize would automatically confer notability, is receipt of the ""Nobel Peace Prize of the East"" significant and prestigious enough to confer notability? That is for the community to decide. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:AC63:56C2:B69A:156D ( talk ) 23:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC) AUTHOR , but I searched and didn't find any. Maybe someone else can find them where I didn't, or maybe we will have to look for notability elsewhere, but this is an unpromising start. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 23:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC) User talk:BeLucky#November 2023 -- BeLucky ( talk ) 04:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ David Eppstein @ 4meter4 @ Ca Yes this writer doesn't have a single book review. And kindly look at this too: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents User talk:BeLucky#November 2023 https://www.google.com/search? q=%22Nobel+Peace+Prize+of+the+East%22 10 google results. And the credibility of the claim ""Nobel Peace Prize of the East"" is in question as the cite on article is from Meer ( https://www.meer.com/en/60249-greece-gets-a-gusi ) which is written by the recipient on the award himself. And other source which is oldest (2019) in this is also from the recipient of the award himself: https://www.aspher.org/news,23.html Text on the Gusi Peace Prize#Background ""foremost peace awards of Asia"" also cited from the source which himself is recipient on the said award. Another question: is following considered as not good for cite: https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/professor/148393 Kindly let me know if we have any place where we can check which is considered credible and which is not. And we must start investigation about these IPs: 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:C533:556A:35B0:32EF 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:AC63:56C2:B69A:156D Thanks -- BeLucky ( talk ) 05:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC) 58, 15 November 2023 (UTC) ""Being one of the foremost peace awards of Asia, Gusi Peace Prize is often referred as ""Nobel Peace Prize of the East"". and cites used there? Can we remove that? -- BeLucky ( talk ) 10:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC) 42, 15 November 2023 (UTC) AUTHOR criteria? -- BeLucky ( talk ) 18:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC) AUTHOR is a policy about determining the notability of authors for article inclusion. It isn't meant to address what content should be included within an article on a notable author. For that you should read WP:Verifiability . We generally content that is cited to reliable sources as long as it is presented with the appropriate WP:WEIGHT . 4meter4 ( talk ) 18:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC) ANYBIO as the subject ""has received a well-known and significant award"". In looking for sources on the Gusi Peace Prize ] itself there appears to be enough coverage on the award in google books and media to make a claim that the award is both well-known and significant. As such, any winner of the Gusi Peace Prize will pass ANYBIO and does not need to demonstrate that they also pass GNG as ANYBIO is an officially recognized WP:SNG . 4meter4 ( talk ) 15:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Looks like a promotional article. Also can be seen in above comments that there is no reliable source which proves about prize. ☆★ Sanjeev Kumar ( talk ) 05:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC) PRIMARY source. It is a video of the Gusi Peace Prize ceremony and his speech upon receiving the award. As such, I don't think the claim of lack of verifiability or unreliability can be made. It would be preferable to have an independent secondary source. 4meter4 ( talk ) 17:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – We cannot write an encyclopedic article about someone who's only won a reward and no one ever wrote about them. Business Standard and The Hindu aren't terrible, but I don't think they're enough to build a biography off of, seeing as they are not about Martin specifically. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The organization of which he is president had its article d by AfD in 2019 , although it was later re-created. The winners of the Gusi Peace Prize that I could find listed do not convince me of its significance. I don't think either of those things can be taken as conferring notability by themselves. And although one could imagine that these accomplishments could have led to the in-depth published sources that do confer notability, we have no such sources. So I don't see a pass of WP:GNG , and as I said above I also found no evidence of passing WP:AUTHOR . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 08:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Notability too weak. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Talkan and Curcan massacres : A few of the sources seem to be unreliable fringe publications, others are inaccessible. With an alleged death toll of over 100k, I'm finding it hard to pull up any reliable academic sourcing that would even establish the existence of the massacres. Mooonswimmer 15:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy . I couldn’t find any reliable source in google books or any recognizable academic institution or publisher showing anything as “Talkan and Curcan massacres”. Almost all the cited sources are inaccessible, unreliable or unrecognizable sources, quotes like quoting al-hajaj saying “he is an enemy to muslims, kill him without any mercy” can’t be found in any accessible reliable source or anywhere in general, it seems that the page is made for nationalistic and/or propagandistic purpose and have nothing to do with history and meets wp:HOAX criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chafique ( talk • contribs ) 15:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , History , Islam , and Central Asia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] for lack of sourcing, appears OR, or HOAX. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not a hoax. The place is Taloqan (also spelled Talaqan). You can read al-Tabari's account here . These events took on great significance in Kemalist historiography, so I'm sure there some unreliable stuff out there. However, it is not a hoax. Srnec ( talk ) 20:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC) RS . Second of all it’s not al-Tabari reporting here, he is mentioning a report by an anonymous source (note also that the word “massacre” is never used and there is no mention for Curcan). Finally there is no single academic or any reliable historical secondary source mentioning anything about a such massacre or incident, whether some kemalist politicians or propaganda promote hoax or not for political reasons it’s not relevant here. Chafique ( talk ) 22:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The footnote in al-Tabari refers to Gibb, which is freely available online. For a brief survey of the contradictory traditions mentioned by Gibb, see Andrew Marsham, ""Public Execution in the Umayyad Period: Early Islamic Punitive Practice and its Late Antique Context,"" Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 11 (2011): 101–136, at 131 (also available freely online). It isn't a hoax and that is not a valid grounds for deletion. For a Kemalist textbook treatment, see Başar Ari, ""Religion and Nation-building in the Turkish Republic: Comparison of High School History Textbooks of 1931–41 and of 1942–50,"" Turkish Studies 14 .2 (2013): 372–393 (quoted at 380). Srnec ( talk ) 01:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The footnote in al-Tabari refers to Gibb . again, you are missing the main point, Al-Tabari himself is not a reliable source and a wikipedia article can’t be established based on his writings per WP:RS . You need a reliable secondary source to establish the topic’s notability and prove it’s existence (check WP:PST ). just a side question relatively unrelated to the discussion, can you tell us who is Gibb ? For a Kemalist textbook treatment, see Başar Ari, ""Religion and Nation-building in the Turkish Republic: Comparison of High School History Textbooks of 1931–41 and of 1942–50,"" Now regarding kemalist political propagada textbooks, they are not reliable sources neither, they are heavily criticized by A LOT of academic and reliable sources for genocide denial and promoting propaganda and poor to no reputation for facts checking facts or with editorial oversight, there is an entire wikipedia article with tons of sources called Turkish textbook controversies , they are not reliable sources per WP:QUESTIONED . Aside from that, can you send us the quote from that source where the author (himself) says “talqan massacre” or “talqan people were massacred” or mention anything about curcan ? , because I can’t find it. ""Public Execution in the Umayyad Period: Early Islamic Punitive Practice and its Late Antique Context,"" Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 11 (2011): 101–136, at 131 (also available freely online). no mention for a massacre nor for anything about curcan. Chafique ( talk ) 18:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Robert Tom : Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 00:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Oceania . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 00:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Barbara Majeski : Fails WP:GNG . US-Verified ( talk ) 00:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - so many low-quality references -- do 10 ten-percent refs add up to one good 100% ref?? I spent a lot of time looking at them and looking for more. I am familiar with the local Princeton, NJ publications. They are reliable but so very locally-focused that I hesitate to consider them. This person is working hard to become famous for being famous and has almost made it. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 01:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women , Television , Internet , and New Jersey . Skynxnex ( talk ) 05:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . No independent & reliable sources in article (all coverage is paid or interviews or both), no luck on google. Beyond notes in nom, note that SFGate link is also labeled sponsored and attributed to ""Ascend Media"". — siro χ o 07:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"North West Counties : Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 ( talk ) 19:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England . Owen× ☎ 00:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Can't find any sources nor establish how it fits into the British rugby league system - . Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Saimir Kasemi : The subject made two appearances in the German fifth tier in 2007 but it appears they have made no professional appearances at all. A web search finds a few articles about an ice cream parlour they have been running after their retirement. But there's no WP:SIGCOV relating to their football career. Robby.is.on ( talk ) 08:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football . Robby.is.on ( talk ) 08:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albania and Germany . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC) GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 13:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC) There's no evidence of any further professional career, lacks WP:SIGCOV . Waqar 💬 16:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Function Health : While the search is hard given health functions, a search combined with Hyman's name just brings more publicity and churnalism. I don't see the WP:SIRS depth of sourcing required for WP:CORP . A r to Mark Hyman (doctor) might be possible as the only co-founder with an article, but not sure that would be DUE. Star Mississippi 00:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Organizations , and Companies . Star Mississippi 00:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC) SPAM . Although the article has independent references, it's a stub that reads like a promotional pamphlet, with minimal effort made to establish notability beyond one of its co-founders having a Wikipedia article of his own. CoolieCoolster ( talk ) 02:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine , Technology , and Texas . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] vote . feels like a company trying to promote — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:45F0:31E0:A5BA:C143:EE9E:F7BA ( talk ) 06:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per above. Avoids A7, but is a long way from N, and I do not see how it could possibly get there. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 12:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Karadak front : On top of that, none of the sources refer to a ""Karadak front"", so this article has no purpose being on Wikipedia. StephenMacky1 ( talk ) 10:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , and North Macedonia . StephenMacky1 ( talk ) 10:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC) 12, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] excessive information, most of which is already included in multiple different articles, but mainly in 2001 insurgency in Macedonia . Jingiby ( talk ) 11:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Like every war the 2001 insurgency in Macedonia had fronts (Karadak and Pollog), and this particular one was to take control of the Kumanovo-Lipkovo region. If this page should get d because most of the battles in the front already have pages, why don't we fronts like the Western and Eastern fronts from both World Wars? Because most to all the battles already have pages of their own. Based.shqiptar.frompirok ( talk ) 15:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nothing wrong with having a front article, but the difference between those fronts and this so-called front is that the former are widely covered by reliable sources. I have not seen any reliable sources that use the very term ""Karadak front"". If it was notable, it'd have something unique, rather than simply repeat information from other articles. StephenMacky1 ( talk ) 19:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is a translation of my Albanian article ""Fronti i Karadakut."" It is a compilation of a series of battles that happened in the region, which I created due to the lack of information on the Albanian Wikipedia. I don't see a reason to have an English version of it, since the majority of the battles already have their own Wikipages. GermanManFromFrankfurt ( talk ) 01:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . As nom pointed out, I haven't seen this term used in RS. -- Local hero talk 02:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Google does not show any hits for this term outside of Wikipedia. The total lack of sources means this term should not be an article title. PhilKnight ( talk ) 18:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of NHL Entry Draft broadcasters : Conyo14 ( talk ) 20:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Television , Sports , Ice hockey and list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Conyo14 ( talk ) 20:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - AFAIK, we don't even have a list page for NHL broadcasters. GoodDay ( talk ) 21:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning , I found this [7] which may help but not much else. Esolo5002 ( talk ) 22:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Aside from the cogent arguments cited above, with which I agree, this is absurdly trivial. Ravenswing 08:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC) An article for just this seems a bit much. If someone wants to move the individual season information to the relevant yearly draft articles I won't stop them. Deadman137 ( talk ) 15:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC) NHL_entry_draft#Requested_move_14_April_2024 . – robertsky ( talk ) 11:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Trivial information which fails WP:LISTN . Flibirigit ( talk ) 12:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Vasudevaperumal Temple (Kolathanvalsu) : Sohom ( talk ) 16:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC) ( Sohom ( talk ) 16:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion , India , and Tamil Nadu . Sohom ( talk ) 16:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2028 Republican Party presidential primaries : No major candidate has declared for the Presidency, all this article contains in speculation about who might run in 2028. Esolo5002 ( talk ) 23:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America . Shellwood ( talk ) 00:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree. Its also too early for one in my opinion. The 2024 election isnt even over and we already have a 2028 article that is uneccesary at the moment. Snowboi ( talk ) 02:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC) Articles for deletion/2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries . Elli ( talk | contribs ) 10:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Too soon, seems like someone is trying to be first to create the articles. ""Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future."" Just one line in several lengthy paragraphs about Ron deSantis is actually about 2028. AusLondonder ( talk ) 22:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC) SPECUALTION for now, the page can be recreated once there's relevant information. Given how much of it is speculation, I don't really see draftification as an option Shaws username . talk . 22:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 2028 elections pages shouldn't be made until the 2024 election has actually happened. The article is pure speculation at this stage without any real content to go alongside it. TheFellaVB ( talk ) 23:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON . SportingFlyer T · C 16:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. and others. Obviously WP:TOOSOON . Sal2100 ( talk ) 19:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . All opposition to Joe Biden and Donald Trump, barring something truly insane, will be mathematically eliminated on or before March 19. We're about to have our presumptive nominees; I don't see any harm in ing this or the 2028 Republican Party presidential primaries pages up. WorldMappings ( talk ) 02:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC) 57, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We are not even finished with the 2024 election season though, and there is not even a 2028 general election page up, so in my opinion, it makes 0 sense to have both the Republican and Democratic primary pages up before the general election page even exists. Snowboi ( talk ) 18:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment — The article now contains further speculation with the addition of significantly more candidates, which was not my intention. I initially included candidates who were largely believed to be candidates in 2028, not candidates who were mentioned in one article or two as a candidate. The current article is far more conjectural than I conceived. I am willing to support this nomination, but I believe there is redemption here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON . TH1980 ( talk ) 02:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait until at least the 2024 election is over. Scu ba ( talk ) 06:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If we are to this page, could we at least make it a draft page? There are a lot of useful references, etc here that I don't think should be wasted. WorldMappings ( talk ) 19:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I object to this position. One-off sources do not count as legitimate potential candidacies. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC) SNOW at this point. Ben Azura ( talk ) 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON -- Devokewater | (tαlk) 14:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the above without prejudice to draftification. Based on past cycles sources should start to appear soon after the 2024 election is complete in or before early 2025. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 02:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ketchum Sun Valley Historical Society Heritage & Ski Museum : Found mentions of the Historical Society in the news, but nothing on the museum itself. Article was created by User:Ksvhs ; blatant CoI. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 13:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Idaho . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 13:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC) 48, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I said, they're not about the museum, so it would be a waste of time to include them here. If you want them, I believe everything I found that I note was on archive.org, but there's really no point. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 00:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC) 13, 14 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Sports . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC) NOTADVERT with no sourced hint at notability. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC) NOTADVERT & Nominator. 😎��PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 18:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Centers and institutes of Washington University in St. Louis : Only 6 of the almost 40 entries have articles. SWinxy ( talk ) 00:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Missouri . SWinxy ( talk ) 00:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC) NOTDIR . Those six institutes that do have articles are referenced in the parent article Washington University in St. Louis anyhow. Ajf773 ( talk ) 00:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Duplication of information already covered in Washington University in St. Louis . — Maile ( talk ) 03:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Ajf773 ( talk ) 00:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Matrix/Tensor Algorithms : Too trivial to merit an article, definitely not notable by itself. (Matrices & tensors are covered elsewhere.) Ldm1954 ( talk ) 09:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering , Mathematics , and Software . Ldm1954 ( talk ) 09:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear Ldm1954, I am sorry, but the ""snippet"" contains an absolutely new implementation of object-oriented matrix/tensor algorithms concerning - matrix and tensor objects for object-oriented numerical methods and programming in C++, - a new matrix arithmetic by overloading the well-known standard arithmetic and functional operators, - an arithmetic for multidimensional matrices with a generalized matrix multiplication, - new objects and object-oriented member functions for MATRIX, VEKTOR, BASIS and a variety of more tensor-objects etc. You may study the cited literature to understand better the innovation of this matrix/tensor calculus. The article is only a compact Tutorial as an introduction for the application, and it was not yet finished. With best regards Fritzudo ( talk ) 12:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear Ldm1954, Today I changed the title of my contribution to ""Matrix and Tensor Objects for Numerical Simulations"", because of personal reasons not related to your critical comment! Delete. As far as I can tell, the two sentences in this article amount to ""Physics and engineering use matrices and tensors for theoretical models. These theoretical models are used on computers to design things.""— Moriwen ( talk ) 14:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC) WP:NOTTEXTBOOK , WP:PROMO , WP:COI . XOR'easter ( talk ) 14:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC) NOT before adding more such pages. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs ) 18:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC) NOTTEXTBOOK and not-so-subtle WP:COI given the username of the article creator and the references cited. This does not have the tone and scope of an encyclopedia article. (Note: my comments are based on this version , but still apply after the content removal.) -- Kinu t / c 19:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC) 43, 13 March 2024 (UTC) the conceptual material here is already covered in other WP articles on linear algebra and the both the title & specific content here violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOK . See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrix and tensor objects for numerical simulations . — MarkH 21 talk 20:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC) NOTTEXTBOOK before creating such articles. Killarnee ( talk ) 16:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC) for the sake of transparency, noting that the author User:Fritzudo has been blocked. -- Kinu t / c 18:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lalbazgaray : First off, when google searching -wiki and -wikipedia, the only results for ""Shafiullah Orakzai"" are social media, and the only results for ""Lalbazgaray"" is one OpenStreetMaps edit by a user of that name. Furthermore, the original page creator is Lalbazgaray (who was recently unblocked, and I'm not sure that was a good move, given this edit after being unblocked). There is a Lalbazgaray at the coordinates given on both Google Maps and OpenStreetMaps, but given the OpenStreetMap history is also suspicious, with Lalbazgaray being the most recent editor and the location being published by Shafiullah Orakzai , I'm not convinced the Google Maps town is trustworthy (you can submit things to be added to Google Maps) . Google Maps is also the only citation in the article , and I'm not seeing any evidence this town actually exists per google search . Admittedly, I'm not experienced in catching hoaxes, and I could have missed something here, but this is extremely suspicious to me. (There are reviews for the POIs on Google Maps in the town going back a year or so, which does make me hesitant.) I'm taking it to AFD as such. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - please note that the creator s posting a selfie into this article, presumably for vanity purposes. I'm trying to remove it as swiftly as possible but it's likely that the creator will restore. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My sense is that it is not a hoax - there is a departmental Facebook page discussing a school there, and a Facebook post about a cricket tournament there, but I had to do a lot of magic to find that, and Facebook obviously isn't a reliable source. It's going to be impossible to determine this one without knowing the local language. SportingFlyer T · C 13:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The site of Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education Kohat lists a primary school ""GPS Lal Baz Garay"" (Sr. No. 2010) in the Orakzai District . So the town exists. Having a government's primary school, the town is obviously populated and legally recognized. Also the name in the article is misspelled. The name has two spaces in it: Lal Baz Garay . I couldn't find anything else about the town in both the English and Urdu sources. Insight 3 ( talk ) 16:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - not a hoax but Google Maps shows a tiny village with this name at the article's coordinates. This may not meet WP:NPLACE . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC) GNG , then WP:POPULATED requires ""Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low."" . Lalbazgaray's near Shahu Khel which is in Hangu District . I checked the Hangu District census; Lalbazgaray wasn't listed there, either. Maybe Lalbazgaray's inhabitants are included in the Shahu Khel numbers. In any event, Lalbazgaray doesn't look legally recognized. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC) POPULATED is still a question. Good work on finding more info to all who did. I'm still leaning towards on the back of lack of legal recognition. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy as there is nothing but the AfD template left. DarkAudit ( talk ) 09:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's back to having content. The removal was by the initial author, but this doesn't qualify under G7 because of intermediate edits. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 11:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of pubs in Sheffield : Mostly unsourced. Notable pubs, such as Kelham Island Tavern , have their own articles. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and attracts clutter. SilkTork ( talk ) 14:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Lists , and England . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable local businesses. Notable pubs may be provided at List of pubs in the United Kingdom . Reywas92 Talk 06:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per Reywas92's statement. WP:NOTDIR applies. Ajf773 ( talk ) 08:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Refactoring the article as an overview of the topic, in the style of Pubs in Brighton , might be a way forward. Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!) 09:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the above is a good idea and that it should be done as soon as possible, but I am not up to the job. Someone in Sheffield?? Bduke ( talk ) 01:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also like the suggestion from Hassocks, though that would be a different page with a different name, and should have no impact on this AfD. What we are considering here is if this List of pubs in Sheffield , which has been problematic from inception in 2005, meets our inclusion criteria. What Hassocks is suggesting is creating an article on Pubs in Sheffield , which will be an article rather than a list, so will have a different focus, and a different structure. On looking back at the article history, I note that the list has been nominated for deletion soon after creation - the discussion closed as no consensus . Interesting to note that the comments centred on improving the article. The problem with "" and clean up"", is that the clean up is rarely done - here we are 18 years later, and despite people putting on tags saying they are concerned about the article, nobody has actually cleaned it up. We have nothing worthwhile to . Not the name, not the concept, not the layout, not the contents. The contents are a random selection of pubs, some of which no longer exist. It only lists three pubs in Hillsborough (S6 postcode), while the more useful Sheffield Pub Guide lists 18 , and the comprehensive WhatPub lists 26 . SilkTork ( talk ) 09:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Clear cut WP:NODIRECTORY violation. Srijanx22 ( talk ) 16:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I have d my earlier comment. Clearly the idea of having an article on Pubs in Sheffield would be be much better than what we have here. Could someone closer to Sheffield than me do that? Bduke ( talk ) 06:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Deprodded this hoping a discussion would come up with some ideas on how to better present the material, much of which is unsourced. There are books on Sheffield pubs so it likely is a valid topic for the encyclopedia. A list format could work but it would need its inclusion criteria defining more strictly than this article does. Rupples ( talk ) 06:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Keith Tucker : Greatest claim of notability is a song that charted; I not that makes the song notable, not the musician. Fails the general and musician-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , United States of America , and Michigan . UtherSRG (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC) If d, then Keith Tucker (footballer) should be moved into its place. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Zero coverage found for this musician, should be d. Charting could indicate notability, but there are no sources discussing him. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC) I don't consider charting at 170 on a mix album that notable either; tried to find mentions of him in . fr websites, still no luck. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Oaktree b . Darling ☔ ( talk · contribs ) 15:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dead man's hand in popular culture : Some of the stuff is not even clearly related like ""Big Boss Brewing in Raleigh, NC, brews a beer called ""Aces and Ates. """" I doubt any of that trivia merits r to Dead man's hand , but perhaps a SOFTDELETE could be implemented (sadly, that article doesn't even has a stubby section on this topic, unless one considers the legacy section there, about the use of the related symbols by some American police departments, as such - but that section there is based on primary sources, so hey, did I mentioned WP:OR yet? Sigh). This mess probably needs WP:TNT , and I am not sure a rewrite on Wikipedia is possible - this is probably something best left to https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeadMansHand for now, I am afraid. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games , Popular culture , Lists , and United States of America . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC) ""... In popular culture"" articles that are pure lists need to die out. There is no encyclopedic information to be gleaned here. The fact that some songs reference a famous thing is not a reason for there to be an article about those references. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 06:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC) TNT . Ping me if anything comes up. — siro χ o 06:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC) TNT as the majority is not verified and therefore is just assertion by the editor(s) who wrote it. Seems unlikely to me that independent sources could be found to cite all this trivia. JMWt ( talk ) 08:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC) 10, 28 July 2023 (UTC) 39, 28 July 2023 (UTC) 59, 28 July 2023 (UTC) NOTTVTROPES Dronebogus ( talk ) 14:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Gulay Zeynalli : In my opinion, the article was utilized to get the verification badge on social media. All three of them has been created by the same user — Toghrul R ( t ) 12:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions . — Toghrul R ( t ) 12:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Azerbaijan . — Toghrul R ( t ) 12:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Toghrul R ( t ) 10:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak I can't judge the quality of the sources, appears somewhat PROMO though. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC) per nom. Non-notable local artist. - K evo 3 2 7 ( talk ) 08:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of conflicts in Canada : Follow-up to List of battles in Albania Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Albania List of battles in Algeria Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Algeria List of battles in Belgium Draftified List of battles in Croatia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Croatia List of battles in Afghanistan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Afghanistan List of battles in medieval India Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in medieval India List of conflicts in Egypt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Egypt . NLeeuw ( talk ) 12:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , and Canada . NLeeuw ( talk ) 12:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Do you mind linking the AfDs? It would be more helpful than the red links above. Conyo14 ( talk ) 23:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Done . NLeeuw ( talk ) 04:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. I lean for this, if not for the fact that we have Military history of Canada , but also that the grouping of conflicts/battles are better suited as a category. I couldn't find anything off a basic google search for this grouping, but maybe there's a book or something. Conyo14 ( talk ) 21:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Conyo14 Good point. Alternately, what we could do instead, is integrate this list into List of Canadian military victories , which would then be reworked to a standardised List of wars and battles involving Canada instead, while purging all wars and battles which took place on what is now Canadian soil that did not involve ""Canada"" as such. The current List of Canadian military victories relies on a single source, and conveniently leaves out all Canadian military defeats, and all conflict results which were a bit ""meh"" (also known as ""inconclusive"" or ""indecisive""). NLeeuw ( talk ) 07:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC) OVERLAP . List of conflicts in Canada : 1003 – 2022 (so far) List of wars involving Canada : 1003 – present List of Canadian military victories : 1609 – 2010 (so far) List of Canadian battles during the First World War ( Canadian Expeditionary Force ): 10 March 1915 – 5–7 November 1918 List of Canadian military operations : 1947 – present Canadian peaceing#List of UN missions : 1948–present NLeeuw ( talk ) 07:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still looks like there is some debate about the content of this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. NavjotSR ( talk ) 07:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lucky Luke: End of Legend : Cabrils ( talk ) 22:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ; I've been unable to find reliable sources supportin notability for the article, and there are certainly none in the article. The alternative of a to Lucky Luke#Tributes to Lucky Luke is a possibility, but there's not enough in the article to warrant that. Klbrain ( talk ) 23:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Comics and animation , and Iran . Skynxnex ( talk ) 02:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – fails notability guidelines with no reliable sources to establish it. Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 21:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"WLMO-LD : A BEFORE check only came up with [ [2] ]. Let'srun ( talk ) 22:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indiana . Let'srun ( talk ) 22:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, but I really need to be frank. You guy’s really need to get a life. This is a legitimate television channel and has a right to be here just like every other television channel. There is nothing wrong with this article. Stevebradley1 ( talk ) 23:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC) It just got on the air in 2021, though. (??) It would be notable if like actual coverage can be found, otherwise, looks like a hard yikes to me. Unless literally anyone can fix this article in a short amount of time, it's a for me. ( Jesus Christ , not even WISH-TV could fix THAT article). >>PS: To explain why I said that, a lot of new Radio/Television stations aren't notable at the beginning, because they just really are just NEW. Like this station literally signed on during the Pandemic, what did you think, it to be notable??? Nah. mer764 KC TV ( Talk ) 12:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Explained this already, but the station is rather new (2021) and not even WISH-TV can help it. A station which signed on a year later in Sacramento, California, iHeartMedia-owned KZIS is also a rather new station but that station has actual sources involved and plus, it was located in a frequency that the former station, Entercom Entercom Communications -owned* KDND (107.9 FM) , had a well-known controversial past**. >>PS, Entercom is now known as Audacy Also, KDND's history is so controversial that Entercom shut the station down so they wouldn't have more problems when they bought CBS Radio (That's a lot of words) mer764 KC TV ( Talk ) 17:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If there is a problem with the article, fix it, but don’t it. Stevebradley1 ( talk ) 23:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem with the article is unfixable by editors, Stevebradley1 . It's that this facility has received no significant coverage in reliable sources. Its recency as a TV station will not help. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 07:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Here's my Reasoning why : It's new, it just got made in 2021 and except for WISH-TV, not a lot going on with that station. mer764 KC TV ( Talk ) 12:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC) If nothing else, the coverage of its launch this Fort Wayne station got in Lima (where its owner is based) is more than, for instance, many HC2/Innovate stations ever get. But we still need more significant coverage than that, and a station only carrying programming originating elsewhere (mostly national services) probably isn't going to cut it. The subchannel carrying WISH-TV newscasts (and the statewide syndication of their newscasts overall) might merit a mention in that article, but the WISH announcement is neither significant coverage of this station nor is it really independent in any capacity. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lewis Church : Does not appear to meet the notability criteria JMWt ( talk ) 11:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Cricket , and England . JMWt ( talk ) 11:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . A List of D. R. Jardine's XI cricketers needs to be created and him ed to there. Interestingly, in 5 years time he could become another FC centurion. StickyWicket aka AA ( talk ) 17:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC) 19, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] in absence of suitable Looks to be a GNG fail, and the suitable list to to doesn't exist, so for now. If list is created in the meantime, then my vote would change to . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Transmission risks and rates : Chidgk1 ( talk ) 19:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC) Unsourced... the term is used, but in everything from Covid articles to AIDS in peer-reviewed journals. I'd and use the term if needed elsewhere. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ajay Singh Naruka : Shellwood ( talk ) 14:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . He has not held any office that would constitute an ""inherent"" notability claim under WP:NPOL #1, and the article is referenced nowhere near well enough to earn him a sourceability-based notability pass under WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat ( talk ) 20:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC) BLP, fails GNG and BIO. NPOL is a great guide to show the clearly notable, but in the great grey area of local pols and appointees, I think the BLP policy would defer to GNG and this article does not have the sources to pass GNG. WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). BLP is policy, and has priority over the other BIO SNGs (including NPOL) which are guidelines and essays. // Timothy :: talk 21:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Olivier Guillon : While I suspect there might be coverage in French that I am not seeing, my search for anything related to Guillon has turned up little more than stats pages, photographs, and brief mentions (i.e. WP:GNG does not appear to be met). The fr-Wiki article has more information but similar sourcing issues. Primefac ( talk ) 07:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Sports , Olympics , and France . Primefac ( talk ) 07:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Also seems to own a stables in Ladiville - Les Ecuries du Grand Guillon. Kingsif ( talk ) 21:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify - Stub biography of sportsperson who does not satisfy the current sports notability guideline . The subject previously qualified under the Olympic notability guideline for having competed in the 2012 Olympics, but the current guideline grants presumed notability to sportspeople who have received a medal in the Olympics. The one reference is a database entry, which is not significant secondary coverage. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 01:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wanted to save it, but the best looking French links didn't resolve here for whatever reason. I think it's possibly sourceable so don't mind an AtD or if someone wants to re-create it with better sources? SportingFlyer T · C 13:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Shane Merrill : WP:GNG is not passable as the sources are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL / WP:ROUTINE and do not provide WP:SIGCOV . Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 09:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and South Dakota . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, C avarrone 11:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Being the Chairman of a political party is not enough to bear notability per WP:NPOL . However, good ing to the party will be good also. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 20:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of FlyArystan destinations : This article was swiftly recreated following the previous AfD and I am not seeing how this new version addresses any of the concerns raised by FOARP. There is no evidence that the destinations that FlyArystan fly to are covered significantly in reliable sources independent of the company. I would politely ask people to read the above RfC and AfD to understand the context of this nomination before ! voting. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Aviation , Lists , and Kazakhstan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy - Obviously I’ve been brought here by the ping in the nom, however this is a straight-forward recreation of a recently-d article that does not address ANY of the issues with this kind of article. To re-iterate: 1) these are straightforward service-listings for a company and violate WP:NOT . 2) they are sourced entirely to the website of the company that provides these services. There is no way this passes WP:GNG let alone the stricter requirements of WP:CORP . 3) these listings can only be sourced ultimately to the service-provider themselves. No secondary, independent, and reliable source (a requirement that excludes industry press and blogs) can be found for this information. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a repository for airline company data or aviation enthusiast lists. FOARP ( talk ) 10:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy per above, no reason to maintain lists of destinations airlines service; I don't think any RS covers this independently. AryKun ( talk ) 12:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I note that the article now has sources from Simple Flying, which seems to announce every new route from every commercial airline. I'm still not convinced that this topic warrants an article but the new sources could be used to expand FlyArystan , which has very little info. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC) SIRS . As you say, it also covers every new route announced by a commercial airline and so is insufficiently discriminating. The information relayed in their articles comes entirely from the airline and is WP:CRYSTAL as it always about future plans that may not happen. Indeed in the case of Urumqi the planned launch of the service is covered by Simple Flying but our article states that this service has already been terminated . Finally, it's very obvious WP:PROMO flap-copy. Here's a snippet so people can get a feel for it: ""FlyArystan, Central Asia's largest LCC, is dedicated to providing budget-friendly travel opportunities in the region. The new route to China is a testament to the airline's expansion policy, catering to the demand for low-fare travel. Offering a base fare of 18,000 tenge, passengers can customize their travel experience based on their preferences. FlyArystan encourages travelers to seize this opportunity and immerse themselves in the vibrant atmosphere of Urumqi. That's not a quote from the airline or anything, that's the in-article text written by the staff of Simple Flying. For anyone who knows what's going on in Xinjiang it's also kind of grotesque but that's by-the-by. As such there is no useful content to here. FOARP ( talk ) 09:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I completely agree. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC) G4 . Recreation of previously d list per deletion discussion. Has shown very little improvement, if not a carbon copy of the previously d article. Coastie43 ( talk ) 01:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of UWC Championships : The promotion doesn't even have an article HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 18:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and New Jersey . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The titles have as much notability as their parent promotion - none. LM2000 ( talk ) 12:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] non-notable wrestling group. Their championships obviously aren’t notable either. Dronebogus ( talk ) 12:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As nominator and other said. Promotion page that this title belonged was d because it wasn't notable enough. Not notable title. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 20:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Carlo Gariglio : Not notable. Broc ( talk ) 13:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Italy . Broc ( talk ) 13:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC) GNG pretty clearly. SportingFlyer T · C 13:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Shelflife Records : It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. No obvious WP:ATD , though there are pages on some of its artists. Boleyn ( talk ) 08:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Companies , California , and Oregon . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 09:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] no sources located. Mach61 ( talk ) 17:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC) No readily available independent sources. DJ Cane (he/him) ( Talk ) 23:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Joe van der Hoogt : I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV . Contested PROD. JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . No suitable per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC) Per nom. I can't also find a possible . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 10:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Daniel Vivas Barandica : Several sources are interviews conducted by or articles written by the subject, and thus not contributing toward notability. Three articles ostensibly about the subject are virtually identical ( [69] , [70] , [71] ) and thus likely marketing/bio copy; they do not demonstrate independence cannot be relied on. There are two articles about a social media controversy Vivas was involved in, but if this is all we have to go on, WP:BLP1E applies. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 01:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Colombia . Kpg jhp jm 07:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Choi Gwan-il : Simione001 ( talk ) 00:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 00:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 00:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 00:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Not much sources found. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL . CSMention269 ( talk ) 02:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC) GNG . A single appearance for North Korea in 1988 and nothing about his club career Svartner ( talk ) 23:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Idiosincrático ( talk ) 17:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"K21JQ-D : Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 02:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Christianity , and Washington . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 02:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . If it is a rebroadcaster, to the parent station. Otherwise, to the owner. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 03:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's nothing to to. The owner doesn't even have an article. Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 03:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC) Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG . I don't see any or target. Let'srun ( talk ) 16:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 08:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC) While this is mentioned at list of television stations in Washington (state)#Translators , it is as as relay of K36EW-D , which does not have (and never has had) an article. I suppose the whole Blue Mountain Television operation is a run-of-the-mill religious station that does have some locally/regionally-produced material and is not entirely national programming, but lacks the significant coverage we require. A remnant of the looser inclusion ""standards"" of 2006. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ebenezer Andrews : Also, there is nothing significant about this person when searching about him in Google, which makes him fail WP:GNG as well. zoglophie •talk• 10:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Badminton , and Ghana . zoglophie •talk• 10:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kerameikou 28 : The author bypassed AfC (after two failed attempts) by submitting a significantly shortened version and, after the approval, readding the controversial parts. I would draftify this, but WP:DRAFT prohibits this on articles older than 90 days. Janhrach ( talk ) 16:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Greece . Janhrach ( talk ) 16:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Given that it was just moved to mainspace last month, I'm not sure the draft prohibition applies, but better to get consensus here. I think there's enough to meet N:ORG, but this article would need to be gutted and eyes kept on it for it to survive. Would a p-block for the creator who clearly has a COI help? Star Mississippi 16:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems that there are no editors, apart from the creator, who are interested in improvement of the article. On the other hand, there is a problem with how the article is written, and I think that the author should not be allowed to edit the article if they do not demonstrate a significant improvement of their tone. I am against ing this in mainspace. An alternative to draftification is reverting to the AfC-accepted version. Janhrach ( talk ) 08:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article was initially composed in a different tone than Wikipedia's standard and was accepted only after Qcne (talk) agreed and accepted the writing tone. The ""concerns"" raised about Keramikou 28 appear to be more personally motivated than reflective of adherence to Wikipedia rules. With regard to the observation that the page seemingly lacks editors, it is important to clarify that this does not contravene Wikipedia rules. It is also essential to recognize that the page is only a week old. Additionally, concerns raised about the article's writing style have been addressed and accepted by a nativespeaker of the english language Qcne (talk) , in contrast with Janhrach who lacks proficiency in the English language and is at an intermediate level, NOT PROFICIENT. Errico Boukoura ( talk ) 13:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As you can see in the links below, it was not Qcne who did approve the article, nor it was moved to mainspace a week ago. I mentioned a low potential editor count in the context of moving back to draft namespace and a partial block, as unmaintained drafts are d after some time. And I do not have to be an advanced speaker of English to recognize that phrases like ""a variety of exhibitions [...] within its historic walls"", ""[...] took a dramatic turn"", ""embodying its radical spirit through countless exhibitions [...]"", ""the legacy [...] endures as a testament to [...]"" are not appropriate in a encyclopedia. Janhrach ( talk ) 19:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Qcne (talk) confirmation was about the tone of Keramikou 28 was written upon, and conformed appropriately for Wikipedia. That being said, Janhrach intermediate level of English does not allow the effective understanding of the writing tone. Thus, for non-native English speakers, it is required to be proficient in English for such corrections. Breakdown of the mentioned phrases by by Janhrach : ""A variety of exhibitions [...]"" Stating that a variety of exhibitions took place is surely not in any way in violation of any Wikipedia protocol. ""Within its historic walls [...]"" The building is more than 100 years old , which categorizes it as historic. IMPORTANT NOTE: The Greek Ministry of Culture mandates that any building or structure within Greek territory more than 100 years old to be considered a historic site. ""Took a dramatic turn[...]"" A dramatic turn indeed occurred. I am not sure why this would be the wrong word to use. ""Embodying its radical spirit through countless exhibitions [...]"", There is a reference by BBC regarding the Athenian art scene that has been EXACTLY copied and pasted from that article . ""The legacy [...]"" This could spark a debate, but it still follows the rules of the Greek Ministry of Culture. ""Endures as a testament to [...]"" ?? Morever, as metioned by Star Mississippi there's enough to meet N:ORG. Errico Boukoura ( talk ) 11:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC) The mentioned parentheses have been temporarily changed until it is confirmed that Janhrach emphasis are wrong. Errico Boukoura ( talk ) 12:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not sure, but you are probably referring to your two edits to the article. As far as I know, the phrase ""take a turn"" is not meaningful is this context. (Edit: my mistake, it is.) The second edit was useful and constructive, but you have maybe misunderstood me, I referred to a different phrase. (The above list is not exhaustive.) Janhrach ( talk ) 15:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC) Please post the diff number of Qcne's confirmation . (Edit: my bad, I didn't understand that you meant that you responded to Qcne, not the other way around.) The word variety was not of particular issue. What I had an issue with is the usage of ""within [...] walls"" as a metaphor for ""inside the building"". It is unencyclopedic. ""to take a dramatic turn"" is an informal phrase. The whole phrase is a problem, not just the word dramatic . When you make a verbatim quote, you should use quotation marks, it didn't look like being quoted. What is worse, however, is that there is no reference on the statement, so it may constitute a copyright infringement. I could not find the said phrase at the URL you supplied, could you please write in which paragraph it is? Thank you. Please clarify why do you consider the last phrase ok. I didn't understand. The words testament and endures are particularly off-tone. The fact that the subject passes WP:NORG doesn't mean the article couldn't be draftified or d. Janhrach ( talk ) 15:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC) No worries The phrase "" within its historic walls "" has been changeed to "" within its walls "". The phrase "" to take a dramatic turn "" has been changeed to "" underwent a significant transformation "". I am not sure which quote you are referring to (Please share it so it can be handled). The phrase "" testament and endures ""has been changed to "" stands "". As mentioned by Star Mississippi ; Given that this page was just moved to mainspace last month , NO draft prohibition applies . There's enough to meet N:ORG, meaing there is enought N:ORG to the page and NOT draftified or d (N:ORG is currently not a reason for draftification or deletion so far). As you are more concerned about the tone, please reply regarding issue 4, and let me know which other words you believe should be changed. The issue regarding N:ORG is currently not a point of contention, as both Star Mississippi and I are in concurrence on this matter. This alignment results in a collective agreement of 2 versus 1. Note: If a third party agrees that the tone did not need to be changed and did not break any rules of Wikipedia, it will be changed back to how it was originally written. Errico Boukoura ( talk ) 23:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC) CONTEXT: I am a professor of Fine Arts with a focus on Greek-American art and the Greek contemporary art scene. Kerameikou 28 was a project I recently started researching because I believe it could serve as a good example for social centers in the United States. Research Update: While researching for further information regarding Kerameikou 28 due to Janhrach 's concerns for N:ORG, I found the phone number of one of the previous owners. It appears that the new owner complained to the previous owners about the Kerameikou 28 Wikipedia page, expressing a desire to transform the building into an Artist Residency. The previous owner I spoke with on the phone mentioned that the new owner threatened them regarding the Wikipedia page of Kerameikou 28 if they didn't address this matter. While this is hypothetical, Janhrach might be associated with the new owner, implying a potential conflict of interest. Errico Boukoura ( talk ) 11:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC) four sections were removed from the article several hours ago. Janhrach ( talk ) 07:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, Keramikou 28 initially had two failed attempts when submitted, but this was solely due to the incorrect writing tone ( AND NOT due the submitting a significantly shortened version as mentioned above). It is important to note that after the first failed attempt of publishing Keramikou 28, the writing was reexamined and adhered to Wikipedia rules. Additionally, more information was added to the page as additional proof (reference link) was found regarding Keramikou 28. However, we have d this added information after Keramikou 28 went live, as user Janhrach believes there was insufficient evidence (reference links) and did not approve of the written tone. Janhrach note was taken seriously, and we have removed the added information. We will make efforts to find more information or proof to comply with Wikipedia's rules. All the best, Errico Boukoura Errico Boukoura ( talk ) 11:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I claimed not that the article didn't pass AfC because of being shortened, but that it did pass AfC because of that. The article still isn't well-referenced, nor has its tone been fixed. Relevant AfC review diffs (I was mistaken, they are more than two.): Special:Diff/1176695262 , Special:Diff/1177158473 , Special:Diff/1177960977 , Special:Diff/1183832995 , Special:Diff/1187303157 , Special:Diff/1187708015 . Janhrach ( talk ) 19:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please share with us which exact parts are not well-referenced. Errico Boukoura ( talk ) 11:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Every non-trivial claim should be sourced. For example, the Community scetion is completely unsourced (ignoring the refences that do not seem to have much to do with this article, except being about the said people). Many other claims do not have references. If they are supported by already used sources, you should reuse them, not let the reader search for the correct reference. Janhrach ( talk ) 14:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Community has four different references that back up most of the things said. It is impossible to have a reference for every line, and about 90% of the information said on the Community can be found in the references mentioned. Additionally, the other five references on the page can also support everything that is being said in the Community section. Errico Boukoura ( talk ) 22:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC) A new reference has been added in the Community section with further information that delves deeper than what this section says. It backs up not only the claims in the Community section but also the activities. Errico Boukoura ( talk ) 23:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment this is an absolute mess, because we now have no idea what article we're actually deleting. The comments that unacceptable text will be replaced, above, are really unhelpful because they mean that anyone voting will potentially find themselves voting to something other than what's there. When we discuss changes to articles, they shouldn't be temporary, conditional changes, made to secure a at AfD, with the clear understanding that they'll be undone as soon as the article is kept! To summarise my point of view: the building or commune within it may be notable, but when challenged, editors writing in Wikipedia are utterly obliged to find sources independent of the subject to back up what they say, and confirm notability. Too many of the current sources appear to be press-releases. Unless proper sources appear, the article cannot be in main-space in its present form. Draftify would be kind. TNT and start over would be an alternative. Elemimele ( talk ) 00:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with you, great argument. I lean towards draftification , because the article isn't irreparable. The above discussion should probably left in its current state as you said. This ANI thread should be mentioned, as it is relevant the discussion shifted to the article at once (edited 08:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)). Janhrach ( talk ) 14:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This discussion is hard to make sense of. We are discussing what should happen with this specific article and that should be the focus. Also, there is no need to bold or CAPITALIZE any words, it is just distracting and doesn't help win over editors to your argument, it is just irritating. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC) At the time of the nomination, Special:Diff/1189925650 was the latest revision. Janhrach ( talk ) 08:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This isn't an encyclopedia article about an artistic community. It's an essay about them. I think it's quite possible that we should have an article about the artists, but I don't think that this is a useful starting point for that article. I also don't think that we can work with the creator to fix it -- his behaviour shows that he's not willing to adapt to Wikipedia and he expects us to adapt to him. as WP:TNT .— S Marshall T / C 10:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC) Could you please clarify why do you consider this article an essay? Otherwise, I more or less agree with your arguments. Janhrach ( talk ) 12:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC) TONE is unencyclopaedic; (2) its style is WP:EMPHATIC ; and (3) it isn't WP:TERSE . It's full of needless modifiers (adjectives and adverbs), some of which border on peacocking . Someone really passionate about Kerameiko28 might write the content we're considering on an information leaflet -- we, as dispassionate and objective encyclopaedia writers, need to be succinct , direct , and clear . Take the following totally uncited paragraph: The transformation of the building into an artists hub elevated its status in the Athenian subculture art scene. It provided a venue for both emerging and established artists to exhibit their work and engage in creative pursuits outsied traditional galleries and museums. The building came to symbolize the vibrant artistic community of the city, hosting a variety of exhibitions, performances, and initiative projects. Well that's three sentences. The facts they're trying to convey are: (First sentence) The building became a hub for artists and performers. (Second sentence) Artists and performers could exhibit their work there. (Third sentence) Many did. How would you write that in simple, clear, direct English that would be accessible to a curious child or a person whose first language wasn't English? There are quite a few ways but none of them have anything to do with what this author wrote. From reading what they say, I think the author expects us to follow him around fixing this, and, no, we won't -- absolutely not. We simply don't have the volunteers to do that. If this person wants to write for Wikipedia, they need to become competent at writing articles before they start. — S Marshall T / C 13:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, you wrote exactly what I think about the tone, I just didn't understand this specific sense of the word essay . Janhrach ( talk ) 14:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC) TNT . If there can be an article on this, starting from scratch would be cleaner than trying to fix the brochure language here. XOR'easter ( talk ) 15:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC) TNT . I agree with S Marshall that this article is not encyclopedic in tone, and we'd need to remove so much of it to get down to the core facts it might as well be done over from scratch. — The Hand That Feeds You : Bite 18:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per TNT, I agree with S Marshall and the two editors above. This article is a trainwreck, and the editor bludgeoning this debate should be restricted from contributing to it further and also from being involved in any potential re-creation. This is not how Wikipedia editing processes work. Daniel ( talk ) 22:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Happy holidays, everyone! I apologize if it seemed like I was unwilling to correct this Wikipedia page. As mentioned above, please write all of your concerns regarding this page in one comment so I can review them and make the necessary changes. As there are more than two editors in this discussion at this point, it's a bit chaotic. So, I invite each one of you to comment with all of your concerns under this comment. Errico Boukoura ( talk ) 14:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not how this works. At this point, we are in discussion about whether or not to the article outright. The arguments have been presented above. — The Hand That Feeds You : Bite 15:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is now the fifth time that Errico Boukoura has tried to dictate the location and formatting of discussions incorrectly - [4] [5] [6] [7] . It's starting to get a little bit dull, and is verging on disruptive. Daniel ( talk ) 00:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC) , please be aware of WP:BLUDGEON and allow other editors to weigh in. Errico Boukoura, please do not dictate how participants can provide feedback. That is not how it is handled. Star Mississippi 15:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Brian Solis : TLA (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Businesspeople , Advertising , Technology , Internet , and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This article has always been a puff-piece in my opinion. Most media articles are either not notable or only mention this person in passing. I do acknowledge that they have two books with their own entries - Engage! and The End of Business as Usual - but I still lean on the side of . Shritwod ( talk ) 14:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom, not enough significant coverage. Note that this article has recently been edited by Pohzxd , a paid-editing sockpuppet. Graham87 ( talk ) 19:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Concept Medical : Fails WP:RSP . Sponsored content published at supplements ( WP:NEWSORGINDIA ). Renomination reason: sock puppet activity in the prior AfD discussion , also six months have passed since the last AfD. Charlie ( talk ) 04:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Medicine , Technology , India , and Florida . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC) A Florida company, with an article sourced to Indian news sources, seems a bit odd... They exist, but there is no coverage of them we'd use, that isn't PR-ish. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC) WP:NCORP , also appears to violate WP:SOAPBOX . ADifferentMan ( talk ) 10:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Omotoso Oluwabukunmi : He has not been discussed in reliable sources. Majority of the sources cited in the article are about his clothing line and not about him. Since the subject's clothing line already has a stand-alone aritcle, this BLP article should be ed to that article. Versace 1608 Wanna Talk ? 02:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Fashion , and Nigeria . Versace 1608 Wanna Talk ? 02:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per nominator. Doesn't meet general notability. Most sources are not about him. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 03:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can't find any sources solely about him or not published by him. Probably doesn't meet the notability guideline . Grumpylawnchair ( talk ) 03:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails CREATIVE and GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kirill Chereshko : I am completing this nomination on their behalf but will remain neutral myself for the time being. Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Russia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC) BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth . Source eval: Comments Source Name in list 1. ""» Докладчики"". Retrieved 2023-10-11. Name mention in database record 2. ^ ""Черешко Кирилл - MEMORYON"". memoryon.net (in Russian). Retrieved 2023-10-11. Name mention in database record 3. ^ ""Кирилл Черешко, Москва, Россия"". personbase.com. Retrieved 2023-10-11. Name mention in database record 4. ^ ""Кирилл Черешко, Мытищи Россия"". poiski.pro. Retrieved 2023-10-11. Interview work, primary 5. ^ Jump up to:a b c Синхронист о своей работе: перевёл – как вагон разгрузил. , retrieved 2023-10-11 Resume type page Авторская платформа Pandia.ru"". pandia.ru. Retrieved 2023-10-11. Resume type page 7. ^ Jump up to:a b c d ""Кирилл Викторович Черешко на ""Профи"". Рейтинг ""5,0"", 2 отзыва. Английский язык, немецкий язык, манекенщицы"". Profi.ru. Retrieved 2023-10-11. Resume type page 8. ^ ""Персональный сайт - Опыт работы"". perevodchik-chereshko.narod.ru. Retrieved 2023-10-11. Primary, video Услуги"". Авито (in Russian). Retrieved 2023-10-11. Primary, annoucement of appointment 10. ^ ""Знакомьтесь, новый член Союза МТПП ИП Черешко К.В. — последовательный и синхронный переводчик английского языка"". mytischi.tpprf.ru. Retrieved 2023-10-11. Database record 11. ^ ""Черешко Кирилл Викторович, Мытищи"". Налоговая. ру (in Russian). Retrieved 2023-10-11. Primary, video 12. ^ Кирилл Черешко. В здоровом теле – здоровый дух: спорт в жизни переводчика. , retrieved 2023-10-12 Primary, video 13. ^ Память переводчика, retrieved 2023-10-12 BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 01:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Timothy. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Sammarinese films of 2014 : Standard practice of WikiProject Film is that a country gets one base list of its films first, with separate by-year lists spun off only when that base list has become too large and needs to be chunked out for size management purposes -- but specifically in 2014, one user undertook a misguided project of creating standalone ""list of country films of 2014"" for every single country where they could find even one film to list, which has never otherwise been done for any other year before or since. But this is a list of just one film that doesn't even have an article to link to, and San Marino doesn't even have a base list at all -- it's such a small country that it's deeply unlikely to have any significant film industry of its own, and is likely at best an annex to the Italian film industry (even the one film listed here is tagged by IMDb as a San Marino-Italy coprod), so that we don't even have a Cinema of San Marino overview, or a Category:Sammarinese films category, either. So no prejudice against the creation of List of Sammarinese films if somebody with some knowledge of the subject can be arsed to find more than one film to list in it, but we don't need a 2014-specific list, and with just one unlinked film here I can't mentally justify moving this to the general title myself if I can't find any other films to add to it. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Lists , and Europe . Bearcat ( talk ) 14:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom, no need to list a single non-notable film. I would recommend mass-deletion/ion of most of this user's 2014 articles, few of which make any sense as standalone pages. Reywas92 Talk 15:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Why state that it produced over 200 films in that year if you're only just going to list one film that doesn't even have an article? Makes no sense to me. Hell, even the IMDb source only has one entry, so I have no clue where the 200 figure came from. Sadustu Tau ( talk ) 17:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I suspect the ""200"" figure may have just been uncorrected copy-pasting from the creator's boilerplate starter text, because it does seem incredibly implausible that a tiny country with only one-fifth the population of my own not-especially-large hometown actually produced that many films in one year when even the US generally only pulls off about 600. Also, even List of Italian films of 2014 features exactly the same ""over 200 feature films"" claim too, while also not listing anywhere near 200 films either, which bolsters my suspicion that the creator just copy-pasted boilerplate text without adjusting it. Bearcat ( talk ) 17:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kang Gu-nam : toobigtokale ( talk ) 18:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Only 10 professional matches, poorly sourced. If the athlete's career resumes to this, fails in WP:GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 16:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per nom. I don’t see neither enough coverage nor WP:Nexist or WP:Basic. 185.104.138.35 ( talk ) 03:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nadia Burger : No sources found that discuss her in Gnews; only sources used for the article are a gov't website and some small biographical article. Not meeting BLP, has not done anything to warrant notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bilateral relations . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . As always, diplomats are not ""inherently"" notable just because they exist, and get Wikipedia articles only if they can be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about their work in media — but this cites absolutely none of the kind of sourcing that's required. Bearcat ( talk ) 12:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ambassadors are not inherently notable. The only coverage seems to be her making statements as ambassador but nothing with her as the subject. Fails WP:BIO . LibStar ( talk ) 13:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Though she passes WP:NPOL , there is no significant coverage aside from routine stuff that are brought by her office. Merko ( talk ) 19:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"WKOG-LP : Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Christianity , and Indiana . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Only source I could find was a passing mention in a 7,000 page FCC document. — Moriwen ( talk ) 17:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I came closer with 1990s Indianapolis papers, but not enough. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 04:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Karnataka Forest Service : AusLondonder ( talk ) 17:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails WP:SIGCOV . Fails WP:GNG . No sources on the page. RangersRus ( talk ) 23:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ RangersRus Try searching for ""Kannada Forest Department"" instead— the article is misnamed. Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 05:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure the article is intended to be about the department. It seems to be about a role, it says the Karnataka Forest Service ""is awarded to a person who is selected in the KFS exam conducted by Karnataka Public Service Commission"" AusLondonder ( talk ) 11:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Right, but that's clearly a content issue, and Afd is not cleanup. Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 07:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You know what, I thought about it and you're right. Not one sentence in the article as written is actually about the department as such; it would be better to nuke it and rewrite. Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 02:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I previously argued for a ! Move vote thinking the article could be salvaged if refocused to talk about the Department, but upon further examination, not one sentence in the article is actually about the Department right now, so better off nuking and rewriting. Move to Karnataka Forest Department . This appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME of the agency, and there is plenty of coverage of it in reliable sources (though the article needs to be revised to actually reference them), including books like Forestry in Karnataka – a Journey of 150 Years , Reorienting Forest Management in Karnataka , and various news articles: [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] . The article is definitely in need of heavy revision, but famously, AfD is not cleanup. Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Karnataka Forest Department per above. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 01:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For the record, I have changed my vote. I agree an article should exist for Karnataka Forest Department , but this one isn't even pretend to be about that. Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 02:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah that's what I'm saying. The department itself may very well be notable, but this article is not about the department. It's barely clear what it's about. AusLondonder ( talk ) 02:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed. See my latest reply to your comment. Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 07:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, a review of recently found sources would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. A source eval would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Germania Insurance Amphitheater performers : I'm not sure what the encyclopedic value/precedent is for determining whether list articles such as this one should exist. Worth noting: the Germania Insurance Amphitheater does not currently have its own page. It has a one-paragraph blurb on the Circuit of the Americas page. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 19:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions . Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 19:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To me, the list is a good historical record. Maybe it needs an ""Unreferenced"" tag on the article instead of being d and see if the article improves over time. Perhaps someone wants to have a go at creating an article on the Germania Insurance Amphitheater and incorporate the list into the article. Nv8200pa talk 00:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree a better approach is creating an article about the amphitheater and incorporating the list there (or renaming the list article and expanding it). I found some sources such as this Billboard article (page 8, Amp It Up) and along with the sources in Circuit of the Americas , it also won a couple awards . (Note it's changed names a few times:Tower>Austin360>Germania Insurance). S0091 ( talk ) 17:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wonder if the collapsed table at Joe Louis Arena#Other tenants and events could serve as a precedent/example? (Though that one is incomplete given that it stops in 2006 and Joe Louis closed in 2017...) Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 21:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC) List of Germania Insurance Super Stage performers which I do not think meets the notability criteria for a standalone list so if this AfD ends up a then that list will likely be a as well, thus perhaps two collapsed lists in the main article. Also collapse does not work for mobile devices. All of this may be fine but want to make sure folks are aware. S0091 ( talk ) 21:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How about a combination of List of Germania Insurance Amphitheater and Super Stage Performers since it is technically in the same location. Rodrigo1198 ( talk ) 21:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I created Germania Insurance Amphitheater and both List of Germania Insurance Super Stage performers and List of Germania Insurance Amphitheater performers . I added the Super Stage to the article because it involves the Amphitheater as the Super Stage is used when capacity of the Germania Insurance Amphitheater is exceed. Rodrigo1198 ( talk ) 19:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC) NLIST . This isn't exactly Carnegie Hall , and even that doesn't get a list of performers there (though it does have World premieres at Carnegie Hall ). Clarityfiend ( talk ) 09:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since it is a world-class facility, it has one. As of now, it is one of the iconic racetracks in the United States. Rodrigo1198 ( talk ) 13:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The purpose is to give you insight of who has performed is like the races that have held there. They have their own wiki article. Rodrigo1198 ( talk ) 13:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also it is a Formula 1 Venue and many people around the world come to COTA for the race. It has the distinction that has the United States Grand Prix one of the prestigious title names of motorsports. Rodrigo1198 ( talk ) 13:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC) NOTINHERITED . Also, we're not in the business of providing ""insight""; we utilize reliable sources' insights. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 14:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How many nominations does an article need so it can be d? Rodrigo1198 ( talk ) 23:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As few as one, but this is not a poll . Mach61 ( talk ) 03:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC) NLIST . Rodrigo1198 ( talk ) 23:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC) has created Germania Insurance Amphitheater and moved the list there, a to the new article will maintain the history, though I am not opposed to deleting. Also pinging @ Significa liberdade : and @ Clarityfiend : to get their thoughts. S0091 ( talk ) 18:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This works for me. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 18:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Doesn't work for me. The list is excessive wherever it's placed. Much more famous music venues do not go into so much detail, e.g. Grand Ole Opry , Radio City Music Hall , Hollywood Bowl . The last one — by far the most detailed of the three — lists a few notable acts per decade , whereas this list averages maybe a dozen a year . Wikipedia is not a directory. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 00:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then if it’s not a directory then List of El Clasico matches should be gone if that’s the logic. I think they should have a list of performers as well for those articles because there are people interested in knowing these facts. Rodrigo1198 ( talk ) 00:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why are you comparing apples to oranges? Do the football clubs play each other a dozen times a year? Also, WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a good reason to this. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 01:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then remove all lists of performers for every venue that has one then. Madison Square Garden and T-Mobile Arena has one and separate. Rodrigo1198 ( talk ) 01:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] List of entertainment events at Madison Square Garden has a sparse selection. I will nominate List of events at T-Mobile Arena . Clarityfiend ( talk ) 08:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: or ? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Texas Shootout : Fails the general notability policy. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games , United States of America , and Nevada . UtherSRG (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Can't find enough in my BEFORE to even recommend a a /, but I am open to revising my vote if someone finds better sources (please ping me if this happens). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 23:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"George McGovern in popular culture : Very few references and is mostly trivia. Suntooooth , it/he ( talk / contribs ) 03:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America . Suntooooth , it/he ( talk / contribs ) 03:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with his page Couldn't agree with you more. Add a section to his page. Doesn't need its own MaskedSinger ( talk ) 08:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And so the same old unwanted ""in popular culture"" cycle progresses . Lather . Rinse . Repeat - Repeat - Repeat . Uncle G ( talk ) 08:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, don't . I created this spinoff many years ago because I was tired of this kind of stuff populating the main article that I was working on getting to the GA level. Hopefully there is less of that kind of editing regarding the subject now than there was then. Anything worth mentioning, such as his hosting SNL , is already included in the narrative text of the main article. In other words, there is no reason for creating an ""In popular culture"" section in the main article. Wasted Time R ( talk ) 11:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per Wasted Time R. This reads like a user sub page or sandbox, with the author making a list of various subjects. Scant references. — Maile ( talk ) 14:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. and Wasted Time R. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk ) 18:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am seeing this type of article for the first time. ArvindPalaskar ( talk ) 08:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rekky : One source appears to be published by the company behind the app. Most of its notability seems to come from WP:INHERITORG , by the ""tastemakers"" mentioned in the information section. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 04:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions . Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 04:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Internet , and Software . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 08:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Singer now using this name. Only other hits are PR from when this app was active. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - One of many apps that have come and gone and left very little trace that can be found as far as significant coverage. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 01:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] non notable. Llajwa ( talk ) 16:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Presidents Cup broadcasters : Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE . As with sources per WP:RS ; one is a dead link and the other two is a YouTube link; neither doing anything to establish notability and the rest is unsourced. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 06:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Golf , Lists , and United States of America . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 06:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC) LISTN , all the sources I found were press releases or WP:ROUTINE mentions. This is just WP:TRIVIA . Conyo14 ( talk ) 15:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the above. Perhaps an article about which US network broadcasts which golf events, but this level of details is not required. Nigej ( talk ) 17:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Glenique Frank : A very minor ""scandal"", a non-notable transgender runner causing female finisher #7000 to be ranked female finisher #7001 instead. Fram ( talk ) 12:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] definitely not a very minor scandal. Im working on the article and adding all the links on reliable, major international sources, which will demonstrate it is not a very minor scandal. Antonio The Major Scandal Martin ( queeeee? ) 12:39, 28 April, 2023 (UTC) Please see WP:NOTNEWS . That some ""human interest"" story is shared internationally doesn't suddenly make it a major scandal. Nothing of any significance happened, it's just somewhat unusual and fits the current vogue of reporting. Fram ( talk ) 12:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC) BLP1E , and half the sources are unreliable. -- Pokelova ( talk ) 14:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy as harassment of a non-notable private individual. I've tagged for speedy deletion. We do not stitch non-RS hit pieces together into ""articles"" like this. Beyond that there is BLP1E and every other reason why this is utterly unacceptable. The from the deadname to the current name is pure vandalism and I have also put that up for CSD. Absolutely astonishing that an extremely longstanding editor could behave in such an obviously sanctionable manner. -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 14:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC) 50, 28 April, 2023 (UTC) That's very different. Jenner was famous under her deadname. Frank was not. Our policies on this are very, very clear. We do not use deadnames except when people were notable under that deadname! -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 14:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC) BLP1E , poor sources. Not an attack page though, so I have declined the G10. — Kusma ( talk ) 14:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK. I am a little disappointed by that but I understand that you have to set a very high bar for this. What about the though? That's got to go, right? DanielRigal ( talk ) 15:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Except for the current ""controversy"", the person seems equally notable under both names. More precisely, not notable. But as they are still using the male name to sign up for further marathons, I can imagine an argument for ing the . I find discussing the rather academic, though, unless we decide to this article. — Kusma ( talk ) 15:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC) BLP1E . Sources are the Daily Caller (deprecated), the Daily Express (generally considered unreliable), Fox News (no consensus) and NY Post (generally unreliable). Flip Format ( talk ) 15:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC) I have also tagged as disputed. The article says 'In response, Frank wrote that ""I'm not at an advantage since I have very low testosterone levels due to hormone replacement surgery"".' and, guess what, that's not what Frank said at all! The source says '""I'm not at an advantage as I have very low testosterone level due to hormone replacement therapy,"" she wrote in reply to Yamauchi.' . We do not misquote people like that! -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 15:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC) 21, 28 April 2023 (UTC) 29, 28 April, 2023 (UTC) OK. I was not aware of that. Whatever your intentions, I still think that the wording I removed reads as if it was transphobic: use of ""claimed"" , inappropriate and irrelevant mention of surgery . -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 15:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions . DanielRigal ( talk ) 15:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC) 27, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One editor labeled this page as ""harassment"", another calls it ""attack"". Strongly doubt the page qualifies as either. But not adequately notable. Pete unseth ( talk ) 17:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is heavily weighted towards the ""controversy"", the biographical section is piddly, while the scandal section makes up the bulk of the article. It's likely not NPOV when a biography has more about ""other stuff the person did"" and only a few lines of biographical info. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC) SNOW yet? -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 17:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] could be d into a small section about the marathon. Non-notable individual otherwise, finishing 7000th is nowhere near SPORTS or GNG. The ""scandal"" is the real story here, not the individual it's about. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or ! , I'm not fussed however it gets ! decided. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and salt Very definition of an attack page ('she caused a sports scandal'...who said this and why?) and the subject was among the top 6,200, not the top 100; this is only a 'controversy' to bored red-tops and really sad gamblers, not any normal person. Salt is for the protection of the BLP subject. Nate • ( chatter ) 20:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC) how about if she s getting fame? If it was salted, what would we do then? Also, I didnt mean it as an attack page. I thought the subject would be a good way to my WIR work, that was my only intention, as a transgender woman myself. Antonio If you see my Bodyguard, Call me Jeanette! Martin ( queeeee? ) 21:22, 28 April, 2023 (UTC) If that were to happen then somebody could request unprotection to make it editable again. -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 23:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – Textbook BLP1E. I also urge any patrolling admins to consider deleting early per WP:SNOW and BLP concerns. — SamX [ talk · contribs · he/him] 05:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC) BLP1E says it all. As a UK resident and London Marathon enthusiast I had never heard of this ""scandal"": very low impact. Pam D 07:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC) Clearly a BLP1E and is not notable all. Also per WP:SNOW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffhardyfan08 ( talk • contribs ) 12:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I am disappointed to see that a lot of the people here on their comments did not apply one of the oldest of Wikipedia principles, which is to always assume good faith - by saying I wrote the article as a form of harassment, etc. Perhaps those people did not look at my 20 years track record at Wikipedia. I have never written an article to harass anyone. Antonio Tell me About it, Hot Stuff! Martin ( queeeee? ) 13:04, 30 April, 2023 (UTC) I appreciate that this can not have been pleasant but please understand that we can only judge this by what we see before us. We cannot know what your intentions are. What else were we to assume when we saw this article in the form it came to AfD? What else were we to assume when we saw that (now d) ? Did you really not understand what this looked like? Anyway, if it makes you feel any better, as the inaccurate quotation has been removed I'll take the disputed tag off. -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 16:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC) I know what you can assume-good faith. Antonio Missis Corleone Martin ( queeeee? ) 22:44, 30 April, 2023 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rana Arif Kamal Noon : There is no reference that is directly about him. Fails WP:GNG . HistoriesUnveiler ( talk ) 12:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] He is former Elected Chairman Executive of Punjab Bar Council and former Prosecutor General Punjab, If he non-notable then who is notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.25.233 ( talk ) 20:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC) No coverage of this individual. Being elected president of the bar council isn't terribly notable, and we don't have reliable sources about this person upon which to build an article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] News hits are simply name drops of him appearing in court for various cases; that's what a lawyer does, not indicating notability for our standards here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Looking at WP:NPOL - he's a lawyer who has held a state-wide office (Prosecutor General of Punjab) - however, that is a secondary criterion, and I am struggling to find reliable english sources discussing him and his career. 🔥HOT m̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃ 🔥 ( talk ・ edits ) 14:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. WP:BEFORE reveals nothing of note. 105.103.152.170 ( talk ) 20:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . he held important offices, chairman executive for punjab bar council, and Prosecutor General for Punjab, hence Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN . user who recommended it for deletion was a sockpuppet 175.107.25.206 ( talk ) 06:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"MUN TV : I don't see it passing WP:ORG either — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 16:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 16:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Fails WP:NCORP . 103.151.0.166 ( talk ) 00:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, C avarrone 19:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ballymoreen (disambiguation) : See Talk:Ballymoreen (disambiguation)#Merger proposal which appears to have been executed. A disambiguation page is therefore not now required ( WP:ONEOTHER ). Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 10:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 10:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Ireland . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't find any other uses on GeoNames, Wikidata or Geograph search. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 17:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Wanjiku Kanjumba : Is WP:BLP1E - a would be astronaut. Article majors on her company rather than her. That fails WP:NCORP . Pretty much a puff piece. WP:ADMASQ 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Kenya . 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote , but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts : {{subst: spa | username }} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed | username }} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry : {{subst: csm | username }} or {{subst: csp | username }} . : Clear case of one event for graduating and working at NASA. Coverage on her company does not meet the notability guidelines for companies . Best, Reading Beans ( talk ) 20:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nothing talk about her company. I can't see anything related her company on the references I checked. All the independent sources talked about with significant coverage. Please check it well 102.91.72.18 ( talk ) 16:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC) BIO without enough independent sources on his WP:BLP1E Ibjaja055 ( talk ) 09:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Im wondering why there's seems to be racist in this nomination. Nearly 90% of the references are secondary independent reliable source with a strong significant coverage. [ [8] ],[ [9] ] [ [10] ], [ [11] ], [ [12] ], [ [13] ] etc I'm wondering why you are saying so. Young astronomer like her with huge potential that she brings numerous development in astrology need to consider her notability. 102.91.72.18 ( talk ) 16:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [ [14] ], [ [15] ], [ [16] ] and [ [17] ] are enough to establish notability. Again, young ladies are being encourage to include in Wikipedia. I feel sad when I found that ladies most especially scientists that bring a global development toward astrological science been marginalize by Wikipedia. 102.91.72.18 ( talk ) 16:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC) With respect, she is neither an astronomer nor an astrologer . She is a wanna-be astronaut , and not a notable one. Your seeking to play the race card is deplorable, and your seeking to play the ageism/sexism card is no better. I should not have to remind you about WP:CIVIL . In your note above you state that there is nothing about her company. There is, and it fails WP:NCORP . 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay my apology of saying racism & Gender. But still more ladies are encourage to have Wikipedia. Please can you tell me what's astrology? She's astrology. One you have bachelor's degree in any rocket science or related you are considered to be called astrologist. 102.91.71.5 ( talk ) 16:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No. You are not. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't see nothing about her company! Even if there's it's just a mere mentioned. The sources gives a significant coverage than her company. This is not something to argue about it. 102.91.71.5 ( talk ) 16:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC) INHERENT she isnt notable. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Epstein Files : This document release can easily be covered in the main Epstein article. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 20:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , Crime , and United States of America . Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 20:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC) @ Objective3000 : , @ Schazjmd : , @ Ianmacm : @ Altenmann : , @ AndyTheGrump : , @ Serial Number 54129 : , @ Carrite : , @ Springee : , @ Joseph2302 : , @ Oaktree b : , @ Schminnte : . Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 13:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Is it possible the article could be kept without the specific living people being named? Alextejthompson ( Ping me or leave a message on my talk page ) 20:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC) NOTNEWS is a fatal objection really. It's another brief burst of attention in a long-running saga that doesn't warrant a standalone article. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 20:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure what we they even show, ""Stephen Hawking flew to an island at some point and is mentioned once in an email about something else"" isn't really worthy of an article. Prince Andrew's name is mentioned once or twice in rather mundane emails about business items, hardly anything needing an article here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC) The article flirts with violating WP:BLP within the first three sentences. For example, the mention of Bill Clinton alongside Prince Andrew when the former (along with another former President who was mentioned) hasn't been directly implicated in wrongdoing suggests to the reader otherwise and seems the entire overall purpose of the article is bad faith. PaulRKil ( talk ) 20:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The argument regarding “not news” is utterly unsustainable. The files this article is about are from a decade ago, when Epstein was being sued. As per the included ref. in the article from the Wall Street Journal , the files were released by a judge based on a lawsuit from the Miami Herald . That was a long-running lawsuit, years in the making, by the way. Now, someone objects to the presence of some bluelinked names in the article. Ahh, but the article itself clarifies that the blue-linked names, have not been linked to any criminal actions , employing NBC News as a source. See, just because people who already have Wikipedia entries are mentioned in an article, that does not make the article suitable for deletion. For instance, in the article about 9/11, the name of George Bush is cited. Is that a WP:BLP ? No, it is not, because no-one is accusing him of anything! He just happened to be an official at the time. Likewise, NBC News informs us that Epstein liked to mention some names, and that those names therefore show up in the files, but no-one is accusing them of anything! The criteria that requires deletion of any articles about any distasteful matters that for good reason happen to include the names of innocent people would require us to , for instance, the Tate–LaBianca murders , because it mentions Roman Polanski in the lede … but he’s not accused of anything because he wasn’t even there! Now, is that a WP:BLP ? Remember: WP:NOTCENSORED . Finally, deletion is not cleanup. Hey, if anyone doesn’t like that NBC news mentions Cate Blanchett in relation to this entry, I think it is unencyclopaedic to remove her, but you could remove her if you wanted to, as opposed to nuking the article. XavierItzm ( talk ) 00:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So what do they prove? Person XYZ went to an island on ABC flight, it's pretty much routine stuff without any further context. These are just a few documents in the larger story and don't have anything special in them. I'm not seeing stand-alone notability without some sort of context. So what if Mr X visited an island? Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not about proof of anything. This is about a legal dispute started in 2018 by a major newspaper, with coverage from WP:RS in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and resolved in early 2024. XavierItzm ( talk ) 16:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then the article should really be about the legal dispute, not the random documents. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That’s what our Wikipedia article is all about. About the legal dispute. Read it. The AfD closer should note most objections appear to be rehashes of the critiques to the previous AfD. This is a substantially different article. XavierItzm ( talk ) 16:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC) This article is on the same subject as the speedily d Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Epstein's associates list and was created by the same editor. The article essentially accuses Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton of criminality by mentioning them and then providing a list of names not linked to any criminal actions omitting these two. The article is a gross violation of WP:BLP . Editing out the most egregious parts will still result in an article with little purpose other than to suggest criminality. I also feel the creator of these two articles should be sanctioned. WP:G10 WP:G4 . O3000, Ret. ( taok ) 14:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagree that the article accuses anyone about anything. In fact, like the cited NPR source says: “The fact that an individual is named or that they socialized with Epstein does not indicate wrongdoing.” Anyway, people feel sensitively about members of the Royal and Clinton families, so I’ve removed their names. XavierItzm ( talk ) 16:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] people feel sensitively about members of the Royal and Clinton families. ... This has absolutely nothing to do with sensitivity about certain people. This has to do with BLPs. O3000, Ret. ( talk ) 17:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy . As poo the previous AfD linked above, a WP:BLP violation magnet, and facile disclaimers such as 'Not everyone named in the documents is thought to be implicated in criminal behaviour' give a thoroughly misleading impression as to what the documents actually contain. Furthermore, the attempt to portray documents submitted in a court case as somehow notable independently of the case, and of the individuals the case was about, inherently violates WP:NPOV. We already have articles covering this subject matter, in context. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 15:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The files are pretty much a nothing sandwich... Lists of emails and people that flew to his island, flight logs, nothing of importance. A random collection of documents that really only show what airplanes went to an airport on an island without mentioning Epstein. At best, they can get a one line mention in his article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No independent notability, no encyclopedic content. - Altenmann >talk 16:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC) NOPAGE as this content is not notable (or even understandable) without the context of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein (both articles already include information about the unsealed documents). Schazjmd (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per my comments in the last AfD and the continued problems with independent notability. Schminnte [ talk to me ] 16:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Minor characters in the Seafort Saga : Fails WP:NLIST / WP:GNG . We don't even have list of characters in the Seafort Saga . I suggest or to Seafort_Saga#Characters . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Not enough reception or analysis to pass WP:SIGCOV . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 22:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Articles for deletion/Minor characters in Bloom County , maybe a move to List of Seafort Saga characters or something is in order? - B RAINULATOR 9 ( TALK ) 19:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Brainulator9 Right now we have no sources suggesting that would pass NLIST/GNG either. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV . Abhishek0831996 ( talk ) 18:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Iman Gadzhi : Forbes contributor pieces and other paid PR items, also a crypto ""marketer"". Not meeting GNG. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Internet , Russia , and United Kingdom . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC) 36, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] crypto spam ?? There's only one line about crypto on this article. ... CassiJevenn ( talk ) 18:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC) BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article are interviews and promotional. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). // Timothy :: talk The sourcing is indeed dubious, and I can't find anything better. Girth Summit (blether) 14:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Arcadia Global School : Though per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME , schools are presumed notable, but here, I question its notability. It's a pure case of WP:TOOSOON . Welp, a to the founder, Mohan G. Valrani may be good for WP:ATD . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 07:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Schooloutcomes does not claim that schools are presumed notable. It states that notability has to be proven conform Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG). The Banner talk 08:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Arab Emirates . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 07:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Max Pucher : It's uncertain if the head of Union Souveränität is the same person as the racecar driver. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 04:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Austria . Walt Yoder ( talk ) 04:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have removed the BLP violating text in the article (most of it). Perhaps surprisingly, Pucher has virtually zero coverage out there and this article is totally unsourced. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 08:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no SIGCOV. ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"IC 4000 : C messier ( talk ) 15:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC) definitely not notable. - Parejkoj ( talk ) 18:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , as notability cannot be shown. hamster717 ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌 ) 21:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ramachandran: A Retrospective : References listed may not be reliable, given they link to a Google Books listing and a web shop. Sims2aholic8 ( talk ) 21:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - or to A. Ramachandran . The book does not seem notable enough for a separate article. I searched online for reviews of the book in reliable sources but the mentions I found were in unreliable publications or blogs or book seller sites. Does not meet GNG & NBOOK criteria. If three solid book reviews in RS's are found I may change my ! vote, but for now merging or ing makes the most sense. Not enough content to , and it is already on the A.Ramachandran article, so no need for a either. Netherzone ( talk ) 18:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. – Owais Al Qarni ( talk ) 00:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . There is nothing to indicate this meets WP:GNG nor WP:NBOOK nor any other standard of notability. Jacona ( talk ) 18:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 18:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"1969 Houston Baptist Huskies baseball team : Run of the mill NAIA team. There's a lot of sources, but they're virtually all game logs. Prod contested, and the way the explanation reads it seems like a pet project, which is admirable but should perhaps be on the college's own site, not here. As an aside, "" By your logic, numerous other articles of baseball seasons that resulted in zero playoffs or postseason conference tournaments should also be d."" Yes, yes they should, we are overrun with borderline-notability season articles, and that's for Division I let alone NAIA. Wizardman 16:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions . Wizardman 16:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC) ROUTINE . – Muboshgu ( talk ) 16:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose Fair points. However, I am going to take a ""libertarian"" approach to this and say that there should be as many pages of these subjects as possible with self-governance. I believe there should be pages for all three levels of the NCAA as well as the NAIA. Under my proposition, there would still be some rules for qualification: You must follow the same formatting protocol as a standard NCAA baseball season page, albeit it does not have to be quite as elaborate as, let's say, the 2023 LSU Tigers baseball team page. You would not be required to list each players height, weight, or where they attended high school. No more than five missing dates in the game log (historical teams, pre-1980s). All games must still be listed in order. All final game scores must be present. All rosters must be filled-out with the first/last names and position(s). For historical team pages, there must be a reasonable amount of sources outside of the school's athletic website. They must be reputable and formatted correctly. The page must have proper grammar and formatting. Theoretically, your team could go 1-40 and still qualify for a page, but an 0-41 team is more than likely to qualify for an article under the current format because they were winless, which is far less common in college baseball compared to football. The reason why I believe there should be an unlimited amount of baseball season pages (akin to how college football is treated on this site) is because creators will have more liberty to elaborate on a team's season. Wjenkins96 ( talk ) 17:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC) WP:ROTM for a minor sports team. Not a notable subject and a lack of WP:SIGCOV . Let'srun ( talk ) 19:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . there should be an unlimited amount of baseball season pages (akin to how college football is treated on this site) This is a fundamental misconception. We do not have season articles on ordinary NAIA football teams. Typically, the college football project limits NAIA-level season articles to national champions (see Template:NAIA football national champion navbox ) or teams with perfect seasons (see Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/The Perfect Season ). With a 15-16 record, the 1969 HBU team does not come close to meeting either of these criteria. With respect to a pure GNG analysis, I am unable to read the vast majority of the sources which require a subscription to genealogy.com; I'll admit it's an impressive and surprising number of citations but without being able to review them I can't accurately assess whether they constitute WP:SIGCOV . Cbl62 ( talk ) 17:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Fails GNG and NORG, no WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Routine game stories and normal database pages from BEFORE nothing with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 23:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Syed Zafrul Hasan Rizvi : SL93 ( talk ) 00:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India . SL93 ( talk ) 00:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions . SL93 ( talk ) 00:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] from a cursory Google search, it seems like this is someone who might be (barely) notable if you're an islamic scholar who knows where to find the right sources to back everything up. While I know WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP , this article is in such a dire state of unsourced, highly original disrepair (and has been for over a decade) that if I ripped out everything that isn't verifiable we're gonna be down to a single sentence with no indication of notability. Regretfully, I propose WP:TNT . BrigadierG ( talk ) 01:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Not any reliable sources on the page with significant coverage on the subject. This is another one of those WP:SYNTH pages where an editor uses his own analysis or synthesis of materials that implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. Fails WP:GNG . RangersRus ( talk ) 11:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC) As per my check, I found not a single reliable source with in-depth coverage that can establish notability for the subject. The subject fails WP:GNG . Grab Up - Talk 11:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC) Failed WP:GNG , nothing found about this person. Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 16:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC) No significant coverage and fails GNG -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 15:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Panchapandavar : The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 09:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 09:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Unreleased film with lack of sources. Though two sources are mentioned, they are not properly cited and are inaccessible for verification. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Jayan#Filmography , where it is mentioned, Jayan being the top billing name of this completed film, as the intro clearly states. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are no reliable sources, means non-notable production. Beside, people searching for more notable 1999 film Panchapandavar will end up in Jayan's filmography. Google search for Panchapandavar also shows results mostly of the 1999 film . So, it would be a bad , and also violates WP:PRIMARYFILM since it is not the primary film. -- The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 12:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough then as a disambiguation page with at least the 2 films mentioned above, to help the reader. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Fails GNG and NFILM, no WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV found. BEFORE showed some database and promo (not much), but nothing with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS. // Timothy :: talk 16:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Midtown (quartet) : All we have is Broadway World ( [13] ), which was assessed as an unreliable PR outlet in an RSN discussion ( February 2023 ), and the conferral of an award as reported by the organization conferring it [14] . Searching online turned up more press releases for concerts, but nothing significant. signed, Rosguill talk 15:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York . signed, Rosguill talk 15:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Source 5 is reliable, but that's about it. There's also a Midtown Jazz quartet, different from this group, that pops up when searching. I see nothing further about this group. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Source 5 also has almost nothing to say about Midtown, except But Quorum won all three rounds of competition and took first prize by a wide margin — a full 1.5 percentage points over second-place winner Midtown. signed, Rosguill talk 15:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Genocides Involving the Ottoman Empire : Simply not a topic/article for mainspace creation in its current state.... . should at least be moved to draft because of the contentious nature of the topic that has no sources elevating many items here to genocide. Article scope is all over the place under a very contentious title that is simple not ready for public viewing in any manner. Moxy 🍁 05:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I acknowledge that Article Scope requires refinement however I disagree with the notion that it should be d as a result. As mentioned in Talk:Genocides Involving the Ottoman Empire : Everything listed is self-defined on its own page and List of genocides as to whether or not they are (or are not) a genocide. Wouldn't the contention belong on their individual pages as opposed to this page? The page in its current state barely provides any raw content of its own and is almost entirely a collection of other pages. I believe the page should be renamed and turned into a more specifically scoped outline of information collected to provide a jump-off point for the many topics that have existing pages related to the attempted-scope OR potentially it with Late Ottoman genocides though the original content-intent of this page was not the same as the latter's. Frankly, there are a lot of pages about wars, political history, ""anti-x sentiment,"" timeline of events, etc. generally related to this topic and they're outlined in this page because that was the intent, to kinda put them all in one reference page together. Armeym ( talk ) 06:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , History , Military , and Turkey . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC) some of the items in this list obviously don’t belong (like if we created a list called Genocides Involving the British Empire including the Sinking of the Belgrano ) and others would lead to years of timewasting arguments if the list was kept. I have no objection if anyone wants to create an “Alleged genocides” category and add that category to articles already in category “xxxxx Empire”. We already have Genocides_in_history_(before_World_War_I)#Armenians,_Assyrians,_Bulgarians,_Greeks which is enough of a summary I think. Chidgk1 ( talk ) 13:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC) It's an unsourced mess. The genocides of the Albanians and Circassians are likely irrelevant. The rest are discussed as part of the late Ottoman genocides . No prejudice to changing my vote to draftify, but then, I believe this should be rewritten/reorganized/etc. and moved to List of massacres in the Ottoman Empire as there are already lists with this name and focus such as List of massacres in the Soviet Union . Aintabli ( talk ) 13:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] > I believe this should be rewritten/reorganized/etc. and moved to List of massacres in the Ottoman Empire as there are already lists with this name and focus such as List of massacres in the Soviet Union . This sounds ideal to me since it's more representative of the original intent. Thanks Armeym ( talk ) 17:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC) I don't see how this pseudo-article (a POV fork of Late Ottoman genocides that is full of WP:OR ) could possibly survive in its current, or any other form for that matter. M.Bitton ( talk ) 14:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as I explained on talk, this page is partly incurable OR and partly a duplication of persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction and late Ottoman genocides . ( t · c ) buidhe 16:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per M.Bitton and Buidhe. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 07:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This page is just a politically charged nonsense mess. Armenian genocide, Sayfo, Greek genocide are historical facts, we don't reject this massacres. But this page is against Wikipedia's source citing and page layout rules. There are already categories like [Category:Turkish war crimes], [Category:Ottoman war crimes], [Category:Massacres in the Ottoman Empire]. And there are already pages like Turkish war crimes , and Late Ottoman genocides . So why was it necessary to open such a page? I can understand the good intentions of User:Armeym who opened this page, but my advice to Armeym is that when someone is doing this kind of detailed archive work, it should do a long work and write a detailed text and post it here. and I have one more little caveat that I don't want anyone to take offense to: **YOU SHOULD NOT PRIORITIZE YOUR OWN POLITICAL VIEWS WHEN OPENING A PAGE ON THE WIKIPEDIA** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2alp ( talk • contribs ) 09:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"BBX Music : Not only is this article a clear WP:COI , but is a total WP:GNG failure as well. λ Negative MP1 17:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies . λ Negative MP1 17:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Turkey . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC) MUSIC ; has no notable artists. Chubbles ( talk ) 06:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC) I am unable to find sufficient sources for this to meet WP:GNG let alone WP:NORG . Every reference listed is primary and unreliable. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Apart from the apparent lack of notability, I am concerned about a potential WP:PROMO . Aintabli ( talk ) 01:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . -- Kadı Message 18:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2024 World Aquatics Artistic Swimming World Cup : It has been moved to draft space twice, by User:Hey man im josh and User:Wikishovel , and moved back to article space twice by the originator with no apparent improvement. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 22:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Sports , and France . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 22:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Anyone can add references and links. You don't have to draft it for that. In addition, you can see what it is all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hshezsvsbebe ( talk • contribs ) Yes, we do have to draftify articles that have no references. Verifiability is a non-negotiable core policy. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 02:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I was going to suggest draftifying, as it's an international event sponsored by an international governing body, but I can't find any significant coverage of the event yet in RS, even though we're on the second day of a 3-day event. A to World Aquatics is another possibility. Maybe if subsequent events get better coverage, this could be d later into a single article World Aquatics Artistic Swimming World Cup . This is the second year that this tournament was held, and according to the World Aquatics article, it replaces the World Series that was held 2017–2022 [1] . Wikishovel ( talk ) 06:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Lots of possibilities mentioned but we need opinions for specific outcomes they want to happen. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination, still not seeing significant coverage online in independent sources following the event. Wikishovel ( talk ) 23:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Janimation : It may also have a COI with the articles major contributors, like Farix said. JazzyRightdoer ( talk ) 07:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation , Companies , and Texas . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Seems like a case of industry notability, but without some reliable sources it may not be possible to verify. The existing magazine sources seem like industry periodicals that rely on interviews, so it's hard to verifiably determine the contribution to these major works. A single source that's not an interview would really help. — siro χ o 08:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did a fair amount of digging when I initially proposed this page for deletion and could not find significant coverage in multiple sources-- the majority of citations mention Janimation's work on notable productions but do not convey notability to the business itself. Additionally, the article creator was almost certainly a paid consultant (see my follow-up comment on the Talk page) and the previous deletion was reversed by JaniOctopus, whose user name is a direct reference to the company and who has not made any effort to improve the page since having the deletion reversed (all to say, I strongly suspect ongoing COI). Vegantics ( talk ) 19:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Finvasia : On its face there appears to be valid sourcing, but I am finding only brief mentions, WP:NEWSORGINDIA press and churnalism, or otherwise unreliable sources. Nothing that would meet WP:ORGCRIT . I was initially going to suggest a into ZuluTrade but a cursory look was unable to find anything showing that page is notable either. CNMall41 ( talk ) 06:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency , Finance , Companies , and India . CNMall41 ( talk ) 06:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note - Here is an example of the sourcing. I removed and then added back so the discussion can run but you can see one is a press release and the other is a sponsored (or branded) post which was paid for. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 06:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Had started removing the obviously paid placements and advertorials before I noticed CNMall41 had restored them to illustrate the promotional editing here; my apologies. The remaining material is brief mentions, PR, and some questionable sources. I was not able to find anything else in a brief search other than more very obvious paid placement. Sam Kuru (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These paid articles are not reliable at all, these articles are maybe paid published to create or support this page. Grabup ( talk ) 07:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"CarSim : No indication if the sources have WP:SIGCOV , so seems to fail WP:GNG . First two sources seem to have been written by the article's initial author. UtherSRG (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology , Computing , and Transportation . UtherSRG (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -Sorry haven't done AfD for yonks, can't remember the etiquette. Anyway, Carsim is used intensively in one small field, vehicle dynamics simulation. It is not the market leader, but it has been around forever. There's virtually no google coverage of it other than press releases so I suppose its notability is questionable. Greglocock ( talk ) 05:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, that would mean that the field is too small to be of interest for a wide audience. gidonb ( talk ) 16:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per comments above. gidonb ( talk ) 16:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ashtami (disambiguation) : Should be replaced with a hatnote added to the main article. CycloneYoris talk! 20:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hatnote Disambiguation page not required at this time. Sohom ( talk ) 20:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC) not needed. I have added the necessary hatnote at Ashtami - where there wasn't previously a hatnote pointing to this dab page, apparently created by an inexperienced editor who doesn't understand how dab pages and navigation work. Pam D 08:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – unnecessary dab; hatnotes should be set up instead. Toadette ( Let's talk together! ) 15:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Also note this SPI that was filed and waiting CU. At this point it is becoming disruptive. I moved the page back to draft and reasoning can be found in the SPI. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 04:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Eric Chen : Fermiboson ( talk ) 13:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Cryptocurrency , and United States of America . Fermiboson ( talk ) 13:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - fails general and academic-related notability guidelines. Sgubaldo ( talk ) 20:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] didn't meet notability last time, still doesn't meet notability now. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The subject of the previous AfD is unrelated, an associate professor of psychology at Fordham University. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 03:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I found this through the academic deletion sorting list but Chen appears to have no academic notability whatsoever. The article (and the related Injective Labs ) appeared to be making the claim that Chen and Injective were somehow affiliated with Stanford University, but that appears to be false. Instead, we need to go through WP:GNG and WP:NCRYPTO , but I agree that most sources in the article fail the reliability determination in NCRYPTO, and therefore do not contribute to GNG-based notability. I checked three book sources that superficially looked better (Dolev, Slayton, and Jarvis) and found no mention of Chen at all in any of them. My own searches found nothing else. The article on Injective Labs could also use some scrutiny. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 03:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] he is not notable as academic. -- Old-AgedKid ( talk ) 12:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Philip Kutsu : Kutsu needs to pass WP:GNG to have an article. The best that I can find is Modern Ghana , a trivial mention, Xinhua News Agency (via ProQuest) , a trivial mention of being a standby player for a youth tournament, and Miami Herald (via Newspapers.com) , which is a mention in a match report about getting a red card. Through multiple searches, I couldn't find any actual detailed coverage of Kutsu. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Ghana . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No coverage found for this person. Agree that the sources above are trivial. The family name appears to be a Japanese word, so a few hits come up for that. Not meeting GNG. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC) GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney ( talk ) 20:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bheja Fry (film series) : Was going to to Bheja Fry (film) . DareshMohan ( talk ) 19:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Fails GNG. Sources in article are 4 promo refs about individual films, not the series, BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth . BEFORE found promo and database style listings, interviews that mention the subject but nothing with SIGCOV. Bheja Fry (film) looks to also fail GNG and NFILM, I don't think the will last long, but that is another discussion. // Timothy :: talk 08:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . In addition to echoing TimothyBlue's concerns above, the article's current subject is WP:SYNTH ; sourcing does not appear to treat these films as some sort of extended series. For this reason, it should be d for WP:DEL-REASONs #6 and #8. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Miomir Đuričković : Contested draftification. This article was originally created in article space, but (correctly) draftified by User:Paul Vaurie for more sources. What was also needed was better sources. More sources were added, but none of them are significant coverage , and another copy was created in article space. Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary 1 fksarajevo.ba Pictures of players on the team No No, only a picture Yes No 2 www.sofascore.com A database entry page Yes No Yes No 3 sportsport.ba A page about his contract with the team No Yes Yes No 4 cg-fudbal.com Mention that he played for the team Yes No Yes No 5 int.soccerway.com/ A database entry page Yes No (although plenty of information) Yes No Since there is also a draft, the article should be d, and the draft can be kept for improvement. The article was created by a copy-paste from draft space, so a history would be in order if the article were kept, but it does not need ing. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 17:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Bosnia and Herzegovina , and Montenegro . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 17:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the page and improve the draft in draftspace. Current sources not demonstrating WP:GNG being passed. Thank you for the analysis, Robert McClenon . Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 17:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] sports notability as formulated by wiki rules rests on whether the footballer in question is a member of a football club that competes in a top-tier professional football league and whether he has made official appearances for said club. The player in question, hence, fulfils the sports notability rules. Period. PeppermintSA ( talk ) 02:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is incorrect. WP:NSPORTS2022 deprecated WP:NFOOTBALL so that now s us to WP:SPORTBASIC . Unless WP:GNG or SPORTBASIC are met, the article must be d. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kasi Kelly : Let'srun ( talk ) 19:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Beauty pageants , and Texas . Let'srun ( talk ) 19:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] no sourcing found for this person, who must pass GNG. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC) NBASIC . MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ogayslabe : Moved to article space by me subsequently. Minor Somali sub-clan. Basically unsourced except for the agreement with the British and for the notable member. I removed two links the Wikiwand version of Warsangeli as they are copies of our article. Perhaps to one of the major clans. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk) , Huliva 21:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Somalia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have improved the article and I believe it is worth publishing on the main space. Oali24331 ( talk ) 08:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Harti , though this topic isn't currently mentioned there. Strictly speaking ( WP:V ; WP:LC etc.), I'm not sure there's any content to . -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Somali clans articles for a while now, but the lengthy subclan/lineage listing is a longstanding issue. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Somalia/Archive 1#Clan lineage (and that was 2009!). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC) GNG . It violates WP:NOR , a Wikipedia policy. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the article is worth publishing, since it is new information that is not existed, and readers are interested in it. Oali24331 ( talk ) 14:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC) 58, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Smith-Pettit Foundation : It seems like a fairly minor religious foundation that funds a small number of academic topics JMWt ( talk ) 15:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion , Latter Day Saints , and United States of America . JMWt ( talk ) 15:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't find sources to back up the article in Google News and the sources to the current article are insatisfactory. Adler3 ( talk ) 15:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC) It doesn't have sources. Agreed with Spiderone. CastJared ( talk ) 17:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Alex Punay : Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 11:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Guatemala . Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 11:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 12:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - notability is not established. C 679 04:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"1958 East Pakistan-India border clash : It is yet another skirmish with no lasting impact. This new creation is itself 80% copy of the earlier article which was d after the last AfD. There is no change in the sourcing. Georgethedragonslayer ( talk ) 10:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What should be done to the article to prevent deletion? And, there was another article similar to this, that was d? Clarify. User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet ( User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet ) ( Talk of Georgethedragonslayer ) 6:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Bangladesh , Pakistan , and India . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC) By ""earlier article"" I believe Georgethedragonslayer is referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1958 East Pakistan–India border skirmish , which was d in March 2023. -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 08:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC) Alright, I read the discussion, I get it, I will try to do something. Non-notable skirmish. Raymond3023 ( talk ) 04:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The subject lacks sufficient notability and detailed coverage in reliable sources outside of local military records and local commemorations. Nxcrypto Message 09:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No change since the last AfD. Abhishek0831996 ( talk ) 07:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dominique Fred : Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Oceania . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Leslie Joe : There's no indication this businessman is notable. A to Sunrise Soya Foods isn't ideal as it's not clear they meet N:CORP. Star Mississippi 23:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada . Star Mississippi 23:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Leslie Joe . Duplicate article. Brachy 08 (Talk) 01:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC) Leslie Joe . Duplicate article, and the subject seemingly fails to meet the WP:GNG anyway due to a lack of secondary coverage. User:Let'srun 02:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC) it is not permissible to mainspace titles to draftspace pages. BD2412 T 01:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC) what do you suggest? Some way to combine the two? Lightburst ( talk ) 15:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There appears to be nothing in the mainspace article that is not already in the draft, so there is nothing to combine. The duplicate content must be d. BD2412 T 17:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Like BD2412 , I could not understand how it is acceptable for this to be converted to a to draftspace despite that is covered by speedy deletion criteria under R2 . And I don't think the nom even suggested ion of a mainspace article to a draft ( Star Mississippi , correct me if I am misintrepreting you.) Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nicaise Kelebona : No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. There is a general problem of football and American football players being added spuriously. Chamaemelum ( talk ) 19:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In fairness, at the time this article was created, the subject met the since depreceated NFOOTY guidelines. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk ) 18:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Paul Johnson (entrepreneur) : BangJan1999 16:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , United Kingdom , and California . BangJan1999 16:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - The new references either don't mention him, or only mention him in one sentence. APK whisper in my ear 16:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC) No references to pass the notable decisions. CastJared ( talk ) 16:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Cornelyn : It is neither a village nor a hamlet. The house itself is recorded by Coflein but is not a listed building. It appears to have zero notability and fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 00:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions . Velella Velella Talk 00:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Unlike in the case of Castellior , I find no indication that this location has any archeological significance. It's possible the Massey family, who I assume built the estate, is notable (see e.g. [63] , [64] ), but I don't see enough sources to indicate that the estate or manor is independently notable. Jfire ( talk ) 02:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, it's definitely Cornelyn Manor, not an ""area"". I found the Massey sisters, too. And some advertising blurb about management training courses in the 1980s. But there's really scant information about this place or the Masseys (Edith, Gwenddolen, or William) beyond that they were born, lived here, and died. Uncle G ( talk ) 08:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Michalis Koumbios : There are few (if any) reliable secondary sources; the single source used is apparently from 2006 and only available through archive.is. LoganP25 ( talk ) 00:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . LoganP25 ( talk ) 00:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC) 1) https://www.athensvoice.gr/city-guide/music/492901/mihalis-koympios/ 2) https://www.naftemporiki.gr/culture/1405577/stagones-o-synthetis-michalis-koympios-sto-megaro-moysikis-athinon/ 3) https://www.athensvoice.gr/city-guide/music/350565/mihalis-koympios-apanthisma-sto-idryma-mihalis-kakogiannis/ 4) https://toprotoselido.gr/i-fm-records-paroysiazei-ti-nea-tis-kykloforia-quot-magical-rebetiko-quot/ 5) https://www.newsbreak.gr/politismos/434321/michalis-koympios-paroysiazei-stagones-megaro-moysikis-athinon-2/ 6) https://www.naftemporiki.gr/culture/371889/michalis-koubios-ta-provlimata-mas-einai-gigantia-kai-epeigonta/ 7) https://www.in.gr/2016/04/26/life/music/o-mixalis-koympios-se-ena-theama-poikilwn-metamorfwsewn/ 8) https://www.ethnos.gr/music/article/184189/miltospasxalidhstoneosingletoystonoyranometoysmixalhkoympiokaithrodef 9) https://www.tovima.gr/2017/11/24/culture/mixalis-koympios-paroysiazei-to-almpoym-tsikari-m-ston-stayro-toy-notoy/ With that being said, the article needs to be improved though, in order to include that material. (Note: I am a newcomer, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.) ArchidamusIII ( talk ) 15:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC) Ad or listing for a performance, doesn't qualify for the GNG (not SIGCOV , independent) Ditto Similar, but might have significant coverage Significant coverage, but I'm not sure if this is a paid promotional piece. Clearly promotional concert advertising Interview (not independent), probably also promotional Another concert listing A review! – this might count towards the GNG, but it doesn't actually say much about Koumbios, so it probably isn't sigcov Yet another concert listing I'm sorry, ArchidamusIII, but I don't think any of these sources show that the subject is notable. If you can find others that show significant coverage, I am willing to change my ! vote, but based on these and what's in the article I am in favor of deletion. Toadspike [Talk] 07:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 13:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC) I've tried finding album reviews for this individual, none in RS. Some concert listings found, but none of the sources above seem helpful. I don't see notability with what's given. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2011 West Virginia High School Boys' Soccer (AAA) : Only press coverage is simply reciting scores from the tournament. fuzzy510 ( talk ) 02:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and West Virginia . fuzzy510 ( talk ) 02:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] High school sports seasons are rarely notable. SportingFlyer T · C 12:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC) 41, 13 June 2023 (UTC) 28, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Elmir Valiyev : Created for advertising and PR purposes. There is no criterion that makes a person encyclopedic. -- Correspondentman ( talk ) 10:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC) NPOL . I haven't found any sources that would verify that claim, though. jlwoodwa ( talk ) 03:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The original Azerbaijani term that's being translated as ""Administrative Legislation Sector"" seems to be İnzibati qanunvericilik sektorunun . The current head of that sector, according to the official website , is Kamala Maarif ghizi Pashayeva, but that doesn't rule out Elmir Valiyev having been the head in 2017. jlwoodwa ( talk ) 03:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Wayback Machine only goes back to 2021 for that page. The 2017 version of the website wasn't available in English as far as I can tell, but I was able to find a photo of him on there from 2017, suggesting that he had at least some kind of position in the National Assembly. jlwoodwa ( talk ) 03:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, the URL of that image contains the words yeni (""new"") and sektorlari (""sectors""). jlwoodwa ( talk ) 04:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The URL also spells his name as ""elmir_vliyev"", but a search for ""Elmir Vliyev"" doesn't turn up anything. jlwoodwa ( talk ) 04:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On the other hand, this article about his resignation as ""Board Chairman of the Public Union Kapaz Professional Club"" in 2018 doesn't mention any connection with the National Assembly, and instead gives context about his father. That would be a strange omission if he actually was head of a sector of the National Assembly. jlwoodwa ( talk ) 04:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC) GNG , unless his claimed position in the National Assembly can be verified. jlwoodwa ( talk ) 04:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Park Primary School : Currently zero references, but searches did not turn up enough to pass WP:GNG . Onel 5969 TT me 19:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Scotland . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The article author blanked the page . I reverted, but this may qualify it for speedy deletion under WP:G7 . TornadoLGS ( talk ) 20:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC) NSCHOOL . LibStar ( talk ) 13:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Generally primary schools are not notable enough to justify them having a Wikipedia article and I am not seeing anything to suggest that this is an exception (eg extensive coverage or of particular significance in the history of education in Scotland). Dunarc ( talk ) 22:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"WXON-LD : Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 17:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Michigan . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 17:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Subject lacks WP:SIGCOV with which to meet the WP:GNG . Let'srun ( talk ) 14:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"TBL-37 : Boleyn ( talk ) 19:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police , United States of America , and Florida . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jon B. Perdue : Does not meet WP:GNG since there is not significant coverage by independent sources; most references are about self articles by Jon B. Perdue himself or from organizations he was directly involved with. The one decent source, ProPublica , describes him as ""a self-described guerrilla warfare expert"" and ""a onetime contributor to Breitbart "". Individual (and possibly edits) are also linked to the now-d Center for a Secure Free Society [13] . WMrapids ( talk ) 18:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC) COI account, lacks notability and is written like and advertisement : Packbow ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Bundling with Jon B. Perdue . -- WMrapids ( talk ) 18:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Television , and Politics . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC) In addition, the ProPublica journalist speaks about the individual beginning at 3:30 in this video , saying he ""has worked for a sort of fringe think tank"" and that the Packbow was created for ""societal collapse"". -- WMrapids ( talk ) 19:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC) an interesting person but non-notable based on sources provided. Llajwa ( talk ) 20:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV . Many of the refs are self-works or profiles (such as his general Amazon one). Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 11:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Saptagandaki Multiple Campus : UtherSRG (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - per nom, was also draftified and moved back with no improvements. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓ 21:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mohammed Al-Abdooli : This article is completely lacking in decent sourcing for a BLP and WP:GNG doesn't seem to be met. The best source that I could find was UAE FA , which only mentions him once in passing. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and United Arab Emirates . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 14:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Tarmon : Per WP:GEOLAND , ""Census tracts ... are not presumed to be notable"". I can't see any other distinguishing features for this area. Iveagh Gardens ( talk ) 13:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions . Iveagh Gardens ( talk ) 13:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom - definitely not notable. Spleodrach ( talk ) per nom, and own review - census and electoral component, neither qualifying under any policy. SeoR ( talk ) 00:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC) GEOLAND ; this is just a census tract with no good coverage about it to establish notability. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 15:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Stephen Fern : Not finding enough here to see a pass of WP:GNG , anything that talks about Stephen directly is either an interview, a passing mention, or just a quick blurb about him as a speaker at an event. A WP:BEFORE mostly finds articles about the other Stephen Fern. IceBergYYC ( talk ) 06:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment as nominator Closer inspection reveals that almost none of the included citations even support the text they follow. All instances marked in article. IceBergYYC ( talk ) 22:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom . AllyD ( talk ) 08:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC) The article content is predominantly about Ark2030 and might be better pivoted to be an article about that organisation, consideration of whose notability would fall under WP:ORGDEPTH . ? AllyD ( talk ) 08:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Upon reading all sources in the article, and looking for more, there's far from enough to demonstate ORGDEPTH for Ark2030. Basically every source is an identical couple sentences blurb that is likely just their own PR given to conferences where they have speaking arrangements. IceBergYYC ( talk ) 22:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A numerous work he has done can’t be overemphasized. I can see multiple reliable sources that said much about him. 102.91.4.246 ( talk ) 12:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC) — 102.91.4.246 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Care to link to any of those multiple reliable sources? IceBergYYC ( talk ) 11:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, even if all those sources were about the guy the article is about, they still would not qualify as reliable. Promotional page. Bremps ... 21:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 102.91.4.246 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as an unsourced mess. I can't see one truly independent reliable source in there that says anything meaningful about Fern. I'm ing an open mind about Ark2030 which as a British community-interest company has an extremely unconvincing existence; Companies house records merely show that it has shuffled directors and that it's twice been threatened with compulsory strike-off, which is impressive for a mere 3 years of existence. If someone independent writes about it, it'd be an appropriate target for Fern, but at the moment I don't see either of them reaching WP's notability requirements. Elemimele ( talk ) 13:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Candace Smith : Trivial coverage for some bit roles. The Squirrel Conspiracy ( talk ) 17:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Bedivere ( talk ) 18:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The page provided by Candace Smith is important and is necessary for people to know what a strong woman she is. Candace has helped many people around the world with a message of power , strength , and belief in one's self. Her message of ""never dim your light for anyone"" resonated with a friend of mine who needed to hear that message. Candace's roles in movies promotes a strong woman in the midst of overcoming obstacles, and becoming better because of it. Therefore, my suggestion is to her page, because her story needs to be told to the world, as it will help women around the world. No question... her page! Qsilver9 ( talk ) 03:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaving aside that this is your very first edit on Wikipedia, if you want to spread Candace's so called 'message' you could as well just purchase a web domain, buy some hosting, set up some WordPress page and publish some copycat inspirational phrases by Chat GPT. This is an encyclopedia, not an inspirational website. Bedivere ( talk ) 03:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Authors , Television , Law , Beauty pageants , California , and Ohio . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You have misidentified ""Candace Smith"" as ""Candice Smith"" as evidenced by your discussion. Candace Smith has starred in her own action flick, major motion Warner Bros. films, her own reality show, Millionaire Matchmaker, Survivor, Hawaii Five-0, Entourage and much more. She recently guest starred on Tacoma FD last year and has a new show. This is a personal attack and I do not like black women who survive sexual assault in Hollywood and speak out to be erased/ silenced. ALL TV AND FILM CREDITS are verifiable on imdb at this link https://www.imdb.com/name/nm133576 Trichards1 ( talk ) 19:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral comment I've removed Trichard's comment repeated three times below this line; adds nothing to the discussion, and you only have one vote (which has not been disclosed). Also, we don't source to IMDb . Nate • ( chatter ) 22:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Article is starting to come under attack from editors with obvious conflicts of interest. I wouldn't be surprised if they're all Smith herself. City o f Silver 05:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Nothing noteworthy here. And the blatant COI only reinforces that for me. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Angela Humphries : J2m5 ( talk ) 08:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 10:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC) NPOL . Most of the sources are not significant coverage of her. LibStar ( talk ) 03:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] on GNG grounds, as a local politician who is not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T · C 02:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC) Councillors are rarely notable as a consequence of doing councillor things. Tar nis hed Path talk 12:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV exists, its activities are completely restricted to local politics. Svartner ( talk ) 02:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Laura Lindner : Maybe there are mentions in German sources I missed, but the most I found were mentions on the German Football Association website similar to the ones already in the article. JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Germany . JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Commment - Sportfrauen.net has a good piece on Lindner. I need to look some more. Jogurney ( talk ) 14:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC) GNG per my BEFORE search. Other than the sportfrauen.net article linked above, I can't find any SIGCOV. There is a fairly decent piece from the DFB that is linked in the article, but it is not an independent source and doesn't count toward notability. Local newspapers provide no help (pnn.de and lr-online.de only have match reports and contract announcements). Unfortunately, I think the lack of coverage is to be expected for a player who only once played in more than half of her club's Bundesliga matches (during 2016–17). Jogurney ( talk ) 17:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ibrahim Barssi : I wasn’t able to find any RS sources to fulfill WP:GNG PigeonChickenFish ( talk ) 07:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions . PigeonChickenFish ( talk ) 07:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Egypt , Sudan , and Australia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 14:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC) No coverage found for an artist, only hits on a cricket player with the same name. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If that website is the references is that all that can be found then this person is a long way from notable. TarnishedPath talk 12:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Beyond the website listed here I found a flickr page for him [44] . That obviously doesn't help though. No evidence of WP:ARTIST or other notability. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Subject not Notable. Micheal Kaluba ( talk ) 11:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Subject not have much coverage. Royal88888 ( talk ) 02:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Joseph Gerald Branch : The following statement is all about Joseph Branch (Florida politician) , not his son: assassinated November 22, 1867 a state legislator in Florida at the age of 21, worked as a lawyer, and had a plantation in Desha, Arkansas married Mary Polk Evidence here : in that article, says: Joseph Branch is son of Joseph Branch and Susan Simpson O'Bryan His uncle is John Branch He married Annie Pillow Martin and Mary Jones Polk; by Polk, he has a son Joseph Children also include Lucia Eugenia Branch state legislator in Florida at the age of 21 and had a plantation in Desha, Arkansas Note the point 2-4 above meets the content of Joseph Branch (Florida politician) . GZWDer ( talk ) 13:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Arkansas . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree there is potential for conflation here. @ GZWDer : Can you provide a proper citation for the link above rather than just a bare URL? There appears to conflicting records and a dearth of reliable sources on this, but this source states that Joseph Branch, the Florida Attorney General, was a brother of Lawrence O'Bryan Branch and was ""murdered by renegades"" in Arkansas in 1866 [ sic ]. Mary Polk Branch in her memoir writes she was married to ""Col Joseph Branch"", ""a member of the legislature at twenty-one, and president of a bank"", on Nov. 29, 1859, and that Colonel Branch was shot to death by a drunken Doctor Pendleton in November 1867. However, a genealogical entry later in the book states that a ""Joseph Gerald Polk"" is the son of Joseph Branch and his second wife Mary Polk Branch, and this son was ""a member of Legislature of Florida at twenty-one, a successful lawyer and planter in Desha bounty, Arkansas, where he amassed a very large fortune. He was assassinated on his plantation November 22, 1867."" --Animalparty! ( talk ) 16:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions . --Animalparty! ( talk ) 16:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC) Tricky. Per the collection of his papers , Branch the attorney general may have died in 1864. There is no indication of a Joseph Branch II in the list of every state legislator in Florida . Curbon7 ( talk ) 22:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . This has a single source (""Memoirs of a Southern Woman"") that is written and published by the Branch family - self written family histories are not great sources. As Curbon7 points out The People of Lawmaking in Florida 1822 – 2019 lists just one ""Branch, Joseph"" who was the Legislative Council in 1841 and Attorney General, 1845-1846 so is Joseph Branch (Florida politician) . The memoirs say ""Joseph Gerald Branch the third, Joseph Branch second, was a member of Legislature of Florida at twenty-one"" but I can find no mention in the newspapers. A search of the newspapers found that a Colonel Joseph Branch was shot in Arkansas 1867 this and this but no mention of Florida, politics or Gerald as a middle name so cannot be linked to ""Joseph Gerald"" son of Joseph Branch (Florida politician) . A search of the newspapers found that a Joseph H. Branch from Tallahassee, Florida did die 1864 - see this . KylieTastic ( talk ) 10:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per FamilySearch the one died in 1864 is his nephew. i.e. Joseph Branch (Florida politician) cited Joseph Branch Papers, 1830-1869 , but the ""Joseph Branch"" mentioned there is his nephew. GZWDer ( talk ) 13:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . This is a poorly worded nomination (the text of the nominated article isn't a ""complete duplicate""), but the article is entirely based on a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and, as Curbon7 points out, only Joseph Branch the attorney general shows up in the list of Florida legislators, eliminating a claim to notability under WP:NPOL . Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 21:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Shahan Kabondho : Quick search reveals only one direct news mention, this article , which is already cited in the article. It's possible there's more coverage in non-English sources, but appears to be non-notable without significant coverage at time of nomination. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 02:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 02:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Journalism , Poetry , and Bangladesh . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC) Does not meet SIGCOV or NMUSIC . Drowssap SMM 19:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC) The first article is the only one strictly about this person that I can find. I suppose there could be more in the local language, but I can't find any. Lack of sourcing unless others are found, so not meeting notability at this time. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Logan Cousins : Does not yet meet GNG, only gets passing mentions and routine coverage. The article in a club magazine isn't independent. Could also be draftified as an ATD. March OfThe Greyhounds 08:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople , Sports , Football , United Kingdom , and England . March OfThe Greyhounds 08:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON . Svartner ( talk ) 14:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. Not enough of a career to draftify. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] for lack of notability and to encourage editors to postpone the article creation until there are good sources for a biography. Geschichte ( talk ) 08:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Persecution of Albanians in Yugoslavia (1941–1999) : It supposedly begins in 1941 at the onset of World War II in Yugoslavia and lists massacres of Albanians during WWII. However, reliable sources don't talk about Albanians being ""persecuted"" during this time. After Yugoslavia was invaded, various conflicts ed between ethnic groups, occupiers, collaborators and anti-fascists. As this work by Florian Bieber or this one by Sabrina P. Ramet outlines, Kosovo was made part of Albania and it was Serbs who were persecuted by Albanians during this period as Albanians now had the upper hand. There were atrocities against Albanians, but there was no ethnic group that did not suffer, to varying degrees in the civil wars that engulfed the country. During the 1950s and part of the 1960s there were major repressions against Albanians in Kosovo by the Yugoslav secret police who tried to suppress Albanian rebels, but after 1965, the conditions for Albanians greatly improved as they were granted more rights and autonomy; meanwhile the period from 1966 to 1980 was marked by ""the domination of the Albanian group and discrimination against Serbs"" (see again aforementioned book by Bieber p. 58-59). The 1980s leading up to the Yugoslav wars and the Kosovo War are a whole different subject, already covered by plenty of articles. The way this article cherrypicks and coatracks every bad thing that happened to Albanians for much of the 20th century is completely inappropriate and misuse of Wikipedia. Certainly, the atrocities mentioned in the article can be added to other places, such as regional articles' history section or for example Yugoslav Partisans#atrocities and History of Kosovo , or articles of their own can be created for them but not in the manner presented here. Griboski ( talk ) 00:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions . Griboski ( talk ) 00:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think there are a few options other than deletion. We could remove the disambiguator and rename the article to ""Treatment of Albanians in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia"" showing the differing levels of treatment Albanians had as a non-Slavic ethnic group throughout the existence of the FRY. Alternatively, we could rename the article ""Persecution of Albanians under Slobodan Milosevic"" where we only highlight the treatment of Albanians as a result of Milosevic's policies, where it was at its worst. Yung Doohickey ( talk ) 01:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There really isn't anything that isn't already covered in other Kosovo-related articles. I'm sure we could also create an article about the treatment of Kosovo Serbs during different periods but we shouldn't be encouraging the creation of unnecessary and inappropriate content forking. -- Griboski ( talk ) 03:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC) SYNTH . First off, the dates (1941-1999) are arbitrary as there exists no scholarly work that discusses ethnic Albanian persecution during this period as a single interrelated event. The article collates various events in this period and portrays it as a single event. These acts of persecution are already widely covered in their own respective pages. Case in point, Anti-Greek sentiment covers Greek persecution in Turkey over a 100 year period, however no single page for persecution exists as each events occurred irrespective of each other. I do not see why this page should be an exception and the fact that it was created by a sock is evident in its hasty creation and violation of various Wikipedia policies. ElderZamzam ( talk ) 06:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination , Events , and Kosovo . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rajasthan bus crash : Only a brief burst of coverage without any sustained secondary coverage, failing WP:N . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 19:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Transportation , and Rajasthan . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 19:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS , and a perusal of the available sources turns up little WP:SUSTAINED coverage beyond the date of the accident. Fails WP:NEVENT due to a lack of enduring significance and coverage. The Night Watch (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Singapore–Spain relations : I found no third party coverage of notable bilateral relations, such as state visits, agreements, significant trade or migration. Fails GNG. LibStar ( talk ) 04:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Singapore , and Spain . LibStar ( talk ) 04:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/Redirect The only non-government sources I could find for this were 1 and 2 They focus exclusively on the economic relations between Spain and Singapore, and I don't think they constitute stand alone notability, as most of the content of those sources speaks in the larger context of EU-Singapore relations. I might suggest ing to Singapore-European Union relations . Gödel2200 ( talk ) 21:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per lack of sources. Yilloslime ( talk ) 15:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I oppose as an unlikely search term plus Singapore-European Union relations makes no mention of Spain. LibStar ( talk ) 01:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sreshth Movies : Would recommend a as an WP:ATD but know it would likely be contested based on recent editing I have seen in Indian film-related pages so taking to AfD for editors to decide. CNMall41 ( talk ) 23:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Companies , and India . CNMall41 ( talk ) 23:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Risingbd.com : Online-only news site with numerous vanity articles. Much of the content in the article cannot be verified or failed verification. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 05:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Internet , and Bangladesh . Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 05:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . All the cited sources either have no mention or only trivial mention of the subject. The sources in Bengali article aren't any better. Searches yield no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG . Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 03:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Being online-only is not a reason for deletion. If it has numerous vanity articles, that would affect its reputation, but not its notability. My own impression is that although it reprints press releases (vanity articles), it does so to no greater degree than many other Bangladeshi news outlets ( Daily Sun , The Daily Observer , Banglanews24.com , Jagonews24.com , ...) And risingbd.com does real reporting too, for which its reporters get beaten up, [56] shot, [57] and punished by the government. [58] -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 06:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some background is available from risingbd.com, [59] but there isn't significant coverage in independent reliable sources, only brief mentions of a change in editorship [60] and membership in various journalists' associations. Newspapers often have difficulty meeting WP:GNG , so essays Wikipedia:Notability (media) and Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) suggest other criteria for evaluating notability. Risingbd.com has garnered an independent award for reporting on corruption, [61] but it isn't a notable or well-known award. It is cited now and then by other newspapers and by academic works, but probably not enough to rise to the level of ""regular and significant usage"" or ""authoritative or influential"". -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 06:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Oluwadunsin Oyekan : There is nothing in this article that satisfies musical notability or general notability . The one reference says that he exists. Existence ! = Notability. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 04:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Christianity , and Nigeria . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 04:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC) Articles for deletion/Dunsin Oyekan and recreated twice there. Draft by same article creator declined yesterday and today at Draft:Oluwadunsin Oyekan . Wikishovel ( talk ) 06:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . Theroadislong ( talk ) 12:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] CU note The article's main author is the sock of an account blocked for UPE. Girth Summit (blether) 12:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC) MUSICBIO. Looking at the May 2021 version of Dunsin Oyekan , all that's changed is he was in a car accident, released a new album, and was nominated for (but did not win) the ""Gospel Touch Music Awards"", an award of unclear notability and no significant coverage in RS. Most of the sources cited (e.g. for his concert in Canada) read like paid placement, and the few RS cited are interviews, not WP:SECONDARY sources. Wikishovel ( talk ) 14:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC) Doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN . Awards are considered for WP:ANYBIO not for nomination except in multiple years. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 23:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ellie Hack : Dougal18 ( talk ) 15:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and England . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Danny Mastrogiorgio : Fails WP:BIO . Capt. Milokan ( talk ) 21:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Television , Theatre , Video games , Comics and animation , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC) BASIC and WP:NACTOR . Starring roles in My Italy Story, Rocky the Musical , and Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories . The reviews for My Italy Story seem to be only ones that mention his performance (Hartford Courant review the only one that isn't a permanent dead link: [2] ). -- Mika1h ( talk ) 13:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC) NBIO , I don't see any sources indicating significant coverage. Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 18:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Vanuza : I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . The most I was able to find was this short piece from 2021 about her recovering from an injury. JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Angola . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Insufficient coverage to satisfy the WP:GNG . Although the article that JT linked did say that she was the captain of the Angolan women's national team, there is still a lack of the coverage needed to satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC . The Night Watch (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Just a note that she actually captained the Angola women's national under-20 football team . JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Wilderness Films India Ltd. : Having 4.38 million subscribers on a YouTube channel also fails to establish notability for a company. Charlie ( talk ) 12:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . Charlie ( talk ) 12:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Delhi . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Shania Vogt : I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Europe . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm assuming this doesn't cover news from their site or any assosiated one? TheBritinator ( talk ) 14:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC) Correct, the Liechtenstein Football Association , for example, would not be an independent source. JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ella Franklin-Fraiture : Dougal18 ( talk ) 13:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC) GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 05:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC) GNG MaskedSinger ( talk ) 06:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jamia Baitussalam : Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 13:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Business , Companies , Education , Schools , Religion , Islam , and Pakistan . Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 13:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm glad to hear your acknowledgment of GVS as a dubious source. I fully agree that this promotional page should be removed, as it clearly fails to meet WP:N. --— Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 17:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I did not acknowledge no such thing (I said mostly dubious), even if GVS is a valid source, it still does not meet notability criteria. Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 17:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , the way it's written, this madrassa seems to be a one man show - clearly promotional. Crosji ( talk ) 04:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"High School Heroes : I began by searching for reviews on Kirkus Reviews , Booklist , and Publishers Weekly (to no avail). I did a Google search and couldn't find any reliable sources. Looking at the Amazon product page didn't help find potential reviews; to the contrary, the book only has 18 reviews on Amazon (and no listed reviews from reliable sources). Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 04:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Sources Arnold, Dale (2010-10-10). ""High School Heroes by James Mascia"" . Baltimore Science Fiction Society . Archived from the original on 2024-02-12 . Retrieved 2024-02-12 . This is not a reliable review. The page notes: ""The following book review is a personal opinion expressed by an individual holding a membership in the Baltimore Science Fiction Society. BSFS is not responsible for the contents, opinions or accuracy of this or any other review on the site. If you have an alternate review of this work BSFS is interested in posting your opinion. Contact dale at bsfs dot org for further details about how you can join BSFS and post reviews."" If it were not for this lack of editorial oversight, this could have been a reliable review. The review notes: ""This novel passes the fun test. It is a well crafted entertaining multilayered story with a few interesting plot twists. The story is internally consistent with the created universe. I recommend this book to young adults, and young spirits in somewhat older bodies, as an enjoyable read. Given this first novel, I have great hope for the future work of the author."" Poynor, Sara (2010-09-29). ""Westlake teacher tells tale of high school heroes. Mascia unveils first in a series of fantasy fiction"" . Maryland Independent . Archived from the original on 2013-12-21 . Retrieved 2024-02-12 . This is a good source that discusses the book in detail. The article notes: ""What starts out as a typical story set in a high school, filled with stereotypical jocks and cheerleaders, nerds and band geeks, transforms into a heroic tale in ""High School Heroes"" by Westlake High School English teacher James Mascia. ... The idea for the book originated after someone at a convention pointed out that there are a lot of comics relating to superheroes but not really any prose fiction, Mascia said. It started as a series of four or five short stories that were published in A Thousand Faces, a quarterly magazine of superhuman fiction, and evolved into a novel."" ""Everyday situations inspire author of far-out fiction"" . Maryland Independent . 2011-10-14. Archived from the original on 2013-09-09 . Retrieved 2024-02-12 . This source provides a sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: ""James Mascia of Waldorf has published “High School Heroes” in 2010 and “Camp Hero” in 2011. He described his books as “young adult fantasy/superhero.” ... Mascia recently emailed responses to questions from the Independent."" With one unreliable source, one reliable source, one passing mention, there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow High School Heroes to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 09:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC) No book reviews found in my search. The three given above are as described. Should be d for not meeting BOOK notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Nothing usable on newspapers.com or ProQuest, fails WP:NBOOK . ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 17:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Khosi : No coverage outside the context of winning a reality TV show, a lot of promotional coverage but little in-depth. — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 12:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and South Africa . — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 12:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Khosi won big brother. And you know why that is a big deal? Because there is even a category on Wikipedia called “Category:Big Brother (franchise) winners” in which she is one for the few people to fall into. Amaekuma ( talk ) 08:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Journalism . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC) BIO1E . If coverage of other achievements is found, I would be happy to reconsider my ! vote. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC) I agree with SnoozyTurtle; this person is notable only in the context of this event, and BIO1E applies. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 18:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Treamis World School : Articles found have been about students or brief passing mentions. pinktoebeans (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India . pinktoebeans (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The existence of the school is not a question but the page about this school has no reliable and independent sources that can give particulars about the school. Fails WP:N . RangersRus ( talk ) 14:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2026 Kerala Legislative Assembly election : Bringing it here once more to see if editors agree on ing it. CycloneYoris talk! 22:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India . CycloneYoris talk! 22:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 22:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC) It's clearly too early. This could have been speedy d as a recreation of content that was opposed by a majority in the last AFD. -- Gan Favourite ( talk ) 09:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Too early and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball . RangersRus ( talk ) 12:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kautilya Government Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya : Fails WP:NSCHOOL . The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since the previous deletion discussion. The sources that I could find are mostly either primary, or school/college databases. - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 08:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , India , and Delhi . - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 08:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is just one of 1093 schools run by by Delhi Directorate of Education. There are no notable achievements of the school or any notable alumni. Wikilover3509 ( talk ) 11:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Poor source and per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL . RangersRus ( talk ) 15:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"John Baker (Baker Brook) : fails general notability guideline . quick preliminary search finds nothing. ltb d l ( talk ) 08:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada . ltb d l ( talk ) 08:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Maine , and Massachusetts . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 08:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC) I found this source that confirms that Baker Brook was named after Baker. However, there's so little information that it should just be d into the history section of the Baker Brook article. I also found this website , which has a whole lot more information. That is just some random website - it does, however, cite two news articles. I don't have time to search for those, and since they are from 200 years ago, we'd have to dig through archives of old Canadian news articles to find them, and then determine how much information they have. Generally, however, I tend towards a with the history section of the Baker Brook article, as Baker really only seems to be notable as the guy after whom the place was named. Cortador ( talk ) 09:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] John Baker was not simply a person who gave a name to Baker Brook. He was a driving force in an independence effort for the putative Republic of Madawaska . He was a perennial thorn in the side of the British authorities in New Brunswick, leading several altercations against them, helping to instigate the Aroostook War . Accused of crimes against King George IV, Baker caused several international incidents between the U.S. and Great Britain. It is partially because of his provocations that the 1842 Webster–Ashburton Treaty was enacted, which settled the northeastern U.S. boundary between Britain (Canada) and the U.S., which had been in dispute since 1783. In fact, one of the articles of that international treaty applied only to John Baker and his neighbor. The state of Maine later constructed a ""Memorial commemorating the Patriotism of John Baker"". See also [1] , [2] , and [3] and its 132 footnotes, including: Two thorough treatments of John Baker are important for understanding the man and his role in Maine's history between 1820 and 1842. The first is an article by Roger Paradis, ""John Baker and the Republic of Madawaska: An Episode in the Northeast Boundary Controversy,"" The Dalhousie Review 52 (Spring 1972): 78-95. The article deals with Baker's actions during those difficult years. Paradis is a skilled story teller, and Baker's story is gripping reading. Moreover, he stays close to his sources, which range from original documents like the Maine Resolves to an article in the short-lived newspaper, Journal de Madawaska (1902-1906). If readers want only one article to read about Baker, this is the one. The second thorough treatment is a book by Geraldine Tidd Scott, Ties of Common Blood: A History of Maine's Northeast Boundary Dispute with Great Britain, 1783-1842 (Bowie, MD: Heritage Books, 1992). Her focus is on the story of the border controversy, but she does not shy away from describing in detail John Baker's role as it comes up. Her treatment of Baker is neutral and solidly anchored to original documents. Readers wanting to read a recently done history of the Northeast border conflict will find no better than Tidd Scott's book. A briefer treatment of John Baker actions described in this article is available in ""John Baker's Rebellion and the Subsequent Deadlock,"" Chapter VII of Charlotte Lenentine Melvin, Madawaska: a Chapter in Maine-New Brunswick Relations (Madawaska, ME: Saint John Valley Publ. Co., 1975). Originally a thesis done at the University of Rochester, NY, in 1956, it has been republished by the Madawaska Historical Society. Her work focuses on Baker's impact on the relationship between Maine and New Brunswick and between the US and Great Britain. ^ Paradis, Roger (1972). ""John Baker and the Republic of Madawaska"" (PDF) . The Dalhousie Review . 52 (1): 78–95 . Retrieved 2017-05-04 . ^ Day, Clarence A. ""Aroostook, the first sixty years: a history of Maine's largest county, from its earliest beginning up through the bloodless Aroostook War"" . first published serially in the Fort Fairfield Review from December 26, 1951, to February 27, 1957. ^ Findlen, George L., "" Under His Own Flag: John Baker's Gravestone Memorial in Retrospect "", English translation of an article published in Le Revue de la Société historique du Madawaska (French language), issue 30, January/March 2002, 5-55. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff in CA ( talk • contribs ) 05:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC) TNT , without prejudice against recreation if somebody can write and source a new article properly . This is completely unreferenced, and has deep problems in its writing tone as I don't think I've ever seen this many ""dubious"" tags in one article at one time — and no matter how notable a person may have been in theory , we simply can't an article that's written and sourced this badly in fact . This calls for the blow it up and start over plan. Bearcat ( talk ) 04:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] without prejudice to recreation as a proper article per Bearcat. One would expect this sort of article to be a magnet for Revolutionary War cruft, and so it proves. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 15:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"6mm Optimum : PROD was rejected because a magazine article exists, but that is a primary source written by the person who created this hypothetical round. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - There is no independent coverage about this concept. It's just one person's opinion on an optimal caliber. -- Whpq ( talk ) 22:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - one non-notable person's opinion is original research ; writing about that is an essay , not an encyclopedia article . I could have been gentler in 2006 , but in 2024, everyone knows what a hunting license is, and that we are not Hyde Park Corner . Go to X or what they used to call Twitter. Bearian ( talk ) 19:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Stamped (application) : Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Shebeshxt : The article (and most sourcing found in BEFORE) is largely related to the legal problems the individual is facing. Likely WP:BLP1E Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . It's difficult to judge how well known he is. The only coverage I've found is news reports that he's facing criminal charges. There's pieces on social media and on websites but these don't appear to be reliable sources and what coverage there is lacks depth, so I don't think he passes WP:BIO or the WP:GNG . Doesn't satisfy the conditions of WP:CRIME as he's not been convicted. Nothing found on his musical career. Checked the South African official charts website https://theofficialsacharts.co.za and got zero results under both ""Shebeshxt"" and ""Malome Shebe"" so doubt he passes criterion 2 of WP:SINGER and nothing came up on Discogs search to support criterion 5. Rupples ( talk ) 01:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Found this: https://sundayworld.co.za/shwashwi/celebrity-news/shebeshxt-releases-new-single-from-behind-bars/ Rupples ( talk ) 02:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 22:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Benedetta Wenzel : The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that that up in my searches was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG ( talk ) 08:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , and Germany . JTtheOG ( talk ) 08:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Small nucleolar RNA Me28S-Gm3255 : No source besides one paper. The first paper by Galardi S, Fatica A, Bachi A, Scaloni A, Presutti C, Bozzoni I (October 2002) does not mention this RNA at all. Hongsy ( talk ) 08:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions . Hongsy ( talk ) 08:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] unless secondary sources can be found. Owen× ☎ 17:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Renjilal Damodaran : Not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Just passing mentions. The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 11:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Film , India , and Kerala . The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 11:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC) ""The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)"". - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 12:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC) GNG . An ""important figure""? ""Originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique""? ""Created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work""? His ""work has become a significant monument? ""No"" to all, so he fails WP:NCREATIVE as well. - The Gnome ( talk ) 17:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I can't find sourcing for this person. The assertion above that Criteria 3 is met, needs an explanation; what did this guy do to merit the """"? Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, ’this guy’ has directed 2 notable films and written one. See his Filmography please. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 00:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Matthew Brown (businessperson) : The only coverage is rumor mill stuff churned out around the time of Virgin Orbit's fall, and the deal never closed - they liquidated around 2 months after these stories were put out. BrigadierG ( talk ) 13:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Texas . BrigadierG ( talk ) 13:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hawaii and Wisconsin . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Probably a COI creation, I checked a number of references and very little that is said in the article is true/verifiable. He specifically did NOT fund Virgin Orbit, and did NOT consult with UC Berkeley. He actually seems to be a bit (or more than a bit) of a con man, making absurd claims. From the Quartz article: ""Halsey said Brown told him he started his career as a teenage tech entrepreneur working with Mark Zuckerberg and the Winklevoss brothers before selling a company to Salesforce. Then, while a 19-year-old enrolled at TCU, Brown won an executive position and, shortly thereafter, the top job at a Texas family office managing $6 billion in assets. He advised the Obama White House and the famed investor T. Boone Pickens on renewable energy."" None of this can be verified. Lamona ( talk ) 02:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that I have reduced the article to verifiable facts and removed non-reliable sources. It may be easier now to assess. Lamona ( talk ) 15:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It appears the user making the latest edits (including odd ""verification required"" tags on locations where the subject works, which are clearly on the official Website of the companies as well as Google Maps) is closely related to the Quartz article’s author, a COI. Multiple edits mischaracterize the article, for instance the latest, where the edit mischaracterized the Quartz perceived “hit piece"" by adding “(this was denied by the institution [10]),” when in fact the article said “the lab told Quartz he had no official role. But its director, professor Daniel Kammen, said he did recognize Brown from open meetings at the lab."" That comment by the lab’s director could easily render one to be a Consultant. The Quartz writer fails to substantiate any stance with the DOE/Biden Administration/DOD consultantships, therefore such can be, in theory, deemed true, especially given his credit in a DOE Energy Efficiency handbook (sourced [1] ). The same would apply for the subject’s CNBC comments (sourced). Further, the Quartz article mentions Energent “has never filed 13F reports required by money managers with more than $100 million in public securities” when in the very next sentence the author quotes PitchBook which clearly states Energent never has had and has public securities. Further, the article alleges litigation but fails to mention that the subject’s firm was the Plaintiff in the Action and the judge in the counter-suit suggested that, in court filings, the Defendant’s claims (American Express transfers/Plantiff putting the wind farm in receivership) “weren’t worth a tinker’s damn.” (Notably, this wind farm was one of the more modern CFIUS-involved pieces of litigation: ""Order Signed by the President of the United States,"" - then President Obama - a notable acquisition, Huerfano River Wind Farm , by the subject. This is important as it supports the subjects preference for SPVs, as he calls them, but this one was leaked as due to the CFIUS nature.) The law firm the subject of the article used, upon research, looks to be settlement counsel, but the Quartz article author obfuscated the true facts of the single case the author wrote about, and wrote a less than favorable, arguably factually incorrect, article. The Quartz article, instead, seems to favor the subject more than hurt the subject given the lack of denials for comment, outside of Pickens which quotes more-or-less his right-hand man/friend, regarding the subject’s claims (Facebook, family office, etc.), but also shows a clear bias against the subject, again a potential COI, and, again, a potentially from the author of the Quartz article. Regardless, this objection is not about Quartz (the subject's PPP loans and ""high-rolling entrepreneur who spends time in Hawaii and travels by private jet to visit factories building high-altitude blimps and satellite launchers"" are irrelevant), but the validity of the subject, and if he maintains the ownership in the companies which PitchBook et al. suggest is accurate, this is an objection for deletion and motion to , at least for now. FourDoorsOneExit ( talk ) 06:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You, above, it would be best for you to return and sign your edit here. (I thought if one failed it would happened automatically - obviously not.) Some of your statements here are hard to accept. For example: ""“(this was denied by the institution [10]),” when in fact the article said “the lab told Quartz he had no official role. But its director, professor Daniel Kammen, said he did recognize Brown from open meetings at the lab."" That comment by the lab’s director could easily render one to be a Consultant. "" No, being recognized in a meeting does not make one a consultant. For other statements here, the Wikipedia standard is to cite reliable sources, so if you have sources for your information you need to add them to the article. Owning one or more companies does not automatically make one notable for a Wikipedia article. Use of sources like facebook or the company web page will not support ones' claims; the reliable sources must be independent of the person. Lamona ( talk ) 14:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I made the edit with the signature block. You appear lost in the weeds as to my comments. The article never mentioned ""one meeting"" nor did Dr. Kammen (though you did so as to paint a false narrative). In fact, Dr. Kammen said ""open meetings,"" plural. The subject is also a contributor in the Guide authored by the lab's director. Having attended public meetings, as the director said, and assisting in academic/legislative papers would suggest a ""consultant"" and/or ""contributor. "" The subject clearly had a significant role, but also clearly not as significant as a C-Suite, per se. I agree with the comment of owning one or more companies does not ""automatically make one notable for a Wikipedia article,"" but that is not at dispute here. The comment of Facebook or the companies Websites was to address a seemingly zealous editor tagging where the companies are located when they clearly, and specifically, passed Facebook and Google Maps authentication (as well as their location being on their Website). This goes back, again, to a COI editor flagging meaningless tags. My vote still stands, for now. This could all turn to dust if the subject of the Wikipedia article turns to dust tomorrow, but for now it is worth notoriety. I vote ""Keep. "" FourDoorsOneExit ( talk ) 17:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I feel compelled to note that the long paragraph above is the first edit made by FourDoorsOneExit . It is generally a good idea to become familiar with Wikipedia editing and policies before ! voting at AfD. These discussions are usually heavy on policy, and that takes a while to absorb. You have now ! voted """" twice, and only one ! vote per user is allowed. I also think you do not know what ""COI"" means here. It is defined as ""Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. "" You can see more about this at WP:COI . The other advice I will give is WP:Civility . You can criticize the article but it's best to assume that everyone here is trying to make WP a good quality product. Lamona ( talk ) 21:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC) 48, 12 June 2024 (UTC) 05, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is worthy, by nature, of the Virgin Orbit bankruptcy, the largest in the space industry. He clearly is involved in the industry and I suggest ""Keeping. "" Are you the same editor as above? Both edits are unsigned. Lamona ( talk ) 14:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC) 26, 12 June 2024 (UTC) 14, 12 June 2024 (UTC) 17, 13 June 2024 (UTC) 11, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Matt""? ""notoriety""? and two IPs in a similar range. I hope we don't have WP:SOCKing going on here. That would greatly complicate what otherwise would be a pretty straight-forward AFD. Lamona ( talk ) 06:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC) 09, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This guy appears to be a con man and is being sued by the SEC. The websites which collect d Wikipedia articles seems like a good place for this guy to be remembered. Sanpitch ( talk ) 21:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"The Summit Open Source Development Group : Either a or would be a good outcome. Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 06:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Technology , Internet , and Software . Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 06:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I wouldn't mind getting rid of this article. Honestly it only really exists because of a situation a long time ago and really the org is in almost read-only state at this point since I'm retired from IT. Brielle ( talk ) 01:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ajay Lobo : Google Scholar and JSTOR have nothing about him. Source 1 - Music listing Source 2 - Movie listing Source 3 - Movie listing on Rotten tomatoes Source 4 - is a book authored by the subject Source 5 - looks like a comic? Fails WP:GNG , WP:NACTOR and WP:NMG . Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 08:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , and Music . Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 08:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] additional search at ProQuest pulled up nothing. Mach61 ( talk ) 17:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Quite apart from anything else, this should never have been published in the first place, on account of the author's paid-editing status. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 14:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC) 38, 1 January 2024 (UTC) 17, 1 January 2024 (UTC) 14, 1 January 2024 (UTC) If this isn’t paid editing, this is clearly a vanity page. Search engines don’t pull up ratios relevant to the subject, and the sources don’t say much either. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 18:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Quatuor Habanera : Boleyn ( talk ) 19:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment found this album review here . Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"A Figa : I did not find evidence of notable archaeology. Boleyn ( talk ) 10:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology , Geography , and France . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't find any reference to a site by this name in Corsica, and am curious where it came from originally. @ Ser Amantio di Nicolao : your initial edit summary suggests that you might have been working from a list or database? – Joe ( talk ) 11:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Co and Fr articles don't list any sources. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 17:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2SSR : No sources, and my BEFORE check did not find any SIGCOV. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 23:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Australia . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 23:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Only 5 gnews hits. The first 2 may be considered indepth but they are an industry related source and a local newspaper. Fails GNG. LibStar ( talk ) 01:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Annette Nainima : The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was a half-dozen sentences of coverage here from the Fiji Sun , which probably fails WP:YOUNGATH . JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Oceania . JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fiji-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC) 35, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC) GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 20:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"John Cogswell (psychologist) : Clarityfiend ( talk ) 12:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't see anything either. Spiralwidget ( talk ) 12:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychology and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The only relevant results for this John Cogswell in Newspapers.com are ""Community Calendar"" listings for The Walking Theatre Group in the Los Angeles Times . ProQuest turns up a dissertation that cites his 1993 article in the Journal of Humanistic Psychology . But neither of these are sufficient to establish notability per WP:BASIC , let alone WP:GNG . Cielquiparle ( talk ) 02:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"International reactions to the al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion : Removing all of that, it only contains a few paragraphs about the actual explosion, and does not contain anything not already covered at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion . This is an unnecessary content fork. -- Orgullomoore ( talk ) 20:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military . -- Orgullomoore ( talk ) 20:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] nothing that isn't covered in the main article. ""Unnecessary content fork"" sums it up well. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 20:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 20:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC) As per above, it's an unnecessary fork. : I would ! vote to sourced content not in article into Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion#Aftermath , but there is none. Unneeded CFORK at this point, if the section grows into something it can be split. // Timothy :: talk 07:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Beysim Beysim : There are trivial mentions in a few places but nothing that can be considered as WP:SIGCOV . Beysim doesn't seem to even meet the minimum of WP:SPORTBASIC #5. All 4 references used are trivial mentions. My own searches yielded more of the same. Gong mentions the player in two lists but does not address him in depth. Blitz merely says Besim Besim scored the only goal in the 85th minute. Xnews is just a simple passing mention in a match report. Those were the best sources that I could find. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Bulgaria . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - per nomination. -- Nk ( talk ) 10:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC) GNG . Jogurney ( talk ) 16:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"21st Digital Century : This appears to be intended for self-promotion. It is also a weird conflation between a company and a human. Bovlb ( talk ) 17:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Internet , and Albania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Article has few references and those that do exist reads like spam-- Trade ( talk ) 21:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Basically no sources that we use that contribute to WP:NBASIC or WP:NCORP . Skynxnex ( talk ) 18:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dan Rogers : As always, mayors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just by virtue of existing -- the notability of a mayor hinges on writing and sourcing substantive content about his political impact : specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his leadership had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this is strictly on the level of ""Dan Rogers is a mayor who existed, the end"", and is ""referenced"" solely to his ""meet your mayor"" profile on the self-published website of the city government, which is a primary source that does not support notability at all. Nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to hand him an automatic inclusion freebie without WP:GNG -worthy coverage. Bearcat ( talk ) 16:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada . Bearcat ( talk ) 16:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Zero secondary sources, no evidence of meeting notability requirements. AusLondonder ( talk ) 17:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 02:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Compugoal College : Boleyn ( talk ) 19:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Kenya . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC) 12, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kashi Mitra Ghat crematorium : It is possible they exist in Bengali however I note that our friends at bn.wiki do not have much else on their page either JMWt ( talk ) 20:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and India . JMWt ( talk ) 20:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Significance unestablished; only one source that merely confirms location. Sunshine1191 ( talk ) 11:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] -- Article provides no real info and I am unable to find anything in RS reference material to establish notability (or, in fact, verify anything other than that it exists). Fails GNG. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Calvin Maglinger : An online BEFORE search reveals nothing except places to buy his prints, but no SIGCOV in reliable, independent published sources. The subject does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST . Netherzone ( talk ) 22:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Businesspeople , Visual arts , Indiana , and Kentucky . Netherzone ( talk ) 22:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I am not finding RS for this artist. I am only finding the local obituary. Fails WP:NARTIST , not in notable collection or exhibitions The article reads like an obituary and I am do not see a way to improve it. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 18:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC) 47, 27 December 2023 (UTC) ARTIST 4. ""(b) ... a substantial part of a significant exhibition, ..."" and that its holdings are not ""(d) ... several notable galleries or museums."" -- Jaireeodell ( talk ) 00:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Zia Shaoul : Simione001 ( talk ) 21:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 21:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 21:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 21:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC) GNG , even basic player information is unknown. Svartner ( talk ) 10:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mone Wamowe : He did score twice in a game against Fiji , leading to a number of passing mentions to this effect, but does not satisfy notability requirements. JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , France , and Oceania . JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ahmed Al-Malki : Transfermarkt and Soccerway confirm existence but not notability. I found Alyaum but it's a basic Q&A with the footballer and with no analysis. This doesn't count towards WP:GNG . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Saudi Arabia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC) GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 22:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's nothing here. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG . Anwegmann ( talk ) 00:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Marnie Alton : The notability claim here essentially boils down to ""person who has done stuff"", which isn't a free inclusion pass in and of itself -- the bridge between existence and notability travels through WP:GNG -worthy reliable source coverage. But of the seven footnotes here, four are her own self-published primary source web presence, one is a directory entry in an IMDb clone, and one just briefly namechecks her existence within coverage of somebody else -- and the only source that's actually both third-party and about Marnie Alton in any non-trivial sense comes from a digital magazine of debatable GNG-worthiness, and even if we accepted it, it still takes a lot more than just one GNG-worthy source to pass GNG. There's just nothing here that would be ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a lot more RS coverage than this. Bearcat ( talk ) 15:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Businesspeople , and Canada . Bearcat ( talk ) 15:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women , Television , and Health and fitness . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Apparenly I created this article back in 2013, but I can't for the life of me remember whom this person is; thus, I really have no opinion. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Erpert interesting. I added some new citations, so check again and vote please. Royal88888 ( talk ) 08:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I have found and added several new sources. She meets WP:BASIC . These are the new sources: racked.com , womenshealthmag.com , Insider , eonline , bodyandsoul Royal88888 ( talk ) 08:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Racked is not a reliable source at all , and the rest of those all just briefly glance off the existence of Marnie Alton while being fundamentally about Drew Barrymore , which is not at all the kind of sourcing we require. Bearcat ( talk ) 16:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Bearcat If you gonna claim a publication is not reliable, you need to explain your reasoning. It is not listed on WP:RSP . While it went out of business in 2016, it doesn't appear to be a small shop or one-man blog/publication. There are multiple writers and it had hundreds of original articles. A backlink search on majestic.com shows the site has 18,000+ unique backlinks. So this is not your small mom-and-pop blogger. In addition, to current citations, there exists dozens of other citations for the subject that I didnt add. My main reasoning for ing is WP:BASIC which states ""If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability."" Royal88888 ( talk ) 04:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] RSP is not a definitive list of all possible websites in the world and their status as reliable or unreliable — it's a consultable summary guide of a specific selection of sites that tend to come up for repeated debate , in the hopes of avoiding ""the 768th revival of the same debate we've already had 767 times before"". So a site not being listed there is not proof in and of itself that it's a reliable source: it's just proof that there haven't previously been 767 arguments about its use, and says nothing whatsoever about whether that lack of debate is because the site is uncontroversially reliable, uncontroversially unreliable , or just doesn't tend to even get attempted for use in the first place. One of the requirements for a web publication to be considered a reliable source is that its editorial masthead is named on a page so that we know there was, and who was in, a defined editorial chain of command . This is because some web publications are just user-generated content , which lets anybody submit anything without any editorial judgement or fact-checking at all , so we have to be able to determine which side of that line a publication falls on by seeing evidence that they had fact-checkers and an editorial hierarchy. On Racked, I cannot find any such masthead page at all. I didn't say the problem with your other sources was that they're short , I said the problem with them was that they aren't about Marnie Alton , and just briefly namecheck Marnie Alton in the process of being about Drew Barrymore . Several distinct sources to overcome lack of depth is for ""the sources are about Marnie Alton but they're kind of short"", not for ""the sources briefly mention Marnie Alton but aren't about her"" — the latter falls under trivial coverage that cannot support notability at all . And, in addition, since they're all just about Drew Barrymore's exercise regimen, even if we accepted them as being ""about"" Marnie Alton they'd still all just make her a WP:BLP1E rather than a person who had achieved sustained coverage for anything of ongoing significance. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The articles focus on Drew Barrymore's weight loss and improved health happening as a direct result of Marnie Alton's ability as a fitness trainer. Marnie's credibility as a fitness expert is connected to Drew Barrymore's weight loss. There are multiple sources where Marnie Alton is the focus of the article or segment as a fitness health expert and of course Drew Barrymore is also talked about throughout because she is a global celebrity. These include magazine articles, tv appearances and online articles. Here are some examples: https://nypost.com/2020/02/26/meet-the-trainer-responsible-for-drew-barrymores-20-pound-weight-loss/ https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=ZAIao3Vs5Ac https://www.instagram.com/reel/B9PdMt1npTd/ https://people.com/health/drew-barrymore-santa-clarita-diet-trainer/ https://edit.sundayriley.com/marnie-alton-lessons/ https://www.womenshealthmag.com/fitness/g32454003/drew-barrymore-workout-routine/ 2603:8000:D001:385E:71BA:EA41:1502:E927 ( talk ) 23:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] YouTube videos and Instagram posts can't support notability, Sunday Riley isn't a reliable source at all, and what's left isn't changing the equation. We don't care about Marnie Alton's ""credibility"" as a fitness expert, we care about her notability as a fitness expert, and her notability as a fitness expert requires sources that are about her , not sources that are about her clients. Bearcat ( talk ) 15:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] She could at best get a one sentence mention in the Drew Barrymore article, nothing she helped lose the weight. I don't see much beyond that to be honest. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC) TOOSOON Indeed, lots of reliable sources mention her and credit her for helping people in fitness, but not much about her, thus not fully meeting WP:GNG . TLA (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC) PR newswire items, PopSugar and the Daily Mail are what comes up. Helping Drew Barrymore lose weight isn't notable. I can't see any sourcing we can use either. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Racked article has nothing to do with Drew Berrymore and is a good one for notability. Royal88888 ( talk ) 07:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's already been addressed above why Racked isn't ""a good one"" for notability. And even if we overlooked that and accepted it anyway, passage of GNG still requires a lot more than just one acceptable source. Bearcat ( talk ) 19:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Royall88888. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 12:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Yaw Safo Boafo : Appears to fail WP:GNG . Uhooep ( talk ) 13:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Ivory Coast . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV to meet WP:BIO . And the awards he won don't really add to notability. LibStar ( talk ) 03:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . None of his jobs, accomplishments, or awards are notable. Bearian ( talk ) 20:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"India–Pakistan football rivalry : This article is similar to the China–India football rivalry , political rivalry or geopolitical issues or border conflicts cannot be reason for rivalry in sports. Here the source provided talks of cricket. Again similar to the other article there is no established rivalry, majority of the matches won by India and Pakistan won just 3. And the Pakistan women team won zero matches. This cannot be called as a rivalry. Also seems to me as hoax article. Drat8sub ( talk ) 10:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] China-India article had already reached a consensus for deletion but somehow it wasn't d. Geopolitical issues and tensions between two entities create rivalries, however, one cannot base an entire sporting rivalry only because of the geopolitical reasons, hence China-India article was nominated for deletion. But when it comes to India - Pakistan article it is not appropriate to write it off as a hoax. The rivalry exists between the two nations in every sport including football. It is beyond geopolitics. Women's section can be removed, but clearly men's section is not lop sided. Pakistan had their share of victories. Derbi Barceloní has Espanyol with 34% of victories, yet it exists. Also, when India went to Pakistan in around 90s, they were told by Pakistani players that they wouldn't win the tournament, yet they did. [1] These instances demonstrate the rivalry. Plus there's an interesting aspect that can help readers provide more information for the rivalry between these two, that is the Crossing Divide section. There are handful of players who have represented both the national teams. This section can be seen in club rivalries but for the national team, it is rare and interesting. I have placed these arguments for not deleting it and instead wish people help it expand. I did a lot of research and editing to create this article, if they insist on deletion, I do not mind. Footy2000 ( talk ) 11:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I know you are one of the few people who are working on Indian football and NT related articles. But I must say, without these articles also, NT articles can be made a FA or GA, not necessary that you need to show a imaginary rivalry. India hardly face Pakistan in continental levels, not even continental quailification or Worldcup qualifications. By bringing comparison with Derbi Barceloni which is around 300 matches history to 25 matches itself making your point weak. Above that India vs Pakistan hardly have any knockout stage clash, where as the said derby has 19 such clashes including Final, Semifinal, Quarterfinals, for which it's more acceptable as derby. Again, the article that you mentioned is everything else but not a evidence of rivalry. I hope India and Pakistan will play often and that too in the highest championships and even knockout stages so that we can call it a derby or rivalry, but for now there is no evidence of rivalry, even after they play more group stage Saff championships matches, otherwise there will be thousand of such rivaly articles all over Wikipedia since every NTs have played such amount of matches with their neighbours. Drat8sub ( talk ) 14:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Derbi barceloni was to compare the lop sidedness of a derby and to show that such rivalries exist despite being one sided. They don't face in the continental events either. Also, comparing the number of games of an European club to Asian countries is unfair. Hardly any national teams face each other that often. Australia-South Korea have faced mere 28 games yet they see an independent page on rivalry, lot of friendlies and group stage encounters included. If it's because of the events they play in, then SAFF is also an official international competition. There have been instances of rivalries like the one I mentioned with a source. There are plenty of instances of Crossing the Divide, that you did not cover in your refutation. I don't see any reason to reject the rivalries just because they both are a weaker side and don't often play in continental level. It is unfair for the weaker national teams that want to grow. They deserve something interesting too. Footy2000 ( talk ) 06:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC) NOTNP , WP:SOAPBOX , WP:CRYSTAL . Wikipedia is not news and neither it is for promotion or expectation. To be included in as a wikipedia articles, we need established facts backed by WP:RS . India and Pakistan in near future will only going to face each other in Saff, India vs Pakistan friendly is a highly unlikely according to Vision 2047 of AIFF since India is likely to play better ranked team in friendlies, there is no diverse competitions in which they will likely face, so rivalry is a far cry to be established. You have taken example of Ausie-Korean rivalry, just check how many matches each have won, Aus-9.. Kor-8, they are playing friendlies, they are facing each other in the continental knockouts, and likely to face in future too, that's a established rivalry. I don't see a similar scenerio here. Drat8sub ( talk ) 08:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] About those last few sentences, it is at the end of the day international level football. I did not mean in a way that 'they must be promoted' rather it was in a tone of how weaker teams are treated unfairly here just because they are lower ranked. These are actual countries and not some random lower division clubs. There's literally a source from the federation itself that demonstrates the rivalry. If you can assume India wouldn't be playing any friendlies with Pakistan in future, can we not assume they would likely face in an AFC Qualifier Competition? Also, about the Aus-Kor rivalry, it is used as an example to show how few national teams face each other unlike clubs. Yet the rivalry exists. Footy2000 ( talk ) 08:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC) 'Aap haar-ke hi lautogey,' Tejinder recalls India's 1993 SAFF triumph"" . www.the-aiff.com . Retrieved 2023-05-18 . Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football , Pakistan , and India . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Please go through- similar article was previously created and was d on consensus. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India–Pakistan Football Rivalry . Drat8sub ( talk ) 16:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per previous AFD listed above. If the articles are substantially similar, WP:CSD#G4 may apply (would need admin to confirm). Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 16:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is just a head to head, there is no prose to indicate a rivalry or any citation towards that. Govvy ( talk ) 17:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC) the article itself basically spends half of the page talking about how no one cares about this rivalry Muur ( talk ) 02:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC) There simply isn't a ""rivalry"" here Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 07:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC) 12, 19 May 2023 (UTC) 03, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jan Kadlec : He finished his career at the age of 22 with only 8 top-tier matches and 40 in the 2nd tier. Do not confuse occasional mentions with a footballer of the same name. FromCzech ( talk ) 07:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Czech Republic . FromCzech ( talk ) 07:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC) GNG ; I can only find routine coverage like this match report showing he received a red card. Jogurney ( talk ) 02:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Siraj Mia Memorial Model School : Fails WP:GNG . আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk ) 06:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Bangladesh . Shellwood ( talk ) 11:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC) NSCHOOL . It is listed in the article on the surrounding community, Badda Thana . So in principle it could be ed there, but it isn't clear why it, alone out of a dozen secondary schools in the area, even rates a mention there. -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 05:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC) NSCHOOL and WP:GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 06:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Indian Premier League umpires : Umpiring in the IPL is routine for the profession; nothing remarkable; no significant coverage of this list. I completely agree, scoring a 100, taking 5-for or even getting selected to play in a premier tournament like IPL is a significant achievement, all these having articles make sense. But what is the credit of umpires here? Umpiring is a normal profession, simply an appointment. If you have a look at the list, there seems to be many non-notable persons umpiring in IPL. All the sources are just database or stat-based about how many umpired who who umpired . Couldn't find sources which discuss about the subject in a group. Yes, umpiring in 50 or 100 IPL matches might have some coverage, but that's enough to be included in the biography of that umpire. I know it's a featured list- but still challenging. Robo Cric Let's chat 14:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Cricket , Lists , and India . Robo Cric Let's chat 14:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NOTDATABASE. AryKun ( talk ) 14:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per nom. Certainly fails the number of policies/guidelines nom has suggested. I don't think there's a suitable here to the parent article either as there is no mention of umpiring in it. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 20:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC) NOTDIRECTORY , no encyclopedic value, and isn't significant coverage of the IPL umpires in sources. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 16:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC) NOTDIRECTORY . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 22:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. But isn't this list serving a useful navigational function per WP:LISTPURP-NAV ? Rupples ( talk ) 08:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You could just make a category for IPL umps instead. The list doesn't have any RS that cover the group as a whole, besides ESPN's database that store basically every form of trivia imaginable. AryKun ( talk ) 08:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of adventure parks in Hungary : Almost none of the parks are bluelinks, very difficult to assess what the page is specifically about or whether the contents are relevant. WP:NOTGUIDE JMWt ( talk ) 13:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions . JMWt ( talk ) 13:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC) NOTGUIDE i say . Nagol0929 ( talk ) 13:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC) NOTDIR . Only one article has a bluelink and even that article is a bare stub. Ajf773 ( talk ) 20:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . North America 1000 12:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Created by a single purpose account, originally linking to the websites of everything listed. Only three links to things on the list. One is to the town of Balatonboglár which doesn't list anything about any adventure park, just has a picture of statues. Tordas links to a one sentence article about a village. Annagora Aquapark links to a two sentence article for a place with ""3 water slides for children, 12 big slides"". D r e a m Focus 19:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC) NOTGUIDE . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 06:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Gina Cavallaro : Main refs are an article she wrote and her wedding announcement. I also nominated her husband Matt Larsen . Nswix ( talk ) 00:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions . Nswix ( talk ) 00:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment this feels PROMO, but she might have a shot at AUTHOR if we can find decent book reviews. I'll take a look later. Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Beyond every site selling her book, I can't find critical reviews of it. for lack of sourcing, not meeting AUTHOR. Rest of her life doesn't seem to meet GNG. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A brief mention of the book here [34] , and this [35] about being a war correspondent. I don't think these qualify, willing to change my ! vote if others can evaluate. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC) GNG . Mztourist ( talk ) 03:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC) As it fails WP:GNG . CastJared ( talk ) 15:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC) AUTHOR / WP:JOURNALIST notability guidelines. The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sleeth, Indiana : There is the usual square pattern of roads just to the east of the (now taken up) rail line, but the aerials and topos show that this wasn't always there: the oldest topos I found (from the 1960s) don't show it at all, and the aerials show it apparently coming into being. Given the location of the label by the grade crossing, I have to suspect this was a rail point for a town which never really materialized. Perhaps someone else can find more info, but searching was surprisingly difficult: Sleeth is apparently a very common name in Indiana. Mangoe ( talk ) 02:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] According to sources on the article it was a post office. I can't find anything in the newspapers about it. But I believe the second source that is on that article just assumed that a post office = town. James.folsom ( talk ) 03:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Suzanne Davies : Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV but was not successful. Best I could find were The Star , The Guardian and Nottingham Evening Post . With the last one, she is mentioned in the title but the actual article only trivially mentions her. I couldn't find anything that addressed her with any actual depth. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Celeste Desjardins : Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada . Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Seems to meet WP:NACTOR with a significant role in Lost & Found (2016 American film) (wide release film) and Flower Shop Mysteries (series of tv films) — siro χ o 22:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello siroxo . Is there evidence that her role in Flower Shop Mysteries is significant? If so, I would agree that WP:NACTOR is met. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've never seen them so no direct evidence. She apparently plays the daughter of the main character, which seems to be a plot element in the second movie at least. — siro χ o 05:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC) GNG for them or not. Bearcat ( talk ) 15:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . She's got the lead roles in several Hallmark and Lifetime films, that's indicative of a promising career ahead of her. Jaiquiero ( talk ) 05:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC) NOT a crystal ball, and the possibility of future notability is not an argument for notability today; see also WP:ATA#CRYSTAL . Actualcpscm ( talk ) 19:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC) NACTOR needs to be backed up by reliable sources, particularly the supposed significance of her roles in the notable works. The role in Lost & Found (2016) is described here , and I'm not sure I'd call that significant. Other than that, I could not find any reliable coverage of her acting that would establish notability under WP:NACTOR . Actualcpscm ( talk ) 20:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , obviously without prejudice against recreation if and when she passes the criteria. The notability test for actors is not passed by having roles per se, because having roles is literally the job description — the notability test for actors is passed by the reception of third-party validation of the significance of her performances in those roles, such as notable award nominations (Emmy, Oscar, Canadian Screen Award, etc.) and/or sufficient reliable source coverage about her performances to pass WP:GNG . Bearcat ( talk ) 15:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC) NACTOR with no significant third-party coverage. Heck, the article itself doesn't even have any content, let alone sources. Her filmography isn't really all that either with a few TV movies and 2-3 episode guest appearances in a small number of shows. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 05:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . No sources. Seems to be a fan page. 128.252.154.3 ( talk ) 17:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"KNDRGRTN : Cornmazes ( talk ) 18:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 27 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 18:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 19:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] TOOSOON and PROMO. My fave is the first ref from 1978, per the citation... If he's been a new artist for the last 40 years, he's not at GNG. No sort of extensive coverage, no charted singles, refs are PR links. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC) 34, 27 April 2023 (UTC) GNG ; most of what I can find is self-published or not significant. There is an interview in Flaunt that might be notable ( [4] ) but it's all I could find and Flaunt is not on the pretty extensive list at WP:RSMUSIC . And I also laughed at the 1979 (though it's certainly a typo), but definitely seems WP:TOOSOON . Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits ) 22:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC) G11ish. Fails BLP, GNG and BIO. Sources in article and BEFORE only showed promo, nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). // Timothy :: talk 19:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"DYXX-TV : There's certainly listings, and given the age of the Wikipedia article, there are hundreds if not thousands of Wikipedia mirror results. However, I still cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. And the article still stands mostly unsourced since last AFD. MarioGom ( talk ) 20:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines . MarioGom ( talk ) 20:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth . No objection if a consensus es, but I can't find one I think is useful. // Timothy :: talk 13:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] List of GMA Network stations could be a target. MarioGom ( talk ) 07:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"China–India football rivalry : All the sources revolves around 1 match held in 2018, that too held after 30 years since 1988 match. The political rivalry and the geopolitical issues between two countries cannot be a reason of a sport rivalry. Even the statistics shows there is not established rivalry. They did not even face each other in the knockouts regional, continental cups or world stage like AFC Asia Cup, Asian Games or the WorldCup and the Olympics. And it cannot be called a rivalry if a country have zero wins against the other. Hardly played 11 matches and India won zero. Seems like some sort of WP:HOAX Drat8sub ( talk ) 10:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football , China , and India . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC) I can't see how this is even a thing. There isn't a rivalry as far as this article suggests. We don't just have articles on ""rivalries"" because two teams play each other occasionally. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 19:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC) One can check. . Similar article created by same user is in AfD discussion now. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India–Pakistan football rivalry . Drat8sub ( talk ) 19:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC) i dont think the sport is notable enough in those countries for there to be a serious rivalry Muur ( talk ) 02:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looks nothing more than a trivia. Azuredivay ( talk ) 11:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC) GNG . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 11:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 02:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Samir Thapar : User4edits ( talk ) 06:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC) ONEEVENT , the viral video. Almost all online coverage relates to that incident, although some articles ( [69] , [70] ) seem to exist about his local rally wins. Feel free to tag me if anyone finds more convincing WP:SIGCOV . MSport1005 ( talk ) 14:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ed Slott : There are a lot of results on Google, but they largely appear to be press releases or very brief references to/quotes by Slott. WP:SIGCOV seems lacking. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk ) 01:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Finance . GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk ) 01:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - especially shameless advert. I started to trim the junk, and realize it was melting away. -- Orange Mike | Talk 01:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC) Orangemike . Originally created by User:Edslott , too. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO! ( talk or whatever ) 10:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Not much in terms of WP:SIGCOV . Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 01:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Fazila Chiyembekezo : I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG . The most I was able to find was this transfer piece, which is already in the article. JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ormeau Woods State High School : There is no significant coverage of this school to meet WP:NSCHOOL . LibStar ( talk ) 01:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article does not have any sources to show notability, and there appear to be no other SIGCOV sources. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 11:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Australia . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Adwaith PV : The only claim of significance is holding the Indian record for number of karate punches by a teen from a horse stance. Its a record that does not give rise to notability by itself, nor if there any coverage about this record beyond it being documented in a book about India records. Whpq ( talk ) 20:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination, I couldn't find any coverage of him in RS, and it's been back and forth to draft, where it was declined. Highly persistent SPA creator suggests autobiography, COI or UPE. Wikishovel ( talk ) 21:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Martial arts , India , and Kerala . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC . Holding a world record is not an automatic notability pass. This will probably need WP:SALT at some point as it has been d 3 times in the past 24 hours and I imagine that the creator will just restoring it until they are blocked from doing so. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] for now. If they manage to advance their career to a point of notability, then the article can be recreated. Deauthorized . ( talk ) 22:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Clearly a vanity page. Nswix ( talk ) 23:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A vanity page with no evidence of meeting any WP notability criteria. Being an Indian, or even a world, record holder does not guarantee notability. Papaursa ( talk ) 00:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and salt Blatant vanity page/COI probably written by the subject. Lethweimaster ( talk ) 08:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Marlon Hunt : The only source I could find was from BBC. Without quotes I get a bunch of unrelated sources for unrelated people. ― Blaze Wolf Talk blaze__wolf 03:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Boxing , and United Kingdom . ― Blaze Wolf Talk blaze__wolf 03:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC) 19, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment He certainly had a successful kickboxing careera and did meet the old notability criteria for kickboxers. However, neither my search nor the article provide multiple examples of significant independent coverage. What I found were fight results, database entries, and some interviews. My search through old Liverkick and Combat Press rankings did not find any that showed him ranked in the top ten, though my access to those magazines was not all inclusive. The article also says he was ranked ""number one in kickboxing in 2008"", but gives no source for the claim. Papaursa ( talk ) 23:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify . The German source seems to give a bit of credit and avoid an all-out deletion, but this article needs more than that. I would recommend a draftification of this article unless more sources can be found which demonstrate further SIGCOV beyond the ones already cited. Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 15:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ InvadingInvader , which German source? In the article there's one German blog, but that's SPS. JoelleJay ( talk ) 19:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on draftifying? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 06:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Of the sources in the article, 3 are unreliable (facebook and blogs) and 1 is a stats ref. Nothing showing up elsewhere either for GNG. JoelleJay ( talk ) 19:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] After more research I still didn't find evidence he meets any current WP notability criteria. I don't see multiple cases of significant independent coverage and he fails the current WP:NKICK . The claim of being ranked #1 in the world is based on local coverage (East Anglican Daily Times) of him beating a 40+ year old for the vacant ""world"" championship of the very minor BFKKO/WFKKO (British Freestyle Karate & Kickboxing Organisation/World Freestyle Karate & Kickboxing Organisation). While I still think he had a successful kickboxing career, he doesn't appear to have been ranked in the world top 10 by any independent source. I oppose making this article a draft because Hunt's career is recent enough that it shouldn't be that hard to find coverage. Also, the article is only a few sentences long so recreating it shouldn't be difficult if sources are found. Papaursa ( talk ) 18:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Andriy Nikolaychuk : Sources in article are OBITs with all the normal problems. BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth . // Timothy :: talk 01:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Military , and Ukraine . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC) 24, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What could the article from being d? Also I got a notification saying that the article had been reviewed Salfanto ( talk ) 16:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC) 10, 28 March 2024 (UTC) (you can only cast one ""vote"" L iz Read! Talk! 02:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. The reason for deleting this article is stated in the deletion nomination. There has been no rebuttal of these points of policy and simply stating ""Keep"" is not an effective argument on why they are not accurate. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Cadet College Rawalpindi : Still fails notability criteria. BookishReader ( talk ) 12:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Pakistan . Shellwood ( talk ) 12:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC) ORG . LibStar ( talk ) 23:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC) GNG . Insight 3 ( talk ) 14:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"TVBully : Issues have been left unaddressed since 2015. Sources is about the criticism of the TV network, nothing on the website at all except for a dead Facebook link. A CSD would be worthier for this non-notable organization SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 09:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Organizations , and Hong Kong . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Facebook groups are very rarely notable. Nate • ( chatter ) 19:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Richard A. Miller : GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 06:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Oklahoma . GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 06:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Miller's biggest claim to notability is his appointment to the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board , a five member appointed state agency that is required to approve pardons. I'm not convinced either way whether that position meets WP:NPOL , but in a state that is doing more executions than most others the people in charge of determining whether to pardon those to be executed have some degree of notability. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 15:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 06:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don’t see the argument here or why it’s open for debate. He clearly does not meet WP:Notable guidelines and does not merit his own article. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 19:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure what is behind this article creator's interest in the parole board, but I see nothing here beyond regular government agency work. I haven't dug into it but I would not be surprised if other related articles also fail GNG. Lamona ( talk ) 03:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Marthaline Moore : I am unable to find anything more than passing mentions of the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC . JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Liberia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I found a squad listing in Inquirer and a passing mention in 2022 Mag but nothing that we can build an article from. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per nom. Svartner ( talk ) 03:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC) No claim of importance, nothing to establish notability. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 20:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 15:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"2013 Rajya Sabha election in Tamil Nadu : I suggest it be either d or ed to the page, 2013 Rajya Sabha elections . — H e m a n t D a b r a l ( 📞 • ✒ ) 01:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 13 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 02:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Politics , and Tamil Nadu . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, C avarrone 06:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Emma Essex : Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada . Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] lack of reliable sourcing. The article cites two sources: Mobygames.com is an indiscriminate directory that provides no significant coverage, and Livore.it is a music review site with a short history - and no established track record of reliability. This doesn't meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST - MrOllie ( talk ) 21:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Heida Mobeck : Perhaps simply WP:TOOSOON Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians . Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak , she seems notable by performing a simple Google search but the article only contains 3 references. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓ 15:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Linda Thwala : All I found were transactional announcements ( 1 , 2 ). JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC) GNG . No suitable per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"History of alien abduction claims : and to Alien_abduction#History (which could, itself use some sourcing review and improvement). - LuckyLouie ( talk ) 15:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Paranormal . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and to Alien_abduction#History as the nominator proposes. This is just a history of claims, not proven events. Interested editors can add the Category:Alien abduction reports template at the bottom of appropriate UFO articles, which would then aid researchers with a list. 5Q5 | ✉ 11:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (or ) as suggested. Peterkingiron ( talk ) 16:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and . Yilangderen ( talk ) 06:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Johan Styren : Shellwood ( talk ) 11:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] mentioned in a ton of press releases, but there is no coverage at all that is both independent and in-depth. Draken Bowser ( talk ) 07:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Relatively standard professional profile, WP:NOTLINKEDIN . — siro χ o 05:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"J Maine : The page only cites one secondary source and I could find only a single other one on Google. Loytra ( talk ) 22:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music , Radio , and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC) NMUSIC with no viable third-party coverage. Any variation of a search of his name turns up next to no results. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 04:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , only sources I was able to find include interviews ( Vibe and VoyageLA ) and brief mentions about his TikTok account ( Variety and Nylon ). Mbdfar ( talk ) 19:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Neville Grech : Co-founded a company (Dedaub), but I didn't see enough independant coverage to meet WP:GNG . Seems like WP:TOOSOON . Kj cheetham ( talk ) 14:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Computing . Kj cheetham ( talk ) 14:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . This is a high-citation field, so even though he has three publications with triple-digit citations on Google Scholar [5] , I think that is not enough to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1 . Additionally, they are all on cryptocurrency-related projects, so we should maybe also consider WP:NCRYPTO , which sets a higher bar for notability in this area (although not specifically for biographies). None of the rest rises to the level of notability. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] cause I don't think this passes PROF. In addition, I think this is a paid creation. Kj cheetham , did you see Mihir Bhatt ? Drmies ( talk ) 17:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC) 05, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A patrolling admin will process it after 7 days from this discussion being opened. - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 21:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bhavan's Lloyds Vidya Niketan : Ratnahastin ( talk ) 01:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Maharashtra . Ratnahastin ( talk ) 01:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Comment. Fixed malformed nomination with nested span with subst:afd2 Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] fails GNG. AryKun ( talk ) 14:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of recurring Orange Is the New Black characters : Some of it is cited to Twitter and Instagram, plus three sources that tell us that one of the characters is inspired by Martha Stewart. This fails WP:GNG (and is a fork of the equally badly sourced article List of Orange Is the New Black characters ). Jontesta ( talk ) 23:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Television , and Lists . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This article is what Wikipedia is not , a massive list of minor characters. There is already a character list; any character who is actually relevant to readers should be mentioned there, minus the cruft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC) This article feels unnecessary when there is already an article which details all the main characters. I suggest just merging this article into that one, and remove the unnotable ( WP:N ) characters. — Mjks28 ( talk ) 08:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC) just looks to be a retelling of individual plots, precisely what we're WP:NOT . -- D'n'B - t -- 09:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This material would be better used for an Orange Is The New Black Wiki page, not Wikipedia itself. TH1980 ( talk ) 00:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC) Subject does not have the requisite sourcing to meet the WP:NLIST . I'd encourage the article creator and any other interested editors to WP:TRYANOTHER . Let'srun ( talk ) 01:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Iman Gadzhi : None of the sources are all these three things at the same time: (1) independent of the subject, (2) reliable, (3) in-depth in terms of coverage. The person may have had some unspecified roles in some productions ( World's Greatest Social Stars, Top 25! , etc.) but there is no evidence that these are significant productions and there is no evidence that these were significant roles. There is some coverage of a thing associated with the subject called ""monk mode"". Coverage of that is not meaningful in terms of sources useful for establishing notability either. The person has not made ""unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment"" and is not ""known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique"". His YouTube channel, TikTok and other online presences are not encyclopedically relevant at all. — Alalch E. 12:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Internet , Russia , and United Kingdom . — Alalch E. 12:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Sure, I have seen the Gadzhi's social media content, and they are undeniably very well known. In spite, it does not really meet WP:N due to the reliable sources. Maybe draftify is the best option here. Seems like a fan made page, but I respect it! Infomemoh ( talk ) 02:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC) The article can be improved upon. Subject is notable. Wallclockticking ( talk ) 22:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are the paid editor who created the article. — Alalch E. 22:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Paid editor? Let us use such labels lightly please. I don't even know the subject of the article and I won't take such disrespect from you. Be guided. Wallclockticking ( talk ) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] yes you are a paid editor, and a terrible one! Iman can not and will not just buy his way into getting a Wikipedia page. Sorry 2601:589:4E00:BE40:B530:8AFE:23E7:A3B5 ( talk ) 19:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC) No personal attacks which clealy states ""No accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links"". Wallclockticking ( talk ) 07:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC) 589:4E00:BE40:9123:9291:D92A:76E6 ( talk ) 23:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC) I nominated this last go round... Same reasons apply. I'll also mention that source 10 is patently false, the person's name doesn't appear at all in the article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the author meant to link to this article [10] , which is a first person retelling of the interview, so not really helping sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Sources 20 and 21 are tours of his house, but mostly photo captions to social media reposts. Not helping notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your time and comments. I will do my best to implement any advice I get from here. I really dont want the article d, it will hurt me so much. Wallclockticking ( talk ) 01:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not personal, it's wiki-business, to coin a phrase. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC) The subject of the article is obviously notable. The only issue I found out when going through the page is that the editor is still new and isn’t very conversant with Wikipedia guidelines yet. Amaekuma ( talk ) 08:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The subject could be notable, yes, but there are no sources that discuss him at length, that's the issue. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC) 46, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have seen you try to throw around your weight around because I am a new editor. You are trying to intimidate me. You will fail. Wallclockticking ( talk ) 17:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC) A notable social media personality who is mentioned in the same breathe as MrBeast , Patrick Bet-David , Dan Bilzerian , Dixie D'Amelio , Paul Logan , etc. Notable as an online personality and influencer and falls into that category. I think some people have a perchant for avoiding the media and a lowkey lifestyle. But that doesn't mean they are less notable. Laurengoldstreet ( talk ) 19:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please provide extensive sourcing for the individual. Mentioned with others doesn't confer notability on this person. He can be as lowkey as he wants, with proper sourcing, anything can have an article here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC) 10, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The subject seems notable enough. I rather say every other person can help improve this article to put it in its best state possible. Onosco23 ( talk ) 07:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC) ITSNOTABLE comment. This commenter with 61 edits participated in this obscure AfD that resulted in a crypto spam page being d. He recommended ing saying it can be worked upon in order to improve its quality . — Alalch E. 08:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It most certainly could, but the commenter should provide sourcing examples to help the discussion here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC) His online presence alone is good enough for a Wikipedia page. His notability is uncontestable. Coupled with the businesses he founded. Page should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdhoul 138 ( talk • contribs ) 09:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh right, his notability is uncontestable , how did I fail to notice this... sheesh, I really need to remember to refer to the list of uncontestably notable influencers every time I start an AfD. — Alalch E. 10:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you! Wallclockticking ( talk ) 16:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, we are contesting the notability, I'd ask Abdhoul above to provide better sources than what we currently have, which are not very helpful. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks. Wallclockticking ( talk ) 16:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Review of the sources shows virtually nothing reliable, or in-depth. Note: source 11 is an WP:RS , but makes no mention of the subject. I see nothing encyclopaedic here; potentially a candidate for salt. Resonant Dis tor tion 23:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Most likely done by a paid editor who created this article which it seems like, lack of real notability on this individual looks like paid for press links to write about himself which is completely against Wikipedia's terms. You can't buy your way into a page it's just piteous and diverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4E00:BE40:B530:8AFE:23E7:A3B5 ( talk ) 21:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC) No personal attacks , which states that ""No accusations about an editor without evidence"". This post is in violation of Wikipedia:IP addresses are not people . Wallclockticking ( talk ) 07:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? ""How Is This 21-Year-Old Entrepreneur Making Millions On YouTube ?"" . MYCOMEUP Magazine . 2021-04-26 . Retrieved 2023-11-22 . looks like sponsored content blog promotional content ✘ No ""Iman Gadzhi - From High School Drop Out To Founder Of The World's Largest Education Company"" . Inspiring Startups . 2020-07-01 . Retrieved 2023-11-18 . looks like sponsored content; interview blog of one invividual with it being possible that some content is by anonymous authors interview and promotional content, including the preposterous claim that he is the ""founder of the world's largest education company"" ✘ No ""Iman Gadzhi: Joe Rogan Wannabe Or Future Industry Disrupter?"" . Sir Thorney . 2022-09-01 . Retrieved 2023-11-23 . personal blog of ""George (Sir Thorney)"", an online marketing professional who started a bathroom decor brand. ~ bit harder to evaluate this source on whether it consists of promotion ✘ No ""Iman Gadzhi Shares His Incredible Story Of Making $25 Million By 22 And Building 5 Schools In Nepal"" . OK Magazine . 2022-09-25 . Retrieved 2023-11-22 . looks like sponsored content tabloid-type source, article ""By:OK! Staff"", no evidence of editorial oversight promotional content ✘ No ""Iman Gadzhi (@realimangadzhi) Official"" . TikTok . Retrieved 2023-11-18 . self ✘ No ""Meet Iman Gadzhi: Millionaire Agency Owner"" . Grow Your Agency . 2019-03-04 . Retrieved 2023-11-22 . self ✘ No ""The Journey of Iman Gadzhi: A Blueprint for a Sigma Male"" . Eternobody Fitness . Retrieved 2023-11-22 . looks like sponsored content advertisement promotional content ✘ No ""How To Sign A Client With Iman Gadzhi"" . MYCOMEUP Magazine . 2021-08-23 . Retrieved 2023-11-22 . looks like sponsored content; interview purely promotional website promotional content ✘ No ""Youtuber Iman Gadzhi Shares 7 Ways to Make $10,000 A Month In 2023"" . Tlux Media . 2023-02-07 . Retrieved 2023-11-19 . looks like sponsored content marketing agency promotional content / advertisement ✘ No ""What Is The 'Monk Mode' Trend On TikTok?"" . Indy100 . tabloid-type churnalism platform of The Independent (sad) no significant coverage of the subject (only a mention) ✘ No ""The People Going 'Monk Mode' To Limit Social Media Use"" . BBC News . 2023-10-01 . Retrieved 2023-11-23 . no mention of the subject ✘ No ""I'm a CEO Who Tried 'Monk Mode' After Seeing It On TikTok. It Took A Month To Get Used To But Now My Productivity Is 5 Times Better"" . Business Insider . Retrieved 2023-11-23 . ~ WP:BUSINESSINSIDER ; interview with another individual (""This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Josh Wood, the 32-year-old CEO and founder of the tech hospitality company Bloc, ...""), not reliable for claims about Gadzhi no significant coverage of the subject (only a mention) ✘ No World's Greatest Social Stars! Top 25 (TV Series 2015–2020) 6.8 | Reality-TV , retrieved 2023-11-19 ~ can't know WP:IMDB ✘ No ""Iman Gadzhi's Filmography (Internet Celeb, Actor, Entrepreneur)"" . Iman Gadzhi Filmography . Retrieved 2023-11-19 . self ✘ No Kings of the Internet (TV Series 2022– ) 4.7 | Action, News, Reality-TV , retrieved 2023-11-19 ~ can't know WP:IMDB ✘ No ""Wie is Iman Gadzhi? - The Ecom Agency"" . theecomagency.nl (in Dutch) . Retrieved 2023-11-19 . looks like sponsored content marketing agency promotional content (""So Iman Gadzhi is not only committed to his own success, but he also strives to help others succeed and have a positive impact on the world. His philanthropic efforts make him an inspiring figure that goes beyond just the business aspect of his career."") ✘ No "" 'Cape Town Is SO cheap, I struggle To Spend $30k a month,' Says Russian Tycoon, Iman Gadzhi"" . CapeTalk . Retrieved 2023-11-18 . ~ could be sponsored content CapeTalk is a mainstream South African radio station, but their website is not very journalistic to put it mildly, with clickbait titles and no indication of editorial oversight brief retelling of Gadzhi's video content with hardly any original insight, analysis or critique ✘ No ""Unveiling Iman Gadzhi's Luxurious $10,800 Home Gym"" . Gym Nirvana . 2023-11-15 . Retrieved 2023-11-19 . looks like sponsored content advertising platform run by an anonymous operator promotional content ✘ No ""LOOK: Russian tycoon says he STRUGGLES to spend R500k per month in Cape Town"" . The South African . 2022-10-03 . Retrieved 2023-11-18 . ~ this website is a mainstream South African online WP:NEWSORG , but not all of their articles are journalistic and many are tabloid-like; this article calls Gadzhi a ""Russian tycoon"" which is obviously false churnalism; retelling of Gadzhi's video content relating to cost of living in South Africa; the article does not center on Gadzhi as such ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . — Alalch E. 16:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Someone created a table and indicated whatever he could conjour up in his biased mind and called it assessment. Trying to intimidate amd sway votes because you have spent more time on Wikipedia is a Putin and Mugabe like behavior. Wallclockticking ( talk ) 17:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please understand and respect that it is detrimental to Wikipedia's goals of being a free online encyclopedia that acts a source of knowledge, and therefore needs to remain credible, to allow pages like the one you've created here to be allowed to remain a part of the encyclopedia. — Alalch E. 18:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Respect Wikipedia's goals acting as a source of free knowledge, and stop complaining that you aren't most gonna get paid for getting your devious under the table job done to attempt to create a Wikipedia page for undisclosed payments. :))) @Wallclockticking 2601:589:4E00:BE40:9123:9291:D92A:76E6 ( talk ) 23:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ' Delete' - I smell socks and meat and recommend salting if page is d as this is just a sign that someone will attempt to recreate it despite any consensus here. That aside, nom is correct about notability. The references are not in-depth about the subject or otherwise unreliable. The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Gurhan Orhan : My WP:BEFORE did not yield satisfactory results. Tehonk ( talk ) 00:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning . Given that all coverage of him is in relation to his eponymous brand, I think we have to evaluate this under WP:NCORP guidelines. While I was able to find coverage of him and his brand beyond what is already cited in the article, it is almost all built around interviews of Gurhan and therefore does not satisfy WP:SIRS . Jfire ( talk ) 01:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jana Seppelt : The sources are either from organisations she works for, or an article she wrote. Looking for better sources only produced a short list of similar sources, and some passing mentions. Nothing in Google News. Her function of ""deputy leader"" is an internal job in the party, not a position in a parliament. Fram ( talk ) 07:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women , Journalism , Politics , and Germany . Fram ( talk ) 07:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC) I started the stub for Women in Red . As a deputy leader of a political party the article will likely be expanded in future. If there's an issue I can to Die Linke . Moondragon21 ( talk ) 20:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC) < [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does not appear to have been significantly covered by GNG sources, the articles linked in the article have the problems identified by the nominator, there's no German language article to easily check to see if we've missed sources here, and a quick search brings up nothing else of note. Since I may have missed German sources and this was a Women in Red stub, I have absolutely no problem having the article recreated if it meets GNG. SportingFlyer T · C 17:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , albeit without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she's got more coverage. Deputy leader of a political party is not an ""inherently"" notable role that guarantees automatic inclusion in Wikipedia per se, but the referencing here is far, far too heavily dependent on primary sources that aren't support for notability at all — we require reliable source coverage independently analyzing her work in media and/or books, not content self-published by her own party or other organizations she's been directly affiliated with. And if she's already held the role for five months, then the possibility of more media coverage appearing in the future isn't enough to overrule the lack of any media coverage already existing now: the time to start an article about her will be if and when that possible future media coverage actually happens. Bearcat ( talk ) 20:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Okoslavia ( talk ) 06:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rocket Festival Spain : Boleyn ( talk ) 19:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts , Music , Events , and Spain . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Michael Shewmaker : Big Island Video News appears to have the only coverage that is independent and more than a brief mention, but even that article is rather fleeting in depth. Source #5's coverage would be excellent, except that it's not independent, as it primarily discusses works featured on the resort's own property. Searching online, there appears to be a potentially-notable poet by this name, but I'm not finding relevant search results about the sculptor who is the subject of this article. signed, Rosguill talk 20:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Hawaii . signed, Rosguill talk 20:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California , Florida , and Illinois . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This person does not meet notability for an artist. In addition, some statements in the article are not found in the sources (e.g. ""Over time, the personal collection grew, and have more than 25 monumental sculptures made from various materials, including stainless steel, aluminium, bronze, and concrete"" is not stated in the two sources - in fact, he is only name-checked in them). If the article were reduced to what is in the sources it would consist of only a few sentences. Lamona ( talk ) 05:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"History of A-Scan (1 Dimension) OCT (1981-1990) : Instead, this could best be included in Optical coherence tomography or even as part of a new "" History of optical coherence tomography "" article, although the content isn't optimal for mainspace. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs ) 00:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ultra-niche ""history"" article, heavy reliance on primary sources. With major cleanup I might consider a with Optical coherence tomography , but the information here is so specific and so poorly-framed I wouldn't know what to do with it as-is. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 01:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Medicine , and Technology . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Little too niche for a wiki article. Could perhaps be worked into the main OCT article, but seems pointless, given how technical this information is. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of living former members of the New Zealand Parliament elected earliest : Living former members of the NZ Parliament who were elected more than 40 years ago . We do need frequent reminders that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information . Surtsicna ( talk ) 10:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Zealand . Surtsicna ( talk ) 10:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC) NOTIINFO . If people really wanted to know this information, all the election dates of former MPs are available on the election articles in which they were first elected. Ajf773 ( talk ) 11:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC) INDISCRIMINATE . 'who were elected more than 40 years ago' is a completely arbitrary cut-off point, which will also shift as the article ages. It's also WP:ONESOURCE from one single 1985 book, which miraculously already seems to know which people would still be alive as of June 2023. (Did Nostradamus write it?!). By contrast, List of longest-serving members of the New Zealand Parliament may be said to be defining. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 11:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] another one of those “list of famous persons, by non-defining criteria X, by completely arbitrary criteria Y” lists that makes zero sense whatsoever. Dronebogus ( talk ) 18:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Gerardo Ablaza : No indication of notability. Pepper Beast (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , and Philippines . Pepper Beast (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . WP:NOTLINKEDIN . Largely a professional profile , including awards which themselves do not seem to be significant enough for ANYBIO. — siro χ o 18:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Sources seem to only mention him as someone with a job, as OP said. You could make a similar article about anyone who is mentioned on a few professional websites. ForksForks ( talk ) 18:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. A search found no evidence of notability. Feels like a resumé. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC . - AuthorAuthor ( talk ) 21:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC) While there is 2 reliable sources this is obviously a resume so WP:TNT is needed. Nagol0929 ( talk ) 22:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC) 13, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Yuriy Esaulov : This article was draftified once by User:Onel5969 , and has been moved back to article space with minimal improvement. This article has been tagged for notability three times by User: Anwegmann and Onel5969, and the tags have been removed twice. An article should speak for itself , but this article says nothing about significant coverage of the subject. The references appear to be database entries, and a reader should not be expected to check the references to see whether third parties have written about the subject. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 20:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Ukraine . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 20:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC) GNG . Onel 5969 TT me 20:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC) No in-depth coverage, and it does not come close to fulfilling the basic standards for notability. Anwegmann ( talk ) 21:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC) 29, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - There doesn't appear to be any online Ukrainian-language SIGCOV; the best thing I found was a story and interview about his ex-wife in ГАРТ (a Chernihiv -based newspaper) which briefly mentions him. I'll try Azerbaijani sources next. Jogurney ( talk ) 00:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC) GNG guidelines. Other than this, I suggest this being removed for insufficient notability which is only confirmed once more when looking at the sources. NiftyyyNofteeeee ( talk ) 10:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC) I was unable to find enough sources with WP:SIGCOV of the subject to establish notability. The subject currently fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO . Existing sources are WP:PRIMARY or WP:ROUTINE coverage, so they do not establish notability. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 10:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - creator is now pblocked from mainspace for disruptive creations/lacking the English language competence to edit here. Star Mississippi 19:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Swami Vivekanand International School and Junior College : Ratnahastin ( talk ) 01:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Education , Schools , and Maharashtra . Ratnahastin ( talk ) 01:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - First two references are passing mentions, not indepth coverage. Third reference is an alumni portfolio. Not sufficient to establish the school's notability. JoeNMLC ( talk ) 01:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Probably notable for the performance of its cricket teams as well as its other strengths. I added some references. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 03:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC) NSCHOOL . Strength of its cricket team doesn't necessarily add to notability. LibStar ( talk ) 10:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC) NSCHOOL and WP:GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mohanjit : Remsense 诉 10:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Poetry , Delhi , and Punjab . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC) per nomination, clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO . Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 12:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Côme Ferrand : Not eligible for BLP PROD as contains two external links in the infobox. Already exists in draft at Draft:Come so sending to draft again would be pointless. Due to the notability concerns, I request deletion of the article. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Internet , France , and Poland . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy . This is in French, that's wrong language regardless of other issues. This qualifies for WP:SPEEDY I am sure. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC) A2 if the article exists in a similar form on another Wikimedia project already. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC) A2 , you're incorrect. The treatment of pages posted in a language other than English is discussed at WP:Pages needing translation to English . Largoplazo ( talk ) 22:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if this was machine-translated, it's an article about a non-notable influencer that just has no place here. Nate • ( chatter ) 14:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC) the only ""references"" are to his Instagram and TikTok pages, and the latter leads to a 404. AndrewWTaylor ( talk ) 21:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I find no sources associating ""côme ferrand"" or ""come.frnd"" with ""Touch pas à mon poste"" and scant sources, on social media/wikis only, mentioning either name in conjunction with ""Kev Adams"" or with ""TikTok"". If there are no useful sources associating this person with the main claims to fame being made for him, then it isn't surprising that I'm unable to find anything useful about this person when searching simply on those names, among sources that are about people other than him. Not notable. Largoplazo ( talk ) 23:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"RooR : Flounder fillet ( talk ) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Germany . Flounder fillet ( talk ) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 09:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - A not-notable bong maker in Germany. The article was created 15 years ago, and only has four sentences. — Maile ( talk ) 01:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Baalveer 3 : None of the seasons is found passing WP:GNG . At present, Ref 1 is about the actor (Dev Joshi), Ref 2 covers trivial, Ref 3 s to Mid-Day about actors, Ref 4 is announcement and interview, Ref 5 is interview, Ref 6 is same as 5, Ref 7 press release, Ref 8 is interview about the actors. Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 14:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Television , and India . Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 14:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Either or to the 1st season/Main article. If the series/1st season is notable, let's consider this a detailed article about one of the 4 seasons of a notable production. Would thus seem acceptable to me, cf. WP:SIZESPLIT . Coverage is not great but is abundant (a lot of Tellychakkar or Zoom TV articles) or things like: https://www.fridayrelease.com/tv-news-adda/baalveer-season-3-here-are-the-top-5-reasons-to-watch-this-enthralling-sony-sab-show ; it allows verification, though. (Season 4 just started and was also taken to Afd). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC) ICTFSOURCES . The ZoomTv and Fridayrelease are similar level sites to Tellychakkar or Bollywoodlife, these sources are looking unreliable to me and can’t establish notability. Grab Up - Talk 18:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe, sure; if size is not an issue, and it then. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC) No in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources was found. The series can be notable, but we should not create articles for every season unless there is multiple in-depth coverage from secondary sources, excluding interviews. The article also fails to meet WP:GNG and is similar to the article Baalveer 4 . Grab Up - Talk 18:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The sources do not have the quality and depth of coverage needed to warrant a page on this show. Fails WP:GNG . RangersRus ( talk ) 13:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Added multiple refs so it can pass notability. M S Hassan ( talk ) 20:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I checked every source that you added. It includes The Times of India, which can’t establish notability, known for its promitional content per WP:TOI . It includes a video from Times Now that also can’t establish notability. It includes an ABP Hindi source, which is an interview-type article, just the sayings of the actor Dev, with no in-depth coverage of season 3. Other sources are ZoomTV, which are similar to sources like Tellychakkar or Bollywoodlife. I don’t think these are reliable and can establish notability. Grab Up - Talk 02:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are sources not only about Dev Joshi but also about other cast. M S Hassan ( talk ) 16:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That really don’t make this season notable. Grab Up - Talk 16:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jacqueline Newman (lawyer) : Has some accomplishments listed at https://nycdivorcelawyer.com/about/ but I'm not convinced those are sufficient for WP:GNG . A bit more notable than a WP:MILL lawyer though. Plus nothing I can see to warrant a pass of WP:NPROF . Kj cheetham ( talk ) 12:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Women , and Law . Kj cheetham ( talk ) 12:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Found one review of her book [ [21] ] but no much else. Let'srun ( talk ) 15:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The fact the woman is professionally described and extensively cited and quoted as a subject matter expert by the Washington Post on its article “Is the Upper East Side “wife bonus” a real thing? ” probably counts for something. But that by itself is probably not enough… until you find out that Simon and Schuster printed her book. So, the subject is not only a subject matter expert by the Bezos Post, but a published author by a premier US editorial. Shouldn’t we go by the sources, here? XavierItzm ( talk ) 01:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC) GNG . But how does getting a book published count? For WP:NAUTHOR , I don't think it's sufficiently notable by itself to meet #3 (and if it was I'd suggest an article on the book rather than the author). Multiple independent reviews are a more typical way to meet that guideline, but I don't think it's the case here at the moment. - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 19:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are multiple sources that quote her as an expert, e.g. NYT (Oct 10 2023) (one graf); Guardian (Dec 1 2022) (two grafs); CNBC Make It (Sep 8 2023) (five grafs); Business Insider (Dec 12, 2023) (seven-ish grafs). Beccaynr ( talk ) 20:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Good finds! I'm getting less convinced this article should be d, but not sure they count as significant enough for GNG? (Also, what is a graf?) - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 20:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A graf is shorthand for 'paragraph' with a nod at the news-style version - I referred to BI as 'seven-ish' because some of the grafs are one line. From my view, significant coverage from a combination of sources can help us write a fair and balanced article , and while I agree helpful sources are emerging, I am also not sure we have enough to develop encyclopedic content without more independent/reliable/secondary coverage of her career and/or writing. Beccaynr ( talk ) 20:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, makes sense! My current feeling is might be a case of WP:TOOSOON . - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 20:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - for now, the available sources do not seem sufficient to help us write a fair and balanced article that is not advertising . There is limited secondary coverage available about her career and legal practice; she has been quoted as a subject matter expert in several high-quality sources (WaPo, NYT, Guardian), and some of lower-quality (CNBC Make It, Business Insider), but has not been the focus of the coverage. Her book does not appear to be notable according to the WP:NBOOK guideline and one notable book is typically not enough for WP:AUTHOR notability. The available sources seem to indicate it is WP:TOOSOON to support notability at this time. Beccaynr ( talk ) 04:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the page created by a sock farm, previously blocked. I already reported to a check user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Callanecc . -- 89.151.38.106 ( talk ) 08:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The page should be considered on its own merits, just like I address the anon 89.151.38.106 on his own merits. XavierItzm ( talk ) 16:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC) The subject does not meet the criteria for inclusion in her own right. With more sources, it is possible that the book could meet the criteria, but even that would not meet the criteria now. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON ? Phantom Steve / talk ¦ contribs \ 08:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kate Hodgson (disambiguation) : Leschnei ( talk ) 13:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Kline | yes? 14:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , not needed. Pam D 08:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC) ONEOTHER . Skarmory (talk • contribs) 11:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Nagol0929 ( talk ) 07:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Battle of Capakhchur : Nevertheless, I am unable to make an informed decision whether this is a hoax as I lack the necessary language skills to evaluate the Turkish and Azerbaijani versions of the article. — Kusma ( talk ) 12:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Iran , Azerbaijan , and Turkey . — Kusma ( talk ) 12:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support per the article talk page, Beshogur states no information in either English or Turkish sources mentioning this battle. -- Kansas Bear ( talk ) 13:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I can see sufficient Turkish sources to be confident that a battle took place there in 1387, but it’s not clear how significant it was. Mccapra ( talk ) 22:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . This machine translation from here was unattributed – now remedied. I can't read Turkish, but this source (page 223) confirms that there was an engagement at Çapakçur at this time; whatever else, this doesn't seem to be fully a hoax. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk ) 11:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If this article is kept, we will need hatnotes to distinguish it from the almost identically titled Battle of Chapakchur . Otherwise, a may be a good idea. — Kusma ( talk ) 12:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak per Kansas Bear, but I have not checked whether the current sources verify the content, and several editors above appear to confirm such a skirmish took place in 1387. Nevertheless, the notability of the battle should be established, and the article should be moved to a more appropriate title. Aintabli ( talk ) 18:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC) //dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/368093 ) and I see that in turn cites (their cite 20) ""History of Tamerlane and His Successors"" which is available in English but unfortunately not as an ebook Chidgk1 ( talk ) 18:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ciano Joasil : Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV . Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx ( talk ) 21:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Haiti , and New York . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nominator - all sources are primary or passing mentions. A to Principal Financial Group probably wouldn't make sense either. While doing research, one should note that there's an unrelated pastor with the same name. NotAGenious ( talk ) 12:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mark Okoye II : NiftyyyNofteeeee ( talk ) 10:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria . Shellwood ( talk ) 11:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , the article is definitely resume like, promotional and full of spam links, but the subject may be notable - this article has significant coverage. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd perhaps to Ananbra State, appears to be a functionary in the state's government. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Government official. That means notability. There might not be a lot of press around him, but by virtue of his position and for the record to be kept on Wikipedia, it’s a strong . I think sometimes we forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a popularity contest. Amaekuma ( talk ) 19:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . On the one hand, there is real coverage of this guy, possibly enough for a presumption of notability under NBASIC , although the sources for state-level Nigerian politics can be a bit challenging to evaluate. Not all fluff , either. And his status as a young commissioner who had to wait two years for a full appointment due to age restrictions is significant in the context of age restriction reforms in Nigerian politics . A pity he didn't end up running in the 2023 federal elections, as a win there would have resolved the matter. (He was endorsed by the party but wasn't on the ballot, for which I can't seem to find a clear explanation.) On the other hand: this article and the three previously created-and-speedied versions at Mark Okoye show a strong pattern of promotional abuse, which I think should be taken into account in an otherwise somewhat borderline case like this, and especially when evaluating whether sources are likely to themselves represent some form of promotional abuse. As to WP:ATD , I am not seeing a plausible target. There doesn't seem to be a logical place to mention him as a former commissioner in the Anambra article. If we had an article on ANSIPPA that might work a little better as a target. I initially leaned toward draftification, but on reflection I think any future article might be better off starting fresh. In sum, applying the rules flexibly in view of both our encyclopedic purpose and the central importance of being able to provide neutral coverage , particularly where living people are concerned, I am not convinced that an encyclopedic article on this subject is viable at this time. -- Visviva ( talk ) 03:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC) 17, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] JoelleJay, let’s try to not get off topic. Comments should stick to the merits of Okoye’s article only, not other users’ opinions of unrelated utterly routine local news reports on a low-level footballer . Frank Anchor 02:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , I concur with Visviva 's very good assessment of the situation. The original author has been WP:INDEF 'ed, adding to the case that this is just another attempt at self-promotion, and also making draftifying pointless. Mark Okoye was WP:SALTed so this article would seem to be an attempt to circumvent page creation protection. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 09:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Gallanosa family : No reliable source hits on Google, GNews, GBooks and GNews Archives -- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Honestly, reading the article, I couldn't find any reason in favor of its notability. Also couldn't find any good sources for this. --- Tito Pao ( talk ) 06:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No indication of the family being notable. This was created by an SPA so this could be a case of WP:NOTGENEALOGY from a member of the family. Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 13:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Danial Afzal Khan : No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one Inherently notable. A quick Google search doesn't yield anything either which can meet WP:GNG either. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Although it easily passes notability criteria, but i am not bother whether if its or . The nominator is harassing me by nominating articles created by me. Libraa2019 ( talk ) 16:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How many articles that you created have they nominated for deletion? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Spiderone , They nominated Abdullah Seja , added notability tag to Qudsia Ali , Agha Mustafa Hassan & Abu Aleeha [99] , the tag was removed by another senior editor [100] but again it was added by nominator without giving any reason [101] . These articles are easily meeting wikipidea criteria but i will not remove these tags as i respect senior editors perspective. Libraa2019 ( talk ) 05:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC) Articles for deletion/Qudsia Ali and I've provided my reasoning there. Regarding why I tagged Abu Aleeha , see Talk:Abu Aleeha . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 10:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are unable to understand any rationale and clearly not ready to listen others despite of them proving their points. Any ways, i dont have much time to spend as i am engaged in personal life. Good luck with your mission. Libraa2019 ( talk ) 11:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC) NACTOR with [102] and [103] . Having worked in films and critically acclaimed series as well. Google search also yields potential material to improve his article with. Should be tagged for ""Additional Citations"". Sameeerrr ( talk ) 15:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet ) [ reply ] Please don't use interview-based coverage to establish GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 15:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Have added few, merely not based on interviews. There are more sources available, I'd suggest you to research about a subject prior to initiating an WP:AfD on. I've noticed your certain WP:AfD should have been tagged for improvement as there's much enough coverage available to establish WP:GNG about them. For instance, my take on WP:AfD of Tumhare Husn Ke Naam , Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri (TV series) etc. Sameeerrr ( talk ) 15:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think CNMall41 ( talk · contribs ) mentioned elsewhere that simply adding references to the article won't help. You need to provide THREE of the best sources here that aren't ROTM coverage or interview-based to help establish GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 15:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't understand your approach of providing ""THREE"" best references. If we were supposed to provide the only three best references, then I wonder Wikipedia would have limited it WP:References section ""To add Three Best sources"" only. Sameeerrr ( talk ) 15:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) NACTOR and significant coverage as one can confirm at [104] therefore passes WP:GNG. Libraa2019 ( talk ) 10:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please provide evidence indicating major roles. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 10:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Already provided. You are not ready to check any. Libraa2019 ( talk ) 10:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Providing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as an evidences. Daily Times [105] The News International [106] The Nation [107] DAWN [108] The Express Tribune [109] Daily Times [110] The News International [111] Daily Jang [112] Eastern Eye [113] Daily Pakistan [114] Daily Jang [115] Daily Times [116] The Friday Times [117] Daily Times [118] Daily Times [119] Libraa2019 ( talk ) 11:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please show proof that the subject had major roles. None of the sources you've provided confirm this. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 11:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You have visited all these sources in 3 minutes?? As you replied in less than 5 minutes, it clearly says you are not ready to check any source. If i would present some wiki articles where he played notable roles then you will take them to AFD and game the system , the same you did with Abdullah Seja . Libraa2019 ( talk ) 11:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC) 11, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Libraa2019 , No. I haven't been able to verify your claims that the subject had major roles in TV dramas, except for a 90-minute short film Aksbandh , which is not sufficient to meet WP:NACTOR. Fyi, simply doing some supporting roles in TV dramas isn't enough to qualify under NACTOR. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC) BASIC , if an actor has sufficient coverage in reliable sources then he/she is notable. He played major role in Kab Mere Kehlaoge , Mohlat etc. And btw that comment was for other editors not you. Sources like The Express Tribune , DAWN, The News International did'nt satisfy you because article is my creation. Libraa2019 ( talk ) 16:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC) N based on NACTOR or GNG. If GNG, please provide THREE best sources. And thanks for informing me about Kab Mere Kehlaoge ; it doesn't appear to be a notable drama. I've AfD'd it. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are not an admin to whom i will respond and satisfy every time. Many editors have told you that i am presenting authentic sources but you denied [121] [122] I have provided more than 10 reliable sources for others and if any senior editor will demand, i will provide them. Libraa2019 ( talk ) 16:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC) CHERRYPICKING a few comments. I'll take it as you not having THREE strong coverage to meet GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC) CHERRYPICKING [123] [124] ? Libraa2019 ( talk ) 16:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in notable productions.... - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Looking through the first few sources presented, The Nation is a Q&A interview so primary, The Express Tribune is casting announcement with a mention and Dawn is mention. This Daily Times is a casting announcement for Mohabbat Dagh ki Soorat which is not listed in the filmography and states it is an ""appearance"" so not a significant role and does not appear to be notable show (no article). The two The News International articles are interviews but they at least have some background information. While some roles they mention are not significant/noble, they both mention his performance as Nomi in Raaz-e-Ulfat so I think that role meets the significant/notable bar but multiple are required to meet WP:NACTOR . As I go through the other shows listed in the filmography I am finding most do not meet GNG, at least based on the sources currently provided so while some of the roles might be significant I cannot make the stretch they are notable productions. Draftifying might be an option until the notability of the other shows can be determined. S0091 ( talk ) 16:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC) BASIC , plenty of excellent sources covering him. I have presented more than enough sources. Subject has started career around 8 years ago and i dont think so he deserves draftification right now as major publications like The Express Tribune , Daily Times , The News International are covering him. And secondly he has a lead role in feature film Aksbandh [125] . And one more thing i want you to notice, Saqib mentioned at Imaan Mazari 's AFD that Coverage doesn't always have to be in-depth [126] (that article was his creation) but contineously asking me to provide in-depth coverage. Still i presented multiple reliable sources with in-depth coverage. Libraa2019 ( talk ) 02:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Libraa2019 I am doing my own independent analysis so focusing on Saqib is not helpful. I addressed several sources directly and explained why they are not useful for notability. The two The News International sources were the best of the few I looked at. Both are interviews so are still weak sources with one them being an interview about his fitness routine and the other about his likes and dislikes, not about his career, though as I stated they do provided some background. One was published in 2020 and one in 2021 well after Aksbandh. Only one makes mention of film but all it says is that it did not do well at the box office. The one published is 2021 describes him as a ""promising young actor"", meaning he was still early in his career a couple years ago and eight years is not that long, especially in the entertainment industry. There is reason editors ask for WP:THREE ; it's not just Saqib as you seem to think. While it is an essay it is one often cited in AfDs and by reviewers trying to assess drafts and new articles. Lots of sources does not mean a topic meets the notability criteria, including BASIC. If your claim is Khan meets BASIC then you need to present the specific sources that demonstrate he meets the criteria. I think it is unreasonable to expect editors to go through a list of fifteen sources, especially with no guidance on how any of them meet GNG or BASIC. Per WP:THREE I'm not willing to slog through dozens of sources to evaluate them. I am, however, willing to look at a few sources in detail if somebody else (i.e. you) does the footwork to figure out which ones are the best. I have already looked a seven or so sources but I am willing to look at a three more you believe are the best ones. S0091 ( talk ) 15:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC) THREE, please check history of Saqib, he firstly nominated all of the articles created by me in personal disagreements or what i am unable to understand, and he has never satisfied with any provided source and called every reliable source as unreliable and every notable show/project/role as non notable [127] . Do you think he will be satisfied if i have provided three solid sources. He is contineously opposing me but has a different criteria for that particular AFD [128] . Libraa2019 ( talk ) 16:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, you are still choosing to focus on Saqib so let me state it more directly. Forget about Saqib. Saqib can nominate all the articles he wants but it is the community together that will determine WP:consensus so you need to convince all the others, which includes me. The best way to do that is to make a convincing argument with three to six good sources. Three is usually sufficient if they meet GNG even if one leans a little weak (sometimes two really strong sources are enough); five or six is usually enough for BASIC (could be less depending) but they need to have non-trivial coverage, along with being reliable, independent and secondary. S0091 ( talk ) 17:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I presented independent and secondary sources, none of them were primary and unable to understand why is requirements of wikipidea are too much tough when it comes to me but totally opposite when experienced editors like Saqib create page of a random person who has coverage only for being arrested. You can check the sources mentioned below which are covering him. And he himself admitted that he was nominating articles without proper knowledge [129] . Daily Times [130] The News International [131] The Nation [132] DAWN [133] The Express Tribune [134] Daily Times [135] Libraa2019 ( talk ) 18:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Libraa2019 I have already looked at all of those thus my statement I am willing to look at a three more . Please refer my comments in my ! vote for my assessment. If those are the best ones, then they do not meet GNG nor BASIC. The two The News Internationals (though you only list one) I can see counting toward BASIC but they are not enough. And yet again you are focusing on Saqib by bringing up some other AfD which has absolutely no bearing on this one. I tried to help you focus on what matters but it's falling on deaf ears so I am done. Too much of my time wasted. S0091 ( talk ) 18:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please check these sources, are they able to meet GNG? The News International [136] Daily Jang [137] Eastern Eye [138] Daily Pakistan [139] Daily Jang [140] Daily Times [141] The Friday Times [142] Libraa2019 ( talk ) 19:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC) As per nom. Fails WP:GNG Wikibear47 ( talk ) 18:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC) ATA , also please specify how he fails GNG, multiple reliable sources are provided for evaluation. Libraa2019 ( talk ) 20:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination and S0091, the sources presented by the individual editor refuting deletion do not qualify for the GNG threshold. I also find the bludgeoning in this AfD to be rather disruptive. Daniel ( talk ) 00:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Christiane Vleugels : A ""before"" search only finds social media, blogs, databases, user-submitted content, and primary sources (such as galleries and websites that sell her work). What is not found are reviews in art magazines (with the exception of an amateur-hobby trade journal and paid-placement native advertising). I can find no serious art historical articles or book chapters on her work; no notable museum collections, nor what we normally find for a notable artist. It is clear she has technical skill, but that is not what is needed for an encyclopedia article. The article states she is ""involved with IBEX Masters art collective"", and the article was created by a user AGIbexMasters, so it looks like it is also WP:COI and possibly WP:UPE . Netherzone ( talk ) 18:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Arts , Visual arts , and Belgium . Netherzone ( talk ) 18:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC) ARTIST She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC) IAR comment), which is undeniably and interestingly photorealistic in nature. The gallery showings should also weigh into a for this page. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 10:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC) No coverage found, not listed in Getty ULAN, most coverage found is in Spanish, on Cultura Inquieta, but I'm unsure that's a RS Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unfortunately it must be a . Considering her work, which is absolutely stellar but no exhibited works as far as I can see apart from the ""virtual museum"" and no works being kept in any collection, although it must be only a matter of time. The skill there is astounding and I'm sorry its got to go. I'll add Christiane Vleugels to my todo list and check it every few weeks when I create a new article, it will get checked. Its got to be case of WP:TOOSOON . scope_creep Talk 12:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jasandra Joseph : I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Trinidad and Tobago . JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Chief Ministership of Arvind Kejriwal : DSP2092 talk 16:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Politics , India , and Delhi . DSP2092 talk 16:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy - According to per above nomination. Àvî Râm7 (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Zila Lafleur : I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . This is the most I found. JTtheOG ( talk ) 02:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Haiti . JTtheOG ( talk ) 02:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"St Fidelis College (Lucknow, India) : Unreferenced and no coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL . LibStar ( talk ) 23:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , Christianity , and Uttar Pradesh . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . No citations. The tone has issues. A search on Google produces one mention from okay sources: [1] (TOI is considered generally reliable when it comes to non-political matters). However, this is the only thing I can find in a quick browse, and it doesn't amount to fixing or ing the article. -- TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 14:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC) 09, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Alayna Westcom : Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E . Let'srun ( talk ) 14:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Beauty pageants , and Vermont . Let'srun ( talk ) 14:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC) NBASIC . MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Seven Layer Piano Cakes : The ""music project"" does not seem to be signed to any label, much less a major or notable indie label, and has no charting songs. Most of the remaining sources are very borderline. Overall, the article is loaded with puffery and seems to be suffering from WP:REFBOMB . Bascially what we have here is a vanity article about an attorney who has made some music in his spare time. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 02:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jessica Dereschuk : Let'srun ( talk ) 22:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Beauty pageants , and Minnesota . Let'srun ( talk ) 22:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Fails GNG; cannot be considered as a notable. Ekdalian ( talk ) 17:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) BIO1E . MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"YafaRay : Boleyn ( talk ) 21:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 22:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC) NSOFT since no independent, non-UGC sources about the software could be found. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC) Github sites and the like, but I find this [7] , not sure we have enough for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC) There are concerns about the notability of this software. The only sources currently listed are the developer's website and potentially a user-generated content platform. Waqar 💬 17:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"KPLE-CD : Let'srun ( talk ) 03:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas . Let'srun ( talk ) 03:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per nom. Jonathan Deamer ( talk ) 09:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak per nom. It would seem that KPLE went on air in the early 90s; its license history is severed by the digital conversion, not uncommon for an LPTV. It aired TBN programming until TBN cut the cord in 2018. There is some local coverage in Killeen, but I'm not too sure if it comes to our level. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 18:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Garmeh and Jajarm : It could be a duplication of an article under a different name; or possibly a transliteration issue. The Persian Wikipedia article doesn't have much more info. Within the English WP article, in Persian (جاجرم) translates to only 'Jajarm', and there is an existing Jajarm County article and a Jajarm city. Also there is a city named Garmeh article. PigeonChickenFish ( talk ) 06:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC) Article has been tagged since April 2008 for unreferenced. PigeonChickenFish ( talk ) 01:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC) Have added a source . I dont know if its enough for GEOLAND. --- FitIndia Talk (Admin on Commons) 12:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC) It is unclear if that reference appears to refer to two locations, or a single place. PigeonChickenFish ( talk ) 00:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 09:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC) No source that supports what this place is or was and the Farsi version is tagged with a proposal to it with Garmeh City. Also, looking at the history of the English version, an editor proposed merging it with Jajarm County [9] Another editor removed the tag with an edit summary simply stating it's notable but did not bother to add any sources [10] . S0091 ( talk ) 18:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Internet Historian : Password (talk) (contribs) 05:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, I saw the page requested in the internet culture WikiProject page, so I did it because of that. I think he is notable enough for an article, maybe there just needs to be better sourcing. The plagiarism isn't supposed to be his biography, just a notable thing that happened recently. I tried looking for sources for the guy's biography, but he doesn't seem to be very public about his personal life. But I don't think a lack of personal details means that this isn't notable enough for an article. This channel has an influential presence on internet culture, so I don't see why he wouldn't be qualified, there are other public figures with secretive personal lives that still have articles. Ludensg ( talk ) 05:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC) BIO ). if you can find strong sourcing please link them here and ping me Password (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know how to ping, but here are the current references, which I believe do qualify this article on Wikipedia's notability policies. ""People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."" The sources, mainly a Forbes article, Newshub a notable New Zealand news service, and Critical Hit a game journalism website, provide significant coverage, and are independent of each other, and sufficiently reliable. This, without counting the hbomberguy (who is notable enough and also has his own wikipedia page) 17 million views youtube video for which Internet Historian was in part the subject of, and the multiple other sources that, although not exhaustive in coverage, this coverage is still beyond triviality, as Historian was a big part of these stories: ""If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability"". Plus, the fact that Internet Historian's videos all range between 1.5 and 35 million views (with no video below 1.5 million), sufficiently covers notability for both of the requirements for entertainers. Ludensg ( talk ) 06:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to clarify again, views do not matter. BTW the Forbes article can't be used because it is made by ""Senior Contributor"". the other sources aren't bad, thank you for adding that, but they don't really talk much about Internet Historian, just a video and some quotes so i still don't think this meets notability. Password (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC) figured out the pinging btw Ludensg ( talk ) 06:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC) Forbes senior contributors are not permanent forbes staff and are external to Forbes itself, and are not considered reliable sourcing for the purpose of Wikipedia. I used this . If this is a wrong understanding of the situation please correct me. -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 09:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I went ahead and added more sources and a reception section. Ludensg ( talk ) 06:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC) BEFORE and finds much better WP:SIGCOV on the channel. And firstly, it's awesome that someone put good time and effort into setting up this article and I think that is great and should be salvaged if possible. But unfortunately in its current state, the article's sourcing strikes me as indicating a non-notable subject. As stated above and at WP:NYOUTUBE , views do not matter if WP:SIGCOV has not been provided on the subject; something can be popular and not notable for encyclopedic coverage (see WP:ITSPOPULAR ). Sources [1]-[3] are primary sources. Of the remainder, some are articles that in essence just summarise the content of a video ([4],[6]) or provide trivial mentions ([5]). Some of the sources are from reliable outlets. Others are not: Critical Hit is not considered a reliable source under WP:VG/S . At any rate, the way in which the subject is addressed in the sources provides little significant coverage or commentary about the channel itself in contrast to the things that the channel has talked about, which means that it is not really what I would consider 'reception' of the channel. That leaves whether the Plagarism and You(Tube) video by Hbomberguy makes the channel notable, either the video itself ([8]) or the articles about it ([7],[9],[10]). That coverage itself is pretty much just through the lens of the video about trends of plagarism in the video essay community. Whilst the video in question may very well be sustained critical commentary, it's not a reliable source about the subject generally as per WP:YOUTUBE-EL . It's fundamentally a primary source being a publicised opinion about the quality of the channel's research, and that is already handled on the Hbomberguy page. So as I see it, there are no sources that generally provide reliable secondary coverage of the channel as a whole, the creator and their background, and mainstream reception of their work by reliable sources. That suggests it falls short of WP:GNG in lacking significant coverage and well short of WP:ENT in lacking any coverage of their constructive contributions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 11:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Internet , and Australia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC) BEFORE beyond similar articles that only discuss a single video or the hbomberguy plagarism video, although there may be something that I haven't found. Nothing that would count as passing WP:GNG or WP:ENT Shaws username . talk . 15:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC) RSs to even produce WP:THREE . Fails WP:BIO . Cabrils ( talk ) 01:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC) Fails notability guidelines: not enough GNG sources found. Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 19:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Alexander Kravchenko (linguist) : Boleyn ( talk ) 14:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Language . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC) NAUTHOR might qualify if people can find more reviews of his books, I quickly found doi : 10.1075/arcl.1.15sha but my knowledge of Russian isn't good enough to find more at this moment. Umimmak ( talk ) 21:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC) He appears to be a relatively significant linguist - not just an academic. BulgarianCat ( talk ) 10:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC) What's his citation factor, given the large number of papers found in Gscholar, I'd be surprised if he doesn't pass academic notability... Seems to be cited by over 700 other papers per ResearchGate [12] Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . I'm seeing citation counts on Google Scholar of 247 (""Essential properties of language""), 116 (""The experiential basis of speech and writing""), 97 (""Two views on language ecology and ecolinguistics""), and then dropping steeply from there. This is borderline, but not really enough to convince me. Given that there doesn't seem to be much to say beyond the citation counts (it doesn't help that his writing is so impenetrable, apparently deliberately, as to make it impossible to infer what his actual contributions are), I'm inclined to put this on the side of the border. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lauren King (actress) : All available sources are primary sources, trivial mentions, or affiliated with this actress's agency. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 00:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC) There's also an American actress with the same name, but I find nothing for this individual. The only website is the GMA one used in the article, which isn't enough to build an article here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Also doesn't have an article on the Tagalog (Filipino) wikipedia, limiting our search for sources and not helping the search for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For topics about the Philippines, English sources are the most plentiful. If you can't find any English sources, it'll be much harder to find sources in other languages. Howard the Duck ( talk ) 07:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , and Philippines . Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Notability not found. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 07:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC) . 35, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I hope an admin can address; an editor moved the page to their userspace and now we are discussing a . Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 13:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Flagging for @ Liz - the cross-namespace d above was to a page that had been under discussion here for deletion. Not sure what the procedure is when the page is draftified before conclusion of a discussion but mentioning in case you want to close this discussion now. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 18:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Dclemens1971 , I've moved the article back to main space from User space. The editor clearly wants the article to be draftified or userfied. L iz Read! Talk! 23:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for moving it back @ Liz . I'm OK with draftify as an AtD if others are. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 00:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Since the creator has not requested it, I am switching my ! vote back to . Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 15:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jang Phyong-il : Simione001 ( talk ) 00:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 00:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 00:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 00:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC) per nomination, also fails WP:NSPORT . Kingsmasher678 ( talk ) 01:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 05:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"1010 Mass : Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV , and most of what I could find myself were real estate listings. If anyone finds sources, happy to change (ping me) EmeraldRange ( talk / contribs ) 00:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kantipur Engineering College : Theroadislong ( talk ) 09:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Engineering , and Nepal . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per nom. I cannot find any reliable sources about this school. Clearly not suitable to have an article here. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈ ) 10:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per nom. The main university's article is enough. Sgubaldo ( talk ) 21:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Louis Hänni : Search does not indicate any further coverage. No indication of meeting WP:GNG . No indication works have achieved level of significance to meet WP:NAUTHOR . Triptothecottage ( talk ) 01:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , History , and Switzerland . Triptothecottage ( talk ) 01:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , essentially per nom. Appears to have been a local history enthusiast, but a far cry from satisfying WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR . Nsk92 ( talk ) 17:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Soccer at the 1986 International Cerebral Palsy Games : Tournament has no article, match results are missing for many games, sources are databases, location is a small village. Fram ( talk ) 15:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability , Events , Organizations , Football , and Belgium . Fram ( talk ) 15:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The location notwithstanding, there is no demonstrable coverage of the event, failing GNG. Geschichte ( talk ) 07:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Location is important (as part of the rationale) as the village has only a very small football stadium [42] , so it's not as if this was an event at some major location with potentially thousands of visitors and an increased chance of good coverage. If this tournament had been played at e.g. the King Baudouin Stadium , then it would seem more likely that there was national or international coverage we just haven't found yet. Fram ( talk ) 08:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Early Mughal–Sikh wars : Some of the sources are outright unreliable while others are discussing particular battles for which we already have separate articles. Ratnahastin ( talk ) 07:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , and India . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Either or to List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs . Template containing ""Early Mughal-Sikh wars"" have entries with articles about them anyway, which are also listed in List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs . The ""Late Mughal-Sikh wars"" template, which has a lot more entries in it, doesn't have an article, so why should the early one? Also note: article was stubified in January for apparently POV-pushing, which got rid of basically everything in it. Sadustu Tau ( talk ) 21:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC) 30, 1 June 2024 (UTC) The article is a clear case of WP:OR . PadFoot2008 17:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Power of a method : The hits for ""power of a method"" I found are invariably about power of a test , or something else unrelated to this. Only source is an WP:SPS published by retired businessman Norman W. Edmund , and does not support the article at all. Paradoctor ( talk ) 17:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions . Paradoctor ( talk ) 17:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Unsourced and completely OR. I can find several hits for the phrase in scholarly literature but all are talking about radically different things. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If this was notable then it should also be in the base page methodology . I found nothing there, so it fails that test. In a search the phrase is so common that it is used extensively in other contexts, which also does not support this article. Ldm1954 ( talk ) 09:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Would a to power of a test be useful instead if there are some uses like that in RSes or are uses too varied? Shapeyness ( talk ) 21:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We need sources that define the meaning of the term. Us declaring this or that use to mean x or y would be WP:OR . If you think you can find such, great! Paradoctor ( talk ) 21:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ajura : Then, we get reports about upcoming award events, in which the artist is mentioned once, as a candidate, e.g. here , here , etc; or announcements about upcoming tours, such as this . Practically all sources offer promotional copy instead of reviews, e.g. ""The video is a reflection of the singer’s talent, as it is colourful and creative [and] will definitely garner the single more reviews""; some go as far, or as low, as reporting that the artist ""has released new publicity photos"" ( see here ). He's a young artist who has released one unremarkable single, marketing wise. There are millions, literally, like Ajura. At our most generous, we can wish for something better in the future . - The Gnome ( talk ) 17:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC) The page was created by a currently blocked sock . - The Gnome ( talk ) 17:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are these City People awards notable? This person won an award; the article for the City People Awards doesn't seem to use notable sources. It's not the first award from that City People we've seen here either... Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll ask at the Project Africa page, see if they can help. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [28] comparable to the People's Choice awards for example. This should make the individual being discussed here notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The People's Choice Awards , since their inception, are decided through polling and, since the early 2000s, through online voting or polling research. There is no participation by fans in the City People Entertainment Awards , as far as we can tell. Putting the latter on equal footing with PCA would be a stretch. But even so, Ajura has not won a City People award; he was only nominated - in the New Act category. One weak appearance in the field of awards ""should make Ajura notable""? We need more, much more than this. - The Gnome ( talk ) 18:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC) This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum . There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current s and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. Related discussions : 2023-08 Restlezz (musician) (closed as ✗ ) Logs : 2023-05 move to → Ajura (singer) -- Cewbot ( talk ) 00:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Underland Press : Before nominating, I removed all WP:PRIMARY sources and didn't find anything very WP:RS looking upon a preliminary search. JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 06:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , United States of America , and Oregon . JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 06:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC) No significant coverage per WP:SIGCOV , fails WP:GNG . GAGIWOR ( talk ) 11:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ezer Osei Yeboah-Boateng : Onel 5969 TT me 11:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . Onel 5969 TT me 11:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Ghana . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, I apologize for my untimely response to this discussion. In regards to your issue with the article concerning the general notability guideline I think this article actually meets the standard. The sources provided are independent and are from publications which are known for fact checking. The only issue that it might pose for notability may be in the issue of the subject having significant coverage. Individually the sources on their own do not give in-depth coverage of the subject however, Wikipedia biography (WP:BIO) says that multiple independent sources can be put together to demonstrate notability, which I feel was demonstrated in the article. Elvis7077 ( talk ) 15:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment May have a chance with PROF, what's her citation factor look like? Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He has a couple over 100 (one over 200), but they are both co-authored. Hish-Index, as I said in the nom is only 10. Onel 5969 TT me 22:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] She? Subject appears to be male. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 01:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed now. Onel 5969 TT me 10:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My thought is that if someone had a comparable government position in a more developed country, would their notability be questioned? And I don't know the answer to that in this case. BhamBoi ( talk ) 00:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC) BLP, Fails GNG and BIO, NPOL or NACADEMIC. Sources are: Gov source, primary :: 1. ""Prof. Ezer Osei Yeboah-Boateng – National Communications Authority"". Retrieved 2023-03-24. Appointment annoucement, not SIGCOV :: 2. ^ Dzakpata, Fred (2021-12-02). ""Dr Ezer Yeboah-Boateng appointed deputy director of NCA"". Asaase Radio. Retrieved 2023-03-28. Failed V, 404 :: 3. ^ Korankye, Kester (2022-03-24). ""GCTU unveils 7 new Professors"". Graphic Online. Retrieved 2023-03-29. Appointment annoucement, but seems to have a biography that is not promotional :: 4. ^ ""New Deputy Director-General of NCA appointed"". GhanaWeb. 2021-12-02. Retrieved 2023-03-28. Half the article is unsourced BLP violations, no sources in article or BEFORE showed independent RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed ROUTINE news articles about the appointment. WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). I think the GhanaWeb can be viewed as IS RS with SIGCOV. If someone adds additional INDEPENDENT RS to the article let me know. If someone finds that the bio section of the GhanaWeb is a reprint of government sources, let me know, this would firm up my ! v to Delete. // Timothy :: talk 05:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There doesn't appear to be an actionable consensus at this point, hopefully more input from editors will address that. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh ( talk ) 05:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Mykyta Hrebenshchykov : No evidence of WP:GNG . I found Suspilne , which mentions him once, and a bunch of interviews with a musician from Kyiv who shares the same name but goes by 'The Curly'. The footballer is from Chernihiv and looks nothing like the musician . If the musician is notable, then a separate article should be started at The Curly but I see no evidence that he is notable either. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Ukraine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Transit authority (surveillance term) : Longhornsg ( talk ) 00:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Military , Terrorism , and United States of America . Longhornsg ( talk ) 00:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC) NOTDICT . Just a definition, no discussion or context. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 01:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Aimee Moran : No coverage found online. Timothytyy ( talk ) 11:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Badminton , and Wales . Timothytyy ( talk ) 11:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per sigcov 1 . Stvbastian ( talk ) 11:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . An interview is a primary source. Routine Google search does not bring up a source meeting WP:GNG, therefore . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 17:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thats not a primary source. The article provide an author own thinking based on primary sources, and written through editor edits. Stvbastian ( talk ) 23:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It does contain a lot of non-quote material, but it also fails independence because it is published by the Badminton Wales and material from governing sports orgs is explicitly rejected from counting toward notability. JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Lacks sufficient coverage to pass notability guidelines. Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 22:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC) GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV . The above mentioned source is from the National Governing Body for Badminton in Wales and thus is not independent of the subject Alvaldi ( talk ) 20:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC) 12, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added a few news references to the page. I am not prepared to argue that this coverage is sufficiently notable, but I wanted to point out that there is at least some independent coverage outside the governing sports organization. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach ( talk ) 18:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For evaluation of the last-minute addition of references. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Cardiffian is a few paragraphs about a tournament, with one line mentioning her. The Cuban site is the same. Other source is trivial coverage. Nothing found for notability either. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , no sources providing SIGCOV. JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC) GNG . DreamRimmer ( talk ) 14:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Badessy : LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 22:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Haiti . LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 22:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Capital City Connection : As always, television shows are not automatically notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability, so nothing here is ""inherently"" notable without sourcing for it. Bearcat ( talk ) 02:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Alabama . Bearcat ( talk ) 02:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] nothing to suggest notability. Mccapra ( talk ) 04:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Vhairi Munro : Contested PROD. JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Scotland . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no decent independent coverage yet. The Daily Record piece has a few quotes but it's not enough coverage of Munro herself to justify her having her own article. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Koimoi : First AfD resulted in no consensus with the second resulting in . Low participation in both. Cannot find sources to support notability. CNMall41 ( talk ) 21:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Websites , and India . CNMall41 ( talk ) 21:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC) This website states that ""Koimoi.com is India’s #2 Digital Bollywood Portal with over 5 million users a month visiting its Web and Mobile sites."" (which is not a claim they took from Koimoi's About , apparently). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 22:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC) GNG , with no independent secondary reliable sources cited. Additionally, the website itself is deemed unreliable under WP:ICTFSOURCES . The first cited link is blog website not a reliable source at all. Grabup ( talk ) 14:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The relevant guideline here would be WP:NCORP , right? I don't think we've got any hope of that if no one's been able to make a solid vote through all of these AfDs. I went looking through google scholar/books and found a lot of glancing hits (eg, ""Koimoi lists both Bollywood and Hollywood movies""), but nothing substantial. -- asilvering ( talk ) 05:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Aamjhar River : The references consist of two youtube videos of people standing in water bodies that seem like rivers somewhere close to Aamjhar and a google search of a bridge on the river Ahu (which flows close to Aamjher I guess). None of this actually proves that that the freakin river exists pointing to the fact that this article is probably a WP:HOAX . Sohom ( talk ) 18:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC) GNG as the only sources are YouTube videos and a Google search. Doesn’t even meet the low standards of WP:GEONATURAL . - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌) 🔥 18:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Rajasthan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , fails GEONATURAL and GNG. The river does exist as an incident occurred there , but regardless, this source won't satisfy notability guidelines. Tails Wx 02:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The name is the Amajarv river on both the ISRO and MapmyIndia maps, and it is a tributary of the Ahu River not of the Kali Sindh. So the article is wrong in its basics. This is a start-again situation. Without sourcing to YouTube next time, clearly. Uncle G ( talk ) 11:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC) Not that the river is short, I get it, but there is nothing important about it and large parts of the article are unsourced. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 , 03:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Proximus TV channels : Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 10:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Belgium . Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 10:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC) At most, this was only ever a list of Proximus TV's official channel lists, links to which were eventually removed for being dead links. (Someone tried to have this speedied in 2017 because of that, but it was declined as that is not a CSD criterion; it does seem to indicate that an AfD was long overdue here.) Hard to imagine that any version of this complied with Wikipedia not being a directory . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Petr Dezort : No sources providing coverage can be found online. Timothytyy ( talk ) 12:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Tennis , and Czech Republic . Timothytyy ( talk ) 12:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak his only two titles in tennis were not even in the minor leagues... they were in the minor-minor league men's Futures events. That's not enough to cut it per Tennis Guidelines. Fyunck(click) ( talk ) 07:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Fyunck(click) - He has two Challenger titles in doubles though. Jevansen ( talk ) 07:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I missed those on the ITF page. Thanks. I know Tennis Project Guidelines are supposed to treat doubles the same as singles, but these days that's pretty iffy. It seems like the amount of minor league and minor-minor league finals he played were pretty minimal, and you do need some notable sourcing or accomplishments regardless. Guideline edges are inherently grey and blurry and we need to be flexible. I would say this one falls short, but I won't be distraught if others feel it should remain. Fyunck(click) ( talk ) 19:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If there are no secondary sources providing SIGCOV it is not notable regardless of whether it passes NTENNIS or not. Timothytyy ( talk ) 11:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I can only find coverage written by him or by people closely associated, relating to the tennis academy that he runs. This Czech search yielded nothing decent. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unable to find anything that's counted as a significant coverage either about Dezort, which is unsurprising given his career results. Fails WP:GNG . Jovanmilic97 ( talk ) 23:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dominic Mulvany : No independent sources. Fails WP:MUSICBIO . UtherSRG (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , and Ireland . UtherSRG (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is about all the coverage I can find [19] , appears to be a long-working musician, but not rising to what we consider notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above, found traces online but likely not enough to support notability. - Indefensible ( talk ) 20:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:NMUSIC . No indication that ever charted anything in the Irish charts (singles or albums). Or elsewhere for that matter. A search in the Irish music press ( like in Hot Press magazine ) returns nothing. A search of the Irish Times returns this piece on a school concert . Which may or may not be the subject. A search in the Independent News & Media stable of regional papers returns pretty much just this from the regional Wicklow People . Not seeing evidence of WP:SIGCOV . The SPA/COI overtones, in the initial article creation, are also less than ideal... Guliolopez ( talk ) 20:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC) SINGER or GNG — siro χ o 20:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] this is a classic example of the use of Wikipedia as an extension of a client/their own hosting space for publicity purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graywalls ( talk • contribs ) 04:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Fails WP:NMUSIC . Spleodrach ( talk ) 23:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Anna Bühler : JMWt ( talk ) 07:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Germany . JMWt ( talk ) 07:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"AkelPad : It's just a random non-notable text editor, fails WP:NSOFT . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 07:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 07:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Best I can find are reviews on download sites. I don't imagine a text editor gets much critical notice; I couldn't find any reviews in RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Cachet Lue : I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , Canada , and Jamaica . JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. -- Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 03:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rutherford, Virginia : WP:BEFORE pulls up nothing useful. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , United States of America , and Virginia . Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The parks mentioned, including Rutherford Park and Long Branch Stream Valley Park, are all run by the county, specifically by the",delete
+"Jarrod Halliday : Contested PROD. JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and New Zealand . JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC) GNG pass. No suitable per WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC) SPORTSCRIT . Has not played top club level which is Super Rugby . LibStar ( talk ) 20:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"A.R.S. Public School : McMatter ( talk ) / ( contrib ) 14:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India . McMatter ( talk ) / ( contrib ) 14:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Jharkhand-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - NPOV is absent, it says The school is running under the kind partonage of A.R.S. EDUCATIONAL MEMORIAL SOCIETY, a voluntary charitable organization imparting quality education since a long time ago. Fails WP:NSCHOOL . DreamRimmer ( talk ) 11:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC) NSCHOOL . LibStar ( talk ) 10:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . As far as I can tell, it doesn't meet the basic notability criterion (or WP:ORG ). Google turns up lots of listings and many one-paragraph presentations of the school which are probably not independent of the subject. In particular, I found no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Pichpich ( talk ) 18:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Josh Katz (journalist) : Reywas92 Talk 13:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Journalism . Reywas92 Talk 13:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is an interesting, well-sourced article as far as I can see. If someone can improve it, great, but I see no reason for deletion-- Hazooyi ( talk ) 08:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] The reason for deletion is that none of the sources are independent significant coverage... Cites 1 and 2 are just his own works, 3 is a short employee bio, 4 literally doesn't mention him, 5 is an interview about the piece (not biographical or independent), 6 is about the work, not him. I see you're new here so please review WP:GNG . Reywas92 Talk 14:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Source 4 is fine , 6 to a lesser extent. I was hoping to find book reviews about ""Speaking American""; there's an earlier book with many reviews, none for this person's book. There's also a foodie/chef in the UK with the same name that pops up. I just don't think we have enough for BLP or AUTHOR. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC) : Source 4 is a RS, but not about this person. Even less of a chance at notability now. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to The Upshot as an alternative to deletion per @ Oaktree b and nom's source analysis and my own search turning up no sources. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 23:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can find articles about his set of maps that went viral, but nothing about him in independent sources. Since he works for the NY Times, those sources, while they could provide some facts, don't count toward GNG. Lamona ( talk ) 05:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Panglong (24°3′N 98°9′E) : Google Earth source cited doesn't show it, Mapcarta source shows it but does not meet WP:GEOLAND . There are other Panglong-named villages in northern Shan State, but the closest recognized by the General Administration Department is about 49 miles southwest of stated coords in Kutkai Township (according to this MIMU map and place codes database ). EmeraldRange ( talk / contribs ) 18:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions . EmeraldRange ( talk / contribs ) 18:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . EmeraldRange ( talk / contribs ) 18:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC) 33, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as per nomination. Wikipedia is not a directory of every location in the globe. TH1980 ( talk ) 23:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"The Station (Florida) : Some passing mentions, but that's all I can locate. -- Mike 🗩 19:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Music , and Florida . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] it's a good article. Evangp ( talk ) 17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin : Evangp ( talk • contribs ) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD . Richard3120 ( talk ) 21:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC) Note to closing admin Richard3120 is a person that wants to this article. Evangp ( talk ) 00:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC) It's necessary to mark who created the article in these discussions. – The Grid ( talk ) 15:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you have any policy-based arguments for ing? 'It's a good article' is a textbook example of an argument to avoid in deletion discussions ( WP:LIKE ). -- Mike 🗩 17:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC) 46, 28 April 2024 (UTC) 49, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 41, 28 April 2024 (UTC) Duplicate vote stricken. -- Mike 🗩 20:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC) fails WP:GNG , WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH . The only thing that can be verfied is that this was a venue in Fern Park, Florida – everything else is original research by the article creator. Setlist.fm fails WP:USERG and is not a reliable source, and for some reason a picture of a T-shirt with the venue's logo is considered evidence of notability. That leaves two very brief passing mentions in the local newspaper, which tell you nothing about the venue. Richard3120 ( talk ) 21:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Clearly not notable. And not a good article either. TheLongTone ( talk ) 13:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Christian Carlo Cilli : TLA (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . TLA (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC) SEO expert, likely using Wikipedia as an SEO boost. PROMO. This is about all I found, article about why having friends is important [30] , which doesn't get you notability here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC) 38, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising , Computing , and Internet . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - every single source was a cheesy blackhat SEO blog. I've removed them, you can dig them out of the history if needed. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC) SPAM and User:Largoplazo#Telltale_signs_of_candidates_for_deletion . Potentially salt . In 2024, everybody knows this is not allowed. Bearian ( talk ) 18:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Domingo Manami : Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT . JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Abdullah Eksioglu : No cited sources, looked up the subject under ""news"" and ultimately found nothing. shelovesneo ( talk ) 11:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Turkey . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eleven : The cited sources come from Darkhorse, who publishes the comic book. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 00:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 00:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Olga Diaz : Most of the available coverage is routine and local or not significant enough. Funny enough, there's this 2010 article in The San Diego Union-Tribune reporting that ""Wikipedia officials have d the entry for Escondido Councilwoman Olga Diaz on their site, contending that she is not notable enough to have her own page on the popular online encyclopedia."" Mooonswimmer 03:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Politicians , Women , and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC) Does not meet WP:NPOL as she is not a major local official. But LMAO over the article cited about. Rublamb ( talk ) 14:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Luca Palazzo : He fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV ( [10] ), all sources in the article are non-independent (transfer reports from his clubs at the time, and name mentions from Football League reports). I could not find anything relevant or even close to noteworthy by searching for the subject around the Web. Angelo ( talk ) 17:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Italy . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak From my view, the general criteria is fine for GNG, there is just enough for me. Govvy ( talk ) 10:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] enough coverage to pass GNG. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 09:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Fails GNG. The only independent source currently in the article (notiziariocalcio.com) isn't enough to pass GNG. Dougal18 ( talk ) 11:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak , Does indeed fail GNG per nom, but I tend to try and not side with deletionist thinking and aim to when possible. Iljhgtn ( talk ) 21:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC) GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney ( talk ) 03:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above - sources not showing in-depth coverage. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 05:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Kang Chol-ryong : Simione001 ( talk ) 03:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 03:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 03:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 03:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , not notable. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 04:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC) GNG and WP:SIGCOV , but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann ( talk ) 15:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per above. Svartner ( talk ) 16:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Abdullah Rava : Then stumbled upon this article via some relevant sock accounts. It looks like this was also d a lot of times on fawiki as non-notable and even salted indefinitely [16] , so nominating it here as well. Tehonk ( talk ) 02:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 24 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 03:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] unless reliable English translations of references, establishing notability, can be provided. While foreign language references are fine per WP:RSUEC , there's no mention of ""Abdullah Rava"" or ""Abdullah Rawa"" in any English language searches. If you haven't already, I'd file at SPI if you suspect sockpuppetry. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 05:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Nathan Wade : No notability outside of that. Tar nis hed Path talk 14:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politics , Georgia (U.S. state) , and Texas . Tar nis hed Path talk 14:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. --Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC) BIO1E states The general rule is to cover the event, not the person . Ckfasdf ( talk ) 16:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Minor coverage Hi Bree! ( talk ) 18:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC) sock strike BLP1E claim here. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 19:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC) BLP and not encyclopedic. We are not X formerly known as Twitter . Bearian ( talk ) 17:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC) BLP1E . There's actually not enough to even create a substantial article. AusLondonder ( talk ) 22:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Clayton Scrivner : His notoriety seems to arise entirely from his band and thus I would suggest that we the pages, Scrivner's, or the band's (as no other members have pages) and fold it into Scrivner's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeacockShah ( talk • contribs ) 17 June 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Nevada , Pennsylvania , and Utah . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - No notability outside of his bands, which themselves are barely notable. He has received no media coverage except for a few mentions within articles about The Rodeo Boys, and even those are sparse. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - While researching for my vote on Scrivner (above), I looked into his band The Rodeo Boys as well. I have seriously considered nominating them for deletion too, but it might be a close call because they got some local feature articles: [41] , [42] ; and some local album reviews: [43] , [44] . That's the only useful coverage I can find on them. Any thoughts? --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would say they are worth deleting as well, honestly not sure why either had a page in the first place or how they made it this far. PeacockShah ( talk ) 19:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"EIU Canback : Searches did not turn up significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources . Note: I'm nominating this at AfD instead of using PROD in the hopes of getting some extra eyes on the deletion request, since the page only has three followers. No objection to soft deletion if it comes to that. Ks0stm ( T • C • G • E ) 09:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts . Ks0stm ( T • C • G • E ) 09:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"First Intuition : Other sources on the net such as this and this are also self-published. Request per WP:ORGCRITE . AbsoluteWissen ( talk ) 04:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom . AbsoluteWissen ( talk ) 04:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Has been tagged for multiple issues for years without improvement. Little more than an advertisement. Completely fails WP:ORGCRIT . Created by an editor with virtually no other edits. AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"GSSS Kot Beja : The website is sparse and does not appear to have been updated since 2016. Most of the wiki page is copied from the school website. No other online references in English that I can find. There may of course be notable info about the school in other languages. Newhaven lad ( talk ) 10:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Himachal Pradesh . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Fails WP:NSCHOOL , WP:GNG and I did not find any reliable sources. Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 14:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Satish Awasthi : None of the sources in the article confer notability, most of them are either paid-for promotional pieces or listicals. Might potentially even be UPE or DUCKY. Sohom ( talk ) 17:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astrology , Internet , and Uttar Pradesh . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astrology , Internet , and Uttar Pradesh . ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy G11. Mccapra ( talk ) 18:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC) I don't think this subject is notable under WP:NBIO from anywhere and it's references seem to be unreliable to me but I think article is only creating for a purpose of conflict of Interest . ᗩvírαm7 • [@píng mє] , 01:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Notable I found that he has 2 YouTube Channels with million’s of Subscribers and but there are something missing in reference you can check after that it will not claim wiki guidelines please . Metaxtech ( talk ) 18:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've edited your comment to correctly format it. (You used {{ notable }} which creates a template and not a bolded !vote). Regarding your statement, the number of youtube followers does not have any relation with the notability of a person (please review WP:ENT and WP:GNG both of which need to satisfied for the subject to be notable). Sohom ( talk ) 19:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy - G11. Promotional nonsense. jellyfish ✉ 19:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC) The author of this article is currently blocked for using multiple accounts to socking on Wikipedia. Happy editing ᗩvírαm7 • [@píng mє] 17:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Created by a blocked contributor and promotional. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 17:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC) BLP . The current consensus is that even 8 million followers is not enough for automatic inclusion at the English Wikipedia, although I would be more lenient . Bearian ( talk ) 15:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of French Open broadcasters : WP:NOTGUIDE applies. signed, Rosguill talk 18:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Tennis , Lists , and France . signed, Rosguill talk 18:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure on this - Is this up for deletion because the article is in bad shape, or that it shouldn't be here regardless? We have List of Wimbledon broadcasters and List of Australian Open broadcasters articles that appear to be sourced much better and are laid out in a satisfactory style. The flags for countries would certainly have to go as against MOS. If this was done in a Wimbledon like style would there be objections? Fyunck(click) ( talk ) 09:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that if there are secondary sources that back up the level of detail included at the Wimbledon article, that would be a good model to follow. The Australian Open article seems lighter on analysis and less obviously makes a case for meeting WP:LISTN , but is still as you note in better shape than the French Open article at issue. signed, Rosguill talk 12:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , as per my previous nomination. This was soft d and should remain d. No merit for ing this. Again, WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Also, all but one are unsourced - has anything improved since then? No. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 17:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . WP per listn. Desertarun ( talk ) 19:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Red Flag (Jericho) : This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show. Donald D23 talk to me 18:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America . Donald D23 talk to me 18:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Does not appear to meet WP:NEPISODE ; there's no extensive coverage outside of the normal fansite recaps and a single review at IGN ( [2] ). Article contents is mostly just an extensive plot summary too. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits ) 19:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC) NEPISODE . Qytz ( talk ) 20:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC) Fails GNG. // Timothy :: talk 15:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Sportskeeda : 1. livemint info from interview which makes the source not independent 2. exchange4media interview peice from the CEO of the company which makes the source unreliable. 3. gadgets360 - Just a sentence mentioned of the company. 4. the print - a press release article 5. timesofindia - advertising content of the company 6. the indus bussinessline - could not able to read the whole article, but the source covers only 5 areas - company, market, options, portfolio and economy and have member subscription - does not look reliable source to me. Cassiopeia talk 00:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote , but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts : {{subst: spa | username }} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed | username }} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry : {{subst: csm | username }} or {{subst: csp | username }} . Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . Cassiopeia talk 00:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I don't think, this article should be d. Sportskeeda is a renowned sports media organization with 88Mn+ MAU. They are part of the listed company Nazara technologies. Also, they have recently acquired a US based firm, Pro Football Network. 27.4.76.33 ( talk ) 04:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC) — 27.4.76.33 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Websites , and Karnataka . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC) Similarweb). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.151.104.66 ( talk ) 13:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC) — 180.151.104.66 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Could not find anything else on Google. — V ORTEX 3427 ( Talk! ) 12:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I did not manage to locate any significant coverage of the subject. Coverage in Hindi aren't any better, with only primary sources, trivial mentions and routine coverage (acquisition, company evaluations, etc). Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 22:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did a more in depth search and found coverage by Hindustan Times , LiveMint , The Economic Times and Business Standard . Lethweimaster ( talk ) 11:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC) ROUTINE . Those don't really help establishing notability. Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 06:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Added coverage by Hindustan Times , LiveMint , The Economic Times and according to the Business Standard , Sportskeeda is Indias largest all-sports website. I believe it now meets WP:GNG . Removed theprint press release and cleaned up. I believe the article is very interesting and pertinent for anyone who wishes to learn more about this rapidly expanding entity. Lethweimaster ( talk ) 11:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per Lethweimaster. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 13:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a global organization with India and US being their Major Markets. They bought majority stake in Pro Football network - a leading Pro football Media company. This is owned by Nazara technologies which is a publicly traded firm. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/nazaras-sportskeeda-buys-nfl-focused-platform-pro-football-network-for-1-8-million/articleshow/98915686.cms? from=mdr Ppcexpertise95 ( talk ) 16:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC) — Ppcexpertise95 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] - Entire article was incorrect as per guidelines, so I have re-written the content as per NPOV and fixed both content and references. Request to revisit the article. @ Cassiopeia If you are not able to view paid article content then use Chrome Browser, copy-paste the URL & then at the beginning write ""cache:"" You will be able to view the cached version of content through Google Server. For example -> ""cache: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/A-social-way-of-covering-sports/article20505160.ece "" VKG1985 ( Talk | E-Mail | Contrib ) 18:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , judging based on the coverage it has received by Indian newspapers. I wouldn't consider the acquisition of Sportskeeda routine when Sportskeeda received coverage of its acquisition of an American company. SWinxy ( talk ) 03:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC) NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* . ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject . Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no ""Independent Content"" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. For example, the reference by VKG1985 above from TheHinduBusinessLine is entirely based on an interview, therefore no ""Independent Content"" and fails ORGIND. Acquisition coverage relies on Press Releases and similar announcements, also failing ORGIND. I'd invite any of the ! voters above to indicate the particular paragraphs in whatever sources meet CORPDEPTH/ORGIND, I've examined the sources listed to date and I am unable to see any content that meets the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 17:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per the nominator Cassiopeia and HighKing . Also, the IP: 27.4.76.33 , IP: 180.151.104.66 , and User: Ppcexpertise95 ( contribs )have made few or no other edits outside this topic. They voted to the article but failed to establish any notable significant coverages. So the article should be d because none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Kashem overflow ( talk ) 07:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] renowned sports media. -- Tommy Lee J. ( talk ) 22:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since the next vote seems to leverage on my brief ""argument"", I'll add that Sportskeeda has been cited by dozens of national and international newspapers and websites. For example, as put forward by @ Lethweimaster above, it has been covered by Hindustan Times , LiveMint , The Economic Times and the Business Standard , the latter claiming it is the ""largest Indian all-sports website"". So it meets WP:GNG anyway. When I look for sports-related stuff online (and I'm not Indian nor living in India), especially in the Google news section, Sportskeeda often pops up, which I believe reflects its prominence among sports news websites. Tommy Lee J. ( talk ) 09:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, our guidelines require a lot more than being ""cited"" or ""coverage"", this isn't an exercise in volume. As per NCORP we require specific types of references - ones that provide in-depth ""Independend Content"" about the company as per SIRS/ORGIND/CORPDEPTH. Which references in particular do you believe meets the criteria? Please point to specific paragraphs in specific sources. HighKing ++ 15:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Many arguments lack merit; how popular a website is is irrelevant to notability. It also is not renowned, it has long been considered an unreliable source by WP:PW/RS , but that is also irrelevant. Although some reliable sources have mentioned it in passing, I don't think we've achieved WP:SIGCOV . However, I think its parent company, Nazara Technologies , has a better chance at meeting notability guidelines, should someone want to create that article. LM2000 ( talk ) 03:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Y'know I never considered that idea. It might work. SWinxy ( talk ) 04:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:NCORP , the subject is covered organically by the Reliable news website. As i checked it was on the correct guidelines before but it was then edited by some users and made it. It acquired an American company which gave the subject a good coverage. -- Monhiroe ( talk ) 08:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Need more discussion on the article in its current state having had some cleanup, ideally from established editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC) References are almost purely non-independent. Lacks SIGCOV. UtherSRG (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I'm surprised to be coming down on the side of , as I've seen this website rank highly on many google searches in the past and assumed it must be significant. However, having examined the sources, I concur with HighKing's analysis. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 21:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] highly notable, highly trafficked site. Headbomb { t · c · p · b } 02:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sportskeeda is important for the gaming community and is renowned in other aspects as well. Sportskeeda is ranked no 1 when it comes to information about Genshin Impact. Not only does their website receive millions of view for Genshin Impact content, their SEO enables them to be at the top of the list on google when you search up Genshin Impact team guides. 2603:8000:3040:B:817C:2D85:A60:8B8 ( talk ) 05:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I do not fully agree with HighKing's analysis, but deletion is still correct. The subject has a twofold nature: it does not have to pass strict criteria of WP:CORPDEPTH , since it is eligible for WP:NWEB as a website. If a website is a run by a company (very normal) and the company as a company doesn't pass the NCORP standard (very normal), it doesn't mean that we can't have an article about the website... and also talk about the business operations behind the website. As long as this can be understood to be an article about the website, and it can, NCORP can be entirely evaded as a redundant set of restrictions (relative to the baseline GNG). The question then is whether GNG or NWEB are met. GNG or NWEB are not met. The sources are mostly routine coverage, and the rest are not sufficiently in-depth and don't seem particularly independent either. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance ... Looking at the current article and the available sources when determining if the article does, or if it could , describe the site in the aforementioned ""encyclopedic manner""—it's apparent that it does not, and due to a lack of detailed information in the sources about the website's achievements, impact, or historical significance, it probably could not. When pondering WP:WEBCRIT , i.e. whether the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself, it's important to remember that only the sources about the website as the website count, and one should see that most of the coverage is routine news about the company, and not about the ""content itself""; coverage of the content itself is fairly shallow. — Alalch E. 12:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This is a very big sports webpage. The article is crappy but that doesn't mean the subject is non-notable. Desertarun ( talk ) 15:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It would've mattered that Sportskeeda is a very big sports webpage if Wikipedia was an internet guide, but as things stands, Wikipedia is not an internet guide , so this fact does not matter. The only thing that matters is notability, not size or importance. Notability. — Alalch E. 16:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wrote two short sentences. Read the second one again. Desertarun ( talk ) 17:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't need to, I read it just fine the first time. — Alalch E. 17:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll help you pin this one down. What part of my words ""The article is crappy but that doesn't mean the subject is non-notable"" - doesn't refer to notability? Desertarun ( talk ) 20:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks but that doesn't help. You only asserted that the article is crappy, and that, broadly speaking, an article that is crappy may or may not be about a notable subject. You didn't say that this is a notable subject and why. (See red herring .)— Alalch E. 20:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry you can't understand. No doubt the closing admin will read your vote as I did - an editor engaging in TLDR so they can try to understand policy. Desertarun ( talk ) 20:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not stopping you from making a substantive assertion that the subject is notable (as opposed to saying that the webpage is ""very big"", and calling the article crappy). — Alalch E. 21:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article has 20 refs. How many more do you want? Another 20, 50 or 100? We're already way over GNG. Desertarun ( talk ) 21:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC) THREE . — Alalch E. 21:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's an essay. At the time this AFD started there were 8 refs, now there are 20. Desertarun ( talk ) 21:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, I can live with two ( multiple sources are generally expected ). That is: two reliable sources independent of the subject that contain significant coverage (not just any sources). — Alalch E. 21:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Somebody has already put new SIGCOV sources into the article... Desertarun ( talk ) 21:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Somebody added a handful of new sources. For example this one ( WP:ROUTINE ) and this one ( WP:WEBCRIT : trivial coverage, brief summary of the nature of the content ). While I gather that you would say that these are an example of SIGCOV, they really are not. Can you help me identify another source among the newly added ones that is better than the ones I have just linked? — Alalch E. 22:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I changed my mind. People who voted for deletion brought few good points. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 18:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"KTBV-LD : Let'srun ( talk ) 02:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California . Let'srun ( talk ) 02:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC) Even in Los Angeles, a relatively-new low-power station that seems to have only carried national (mostly religious) networks doesn't seem like the type to get much significant coverage . (While not itself a reason to , these smaller LA stations also tend to attract IP edits of questionable accuracy and nonexistent sourcing.) WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Dumitru Radu : Dumitru Radu is a quite common name in Romanian. Geschichte ( talk ) 06:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Moldova . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC) GNG . Just few appearances in Moldavian football. Svartner ( talk ) 13:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Marcos Flegmann : My searches yielded many passing mentions and non-independent coverage. JTtheOG ( talk ) 07:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , Mexico , and Massachusetts . JTtheOG ( talk ) 07:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 08:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Minimal coverage, what's there is mostly not about his rugby career. Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Zaira Meneses : It was accepted through AfC by an inexperienced user. The reference to The New York Times is merely a passing mention and is behind a paywall. Hitro talk 13:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , Women , and Mexico . Hitro talk 13:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - I have added in citations and removed statements where I could not find reliable sources. I think the best coverage of her work is here. [1] [2] [3] As noted above, the New York Times article also includes a few sentences on her performance in New York; I think that this is an acceptable citation even if it is behind a paywall or available at ProQuest. DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 11:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My mention of the paywall was merely for informational purposes and not to express any opposition to the source. Whether behind a paywall or freely accessible, a good reference is always valuable. Hitro talk 11:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Shaw, Punch (2008-05-24). ""Guitarists' concert is well worth the wait"" . Fort Worth Star-Telegram . pp. A16 . Retrieved 2024-05-17 . ^ Siegel, Steve (2013-10-06). ""Music is family affair for guitarist Eliot Fisk"" . The Morning Call . pp. [1] , [2] . Retrieved 2024-05-17 . ^ Small, Mark (2021). ""An Afro-Cuban Legacy"". Acoustic Guitar ; San Anselmo . No. 331. pp. 30–33 – via Proquest . Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC) The NY Times is a trivial mention; all I find are streaming sites and record label profiles. Nothing to satisfy musical notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] on account of failing general and specific criteria of notability , a fact unshaken by the abundance of what the main contributor wants to pass as sources, which are, actually, trivial listings, passing references, and name-drops; nothing affirming independent notability. And advertorials such as the gem in NY Latin Culture : ""As you can see from the picture, Zaira puts a lot of energy into her career and plays with a wide open heart,"" etc. (The NYT article is explicitly dedicated to ""guitarist Eliot Fisk"".) Our subject is a classical guitarist like millions of others. And it truly does not help that the article has been created and curated by a kamikaze account . - The Gnome ( talk ) 17:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jonathan Soares : Ineligible for PROD. JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC) Amature player with minimal coverage. Mn1548 ( talk ) 12:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC) SPORTSCRIT . LibStar ( talk ) 08:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Rahaman Abiola : Sources are either announcing him as new editor-in-chief of Legit.ng , passing mentions or dependent on the subject. Being Reuters-trained, or working with other Nigerian media outlets, etc, isn't a credible claim of notability. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 20:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC) Even though notability is not inherited, Rahaman's contribution to the media space is evident here as his writings are used as a reference to several Wikipedia articles. As a known journalist, Rahaman is seen working for notable media houses like Legit.ng, Medium, Sahara Reporters, Nigerian Tribune, TheCable, Tuko, YNaija, BusinessDay Nigeria, The Media Online, Dubawa, Business Post Nigeria, The Paradigm and Theindustry.ng as seen on his verified Muck Rack page here . He is recognized by Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siagoddess ( talk • contribs ) 22:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yet, these do not automatically confer GNG or JOURNALIST on him. For the former, there are several journalists whose publications in the media are being used on Wikipedia, that doesn't automatically make them notable. for the latter, these are all his employers/clients, etc, and still doesn't count towards GNG. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 23:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC) @ Vanderwaalforces , the entity passes criteria 1 of WP:NJOURNALIST as he is cited as a source for most Wikipedia pages as stated earlier. That alone confirms his notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siagoddess ( talk • contribs ) 23:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Internet , and Nigeria . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC) BLP. Fails GNG and NBIO. The sources in the article and above do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth . Found material failing WP:IS, and name mentions, nothing that meets SIRS from independent non-promotional sources addressing the subject indepth. // Timothy :: talk 09:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Comments Source Interview, fails WP:IS 1. ""Award-winning Journalist, Rahaman Abiola Shares Tips for Creating Quality Stories -"". primusmediacity.com. 18 April 2022. Retrieved 2024-04-03. Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 2. ^ Obi, Daniel (2024-03-20). ""INMA appoints Legit.ng's Editor-in-Chief Rahaman Abiola into its Africa Advisory Council Board"". Businessday NG. Retrieved 2024-03-27. Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 3. ^ Jump up to:a b Ola (2023-04-24). ""Legit.ng gets new Editor-in-Chief, Head of Desk"". I-79 Media Consults. Retrieved 2024-03-28. Nothing about subject, fails WP:SIGCOV 4. ^ Toromade, Samson (2023-06-14). ""Nigeria Health Watch lands over 250 solutions journalism stories in 2 years"". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 2024-03-28. Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 5. ^ Mix, Pulse (2024-03-20). ""INMA appoints Legit.ng's Editor-in-Chief Abiola to Africa Advisory Council"". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 2024-04-03. Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 6. ^ Tosin, Alamu (2023-04-12). ""Legit.ng Appoints New Editor-in-Chief, Head of Desk and Others"". NGNews247. Retrieved 2024-05-09. Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 7. ^ INMA appoints Legit.ng's Rahaman Abiola into its Africa Advisory Council Board . Name mentioned in list, nothing meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subjeect directly and indepth 8. ^ ""INMA: Africa Advisory Committee"". www.inma.org. Retrieved 2024-05-09. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 09:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded here and also if it gets d as a Soft Deletion, I have a feeling it will automatically be restored. Let's get some more opinions here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Entity featured on notable news websites, held talks on globally recognized platforms for journalist and his works are widely recognized. -- Siagoddess ( talk ) 14:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC) source analysis from User:TimothyBlue is compelling and my reasonable BEFORE doesn't help. User:Siagoddess is the page creator and I'm not seeing anybody else asserting here. BusterD ( talk ) 01:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC) Per rationale by VWF, Timothy and BursterD. Best, Reading Beans 13:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jonathan Miller (music producer) : Appears to be sourced mostly by press releases and dead links. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Wisconsin . I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"The Philadelphia School (Architecture and City Planning) : One of the previous editors is the author of that book, which leads me to believe this is a lot of original research and violates WP:MOS in several ways. This should be sent back to drafts at the very least. Lindsey40186 ( talk ) 01:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC) I've found that there is a question about the existence of a ""Philadelphia School"" of architecture. A magazine article asked as much in 2017: Was There Really a “Philadelphia School of Architecture”? - Philadelphia Magazine (phillymag.com) Much of these points could be best summed up as a section in the Architecture of Philadelphia article. Lindsey40186 ( talk ) 14:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC) WP:TNT it. Going off the book preview alone, I've already found paragraphs worth of copyright violations. ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 16:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Full Moon Hotel : Currently, there is the Deniz Mall shopping center in its place. Sura Shukurlu ( talk ) 20:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Travel and tourism , and Azerbaijan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Planned and unbuilt hotels can be notable. Haven't performed a source search, just scanned the article and other wikis and it looks like it could pass GNG. Possibly oddly the Armenian article is the best sourced... SportingFlyer T · C 00:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Little real information in the article, no coverage online and no real sources in the article. InDimensional ( talk ) 14:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I followed what SportingFlyer said he did, and came to the opposite conclusion. This is a nonexistant building. James.folsom ( talk ) 18:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of incarcerated musicians : Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Lists of people , and Crime . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC) LISTN . I have not attempted to find out, but I do know that this list does not attempt to prove it. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 11:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC) BLPCRIME , but that policy is about people who have only been accused of a crime, and requires the ""innocent until proven guilty"" stance. However, most of the people in this list article have been convicted and are currently in prison, so describing them as such is not a violation of the cited policy. Exception: the final entry on Superstar Pride should be removed for this reason, as he is awaiting trial and is technically still just accused of the crime. Otherwise, I'm not so sure the article satisfies WP:NLIST , but I'm undecided on that front for now and will see what other voters think. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC) I linked the wrong section. What I meant to link to was WP:BLPCAT which says this Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. Do not categorize biographies of living people under such contentious topics as racism, sexism, extremism, and the like, since these have the effect of labeling a person as a racist, sexist, or extremist. (See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Subjective inclusion criteria and Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Opinion about a question or issue.) These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation or suggest that any living person has a poor reputation. Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That makes no difference, because this list article simply describes the people as ""incarcerated"" which is true and not a matter of false light or reputation. I could call someone racist and that is a judgmental opinion that can damage their reputation. But if someone is literally in prison then I can call them ""incarcerated"" because that's the word for someone who is in prison. (Again, Superstar Pride at the bottom of the list should be removed.) --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC) NLIST , in which case you could adjust the rationale in your nomination. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The text I included above literally mentions criminals and says that this applies equally to lists. People who are incarcerated are people who have been charged with crimes. I don't have any problems with the article being considered for deletion under WP:NLIST either but I think my argument still holds merit. Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC) I disagree that this violates BLPCAT . Stating that someone is incarcerated is factual, and does not ""suggest that"" someone has ""a poor reputation"". However, I agree with LaundryPizza03 that this likely does not meet LISTN . Music in prisons is a notable topic, but the fact that musicians are amongst people in the population who get incarcerated is not a phenomenon that has been written about in relevant literature. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 18:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - This would look better if the lead could be expanded with some prose about the individuals. It's kind of hard to violate WP:BLPCAT on a list like this, when each person on the list was high-visibility for their arrests, trials and incarceration. This list merely puts the individuals in one grid/list. I don't have a problem with this list, or similar lists of high-visibility public figures. — Maile ( talk ) 02:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC) CROSSCAT as others have already mentioned, but also because of ""The following list includes notable musicians who are currently incarcerated."" . There definitely are BLP issues from saying that so-and-so is incarcerated when they no longer are, unless people are fastidiously updating this list, which is not reasonable to expect. Any kind of ""current"" list like this shouldn't really exist. You could convert it to something like ""who have ever been incarcerated"", but again, there are still CROSSCAT issues. Side note, everyone, stop using ""notable"" in article text. It's Wikipedia jargon that doesn't mean the same thing as the common use of the word. 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 15:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC) BLPCAT . As far as I can tell you're the first one to bring up CROSSCAT specifically, so thank you for linking that. People can be incarcerated for a variety of reasons and it just doesn't sit right with me to have a list like this that could easily become coatrack of BLP issues. There's a decent amount of musicians that are notable enough in the Wikipedia-sense but aren't really public figures and hypothetically could be included in a list like this. But it's fairly obvious my judgement isn't unanimous right now so it's good this AfD has participation with different perspectives. Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Uladzislau Pramau : Not enough SIGCOV to justify inclusion in Wikipedia, so a GNG fail. The Belarusian Wikipedia's article doesn't provide sufficient SIGCOV either. Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 16:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics , and Belarus . Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 16:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , thank you for nominating the article because it motivates us to improve it. Pramau is a multi-time national champion and winner of major road races, and there are many sources significantly covering him. Here are just a few I found on the first page of the web search for just his name: ""Belarusian wins Gutenberg marathon"" (plus [11] [12] ), article is all about Pramau with life details ""Bright start and emotional finish: more than 5 thousand people took part in the Magilev International Marathon"" , Pramau won this marathon and there's a brief interview with him It seems like maybe you were searching using his full native name in the article Уладзіслаў Дзмітрыевіч Прамаў rather than just his first and last name, ""Уладзіслаў Прамаў""? -- Habst ( talk ) 15:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . A few sentences announcing that he won a particular marathon, repeated almost verbatim in several papers, is not enough for GNG. Nor are one or two sentences stating he won a marathon in a government publication. JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources found are all routine mill news, name mentions/listings, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth . Source eval: Comments Source Database record, nothing meeting SIGCOV 1. ""Uladzislau Pramau"". Rio 2016. Archived from the original on 23 August 2016. Retrieved 21 August 2016. Stats page, name mentioned 2. ^ Jump up to:a b ""Marathon Men − Final − Results"" (PDF). IAAF. 5 October 2019. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 June 2020. Retrieved 6 October 2019. Database 3. ^ Uladzislau Pramau at Tilastopaja (registration required) Name mention 4. ^ ""Яркі старт і эмацыйны фініш: больш за 5 тыс. чалавек сабраў Магілёўскі міжнародны марафон"" (in Belarusian). Event recap,name mentioned 5. ^ ""Беларус выйграў Гутэнбергскі марафон"". Наша Ніва (in Belarusian). Retrieved 13 January 2024. Above Event recap, nothing SIGCOV about the subject https://nashaniva.com/316221 Same as above https://www.nslowa.by/2023/05/11/naviny-germanii-belarus-vyjgrau-gutenbergski-marafon/ Event recap, nothing SIGCOV about the subject https://by.tribuna.com/be/athletics/1112961217-uchastnik-oi2016-pryamov-vyigral-gutenbergskij-marafon/ Event recap, nothing SIGCOV about the subject https://mogilev-region.gov.by/be/news/yarki-start-i-emacyyny-finish-bolsh-za-5-tys-chalavek-sabrau-magilyouski-mizhnarodny-marafon BLPs require strong sourcing. If I missed something, post the best WP:THREE IS RS with SIGCOV and ping me. // Timothy :: talk 13:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Manoj Jat : The sources cited do not mention Manoj Jat and both were taken from Manoj Thonipurakkal Manoharan , which the same article creator hijacked previously. Appears to fail WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Sportspeople , India , and Uttar Pradesh . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Since AFD nomination, page originator has moved the page to Manoj Jat (Indian Kabaddi Player) and tried s to Jat , Manoj , and Manoj Jaat . This is in addition to attempting to remove the AFD template. LizardJr8 ( talk ) 21:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - article creator now indefinitely blocked for disruption and promotion relating to Manoj Jat. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 52, 15 May 2023 (UTC) No evidence of attained biographical notability. AllyD ( talk ) 07:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Warehouse (Dave Matthews Band) : Subject lacks independent notability. If appropriate citations can be found, suggest and to Dave Matthews Band . Failing that, suggest to simply to Warehouse (song) , although this may be the wiser option for , regardless, to avoid confusion. Skipple ☎ 03:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music . Skipple ☎ 03:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 12:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Purely an unsourced advertisement for a fan club. How it's stuck around for that long is truly baffling. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 17:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - This is blatantly just a puff piece by a fan club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInsatiableOne ( talk • contribs ) 09:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Badal Sesher Pakhi : Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth . // Timothy :: talk 02:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC) No coverage found other than the announcement of the series. ABP Bengali provides some coverage, as does Etvbharat , but I'm not sure about Etv’s reliability. Both of them are just announcements of the series; no other coverage found. Grabup ( talk ) 05:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - plenty of coverage available. See for example Hindustan Times . ABP and ETV are pretty major outlets as well, for what it's worth. -- Soman ( talk ) 22:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Hindustan Times article only talks about marriage and doesn't provide any information regarding the series at all. Additionally, when you said ""ABP and ETV are pretty major outlets as well,"" you should know that Republic World is also a major outlet, but it is considered unreliable. Similarly, there is no consensus that ETV and ABP are reliable sources at WP:ICTFSOURCES , but I personally think that ABP should be considered reliable but I question ETV's reliability. Grab Up - Talk 11:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or to Sun_Bangla#Currently_broadcast . Per nom fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG . The series is an individual television program and is far less notable as it likely airs in only one local media market and not to a broader regional or national audience. Sources are poor with not enough coverage. RangersRus ( talk ) 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC) GNG Donald D23 talk to me 02:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Carson Garrett : Reason was: ""This is not a notable person. He has appeared on one season of a reality TV show that has hundreds of contestants."" C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE 02:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Engineering , and Georgia (U.S. state) . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC) GNG A majority of the references are referencing him as a Survivor contestant, which are done for every contestant recently, none of which have their own page, and much of the rest are quite banal. WP:INDISCRIMINATE . Some more notable contestants of the same reality show do not have pages, and unfortunately he has not yet had enough notability. Purpley24 ( talk ) 06:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Gabardıç : Aintabli ( talk ) 06:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance , Music , and Turkey . Aintabli ( talk ) 06:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No proper content in article. Not notable. killer bee 09:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lincoln Sport : There doesn't seem to be a ""Lincoln Sport"" vehicle but rather a possible confusion with the Lincoln L series through any of the following: ""Sport Phaeton"", a body style which seems to be from both the Lincoln L series and Lincoln K series : 1 , 2 , 3 This article does mention a ""two-passenger roadster "" model though is not given a name; the model, along with a ""four-passenger phaeton "" are both referred to as ""sport cars"" presumably part of the Lincoln L series but are not shown to have an actual model name. This advertisement for a used ""1922 LINCOLN SPORT MODEL"" is interesting, though the most likely scenario is that the particular vehicle is just being referred to as a ""sport model"" rather than actually being named the ""Lincoln Sport"". This also seemed to have happened with the Lincoln phaeton model , same with this "" Lincoln Sport Sedan "". I've looked at newspaper sources from around the time and what seems to be the probable case from what I have gathered is that the ""Lincoln Sport"" is not an actual car model, but rather the case is that certain Lincoln models at the time were just referred to as ""sport models"", such as their phaetons, sedans, or even roadsters. Here are some additional newspaper clippings: "" Lincoln Sport Sedan "", "" Lincoln Sport Touring "", "" Lincoln four-passenger sport model "", "" Lincoln sport roadster "", "" Lincoln sport model "", "" Lincoln sport model sedan "", "" Lincoln sport model cars "" B3251 ( talk ) 01:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . B3251 ( talk ) 01:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - all the references use ""sport"" as an adjective, as indicated by the fact that it is not capitalized in the body of text. The only one I see that even hints at this being a model name is this advert ; it may be that one of the Judkins bodystyles was indeed called a Sport Sedan, but that also doesn't make it a model name. None of the links discovered by B3251 could be considered to meet WP:N or WP:RS . Furthermore, no one has contributed any actual content to this article since it was created in 2006, because there was no such car. The only change aside from formatting changes was when an IP changed 1930s to 1920s back in 2009. Mr.choppers | ✎ 12:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - by all appearances a non-existent model based on a misinterpretation of something. -- Sable232 ( talk ) 01:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Maratha occupation of Kolwan (1672) : None of the linked articles of purportedly related topics ( Shivaji , Maratha Empire , Sambhaji , Moropant , Jawhar , Vikramgad , etc.) make any mention of corresponding events in 1672, although this does broadly correspond to the time during which Shivaji was consolidating what would become the Maratha Empire. It is perhaps noteworthy that this is the only article on Wikipedia to use the term ""Kolistan"". signed, Rosguill talk 23:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , and India . signed, Rosguill talk 23:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC) Charvak157 posted two citations (books) Jadhav, Namdevrao (2014). Ganimi Kava . Pune: Rajamata Prakashan. ISBN 978-8191098006 . Sarkar, Jadunath (1992). Shivaji and His Times . Orient Longman. ISBN 978-81-250-1347-1 . Which would not make the article originally unsourced. If those citations are correct for events it means, WP:OFFLINESOURCES exist. Article has had what might appear to be some disruptive editing. Might be prudent to review the history of it. It would be hard to verify the sources know. Govvy ( talk ) 14:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was able to track down a digital copy of Shivaji and His Times --it was published in 1920 (1992 edition is a reprint) and thus is a raj-era source that is typically considered unreliable. Ignoring reliability, it supports some, but not most, of the content in the article on pages 218-219. Looking at Ganimi Kava , its title apparently translates to ""Guerrilla Kava A true mastery of the world famous Maratha martial art"" -- I am skeptical that this book contains reliable information about a 17th c. military occupation, and am disinclined to consider it a probable source in the absence of quotes or page numbers. signed, Rosguill talk 15:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Haven't had the opportunity to research this topic in detail, but some points for those willing to spend some time on further research: Shivaji and His Times (originally published in 1920) is in public domain. A search for ""Kolwan"" / ""Kolvan"" / ""Kolistan"" on archive.org does not return any result. Searching for ""1672"" and ""Koli"" returns page 204 which has one sentence about the ""Koli State of Ramnagar"". Ganimi Kava by Namdevrao Jadhav likely fails WP:RS - the author claims to be royal Maratha descent, and runs the Rajmata Prakashan (the publisher of the book). Searching Google books for ""1672 Koli Maratha"" shows that the Maratha chiefs ransacked a few states ruled by Koli chiefs, sometimes on their way to another territory. So this is not a complete hoax. That said, I'm not sure if any scholarly source has discussed this in non-trivial manner as a single campaign directed towards Koli-ruled states. We may have sources that talk about Nazi invasion of countries ruled/inhabited by the Slavs, but that doesn't warrant the existence of an article titled Nazi invasion of Slavic countries unless scholarly sources have discussed the topic with that categorization in mind. utcursch | talk 16:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per my comment above. I have not been able to find reliable sources that discuss ""Maratha occupation of Kolwan"" (or ""Kolistan"" according a recent move). Separate articles on Maratha actions against individual Koli chiefs may be created, but we don't need this one, just like we don't need Nazi invasion of Slavic countries . utcursch | talk 23:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as a non-independently-notable event. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 22:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jeffrey Steinberg : Furthermore, this article appears to be WP:COATRACK for LaRouche movement in that it seems to exist only to showcase the subject's ""Selected publications"" on a variety of fringe topics in Executive Intelligence Review . (Related to this, see the LaRouche-related topics in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests .) Location ( talk ) 19:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , and Businesspeople . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per nom. Just took a quick look. Looks like zero GNG type sources and as a result near zero content about him . Bulk of the content is list of essays. North8000 ( talk ) 19:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Looking for independent reliable sources about Steinberg is frustrating. There are a lot of other Jeffrey Steinbergs who show up, and those hits that I can be reasonably sure are about this Steinberg are not independent, or merely mention him in passing. I cleaned up the bad sourcing in the article, which left almost nothing sourced to an independent, reliable source. - Donald Albury 20:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Like DA above, I am unable to find significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable secondary sources, so they seem to fail notability guidelines. Their ""essays"" in Executive Intelligence Review are also not notable; listing them serves only as a weird, promotional effort for the LaRouche movement . JoJo Anthrax ( talk ) 21:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC) GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 08:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Deogracias Biribé : Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] unless significant coverage of this athlete can be found in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 ( talk ) 02:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC) GNG . Suonii180 ( talk ) 06:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"PVS (project) : It is sourced only to what appears to be a press release The link is dead but an archive is available. The article itself is very poorly written as it appears to have been edited by editors with insufficient English language capability. My own searches for sourcing is hampered by having to rely on machine translation of Portuguese, but what I can find are just enrolment announcements. This project does not meet notability . Whpq ( talk ) 13:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Brazil . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fails GNG. Material in article largely unsourced. Source in article and BEFORE are promo, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 06:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Fresco Pictures : The generic name could be hiding some legitimate sources on the internet, which hopefully will be discovered during this discussion if they exist. ~ T P W 18:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . ~ T P W 18:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Companies , and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"The Channel Magazine : (Note there is also a magazine called CRN (magazine) by The Channel Company. IgelRM ( talk ) 13:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Entertainment , and Pennsylvania . IgelRM ( talk ) 13:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Promotional in addition to having zero independent references to support notability. Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 13:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Hypnos (record label) : Graywalls ( talk ) 04:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Entertainment , Companies , and Oregon . Graywalls ( talk ) 04:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC) this article doesn't have enough reliable sources, and fails both WP:N and possibly WP:NPOV . 64andtim (chat) 06:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Could not find any significant coverage. Sgubaldo ( talk ) 21:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Omar Enrique Mallea : Although this footballer played competitively in Chile and very briefly in Argentina and Switzerland, there is no WP:SIGCOV available in English-, German- or Spanish-language sources that indicates the GNG could be met. The only coverage available consists of database entries and routine match coverage like this . Jogurney ( talk ) 16:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Argentina . Shellwood ( talk ) 17:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I found a few bits of coverage but most of it is just basic blog stuff which we can't use. I found an AS article that has some stuff about him (he's player #13) but it's barely more than a sentence. En Una Baldosa has a post about him but I'm not sure that this meets WP:RS standards. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of Dhangadhi Premier League records and statistics : Records are about a minor cricket league, not even having T20 status. None of the stats are included in ESPNcricinfo or any other stats page as a group (of all seasons). Fails WP:NLIST and falls under WP:NOTSTATS . Robo Cric Let's chat 14:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Cricket , Lists , and Nepal . Robo Cric Let's chat 14:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per nom. AA ( talk ) 18:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC) NLIST , and does violate WP:NOTSTATS . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 09:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC) NLIST and WP:NOTSTATS as Joseph2302 states. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Leslie Stephens : Htanaungg ( talk ) 03:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Tennessee . Htanaungg ( talk ) 03:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Long Valley, Lassen County, California : I was able to ""verify"" the post office against Jim Forte's site, which is technically self-published but which we have never run into cause for doubting; he gives its dates as 1869-1912, for what that's worth. There's no GNIS entry for it and I haven't seen any sign of it on topos, and I cannot work out where the coordinates came from. The part about the "" Beckwourth Trail "" refers to the valley, not a town, so it's irrelevant. Someone who has a copy of Durham may be able to shed more light on this but the most reasonable guess is that there was a post office set up at the saw mill. That's not the same as a notable settlement. Mangoe ( talk ) 02:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There was never a settlement called ""Long Valley"" it was a valley, and there were settlements in it. They were not called ""Long Valley"". The post office was and it served settlements there. In the newspaper there are mentions of people from Long Valley, but there is no reason why people cannot say they are from the Valley they live in. People used an address of Long Valley, because that was there post office. Here is and example: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-lassen-advocate-just-a-valley/143501762/ There are also numerous examples in these newspapers of post offices not being named for the town or valley the serve. James.folsom ( talk ) 22:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Noting previous AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashton, California . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] comment re previous nomination In spite of the barrage of procedural s, all of the articles were eventually d except for this one and two others, neither of which has been subjected to an individual AfD. Mangoe ( talk ) 23:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as per nomination. TH1980 ( talk ) 01:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Lahore Front : These include the Battle of Burki , Battle of Asal Uttar , Battle of Phillora and Battle of Chawinda . If at all there is a need for consolidation of this data, it has been carried out on the more relevant Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 . None of the sources call it the Battle of Lahore. >>> Extorc . talk 18:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . >>> Extorc . talk 18:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Pakistan , India , and Punjab . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per nom. This page is WP:CFORK , separate pieces of content from pages on different battles and treating them as same subject. RangersRus ( talk ) 13:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Inquisiq R3 : I'm not sure if it was just renamed (the software was also renamed Inquisiq R4 years ago), or if this is a different program. This LMS has had a notability tag since 2021, and neither Inquisiq nor Hireroad having pages, I find it strange that a specific piece of software from them has a page. Searching for Inquisiq returns mostly SEO spam, or this article, which fulfills none of WP:GNG SekoiaTree ( talk ) 00:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 22 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 00:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Internet , and Software . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Toyota Legendary Moments : Gibbsy spin 09:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Advertising . Gibbsy spin 09:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I've just noticed that this was AfD'd 16(!) years ago and while the consensus was a strong , nothing happened. It is surely time to go now. Gibbsy spin 00:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looking at the deletion log it's been d and recreated several times. – Tera tix ₵ 07:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV standard. Sourcing needs improvement for completeness but GNG itself looks to be well met. Aspirex ( talk ) 02:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 15:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC) GNG with most results being to social media postings containing the adverts themselves. The very few news newspaper articles that do reference the subject matter I found, only do so in passing in reference to discussions about other things. Additionally this reads as advertising. This has already been d four times. TarnishedPath talk 22:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak discarding all the social media fluff, Newsbank actually brings up quite a few decent-length news reports on the campaign – there's a strong case for GNG here. However, there seems to be indications that Toyota, though perhaps not going as far to write the articles themselves, has had a hand in bringing them about. For example, one author in the Herald Sun mentions basing their coverage on a ""sneak peek"", presumably orchestrated by Toyota itself. If this were a non-commercial subject I would give it the benefit of the doubt, but there seems to be too much self-promotion poisoning the waters here to be confident the subject genuinely meets our notability standards. – Tera tix ₵ 09:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Comparison of DNS blacklists : I was unable to find much sourcing specifically about comparison of different blacklists, so I believe WP:LISTN is not met even if the NOR issues (i.e. categorization of different blacklists into reputable and ""suspect"" lists based on primary sources) could be overcome. I don't see any content with sufficient sourcing to preserve. ( t · c ) buidhe 08:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet . ( t · c ) buidhe 08:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. While the blacklists may be notable, the construction of a comparison is basically WP:OR and probably falls foul of WP:NOTCATALOG ; it'll also be utterly unmaintainable as lists change. This isn't Wikipedia's business. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 13:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Draken Bowser ( talk ) 19:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC) HOWTO . These types of lists almost always violate the rule against creating directories of how to compare one things to another. Bearian ( talk ) 18:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"List of apologies to clubs from PGMOL : More importantly, this list violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE . This list has no place on Wikipedia, as we don't just stockpile information for the sake of it. At best, this could be a subsection on PGMOL's article. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 10:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 10:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC) OR . There's no source which covers all of these as a topic. SportingFlyer T · C 12:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC) NLIST which requires that the items listed have been discussed as a group/set by multiple independent reliable sources. I have found the following - [29] , [30] , [31] - which I think just about meet that requirement. The Mirror/Irish Mirror are not ideal sources but neither are they unreliable (see WP:DAILYMIRROR ) - and I am not certain as to whether we should treat them as one source or two (they seem to be using the same source material, but the copy is different, with two different writers). Nevertheless, I think we just about have significant coverage in two or three reliable sources. This is also a potential source, although it does not focus directly on PGMOL apologies. No issues with the Squawka article as far as I can tell. This is not inherently unverifiable - all the incidents listed can be verified by reliable sources, such as news reports. Neither does this violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE - the list here does not compare with the examples given on that policy page. WJ94 ( talk ) 12:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to parent article, not necessarily because the topic is or isn’t notable but because this isn’t the sort of thing that needs a list. Dronebogus ( talk ) 21:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - ridiculous title/topic. At best it should be d to Video assistant referee#Criticism (with no ). Giant Snowman 18:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Professional Game Match Officials Limited . Good ATD, preserves the history, could eventually be removed without a future AFD if needed, or split back out if it becomes necesary, and the current list is short. — siro χ o 11:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC) NPOV and WP:INDISCRIMINATE . The section Video assistant referee#Criticism already violates WP:Controversy sections , so we shouldn't be adding more problems to that article either. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 11:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Trivial for wikipedia. Abhishek0831996 ( talk ) 12:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex / Rational 15:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They've made four apologies? I can't see the need for this list. I'm not ever sure what PGMOL is. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Referees and other sports officials make mistakes all the time, and these are only the apologies that have been publicly announced (I presume by the offended club). What makes these particular apologies notable? This seems to be WP:LISTCRUFT and is a prime example of WP:NOT . — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Not encyclopedic at all. Grahaml35 ( talk ) 17:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"AI Constitution : The concept of an ""AI Constitution"" is a construct originated by this startup company. It lacks widespread recognition within the academic community and has only been reported by certain media outlets such as Engadget . 日期20220626 ( talk ) 00:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC) 桃花影落飞神剑 on Chinese Wikipedia. I believe the reason he put forth are worthy of discussion. 日期20220626 ( talk ) 00:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Philosophy , Products , and Computing . Skynxnex ( talk ) 01:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ 日期20220626 Could you kindly provide some reliable source that suggest the concept of ""AI Constitution"" is ""lacks widespread recognition within the academic community"", thanks a lot ! Cloud29371 ( talk ) 10:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Isn't it that the person advocating for ing the article should provide academic sources from the academic community to substantiate it? 日期20220626 ( talk ) 12:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am sorry, but it im afraid its the one who states something should provide evidence for their claims, not ask the opposing party to provide counter-claims for him. And as it happens i have already did provide the necessary evidence to disprove the claims made. Luroe ( talk ) 04:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No. Editors of an article have to prove that it is generally notable, not anyone else. Cortador ( talk ) 06:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, I think that the burden of proof should lie on those advocating for deletion, as in not to.shift it from the accuser to the accused, they should provide a clear reason with sufficient evidence for why the article lacks notability (no related google results, no necessary links/sources provided, etc) and not the editors being forced to ""prove that they are not a camel"" as the saying goes. On a related note, I did already provide a list of necessary and related sources that prove the article's notability to a sufficient degree. Luroe ( talk ) 07:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC) a list of publications that don't refer to it? a web search that doesn't return many results ? Perhaps the burden of proof should be on those arguing for a change -- in this case, deletion -- but it is not obvious to me what would verify lack of recognition. (By the way, I have no argument for or against deleting this article.) Cnilep ( talk ) 03:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC) lack of any results (as you already mentioned) and the fact that the writers of the article cant provide any of the reliable sources on the matter, all that in order to not shift the burden of proof onto the accused party from the accuser, otherwise we fear getting into the ""prove that you are not a camel"" territory. Luroe ( talk ) 06:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is a very serious allegation that Anthropic purposefully promotes its own ideas through Wikipedia. Do you have any sources to back that up? It would be a very controversial thing, worthy of a news article if that allegation was proven to be true. Personally, I think that everything stated without evidence can be freely discarded without evidence, and I cannot find a single good reason as to why would they exactly want to do it. There are far better and honest ways to raise awareness if they were truly conspired to do so. Secondly, im sorry but can you provide evidence for lack of recognition in the academic community? Constitutional AI and OpenAI's rule-based reward model (later development, very similar conceptually to CAI, RBRM for short) are an important advancements in the subfield of AI Alignment, currently they, along with RLHF, are the only two techniques that are used to align major AI systems. I think it would be extremely unusual to have an article on only one of them, while the other one is being ignored for whatever reason. Having found such a glaring oversight i decided to correct it. According to SemanticScholar the Anthropic's scientific paper that describes the invention of the CAI method has 165 citations, which puts in the top 1% of scientific papers ever written. So the idea that it has no recognition in academic community is simply ungrounded and provably false. And thirdly, it has not been ""only been reported by certain media outlets such as Engadget "" . It has been reported by many non-tech reputable and authoritative sources such as Forbes , New York Times , Reuters , Time , The Times of India , Business Insider's Morning Brew , Vox , The Australian and Observer . And even if it was primarily covered by tech-centered media, why would it be unacceptable that an innovation in a tech field is primarily covered by a tech-centered journals? I think it would only be fair not to expect CNN to report on video games and IGN not to report on the current presidential run of a certain candidate. I think all the evidence provided above are more than enough to factually dispel the presented concerns and prove them to be unfounded. Luroe ( talk ) 04:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . There are some reliable sources mentioning the AI, but they all seems to be primarily about Anthropic, not the AI specifically. The article is also written entirely by a user named Luroe, who may be affiliated with Athropic. Opinion : The Concept and technique of ""AI Constitution"" or ""Artificial Intelligence Constitution"" are very exciting and very important in the field of artificial intelligence and ethics, and has high potential to become a general research area. But the problem of this article focusing too much on Anthropic perspective make it look like advertising. However the AI Constitution is very new technique and concept, it has only less than 1 year, so we need to be patient and wait more other party research and develop on this area. Cloud29371 ( talk ) 07:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then the article should discuss a general problem and cover a range of proposals, rather than promoting a single concept from a start-up. Some exemplary articles can be Ethics of artificial intelligence and Existential risk from artificial general intelligence . 桃花影落飞神剑 ( talk ) 13:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Deletion . Firstly, the statement ""165 citations, which puts in the top 1% of scientific papers ever written"" is an over-promoted way to describe academic papers. There are tons of machine learning papers that have such numbers of citations. Secondly, the concept proposed by this start-up has not yet been recognized by any main-stream scientific society in their outlines, such as AAAI, IEEE, or ACM. Thirdly, it was not accepted by any countries as their regulations even laws. It received media reports mainly because it is a new start-up got lots of funds. -- 桃花影落飞神剑 ( talk ) 13:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This is an absurd, arbitrary and frivolous reason for deletion. It was stated that it supposedly lacks academic recognition, I have provided a counter-argument and proved it wrong by using the numbers of citations which is incredibly high (1% of scientific papers, which already disproves the notion that there are ""tons"" of papers like this, there aren't: it's 1%). Secondly, we cannot expect for AAAI, IEEE, or ACM to unanimously endorse or adopt this method this quickly, it does not happen this fast. To say that this method is not worthy of its own article considering its already an industry standard with two out of three frontier large language models using it: OpenAI with its use of RBRM and Claude with its use of eponymous CAI (we currently do not know what kind of alignment techniques Google's Bard, the third frontier model, uses and I give myself no liberty to assume use of any specific AI alignment technique without proper evidence of which we currently have none) would be incredibly cavil. Thirdly, we can say the same, or perhaps even substantially more, about laws and regulations of different countries, laws are infamously slow in their development, passing and adoption. As to my knowledge there are NO existing laws that concern the AI Alignment sphere and VERY few laws on AI in general in the whole world due to how new and innovative the whole field is, especially the field of AI alignment. All of the current proposals for AI laws are incredibly high-level and do not discuss or mandate/order the usage of any particular technique. I do not think that it is reasonable to demand for an article's subject to be mandated by law lest it be d from Wikipedia, that is an extremely high bar for a Wikipedia article of any kind. - Thirdly, the assumption that all of the articles written on Constitutional AI method are written so ""because it is a new start-up got lots of funds"" is simply baselessly untrue, more than that: provably not true. If you'd actually read the all of the sources that I have provided both here and in the article itself you would see that they do mention that it is a startup (which should not be a reason for immediate dismissal of the notability of their accomplishments) that got funded by Google, but the main part of the article after that backdrop is presented is either about the Constitutional AI method or about both Anthrophic and the Constitutional AI method that they pioneered. Let us substantiate our claims and prove this factually. Lets start with a Forbes article on the Constitutional AI method of alignment. The fact of funding is mentioned once in the 10th paragraph as a quick sidenote. The rest of the article is strictly about the Constitutional AI method. You can go and check that yourself. Lets take another article: one from ArsTechnica , it doesn't mention the funding at all, and is also about the method of Constitutional AI alignment. Once again, feel free to fact-check my claims. And lets take a third article: the one from New York Times . The funding is mentioned, mentioned twice, first as background information, secondly as part of more of a detailed look at its past. The rest of the entire article is about Anthropic and its method of Constitutional AI, there are 38 paragraphs in this article, only two of them are about funding, 9 are about the method of Constitutional AI. It is clear which one is more important between the two. You can go and check all that yourself. To conclude. Constitutional AI has received substantive coverage in reputable publications for its technical merits - not just because of funding news, which was presented exclusively as a backdrop. - To conclude, the standards that you've set are incredibly high and would put around 80% of Wikipedia articles at risk of deletion. Your reasons for deletion are arbitrary, absurd and frivolous, for instance the fact that it hasn't been accepted as part of regulatory norm is true, but not a good reason to warrant deletion, as it does not prove the lack of notability. Please, read the pinned primers. None of your reasons align with Wikipedia's reasons for deletion. And secondly, the article in question DOES meet all the necessary criteria for existence. It IS notable enough, as proven by a number of reliable secondary sources reporting on it in detail. Moreover, in the Wikipedia primer "" Help:My article got nominated for deletion! "" it is stated that "" On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source . "" I believe i provided more than that. That should be more than enough to prove its notability. I believe if we were to follow your procedures the Wikipedia would be reduced substantially few article, which is not exactly a good thing considering its not a place for only extremely important things, but for things notable enough, and not notable to the highest degree there is. I think it is clear that the article should stay as there are no objective grounds for deletion. The grounds that have been presented here do not conform to Wikipedia standards, and there are more than enough notability and recognition for article's subject. Luroe ( talk ) 16:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We're not a PR host; other companies have to take up and agree to the same thing, and it's not even an original work by any means, just taking things from other mission statements which are themselves PR creations. Nate • ( chatter ) 16:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. I'm sorry but I do not see how this is a PR article by any means at all, it describes the AI Constitution as a concept, including its background and technical details. The language itself isn't even alluding to any PR. Luroe ( talk ) 17:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It's one company putting out something to try to gain publicity for something they wrote with no input from anyone else. It's the very definition of public relations. Nate • ( chatter ) 18:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please stop implying and insinuating that I am working for or in any way related to Anthropic or that I wrote this article with Anthropic's direction. I am in NO way related or affiliated with Anthropic. I wrote this article because, as I already said previously here, there are currently two AI Alignment techniques that are used to align frontier LLMs: RLHF and CAI. I noticed a fact that there exist an article on only one of them, while the other technique is left unshown, I decided to change that fact, as I believe it is obviously notable enough and important enough in the AI Alignment subfield to be allowed to have its own article. That is it. No malice or foul play here. - And if you do want to accuse me of such foul-play please, provide at least some evidence that I have at least tangible or even circumstantial connection to that company or anyone who has ever worked there. I assure you you will provide none, I am more than certain of that, as certain as a man can be that you wont be able to do it because there is none . There is no malice here. It is just an important development in AI alignment methods that warranted its own article for that. That is it. I am not an Anthropic employee or contractor or PR manager or marketer. Just a person that is interested in AI safety and noticed a flaw and decided to change it. I have no other idea how can I prove that I am not affiliated with them or that I have no ill-intent behind my article. I just wanted to fill the gap that I saw in Wikipedia in the area that I am into, that's it. Luroe ( talk ) 14:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC) please do not have multiple bold ! votes in a single discussion. You already voted above, so I'd suggest debolding and striking out this second one. Comment as you like, within reason, but just a single ! vote; see WP:AFDFORMAT for the general guidelines. Thanks. Skynxnex ( talk ) 21:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is just promotion by Anthropic , the idea hasn't caught on outside the company. Tercer ( talk ) 12:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] First of all, can you provide any evidence that it is just a promotion by Anthropic and not something else? That is a very strong and serious assumption, and I believe that such strong assumptions and accusations must be followed by at least some evidence backing them. Like i said previously in this thread before, I DO NOT work for Antropic's PR team! NOT affiliated with them in any kind, have not met a single Anthropic employee in my entire life and have absolutely no, even circumstantial relation to them in any single way except maybe by being interested in the AI safety subfield of science as well. I made this article because as I said previously in this thread I have noticed that there exists a gap in the Wikipedia's list of AI alignment methods and decided to fill it. That is it, no foul play or any hidden agenda. That's it. I genuinely don't know how else I can prove that I don't work for Anthropic and that I really wrote this article because I really do believe that such an important and notable advancement should have its own, even if short, article. That I truly did it because I honestly thought that such a notable, at least in the AI safety sphere, method deserved its own article, and not out of some hidden commercial malicious intent. - Secondly, as I already mentioned in my previous reply in this thread, the idea of an AI Constitution have caught outside the company, especially considering the fact that it existed in its rudimentary and experimental form in Google DeepMind's Sparrow and now also exist in OpenAI's GPT model in the form of RBRM. - And thirdly, it doesn't have to catch on outside the company to be deemed notable enough to allow the existence of its own article. As I already shown before with the amount of sources there is enough notability for such an article to exist. That is an arbitrary requirement. Luroe ( talk ) 15:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PR dressed up with a spurious footnote to Asimov is still PR. XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How is it PR? It's a working and notable AI Alignment method as proven by the number of secondary reliable sources and the fact that it has been used by DeepMind and OpenAI. It definitely deserves its own article. As I have previously stated here multiple times before, I am in no way related or working with the direction of Anthropic. I am an unrelated party that just noted the absence of this obviously quite a notable technique on Wikipedia and decided to change that fact, i had no intention of marketing something and you can see it in the article itself if you read it. The article itself is simply a description of what that method is, how it works, what problems and critiques it has, along with background. The core content of the article provides a neutral, factual overview of an emerging AI technique of Constitutional AI, all based on reliable sources. How is it necessarily PR? Is it PR because it describes a concept/method that is clearly notable and an important development in the sphere of AI safety? How exactly can I make it not PR? Not to write about it? But it's clearly notable enough to allow its existence on Wikipedia, and, in my personal opinion, notable enough not only to allow its existence on wikipedia, but to warrant it. The reference to Asimovs three laws of robotics that are present in the background section are there to demonstrate that the concept of encoding principles into AI systems does have historical precedents and did not just originate from Anthropic. This is done to put the Constitutional AI method in the broader context of the field of AI safety research. The goal of the page was never promote Anthropic itself, but to document the academic concept and current research around Constitutional AI. The technique has received substantive coverage for its technical merits, not just PR. Luroe ( talk ) 07:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not a good idea to reply to every 'Delete' comment, especially if you are repeating arguments you made previously. See WP:BLUDGEON . HenryMP02 ( talk ) 02:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning . This reminds me of the Tesla ""Master Plan"" article. While it has some substance (reinforcement learning using LLM feedback rather than human feedback) I'm not convinced it needs its own article, or that it should be presented as an Anthropic invention rather than a generic concept. DFlhb ( talk ) 08:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Anthropic . This article is clearly promotional to be honest, the arXiv ref it overly relies on seems WP:PRIMARY and is not considered a WP:RS anyway. Many of the other articles do not even refer to the subject, they discuss ""Constitutional AI"" instead which is basically a marketing term for the company. However some of the material and refs can still be salvaged to improve the company's article, which is the more appropriate place for this to be covered at present. - Indefensible ( talk ) 05:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Certainly seems to meet WP:GNG : Source assessment table: prepared by User:HenryMP02 Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback Paper written by Anthropic ✘ No Anthropic thinks ‘constitutional AI’ is the best way to train models Article by tech journalist; he doesn't appear to be affiliated with the company ~ TechCrunch; See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#TechCrunch . Whole article is about the topic ~ Partial How Anthropic Is Teaching AI the Difference Between Right and Wrong Author uses ""content marketing... to raise revenue for Marketing AI Institute"" ✘ No AI startup Anthropic wants to write a new constitution for safe AI Independent reporter The Verge; Green at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Verge Partially about the company, but covers the topic in detail ✔ Yes Claude's Constitution Anthropic ✘ No Inside the White-Hot Center of A.I. Doomerism Independent reporter New York Times Several paragraphs about the topic ✔ Yes Latest Generative AI Boldly Labeled As Constitutional AI Such As Claude By Anthropic Has Heart In The Right Place, Says AI Ethics And AI Law ~ Forbes ""contributor"", appears to be independent . Edit: ""AI Consultant"", hmm... Forbes Third-party ""contributor"", questionable oversight Most of the article is about the topic ✘ No AI gains “values” with Anthropic’s new Constitutional AI chatbot approach Reporter who appears to be independent Ars Technica; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Ars Technica Article is about the topic ✔ Yes A Radical Plan to Make AI Good, Not Evil Independent writer Wired; see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Wired Article is about the topic ✔ Yes This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Stopped after the 9th source, when it seemed clear to me that the subject is notable. However, the article does seem like it written like an advertisement. This promotional tone should be fixed. HenryMP02 ( talk ) 02:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think a problem with your assessment is that not a single reference you evaluated as meeting actually specifically calls out the subject by name, they are discussing ""Constitutional AI"" but not ""AI constitution"" which are seemingly related but different subjects. ""Constitutional AI"" is just a marketing term for Anthropic. None of these sources actually cover ""AI constitution"" which is what the article is supposed to be for. - Indefensible ( talk ) 05:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In my opinion, both names refer to the same topic. HenryMP02 ( talk ) 06:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Demetrio Cortes : TheNuggeteer ( talk ) 08:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , Politics , and Philippines . TheNuggeteer ( talk ) 08:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Found a couple passing mentions in books, but nothing to establish WP:NBIO . Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 13:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs ) 09:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Explore Learning : The coverage from Mumsnet was clearly promotional in nature, and the coverage from UK Business Tech Awards did not establish how the company is notable either. Searching online, I only located one ad on the Telegraph and multiple trivial mentions. Does not seem to pass WP:NCORP . Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 15:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Education , and United Kingdom . Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 15:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unfortunately, no sources found for this entity. They seem like a decent outfit, I just can't find any supporting documents. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Quite a lot of sources on the school [1] , seems to meet WP:GNG. 33ABGirl ( talk ) 06:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I found numerous sources discussing the opening of new branches ( [2] , [3] ), an interview ( [4] ), a somewhat non-trivial mention on an article about tuition ( [5] ) and some bdaily articles ( [6] [7] [8] ). I'm unsure of the reliability of bdaily as it seems to be a form of content marketing site, but the reference to the company being on the Sunday Times ""Best Big Company To Work For"" list starts to build a picture of notability. But none of these are what led me to my vote, as they are all a little schmoozy. Instead, I'm voting because of this Telegraph article which is not only non-trivial coverage, but also critical , which ameliorates the promotional tone of the others. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 07:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changed vote after discussion below. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 07:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Still have sources about new branches opening. CastJared ( talk ) 11:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC) NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* . ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject . In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified or reworded. The ! voters above appear to have based their ! voters on; 1) The quantity of sources; 2) Sources based on announcements, interviews and PR; 3) Source that rely entirely on information provided by the company/execs; and 4) Mere mentions and/or inclusions in a list. None of those references meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 20:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A Times article , A Guardian article … I think that plus the Telegraph article makes at least three sources meeting the NCORP criteria. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 21:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Times ""article"" in an infomercial for the most part which relies totally on a ""customer"" testimonial and an interview with the CEO. There's no ""Independent Content"" and it fails ORGIND The Guardian article is mostly a series of anecdotes from parents who are ""customers"" and information from the company itself. There is insufficent in-depth information, outside of the anecdotes and the information about one of their locations, there's nothing that isn't available on their website, no independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc. Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. The Telegraph article has no in-depth information about the company which wasn't provided by the CEO in his rebuttal of a criticism. Also fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. HighKing ++ 22:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On what basis are you accusing the Times article of being an infomercial and why the scare quotes around customer? Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 22:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies, I meant to say it was advertorial (although infomercial isn't exactly wrong either) for the most part. It uses ""customer"" testimonials to promote a positive view of the company as well as quotes/info from the company. I use quotes around the word ""customer"" to highlight that the parents of the children attending the school are customers providing a positive testimonial and are therefore not unconnected to the subject company. Rather than taking umbridge at my wording, I think you'll agree the article fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability as it contains no in-depth information which is ""Independent Content"" (as per WP:SIRS ). HighKing ++ 13:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see any evidence that the article is an advertorial. Giving a positive account of a subject doesn't imply that money changed hands. I also don't agree that an interviewee having a customer relationship with the subject implies that the article is not independent. It doesn't seem unusual that an article about a company should interview customers of that company, and if the customer gives a positive testimonial, that doesn't automatically taint the independence of the article. It would be a problem if the author of the article interviewed many customers and only selected the positive ones, but we don't have any evidence either way on that, and the fact that The Times is generally treated as a reliable source with editorial standards should indicate a degree of integrity in content published as an article. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 16:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Customer testimonials are considered Primary sources. In the ""Secondary Sources"" subsection of ORGIND, it says A primary source is original material that is close to an event, and is often an account written by people who are directly involved. Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. In a business setting, frequently encountered primary sources include: and goes on to list customer tesitominials or complaints . The Times is of course a reliable source, but that reliability and integrity extends to faithfully reproducing the material, whether an interview or quotation or information from a website. It does not imply the content meets our criteria for ""Independent Content"" or other content that meets our criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 12:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But we’re not using a primary source to establish notability, we’re using a secondary source that quotes several primary sources and puts them in context. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 15:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're missing the point. I'm saying there's no ""Independent Content"". You're saying you think a customer testimonial is independent. I'm pointing you to a part of the Guidelines which shows you that customer testimonials are not independent - so much so they are considered primary sources, that's how un-independent they are. I am not saying the article is a Primary source. I'm saying that the article doesn't contain Independent Content and customer testimonials are not Independent Content. HighKing ++ 10:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not saying customer testimonials are independent, I'm saying the Times article is independent. We're not using the customer testimonial as the source. We are using the Times article as the source. The Times article uses several primary sources, not all of which are customer testimonials, to which the author adds her own observations and analysis, seemingly based on a visit to the centre. The article combines the primary sources, including the non-independent ones, puts them in context and offers points and counterpoints from two headteachers. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 13:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you've wrapped your head around Alpha3031c's explanation below better than mine. He is correct and it is what I was trying to help you understand but I think my advertorial label threw you into a different thought process. HighKing ++ 16:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not really satisified with the current THREE wrt CORPDEPTH, even if they are much better than ""new branches opening"" which might be the most ""standard notices"" of standard notices, but I intend review in more detail if there are any plausible sources not yet linked tommorow, so reserving my judgement until then. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 14:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [9] - here's another article of very similar structure to the Times one. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 13:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC) ORGIND we do want the content to be independent as well. My interpretation would be closer to HighKing's for that reason. Once you take out the direct quotes and other clearly attributed content, well... there just isn't very much left is there? From the Times article, I'd say the two paragraphs (the ones before and containing the second mention) are maybe usable from that perspective if we squint a little, and that's 6 sentences, but it doesn't really have enough context to extract much. Like, yes ok we'll write something about SuccessMaker into the article, what will be the actual content? They do computer stuff? I haven't found anything better either so far, this Guardian article might have been worth taking a look at but I'd say the ones you've found are better. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 15:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We only need enough to establish notability. Article content can come from sources that we haven't put forward as notability-establishing, such as [10] and [11] (archive link: [12] ). There are lots of little articles like these - not SIGCOV by themselves, but coverage is sustained across decades. We can even use the non-independent content as article content with caution (noncontroversial details). Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 18:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A qualifying source is required to address the subject directly and in detail, it is not possible to use a source to establish notability if it does not provide sufficient context to write some content. The sources I've found do not meet WP: CORPDEPTH so this is a from me. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 01:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I suppose you’re right. I’ll change my vote. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 07:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC) NCORP applies, however is not met. Karnataka ( talk ) 20:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"E Desktop : Fails WP:GNG . UtherSRG (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software . UtherSRG (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , not notable. Artem. G ( talk ) 07:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Paul Hourican (businessman) : Many of the sources are not indepth about Hourican as a person failing WP:SIGCOV but include him merely talking about the company he works for. Many of the sources are not entirely independent as they are tech related media. Fails WP:BIO . LibStar ( talk ) 04:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Computing , and Ireland . LibStar ( talk ) 04:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC) NOTCV , doesn't appear especially notable - ran a company that bought out a couple of others then got acquired itself. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC) GNG . Spleodrach ( talk ) 17:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"C.I.D. Investigators : Could to List of Catch-22 characters as AtD JMWt ( talk ) 09:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . JMWt ( talk ) 09:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC) NOTPLOT and WP:SIGCOV both apply if this hasn't earned enough reception in reliable independent sources. Older books like this can sometimes have hidden coverage deep in other print sources, but WP:BEFORE indicates there isn't enough to separate this topic from the main book article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 21:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , no coverage. Neocorelight ( Talk ) 06:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Scarborough Rugby League Festival : I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 16 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 13:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Rugby league , and England . Owen× ☎ 14:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Non-notable tournament with minimal coverage. J Mo 101 ( talk ) 14:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Riyadh School of Tourism and Hospitality : I don’t think this organisation is yet notable. Mccapra ( talk ) 21:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism , Education , and Saudi Arabia . Mccapra ( talk ) 21:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Raw Deal (card game) : Of the four sources cited, only two are independent, and neither appears to include anything approaching the level of significant coverage necessary to meet Wikipedia notability criteria. Almost all the content is entirely unsourced, and consists of a how-to guide for playing the game, rather than anything approaching secondary-sourced encyclopaedic commentary. A Google search finds nothing that might rectify the problems. In short, non-notable fancruft. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 12:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions . AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 12:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC) PROMO for a defunct card game, with primary sourcing used. There might be coverage in the Dummies book, but we'd need more than that. I don't find anything, and it's been almost 20 yrs now, likely nothing else will be found. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC) If it makes a difference, there are some links in the ""Further reading"" section about articles found in Scrye . BOZ ( talk ) 16:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One of the articles was written by ""Barron Vangor Toth, Raw Deal co-designer"", and is clearly not an independent source. The remaining two actually say very little regarding the merits of the game, or anything else of consequence to anyone not already intimately familiar with it. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 19:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"ISA World Junior Surfing Games Ecuador : Instead, the article is a collection of scattered facts about Surfing in Ecuador , which an article already exists for. There also seems to be a lot of WP:OR , not to mention that the ""Surfing in Ecuador"" section is plagiarized from the article of the same name. JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Ecuador . JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Awn Hussain Al Khashlok : No independent reliable sources anywhere. 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Iraq , and Greece . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] not a single source in Greek. Totally unknown ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη ( talk ) 00:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Portuguese in Latvia : Cordless Larry ( talk ) 07:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups , Latvia , and Portugal . Cordless Larry ( talk ) 07:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] this latest iteration in the 'Portuguese in the Falkland Islands' etc articles. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 07:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] seriously man, the article says ""0.004%"" of the Latvian population is Portuguese. A community of 70 people is clearly not notable. AryKun ( talk ) 12:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] not enough here or sufficiently notable to warrant an article or satisfy GNG. I note there is an article called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_people#Portuguese_diaspora in need of work that could reasonable incorporate a sentence or a line in a table on Latvia. Hmee2 ( talk ) 18:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as non-notable. There is no Latvia–Portugal relations , too. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 10:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Jo Jong-chul : Simione001 ( talk ) 02:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 02:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 02:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 02:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 10:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] —Nothing here. Clearly fails WP:SIGCOV . Anwegmann ( talk ) 22:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC) I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV . JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bahri Tufina : Note that the current sources in the article mention other members of the Tufina family, but not Bahri himself. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Albania . Shellwood ( talk ) 22:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article does not lack in coverage. With the current information that is available and trusted, I have created this document. To say it lacks in depth coverage you should be more specific as to what aspect it does and not only throw words. With more information coming to light, this page might be updated and the extra information can be added. Family members are only mentioned to reinforce Bahri Tufina connection to his family and watchemaking in general. Also they are mentioned because Bahri Tufina has worked with them as partners or have had them as mentors. MuhamedK10 ( talk ) 08:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Three out of the four cited sources never mentioned the subject, and the one that did only mentioned him in passing. Found no significant coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO . Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 16:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as explained above, sourcing not mentioning the subject, rest of the sources are of poor quality. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ZERO hits in Gnews or Gnewspapers. I would have expected someone as well-known as the article claims to have some sort of coverage when they passed away, there isn't. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Bosnian names of primate families : Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [ T / C ] 17:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Animal , Lists , and Bosnia and Herzegovina . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC) NOTDIRECTORY . LizardJr8 ( talk ) 22:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Way out of scope. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 05:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC) NOTDIRECTORY and violation of WP:DICDEF . Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] along with most of the exonym lists! —Tamfang ( talk ) 17:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC) Ummm... This is pretty much WP:DICT . Don't think this is comparable to the exonym lists, though. Aintabli ( talk ) 05:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - violates everything, actually. Utterly non-encyclopedic. Geschichte ( talk ) 18:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - in 2024, everybody knows we are not a directory. Bearian ( talk ) 18:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Scilla Sclanizza : Southati ( talk ) 11:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , and Women . Southati ( talk ) 11:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No news coverage. does not satisfy WP:NACTOR . Perfectstrangerz ( talk ) 01:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Verseone : McMatter ( talk ) / ( contrib ) 04:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Business , and United States of America . McMatter ( talk ) / ( contrib ) 04:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Internet , and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC) NCORP . Sources are press releases or sponsored content so not independent. I checked Google News but did not find any independent reliable sources. S0091 ( talk ) 13:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Juhor ad-Dik ambush : Moreover, half of the sources are unreliable. Article fails both Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability . Mikrobølgeovn ( talk ) 21:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 19 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 21:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC) NOTNEWS . As it is, the sources don't really establish any enduring notability, and do in fact only seem to be reporting on unverified claims by Al-Qassam Brigades. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 21:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In what way are the claims made not notable? Genabab ( talk ) 21:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Israel , and Palestine . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 21:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As this is an article I wrote, I believe (according to rule.4 on the ""How to Contribute"" section) I should say there may be a COI? I have no other relation to the event outside of that of course. At any rate, saying the article is a 'recycling of Hamas propaganda' is a dishonest framing. The article goes through pains to state that the claims being made, are in fact claims from Hamas. That is not biased. Hamas is at the end of the day making these claims. Furthermore, the deaths of 60 IDF soldiers in one ambush is very much notable, seeing as how other attacks like the Shuja'iyya ambush, which claimed the lives of 9 IDF soldiers, remain. Genabab ( talk ) 22:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're not getting it. The notability that you're referring to rests entirely on Hamas' claims , which have not been verified. Since you mention it, I encourage you to take a look at the Shuja'iyya ambush and note the differences between that article and this one. Mikrobølgeovn ( talk ) 22:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC) Mikrobølgeovn > which have not been verified. This is not entirely true: Quoting from the following source: https://www.newarab.com/news/hamas-releases-video-showing-israeli-camp-attack ""The video comes two days after the Qassam Brigades claimed a major attack on an Israeli encampment south of Gaza City. ""At dawn today, the Qassam fighters were able to monitor the positioning of dozens of occupation soldiers (60 soldiers) inside tents at their positioning point east of Juhr al-Deek,"" the statement claimed."" Now I know that you will claim this is not enough, as it is only Al-Qassam making the claim. Really this isn't a problem, since the source stresses that it is only al-Qassam making the claim. HOWEVER! ""Israel has not confirmed the attack but did reveal the names of at least seven soldiers killed in fighting around Gaza since Sunday. Details on army casualties are subject to strict army censorship."" Hamas publishes what is clearly a video of an attack on the IDF, (see above). The IDF then does not comment on the attack but does say seven soldiers died. As a compromise I propose the addition of 7 (per IDF) (after all, the IDF's claims are no more reliable than Hamas') in the casualties list. Genabab ( talk ) 23:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . While events within a war certainly can be notable, in this case it is questionable if the event ever happened. It could be an invention to boast Hamas funding, support, and morale. Hence we work by SIGCOV in RS. gidonb ( talk ) 23:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Videos have been published of the attack in question, as was brought up on the talk page of the wikipage in question. The question is less if the attack happened, and more how many died. While Israel hasn't commented specifically the IDF did publish casualties of 7 killed. Genabab ( talk ) 01:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article indeed claims that there are 7 casualties according to Israel. I followed the source. It's a website called ""The New Arab"". That is not an Israeli source is it? This is the text on which you base your claim above: Israel has not confirmed the attack but did reveal the names of at least seven soldiers killed in fighting around Gaza since Sunday. Details on army casualties are subject to strict army censorship. So this event has never been confirmed and we have no RS that this ever happened. And these seven casualties (if correct) needn't be casualties of this supposed battle. They'd be Israeli casualties in the Northern Gaza Strip over a certain time span. The Hamas movie, doctored by the creators, appears to show soldiers somewhere and sometime at a camp. That's not a valid source AND not proof of ANY ambush, in the article specific in space and time. Hence I will add WP:OR and WP:SYNTH templates to the article. To the closing person: these are additional reasons why this article should be d and speedied. OR and SYNTH cause huge damage to the reputation of WP. gidonb ( talk ) 01:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I never said it was an Israeli source. Is it wrong to say that the point the article is making is that these 7 casualties are tied to the ambush, or that the video is from the ambush as well? I'm not sure how that could fall under synth or original research... Genabab ( talk ) 09:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We do not create articles based on inferences in Hamas movies. Nor ISIS movies or Al Qaeda movies or Boko Haram movies. We're an encyclopedia not a clown show. The fact that this is not a movie of any battle only makes things worse. gidonb ( talk ) 10:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Article is based on a single unverified and rather fantastical claim by one of the parties, which has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Compare to the ambush in Shuja'iya, which was readily admitted to by Israel. PrimaPrime ( talk ) 01:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . gidonb ( talk ) 02:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . This is speculation and otherwise just a bit of bit of WP history and coincidence. Around 2004, I detected my first major hoax at Enwiki. It was a clever multi-article plot with themes borrowed from the central garbage dump of Israel (now the Ariel Sharon Park ) and the Israeli-Palestinian conflct. We're some 19 years further, yet Juhor ad-Dik is the central garbage dump of Gaza. By the Juhor ad-Dik creator, I also detected a questionable article of USSR/British history and there are some red flags on their talk page. I have asked for an expert opinion at the other article. gidonb ( talk ) 06:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2023 Israel–Hamas war . Not every component of this atrocious war is independently notable. Even if it did happen exactly as Hamas claims (I have no opinion on that; please consider that a blanket caveat to the rest of this !vote), it is far WP:TOOSOON to tell whether this supposed ambush will prove to have an enduring WP:EFFECT independent of the overall war. For this particular article, the sources are WP:PRIMARYNEWS ; no secondary analysis of this portion of the attack has ed; in-depth analysis does not exist at all yet; and the reporting around this element of the attack has not been WP:SUSTAINED outside the one-week window around the purported event. If it happened and the sources evolve to explain it, the event should be covered in appropriate detail in the parent article. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC) If is not the accepted consensus, please consider me a ! vote; my reasons for merging are identical to reasons I would propose for deletion. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 16:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Appears to be a minor battle with little to no coverage; what's used for sourcing isn't in RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . No Israeli RS has reported on this nor has any other non-Hamas news agency reported on this (CNN, BBC, Reuters, AP, etc.). 60 soldiers killed in a single attack is not something that can be kept secret in a country like Israel so I very much doubt this even happened. Regarding the video, all we see is one video where someone is taking a very close video of soldiers, and a second video of an explosion from far away. There is nothing in that video that can confirm those two videos are from the same event. This seems like propaganda and fake news from Hamas. Until non-Hamas RS report this, this should be d and its content not d into any article. Gonnym ( talk ) 19:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . No GNG. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 00:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per WP:V . The primary source of this article, ""Mehr News Agency"" is owned by the Iranian government and not WP:RS . The Turkish news agency ""AA"" source only quotes a Hamas press release verbatim, see WP:PRSOURCE - ""Press releases cannot be used to support claims of notability"". Marokwitz ( talk ) 15:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Ari Rennert : No WP:SIGCOV or WP:RS about him, only claim to fame is taking over the business that his notable father started, but WP:NOTINHERITED . Longhornsg ( talk ) 06:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , Finance , and United States of America . — Karnataka talk 08:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. The article also only has a single source. -- TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 00:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . There is plenty out there to meet WP:SIGCOV if one searches for Ari Rennert Renco . It appears that the nominator and TheLonelyPather may not have looked for these sources, per WP:BEFORE . AfD is not clean-up! It should also be noted that the article has had 1,875 pageviews in the last 30 days, so our readers are interested in the subject. Edwardx ( talk ) 23:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC) , I did do a WP:BEFORE , which comes up with no WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS that is not about the subject's father, who does have [[WP:GNG], or the company itself. If I'm missing something, please share. Longhornsg ( talk ) 03:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. If you have found sources that represent SIGCOV, please share links to them so other editors can assess them. Being vague and saying sources are out there is not an indication that, as avowed, these sources exist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
+"Flamenco: Fire and Grace: Only source is associated with label. Answers.com 'source' is inexplicable, really. Not a notable compilation. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Found an AllMusic review , but nothing else that wasn't ads or brief mentions. And with nothing else, I say to Narada Productions , though it might be worth a section on that page since it's also quite bare bones. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 21:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , with Narada Productions . SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 09:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 00:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm willing to support an explicit vote as well, though given how few participants are here I do worry it might not get done in a timely manner. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 12:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Captain's chair: As far as I can see, whilst there are plenty of references to a ""captain's chair"" there doesn't appear to be any general acceptance of what it is beyond being a chair the the captain of a ship/aircraft/spaceship sits in. May the sources exist but I can't find them - if nobody else can, I suggest WP:TNT until someone can find sources to write a coherent and sourced page. JMWt ( talk ) 10:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I don't see why it should have its own article (see WP:NOTDICT ). Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . As the text makes clear, I think, a Captain's Chair isn't ""a chair the the captain of a ship/aircraft/spaceship sits in"", but a specific type of chair of the general Windsor type, though larger and often more ornate. The term is standardly used in the furniture and antiques trade. I hadn't realised that footnotes were necessary for a Wikipedia article (I'm still unclear as to why, if references are provided at the end). If a dictionary definition isn't sufficient to verify the meaning of a term, I'm not sure what is.. . The ebay reference indicates the fact that the term is standardly used — there are many other antiques and furniture sites that confirm this, but I thought that just one would suffice (especially as it includes a reasonably good account of the type). ""until someone can find sources to write a coherent and sourced page"". If you could point out any incoherencies, I can attempt to rectify them. If the dictionary definition and relevant commercial sites don't count as adequate sources, could you let me know what sort of sources would count, and I can see what I can do. The page was, peculiarly, a to an article on a piece of exercise equipment, which is certainly not the primary use of the term. Indeed, of the three uses, this one is most common, followed by """"a chair the the captain of a ship/aircraft/spaceship sits in"", followed as a distant third by the exercise equipment. Bibliosporias ( talk ) 11:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just writing things does not make them true. If you don't understand the importance of WP:V , you have no business writing text in mainspace JMWt ( talk ) 12:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm struggling to see where I said or even implied that writing something makes it true. As with the article itself (a first attempt by an inexperienced editor -- thanks for the encouragement, by the way), you seem not to be reading very carefully, but instead reacting rather emotionally. Bibliosporias ( talk ) 20:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You said quote "" As the text makes clear, I think, a Captain's Chair isn't ""a chair the the captain of a ship/aircraft/spaceship sits in"", but a specific type of chair of the general Windsor type, though larger and often more ornate."" unquote. As the text makes clear is literally making a the text of a page, that you wrote, a reason for ing it. That's not how it works here. Everything claimed here must be verified by citations to Reliable Sources, that's a fundamental basis of Wikipedia. We don't just make claims and think that by writing them down they become true. There are plenty of guides and help for writing pages, perhaps you should read them. JMWt ( talk ) 03:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or with Windsor Chair . This [23] at 167 has a brief discussion of the Captain's chair. And this [24] has a nice description of the chair (but not a picture). I'm puzzled by the deletion rationale. Reading the article, it's clear it's not describing a chair for captains for vessels. Captain's Chair, BTW, is certainly a name for a piece of gym equipment used for for leg raises, or a leg raise exercise. Not sure if it's more common or less common, but it came up immediately when I searched. Oblivy ( talk ) 12:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your source 1 is not just brief , it's a passing sentence without a other detail whatsoever. The second simply says that it is another name for a Windsor chair. I don't understand how you think this is substantial coverage in Reliable Sources to satisfy the WP:GNG nor how this is in any sense a rationale for ! rather than a somewhere else. . JMWt ( talk ) 12:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's fair. I guess I was trying to be helpful in providing additional sources rather than claiming I'd found the key to overcome GNG objections, and at some point ""comment"" became """". This [25] is more substantial but I'm not logged in so I can't see if it goes beyond a single page). It's an extremely common category of chair, often found in pubs and libraries, probably because it's more sturdy than a spindle-back Windsor. I know that's very WP:ILIKEIT but I think common sense doesn't call for deletion even if we can't find an essay-length description. Oblivy ( talk ) 13:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well that's how we assess notability on en.wiki. If there are no RS we can use for verification per WP:V the uncited information can be removed. If none of the content reflects published information, we the page. That's literally how it works. JMWt ( talk ) 14:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As true as that is, it's also policy that policies and guidelines should be ignored if they prevent us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. I made my vote, I think I'll stand by it. Oblivy ( talk ) 14:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC) A DICDEF, with no other sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd never thought of EBay as being a dictionary. I could have provided similar references to other dictionaries, like Chesterfield, but I don't suppose that that would have helped. Bibliosporias ( talk ) 20:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC) DICDEF is a policy of en.wikipedia which states that wikipedia is not a dictionary . Referencing other dictionaries is not going to help if there is nothing to say on the page beyond a dictionary definition. And if there are no sources that go into further depth that can be found, we can't include additional unsourced material. JMWt ( talk ) 04:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Chair#Types of chairs or Windsor chair . Dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster and Collins define it by its construction, so it is a thing, but there doesn't seem to be enough to warrant a standalone article. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 00:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I noted above, is a viable alternative to . May I ask if there's some reason not to into Windsor chair instead? It would fit better in the more specific article - as it is, there's no discussion of spindle-back chairs in the chair article now and this is a subtype. Oblivy ( talk ) 09:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Because none of the dictionary definitions mention its connection to a Windsor. However, I've modified my lvote. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 10:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or with Windsor chair . Tooncool64 ( talk ) 02:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Nassau County Soil and Water Conservation District: Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder ( talk ) 01:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , United States of America , and Florida . AusLondonder ( talk ) 01:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Nassau County, Florida . WP:ORGCRIT is the wrong set of criteria for evaluating a soil and water conservation district. Such a district is a part of local government with its own elected leaders, decision-making and finances, rather like the port authorities some cities have. In this case, relatively little information is available online, partly because any Google hits for it are hidden by the multiple hits for Nassau County Soil and Water Conservation District in Nassau County, New York state. The New York district probably could be its own article. The Florida district could be d into the article on its county. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 14:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Jacbern: Orphaned for a decade. Pepper Beast (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Artists , Music , and Mexico . Pepper Beast (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - No significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources. Morogris ( ✉ • ✎ ) 19:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , California , and Texas . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to The June Junes . See Mizell Brothers for a comparison. Mach61 ( talk ) 21:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to The June Junes , as above. Seems like a credible WP:ATD ""at this time"", although I can't say I am too sure about the long term viability of the target article either. Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 18:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"GE U25BE: By my analysis most of the citations are in regards to Southern Pacific 3100 specifically and not GE U25BE and even then 3100 is only touched on in passing. The citations that do cover GE U25BE specifically do so in passing as far as I can determine. I can not see how this passes WP:GNG . TarnishedPath talk 07:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Transportation . TarnishedPath talk 07:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC) It's another example of Rebuilt diesel locomotives besides its completely new y'know. 220.235.238.29 ( talk ) 07:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC) — 220.235.238.29 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] to GE U25B - clear target as AtD. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 08:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and to GE U25B . I'm not against separate articles for rebuilt locos, British Railways class 31 for an example, where we ignore a decade of service by the predecessor class 30, but they'd have to show independent notability. Otherwise a section in the parent article is a better solution, and a clearer read for our readers. Andy Dingley ( talk ) 13:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to GE U25B . I fail to see how a rebuild that ""updated electrical systems"" on two locomotives somehow merits its own article. In general, rebuilds are not generally notable the way regular locomotive classes are. There needs to be clear and substantial coverage independent of the original locomotive class for that, and we completely lack that here in favor of every single hit this IP found on Google, with sources they obviously did not actually access. For instance, the seemingly significant ""GE and EMD Locomotives: The Illustrated History"" actually only mentions the U25BE in passing, saying nothing of significance. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 21:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've also nominated Southern Pacific 3100 at AfD . TarnishedPath talk 01:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. No evidence of individual notability. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 02:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There were two made, and the rebuild was not very noteworthy. Merging it into the main article is the best option. BigSneeze444 ( talk ) 20:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Guidelines for Indian Government Websites: Sohom ( talk ) 20:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Internet , and India . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC) Sourcing is only to government websites/documents; basically explaining a technical standard to be followed. Nothing found outside of primary sources. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have given enough References to validate the source. Like ADA in USA, AODA in Canada, there are accessibility laws in every country and lately India comes with GIGW. Though I didn't rate myself as an expert in Wikipedia but I am expert in the subject matter. I can help improve the quality if this the reason of deletion but this article is absolutely necessary in Wikipedia. Shivaji Mitra (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC) 49.37.39.142 ( talk ) 06:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Shivaji Mitra (I assume that is your correct account) I will point out that neithier ADA or AODA have articles of their own. Also, we need third party sources to support each individual article, if there are not third party sources, it will be d. Regards Sohom ( talk ) 17:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC) https://www.w3.org/WAI/policies/india/ Laws are mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_accessibility ADA = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990 AODA = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessibility_for_Ontarians_with_Disabilities_Act,_2005 Philippines = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_accessibility_initiatives_in_the_Philippines UK = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_2010 etc.. 3rd Party references are given. Shivaji Mitra ( talk ) 17:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The W3CAI source is a good start, but you need atleast 3 third-party (i.e. not affliated with the Indian government) sources that discuss this guideline in depth. Notice how, for example the american law article has literal columns of references to other people, education institutions, supreme court cases, newspapers and such talking about the Disability guidelines. To show that GIGW is eligible for a article, you will need to show that these guidelines have been talked about in depth in India (or even outside India). Sohom ( talk ) 18:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Added 12 Authentic ""Sources"" to support the article. Shivaji Mitra ( talk ) 05:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Shivaji Mitra Those look like really good sources. I will look at them over this week and withdraw my nom if they fullfill the notability, which I think they will. I would just suggest using the sources as part of the page instead of as a list at the end. -- Sohom ( talk ) 15:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to consider new sources mentioned in discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 The ADA and AODA are enshrined laws in their respective jurisdictions, and the article title and content should reflect requirements specifically based on accessibility rather than voluntary guidelines which seem to be focused on corporate and design needs first (nobody outside standards orgs cares about quality focus or lifecycle management), rather than the user. Nate • ( chatter ) 00:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] summary into Web_accessibility#India . Owen× ☎ 00:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I'm happy to support a Merge/Redirect as well, on reviewing the sources I do see a lot of mentions (which is a good start) but not a lot of significant coverage of specifically these guidelines. Sohom ( talk ) 12:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 00:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Writing in the early Americas: Poorly sourced as well. Humsorgan ( talk ) 05:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . Humsorgan ( talk ) 05:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC) it's a bit much to say the article is ""poorly sourced"" when you removed all of the better sources before nominating for AfD. -- asilvering ( talk ) 06:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is fair criticism, but I only removed sources relating to the last third of the article because it seemed out of scope and had bits of original research. I think there is an even stronger case to be made for that version. I.e. it contained statements like ""Literacy was and still is a symbol of humanity, and freedom."" I only nominated the article after finding the other page. Humsorgan ( talk ) 09:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC) An earlier and longer version of the article can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Writing_in_the_early_Americas&oldid=1164964405 Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 07:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Mesoamerican writing systems . Seems to me that the topic here is notable and seems to be taking a slightly different tack to Mesoamerican writing systems - however I don't see a conceptual difference between the two pages, so presumably a in one direction or the other would be preferable to unnecessary forks. JMWt ( talk ) 08:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The article seems to want to be about 'Indigenous writing systems of the Americas' but since there is nothing that connects say Maya hieroglyphics with the Cherokee syllabary either historically or conceptually, it's sourceable, non-OR topic collapses to Mesoamerican writing systems of which it is a redundant fork and unlikely search term. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 02:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC) 39, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Embassy of the United States, Asmara: Fails WP:ORG . Note this article has d 6 months ago. LibStar ( talk ) 22:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Africa , and United States of America . LibStar ( talk ) 22:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] — not actually about the purported subject. — Biruitorul Talk 23:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC) not notable enough for a standalone page. Owen× ☎ 23:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"ZozoLala: Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be d, ed, or d. Find sources: ""ZozoLala"" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (September 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Mimi Ho Kora ( talk ) 01:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Authors , Arts , Language , Comics and animation , Entertainment , Ethnic groups , Popular culture , Europe , Belgium , and Netherlands . Mimi Ho Kora ( talk ) 01:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . Mimi Ho Kora ( talk ) 01:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions . Mimi Ho Kora ( talk ) 01:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC) BEFORE ... - jc37 02:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] procedural , without prejudice. The rationale is copied from a template, I am also concerned about a lack of WP:BEFORE . Thanks to others for completing a BEFORE and providing a rationale other than a copied template. — siro χ o 03:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources are definitely slim online. I had never heard of Zozolala in connection with the 2000s webcomic movement. However, I am seeing a bunch of mentions in Google Books. I expect there might be a significant chunk of legacy information on this subject, not online. Can't confirm yet either way. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Nothing in the article suggests notability is met. BEFORE is, realistically, recommended but not required. We can quibble on this but to this short, I just did my BEFORE and found nothing. (I'd certainly encourage the nom to do this in the future and report to us here, to avoid procedural complains). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Nominator is correct that this does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. The article has been completely unsourced since it was created in 2007. My searches have not found any usable sources. Elspea756 ( talk ) 13:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (selectively and without prejudice) to list of magazines in the Netherlands . Yet another case of excessive fragmentation. Can be thickened to ""Zozolala (1982–2011), comics magazine [61] "", delinking the title and organizing the ref details. There is more on Delpher and Google Books. gidonb ( talk ) 20:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also a word on the notability question. The publisher is notable, however we do not have an article on that. The magazine is hard to say, as much of it was published during the lull years (between current newspaper website and national archive coverage). My solution works well regardless of the answer to this question. gidonb ( talk ) 14:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC) ATD-M . Especially as we have some level of secondary WP:V through Google Books. I concur with gidonb's phrasing ""excessive fragmentation"", merging is a good solution to such issues. — siro χ o 20:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"SCMS Journal of Indian Management: Nothing on the page suggests that this journal is notable. JMWt ( talk ) 10:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions . JMWt ( talk ) 10:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and India . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I originally put that notability tag. Nowadays I'd have PRODded it or taken to AfD. However, since 2013 the journal has been accepted for indexing by Scopus (a selective index) and several les selective indices, so this meets WP:NJournals . -- Randykitty ( talk ) 14:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC) ATD - Seems not to meet WP:GNG , better covered on an organizational page or in a list. Passing mention in The New Indian Express , included in a random research guide, passing mention in a press release. Suriname0 ( talk ) 14:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to SCMS Cochin School of Business per Suriname0. It would make sense for this to have a section in that article, and for the name of the journal to go there, but I don't see this journal as meeting the WP:GNG nor any subject-specific notability guideline at this time. WP:NJOURNALS is an essay, and WP:N only presumes notability for GNG-passing and/or SNG-passing items that don't fall afoul of WP:NOT , so we can't as a standalone article on that basis. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Isabel Leidig Building: WP:GEOFEAT makes clear that buildings on national heritage registers can be presumed to be notable. There is not such presumption for those on a state list like this one. <Edit: this building is not on the state list, it was simply nominated 22 years ago> That means WP:NBUILDING requires WP:SIGCOV - here there is the application for state listing, plus two single line mentions in other local sources. Melcous ( talk ) 03:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC) 33, 27 January 2024 (UTC) NBUILDING and WP:GNG guidelines as a result of its historic, social, economic, or architectural importance using reliable secondary and primary sources. The property is significant under the California Register of Historical Resources registration criterion 4, in the history of the local area, as a commercial architecture development in downtown Carmel, mixing Monterey colonial style with Spanish Colonial Revival. This building is also part of a block of commercial buildings on Dolores Street, between Ocean Avenue and 7th Avenue, that demonstrate Carmel's historic commercial development in the 1920s. The Isabel Leidig Building is an important commercial building in the Carmel-by-the-Sea 's Downtown Conservation District Historic Property Survey, and was nominated and submitted to the National Register of Historic Places on April 25, 2002. Clicking on this link for Isabel Leidig Building , will bring up the historical study that was done for the building. Long and rather extensive. Greg Henderson ( talk ) 16:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Historic Buildings in Carmel-by-the-Sea . The historical listing is via a large collective of buildings and not for this individual building. Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 15:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I'm in agreement with the nom, and comments by GPL93, and Djflem above. This California Spanish colonial revival style building is like thousands of others in the state; not all of them are Wiki-notable. Does not pass WP:GEOFEAT , nor WP:NBUILDING , and is not on the NRHP . Seems it is on local registries that were nominated along with a group of many other buildings; we don't need articles on all of those 100+ buildings - WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE . An appropriate target for a r would be List of Historic Buildings in Carmel-by-the-Sea . Netherzone ( talk ) 20:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Historic Buildings in Carmel-by-the-Sea . This is one of over 100 buildings in the city's Downtown Conservation District that are collectively listed on the California Register of Historical Resources. Being just one building in a historic downtown or historic block does not show to me that it needs a standalone article. Being nominated – as part of a 100+ property district – to the National Register of Historic Places is entirely irrelevant when the district was not actually listed on the register. When the only substantial source is the survey of the district that presents all the buildings together, we should do the same when individual notability is not established. Reywas92 Talk 16:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"McGuire Programme: page was created and is large maintained by those who have had close involvement}} S! mba009 ( talk ) 23:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Netherlands . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] into Stuttering therapy and close immediately . There is no evidence that this is any more notable than any other treatments, or even notable at all , so right now it is a violation of WP:BLP , WP:SOAP , and most obviously WP:FORK . We almost always back forks even if arguendo they might pass WP:SIGCOV . Bearian ( talk ) 16:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] into Stuttering therapy as a FORK or unjustified SPINOUT. This kind of fragmentation creates a user experience from hell! gidonb ( talk ) 01:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC) not significant coverage in the sources cited, not strong enough for notability.thus Password (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"List of airlines of Tonga: This should be ed to Lulutai Airlines or d. It serves no encyclopedic purpose as-is. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 16:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 16:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Here's an article from the the New Zealand Herald that confirms that Tonga does, in fact, only have a single operational airline, making the need for this list void at this point. That said, there was Royal Tongan Airlines , Fly Niu Airlines , Peau Vavaʻu , Real Tonga , and supposedly one called Reef Air . So if we include all Tongan airlines in this list, operational and defunct, I think we should the article. Input is welcome. Cortador ( talk ) 20:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC) 46, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Aviation , and Lists . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] List of defunct airlines of Tonga into this list. All of the similar lists could be consolidated to avoid duplication, considering a while ago I prodded seven lists of this type that had zero entries, including List of airlines of Liberia . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 03:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I support this . Cortador ( talk ) 11:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support . S5A-0043 Talk 06:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support this - Tonga generally has only one active airline at a time, due to royal monopolies, so there's not much need for a list of active airlines. But the past list isn't long enough to be unwieldy, so combining the two makes sense. IdiotSavant ( talk ) 23:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Wall dormer: Perhaps we can or with parent article. Tooncool64 ( talk ) 22:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 22:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC) where the term is already defined. Owen× ☎ 00:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 13:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC) as material from here can be added to the proper subsection. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 16:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Vietnamese teams in the Mid-Season Invitational: – Pbrks ( t • c ) 14:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Vietnam . – Pbrks ( t • c ) 14:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I'm seeing sources from ESPN , The Rift Herald and The Esports Observer that cover the topic. Would these sources count without failing WP:SYNTH or WP:OR? PantheonRadiance ( talk ) 09:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of those actually cover the subject. The first and third are about Vietnam getting its own independent region in League of Legends esports, meaning they get spots in the Mid-Season Invitational (MSI) and World Championship. The second is covers the 2019 MSI taking place in Taiwan. The performances of these teams in the MSI are better to be covered on their respective articles. – Pbrks ( t • c ) 15:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 02:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Mid-Season Invitational . There's no reliable sources demonstrated that suggest specifically Vietnamese teams are notable outside the wider League esports. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to get more opinions about possibility of a Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per suggestion above. Cortador ( talk ) 06:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC) What exactly from this article would be d? The article is filled with tables of WP:FANCRUFT . I don't believe any of it is suitable for merging to Mid-Season Invitational . – Pbrks ( t • c ) 07:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Completely agree that there's not enough here for an article. I also agree that there's nothing worth merging. In favor of whatever has the consensus to eliminate a stand alone article. (I dont wish to split the vote and have it be a ""no consensus"".) Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Baruch Adonai L'Olam (Maariv): Same prayer, but for different prayer services. Any minor liturgical differences can be included on combined article page. Longhornsg ( talk ) 04:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and improve significantly I’m not an expert on siddurim but I do own and use an artscroll. The Baruch said in the evening maariv service is 18 verses meant to replace the Amidah in ancient times (as the article says). The morning shachrit version is exactly the first 4 verses of the 18 line version. So as per OP the article should be d and mention the 4/18 difference. BUT I am horrified by both articles from a wiki perspective (and these articles are the main ones which appear when you search for the prayer). There’s no structure, seems to use a primary source only, is badly or not at all sourced etc. Someone more versed in the history of the siddur should rewrite the d version. In the absence of that in the short term I can wikify a d version (or at least put it on my list to do). So if someone can it as per OP (I don’t know how to) I can review for the other issues. Ayenaee ( talk ) 19:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC) I have altered the nominator's rationale to fix a formatting / layout error (i.e. a bad link syntax) that was causing {{subst: afd2 }} to not do anything. I have no opinion with regard to the article itself. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No comments since the last relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 06:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have completed a d rewrite of the two articles in my sandbox . I just need to do final proofreading and link-checking. Both current articles should be a ed to a new article called ""Baruch Adonai le’Olam"" (note the ""e"" between the ""l"" and the apostrophe in ""le’Olam"", leaving it out gives incorrect transliteration). If this AfD can be closed with a decision, I think I’ve worked out what to do to sort out the creation, ion, renaming. Ayenaee ( talk ) 13:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] works for me as nom. Longhornsg ( talk ) 17:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"New Carnival Games: Not all Wii games are notable. JMWt ( talk ) 08:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . JMWt ( talk ) 08:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC) NEXIST . It has a preview from IGN , and a review from Gameplanet and Common Sense Media . It also got a review from Gameshark , which remains inconclusively reliable but not explicitly unreliable. The DS version has a review from Official Nintendo Magazine UK, but I am deliberately not counting that one since it's a different version. Even then, it squeaks past the line of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's not really any content here. Even if it *is* notable, nothing would be lost by ing to Cat_Daddy_Games . ApLundell ( talk ) 16:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirects imply to typical users that the article isn't notable and will never be. That's why I think ing stubs around is important, even if there's a very low but not zero chance it will be improved. Per WP:MAKESTUBS it will signal the article is there and needs expansion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Carnival Games It has enough press, but the main game's article has enough meat where merging this in makes sense, much more than just throwing a on the page to the studio that isn't helpful to anyone (and loses all the text we have here now). Nate • ( chatter ) 01:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Carnival Games As Nate said above, adding a sentence or two to Carnival Games about the new features in this version and taking its infobox (without the non-free cover art) would be good. If we the article, it might be better to to Carnival Games or Carnival Games#Sequels . QuietCicada - Talk 01:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"EMD SD45T-2R: Review of the one source that is publicly accessible reveals that EMD SD45T-2R is not mentioned at all. Online searches for EMD SD45T-2R yield insufficient information to demonstrate notability, and mostly brings up results for EMD SD45T-2 . I can not see how this passes WP:GNG . TarnishedPath talk 07:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Transportation . TarnishedPath talk 07:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC) It's another example of Rebuilt diesel locomotives besides its completely new y'know. 220.235.238.29 ( talk ) 07:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC) — 220.235.238.29 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. EMD SD45T-2R: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia Quote-on-quote @ Ozzie10aaaa "" Comment: Article has had additional source added since last review (copyvio is clean), and topic is notable,thank you Ozzie10aaaa ( talk ) 14:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC) "" 08, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ 220.235.238.29 , that's not the proof you think it is. Please don't WP:GAME the system. TarnishedPath talk 09:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am literally doing my best to try and spare this article and the GE U25BE article from deletion. 220.235.238.29 ( talk ) 09:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We need tons of sourcing for locomotive articles, the typical Kalmbach books generally aren't enough. We need extensive coverage from a museum study of the class, or a feature-length article in Trains or Railfan and Railroad... Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to EMD SD45T-2 - clear target as AtD. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 08:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per Alexandermcnabb. Sources are the same across the two articles. Toadette ( let's chat together ) 08:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and to EMD SD45T-2 . Andy Dingley ( talk ) 13:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC) Basically a rebuilt locomotive of that class, nothing notable by itself. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with EMD SD45T-2 . Unless there's been substantial coverage of rebuilt locomotives independent of their original type, rebuilds are best covered within the same article to avoid needless duplication. Consider the EMD GP15-1 , where the substantially similar GP15T and GP15AC (the former a GP15-1 with a turbocharger, the latter a GP15-1 with an AR10 alternator) were both d into the main GP15-1 article to better present all the information in one place. This merits a paragraph at most in EMD SD45T-2, not an entire article. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 21:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. No evidence of individual notability. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 02:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . and . I agree that there's some refbombing going on here. I own Wilson's 2017 book, and to the extent that he mentions the SD45T-2R rebuild it's on a roster note for the Cotton Belt (and not the Southern Pacific). No discussion of what the rebuild entailed. The article doesn't mention that either, which I consider a real red flag. Mackensen (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] David Lustig has as two page article in the December 2001 issue of Trains that discusses the SD40T-2 and SD45T-2, and he doesn't mention this rebuild. [1] Mackensen (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've put in an interlibrary loan request for the Diesel Era article, which may well be the only substantive treatment of the subject. IP, do you have that article and the two books by Shine, or did you just add them because they're listed at the bottom of http://espee.railfan.net/spsd45t-2r.html ? I've consulted the Diesel Era article. [2] There's about a page devoted to the rebuild program for the SD45T-2/SD45T-2R. The changes appear to have all been external and/or cosmetic; nothing like replacing the electronics or prime mover. Summarized, it's a paragraph at most. Mackensen (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and per above. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 04:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Lustig, David (December 2001). ""Phoenix-like tunnel motors just on working"". Trains . Vol. 61, no. 12. pp. 26–27. ISSN 0041-0934 . ^ Rutherford, Brian (May–June 1991). ""Southern Pacific's EMD SD45T-2 Tunnel Motors"". Diesel Era . Vol. 2, no. 3. pp. 8–23. The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Sisterhood of Karn: Doesn't seem to meet SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens , where this fictional group is already mentioned. BD2412 T 02:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] not enough reliable evidence that this is separately notable from the show itself. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 23:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"List of former Ring of Honor personnel: But at the very list it makes little sense to have this and List of Ring of Honor personnel . Either due to very poor referencing ( WP:V ) and dubious connection with WP:NLIST or to the main list. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Wrestling . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC) LISTCRUFT . While WWE is very big, there is a clear criteria: people under contract. Since ROH it was an independent promotion, many of them are just random wrestlers who worked a few dates with the promotion. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 15:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that the page should stay, but I think that the page should be reorganized in the same way that WWE's & Impact Wrestling's List of former personnel pages are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B23F:BA41:0:A:3073:8501 ( talk ) 15:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any policy-based arguments on what should happen with this article? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with Ring_of_Honor . killer bee 05:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 03:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 06:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC) 38, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"List of countries by forest area (percentage): Chidgk1 ( talk ) 08:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Question why can't it just be d then? JM ( talk ) 09:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC) //ourworldindata.org/forest-area Chidgk1 ( talk ) 09:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no idea how to anyway. I just figured that if the consensus was then logically it should just be d rather than going through the AfD process again. JM ( talk ) 09:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC) 55, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Second the ""just complete the "" bit. SportingFlyer T · C 10:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Venom Snake: Most of the current sources that are used were only about the ending of Metal Gear V . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 00:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to the character list. I feel whatever notability could have been taken from Big Boss' first appearance actually being Venom Snake doesn't really provide his own character notability, and there's really no demonstration of importance outside of the twist. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 02:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC) 01, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Relisting, please give the name and a link to the target article you want to this too. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC) SIZESPLIT states that articles ""> 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed"" and the article Characters of the Metal Gear series is at 142 kB for prose length. Photos of Japan ( talk ) 11:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC) 21, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How much trimming do you think can be realistically accomplished? WP:SIZESPLIT says >60 KB ""Probably should be divided or trimmed"" and we are already more than double that. The article as it is is massive and there is no way to even see who is being discussed without manually scrolling through it. Photos of Japan ( talk ) 03:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A lot of info there can be kept to the bare minimum. As is Venom Snake wouldn't add much, and there aren't many other articles to in there. The size fork argument is just a bit baffling. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 03:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What is baffling about not wanting to continue expanding an article that is already well beyond where it is supposed to be for readability and technical purposes? Furthermore, WP:SIGCOV explicitly states ""it does not need to be the main topic of the source material,"" so noting that most of the sources are discussing the ending of Metal Gear V as the main topic doesn't in it of itself invalidate him having significant coverage. What's important is that he is discussed in enough detail that no original research is needed, and enough seems to have already been written on his casting, naming and reception to flesh out an article about him. I don't see the purpose of deleting well-sourced material about his character design and reception, and I don't see the purpose of moving it into an article that is already too long. Photos of Japan ( talk ) 04:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and into Characters of the Metal Gear series . 2001:4455:6D2:8200:153B:BE1D:3F70:AC4C ( talk ) 11:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into Characters of the Metal Gear series . If spinning out a subtopic would create a non-notable article, we should avoid it, per WP:AVOIDSPLIT . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 17:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Murder Legendre: Currently, it fails the following tests, per WP:DEL-REASON : 1. Insufficient citations from reliable sources, per WP:RS . - The current citations are solely for the film White Zombie , not for the character Murder Legendre. - The article seems to have been written 'top down' and its talk page is now requesting sources, rather than being built from the citations. 2. Failure to meet notability guidelines, per WP:N and WP:GNG : - The character does not have significant coverage per WP:SIGCOV . - The article describes a character who appeared in only a single film, for which there is already an article, and so the character's notability is not demonstrated. 3. Content not suitable for an encyclopaedia, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE : - The bulk of it, the Life section, is an expanded version of the White Zombie film plot described from a different POV using original research, and that article already has a Plot section. The other sections here could be added to the White Zombie article. - The grammar, punctuation, spelling and style are poor, reading like a fan blog rather than an encyclopaedic article. I think this page should be sent back for substantial rewriting in draft, especially to demonstrate notability outside the film, and in particular why the Murder Legrange character should have its own article separate from the White Zombie article, supported by reliable sources. Masato.harada ( talk ) 15:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, the creator has commented here but please, next time you take a page to Afd, please leave a note on the creator's talk page (among other steps to create an Afd that, unless I am mistaken, you seem to have forgotten). Also, given the extensive existing coverage on this very character and improvement made to the page by Dr vulpes, would you consider withdrawing this nomination? Notability seems clear and clean-up and punctuation are not generally considered good reasons for deletion. Thanks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 26 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 15:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The page presents some reliable sources ...it can be improved with extensive coverage in other reliable books (at least 5 on the 1st page of results of a G books search, for ex.). If no one wishes to do it, I will. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I created a proper article, I added explanations, references, a few citations, links, an image, a talk page, an infobox, clearly I made it into a proper Wikipedia article. Why is the need to draft it? Rytuyityu ( talk ) December 27, 2023 (UTC) Hello @ Rytuyityu : , do you need help to format your comment? You might want to add a bullet , your proper signature and read this , maybe? - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I went and added some academic sources for this article. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dr_Vulpes, thank you for your help in the sources, just where did you get them from? (Talk) 06:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Rytuyityu Google Scholar [1] . Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, all, for adding sources. However, they do not address the issue described in my original observations above, that is, the notability of this character. The White Zombie film is clearly notable, but the sources added all seem to be primarily about that film. I am still not seeing a reason for a Murder Legendre article which is separate from the film. Masato.harada ( talk ) 14:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC) please kindly open the links and read them: 2 paragraphs in Senn's book, 3 in Rasmussen's, more than a page here , at least 2 paragraphs here , and so on,.... fwiw, see also this . These are reliable sources independent of the subject so that the character does in my view meet the general requirements for notability. Best. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just saying guys, but why are you fellas deleting the Murder Legendre article when you have other, more horribly made articles about characters that you can focus on deleting to show maybe that you're right or not. (Talk) 01:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rytuyityu ( talk • contribs ) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Re-direct to White Zombie . I've been writing extensively about early horror films on Wikipedia and there is barely any real study in series and characters in these films uniquely...possibly outside Frankenstein and Dracula and even then, I feel like they can be better fit i ti their respective film articles or series articles. I wrote the good article on White Zombie years back and there is so little that is found here that isn't just material that can be re-iterated I to the film article. Who on earth would look up one and not the other and expect anything major differences? Andrzejbanas ( talk ) 10:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The coverage addressing the character directly cannot be described as a re-iteration of the film plot. Who will look up one and not the other? Well, those who are interested in the analysis of this notable character. If they feel like reading the page about the film, too, what's the issue? Will they expect major differences in the content of the respective articles? Of course, they would. The page can be improved but I think coverage is sufficient to warrant a standalone article. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagree as the of current, the only thing the article has is a re-iteration of the plot of the film, and some vague interpretations from Rhodes and others discussing the performance of Lugosi within the context of the film. There is nothing here discussing him outside the context of White Zombie . Andrzejbanas ( talk ) 16:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ?? ? Have you opened the links and read the sources by any chance? (and more exists; willing to add it later, fwiw) If you have (read all the sources completely) and are still sincerely thinking what you are saying, well, let's agree to disagree.... Some of the coverage may be deemed as vague by you, some may discuss the performance or the political/gender/race implications of the character and so on, but they do focus on the character extensively. Even if the context of the film is obviously evoked and present at some point, the character is the object of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources addressing the subject in-depth and directly. ) I'm afraid I have no further comment. Best wishes, - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then go ahead and add it. (see WP:BURDEN ). I see several sources, but if this is to be expanded then do it. In it's current state, it is not noteworthy. Andrzejbanas ( talk ) 16:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a friendly reply. Much appreciated. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC) HEY ) I think the subject just about meets the notability criteria. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 21:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to White Zombie . This whole AfD has been a mess and a half, but judging from an outsider's perspective on this, there does appear to be some good coverage on Legendre. However, there doesn't seem to be enough sourcing wise to justify Legendre's split. Any of the info here can easily be covered in the White Zombie article, perhaps as part of the Critical Reception/Influence section, given the analysis of Legendre's role in the film. As it stands, however, unless more sources discussing Legendre individually come to light, I'm going to have to vote on this one. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 22:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So can this whole discussion about deletion of this article finally go away please. (Talk) , 10 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykgnugji ( talk • contribs ) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to White Zombie . The coverage doesn't rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV , particularly with only short one-sentence mentions in the reception. There is certainly something worth preserving here and it can be covered at the main article about the film. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 15:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC) NOPAGE situation, where it just makes more sense for the character and his reception being covered as part of our overall coverage of the movie itself. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC) The documentation about indicates that Merging should be avoided if ""The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short."" I have already insisted on the fact that multiple reliable sources offer very significant coverage on the character specifically. Please read the article and open the sources linked. None of them is trivial, none of them are passing mentions. They do establish the notability of this character. Cannot see how this sourcing could be judged insufficient for a standalone page, let alone what only short one-sentence mentions in the reception refers to. What reception? Where? What's more, the White Zombie page is now considered a Good article and the insertion of so much material would certainly be challenged (if permitted at all) as undue coverage of a specific topic, which would make the merging problematic if permitted at all by contributors who have so far managed to stabilise a version of the article about the film and merging would be detrimental to the page quality and balance in my view. Remember that stability and focus are two criteria for GA articles.... Improvements are certainly possible while merging would therefore also imply a drastic loss of information about the character. When I read that it makes more sense for the character and his reception being covered as part of our overall coverage of the movie itself Why? If guidelines warrant a standalone page, how does it make more sense, not to it separate? If GNG requirements are met, the existence of a standalone page should not be challenged. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Its quite simply because I don't consider these to be ""discrete subjects"". Its a single, standalone movie, and a character that only appeared in that one movie - these are topics that I believe should be covered in a single article. If Murder Legendre was a reoccurring character that appeared in multiple movies/works of fiction and had a lot of coverage regarding those different appearances, then that might be the case that he was a distinct subject from White Zombie . But when he only appeared in this single movie and all of the coverage is about his appearance in that one movie, then it should be covered in the article on that movie. In regards to the concerns of the length and structure of the resulting , proper merging does not simply mean copying one article entirely and pasting it into another, it should be a case where the various pieces of information in this article are integrated into the proper sections of the movie article, with duplicative information not being moved over at all. For example, obviously the bit of this article summarizing the movie plot would not need to be moved over at all, as the film article already has a detailed plot summary. The section describing the reception of Lugosi's performance would fit in in the Reception section of the film, the ""Legacy"" section for the character would fit in the ""Aftermath and influence"" section of the film, etc. If done properly a should neither ruin the structure of the existing White Zombie article nor make it overly long. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your reply. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"WMS (hydrology software): The mentions in secondary sources are rather brief. The Salt Lake Tribune did mention WMS significantly in the article cited, however the heading at the top mentions that the information may be out of date and is for personal research only. Additionally, it seems like this is part of a product line in addition to SMS (hydrology software) , which is also a rather short article. However, I am not a hydrology expert, so those who know more about the topic may have further insights on its notability. Sagflaps ( talk ) 21:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 20 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 21:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment , Software , and Utah . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to SMS (hydrology software) per OP's argument. All the three Aquaveo products appear to be borderline on WP:NSOFTWARE (not a formal guideline, though). — kashmīrī TALK 00:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to SMS (hydrology software) as it makes sense and is more reader-friendly to discuss them together. Star Mississippi 14:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"The Cigarette Duet: In my opinion, the article shows no signs of passing WP:GNG . All sources I could find (in the article and during a WP:BEFORE search) only give the song passing mentions; I can't find any significant coverage of the song. Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 16:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and New Zealand . Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 16:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] are all brief mentions, yes, but they do all emphasize how big a hit the song was on YouTube (over 74 million views per that last page) which I think has to be worth something. Most coverage calls it her starmaking moment, so if she's notable then it seems consensus agrees it's because of this song. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 16:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If anything, that seems like a reason to for me. There is no significant coverage of this song, so it might be better to include these notes in the artist's article? Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 16:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think a to the artist is fine, some notability for the song, not enough for an article though. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Fungible information: Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 23:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 23:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC) sounds like a great idea! You don't need an AfD consensus for a . Just go ahead and do it after you withdraw this nomination, if you want. If anyone opposes this, the discussion can continue on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 01:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , with Information theory , per nom. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Ławki PGR: This is therefore just a farm. There is no listing for Ławki PGR in the sources. The location is just across the lake from the village of Ławki, Giżycko County that this is obviously just part of. I don't think ing Ławki PGR to Ławki makes much sense, not least because Ławki literally means ""benches"", but it's still better than ing this article around - however, I prefer straight-forward deletion. This article was mass-created by the bot Kotbot , operated by retired user Kotniski . In excess of 40,000 other articles were created in the same way. FOARP ( talk ) 16:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland . FOARP ( talk ) 16:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are two places with the name Ławki (wieś and osada) and one called Ławki Małe (przysiółek wsi) which is part of Ławki (wieś). The Polish article was moved to ""Ławki (osada)"" but I think this is different, it seems to be in the same area as Ławki Małe, probably part of it. Peter James ( talk ) 22:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You mean there’s one place called Ławki, but TERYT divides it up into a couple of different units. This is something that happens across Poland, you even see listings for “[Place name] A” and “[Place name] B” when in reality there is only one community called “[Place name]”. At any rate, there is no place called Ławki PGR in any of the sources. FOARP ( talk ) 06:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No evidence that this is an recognised settlement; a map search finds it near Ławki Małe but that's just an unofficial hamlet in the village of Ławki. The other Ławki (osada) seems to be a manor house and estate with a few buildings on the heritage register; it's unclear whether this was once the state agricultural farm. Peter James ( talk ) 11:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak or and to Ławki, Giżycko County . It does have a pl:osada (hamlet) status in TERYT . That said, realistically, this was just a PGR (state farm) located near the village. Through some administrative accident it got a separate TERYT entry, but it's likely a WP:NOPAGE case. The village article should mention there was such a PGR nearby, maybe give coordinates and mention it has its own TERYT number - and that's realistically all the info that is out there and that can ever be here... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 10:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Piotrus - I don't think the TERYT database can support a claim that Ławki had a state farm? I assume you're referring to the osada listed at Ławki (search SIMC ID no. 0767658 here ) - but this is called ""Ławki"", not ""Ławki PGR"". I don't doubt there was a PGR at this site, but no source actually says that. FOARP ( talk ) 15:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ FOARP True. Here is a reliable source that confirms such an entity existed (1969 so no wiki error repetition chance). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perfectly happy to mention that at the main page for Ławki. FOARP ( talk ) 18:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Unlike the others, this one appears to need more discussion Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 23:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC) - The article for Ławki now states that it had a PGR using the source (which appears to have been someone's memoirs), OK with a ? FOARP ( talk ) 11:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did say I am ok with anything that is not deletion, I guess... @ Stok if you care to comment. I have hard time imagining most PGRs are notable in the realistic sense of that concept. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Ławki, Giżycko County as an AtD per Piotrus cmts above. // Timothy :: talk 01:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Forlivese dialect: Romagnol is an endangered dialect, spoken commonly among older generations, with maybe 430,000 speakers. Summary: We could create possibly dozens of articles about the dialectal idiosyncracies across Romagna's municipalities, which are well-documented across several sources, or we could summarise the differences in the article at Romagnol . Explanation: Now, don't get me wrong: sources do exist on the Forlivese dialect (e.g. 1 ). This isn't a WP:GNG issue, though coverage is often or exclusively local. But sources also exist on every other variant in Romagna, and there are a lot to choose from. The crucial point is that Romagnol exhibits a dialectal continuum , ""an infinity of Romagnol dialects decreasing from place to place, as continuous variations on a common basis"" ( 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ). A quick search reveals sources available on many dialectal varieties, down to the municipal level, e.g. Serravalle (pop. 11,000) [ 3 ] or Riccione (pop. 34,500) [ 7 ]. I appreciate that Forlì is larger than these cities, but then we also have Ravenna (pop. 159,000) [ 8 ], or the example I am most familiar with, Rimini (pop. 148,000) [ 9 ], a city that has a different name in Romagnol depending which side of the city you're in. As a point of reference, the Italian-language Wikipedia only affords a standalone article to the dialects of San Marino (noting the differences especially evident in Serravalle's dialect) and Senigallia . The current Forlivese dialect article doesn't actually detail how it differs from other variants of Romagnol, something which also isn't well-discussed in the Romagnol article. Editor Metaphysicus , who removed my PROD tag on the nominated article, says that the Forlivese dialect is discussed by Dante Aligheri as the purest variant of Romagnol, a fact which that the editor kindly added to the article today (the article was previously unreferenced). That this makes the Forlivese dialect ""its own and main version"" of Romagnol sounds like editorial synthesis . And Dante's mention is currently pretty much the only distinctive detail the article offers about the Forlivese dialect that cannot be said about varieties of Romagnol in general. And sure, that's a mention with encyclopaedic value, but Santarcangelo (pop. 21,000) [ 10 ] has notable Romagnol poets ( Tonino Guerra , Raffaello Baldini ); Giovanni Antonio Battarra wrote poems in the dialect of Coriano (pop. 10,400); Gino Vendemini [ it ] did the same for the dialect of Savignano (pop. 18,000) [ 11 ]. We can clutch at the available sources (mixing local sources with scholarly inter-dialectal linguistic analyses) to write articles on each local, idiosyncratic variant of Romagnol. Or, rather than writing possibly dozens of articles that are virtually the same with just a paragraph dedicated to the differences, we can detail these differences in a subheading at Romagnol, also highlighting which variants of Romagnol have received the most treatment in published sources. Only then, if individual variants clearly have too much written about them to fit inside the article, might it be worth spinning off articles on local variants. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 18:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Italy , Language , and Literature . IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 18:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] with Romagnol . If it was a quality page, sourced with scholarly articles on the dialect, with a description of the peculiarities of this variant of Romagnol, it would deserve its own page. Here most of the content is unsourced and adds very little to what is already presented in the Romagnol page. Broc ( talk ) 17:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More discussion around the proposed WP:ATD would be helpful in attaining a consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] with Romagnol per above. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 23:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 39, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] well, ing, seeing as there's only one sentence referenced to ... IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 04:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC) 30, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] with Romagnol per prior arguments. Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 09:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Leyja: This article reads like an information brochure. It focuses on what the Saudi government says about Leyja and not what this parties say about it. The references read like press releases. Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary 1 www.neom.com Announcement of establishment of Leyja No Yes Yes No 2 www.spa.gov.sa, Saudi Press Agency Press release that is same as reference a No Yes Yes No 3 www.designboom.com Press release with promotional description No Yes Yes No Robert McClenon ( talk ) 07:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Saudi Arabia . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 07:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This is a tough one, Google News turns up several dozens of results for this, seems like lots of different people are talking about it. If push comes to shove, I might need some assistance with ascertaining the quality of the sources. Left guide ( talk ) 08:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with Noem Neom . I nearly brought this to AfD for the same reasons as the nominator. However there are a few reliable sources outside of the middle east that have picked this development up, such as The Evening Standard and The News International . It's borderline. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC) SailingInABathTub means to with Neom . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 17:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yup! Thanks for pointing that out. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 11:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . North America 1000 10:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 23:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Kaghaz: Better off as to paper ? William Graham talk 04:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions . William Graham talk 04:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 11:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with History of paper . Amir Ghandi ( talk ) 11:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC) NOTDICT ). A to History of paper doesn't seem to be appropriate, since this article just contains a couple random little contextless factoids that wouldn't fit into the pretty well-developed history article. Even a is no good per WP:FORRED . 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 16:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a or and to determine what the target article should be. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to History of paper , some of it can be valuable to that article. We can use the summary that traces the word, the bit about the spread into Armenia and Georgia, and perhaps some from the final paragraph. — siro χ o 07:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Jershon: This is an in universe location with little attention inside LDS circles, and none in independent reliable sources - especially no indepth coverage we could use to build an article Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 05:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion , Christianity , and Latter Day Saints . Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 05:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Latter Day Saints . ""'[[ User:CanonNi ]]""' ( talk | contribs ) 05:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Book of Mormon places . Doesn't seem like there's enough to make a notable stand-alone page from. Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 18:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 06:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Book of Mormon places . Available secondary coverage of Jershon is better suited to summarization in Anti-Nephi-Lehies , for which Jershon is the setting. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 20:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Ali al-Jarrah: Significant coverage implies that the subject has been featured in multiple sources over a period of time, contributing to a well-rounded biography. Fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Individual is not notable. Syrianpoet94 ( talk ) 05:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Struck as confirmed sock of Peacefulparrot5, the nominator. -- Bbb23 ( talk ) 15:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Blocked for abusive use of accounts. gidonb ( talk ) 14:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC) 41, 17 March 2024 (UTC) - Struck, Peacefulparrot5 is the nominator (unsigned). -- Bbb23 ( talk ) 13:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Lacks significant coverage proving notability. 199.111.212.39 ( talk ) 05:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is the IP's 4th edit. gidonb ( talk ) 01:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC) GNG. Only noteable for a single event (arrest). Peacefulparrot5 ( talk ) 06:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC) - Struck. -- Bbb23 ( talk ) 13:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You seem to have accidentally voted twice. Would you be so kind as to strike your vote? FortunateSons ( talk ) 10:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] FortunateSons , user also nominated the article anonymously without signing. I would not be surprised if all opinions above are by the same person. gidonb ( talk ) 01:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well that would be a gross violation of the rules. It would make sense based on the voting pattern, which is somewhat suspicious. FortunateSons ( talk ) 01:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC) 13, 21 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Military , Israel , and Lebanon . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (selectively) into Israel–Lebanon relations#Alleged spying arrests in Lebanon , a target section that lacks detail and sources, and provides greater context to this affair. There is tons of coverage in Israel RS in 2008. [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] One would assume that the Lebanese press was even before on the story. The international press picked it up in 2009. [32] [33] The Israeli press didn't let go in 2009 either. [34] [35] [36] [37] I did not see that the coverage was sustained beyond – maybe in Lebanon – yet the proposed ATD works in WP's benefit regardless of notability. gidonb ( talk ) 02:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the arguments by Gidonb, we should to maintain valuable content insofar as it meets the requirements of RS. FortunateSons ( talk ) 10:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] its a plausible search term and Israel–Lebanon relations#Alleged spying arrests in Lebanon is an appropriate target. Ben Azura ( talk ) 08:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Northern Inuit Dog: Traumnovelle ( talk ) 23:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Biology . Shaws username . talk . 23:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. I'm not overly thrilled with the lack of scholarly publications but this dog rocketed to notability in popular culture, notably in Game of Thrones , as the mascot for North Carolina State University and in the TV series Outlander . It has quite a few page views on a regular basis. People are curious about the dogs, and while I admit a certain amount of reluctance, I certainly like the idea of experienced editors observing this page so that it can be a source of verifiability. I did some cleanup, and I'm happy at least with the history section which confirms that this is not an ancient landrace nor does it have any real relationship with Native Americans. (In real life, I do a lot of competitive dog sports and I hear both those myths a lot. ) Here's the page views: [29] Annwfwn ( talk ) 02:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is there any source that shows notability beyond the show itself? The North Carolina Uni mascot is 'a mix of German shepherd, Alaskan malamute and Siberian husky' and not a northern Inuit dog. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 02:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC) “Fortunately, officials had heard about a new breed of dog that looked just like a wolf: The Tamaskan is a mix of German shepherd, Alaskan malamute and Siberian husky, first bred in Finland in the 2000s. And there was a Tamaskan club in North Carolina.” Annwfwn ( talk ) 02:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The tamaskan is a different dog breed according to the article. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 04:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This page confuses me. We already have a page on Tamaskan Dog . However, the Tamaskan dog (lowercase) links here. Are these the same breed? Is Tamaskan an offshoot of this? If so it seems more notable than the parent breed, so Merge/ to Tamaskan Dog as an ATD. But really I'm just confused... PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 02:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes that's what confuses me, the tamaskan clearly has some notability based on it's use as a mascot but this would only extend to the northern Inuit dog if they were the same breed/very closely related (Norwich versus Norfolk Terrier). @ Annwfwn is the tamaskan a separate breed? Traumnovelle ( talk ) 03:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This obviously is not a reliable source, but looking at this ancient forum thread they seem to likely be two separate breeds that are often compared. Now, if there were reliable sources saying otherwise that would be fine, but looking up Tamaskan + this breed just gets a bunch of garbage sources that seem to be copying from Wikipedia. I can't find any reliable source that discusses this breed as either an offshoot of or related to the Tamaskan. So I guess? The Tamaskan is (probably) notable but I can't find anything about this breed besides it existing and the singular study on its health problems. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 04:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC) 10, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not according to several of the sources, the Tamaskan is an offshoot of the Northern Inuit Dog. Annwfwn ( talk ) 04:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which sources? No reliable ones seem to say that from my searches. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 04:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is from “Clinical, histopathological and genetic characterisation of oculoskeletal dysplasia in the Northern Inuit Dog.” The Northern Inuit Dog (NID) breed is a relatively new breed developed in the 1980s in the United Kingdom, from dogs of unknown breeds imported from North America that were bred with the German Shepherd, Siberian Husky, Alaskan Malamute and possibly the Samoyed dog [27]. The intention was to breed a dog of wolf-like appearance that could be a family pet with an aptitude for work. The breed has since split into a number of similar breeds including NID, Tamaskan, Utonagan and British Timber dog and all are growing in popularity. And this is a primary source, so less weight, but from the Tamaskan Dog Registry’s website: By combining the original English (Northern Inuit/Utonagan) bloodlines with the new Finnish outcross bloodlines, the first generation of registered Tamaskan Dogs was born in May 2006 at Alba in Scotland. At the same time, the Tamaskan Dog Registry (TDR) was founded for the purpose of overseeing the development of the breed. Both of these sources are cited in the article text. Annwfwn ( talk ) Annwfwn ( talk ) 04:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, then and to Tamaskan Dog . There are not enough sources for this breed. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 04:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , okay, so the reason it was targeted there is because Tamaskan Dog was d into this article and then split back out. From what I can see Tamaskan seems to be marginally more notable - used as mascot and in shows + recognized by at least one register. And again, I can't actually find any proof in reliable sources that this breed has anything to do with the Tamaskan. nvm see above PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 04:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Tamaskan Dog , we seem to have a content fork here, so one article is enough. If there's anything worth merging then into the bargain. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 16:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. I was going to close this as a to Tamaskan Dog but reading this discussion, it's not at all certain that these two dogs are related. Maybe this will become clearer in the next few days. So, whenever this is closed after further comment, I expect it will either be a or a No Consensus closure. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Uryū Ishida: Looks well-sourced, but on closer inspection, most of the sources are primary and not RS. In order to merit a standalone article, there must be SIGCOV of the character himself, not simply the show he comes from. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 04:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan . Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 04:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to character list for now. I've recently rescued (uned) Yoruichi's article because I found sources sufficient to write the section on Yoruichi_Shihōin#Analysis . Sadly, I don't see such attention given to Uryu in sources. Current reception is based on WP:SIGCOV -failing mentions in passing and some trivial rankings/merchandise. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC) 17, 24 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm of the opinion that Ishida is likely notable, but I'm not caught up in the series, and not going to spoil the arcs I haven't seen yet to prove it. Not the end of the world if it's ed/d, but again--I suspect the sources are there for notability. No objection to cleanup, of course. Jclemens ( talk ) 07:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with List of Bleach characters if sources can't be found. There's some interesting and well-sourced information but no WP:SIGCOV . CohenTheBohemian ( talk ) 16:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Merge/Redirect to the Bleach Character List. I think it's possible for sources to exist out there, and some likely do, but right now the article's sourcing state is rather weak. I wouldn't be opposed to it sticking around, but unless some extra stuff comes up, I think I'll have to lean this way. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 22:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Power structure: GnocchiFan ( talk ) 22:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - The article needs work and a lot more sources, but the subject seems more than merely notable. The term itself is used in common parlance and rarely elaborated upon, making it a natural subject for an encyclopaedia. The paucity of information here is disappointing, as is the lack of such obvious concepts as familial and managerial power structures that we deal with every day of our lives. I am surprised the nomination got past D4, though, as gScholar has scads of info that would greatly improve the article. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Power (social and political) . As it stands it is too dense with jargon, too unstructured, and too poorly sourced. Needs to be rewritten from scratch. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 01:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there are opinions here to Keep, Redirect, and Delete. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and to Power (social and political) The article does not have enough sources and is unstructured. I suggest a full rewrite of the article in order for it to be kept. Flutter Dash 344 ( talk ) 23:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC) to Power (social and political) : per above. // Timothy :: talk 13:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Jo Danville: I suggest a and to List of CSI: NY characters . Spinixster (chat!) 02:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Spinixster (chat!) 02:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC) NY characters . Plot summary, nothing to suggest GNG is met. WP:FANCRUFT . -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Piotrus. WP:PLOT alone isn't enough for an article. Does not pass WP:GNG without reception in reliable sources. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 01:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"List of rainbow crossings: One province (equivalent to a US county) in Belgium alone had 24 of them by late 2022 [20] , there are many more in Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria (multiple cities have more than one of them), ... Fram ( talk ) 12:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics , Sexuality and gender , and Lists . Fram ( talk ) 12:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lol the list at Rainbow crossing is more comprehensive than this one. That needs a lot of work to not just be an example farm – concur that there are (happily) far, far too many of these to be able to catalogue them here. Reywas92 Talk 13:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is not a valid deletion reason, Wikipedia is a work in progress and you are encouraged to be bold and help fix it and we don't have a deadline to work to complete , which is why the dynamic list template even exists to point out that it can and will grow. Raladic ( talk ) 14:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC) NLIST since these crossings are discussed as a group or set in the context of the whole LGBT movement. While the list is currently incomplete (and likely will never be comprehensive), there's potential for improvement with further editing. The list itself doesn't warrant deletion just because it's a work in progress . Qwaiiplayer ( talk ) 14:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC) SPLIT at this point. Qwaiiplayer ( talk ) 13:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per the discussions on the talk page on Rainbow crossing , the page was getting unwieldy and thus it was suggested to spin off a List article that actually lists some of the crossing, which is what this article is. It passes WP:NLIST as these crossings are a symbol and spreading around the world to celebrate the LGBTQIA+ and some in part as protests against restrictions and thus the listing provides encyclopedic value to show the spreading and localities as a stand-alone list to accompany the main article. Please dont tear down the house while it's being built , Wikipedia is a Work in progress . Raladic ( talk ) 14:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In no reasonable interpretation of NLIST does being ""...a symbol and spreading around the world..."" matter. We're not tearing down the house while it's being built; we're weeding the garden. 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 16:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Despite the claim of meeting NLIST above , I see no evidence of that. After a look, I can't really find any sources discussing these as a set. Keeping a record of every one of these gets into unencyclopedic WP:NOTDIR territory, especially considering the sheer number of them. The main article can easily accommodate some discussion of the history, like the first, or maybe installations in major cities, but if you need to spin off a list for such a short article (and this is a short article...barring WP:PROSELINE style notes of installations, which is basically already a list, there is very little general information), then something is seriously wrong. 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 15:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are plenty of articles discussing them as a group - [21] , another talking about how the crosswalks are being attacked under false pretenses such as this case in London [22] , another about many crosswalks in the guardian [23] . New York Times about claimed safety issues - [24] And that was just a few hits from the first page of searching. Raladic ( talk ) 17:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Of those, only the first one is even remotely applicable. The rest either talk about the crosswalks in general, which goes to notability of the main article, not the list, or they're about a more general topic and so don't contribute. That first source is reasonable, but it's just one, and it's clearly got a POV to it. And there's no reason why some of that information can't be added to the main article...I see some stuff about official support, etc. There's nothing that warrants this laundry list. 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 18:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is also the last link of The NY Times article that also addresses them as a group. There’s also this article discussing them as a group that has subsequently been cited [25] . All of which give credence to WP:NLIST as a group in order to the main article on topic of the topics and the listings here, which was also the consensus on the talk page of the main article. I have expanded the main article with a new specific section on some of the attacks and vandalism against them as a symbol and also added it as a relevant mention in the lead of the list now. Raladic ( talk ) 18:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , per Raladic. Satisfies WP:NLIST and being actively worked on. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, it doesn't satisfy NLIST . And being actively worked on doesn't change its notability. 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 16:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , I'm from West-Flanders, Belgium, the rainbrow crossings are so common. We have 26 and there will be more in the future. None of them meet the list. Tomaatje12 ( talk ) 14:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] off-topic attack on IP The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Ooh, an anon IP apparently familiar with our terminology? Not suspicious at all! By all means, comment under everyone "" contribution, a surefire way to win hearts and minds! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And do not edit other users' comments! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Many of these are already covered in Rainbow crossing so this serves as a content fork. None of the crossings have their own articles (each one is referenced by a single citation of varying depths of coverage), so the notability of the list as a whole is unclear. Ajf773 ( talk ) 20:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC) the most notable ones into Rainbow crossing . With respect to WP:LISTN , we also aren't an indiscriminate record of every rainbow crosswalk. I think there is room for expansion in the main article with the inclusion of some of these. Curbon7 ( talk ) 20:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I have reworked the list by addressing one of the main points made in the discussion here against it, which is to limit the scope so that it doesn't become an indiscriminate list of all rainbow crossings in existence. I compared to other lists and found that the most fitting criteria for inclusion in the list is the first in a country or state, or otherwise notable (though for now I didn't actually include any ""otherwise notable""), so that it becomes a sort of chronology of the spread of them around the world. I have added a column to the list to define what each of the listings notable inclusion criteria is, which helps add additional encyclopedic value for the chronology and I believe is better suited to be in the List article, rather than creating WP:UNDUE weight if it was in the main Rainbow crossing article. I believe this should address the concern of it being indiscriminate and as a whole, helps address the criteria of why the stand-alone list is of value per WP:NLIST , along with many other such lists on Wikipedia (such as first tall structures/skyscrapers , first mountain ascent , first office holders (various lists on that one), aviation firsts , first films by country , List of LGBT firsts by year to list a few). As it is a list in progress, I still don't make any claim to completeness, but hoping to have some time to adding to it and others will help expand it as well. For those of you that had concerns about the article, please take another look at the reworked list to reassess. @ Fram @ Reywas92 @ Ajf773 @ Curbon7 Raladic ( talk ) 02:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would much prefer a to Rainbow crossing in this case. Rather confused why undue weight would apply here, especially because, again, the bulk of the content of the main article is already a selection of firsts and notable ones. There's no need for separate articles here. Reywas92 Talk 05:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed, a short list of notable examples belongs in the main article, if thoroughly checked (e.g. in the list at AfD, the supposedly first permanent one in Belgium isn't the first one at all, and this claim isn't made in the reference anyway). But if that list becomes too long, then it should be pruned, not split off. Fram ( talk ) 07:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies about the Belgium error, the article made it look like first, I have removed it now as I found another from Ghent that says it was permanently installed before that in 2020 based on an article I found, but it also doesn’t claim it is the first permanent in Belgium, so might need a native speaker that can find a native article as my English search skills seemed to have come up dry. The other country articles in the list were more explicit that they were firsts. And thanks for your comments and suggestions, I just originally boldly split out the list as that seemed to have been the consensus at the articles talk page itself as felt it might make the main article too big. But after the discussion in he AfD here now, I think a and back to the main Rainbow crossing seems to be the consensus. I will perform the once an admin closes the AfD discussion. Raladic ( talk ) 14:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to rainbow crossing. If we're just going to mention the most important rainbow crossing, you can do that in a history section in the main article, just mentioning firsts or likewise. This list really doesn't need to exist. AryKun ( talk ) 06:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC) NLIST barrier. Anyone interested can add any info to the Rainbow crossing article. Onel 5969 TT me 18:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Rainbow crossing . Since the primary article is not too large, this list is pretty much a WP:CONTENTFORK . I would suggest rewriting the Rainbow crossing#History section to make it less list-like and transferring this list into a separate section. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 ( talk ) 17:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into Rainbow crossing for the same reasons that have been outlined above. There's no need for this list to be a standalone list. It may be appropriate to reduce the number of listings slightly for the ; I don't think there's much value in attempting to create a comprehensive list of rainbow crossings. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 10:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Music of Spider-Verse: The music of the Spider-Verse films has not received enough recognition and commentary to justify a standalone article, and the information in this article can easily be d into a new ""Background"" section on the soundtrack articles. It is unusual for film series to have a ""Music of ..."" article unless it is a massive, long-running franchise whose music has been closely analyzed, such as Music of Star Wars , Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe , and Music of The Lord of the Rings film series . This is not the case for Spider-Verse , which has so far only had two installments. InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 01:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Music , and Comics and animation . InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 01:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. relevant info into Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (soundtrack) and Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (soundtrack) . to the former. -- Zoo Blazer talk 02:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC) Into the Spider-Verse (soundtrack) and Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (soundtrack) ; to the former . BD2412 T 02:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC) Into the Spider-Verse (soundtrack) and Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (soundtrack) . to the former as it was for the first installment. Trailblazer101 ( talk ) 06:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Not received enough recognition and commentary""? According to what? The sourcing is there establishing both recognition for the music, as well as ample commentary. I left a few sources in the reference ideas template on the talk page because there is actually even more to pull from, from those sources to include on here (in terms of commentary). I haven't had too much free time this month to expand the article, but will try my best to do so this week. Also ""enough recognition"" is subjective already, but there is again sourcing that helps establish that the music from these films has earned recognition. (""Sunflower"" is literally the highest-charting RIAA single ever; I also found this source explaining how one character's theme from the sequel's score is a common fixture in memes). Will add this source when expanding the article this week. Also feel like the ""unusual"" factor of ""Music of [film series]"" articles isn't really relevant in a deletion discussion. Like what does it actually matter that only Star Wars , MCU, LOTR have those articles? Could actually just be editors glossing over valid articles to create. Honing in on ""Music of [film series]"" articles is also a disservice here, and makes it seem like we don't have a good amount of ""Music of..."" articles in general here on Wikipedia. They're just not all from film series. Some are from anime , or from video games series , or individual games . Or television series . Or webcomics . Soulbust ( talk ) 06:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin : Soulbust ( talk • contribs ) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD . InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 17:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is not enough content that cannot be reasonably incorporated into the regular soundtrack articles, so a standalone article is not justified. InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 17:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per rationales above. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 10:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom and those above. - Favre1fan93 ( talk ) 13:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There are two short films that exist and a third feature film is already in production, I think its fair to assume that there could be expansion of this article. ★Trekker ( talk ) 09:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We could add a Music section to Spider-Man in film and then this there, as well, assuming there would be enough contents from those shorts on music alone. Trailblazer101 ( talk ) 16:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not think there is enough background or reception info on the music of those two short films, and editors are free to work on the article in draftspace until it comes a time when it is appropriate for mainspace (currently, it's not). InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 17:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The article discusses the music for each film separately, so I don't see the need for a standalone article. Pamzeis ( talk ) 11:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC) Spider-Verse (franchise) ) so soundtrack not needed. would be ambiguous as could target either film's soundtrack. Thanks, Indagate ( talk ) 14:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"XF (grade): Unclear how this warrants its own article. Note that Academic grading in the United States does not mention XF at all; that article says X actually refers to something else. Internationally, Withdraw[n] Fail use different denotation, but moving and expanding is probably not necessary. This concept can be easily incorporated into each country's respective grading article. Anarchyte ( talk ) 09:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Anarchyte ( talk ) 09:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] -- I would prefer an AtD of merging into Academic grading in the United States as बिनोद थारू has provided enough secondary sources to support inclusion in the primary article. However, I still cannot see independent notability to a separate article. , but the article only has primary sources. Without RS, there is nothing here to . If anyone can find even one secondary source on this grade (I couldn't), I'll switch my ! vote immediately. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 01:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC) independent, non-primary sources are required to establish notability, but for adding a line in a list on an existing article, the primary sources we have suffice. The grade itself isn't notable, but it's part of a notable system. Owen× ☎ 23:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. https://www.chronicle.com/article/kansas-community-college-cracks-down-on-cheaters-with-new-xf-grade-signifying-dishonesty/ The article states: ""Barton County Community College has instituted a new honor system that would allow professors who catch a student cheating to be able to mar :the student’s transcript with a grade that indicates academic dishonesty. Administrators and faculty members at the Kansas college decided on the policy in the wake of a string of cheating incidents that started last year. Professors can :now assign a grade of “XF” to students who are caught plagiarizing, cheating on a test, or in other ways violating the college’s academic-integrity policy."" https://books.google.com/books? id=2FceCwAAQBAJ , page 852. The book states: ""Students holding an XF grade will automatically be banned from representing the university, running for student organizations, or receiving university funds. XF grades can however be replaced with an ..."" https://books.google.com/books? id=f-GWBQAAQBAJ , page 73. The book states: ""XF grade which states that the student failed a class specifically because of Academic Dishonesty”. In order to act ... education about the institution policy, the guideline and action to be taken so that all teachers deal with the ..."" https://books.google.com/books? id=MqwrAQAAMAAJ , page 20. The book states: ""school is also considering adopting a grade of XF to indicate failure due to cheating ( Zernike , 2002 ) . Other schools , like the University of Maryland and Trinity College in Hartford , are requiring that their students sign an honor"" https://books.google.com/books? id=JZGgJSEQe , page 133. The book states: ""Development of a revised academic integrity policy, which includes the adoption of an XF grade (designed to distinguish failure resulting from violation of the ..."" https://books.google.com/books? id=URYL1BfAZRQC , page 427. The book states: ""Under Maryland's system, cheaters are not expelled but receive a special “XF” grade for a class if they are caught cheating. The grade, which means the student failed the course due to academic dishonesty ..."" https://books.google.com/books? id=-1B4AgAAQBAJ . The book states: ""... University of Maryland's policy of assigning a grade of “XF” in the course, the “X” indicating that the failure was due to academic dishonesty, which then becomes part of the student's permanent record. As Pavela (1997a) noted, [the “XF” ..."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow XF to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 00:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To review the sources proposed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Should eager to see a review of newly found sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with Academic grading in the United States - I don't buy the argument that sources that explain that XF is a grade assigned for academic dishonesty, however many times it is said, provide significant coverage to write something encyclopaedic about the grade. It is not irrelevant, but there is not significant non trivial coverage here to write an encylopaedic article on the grade code itself. Academic dishonesty is a subject and so, it seems, is Academic grading in the United States . This information belongs in the latter, but should not be spun out from there. It might be worth a sentence in the former too. Thus is the right WP:ATD here. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 20:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Center for Middle East Policy: Nothing inherently independently notable about the center that would justify a stand-alone article. The non-SPS sourcing are just 2 copy-pastes of criticism. Longhornsg ( talk ) 22:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with Brookings Institution . Next to no content in the article that can easily be added to host page. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 23:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics , Middle East , and Washington, D.C. . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above, Brookings Institution . -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Rainbow Minute: Outside of being a relatively short article with very few sources, the subject is not very well known outside of Richmond, Virginia. Not to mention, the article comes off more as a promotion for Diversity Richmond rather than an informative piece on the radio show. CycloneYoris talk! 08:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Sexuality and gender . CycloneYoris talk! 08:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC) A short write up on the WRIR-LP page should be a sufficient alternative to deletion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as suggested seems ok. It's purely local in nature, from what I read. Oaktree b ( talk ) 11:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC) 08, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Latham, Alabama: The NRHP forms suggest that, again, the church was built to serve a locale rather than as part of a distinct settlement; what I'm seeing suggests this was just a post office. Mangoe ( talk ) 17:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The two are the same place. The first Methodist Church was organized in Red Hill, Alabama in 1847. Mrs. Margaret (Peggy) Ferguson under the ministry of the Rev. Mr. Drue organized the first church. Charter members were: […] Red Hill was changed to Latham in 1878, when the first post-office was organized and named. The first postmistress was Mrs. Henry Cooper, whose husband was the son of Latham Cooper, for whom the town was named. The name of the church was changed between February and June of 1909. The building used for a church was a log house about one half mile northeast of present building. — ""Latham United Methodist Church, Red Hill, Ala"". Deep South Genealogical Quarterly . Vol. 12. Mobile Genealogical Society. 1975. pp. 131 et seq. , p.131 The creek is still named Red Hill, notice. The GNIS record has Red Hill as a post office in the same record. And pretty much all of this information is in the second source of Latham United Methodist Church . Uncle G ( talk ) 18:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity , Geography , and Alabama . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 12:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Baldwin County, Alabama . बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 00:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'd imagine the name was changed because Red_Hill,_Alabama already had a post office at that time..., That Red Hill is in Marshall County Alabama, I've many ancestors from there. James.folsom ( talk ) 03:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Let's see if there is any more support for a Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I concur on the , as all the policies seem to indicate that r is the best option for non-notable articles that are verifiable. The county is a good place for it. I'm willing to do the if you remind me when it's time. James.folsom ( talk ) 22:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd say rather to Latham United Methodist Church for the very simple and pragmatic reason that if that article were fully expanded from the sources that it already has , it would cover this topic at least as well if not better than this article at hand does. Uncle G ( talk ) 00:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies, I was imprecise in my language, I support to where ever is suitable. And agree with your assessment. James.folsom ( talk ) 00:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Foot in Mouth (EP): Appears to have not charted or been covered by reliable sources - May be some Japanese coverage, but difficult to locate. Mdann52 ( talk ) 06:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music . Mdann52 ( talk ) 06:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC) 12, 6 June 2024 (UTC) None of the coverage in the article is from reliable sources, and I found no reliable coverage. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 12:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC) The Japanese title is Bakuhatsu Live! +5 and charted at number 45 on the Oricon Albums Chart . I wasn't able to find much in the way of reviews, but I admittedly only made a surface-level check (爆発ライブ!+5, if anyone wants to search further for sources). IanTEB ( talk ) 20:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for this info it helps me out. i will add this to the page Stnh1206 ( talk ) 00:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Someone has found a oricon article on this EP where it shows to have charted. number 8 on the reference page Stnh1206 ( talk ) 00:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC) Except it's not an EP, it's the same length and a longer track listing than the bands debut album. If it's ed it should be to live albums, but if it's charted it shouldn't be ed, just retitled. Hoponpop69 ( talk ) 13:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 09, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Commentary in relation to WP:NALBUM number two and the new information that this EP charted in Japan? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk ) 01:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to the target mentioned above. Prolonged discussion and scrutinty has produced relatively little. The reason it needs to be d is that the discography page currently claims that Foot in Mouth did not chart in Japan. Geschichte ( talk ) 11:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Holocaust Encyclopedia: There is supposedly one review(?) of this on JSTOR from ""Reference & User Services Quarterly"" but it was being odd and wouldn't show it to me. Even then, not enough. Redirect/ to United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ? FWIW this is not about the book The Holocaust Encyclopedia , which is notable but we don't have an article on it. This is about the USHMM online resource. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 11:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 11:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC) to the Museum as suggested seems fine. This is basically an extension of the collections housed by the Museum. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries , History , Judaism , Websites , Germany , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as proposed. Part of the museum and can easily be covered within. Star Mississippi 02:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Embassy of Indonesia, Kyiv: The Ukrainian and Indonesian language versions of these article have more sources but they merely confirm former ambassadors. Fails WP:ORG . LibStar ( talk ) 01:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Indonesia , and Ukraine . LibStar ( talk ) 01:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC) These should also be d: Embassy of Indonesia, Brasília , Embassy of Indonesia, Caracas , Embassy of Indonesia, Bandar Seri Begawan , Embassy of Indonesia, Tokyo , Embassy of Indonesia, Ankara , Embassy of Indonesia, Brussels , Embassy of Indonesia, Prague , Embassy of Indonesia, Athens , Embassy of Indonesia, The Hague , Embassy of Indonesia, Wellington . CakalangSantan ( talk ) 18:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting in hope of more participation. However, if you wish other articles to be considered for deletion, you need to make a bundled nomination at AFD, just mentioning them in a comment has no effect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Just how many of these articles are there? Cortador ( talk ) 11:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC) no independent notability. Owen× ☎ 13:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Batik Air Flight 6723: Also a lot of other cases of pilots falling asleep are not on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by SignorPignolini ( talk • contribs ) 05:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC) 46, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] it doesn't meet the notability guidelines and i agree with the reasoning behind this deletion. this article was d previously so i have no idea why it was re-added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDKUggaBanga ( talk • contribs ) 13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 10 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 13:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Aviation , and Indonesia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC) NOTNEWS . It's too early to say whether this event will have lasting effects but there is a clear failure of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE . Obviously, events in which pilots falling asleep are somewhat uncommon but the fact is that the aircraft was not close to causing a major incident/accident, although, it definitely could've had they been unresponsive for more than 30 minutes. Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 15:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] it anyway to Batik Air#Incidents and accidents , not highly important. DDG 9912 04:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Batik Air#Incidents and accidents . WC gudang inspirasi ( Read! Talk! ) 02:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Controversies involving Javier Milei: All of them are just ""Politician says X"", and ""someone somewhere is outraged"", or even just ""Politician says X"". All of them lasted for just some days and died as old news, without any actual consequences. In this day and age, all this stuff is just routine. Heads of state are always saying something, and someone is always reacting to those things said, even if just for a couple of hours. Note as well that a page ""controversial stuff involving a BLP"" can easily get carried away into undesired directions. And note that Trump and Putin, the most controversial world leaders of recent times, do not have any similar articles. Cambalachero ( talk ) 19:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Conservatism , Economics , and Argentina . Cambalachero ( talk ) 19:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Donald Trump has several articles about particular controversies, from mishandling classified information to sexual misconduct to... There is precedent at Wikipedia for these types of articles. That said, quickly glancing over this one, ""alleged"" this and ""alleged"" that is different. Trump actually did those things (he denies most of them, but there is at least some proof to the contrary), while this person seems to have just been mentioned in connection with xyz thing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, that is true. I think some content can be d to Public image of Javier Milei , as suggested by @ Pedantic Aristotle , and some may also be relevant for La Libertad Avanza , for example the invistigation also involving the coalition. But just saying that all of them [ sic ] are just ""Politician says X"", and ""someone somewhere is outraged"", or even just ""Politician says X"" is an exageration. In fact, that may only apply to ""Insults to Horacio Rodríguez Larreta"", which could be moved at the ""Public image"" article, since many sources have noted how Milei insulted his political opponents or journalists. Many of them are in fact legal investigations (hence alleged), perhaps his plagiarism can be considered proved (he admitted it for the first case and for the second case reliable sources took it as self-evident) so alleged can be removed, and controversies that attracted significant attention (children and organ trade positions or the state terrorism denialism accusations, etc.), so much so that Milei himself has been described as controversial. So I find the nominator's argument too dismissive. All of this may not warrant its own standalone article but a yes; they are acting as though literally none of this has any value or significance. Davide King ( talk ) 20:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Donald Trump has articles about specific controversies, with a well defined scope. I meant that there is no parent article ""Controversies involving Donald Trump"" or similar. Cambalachero ( talk ) 13:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC) Could use a rewrite, but most of this seems well-sourced. Perhaps not as NPOV as I'd like, but there is notability here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm ok with a ! into the ""public image"" article as suggested as well. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Ideally these are d into different articles, where they can be added in relevant contexts. Some parts could be d, and seems more like trivia rather than encyclopedia content. Ideally a lot more content is written, where dedicated articles are created for the more notable topics. Pedantic Aristotle ( talk ) 23:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC) ""Alleged cover-up and illicit association"", ""Alleged plagiarism for El Cronista and Infobae"", ""Alleged plagiarism for Pandenomics"", ""Accusations of alleged state terrorism denialism,"" ""alleged sexual favours"", ""Alleged sales of candidatures"", ""Alleged involvement of neo-Nazi and Argentine military dictatorship apologist candidates"". Unless proven, this is just political gossip. Political leader or not, since when does English Wikipedia create articles/lists based on rumors and gossip — Maile ( talk ) 00:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, alleged is used because some of those were followed by investigations, and thus the use of alleged is warranted, so hardly ""political gossip"". His plagiarism seems to have been confirmed, and his vice-presidential candidate seems to be a proved apologist for the Argentine military dictatorship, so the alleged can be removed if you feel only proved things should be listed. Those relevant to the coalition could also be moved at La Libertad Avanza , and others could be at Public image of Javier Milei , for example for a section about his rethoric and insults, for which he is well known. As for the non-English sources, they are allowed, and it is not like there is literally not a single English-language source... Davide King ( talk ) 13:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I""ve changed to ""Merge"", and hope for the best outcome either way. — Maile ( talk ) 22:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Pedantic Aristotle and Davide King. As suggested above, move content relevant to the coalition to La Libertad Avanza , and the other content to Public image of Javier Milei#Controversies . I agree with the nom.'s rationale in opposition to ing as a standalone page. Sal2100 ( talk ) 17:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Republic Media Network: Moreover, there is a separate category page for Republic Media Network, found under Category:Republic_Media_Network . Currently, this category is entirely adequate, having a separate page is unnecessary. Charlie ( talk ) 04:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India . Charlie ( talk ) 04:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Maharashtra . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Absolutely, Creating a separate page is unnecessary. Mr. Rasel Hasan ( talk ) 11:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] why? TruxtVerified ( talk ) 02:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's important to distinguish between categories and articles. A category serves as a grouping mechanism, while an article provides in-depth information. Republic TV , under the operation of Republic Media Network , warrants its own article. Just as with Star channels having their dedicated article like Disney Star and Zee channels like Zee Entertainment Enterprises , these articles comprehensively detail company information, such as funding, ownership, owned channels, and historical context. TruxtVerified ( talk ) 03:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would like to express my concern about the nomination to the article on Republic Media Network . It's important to maintain a fair and open discussion, but I believe that the article should be kept on Wikipedia. The network is a significant part of contemporary media, and it's important to provide accurate and balanced information about it for the readers. Let's ensure that the discussion focuses on the quality of evidence and adherence to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thank you for your understanding. Sincerely, TruxtVerified ( talk ) 05:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC) TruxtVerified This article should be kept. It is an important article. 103.170.55.189 ( talk ) 02:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC) INHERITED , WP:USEFUL . Spinixster (chat!) 11:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Much of the content is about, and duplicated, with the Republic TV page. What's little left can be d into there as ""sister"" properties. Not enough sources to support this as a stand-alone article as they focus mainly on Republic TV or one of the related properties. Ravensfire ( talk ) 03:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand your perspective, and it's important to consider that some readers might find value in having a separate page for the Whole Republic TV Network. Additionally, the presence of separate pages for other channels like News18 ( Network 18 ) within their respective networks could be used as a reference point for supporting the existence of this page. TruxtVerified | [Message] 14:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde [trout needed] 22:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Preserving this article is justified as the reasons provided do not appear to be valid grounds for deletion or merging. It's important to respect the diverse viewpoints that contributors bring to the table. However, it's worth noting that this page focuses on the Republic TV company and its network. @Ravensfire , it might be helpful to understand the distinction between the two articles. This page offers comprehensive information about all the channels within the network, which is consistent with the practice of having separate articles for channels within other networks, such as Network 18 . TruxtVerified | [Message] 14:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Much of this article is a duplicate of the Republic TV article. Merging them with a section in that article with the small amount of non-duplicated information retains the information. Duplicating large amounts of text in multiple articles is not helpful from a maintenance perspective and gives a far broader scope to at least one of the articles than it should have. Ravensfire ( talk ) 17:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To put a bit more behind my thought here. Most of sources focus on Republic TV by name, very few mention Republic Media Network. There were a couple, but closer examination showed they were press-releases disguised as news articles (sponsored / paid articles). Another is Republic World which is deprecated as a source. This needs to be based on sources that have significant coverage of the article subject - Republic Media Network, and are independent from the subject. That's not here. Lost of stuff about Republic TV, hence the ! vote. Ravensfire ( talk ) 02:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's important to maintain a friendly and collaborative atmosphere on Wikipedia. Our primary goal is to expand and improve articles, especially those related to India. We are all contributors with a shared interest in enriching the platform's content. Let's remember that constructive discussions and different viewpoints can lead to better articles. @Ravensfire, I understand that we might have differing opinions at times, but our common purpose is to enhance Wikipedia's quality. Let's work together and find common ground on how best to handle the Republic Media Network article. Your insights are valuable, and I appreciate your dedication to Wikipedia. TruxtVerified | [Message] 13:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then start by showing the respect to everyone else. Your lecture is someone disingenuous and suggests that you disagree that I'm editing in good faith. You are incorrect. I realize that you don't see the issues with the article, which is why I expanded my reasoning in the comment above. Notability is established by significant, independent coverage of the article subject. When the sources say ""Republic TV"", that's what they are covering. This is getting into WP:BLUDGEON territory, my point is made here on the AFD and on the CANVASS. I'll not engage further here. Ravensfire ( talk ) 15:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article should be kept as this is utilizable. The article provides a plethora of information, Wikipedia is a encyclopedia it is good to engender more and more articles, this article is having sources so there is no desideratum to it or it, Republic TV is different the channel is owned by the company so it is necessary to this, readers will find useful to know about the following page. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 14:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC) An editor has expressed a concern that Zendrago X ( talk • contribs ) has been canvassed to this discussion. ( diff ) Ravensfire ( talk ) 17:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ravensfire He just told me to share my opinion, he did not ask me to support his views or protect that article. I want this article to be kept as it is my view. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 01:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Secondly he requested this me on my talk page not on any Off-Wiki source. He asked me to express my views so how is this canvassing? ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 01:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC) CANVASS page. Then feel free to discuss on my talk page. But yes, this is textbook canvassing. Ravensfire ( talk ) 02:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did not find any canvassing. He did not ask me to oppose the effacement, he invited me and also there was no Textbook Canvassing there in link. If you cerebrate I have done erroneous I am yare to abstract my comments as I was not vigilant of WP:CANVASS . He just invited me in discussion as I additionally edit these types of topics, I opposed expunction. If he asked me to oppose the effacement then it can be Canvassing, but here in this case it is not (I cerebrate). I am yare to abstract my comment if this is not good and is canvassing. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 10:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So much for wanting to side discussions on the side. Problem one - TruxtVerified notified one person, you, that they knew would share their viewpoint. Problem two - TruxtVerified used a very non-neutral request and asked for you to support ing the article. That IS THE DEFINITION of canvassing, even with just one person. A short, neutral request to everyone that had more than a few edits to the Republic TV article (cause there aren't many who edited the RMN article) would have been fine. What TruxtVerified did is not what someone acting in good faith should do. Ravensfire ( talk ) 14:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I invited the user to share their opinion, and I believe that the article on Republic Media Network should be kept. It provides valuable information about the network and its significance in contemporary media. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it's important to maintain a diverse range of articles to educate readers. Your contribution to the discussion is appreciated, and your input is valued. Let's continue to focus on the quality of evidence and adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines during this discussion. TruxtVerified | [Message] 13:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Finally, I firmly believe that this article should be kept . It serves as an essential resource for readers who seek information about Republic Media Network, a prominent entity in the contemporary media landscape. The article provides a comprehensive overview, detailing aspects such as the network's history, ownership, and its various channels. This information is valuable for users looking to understand the network's role and significance. Wikipedia's purpose is to provide accurate and comprehensive information on a wide range of topics, and the Republic Media Network article aligns with this goal. Rather than merging or deleting it, we should focus on enhancing the article's quality and ensuring it adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines. Let's work together to make this article a valuable resource for all. TruxtVerified | [Message] 13:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good- where are the sources that are specifically about Republic Media Network that aren't press releases / self-published? They aren't there. Where is that significant, independent coverage that Wikipedia uses to show notability of a subject? It's not there. The article is nearly completely about Republic TV. Not this media network. Ravensfire ( talk ) 14:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ravensfire, your impressive track record of over 78,000 edits on Wikipedia reflects your dedication to the platform, and your contributions are greatly valued. It's essential to acknowledge that there are instances of articles with incomplete references on Wikipedia, and addressing them is an ongoing process. In the case of the Republic Media Network article, it's crucial to differentiate between Republic TV and Republic Media Network. While you raise a valid point, it's worth noting that this article pertains to a media company, similar to how Disney Star has its dedicated article. The distinction between the two is an important aspect of the discussion. I genuinely appreciate your insights and your active participation in this discussion. Although we may have differing opinions, let's continue our conversation in a constructive and collaborative manner. My belief is that preserving the Republic Media Network article is the right decision, and I hope we can reach a consensus that aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines. TruxtVerified | [Message] 16:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with Republic TV per Ravensfire's reasoning. WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth not in article or above, BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 03:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Prestige Communications: Let'srun ( talk ) 01:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Companies , and Illinois . Let'srun ( talk ) 01:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Regional Media-Virden Broadcasting , as this appears to be the successor corporation. I agree that Prestige Communications is likely non-notable, but some of the content might be useful in building a history section in the proposed target. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Beaker (drinkware): No refs on the page for many years and appears to be a WP:DICDEF with little way to expand or cite properly. There are related ideas such as Beaker (laboratory equipment) and Bell Beaker culture but I'm not seeing the RS for this term. JMWt ( talk ) 18:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions . JMWt ( talk ) 18:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Technology . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Beaker (archaeology) which is also about drinkware except that it was dug up from the ground. Could use a line that the term has been used in modern contexts? Reywas92 Talk 19:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Cup . Beaker (archaeology) is not a good enough fit. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 12:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed that's better. Reywas92 Talk 19:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] with Cup no point of the article with no sources. per above. The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 18:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Destoroyah: Seems to fail GNG. My BEFORE shows only passing mentions, and article's reception is cobbled from a few mentions in passing (from film reviews) and one listicle. So WP:SIGCOV is not met. WP:ATD-R easy solution is to this to Godzilla vs. Destoroyah . PS. Note this was already ed in this fashion in 2014 after the first AfD. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with Godzilla_vs._Destoroyah . Since the page does not have enough content and is more related to the movie, i propose merging with Godzilla_vs._Destoroyah killer bee 05:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , Film , and Japan . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with Godzilla vs. Destoroyah . When it was recreated, no effort was made to demonstrate SIGCOV. It's still in the same FANDOM-style state and better discussed in the main article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per those above. BD2412 T 19:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 17:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Great Four Anglican Hymns: This gets relatively few GHits, and by and large they are passing references in pages concerningother other work cited one of the four hymns (generally either Lo! He Comes With Clouds Descending or Hark! The Herald Angels Sing ). Meanwhile, the English Hymnal was a quarter century away from publication, and at this very late date I would have to imagine that if one compared all the different current Anglican hymnals one would find far more than four hymns appearing in nearly all of them— I dare say that there are probably a couple hundred which appear in every last one. Of the runners-up, ""Sun of My Soul, Thou Savior Dear"" didn't make it into the 1940 Episcopal Hymnal and while "" Jerusalem The Golden "" was retained in the The Hymnal 1982 , the other three sections of Bernard's hymn were not, and I have never in half a century sung it. I would also point out that hymnals of the era did not officially assign tunes to the texts, which further blunts things: some recent survey in the Episcopal Church identified ""Alleluia, Sing to Jesus"" as the favorite hymn, but it's a cinch that the preferred American tune, Hyfrydol, plays a large part in that. Furthermore, one can look in in the original work and see that this notion of a ""great four"" isn't his idea: it comes from the other work cited, by David Briggs, who I would point is not, at least by school affiliation, an Anglican in the first place (his school, Western Theological Seminary , which is in the Reformed tradition). Both of these works are more theological and devotional in character and are primarily interested in the writing of hymns in various eras, and not so much on the statistics. When all is said and done this just doesn't seem to have been that important an idea, and by the time the second edition of Briggs's work, it's likely that the number of such hymns was many times larger than four. Mangoe ( talk ) 21:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 21:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak and move to Great Four (hymns) . While it is obvious that these hymns no longer maintain the same hold on Anglican hymnological practice that they held 140 years ago, there is adequate sourcing to retain this article in a revised form. The Atlantic , this diocesan newspaper , this opinion piece , and about a dozen parish articles all utilize this title when discussing the hymns named as among the Great Four. It is clear, at least in my eyes, that the title enjoys at least some sustained notability. Now, there might be some citogenesis going on here, but I don't have the time to investigate further. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 22:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC) I can find a fair number of references like these, about one of the hymns, I'm not seeing anything that has any interest in them as a set, and indeed, as I said above, even the original source doesn't mention them as a set at all: his ""First Rank Hymns"" number 105. "" O Come All Ye Faithful "" is in this group, at position 75 because for whatever reason only thirty-four hymnals of the set included it. At the time Oakeley's translation was forty-four years old; now, of course, its inclusion in English language hymnals must be well-nigh universal. But nobody is going to remark on it being one of over a hundred. So this ""four"" is really not a thing in itself; it's just a factoid which gets brought up when talking about some of the four hymns, and indeed, if I put in a date range before this article was published, I get almost no hits at all on the phrase, and just a couple of those are legit. It appears to me that the only reason why so many of these pages on the individual hymns mention this is because our pages on those hymns all mention this . Wikipedia is the source for all these mentions, as far as I can tell. Mangoe ( talk ) 02:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - I find the argument by Pbritti above to be convincing, while Great Four (hymns) is probably a better title for the article. My vote is ""weak"" for a couple of reasons: we have specific rules on grouping things together at WP:NLIST , and the term ""Great Four"" seems to be less important now than it was a century ago. It also appears that Rev. King may not have coined the term himself. However, it appears that the term is used fairly often today to add some heft to professional discussions of the hymns: [44] , [45] . Also, a Google Books search for the term ""Great Four"" leads to dozens of results for books discussing the hymns themselves and/or the musicological work of Rev. King when he did his study. Here are two examples: [46] , [47] . --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 15:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More discussion on the extent of sourcing would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't have an opinion at this time, but if a consensus forms for deletion, a / to Anglican Hymnology should be considered; the book seems very likely to be notable. I volunteer to create the book article if needed; ping me. ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 04:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 10:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I'm a bit puzzled (as someone who was a practising Anglican for around 30 years) that there is only one of these ""four great Anglican hymns"" is at all familiar to me, namely Hark! The Herald Angels Sing . I'm not sure I've heard of all of the other three, and I don't think I've ever sung any of them. Missing, on the other hand, is Oh come all ye faithful , which may well have been the most popular of all Anglican hymns in my youth. I'm therefore wondering if Anglican is being used in an American sense (Episcopalian) rather than the more usual sense (Church of England). If forced, I would probably vote , but I shan't lose any sleep if the decision is to . Athel cb ( talk ) 17:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any thoughts on LEvalyn's proposal? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering ( talk ) 22:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC) no target: CITEREFBenham1887 ( help ) which is (a) contemporary and (b) William Benham , it is clear that the number four as the focus is quite wrong. Benham gives King's Hymnology and King's ranking of hymns almost an entire half page and does not mention the number four once . Benham discusses why it's going to be increasingly outdated (from the viewpoint of 1887!) as the years go by, too. LEvalyn might have the right idea here. We either cover this as the Anglican Hymnology specifically, or under an Anglican hymns topic of some sort. I lean toward the former. But — people! — if we don't include Benham's observation and Julian 1892 , p. 343 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFJulian1892 ( help ) rubbishing King's methodology then Wikipedia isn't even as comprehensive as the encyclopaedias of the 19th century were in poking holes in this. We've sourced our article uncritically and primarily to the originator of the idea, with not even the third-party analyses that have been available since within a decade of its publication. That said, looking for 20th century sources turns up Marks 1938 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMarks1938 ( help ) which confirms what this article says about Louis FitzGerald Benson doing a U.S. equivalent as The Best Church Hymns in 1898. (James F. King was vicar of the then St Mary's in Berwick-on-Tweed , Athel cb .) So limiting this to Anglican Hymnology might be a mistake. There's a hint in another source that Robert Ellis Thompson did the same as King and Benson with his 1893 The National Hymn Book . There's definitely a subject here, and the 19th century encyclopaedias suggest that it's somewhere under hymnology . See their article titles. But almost no-one mentions the number four. The ball is in your court, LEvalyn and Mangoe . ☺ Uncle G ( talk ) 16:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to hymnology as AtD. Uncle G's research is thorough and persuasive. I do think some of the information at the original article would improve the hymnology article, which is currently a bit slight. Not having looked closely at Uncle G's sources it doesn't seem like the Great Four Hymns are a ""thing"" even if King's identification of them attracted comment; rather, it seems like there's a broader discourse by which people were trying to identify the best/most-used hymns. If we don't somewhere, I think the article should be d. ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 23:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Far above, I voted ""weak "" with a suggested title change, but in light of the more extensive research done by the subsequent commenters, I can support this latest idea to . --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC) An Encyclopedia of Christian and Other Religious Doctrines, Denominations, Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Terms, History, Biography, Etc . London: Cassell. pp. 535–536. Julian, John (1892). ""England Hymnology, Church of"". A Dictionary of Hymnology : Setting Forth the Origin and History of Christian Hymns of All Ages and Nations . London: J. Murray. Marks, Harvey Blair (1938). The Rise and Growth of English Hymnody (2nd ed.). Fleming H. Revell Company. comment All of the talk about merging or some similar resolution are not dealing with the issue I pointed out earlier, which is that it seems entirely likely that all the citations for this besides the primary sources are derived from our articles on these four hymns— well, two of these articles, because nobody seems to care to write articles in the popular press about the other two since nobody sings them any more. If we d those passages and this article, new citations would dry up because (as I've said before) once the term was coined, there seems to have been no interest in the idea until someone stated mentioning it in WP articles. And that's hardly surprising, because by the time of coinage, the original survey was quite dated, the English Hymnal having been published a little over a decade later. But at any rate,I just don't see why we need to promoting this notion, which is what we ae doing. Mangoe ( talk ) 04:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC) 26, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as suggested, although which target is up to the closing admin's sound discretion. FWIW, I am a practicing Episcopalian. Bearian ( talk ) 18:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting for consensus for a target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 08:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"General Maritime Corporation: Devoke water 16:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC) The Wikipedia Library includes access to the extensive Miramar database of shipping articles and data. I have applied for access. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC) I left a message about this AfD at WikiProject Ships asking for their comments here. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC) I think this company is defunct. Their domain is for sale. I found information about them at company-histories.com/General-Maritime-Corporation-Company-History.html. I'm not sure that's a reliable source but they mention some article sources at the end of the page. If they once operated 43 big Suezmax and Aframax tankers, they were certainly notable. Tonnage-wise, that's about the size of the entire French-flagged merchant fleet and bigger than Russia's. I don't know if we can find sources to prove this, though. No proof, no article (because that means we don't have enough to build a reliable article). We can potentially use selected EDGAR data as a reliable source for article-building but only if we prove notability first. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 20:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At the time of the bankruptcy filing the company's assets exceeded a billion dollars, and the article has (uncited) statements on the size of its fleet. At one time the entity surely was notable. Kablammo ( talk ) 20:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC) And the New York Times also has published a number of articles on the company. Kablammo ( talk ) 16:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and to Euronav . No in-depth article about this one to meet our guideline but refs to support some text in Euronav, which is notable. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 20:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (selectively) into Euronav per above. By default includes . Thanks for the research, A. B. ! gidonb ( talk ) 19:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC) to Euronav if by default there is already a . WonderCanada ( talk ) 18:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"American Educational Trust: Much of the content is self-published or copied from the organization's better-known magazine Washington Report on Middle East Affairs . Longhornsg ( talk ) 05:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Washington Report on Middle East Affairs as an ATD. It's almost certainly possible to find SIRS sources for this 40-year old influential organization, but a lot of them are going to be in paper/archives, and WP:NOPAGE probably suffices here due to their primary focus. — siro χ o 06:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , and Washington, D.C. . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to target as per above. JackFromWisconsin ( talk | contribs ) 21:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"List of Saini people: There are not more names in list and few names which are present here also need quote for verification. I propose this list to be d and few names of the community members that exists here can be added below Saini article as that article is also short. Admantine123 ( talk ) 09:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Lists . Admantine123 ( talk ) 09:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Ethnic groups . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 10:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] any verified material to a new ""Notable people"" section in the Saini article. The latter article is short and a standalone list is not really warranted. Mooonswimmer 17:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as proposed by Mooonswimmer . This does not pass WP:NLIST under either notability or usefulness. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Insufficient content to make a standalone article. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 16:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Skynxnex ( talk ) 13:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Touched by an Angel (novel): four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy , Literature , and England . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC) 04, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Find those sources and then vote . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Alternative to deletion to preserve the content as history, until someone can show sources to establish notability. The target could benefit by preserving a condensed plot summary. Daranios ( talk ) 11:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Daranios. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 03:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to New Series Adventures#List of New Series Adventures . I wouldn't oppose a , but when I tried just now to add a few sentences on the plot to the target, I couldn't see a good place for it. There's a lot of great fan-wiki material here, but luckily, it is already preserved on the fan wiki . With no sources for NBOOK there is no need for this article. ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 02:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC) While there isn't a perfect place as the suggested target site is currently formatted, I'd say one can fit in a brief plot summary in the ""Notes"" column. Daranios ( talk ) 10:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Peace to Luhanshchyna: No reliable sources cited. — Michael Z . 03:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions . — Michael Z . 03:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The corresponding Russian-language article at ru:Мир Луганщине has several references that could be added here. Please remember WP:BEFORE . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don’t see a single reliable independent secondary source giving significant coverage to this subject there. — Michael Z . 04:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics , and Russia . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC) A potential WP:ATD could be a to Luhansk People's Republic#Government and politics ; as a ruling political party (even of a fake state), it is noteworthy enough to at least warrant an in-depth mention there. Curbon7 ( talk ) 05:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Probably would consider the same for Luhansk Economic Union , the other major ""political party"" in the LNR. Curbon7 ( talk ) 05:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC) GNG . No reliable sources cited. -- Panam2014 ( talk ) 13:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Relisting to consider a possible or to suggested target article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC) 57, 30 June 2023 (UTC) 12, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Intelligent Finance: A BEFORE is somewhat difficult given the organization's common name but, insofar as I can tell, it has only a smattering of WP:ROUTINE coverage, plus press releases. Chetsford ( talk ) 22:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Companies , and Scotland . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC) doesn't seem notable by itself, but verifiable information can be included as a short paragraph on the target. Owen× ☎ 23:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Plays for New Audiences: Content should be d into Children's Theatre Company and Theatre for Young Audiences The Savage Norwegian 21:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions . The Savage Norwegian 21:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Illinois , Minnesota , and Washington . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I realize now that I could this content over to Children's Theatre Company myself and make this page a . Apologies for my haste in nominating for deletion. The Savage Norwegian 21:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that this content should be a section within the CTC article. References elsewhere can be linked to that section. Kablammo ( talk ) 11:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (the cited material) to Children's Theatre Company . Despite a reasonable number of search results, I found no evidence that the subject is independently notable. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 11:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Tour de Cure (BC Cancer Foundation): 1 or 2 sources out of 3 are closely connected with the subject Edit.pdf ( talk ) 06:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Canada . DreamRimmer ( talk ) 08:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 15, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , additional sources have been cited to address issues related to notability. Dekay00 ( talk ) 14:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC) GNG , although I would like to see greater WP:GEOSCOPE to have a stronger ! vote. Qwaiiplayer ( talk ) 12:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or . There is media coverage, but with a quite limited regional focus that doesn't justify WP:GEOSCOPE and no WP:DIVERSE . I agree that there is a main editor with a close connection to this subject, so a to BC Cancer Foundation may be an alternative WP:ATD . Chiserc ( talk ) 10:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and to BC Cancer Agency . This can all be covered adequately within the scope of the BC Cancer Agency article, although I suggest the list of sponsors can be left behind as it's quite promotional. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 06:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Funny you mentioned this. It's my first wiki article, so of course I templated it based on a similar event ( Tour de Cure ). Which was what led me to create this page, because when I search for the (Canadian) event I was attending, I was seeing American event details since the two share the same name. And surely, if the the Vancouver Sun Run qualified for their own page, it made sense for this one to have its own since they both have the same regional scope and notability. I'm so disgusted with myself right now. I can't believe I turned off the Monaco Grand Prix just to see if I could my first wiki page. Dekay00 ( talk ) 20:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and to BC Cancer Agency as above. HighKing ++ 19:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and to BC Cancer Agency - sources may be good, but doesn't need to be a separate page, especially given how short this and target are. Nfitz ( talk ) 19:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"W67DP: with WKTC . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 01:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and South Carolina . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 01:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Basically unreferenced. - Altenmann >talk 02:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC) its broadcast history can apparently be divided into two eras: repeating WKTC, and a Telemundo affiliation that wound up shifting to a WKTC subchannel after this facility faded away. Neither exactly suggests independent notability, even if the Telemundo affiliation at least appeared to get some coverage at launch. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Digimon Next: The article just relies on primary sources. Xexerss ( talk ) 23:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan . Xexerss ( talk ) 23:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC) NBOOK / WP:GNG . Link20XX ( talk ) 00:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Digimon#Manga per nom. A before with the Japanese and English names failed to produce SIGCOV (note that the latter produces results for Digimon World: Next Order ). ミラP @ Miraclepine 14:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or to Digimon#Manga . If the section there is restructured, have some of the plot imported to it's section in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 00:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Winston (Overwatch): No indication that their gameplay gave them notability outside of the game itself, nor proper discussion of the character to provide SIGCOV. Attempting to find sources that were not about gameplay ended up fruitless as well. Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 03:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 03:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 03:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 29 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 03:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I hate merging a monkey, but KFM spitting. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 03:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC) 44, 29 May 2023 (UTC) 43, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Just started searching for sources a week ago (with credit to GlatorNator for finding a good amount as well), and it wasn't fruitless as the article now uses almost double the amount as prior to last week. I stated in talk page I'll continue to look for sources, as GlatorNator and ferret raised concerns about the ones not quite clearing GNG criteria. But I've also have had to address GlatorNator finding sources for Mercy and D.Va articles, as well as helping out on the Sombra article. And now am in the middle of addressing AfD for Pharah, notability tagging on Kiriko, and GlatorNator's found sources for Brigitte. If you go through the edit histories of those articles, I'm the main editor on most of them (main exception being Sombra), and doing all of this in such a short window of time is rather just a touch overloading imo. Not to mention other there are other Overwatch-related articles, Hanzo and Doomfist, that while I haven't really contributed to I have been notified about the taggings of their respective issue, so I wonder why aren't we allowing for more time to be taken on these improvements, as opposed to just rushing through these processes? ( Initial notability tagging on Winston is only from earlier this month, for instance. If I can get around to it, I will try my best to find sourcing for this article, but I've already mentioned my priority being the AfD on Pharah, then addressing the Kiriko article, and then the Brigitte one. For now, I found this [source https://killscreen.com/previously/articles/winston-science-gorilla-charge/ ] which isn't centered on the character's gameplay. I guess I'll formally express my take to this, for now, but yeah. Soulbust ( talk ) 04:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Ferret sources analysis [42] . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 05:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per others. When this article was made, it was done in a way that ignored whether or not the character was notable. Wikipedia is not a fan wiki. While others tried to improve the article, they should have simply questioned why it existed. Editors should be strongly cautioned that mere mentions in titles of articles does not equal significant coverage within the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per my prior source analysis and Kung Fu Man. It's even worst that a source like this Killscreen article is being touted as sigcov here at this AFD. For one, Killscreen says up front that they were indiscriminate and wrote such an article for *every* character of Overwatch . In short, this is non-independent coverage of the game, they did it for every single character. Let's pretend it was independent though. This is possibly the most terrible source anyone could offer to me when trying to prove notability. It offers a brief description of how the character looks cloaked in meme-speak jokes. There's no discussion of the character's development, back story, strengths or weaknesses in gameplay, change history, player reception, nothing. -- ferret ( talk ) 16:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC) 12, 29 May 2023 (UTC) 40, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The Kill Screen source doesn't need to be neutral, since it's opinionated and can simply be included in the prose in a way that clarifies that . But it's not laughable to consider something a reliable source when it's listed as such ... I don't get the language we're using here. ""Being touted"", I didn't even call it sigcov in my previous comment, just mentioned that I found the source. Looking at it closer, I don't see how it wouldn't count as significant coverage when the WP:GNG pretty clearly defines its criteria. The Kill Screen source meets it by directly and in detail discussing the subject (Winston). If you or others disagree with it being SIGCOV that's fine, but what does it matter that Kill Screen wrote one on every character? This has no relevance or weight when it comes to any criteria that'd apply here. Is it really an outlandish concept that a media outlet writes about characters in media? How is it non-independent? Kill Screen isn't affiliated with Blizzard. Unless we are going to consider any video game media outlet ""non-independent"" for covering video games? (which yes, obviously, they'd have at least some interest in doing so). ""When this article was made, it was done in a way that ignored whether..."" No, I didn't ignore anything. I simply disagree with your opinion, and that's fine. It was seven years ago when the threshold (not the officially defined one in guidelines and policies, but more so how the community feels and holds accountable the articles in the WP:VG space) was obviously different (not to mention, I'd be seven years younger and admittedly more eager to make articles on VG topics back then). I don't look at just the titles... I'm the one sifting through sources to even cite, when writing this article. I know this isn't the Overwatch fandom wiki, and so I don't try to include any and every piece of trivia. Just core gameplay concepts, development history, reception, and media appearance (comics, animations, etc.) that are from reliable sources. Nothing crazy or out of the usual for something on Wikipedia. I think the character has a place in a stand-alone article, but others firmly disagree. Cool with me . My sensibilities lean more to include information about Winston here on the stand-alone article. Not officially policy or guideline, but I know some editors like and lean toward the WP:THREE suggestion. Maybe there isn't three sources that everyone else is satisfied with counting as sigcov. (But I would lean toward a suggestion (that I don't think has had a WP essay written up about, like how WP:THREE exists): There's at least one though and a whole lot of supplemental sourcing showing Winston with a tangible (as possible for a fictional character) presence. I'm of the mindset that in concert with each other , the linked source with legitimate and more than plenty supplemental sourcing works to create an article that is obviously more than just skin and bones. But I'm not stupid or oblivious. I felt that much more with the Bastion one than this Winston one, and the former was d/ed. Lots of votes here already so I definitely expect this to be ed, so I don't have anything else to add to this discussion or the article. Don't mind if we wrap this one as a and early, or if it goes the standard week. Soulbust ( talk ) 19:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Cornell Big Red Pep Band: No clear indication of notability here/or of coverage to establish that. [Note that I attend Cornell, have no connection with this org.] Eddie891 Talk Work 13:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York . Eddie891 Talk Work 13:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] with Cornell Big Red Marching Band , since the Pep Band is affiliated with that organization. - Kzirkel ( talk ) 15:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Timeline of Bharat Jodo Yatra: Bharat Jodo Yatra exists, and there's no reason for timeline to exist other than as ""dumping content"". Last discussion was opposed and ended in No consensus with the only reasoning being it was ""written with effort"" Soni ( talk ) 04:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India . Soni ( talk ) 04:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Courtesy link to previous discussion . - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 05:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Bharat Jodo Yatra . I do not see why timeline needs to have a separate page when timeline segment is included in Bharat_Jodo_Yatra#Timeline . This page is WP:CFORK . RangersRus ( talk ) 14:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC) NOTNEWS and needs to be removed, refactored or otherwise severely reduced. But that's another discussion for Talk:Bharat Jodo Yatra Soni ( talk ) 07:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or Not a political student but there's already a Schedule section in Bharat Jodo Yatra . I don't think it needs its own page for a timeline, as it could be effectively d into the Bharat Jodo Yatra page. Based Kashmiri ( talk ) 06:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Governor of Zaporozhye Oblast: I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 17 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 13:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Russia . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Passes WP:NPOLITICIAN . Could be expanded with Russian or Ukrainian sources. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 17:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That guideline about people does not apply to this article about a wartime appointment , not about a politician or judge (that would be Yevgeny Balitsky , although he is neither). — Michael Z . 19:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC) to Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast#Occupation administration per my comments in the previous AfD, which I think reflect even more on this article considering the novelty of this disputed subnational entity. Next time, consider using WP:PROPMERGE instead. Curbon7 ( talk ) 18:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The article is a one-item list with no references. There’s nothing to say about this specific post that can’t be said in articles about the appointed military–civilian occupation head himself, about the occupation, and about its events, which are all notable topics. — Michael Z . 19:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"132 Aviation Support Squadron RLC: This article is regarding a company-sized sub-unit. PercyPigUK ( talk ) 22:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom . PercyPigUK ( talk ) 22:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Retitle as 7 Aviation Support Battalion RLC , a battalion sized unit, which will be more notable. This includes 132 Squadron and a couple of other companies. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is 7 Aviation Support Battalion REME the unit you are referring to? PercyPigUK ( talk ) 00:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 7 Aviation Support Battalion REME . Retain squadron article as - better references may appear in time. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 7 Aviation Support Battalion REME . Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk ) 21:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and to 7 Aviation Support Battalion REME . Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and to 7 Aviation Support Battalion REME . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"PTV (TV station): I only have added 3 references to the article, so far, with most of the references from the Prime7 article, and the article was unreferenced for the longest time, except for the HAAT, which I converted into a note today. I hope someone finally expands the article with additional information on the station's history. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 00:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia . Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 00:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ MrSchimpf , can you please find additional references for PTV Mildura, and leave your opinion on this article deletion discussion, whatever you choose, , or . I know there was a reference on 1 July 1997 (the station's launch day) by the local Sunraysia Daily newspaper in the city about Prime Television (PTV)'s launch in the city, but I can't find it online, except in a TelevisionAU article. Can you please find the original reference? Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 00:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: User:TechGeek105 , I'm not sure why you nominated this article for a deletion discussion when it sounds like you are seeking sources for it and don't want it d. If that's the case, you shouldn't have brought it to AFD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC) GNG ), and I failed to find more than 3 references for PTV Mildura. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 22:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm confused about why I'm being pinged about this; I never contributed to this article and though I do contribute occasionally to AU television articles, it's mostly for maintenance edits. Nate • ( chatter ) 18:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Prime7 which does cover this topic. Jenks24 ( talk ) 09:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like a second opinion on the suggestion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Doesn't have sufficient references for a standalone. Salvage useable and verifiable content to Prime Television considering there is already some overlap. ––– GMH Melbourne 11:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"2024 American Samoa Republican presidential caucuses: There it can be sufficiently covered in one sentence. Esolo5002 ( talk ) 00:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Politics , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In uncontested race, results are easily and best covered in main article. Reywas92 Talk 03:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Subject doesn't contain the necessary WP:SIGCOV for a standalone article. as a WP:ATD . Let'srun ( talk ) 00:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's very little information other than the election results and the majority of sources have nothing to do with this specific race. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk ) 17:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC) 21, 6 May 2024 (UTC) 58, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"2017 Hayatabad suicide bombing: No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT . LibStar ( talk ) 00:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Terrorism , and Pakistan . LibStar ( talk ) 00:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] /basically to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017 , Pakistan has a lot of terrorism and is hard to search for sources for so if there are actually later sources in Urdu I would not oppose it being an article again someday (but I highly doubt that is the case). PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 02:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support , searching for the events bring up other similar events before it. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 02:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"China and the opioid epidemic in the United States: The contents of this article can easily be incorporate or are already incorporated into those two articles. LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 01:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Politics , Medicine , China , and United States of America . LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 01:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This article on the smuggling of fentanyl from China to the United States is strongly supported by high-quality secondary sources that establish the subject's notability and significant in geopolitics. Sources such as the Brookings Institution [83] and the Council on Foreign Relations [84] provide in-depth analyses of China's role in the global fentanyl crisis, detailing the inadequacies in enforcement of regulations post-2019, and the shift in trafficking routes that continue to impact the U.S. Furthermore, the German Marshall Fund offers a nuanced view on the fluctuating dynamics of U.S.-China cooperation on narcotics, emphasizing the geopolitical complexities that underscore the ongoing challenges in addressing this critical issue [85] . We can't possibly cover all aspects of this subject in the mother article, which is already bursting at the seams. This is a classic content fork project. FailedMusician ( talk ) 02:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then include it in the Illegal drug trade in China article. The first sentence ""Smuggling of fentanyl from China to the United States has significantly contributed to the opioid epidemic in the United States, an issue that has persisted since the 1990s."" reads as though China has been a major contributing factor to the opioid epidemic since the nineties - does not seem like a super neutral POV. Plus the article really only addresses fentanyl. Additionally not sure what the paragraph starting with ""In a subsequent visit on July 6–9, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen..."" has to do with the topic. If you remove extraneous information it is definitely trimmable to a section in a different article - heck even expand United States sanctions against China as you have already been doing. LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 03:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] back to main article Some of this material is already there, and the rest should be. I note also that the title is misleading in that it treats the foreign relation aspect in general, not just about China. Mangoe ( talk ) 02:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC) GLOBAL perspective on the issue. Jumpytoo Talk 04:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (partial) the subject is a synthesis and the article a fork. The China connection is already discussed in the main article. It shouldn't be much longer than that, but a limited might be ok. Draken Bowser ( talk ) 07:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Partial I agree with Draken Bowser - also am concerned an independent article will become a possible POV content fork. I don't think a bunch of neo-cold-war anxiety will benefit a neutral encyclopedia. Simonm223 ( talk ) 10:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The Illegal drug trade in China is almost exclusively about the trade going on...unsurprisingly... in China. This article is almost exclusively about the impact outside of China, and the geopolitical consequences with the US. I'm not entirely opposed to merging but it would have to be d into the right article, and I don't think there is one. This article has enough content to stand on its own, and it currently respects MOS:SO given that it expands upon info in a timeline section: Opioid_epidemic_in_the_United_States#2010s_to_present_(increase_in_fentanyl) . The Opioid epidemic in the United States article is >13k words which makes it WP:TOOBIG for a that will respect due weight. Glad to see there isn't any 'neo-cold-war anxiety' present in the article when read. Tone is neutral and disinterested, in accordance with WP:NPOV policy. SmolBrane ( talk ) 17:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure if this is true - Illegal drug trade in China also addresses trafficking within the Golden Triangle and deals with drug treaties and other international relations issues. Furthermore, there is no page that is titled ""Mexico and the Opioid Epidemic in the United States"" or ""Afghanistan and the Opioid Epidemic in the United States"" - most of the stuff that is covered in the article could be summarized in a couple of paragraphs and placed somewhere else. LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 18:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Partial to Illegal drug trade in China , being judicious about what we bring over per Draken Bowser. Pinguinn 🐧 03:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC) FORK , as I also think should be done in such cases. Please make it s . Bearian ( talk ) 12:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment it seems likely that parts of this article may have been created using ChatGPT. Anyone merging will want to carefully scrutinize any material they retain. Simonm223 ( talk ) 12:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and will probably need going through with a fine tooth-comb first, as the article creator has been busted for abusing LLMs to create content and a spot check already turned up one issue. Bon courage ( talk ) 13:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Zajączkowo-Dworzec: a bot operated by retired editor Kotniski . Name means literally ""Zajączkowo-Station"". As is visible from satellite images , this is actually a railway station/marshalling-yard, and is described as a part of Zajączkowo on the Polish regulation on place-names (see p. 2518 here ). Whilst the article includes a population, I could not find a listing for this place on the Polish government statistical database , though this holds data for Zajączkowo going back to 1988. This is another example of Polish communist-era infrastructure (e.g., state farms, forestry offices, mills etc.) being included as a territorial unit, and then turned into a Wikipedia article by bots and bot-like editing. I'm agnostic about deletion or just ing to Zajączkowo - either is good. TL;DR - fails WP:NTRAINSTATION , WP:GNG , WP:GEOLAND . FOARP ( talk ) 12:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland . FOARP ( talk ) 12:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and . Per TERYT , this is part of Zajączkowo, Tczew County . I don't see what makes this have stand-alone notability separate from the village it is a part of (this is most likely just a ""cluster of few buildings next to the train station in the village""). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC) 50, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Zajączkowo, Tczew County per Piotrus. // Timothy :: talk 18:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Percy Parkes Building: I do not believe the application for state heritage listing plus brief mentions in a coffee table book and in a local newsletter meet the standard for significant coverage in independent sources. Melcous ( talk ) 03:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC) 33, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Carmel-by-the-Sea is a peculiar place that do not have street addresses. So buildings are given fancy pants names to be used in lieu of addresses. So, having names is not an indication of notability in that particular Township. See https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/carmel-no-addresses-1.7091347 Graywalls ( talk ) 09:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC) NBUILDING and WP:GNG guidelines as a result of its historic, social, economic, or architectural importance using reliable secondary and primary sources. The property is significant under the California Register of Historical Resources registration criterion 3, in the area of architecture as an example of the Spanish Colonial Revival architecture -style and work of master builder Percy Parkes . This building is part of a block of commercial buildings on Dolores Street between Ocean Avenue and 7th Avenue that demonstrate Carmel's historic commercial development in the 1920s The Percy Parkes Building is an important commercial building in the Carmel-by-the-Sea 's Downtown Conservation District Historic Property Survey, and was nominated and submitted to the National Register of Historic Places on April 25, 2002. Clicking on this link for Percy Parkes Building , will bring up the historical study that was done for the building. Long and rather extensive. Greg Henderson ( talk ) 16:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Historic Buildings in Carmel-by-the-Sea . This is one of over 100 buildings in the city's Downtown Conservation District that are collectively listed on the California Register of Historical Resources. Being just one building in a historic downtown or historic block does not show to me that it needs a standalone article. Being nominated – as part of a 100+ property district – to the National Register of Historic Places is entirely irrelevant when the district was not actually listed on the register. Reywas92 Talk 01:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Historic Buildings in Carmel-by-the-Sea . The historical listing is via a large collective of buildings and not for this individual building. Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 15:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC) GEOFEAT , nor WP:NBUILDING . I'm not finding any serious coverage of this building by independent architectural historians. The two book sources, both by Alissandra Dramov, a town council woman for Carmel-by-the-Sea; seem more for tourists. I think the comments by Reywas92, GPL93, Djflem and Melcous are accurate. This building is not on the NRHP, it was simply listed on a local registry and simply nominated along with over 100 other buildings. To have individual articles on all of those 100+ buildings seems like WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE . An alternative to deletion is to to List of Historic Buildings in Carmel-by-the-Sea . Netherzone ( talk ) 19:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"August 2013 Karachi bombing: No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT . LibStar ( talk ) 10:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Terrorism , and Pakistan . LibStar ( talk ) 10:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013 . As per the 20 other discussions. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 19:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013 . This was how similar issues were handled recently: [9] , [10] , [11] . ~ Kvng ( talk ) 16:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Rutan (Doctor Who): A search for sources yields only listicles. Rutans can probably be d into either the Sontarans' article or the general list of alien races article. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens . BD2412 T 01:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/Redirect Not suitable for Wikipedia without reliable third-party sources. Does not meet WP:GNG . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 23:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and per above. Probably at least a semi-likely search term or link target Dronebogus ( talk ) 01:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Brutale (DC Comics): ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Comics and animation . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC) B - Relatively minor fictional character, without any significant coverage in reliable sources. Only primary sources are being used the in the article, and searches only turn up brief mentions in plot summaries. A light of his basic information to the appropriate character list seems like the best decision. Rorshacma ( talk ) 17:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC) B in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 18:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC) B . Can't find any sigcov, and the sources are primary. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Katmandu (comics): , then deprodded by StarTrekker ( talk · contribs ) for alleged mass PROD, but then reinstated by BoomboxTestarossa. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 15:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Comics and animation . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 15:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per original prod, unable to see where it cane be ed to, though furry comics are not an area I am particularly versed on. Nothing to suggest it's their Watchmen or anything, though. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 16:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC) ATD . The publisher of it seems like a relevant place to put the information, but it doesn't seem individually notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per Zxcvbnm. ★Trekker ( talk ) 07:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] don't . We should not be removing sourced material from Wikipedia. I'm concerned that the nomination includes the text no proof The Comics Journal mention is in any depth . Burden on proof is on the nominator. Material is removed because it isn't sourced or doesn't reflect the source. Hiding T 08:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure where it says ""burden of proof is on the nominator""? WP:BURDEN states that ""The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material"", which is the exact opposite of that. Let's assume that the review in Comics Journal is WP:SIGCOV . The article still needs several extra reliable, secondary sources to pass WP:GNG . None pop up at all. You are free to bring them forward if you have them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 10:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC) BURDEN , looks like you have misunderstood what I have said. We are talking about the burden of proof on the nominator to support their nomination statement that doubts The Comics Journal mention is in any depth , otherwise we could simply doubt and remove everything. WP:BURDEN has been satisfied, there's the source, go verify it. Don't cast aspersions until that's done. I'm here arguing with the substance of the debate and trying to educate on the ideas behind Wikipedia. We don't sourced material without very good reason. Extrapolate from that what we would do with that sourced information and why we shouldn't be at AFD. As an aside, I also don't need a lecture on WP:GNG , I'm very aware of the intent behind the words I wrote on that policy page. If it helps, the burden of proof on the afd nominator is found at our guide on deletion; Check the deletion policy to see what things are not reasons for deletion. Consider whether you actually want the article to be d, expanded, or cleaned up rather than d, and use the appropriate mechanism instead of AfD. and also it might be worth refreshing on the editing policy, Wikipedia summarizes accepted knowledge. As a rule, the more accepted knowledge it can encapsulate, the better it is. Hiding T 09:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC) Hiding That makes no sense. For something like TCJ with no free online archive (or even widely available unofficial sources) you could just make something up and it could stick for years until someone notices. It could be a one-line passing mention; TCJ has carried listings at various points. If you're hanging a whole article on one reference on one source it needs to be verifiable, surely? BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 21:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC) BoomboxTestarossa You seem to have misunderstood a very fundamental part of WP:AGF and peer review. The source is there, it's provided. Go show it to be wrong, don't assume it is wrong, because otherwise we simply remove everything from Wikipedia that we assume to be wrong. I'm not sure anyone is hanging a whole article on anything, certainly not me, so I won't engage with that part of the argument, thanks. Hiding T 09:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So if an editor is struggling to source up an article they can just tag on a hard-to-verify but notable source and it's up to someone else to verify that? Nice, that one's getting filed for the next time I inflict pages on random Zenith background characters on people. Did The Comics Journal do an in-depth article on the Q-Bikes? Most people will never know that they (probably) didn't. In all seriousness I get what you're saying but in the context of this debate where there's no other notable, significant coverage I think it's important that we have a reference that can be verified. I'm not propsing a fundamental precedent here, just noting in this particular case of an article already displaying notability issues what sounds like a solid reference might not be. I apologise if my phrasing in the original post was ignorant, I can be a bit monkey-see monkey-do. I'll learn the lesson from that one =) BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 09:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] An editor can pretty much make up anything on Wikipedia, that's been a feature/bug since day one. But when we remove or clean up stuff we have to hold to a higher standard. I don't or prod until I'm 100% sure the article can't be saved, and I'm also mindful that I'm collaborating. I'm even more mindful now that I'm collaborating with people who have died, so it's also important to be their voice in a debate as well. I get that there's a context in this debate, but I also get that these debates are people's first time, and that people are scared off these debates. I also think there's a place in Wikipedia for sourced information. That's what we are here for. I don't like the idea that we nominate for deletion through prod or afd, material that is sourced. Stubify it, it, it, include it somewhere. Fix the issues, make them better, but that sourced information is what makes us better. Retain it somewhere. If it's a stub article that gets nowhere for 50 years, so what? Hiding T 10:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Now that would be my attitude too, and merging seems like a good solution. The problem is that Wikipedia's guidelines are contradictory and applied arbitrarily, and I am tired of having to pore over multiple sources and deal with the agenda one of the new article reviewers when there's poorly referenced and abandoned crap like this littering up the place. Yes, the person who put together this article could have died, become a busy pop singer with their own Netflix show, whatever. But no-one else has bothered to remedy the issues in the past two plus years and no-one is chiming in with a stack of sources now either. Letting it sit there like a depth charge in a public toilet is an insult to hard-working editors, and on the surface adds to the impression that any article made before a certain date is somehow sacrosanct whereas new submissions have to clear an incredibly high bar to even be considered. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 12:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I apologise if something I have said has initiated the rhetorical change in your argument. It's great that we agree on many things, and I think where we disagree is on the approach. There's no deadline on Wikipedia, and it doesn't really insult anyone if an article is in a poor state. I can't myself go down the path of negative emotions, I've had way too long a wiki break because of the lack of collegiate debate and the enforcing of viewpoints. Maybe the high bar that new submissions face is wrong. Maybe the rhetoric on AFD is wrong. Maybe editors are forced off Wikipedia by many different things. But what we're trying to do, what we're supposed to do, is work out what's best for this article, and this information. Nothing more, nothing less. Again I apologise for any offence I have given. I look at my own clean up list and think that two years is nothing. I could cite articles that reach double figures. We'll never get there, it's a founding principle of the endeavour. :) Hiding T 12:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh god no, you have not offended me one bit and I apologise if I gave the impression you did. I am talking about an editor who is not currently involved in this discussion. And I am enjoying an educated, informative discussion with you. TBH your views are what I would consider an enlightened and sensible approach to Wikipedia, especially the strength of there being no deadline for salvage (assuming no-one is being slandered or whatever). It's just a surprise really when most other notability/AfD discussions I've had to get involved with take completely the opposite view, with an onus on rapid deletion without discussion, and insistence on instant verification of sources. It can be baffling to work out the consistency, or how exactly you can collaborate on a page if you're not even allowed to get it off the ground. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 13:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Mike Curtis (writer) . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 08:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing vote to to Mike Curtis (writer) in order to aid consensus. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 08:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Lylla: From a read-through of the article, her comics history seems non-existent, and her reception is almost entirely consistent of listicles. While they can help support notability, the section is composed entirely of them and praise from PETA. A BEFORE turned up nothing beyond speculation and recaps for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, as well as more listicles. There doesn't seem to be enough notability to justify a separate article. From a glance, and as most of the information seems to be MCU related, I feel merging most of the MCU related reception to the List of Marvel Universe Characters: A-L article might be a decent AtD, but I'm not too sure. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation . Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC) A–L : Coverage of the character almost entirely consists of trivial mentions and listicles, which don't generally constitute significant coverage. ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me! 00:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] RS, independent, non-trivial coverage in CBR , The Direct , The Mary Sue , and Gamerant . While I appreciate that the nom stated a BEFORE search had been conducted, I don't find any of these congruent with speculation and recaps for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, as well as more listicles . Jclemens ( talk ) 01:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] CBR entry does not appear to be SIGCOV, it just says the character will be voiced by someone. Other sources add some plot summary. I am not impressed. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And yet, three RSes meets GNG, whether you're impressed or not, correct? Jclemens ( talk ) 04:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My concern with those sources is that the vast majority, outside of plot recap, give at most one or two sentences directly discussing the character. Normally I'd be fine with that if there were larger articles more directly discussing the character, but there don't seem to be any that don't fall under this category. Sure, they constitute as coverage, but the coverage they give is extremely weak and barebones. The article itself is also so short that a r into the character's list would most likely not even bloat it that substantially. There really doesn't seem to be enough here to justify separation. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 02:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So I'm confused, did you find them in your BEFORE and dismiss them, or not? Jclemens ( talk ) 04:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I found several of them, among similar sources, though some of them I did not notice in my before. I dismissed a lot of sources like these because they don't really give much coverage on the subject. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 12:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Jclemens. BOZ ( talk ) 01:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Low quality sources that talk about voice actors, plus some plot summary, is not enough for encyclopedia. Unless we can find some SIGCOV-meeting coverage that goes beyond ""this new character will be a romantic interest for another more estabilished character"" all we can do is to create a fancrufty plot summary. This is not what a serious encyclopedia should have. PS. I did not read Pokelego999's second comment above until having written mine, but I think we both make the same argument. There is nothing to write here outside plot summary and list of appearances. That's not enough. Maybe more sourcing will appear in the future, which is why I prefer SOFTDELETE approach. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC) A–L#Lylla per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 10#Arthur Harrow . Obscure and non-notable character in the comics, only known to the public because of the film. InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 18:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You do know that Lylla has had some other media appearances before her MCU counterpart debuted. Right? -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 01:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC) WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force has been notified of this discussion. InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 18:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC) BEFORE , I'm not seeing enough WP:SIGCOV to write an article that is more than WP:PLOT or speculation. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC) 00, 1 September 2023 (UTC) or back to List of Marvel Comics characters: L while sending the MCU history to Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe: A–L#Lylla in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 01:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning , based on coverage referenced above, reflecting forty years of comic book appearances and other media appearances, culminating in adaptation for prominent inclusion in the fourth-highest-grossing film of 2023. BD2412 T 03:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC) L . I'm not sure anything from the GOTGV3 film makes the comic version of the character notable enough for standalone (most of the coverage seems to be ""she was in the comic"" and that's about it); it's not quite as much of a name-slap as, say, Luke Jacobsen or all those Agents of SHIELD characters, but it's also not too far But there's no reason it can't be dropped into the admittedly-disastrous character list with a note about the film version pointing to the appropriate section of the MCU character list, and the sources would strengthen the list article. And it could also be split back off if there's some sort of situation where the character is reincorporated into the comics and goes on to be a well-covered feature of the comics universe over the next few years, so would be preferred to preserve page history. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 11:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not enough non-trivial RS coverage to retain an article. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 18:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, still all over the map here with editors advocating Keep, Redirect, and Delete. Rather than closing this as No consensus I'll try a second relisting. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with merging, this page does not seem to be up to Wikipedia's standards. 01:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC) TheRealOj32 ( talk ) 01:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Tribe Fight Song: I don't see any references outwith of the College which reference the topic. Possibly should be d and ed but I don't know where to JMWt ( talk ) 17:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools . JMWt ( talk ) 17:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Virginia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - No evidence of notability for which significant independent reliable secondary sources would be required. Cannot find any. Doesn't even get a mention on The College of William & Mary , because it is just a song sung after touchdowns in sports. It does get a mention at the William & Mary Tribe page, which is about the university athletics teams. That is as much as is needed. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 17:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Agree with Sirfurboy on everything except the ! vote. This has good info with the right depth and substance to replace the Fight Songs section of the main article. It does not merit an article of its own. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 12:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relist to consider the proposal as a deletion alternative . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 20:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - per ATD . Redirects are cheap. Even if there was nothing to , a is certainly a better option than deletion. 4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 01:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment What is the target article you are arguing for? L iz Read! Talk! 03:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Last1in suggests the Fight Songs section of William & Mary Tribe . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 06:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"UCI Math Circle: Personally I think a university affiliated math circle is still an organization, not a school, but I digress, here we are now. Fails WP:NORG . No coverage found in WP:ORGIND sources. A412 ( Talk • C ) 01:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , Mathematics , and California . A412 ( Talk • C ) 01:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Recuse . I don't actually have an affiliation with the mathematics department, and I didn't know anything about this program before seeing this AfD, but this is still too close. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 02:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment from creator to be fair, UCI Track Cycling World Cup – Women's individual pursuit is allowed but does not show up in any major sources, meanwhile papers are written in the math circle. Ayunipear ( talk ) 02:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Article makes no claim to notability, and cites no reliable sources, nor do such seem to exist. The'other stuff exists' is the type specimen of an invalid defence; likely the named article should also be d. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 06:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm not having luck finding independent sources about this, but I wouldn't yet rule out the possibility that there could be grounds to include a sentence in, e.g. , University of California, Irvine School of Physical Sciences . Outreach activities include the UCI Math Circle, an enrichment program for secondary school students... or something like that. XOR'easter ( talk ) 10:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] a sentence along the lines of XOR'easter's suggestion. It is listed in a directory of math circles [23] and a brief mention in an issue on remote math circles [24] , which is marginally enough independent verfiability for a few basic facts about the organization in a sentence at University of California, Irvine School of Physical Sciences . If math circle was in better shape, that would also be a possible target. -- {{u| Mark viking }} { Talk } 21:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – fails notability criteria. No reliable sources that are independent found. Toad ette ( Merry Christmas, and a happy new year ) 07:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] selectively per the suggestion of Mark viking above. XOR'easter ( talk ) 16:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak or I've gone and addressed the tag issues on the article and cited two sources about the program. I can see other Math Circles being notable in the future. Dr vulpes (Talk) 18:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Added to vote because honestly either is fine. Dr vulpes (Talk) 18:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I looked at the sources you added and I have concerns. Pantano, Alessandra; Forero, Andres (2022). ""Math CEO's Training Framework: The Best-Kept Secret behind the Success a Math Circle for Underserved Students -- I'm fairly certain this is about something else. https://sites.ps.uci.edu/mathceo/ (""UCI Math CEO"") appears to be different than https://www.math.uci.edu/~mathcircle/index.html (""UCI Math Circle""). If you look at the math circle website, there's an external link to Math CEO, which suggests it's a different organization. Pantano, Aessandra; Treuer, John; Baki, Yasmeen (2022). ""The UCI Math Circle: Building an online community of young math researchers. This isn't independent. https://www.math.uci.edu/~mathcircle/MCpeople.html Patanato, Treuer, and Baki all lead the math circle. ~ A412 talk! 18:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Threads (application): Could easily be a section in the Instagram article itself. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Instagram . Doesn't pass WP:SUSTAINED -- there's plenty of coverage of its launch and plenty of coverage of it getting shut down with almost nothing in between. Puhala,ny ( talk ) 14:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 16, 13 July 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 17 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 37, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 09, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 12, 18 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 59, 18 July 2023 (UTC) 05, 18 July 2023 (UTC) 43, 19 July 2023 (UTC) 53, 20 July 2023 (UTC) 12, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 15:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Threads (social network) . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 20:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 ( talk • contribs ) 08:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"August 2013 Quetta shooting: 10 years on I'm not seeing any WP:LASTING impact to meet WP:EVENT . LibStar ( talk ) 11:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Terrorism , and Pakistan . LibStar ( talk ) 11:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013 . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 21:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013 . No analytic coverage that warrants this event having a stand alone article. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 18:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"European Aleph Institute: No reason for a separate page for the European offshoot of the same organization. Longhornsg ( talk ) 13:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Judaism , Europe , and Belgium . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"NOVID (app): After 3 years, and no WP:SUSTAINED coverage. I do not think this is notable. It certainly can/is already mentioned within the list of COVID-19 contact tracing apps ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 14:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , COVID-19 , and Software . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Now that I think about it I think I can it with Po-Shen Loh and include a section about the app in it. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 20:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Seungri400 ( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Po-Shen Loh per above. // Timothy :: talk 21:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"LeanXcam: — Panamitsu (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions . — Panamitsu (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources all seem to be either primary or promotional; little other information found. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 02:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC) ATD-M , WP:NOPAGE . While this iffy on GNG, here's one decent source which also mentions that distro (styled pClinux): [53] . — siro χ o 07:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"2023 Desert Southwest floods: Although supposedly ""historic"", many similar ""historic"" flooding events that occur have no articles here. This appeared to have fairly minor impact and seemingly resulted in no casualties. It would seemingly fail WP:N as routine weather is not generally deemed article-worthy. United States Man ( talk ) 06:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] unless additional content is found that shows notability. Noah Talk 13:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS . — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk • contribs ) 14:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC) N with over half the sources listed (5 out of 9) being reliable secondary sources . This also would imply WP:NOTNEWS is passes as well. WP:TOOSOON is very irrelevant since the article was created a month after the floods ended. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Texas . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Weather of 2023 . Flash floods aren't out of the ordinary in a desert as the absence of vegetation gives rise to soils with low infiltration capacities, and it's not uncommon for an arid or semi-arid area to receive most of its annual rainfall in a few days of rain. It's not very surprising either when a playa (a dry lake bed ) fills with water and floods. With damage localised to mainly Amarillo and no reports of casualties or major damage (200 homes destroyed out of a population of 200,000) after a month, I don't see enough lasting significance for a standalone article. ~ KN2731 { talk · contribs } 08:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would also support merging to Floods in the United States (2000–present) as brought up by the IP below. ~ KN2731 { talk · contribs } 07:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per reasons stated by others above, I don't see major notability in this event. ""200 people being evacuated"" in a city of 200,000 and ""several houses being destroyed"" aren't notable and are fairly routine events. RandomInfinity17 ( talk - contributions ) 21:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Not notable enough for a standalone article but seemingly notable enough for a blurb there. 72.68.134.26 ( talk ) 22:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 14:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Floods in the United States (2000-present) . Sources don't seem to pass WP:NEVENT for now but there's enough coverage for a mention in the broader article. Qwaiiplayer ( talk ) 17:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Qwaiiplayer, unless another better destination is needed. Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 22:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC) WikiProject Severe weather -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 01:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Nasty Boys: Sourced to comic books and a passing mention in sportskeeda , flagged by my RS script as ""generally unreliable source"". or if anyone has an idea of where to? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Comics and animation . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations seems like a decent target for a . BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 07:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC) 58, 27 September 2023 (UTC) PRESERVE . To the closer of this page, I ask that any members of the Nasty Boys who to this page should have their bios transferred to their respectful List of Marvel Comics characters page like how @ BOZ : did with those who were ed to the Circus of Crime prior to it's AFD discussion . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 22:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Haarika and Hassine Creations: The main factor that sets this apart from the 2017 and 2020 deletions that led to the SALTing of Haarika & Hassine Creations is the release of Ala Vaikunthapurramuloo which is unquestionably notable. The award, and a lot of the coverage speaks to the film and I'm not sure whether that rolls up to the production company and or S. Radha Krishna , which is why I'm not necessarily advocating for a r to the founder. SInce they have been involved with other films, r to the notable one doesn't quite work either. Thoughts? Tips on N:ORG level coverage for the production company? If this is deemed notable, I think the other title should be unSALTed and this moved as it is the DBA. Star Mississippi 22:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Organizations , Companies , India , and Telangana . Star Mississippi 22:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC) This production company is highly notable production company in Telugu film industry. NaanReady ( talk ) 05:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC) NORG . Only 10 of the article's references mention the subject. Eight of them just mention that it is the production company for a film. The other two just seem to list the films that it has produced in prose. This is all trivial coverage . The awards are for the films not the production company. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 15:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to S. Radha Krishna as a new L2 section, otherwise per SailingInABathTub. We are in that odd liminal space where the same facts lead to opposite results as applied to an individual vs. a company , so merging to the individual who is deeply (and apparently exclusively?) linked to the company seems like the best way to preserve encyclopedic content. This can seem like an oddly bureaucratic result but there are reasons for it . I am not sure if any of the tables should be d, but at least the content of the lead and Production sections can be (and therefore should be ). -- Visviva ( talk ) 15:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and appropriate content to S. Radha Krishna , the company on its own fails GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing ++ 17:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Visviva . We have an almost identical ""liminal"" situation (personal vs. corporate) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BoND - also relisted 3 times. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 21:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Steve Ewing: No content worth merging. Schierbecker ( talk ) 07:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . Schierbecker ( talk ) 07:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Food and drink , and Missouri . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC) I don't see extensive coverage outside the band. For all this is, the paragraph can be incorporated into the band's article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to The Urge - I am familiar with this singer and he has done nothing independently notable outside his main band. The fact that he owns a restaurant and will be the subject of a film can be mentioned at the band's article, and that's about it. Otherwise this article is clearly a promotional attempt. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 12:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Fireball (roller coaster): There are ROUTINE announcement and promo for the ride, but nothing from WP:IS , WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject ( the ride ) directly and indepth. No objection to a or selecrtive to Adventureland (New York)#Rides and attractions . // Timothy :: talk 05:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks and New York . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Adventureland (New York)#Rides and attractions . There is no WP:SIGCOV of this roller coaster at the moment; it has little standalone notability. – Epicgenius ( talk ) 14:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Adventureland (New York)#Rides and attractions . No SIGCOV, fails GNG by far. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"List of supporting Harry Potter characters: The main list is suprisingly short and contains a number of redrects here as well, so this is really a weird fork (who decides which character is supporting anyway?). Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , Literature , and Lists . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC) CONTENTFORK . — siro χ o 08:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Clear content fork, no reason for there to be two seperate lists. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 08:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC) 31, 23 July 2023 (UTC) No meet to have two separate lists for this subject. User:Let'srun 14:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy per content fork. Conyo14 ( talk ) 18:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – it could potentially stay if we come up with objective criteria for defining what's a supporting character, by appearances or by whether the actor appears in the main creadits or not, etc. But we should also add real-world information and reduce plot details, which means a major overhaul of the article. — El Millo ( talk ) 21:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Light - As others have said, this is an odd fork that is pretty duplicative of the main character list. The only real bits of info on this list that would probably be a good idea to move over is the actors who portrayed them in the movies. All of the characters themselves seem to all already be present in the target list. Rorshacma ( talk ) 14:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] selectively per Rorshacma. Does not pass WP:SIGCOV as a topic or as individual entries. Arguably a WP:CONTENTFORK of the main character list, which also shows a reasonable WP:ATD . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 20:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Merry Christmas to All! Tour: There are not adequate sources that analyze the tour ie critical reception/synopsis. Most are only an announcement that it occurred/was to occur. Information about the tour/TV special can be summarized in the background of the far more notable successor tour Merry Christmas One and All! and List of Mariah Carey live performances . Heartfox ( talk ) 07:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Events , Canada , and New York . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with Merry Christmas One and All! : this two-city tour received plenty of coverage to prove it happened, but nothing to suggest it was artistically or financially notable to meet NTOUR. Owen× ☎ 15:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Castlemourn: Prod (by Piotrus ) was removed as / was considered a possibility by Daranios . I wouldn't agree with a , as all this is unsourced information, and I am not sure where would be a suitable target, though I am open to that as an WP:ATD . Boleyn ( talk ) 17:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Games . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 17:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Ed Greenwood#Personal life and other activities at this point, where there is a sourced mention of the campaign setting. I'd like to see a half-sentence of description d like the ""post-apocalyptic"" added at the target, which would be fine based on the primary source, but cannot verify it myself. Castlemourn does appear in a few secondary sources , so I think outright deletion is not warranted. The sources I have seen, on the other hand, probably do not provide enough for a stand-alone article. Daranios ( talk ) 18:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] now rather than as there is referenced content to , in agreement with what's been said by the others below. Daranios ( talk ) 10:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Ed Greenwood as per above. BOZ ( talk ) 23:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] since now there is some referenced content, but consensus on talk was that GNG for stand alone article is not met. Ping participants of talk discussion: @ Daranios , Jclemens , and Susmuffin : . -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC) While this campaign setting does not appear to have been meaningfully discussed in reliable sources , there is a small amount of sourced information that could be placed in its creator's article. ― Susmuffin Talk 14:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above unless someone finds better sourcing. The sourcing is borderline for meeting WP:N, but editorially a is the right outcome. I'm guessing it will be about a paragraph once done. Hobit ( talk ) 00:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per all. I'm always relieved to see more people embracing as an WP:ATD . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 21:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Ninovium: Given said lack of sourcing for the name, I propose it be d outright, but a case could be made for a plausible . Complex / Rational 22:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions . Complex / Rational 22:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , no results for 'ninovium' in google scholar, and just one in google books. Not sure that is needed. Artem. G ( talk ) 06:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename , The topic seems to be distinct enough from Oganesson to warrant its own page. The page should instead be renamed to something more on-topic (1999 Oganesson hoax?), as the name Ninovium does not appear in any contemporary sources. TheWikipedianSheep ( talk ) 08:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] & to Victor Ninov . TheLongTone ( talk ) 12:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Ninovium discussion. -- ReyHahn ( talk ) 14:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] into Oganesson, main article can take more information. ✶Qux yz ✶ 16:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Oganesson Victor Ninov . I doubt that this term has actually seen much use beyond the joking thumbnail of a YouTube video . We shouldn't propagate the idea that ninovium was actually in contention as a potential element name. Edited to change target. I think anyone looking for ""ninovium"" will more likely be interested in the hoax, and thus the person, than in any of the other things we say about the actual chemical element. XOR'easter ( talk ) 00:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Victor Ninov . From what I can see there is nothing here that is not already in that page (in more detail). Ldm1954 ( talk ) 10:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"2023 Clarksville tornado: Usually, standalone articles are for tornadoes that are particularly deadly and have a massive lasting effect on a decently-sized community. This tornado caused 3 deaths and was rated as an EF3. This may also apply to 2021 Tri-State tornado , which although an EF4, caused 8 deaths, compared to the effect of the Mayfield EF4 that casued 57 deaths and destroyed several towns. In my opinion, for a tornado to have a section on an article it should either cause 1 million USD or more in damage, be rated EF3 or more, or cause 20 or more injuries. To have its own article, I think a tornado should have to cause 10 or more injuries in three communities and 10 or more deaths in total. The Clarksville tornado caused damage, but it was an EF3. This is pointless as an article and should either go in its own outbreak or go onto the tornado list in December. Cutlass Ciera 14:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe that even if you think it is a minor event, it had killed 6* people and counting. Even if it wasn’t an EF5 or even an EF4, it had done possibly permanent damage to the people of Clarksville, TN. Yes it wasn’t the 2013 el reno tornado but it doesn’t hurt anyone to have this article. It is better to inform people of events like such because events like the December 9th tornado will get covered by other big news like politics, then people forget. With an article about it that people can read, the reader can understand the devastation that the people that experienced the tornado had gone through. There is no harm by having its own article, it might help though. People reading the article could contribute to helping the communities hit by the tornado through donations and or by informing others. Once again, no harm is done by this article. It should not be d. EvanAndrews22 ( talk ) 15:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] First off, it killed three people, not six. Two, even if it did permanent damage, it doesn't mean that it is notable. The rest of your statement reads off as WP:USEFUL and WP:HARMLESS . Cutlass Ciera 16:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Really? I am just going to repeat what Reecey said and say that it was one of the strongest December tornadoes in recent years. While not THE strongest, it is still notable in its own right, being the strongest of one of the worst December outbreaks in recent years. You have provided no points except for the fact that El Reno is only notable for size, which it is not. You also fail to realize that the outbreak of which this occurred in was a one-in-a-million chance. I mean, some tornadoes took the same paths as the ones two years prior, which is remarkable, and can only really be compared to the Moore tornadoes and the Codell Tornadoes. I rest my case, this should not be d for the reasons stated above and the reasons stated by other people. 108.67.192.250 ( talk ) 16:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I forgot to mention this, but this article is NOT a stub, and you can tell that there is enough info for an entire article. It also was very long-lasting, being an hour long. 108.67.192.250 ( talk ) 16:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, your argument of ""Long lasting effect on a decent sized community"" is easily disproven by the fact that the tornado destroyed 114 homes, heavily damaged 857 others, mostly in a town/city of over 160k people. 108.67.192.250 ( talk ) 16:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 100 out of 160000 is a very small percentage. Even if we assume 10 people per household, that's still trivial. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Although I agree with that, it is a city of 160k, which is a more than decent sized community. 108.67.192.250 ( talk ) 16:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you're tunnel-visioning on what you personally feel is notable. Tornadoes like this occur all the time. Check out Perryton, Matador, Amory, Sullivan, Winterset, Wynne, etc all from this year. None of these have articles for a reason. Wikiwillz ( talk ) 16:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC) OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument. Chess Eric 16:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It was a major event, and even if you don't live around here, it killed half of the people that were in this outbreak, and it was possibly a multi-vortex. If you want to use the ""It was an EF3"" argument, then we should also the El Reno tornado article. You see how unfair that is? I stand my case. Clarksville (and Hendersonville) deserve their own articles, separate from the current, very tiny, outbreak article. This is IP address user, signing off. 108.67.192.250 ( talk ) 15:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The El Reno tornado was particularly notable due to its large size, which is unique. A run-of-the-mill EF3 with three fatalities is not really notable. It doesn't work that way. Cutlass Ciera 16:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The size of the storm doesn’t matter. The damage it caused does. By saying it doesn’t work that way is saying that those 6 people who died don’t matter as much as those who died in the el reno tornado EvanAndrews22 ( talk ) 16:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you're missing the point here. The size of the storm does matter. The EF3 damage was three or four very poorly built houses flattened and a strip mall destroyed. That itself is not grounds for an article. The rest of the article is refuting an argument I never made. Cutlass Ciera 16:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is notable, It killed 3 people, and was an EF3. It was one of the steongest December tornadoes in recent years. The article shoudl be kept. Reeceycat123987 ( talk ) 16:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yet again, this isn't proving it to be notable. Being ""one of the strongest December tornadoes"" is not grounds for an article. Three people is not grounds either. Cutlass Ciera 16:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Trivial weather event. Under 10 people dying is rather routine for a weather event; to be blunt, we've had articles in AfD where more people were involved in a mass shooting in the USA and it's been deemed not notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC) The event was a low-end EF3 and was fairly tame. Dozens of other tornadoes even in the last couple of years are much more worthy of an article over this. The speed in which this article was written gives me sort of WP:HATSHOP vibes as well. Wikiwillz ( talk ) 16:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Oaktree b & Wikiwillz — Would you both support a into Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023 ? The AfD nominator also supports a into the article. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 18:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, given it is substantially thinned down to increase readability. Wikiwillz ( talk ) 18:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023 , now that the latter article is in mainspace. Ionmars10 ( talk ) 16:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC) we have more than enough sources to support verifiability for an expanded section in the target article. Owen× ☎ 17:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC) ATD , non-notable event. Just because the tornado was an EF3 and killed three people doesn't mean it is notable. ~ Tails Wx 17:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] but rename to 2023 Northern Tennesse Tornado. Cwater1 ( talk ) 19:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC) GNG , so deletion is out of the question. That said, while I am not opposed to merging , a will make the outbreak article…well, off-balanced, since the RPS (readable prose size) of the tornado article is actually larger than the entire outbreak article. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 17:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC) (See new comment below relisting comment) The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 02:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This argument has no ground to support it. The section can be trimmed to make it readable. Cutlass Ciera 18:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is readable as is. It passes WP:GNG and WP:LASTING . Your deletion reasonings was strictly based on casualties/impact, but that isn’t what makes an article notable. Sources do. That is why WP:NEXIST exists. The 1999 Aïn Témouchent earthquake survived AfD because it has multiple reliable sources. The state of the article (and overall impacts) weren’t that high…Yet it has the coverage, so it passes notability requirements. Like I said, I’m not opposed to the , which it seems you aren’t either. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 18:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC) DEPTH . The NWS survey is a routine survey done of every tornado that is reported to cause damage in the US. Several of the other sources are news articles that only say one point (e.g. that the tornado was an EF3). Cutlass Ciera 18:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd lack to add Cutlass, that this is how a majority of tornado's are written. The NWS survey is the most official and comprehensive detail of damage and chronological impact. There's little need to scour for sources that would really have less detail or authority to the survey itself. Wikiwillz ( talk ) 18:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC) GNG, but the thing about general notability guidelines is that they're. . well... general. There are nuances to consider. I support a r, sounds like the smart thing to do. Wikiwillz ( talk ) 18:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Now that an article for the outbreak has been created, there is no need for an individual article for this tornado. I support a r. Chess Eric 18:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Chess Eric 19:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge- We can summarize this in the outbreakn article. Reeceycat123987 ( talk ) 18:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Kentucky , and Tennessee . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To get this back on the log following DRV. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC) SNOW , closure was overturned, I am going to double down on the . Passes WP:GNG , passes WP:NEVENT and while still a recent event a few days ago, the tornado still gets complete individual news articles about it ( [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] ""Federal disaster declared after Clarksville tornado"" ), aka secondary RS coverage at least 5 days after the event, indicating WP:LASTING may be satisfied as it clearly isn't a true WP:NOTNEWS event. All original issues with the AfD all pass. In previous struck comment, I originally was ok with a , but given the overturning, I no longer support a . The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 02:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It wasn't the that was overturned in DRV. It was your blatantly inappropriate WP:INVOLVED attempt to prematurely shut down discussion here. Your renewed ""double down"" campaign smells of WP:SPITE . Owen× ☎ 12:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC) SPITE at all. I honestly don’t think it needs d anymore, given the clear RS consensus that it wasn’t just a passing news event, meaning it passes all the requirements to be an article. Also, several editors suggested the discussion be quickly-closed by a countersigning admin. That never occurred, so yes, the was overturned, because that was an option suggested by some editors during the DRV. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 18:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong - ""destroyed 114 homes, damaging 857 others"", pretty notable. ""claimed the lives of three people, including a child, and injured an additional 62 others."" Notable - who on Wikipedia puts a number to ""notable"" when it comes to human life? — Maile ( talk ) 03:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not notable in death count,but is in injury count. The only notable thing about it is that it damaged over 900 homes. EF3 tornadoes happen all the time, but other notable ones (Such as Amory or Little Rock). If this tornado has an article, a few others from this year should as well (Like the ones mentioned above). 72.46.58.62 ( talk ) 13:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I forgot to put in the reply above. Reeceycat123987 ( talk ) 13:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – No reason for a standalone article. Can easily be included in main outbreak article. United States Man ( talk ) 04:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – Would be consistent with past practice in the WikiProject. A standalone article just isn't justified, IMO. Penitentes ( talk ) 14:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC) LASTING yet. We can always split the out to another article if we've gotten this wrong. SportingFlyer T · C 15:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We're doing this again? My position hasn't changed; this can fit in the main article without being split. Chess Eric 16:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC) The summary actually isn't finished because the Kentucky part has not been put in yet, but I still lean . Chess Eric 16:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not again ; it's the same AfD, resuming after an out-of-process interruption. Please strike out one of your two ! votes here. Owen× ☎ 16:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ...you talking about me? My other comment was a note, not a 2nd vote. Also, someone else relisted the AfD, not the original creator. Chess Eric 16:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] you have two bolded Merges. Please strike one. I relisted the AfD as a close of the DRV. It is the same discussion now being allowed to reach consensus. Star Mississippi 16:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a separate vote though and I don't understand why that matters. I'll do it though. Chess Eric 19:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023#Clarksville, Tennessee / Allensville–Russellville, Kentucky . No indication of WP:PERSISTENCE and limited WP:EFFECT or WP:DEPTH . All sources in article are either NOAA or WP:PRIMARYNEWS . No reason for a standalone article to exist. Note for closer: If is unsuccessful, please consider my ! vote for deletion as not independently notable under WP:NEVENT . Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 18:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] — with Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023 — it is not surprising that there are numerous reliable sources covering the Clarksville tornado. However, I don't think that notability independent of the broader severe weather event has been established, namely in terms of diverse coverage (beyond human interest stories and what-was-hit overviews) and in-depth coverage (beyond just narrative from local news). — TheAustinMan ( Talk ⬩ Edits ) 19:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As unnecessary CFORK, can be squeezed into the December 9-10 article and still adhere to SIZERULE. Btw the DRV was wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 December 12 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.123.49.55 ( talk ) 21:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC) strike sock -- Ponyo bons mots 21:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC) CFORK is not an issue as the section in the outbreak article is 138 words while the article has a readable prose size of 1,278 words. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 21:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] this topic can sufficiently be covered in Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023 . There is not enough WP:LASTING impact from this tornado to warrant a standalone page. Recreating a standalone article can be revisited in the event there is more lasting impact down the road. Frank Anchor 12:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC) LASTING enough. Most of the information is just WP:TOOMUCH or information no one cares about with means to beef up an article of a weak tornado that caused small pockets of EF3 damage in an average path. With this being said, I feel the author of the article, who wrote the entire article less than 48 hours after the event, may have been acting out of WP:HATSHOP motivation, though I should proably assume good faith. Wikiwillz ( talk ) 16:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023 — per Last1in and TheAustinMan. Chris Wx 🌀 ( talk - contribs ) 23:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Mod parrot: No third-party references in the article, and I wasn't able to find any online either. Omphalographer ( talk ) 19:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . Omphalographer ( talk ) 19:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Article does not qualify for soft-deletion, as PROD was previously declined. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Agree with nom - no independent sources, I also searched and could not find any. Does not meet WP:NSOFTWARE . Tacyarg ( talk ) 21:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Parrot virtual machine based on sources available sources, possibly targeting the ""Implementations"" subsection. Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Some works of art with a mod theme involving parrots, nothing about this software that I can find. Trivial coverage even now with the few sources we have. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Parrot virtual machine , it would be better in that article. GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 01:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC) As a WP:ATD . StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Mount Elizabeth Novena Hospital: The coverage I found were like incidents involving nurses but nothing indepth to meet WP:ORG . LibStar ( talk ) 01:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Medicine , and Singapore . LibStar ( talk ) 01:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC) parent subject, if there is no improvement to the article. – robertsky ( talk ) 02:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and to Mount Elizabeth Hospital . This appears to be a 2nd campus of the same hospital. Meets WP:GNG , and in the context of the parent article also meets WP:NORG / WP:NHOSPITAL . Does not appear to have a substantial coverage independently for a standalone article. Bgv. ( talk ) 22:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"2023 Joe Biden speech in Vilnius: Politicians give a million of them in thousands of venues. Coverage is routine and expected of a US President. Zaathras ( talk ) 21:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics , Lithuania , and United States of America . Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions . Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per nomination. TH1980 ( talk ) 02:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2023 Vilnius summit , the most reasonable place to cover it. Don't think the speech needs its own article, but it can be mentioned there. Reywas92 Talk 02:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] did not go off script about Putin, not notable. I don't see anything about this speech specifically that needs merging, vis a vis just stating the US position on relevant issues in the summit article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draken Bowser ( talk • contribs ) 07:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2023 Vilnius summit . Seems appropriate. BabbaQ ( talk ) 08:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2023 Vilnius summit . The speech itself does not merit an article but it can be covered within an article with a broader scope. — Prodraxis { talk • contribs } (she/her) 14:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC) the speech seems to received WP:SIGCOV well over a tune of meeting both WP:GNG , WP:EVENT guidelines, for example [3] , [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , and etc pieces made in other medias, other than the news stories. Glaringly, it also wasn't a part of the NATO Vilnius summit's program [9] [10] and as such merging it with the event's article wouldn't be suitable as it is an independent, unrelated event. Respublik ( talk ) 10:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into 2023 Vilnius summit per Reywas92 and Prodraxis. Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into 2023 Vilnius summit . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Hulk (Ultimate Marvel character): One reference to a third-party source, but the mention of this character is very much in passing. Josh Milburn ( talk ) 07:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy . — Karnataka talk 07:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into Alternative versions of the Hulk . AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 08:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't see what to , TBH, it's literally just pure plot the entire way through and clearly fails GNG. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] excessive information, most of which is already included in multiple different articles. — Karnataka talk 08:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and possibly to Hulk . The same should be done with Alternative versions of the Hulk . This is way too much fancruft and too much detail. Hulk is obviously famous and notable, his alt variants are obscure fan trivia that deserve only to be mentioned in the main article. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Hulk . This article is nowhere near meeting GNG, and falls short of NOTPLOT as well. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC) PRESERVE , but after the results of the other related discussion . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 14:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , i agree with @ Rtkat3 with Alt. Hulks JosephWC ( talk ) 20:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or , per Rtkat3. Does not pass WP:GNG and might even be a fork. Deletion would be appropriate but we should consider WP:ATD . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 00:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"List of US House speaker elections decided by multiple ballots: This article is clearly a much narrower scope, and offers additional information in a concise format. Additionally, the list of all speaker elections is of enormous length already and inflating its size is not warranted, per WP:LENGTH . It also meets the criteria for stand-alone lists . [8] Hypnôs ( talk ) 03:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Politics , Lists , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (update) Speaker of the United States House of Representatives#Notable elections , now that a good target has been found. (original) . In addition to above, also meets WP:LISTPURP as an informational list. — siro χ o 04:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC) NLIST . With the notability of the current speaker elections once again not meeting the first vote threshold, it is also notable again. Conyo14 ( talk ) 05:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No need for a separate page. This table is of modest size and WP:LENGTH refers to prose size. Reywas92 Talk 13:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no need for a stand-alone list article. Though formatted differently, this article is a content fork. The table could also be easily d into Speaker of the United States House of Representatives#Notable elections . Drdpw ( talk ) 15:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that's probably a better target than the big list. — siro χ o 16:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Speaker of the United States House of Representatives#Notable elections . As others have said, this is a content fork and there is no objection to the content of the list. -- Enos733 ( talk ) 20:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Speaker of the United States House of Representatives#Notable elections per Reywas92 and Drdpw. Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Yeah, no clue why this is a separate article, should be d immediately. Geko72290 ( talk ) 21:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to either List of Speaker of the United States House of Representatives elections or Speaker of the United States House of Representatives#Notable elections . I personally prefer the former and think the table could reasonably be included there (maybe with a few columns trimmed). If this page is kept, it should be moved to List of Speaker of the United States House of Representatives elections decided by multiple ballots for naming consistency. RunningTiger123 ( talk ) 01:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC) TRANS and retaining the table format used in the current page. List of Speaker of the United States House of Representatives elections under a new Heading, ""Elections with Multiple Ballots."" Speaker of the United States House of Representatives under new Sub-heading 1, ""Elections with Multiple Ballots"" within the existing Heading, "" Notable elections ."" I strongly suggest retaining the current table format as it allows one to quickly compare them. I think it should be moved to one of the page and included in other using Transclusion, if it decided against ing as separate page 2861969nyc ( talk ) 21:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Speaker of the United States House of Representatives#Notable elections per everyone else. Corgi Stays ( talk ) 01:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC) TRANS as above. Not sure which page it should be moved to and which should use transclusion. However, I will say that having this as a separate page has proved useful to me by being available in ″see also″ sections. NHammen ( talk ) 12:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with both (transclusion) per above. This is a useful list and belongs on both pages if not its standalone article. Davey2116 ( talk ) 15:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with Speaker of the United States House of Representatives#Notable elections as proposed by others. I also actually object to the inclusion of the current Speaker election on this list, and given that this list seems to have been created in response to the current election, question the need for a separate list. The reason is that, so far, the current speaker election does not qualify for inclusion on this list. It has gone multiple ballots, but it has not been decided yet, and therefore does not belong on a list of decided elections. It remains entirely possible that the current election will never be decided, and some other solution--like giving McHenry some additional powers without formally electing him speaker or formally resolving the election--may be adopted. So I favor a , but if we the list as is, the current election does not belong on this list until it has been decided, which it has not as yet. Dash77 ( talk ) 17:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge. Terrific table to have. Just does not need to be its own standalone page. SecretName101 ( talk ) 05:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to both with bias toward deletion if is unsuccessful. This does not pass WP:NLIST and is (contrary to opinion above) clearly a WP:CONTENTFORK . You don't have to replicate the entire scope to duplicate existing articles' coverage. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Small Pieces Loosely Joined: Could just be a mention in David Weinberger 's article. Zim Zala Bim talk 20:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Internet . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC) NBOOK per these two reviews I found on Google Scholar 1 (PDF) 2 . Also, the phrase ""Small pieces loosely joined"" seems to have quite a bit of currency even within the citing articles [2] . Psychastes ( talk ) 07:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] is fine. There's room in David Weinberger for it, and if anyone wants to expand it they can spin it back out. -- asilvering ( talk ) 03:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Minh Khai station: Cited source doesn't mention this station. Only other sources I found are three nearly identical articles about a safety drill held near (but not at) this station: [42] [43] [44] Toadspike [Talk] 14:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations , Transportation , and Vietnam . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the position data, etc. to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) and there if sources cannot be found (they're most likely to be in Vietnamese, so do check in that language). There is no reason to the information present in the article which will be useful if it is expanded in future. Thryduulf ( talk ) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] there isn't enough coverage (or content) for a separate article from Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) yet, but there might be in the future. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 23:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Functional analog (electronic): I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 18 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 06:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or to Analogical models . Artem. G ( talk ) 07:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Torch (chess engine): Fails WP:GNG , WP:NPRODUCT , WP:CRYSTAL . Everything that's known about it is what chess.com have made known. And they have every reason to hype it up. It has not participated in any event or competition organised by a neutral organiser. It has not been released to the public. It has not been reviewed by independent reviewers. We can not have an article on a commercial product simply parrot company claims from start to finish. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software . Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree this is promotional with no independent sources. Perhaps it would make sense to to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess.com ? Hmee2 ( talk ) 20:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] DISAGREE It was covered by dot esports as I pointed out earlier even if they do not make any new claim about it. Furthermore, Wikipedia has an article on Stockfish , Dragon and LC0 and it would be extremely strange not to have an article on an engine as if not more stronger than them. There is also an article about AlphaZero even though it wasn't released to the public or tested by neutral parties and only things known about it was what Google made known. Lastly, it has been participating at Computer Chess Championship for months now. (I know thats run by Chess.com). I think that maybe this article needs to be reworked but it certainly should exist. Jack234567 ( talk ) 14:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree. I) There are lots of excellent chess engines like Ethereal, Rubi, Stoofvlees and Igel that, in contrast to Torch, have been around for years without entries on Wikipedia. II) Chess.com has recently created short-lived engine Mittens_(chess_engine) that got an entry on Wikipedia. III) All evaluations are strongly biased as only chess.com is currently allowed to evaluate Torch. Competitors like TCEC don't. This causes misleading results as for example the second best engine LCZero strongly depends, in contrast to Torch, on the GPU provided. @Sukram Leela is no longer the ""second best engine"". She has been surpassed by Torch, as shown by the last 2 events at Computer Chess Championship. It would be strange not to have an article on an engine stronger than LC0, given that LC0 itself has such a detailed article. Furthermore, you mention TCEC, but TCEC has a extremely strong GPU compared to CPU, which inflates Leela's performance. Lastly, none of the ""excellent chess engines"" you refer to has reached Lc0's strength unlike Torch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack234567 ( talk • contribs ) 00:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @Jack234567 I) Leela has ""such a detailed article"" because Leela was unique in and is well known for that it was the first publicly available engine with a deep neural network. And not because its play strength was close to the very best engine. As hard as it sounds, on an encyclopedia play strength on its own is usually never sufficient to warrant an entry. Instead, there are several engine rating lists like the CCRL, CEGT and FGRL which track and document play strength over time. II) Who defines what is an ""extremely strong GPU compared to CPU""? Surely not the maker of Torch in order to claim its engine was better. And what would be the objective measurements here? The price to purchase, the price to rent, the energy consumption, the chip dimension? Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mittens got an entry because of its social media impact. Torch seems to be very high level and certainly has accomplished engine programmers, but I would be more supportive of the article if Torch can prove itself in independent competitions like TCEC. Wqwt ( talk ) 23:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to one of the Torch authors in the TCEC chat, there are no plans for Torch to ever participate in TCEC. (And Mittens was just a short-lived advertising campaign, which while it had lots of media coverage during a few weeks, it's completely forgotten afterwards, then there was Duck chess and then Spell chess. I'm actually surprised that Mittens has a wikipedia entry). That being said, while I don't think that Torch meets the requirements for a wikipedia article at the current state, I expect that in future it will be part of chess.com offering (online game analisys or something like that) which will make it elegible, i.e. it won't be as short-lived as Mittens. Mooskagh ( talk ) 09:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Chess.com will indeed offer Torch (and a Torch ""lite"" version) in their analysis board very soon. They haven't officially announcend it yet, but some small amount of users have been able to use it for a few days now. Desha123456 ( talk ) 21:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Please remember to sign your comments. L iz Read! Talk! 21:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC) GNG . – Pbrks ( t • c ) 12:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC) ATDM . The Dot Esports article is a RS and enough to justify some content on Wikipedia, just not its own page. -- Patar knight - chat / contributions 14:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update - Torch is currently being tested by SPCC and CCRL , both of which are independent of chess.com. Jack234567 ( talk ) 13:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. So far, we have editors arguing for Keep, Merging and Deletion. We could use a few more editors participating in this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another update - It seems that there is a consensus towards merging into chess.com, I won't argue with that but want to just point out that the engine is now available for free public use . Jack234567 ( talk ) 03:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC) Secondary sources seem to be either listings, no sigcov, or forum posts. There's only one article that could contribute to notability. Doesn't seem suitable for a standalone article, at least until it achieves more coverage. ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 22:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Midlands Rugby League Division Two: Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 ( talk ) 19:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 20:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England . Owen× ☎ 00:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Non-notable competition. Fails WP:GNG . J Mo 101 ( talk ) 12:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC) Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system - and to Midlands Rugby League . Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"1884 DePauw football team: The only source is from the team website, which is primary. A check of newspaper archives didn't come up with much better, with only a single sentence of coverage found at [ [21] ]. Let'srun ( talk ) 01:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Indiana . Let'srun ( talk ) 01:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . North America 1000 15:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added a bit. The Encyclopedia of Indianapolis is borderline SIGCOV with a full paragraph on the topic. Cbl62 ( talk ) 16:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to DePauw football, 1884–1889 . Jweiss11 ( talk ) 16:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A closer can't to a non-existent target. Cbl62 ( talk ) 19:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] DePauw football, 1884–1889 has been created. Jweiss11 ( talk ) 21:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not convinced that the target meets GNG or NSEASONS, but if others find the sourcing to be acceptable I suppose a would suffice. Let'srun ( talk ) 21:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If need be, the scope could be expanded to cover the 1890s as well. Jweiss11 ( talk ) 22:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. There's not a lot of information here, it may have been reported on at the time, and it's in our interest to maintain a complete set of the information somewhere. SportingFlyer T · C 17:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What information here isn't already included in that article? If anything, this should be either ed or d, but I don't see any basis for a now. Let'srun ( talk ) 17:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merges don't often occur before the AfD is closed. Still the correct result, and this can be ed there by the closer. SportingFlyer T · C 20:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But the info included in this article has already been d in the article Jweiss11 made, so that doesn't apply in this case. Let'srun ( talk ) 20:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm still viewing my vote as ""the information should be retained via a "" even though it has been already than a ""it's been d so we can there,"" usually implies with some or all information brought over to the new page. SportingFlyer T · C 17:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the newly-created DePauw football, 1884–1889 may still not be significant enough to warrant its own article and may need to expand its scope, but I guess for now ing this article to that one is the best outcome for this AfD. A discussion about the new article may result in further expanding that range of years. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to DePauw football, 1884–1889 . Jweiss11's creation is a good first step, though I also agree with User:Eagles247 and suggest extending to 1899 which would covers the 19th century, bring it up to about 60 games, and provide greater certainey that there is enough SIGCOV to satisfy GNG. Cbl62 ( talk ) 17:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"List of organisations with Morrison in their name: -- T avix ( talk ) 16:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . -- T avix ( talk ) 16:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC) 46, 19 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Lists . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC) 33, 19 November 2023 (UTC) 06, 19 November 2023 (UTC) : talk 02:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC) NAMELIST and brought it to its logical conclusion :) -- Joy ( talk ) 08:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with the disambiguation page. Dympies ( talk ) 02:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Dear Hank & John: A 2016 AfD resulted in based on no credible assertions of GNG-contributing sources. The three that were brought contain no significant discussion of the subject, and as it stands eight years later, there still isn't much media attention on this podcast, and the article's never outgrown largely being based on primary, non-independent sources. If someone finds something I didn't on a WP:BEFORE , awesome, but I don't see it out there. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 18:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Internet . theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 18:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Vlogbrothers Green brothers . I agree with the assessment in NOM - Hank Green and John Green , the podcast's hosts, are clearly notable and have extensive secondary coverage. Vlogbrothers has less coverage, but enough to be notable, and seems like the best article to cover collaborations between the two - this podcast is arguably an extension of that channel. BrigadierG ( talk ) 18:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just a note, Vlogbrothers is specifically their Youtube channel; I would suggest Green brothers as a target. Radagast ( talk ) 20:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You're right, that would be a better target, I was unaware of its existence. BrigadierG ( talk ) 21:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC) NPODCAST and WP:GNG . There are sources in Vulture , Erie Reader , Mashable , and Tampa Bay Times . I'm not a huge fan of listicles, however, these are more than a short reprint of the show's description with each article's coverage coming in at about 200 words. I would generally consider that more than a trivial mention. There are a few shorter ones out there in sources like LifeHacker , The Skinny , and The Hindu . Some might consider these enough (i.e. WP:100WORDS ). There were also a few articles announcing their partnership with WNYC Studios in Variety , Vulture , and TubeFilter . This article in Audacy, Inc. 's Podsauce is decent coverage, however, I'm not sure what the consensus on the source's reliability is. I would be interested in hearing what others think of Podsauce. WP:NPODCAST mentions that being on a chart is an indicator of notability. On chartable.com, the show is currently No. 7 on the Philosophy category for the United States and No. 3 in Canada. According to itunescharts.net , the show reached No. 2 on Apple's Podcast chart in 2015. TipsyElephant ( talk ) 21:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The four sources here are somewhat more than a short description, but I'm still not honestly sure that you could get a decent-shape article out of these sources. They all seem pretty thin, as capsule reviews tend to be. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 23:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC) fair enough. What do you think about the reliability of Podsauce? The main thing that jumps out to me is that these reviews don't have bylines, but book reviews on websites like Publishers Weekly don't either and I would generally consider PW reliable for reviews. TipsyElephant ( talk ) 23:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] no bylines does throw me – I also can't find evidence of an editorial staff, though, and I don't think PW sells books (whereas audacy looks like a podcast platform). theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 02:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I did some more searching and I really thought I would find more than I did. I found a 125 word piece in the The Courier-Mail via ProQuest 2108160325 . I also found a few different articles in student news such as these: [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] And another announcement about partnering with WNYC Studios: [25] Changing my ! vote to a weak support to the article into the Green brothers . I'd be willing to perform the myself if no one else wants to. TipsyElephant ( talk ) 03:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC) 46, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"KRPV-DT: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New Mexico . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support Especially given that this is the only article related to the network that has a single secondary source. I only made it since somehow there was no article even covering it at the time. The material in here would be immensely useful for improving God's Learning Channel , which also frankly needs additional historical info if there was significant coverage in the Midland and Odessa papers once they moved their headquarters down to Odessa. You probably could have tagged this as a instead of an AfD. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 06:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC) It certainly would appear that, for all intents and purposes, the history of KRPV is the history of God's Learning Channel, give-or-take some cable-only years before 1986. I've wondered at times whether we've needed articles on most of its transmitters — I don't think there's much separate programming on any of them — but never got around to doing anything about it. (For what it's worth, the lack of an article before 2020 was because a previous article on the station was d via PROD in 2011.) WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It turns out I already have a number of clippings from the Odessa American on them. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 06:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Pharagos: The Battleground: I'd have prodded it but frankly I wonder if this is not an outright WP:HOAX as I cannot find any reliable source that even confirms this is a thing (three sources cited are not online and do not mention this in their heading). Assuming this is not a hoax, I am not sure if there is a possible target ( is unlikely to make sense, either, given a single footnoote). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Games . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Never heard of it either, but it seems plausible but NN, rather than a hoax. It references real magazines; someone with access to the archives could check, but it's not clear what should be done with this. Jclemens ( talk ) 06:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is mention of Phargos here , so maybe not a hoax, but still would struggle to be notable. It is close to ""thing someone made up one day"" level. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Illithid . BOZ ( talk ) 07:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BOZ Why? And what, exactly? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 08:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The one paragraph that is sourced can be d. BOZ ( talk ) 08:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would also dispute this, since it appears to be fanmade lore and has nothing to do with official lore. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [26] BOZ ( talk ) 17:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Illithid based on the primary, non-fanmade sources found. Also appears, without much detail, in this The Gamer article . Daranios ( talk ) 10:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Jameson Crested Ten: I think the contents of this page should be in a section listing other varieties of the company's products, in the same way as Powers (whiskey) does. Personally I think short stubs like this about individual products belong in the parent article and not very useful as a stand alone without sufficient prose. Perhaps the products require their own section. ww2censor ( talk ) 10:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Ireland . Shellwood ( talk ) 11:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC) Nothing terribly notable for the sub-brand, that can't be said by incorporating it into the main brand. Very fine product too, I do enjoy it. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/ (or failing that, simply ). Nothing to indicate that this product meets WP:PRODUCT for independent notability. Guliolopez ( talk ) 16:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC) 31, 1 October 2023 (UTC) 43, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"2019 Emirates Cup: I'm not sure this isn't just WP:ROUTINE coverage. It's currently at GA, so wanted a consensus on its status. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 00:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England . Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 00:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Per GAR discussion. Idiosincrático ( talk ) 01:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC) per below. Idiosincrático ( talk ) 05:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC) ROUTINE coverage surrounded by lots of tangents. And I say this as a die-hard Gooner. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 01:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/ to 2019–20 Arsenal F.C. season , where it is already mentioned, but any should see the content trimmed down hugely, as it's all trivial/fluff. I note there are articles on other editions of the same tournament that need a look, see {{ Emirates Cup }} . Giant Snowman 11:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC) I thought it would have been better to straight to Emirates Cup , :/ Govvy ( talk ) 09:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even better! Giant Snowman 18:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] any pertinent information then to Emirates Cup . The preseason ""tournament"" might itself be notable, but I do not see how individual editions consisting of one women's match and one men's match meet GNG. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support for a Merge. And there are two different Merge/Redirect target articles suggested. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It's worth noting that the 2022 edition also s to Emirates Cup . Idiosincrático ( talk ) 10:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Emirates Cup , which is consistent with the 2022 edition, which also s there. No need for separate article, as coverage is WP:ROUTINE . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"2011 Qatif uprising: That page covers the subject, but the spinout is not required and the events in Qatif are not independently notable. The sources in the article are WP:PRIMARY being news reports, and descriptions of the events. There was indeed a series of clashes in Qatif, but these were all part of the 2011-2012 Saudi protests and there is no evidence in sources that the Qatif clashes were given exception coverage nor particular analysis outside of that. Secondary sources do not cover this subject outside of the larger Saudi Arabian protests subject. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 20:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 20:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC) 204:C901:B740:D8FD:8ADF:C0DB:A03A ( talk ) 15:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE -- Blablubbs ( talk ) 22:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a and, if so, to which target article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] has had a lot of news reports. Newspaper articles are secondary sources. It had a WP:Lasting effect as a start of a war. 109.37.150.153 ( talk ) 20:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What articles are we talking about? Newspaper reports are, in fact, generally primary. See WP:PRIMARY and especially note d . There is no evidence here of any secondary sources, and certainly not of an lasting effects. If there were, there would be secondary sources. None have been shown to exist. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 22:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Newspaper articles are secondary sources. They are not directly involved. And see also that Mainstream newspapers are listed under Reliable sources . 109.37.150.153 ( talk ) 07:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please read the link I provided. If a newspaper article is an account of an event, it is primary . Articles may be secondary in some cases where they are not merely recounting an event, and are not close to the event, but to demonstrate that, you would need to present the article you think is secondary so that the source can be reviewed and discussed. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don’t see in your link that newspapers are primary sources. I think you mean the sentence An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event . So yes, an eye witness report is a primary source. But a newspaper report is a secondary source. 109.37.150.153 ( talk ) 17:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I specifically directed you to noted d. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents. "" A contemporary newspaper report of an event is a primary source. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 18:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wel you are not referring to the Wikipedia guidance, but to the note section with a definition of a Universitey and didn’t add the first sentence. The first sentence is green (so an eyewitness report of a journalist or other person or the opinion of en expert.) Yes, these can indeed be found in newspapers, but that is not the main aim of a newspaper articles. Read for instance at Primary source : green . Still note that what I stated above that in the main guideline of Wikipedia newspapers are listed under secondary sources. 109.37.150.153 ( talk ) 07:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, the main body says that newspapers are generally reliable sources. It does not claim they are secondary. If a newspaper article is written about an event immediately after that event it is a primary source. If you don't know that, then you have some reading to do. As I stated, an article might be a secondary source if it is not just a contemporary account. At this point no such sources have been shown to exist. So we have no secondary sources at all. If you want to discuss a particular article, we can but simply asserting that there are newspaper articles is not evidence of meeting GNG, because the accounts, as per the nom. statement, are WP:PRIMARY and thus do not count. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC) PRIMARYNEWS : most news stories are considered primary sources . There are cases where they can be secondary, but they involve historical perspective or later synthesis of other sources (often news articles themselves). An example is an article about a battle that has just happened (primary) versus a war retrospective years later that uses that frontline reporting as a source (secondary). Your average news article, such as those linked here, are clearly of the primary variety. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 16:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC) ATD . The ! vote for a to that point has been struck as a sock, but that article is the relevant one with the orimary topic. A would preserve page history, despite there being no evidence of independent notability here. Should it become notable in the future, the could then be expanded to an article. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 06:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Fails GNG but could add value to Qatif conflict#Arab Spring protests 2011–12 . Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 16:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Qatif_conflict#Arab_Spring_protests_2011–12 . There is not enough coverage, or data, for an article. The relevant information fits nicely under Qatif conflict without distorting the article. The resultant adequately insures access. -- Bejnar ( talk ) 14:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"FASCIA (database): One of many databases used by the security agency. Fails WP:SUSTAINED and independent notability as a database separate from its use by the NSA and its inclusion in the global surveillance disclosures . Longhornsg ( talk ) 21:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Military . Longhornsg ( talk ) 21:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC) Needs expansion, but here is a source from 2016. jp × g 🗯️ 08:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC) TRIVIALMENTION , not WP:SIGCOV . Longhornsg ( talk ) 17:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to NSA per nom. Lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable , independent sources , per the cited sources and above listed source. ( ? ) Cover as an NSA program, which is the context in which sources cover it. Next time I suggest boldly doing so as an alternative before deletion . czar 15:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Jai Mahabharat: Tagged for notability since 2022 Donald D23 talk to me 00:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India . Donald D23 talk to me 00:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] a much shorter portion of the text onto Mahabharata#In film and television , since, on its own, the article's subject possesses no independent notability. - The Gnome ( talk ) 14:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Guy (Final Fight): This is just another minor character clearly fails WP:GNG . Despite being written long, sources were mostly from trivia mentions and listicles. Showing zero WP:SIGCOV afterall as per WP:BEFORE . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:SIGCOV Blitzfan51 the manager 14:07, 23 May (UTC) I will admit part of the problem of finding sources is due to his name, but even then after extensive looking I found nothing, and what's there is flimsy. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 17:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Riddell Airfield: CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Maybe into Riddells Creek ? Alvaldi ( talk ) 19:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Unpaved airstrips are not notable for existing as a place to land unless there's significant coverage about them, which is often not the case for private fields of grass. There's nothing to say at the town article, it's not for public use and these are not uncommon. Reywas92 Talk 20:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC) //www.airsports.net/RiddellAirfield/ there is one sealed main runway of 880 metres. However that source does not appear to be independent of the subject. Tar nis hed Path talk 07:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article's coordinates are wrong (35S instead of 37S). If this is a legitimate paved airfield I don't have as strong an argument for deletion or against merging. Reywas92 Talk 14:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"List of megalithic monuments in Cork: There is a separate List of megalithic monuments in Ireland , which probably needs more maintenance, but is a good starting page. This one for Cork then seems redundant. Iveagh Gardens ( talk ) 14:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology and Ireland . Iveagh Gardens ( talk ) 14:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , take the content and cross reference with the List of megalithic monuments in Ireland page. Iljhgtn ( talk ) 16:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nine cork county places are in the other list, this list has 10, so one needs to be added. Don't need references for a list article when the information is clearly listed in the article linked to. D r e a m Focus 21:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (any missing entries) and to List of megalithic monuments in Ireland . As per nom, the topic does not have sufficiently independent notable for a standalone article - nor is the project improved by having two/separate entries covering (effectively) the same thing. Suggest / as an WP:ATD . Guliolopez ( talk ) 12:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (additional items) as above, and - no purpose to a distinct list. SeoR ( talk ) 00:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"EcoCute: So I think it should be d to air source heat pump Chidgk1 ( talk ) 17:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Japan . Chidgk1 ( talk ) 17:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC) This is a weird one, it's largely sourced to technical documentation, some primary, some not. It's well-sourced, but I'm not sure the sources are enough of a reason to it. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC) 04, 20 January 2024 (UTC) EcoCute is trade name, but widely used by Japanese manufacture and marketing. As referred in external link, millions of unit installed in Japan and may be marketed to other area. EcoCute is a type of heat pump, and some Japanese mfg. apply EcoCute technologies to Air to Water (A2W) pump for Europe market. I agree EcoCute to be marge into heat pump as type of one tech. method. Namazu-tron ( talk ) 10:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC) Thanks - as far as I understand it EcoCute is only air source not ground source or water source. If I understood right then it might be better to into air source heat pump rather than heat pump I suppose. Chidgk1 ( talk ) 10:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, it is air source heat pump. Pls pay attention in marge process, not to neglect advantage of EcoCute description and feature. @ Namazu-tron ( talk ) 12:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] EcoCute is already installed millions of units in Japan, and probably marketed in other area based on technical advantage. It is state in article EcoCute (Japanese: エコキュート, Hepburn: ekokyūto) is an energy-efficient electric heat pump in head description. Article “Heat Pump” does not refer EcoCute in its text, and Ecocute article simply refer in See also section. It means Article EcoCute is well satisfy to “not ” and eligible to be exist as an article alone, and user may understand two article EcoCute and Hear pump each other. @ Namazu-tron ( talk ) 11:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Largely technical and legal documentation, none of which provides notability. I can't find sources for this industrial equipment. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC) @ Namazu-tron : @ Oaktree b : As one of you wants to and the other could you both compromise and let me this as I originally proposed? Chidgk1 ( talk ) 07:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As I added external link Heat-pump-increased-production-of-japanese-version-ecocute in Europe market recently 2023. Ecocute is tradename but widely used Japanese manufacture might be trade name right holder for deployment not only in Japan and aiming in Europe as well. So far, only 3 users participating this marge/ discussion. My first edit as new article was 23:58, 7月 10, 2008. I see your write up histories for many other articles. Let’s wait for other uses comment and no need to be rushed. @ Namazu-tron ( talk ) 09:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Briefly , fine, this isn't notable enough to have an entire section in that article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC) Merging and nor Wikipedia:Redirect . Once an article A d and marge to another article B, even A ed to B, anyone can edit article B include word A in context of article B, but long term in future, it is possible/happen the word A may disappear from B due to number of editing by many editor/user. No one able to guarantee such sad thing if article A is worthful. This is my understanding. Now, The fact today is that millions of EcoCute unit used in houses and industries in Japan, and globally most people facing the Periodization of Climate variability and change and Climate change . Energy and cost cut/effective hot water making is demanded in global scale for CO 2 reduction worldwide market in Europe/north & south America, South Asia, Oceania. EcoCute is trademark of Kansai Electric Power Company (KEPC) does not produce EcoCute. Every power companies include KEPC, house maker/big and small house contractor recommend EcoCute to user on fair market competition. KEPC hold trademark, and my guess is, trademark EcoCute is to permit naming as Ecocute to use every 20-30 manufactures, may be coming year into Europe and/or America martket opening when minimum requirement satisfied, and KEPC will allow variety of EcoCute Specification (technical standard) depend on market and producer. With trademark registered, nobody can make and sell cute/charming toy with naming of EcoCute, for example, it prevent EcoCute be confused and disturbed in market where CO 2 emission decrease under people’s wish. I believe that, KEPC is willing to diffusion (business) of EcoCute not only in Japan, globally worldwide in hope of cut CO 2 emission reduction. Naming of EcoCute is only applicable for hot water making and supply system Air source heat pump with Refrigerant by CO 2 as commercialize first country under corporation with Norwegian/German physicist, as described in Etymology and other section, and not applicable no supplying hot water machine such as air conditioner nor refrigeration system. I hope users, herein discussion, to improve context of article EcoCute with big hope as contributing editor rather than /marge. I mean to /improve article EcoCute is really contribution not only Wikipedia but also global problem. EcoCute placed in Japanese market by Corona Corporation ( コロナ ) in May 2001 and more than 20 years passed. Technologies for EcoCute seems already well matured/completed, it seems, and not enough sources even in Japanese, as far as I look for web site, most available sources are for marketing purpose. I will improve article EcoCute as well as I can, my an excuse is not pay attention even on Talk page after first edit in/around in 2008, my contribution on other article both English and Japanese edition, but not so frequent. Thank you. @ Namazu-tron ( talk ) 12:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Additional comments and analysis on the available source material would be quite helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Valuation of nonmarket housework: Orphaned for a decade. Pepper Beast (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] -- There is secondary sourcing specific to the subject beyond the Unpaid work article. I feel that the sourcing already in the article is sufficient to pass GNG, and there is a lot more out there if anyone comes along who is motivated to improve the article. The article as it stands needs cleanup, but it not misleading or inaccurate. Deleting it does not improve the encyclopaedia and is not required by policy. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 18:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to unpaid work - this article does have some good content in it that is sourced, and with a bit of cleanup would fit nicely in unpaid work. GraziePrego ( talk ) 03:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to unpaid work. The target is currently 4443 words i.e. likely within WP:SIZERULE post-, and the sourced statements are worth salvaging. Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 13:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the above. Given the substantial overlap in the two topics it makes sense to cover them in a single article and this one has the less obvious name and contents though there is some sourced content worth preserving. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 09:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"No. 677 (Suffolk and Norfolk Yeomanry) Squadron AAC: Only one reference is listed and it is not independent of the topic of the article. In the case of this article, the squadron is company-sized. PercyPigUK ( talk ) 19:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom . PercyPigUK ( talk ) 19:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Aviation squadrons normally warrant their own articles. Predecessor units were larger: Norfolk Yeomanry and Suffolk Yeomanry have their own articles. And sources do not have to be independent of the topic of an article,. We don't need to write articles on football from sources on cricket. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC) PSTS ) so if they are not included in the article, notability cannot be proven. This article is about an army squadron ( company -sized) instead of an RAF squadron ( battalion -sized). PercyPigUK ( talk ) 21:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no requirement for the secondary or tertiary sources that establish notability to actually be used in an article. Notability is proven by their existence, not their presence. WP:BEFORE : If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and to 6 Regiment Army Air Corps . Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 6 Regiment Army Air Corps , the information on the regiment article is virtually the same as what is in the article. Gavbadger ( talk ) 12:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and to 6 Regiment Army Air Corps . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Roderick Kingsley: There's also a random link to some dude's let's play... as a source??? Additionally, we already have a hobgoblin article, (which, to be fair, probably isn't great either), so this is entirely unnecessary. Industrial Insect (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Comics and animation . Industrial Insect (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC) R in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . I'd suggest the Hobgoblin page, but Kingsley has also operated as Devil-Spider at some point. -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 20:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Who the heck is Devil-Spider? And why does his existence mean this article needs to exist? Industrial Insect (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This was a costumed alias that Roderick Kingsley operated when he was in Ecuador as seen in Amazing Spider-Man #691. He also sold this costume to an unnamed criminal when putting together the different franchises that are mentioned in the article. -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 02:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Hobgoblin . Agree that the individual aliases of Hobgoblin are not likely to be notable on their own. Yes he also used to alias Devil-Spider, but he is far more well-known as Hobgoblin. Rhino131 ( talk ) 13:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Rocket Racer: Industrial Insect (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation . Industrial Insect (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC) R in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 20:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC) R in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 20:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment ""Rocket Racer"" is also the name of the final boss in the Lego Racers and Lego Racers 2 video games, which should maybe be taken into consideration here (hatnote?). TompaDompa ( talk ) 12:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC) R - The only non-primary sources being used in the article are a couple of ""Top Ten"" lists that are generally not considered valid reliable sources for establishing notability. Further searches turned up much of the same - a few more ""Top Ten"" lists, a few plot summaries/recaps of issues, and entries in fan-generated databases. Rorshacma ( talk ) 15:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Britannica International Encyclopedia: Could probably be d and mentioned somewhere if there aren't other sources. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 00:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 00:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and to History of the Encyclopædia Britannica#Global Edition (or create a separate section in that article for non-English editions). Dekimasu よ! 00:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a or Redirection. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to History of the Encyclopædia Britannica#Global Edition seems most sensible. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 02:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Trevor Jacob plane crash: Although the NTSB report has not been issued as I write this, given what we know already, it's clear that the crash was caused entirely by the actions of the pilot; the airplane, the ATC system, FAA regulations, and so forth had little or nothing to do with it. Thus, discussion of the crash boils down to the actions of the man, which belong in the Trevor Jacob article. Most content of this article duplicates that article already, and the remainder can easily be d with it. Carguychris ( talk ) 19:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Transportation . Carguychris ( talk ) 19:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Having the separate page allows for more detailed discussion of the incident than a profile page, especially for someone like Trevor Jacob who is also notable for other reasons. There will naturally be info about the incident on Jacob's page, but having a page specifically for the incident allows for more liberty to expand the page as needed. The incident is also very well covered, including by a wide range of very-well-known national news organizations, suggesting that the event is particularly notable even outside of aviation and is worth more than just a subsection on another page. Slowtationjet ( talk ) 19:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll note that the article about the crash itself is almost as long as Trevor Jacob's personal page. I feel like this proves that it's worth having a dedicated space to expand more upon the crash itself and use Jacob's personal page to flesh out all of his escapades, including other things such as his snowboarding career. Slowtationjet ( talk ) 19:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ...[this page] is almost as long as Trevor Jacob's personal page. — User:Slowtationjet Both pages are relatively short by recent BLP standards, and this page is almost as long as Jacob's personal page mainly because it delves into minor details such as the strap-on fire extinguisher and altimeter. Almost all of the important facts are duplicated, and adding all the minor ones to his personal page would only lengthen it by a few sentences. Cheers. Carguychris ( talk ) 20:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC) see [29] , [30] , [31] , and even here . Cheers, atque supra ! Fake scientist 8000 19:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC) 25, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All of those sources extensively discuss Trevor Jacob the YouTuber, the strange things he did, and the controversial video he posted. I have yet to see a single article or video about this crash that doesn't discuss these things. It's effectively impossible to disentangle the plane crash from his actions, which is why I think this page is a textbook example of WP:CFORK and should be d. Carguychris ( talk ) 20:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] back any (minimal) added value and per nom. The parent page on Trevor Jacobs is sufficient to say all that is worth saying. It has been around since 2014 and is never going to get much bigger. Forking 90% of it just adds a pointless click-through for the reader. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk ) 19:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC) CONTENTFORK and just duplicates the information at Trevor Jacob . At this point in time there seem to be little that is expected to develop in the story beyond his sentencing and so the two articles are unlikely to diverge. - Ahunt ( talk ) 20:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy and Absolutely no reason this needed to be created as a separate duplicative article. Reywas92 Talk 14:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and . Entirely unnecessary duplication of content which can be placed in more context by the biography. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 17:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - per precedent that aviation accidents that involve the death of Wikinotable people can sustain stand-alone articles. Mjroots ( talk ) 14:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nobody died. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 15:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, not applicable in this case as there was no death involved. - Ahunt ( talk ) 15:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – I'm adding additional sources to the article. it's overly notable as its own article. it's covered widely and has received significant international attention. as much as Jacob's personal page mentions the crash, the fact remains that this incident is incredibly notable in its own right and deserves its own space to be discussed in the amount of depth that a dedicated page provides. Slowtationjet ( talk ) 14:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC) REDUNDANTFORK . Adding even more refs won't address that problem. - Ahunt ( talk ) 15:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To add to that, Jacob's career as a YouTuber is central to the whole incident. A career much better discussed in a biography, were the broader context for the crash becomes clear. There is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia policy that mandates having a separate article for a 'notable incident' that only occurred because someone was trying to boost their Wikipedia-notable career. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 15:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This 2013 nonfatal general aviation accident used to have a Wikipedia article with plenty of references, yet the article was AfD'd. General consensus in the Wikipedia aviation community is that nonfatal general aviation crashes are not notable on a standalone basis unless the event somehow affects aviation as a whole, and even then, the bar is pretty high if there's another logical place to summarize what happened—such as the biography article about the Wikinotable pilot, who by all accounts is entirely at fault, for reasons that can be summarized in a few sentences. Carguychris ( talk ) 16:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and per Ahunt's ! vote above. CONTENTFORK that has no reason to exist. The plane crash is relevant to the Trevor Jacob article and should be d there. Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 04:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Note that "" or "" is not possible; we can do either but not both. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The intention of ' and ' seems clear to me. What exactly is the problem? AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 10:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since I first used then term here, to clarify, "" and "" means first take any useful content from this article that is not already at Trevor Jacob and add it there, then this article, as it is not really needed as a . - Ahunt ( talk ) 12:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yup, I can't really see what else it could mean. Functionally the same as "", except in as much as it avoids the sort of silly arguments I've seen occasionally where people claim that a "" ! vote isn't support for deletion. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 16:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC) MERGEDELETE . The article isn't much more comprehensive than the section on Trevor Jacob . XtraJovial ( talk • contribs ) 22:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and Agree with the nom that this is better incoporated as a subtopic of the bio. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 23:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and as unnecessary content multiplication and fragmentation. gidonb ( talk ) 02:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Podiuming: The article is poorly written and sourced. The concept of podiuming does not strike me as meeting criteria of notability. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 22:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 22:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Olympics . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC) ATD : or with Podium . -- Habst ( talk ) 00:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Podium as suggested by Habst, or possibly to Sport or to Competition . 'Podium' is probably best, as it mentions ""the top three competitors"". Cnilep ( talk ) 02:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Podium . There's a sentence in the lead of that article already about the use of the word as a verb; that's about as much coverage as this deserves on Wikipedia, and there's really nothing to per se. Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 04:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC) or . Can't see any expansion potential for this beyond a DICTDEF that isn't already covered there. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Novyi Korotych post office attack: I would assume there is a better article to and this too. However I am unsure, I simply don't feel this little bit (stub) need a separate article. The information should be added somewhere else, but I am unsure where. Maybe other participants can suggest a better venue for the content to be and ed too, hence this nomination. Govvy ( talk ) 16:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Military , Russia , and Ukraine . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC) Just another item hit by a missile in an ongoing war, doesn't appear to be more notable than the other hundreds of similar strikes. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC) Post office doesn't appear to be any sort of historical structure needing an article, rather non-descript building, so nothing to to... Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC) Novyi Korotych , a newish article on the town has a bit about the attack. But You might be right above one of many things hit in an on going war. Govvy ( talk ) 13:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC) ""Just another item hit by a missile in an ongoing war""... with 8 people killed. I guess 8 people killed is now insignificant for some. But for others, each attack on civilian objects with such fatalities should be recorded in history. For reference, Gošić killings also has ""only"" 8 people killed, and also has its own article. -- 3E1I5S8B9RF7 ( talk ) 16:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, or into Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure (2022–present) . — Michael Z . 17:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC) I never said it was insignificant, I said the content needed to provided to a better location than the single entry it currently is and Mzajac Provided a better venue (article) to add it too, but having a look, I see it's missing an entry for October 2023. Regards Govvy ( talk ) 18:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] a 1 off missile attack part of a broader war. Does not meet WP:EVENT . LibStar ( talk ) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Based on WP:PRESERVE , shouldn't the article just be d to its most likely parent article? Also WP:EVENT says (near the bottom) If the notability of an event is in question but it [...] can be covered as part of a wider topic, it may preferable to describe the event within a preexisting article, by merging content . Dan the Animator 06:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] & into Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure (2022–present) . For the above s: while I agree this article shouldn't be kept, should be a last resort option. From going through a lot of the Russo-Ukrainian articles, you'd be surprised how many would benefit from rs of these sorts of things, even if just a sentence or two. Leaving a is a perfectly reasonable, common-place thing to do, and for an attack with casualties, I don't see any reason why not to leave one. Best, Dan the Animator 06:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Craig Marduk: ""At 8 feet tall, with a chest like a beer keg, Marduk is a man's man – a hairy, barroom brawler."" Failing WP:GNG . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 23:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 23:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 23:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC) GNG . Sources elsewhere are only trivial mentions in announcements. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 02:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC) Well, here's one I can get behind. In sources I've searched for per WP:BEFORE , I'm not seeing much, beyond what's already cited in the article. That being said, I think it's time to give these AFDs a rest for a while, GlatorNator. I know I'm not alone with this mindset. MoonJet ( talk ) 03:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] umm, maybe no. An admin like Sergecross73 made a comment like this [1] . Stating that nominations are acceptable ""especially if many have been closed as /"". So far with dozens of character articles were nom'ed only Reptile did survived. Again, that's your opinion. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 04:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC) Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles where it ends in an utter disaster and trainwreck. So I think nominating individually is fine even if some people are interpreting it as spamming the process. So far there has been little in the way of sources presented that might suggest the AfDs are off the mark somehow. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, while I have some concerns about the declining quality of some of these nominations (not this one) you're unlikely to be declared disruptive or anything of the sort of they largely closing as /, which most still are. Sergecross73 msg me 13:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources are discussing everyone in Tekken, not just him. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Kazama16 ( talk ) 11:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Tekken characters . Fails WP:GNG as a character. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 04:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Hetty Naaijkens-Retel Helmrich: Not seeing any significant coverage of this person other than a few brief mentions. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Scarabeefilms . Fails WP:NFSOURCES . MNewnham ( talk ) 03:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , and Netherlands . StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (selectively) into Scarabeefilms . There are sufficient sources (i.e. not references) to some of the content and it will be reasonable to expand the target with some of the materials in the article. Note that their main director has an article at Nlwiki. Can also have a short bio at the target, instead of rehashing all these awards time and again. gidonb ( talk ) 04:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions . gidonb ( talk ) 06:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Odie: Article only contains 3 sources, two of which are primary and not independent of the subject, and any reliable sources that I found online appear to be WP:TRIVIAL mentions. Jurta talk / he/they 14:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation . Jurta talk / he/they 14:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or to a list of Garfield characters. Odie is a major character in the strip and various animationsvand is generally notable. it should not be d. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 15:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC) ITSNOTABLE . Without non-trivial mentions in reliable sources, nothing is by our standards of notable. Read Wikipedia:Notability . Industrial Insect (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m not going to track down sources but there's absolutely no good reason to an article about a major character in a major comic strip. or . Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 06:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The ""Garfield"" entry of Comics Through Time has a paragraph on Odie on the page I could see. The Google preview of "" In Search of ‘Dog’: Fictional Media Constructions of Dogs in the Leisure Environment "" looks promising, but I have no access. Does anyone else (also possibly via this Research Gate page )? There's also a short paragraph at Every Dog Has Its Day . Totally Tubular '80s Toys has a brief description of the Odie plush toy which sprang from the comic strip. Daranios ( talk ) 17:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Garfield characters . There's something verifiable here worth WP:PRESERVEing , even if they are trivial mentions. The character might not have notability separate from the rest of the characters, but a character list is appropriate here. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 00:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC) Spicing up LibGuides graphically at East Carolina University "", and a lot more in this ScreenRant article . I think the found secondary sources together are enough to write a non-stubby article, therefore fullfilling WP:WHYN . WP:ITSNOTABLE is thus no longer an issue. If that's not considered enough by the majority, I would obviously prefer a to List of Garfield characters to deletion. Daranios ( talk ) 11:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC) Alternatives to deletion here. TompaDompa ( talk ) 11:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Daranios Can you try to write up something for reception? For now I am supportive of ing this because article as written fails WP:GNG but if there's something more, it might be different. At minimum, your efforts would be able, so nothing would be wasted. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC) so nothing would be wasted - My edits from S.T.A.R. Labs have just been put out of sight through ing. You wouldn't perhaps be interested in suitably merging them while I put in new effort here? Will probably take a bit of time. Daranios ( talk ) 11:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Daranios Merged. I have to say I expected a no consensus after your edit. We might have gotten it if someone pinged previous voters. Feel free to start a talk page discussion about restoring the article. I am a bit unsure what to do in this case (article has been improved near the end of AfD). You could ask at AN or such, to avoid making it look like you are challenging the close. Another option would be to ask the closer to relist and ping everyone... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC) ATD . No prejudice towards it becoming an article again if WP:GNG can be passed and the page rewritten. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Sirang Lupa: Another barangay article made/maintained by the infamous Ivan Clarin or his socks. The only references used – a page from Calamba's official website and a source from the Philippine Statistics Authority – are not strong enough to strengthen the notability of the topic. The Calamba website may also lean towards non-independent source . A casual search on news using keywords ""Sirang Lupa"" AND ""Calamba"" only yields two results ( source1 and source2 ), both only mentioning Sirang Lupa in a trivial, fleeting manner. At worse, ( again ) to Calamba, Laguna . JWilz12345 ( Talk | Contrib's. ) 09:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines . JWilz12345 ( Talk | Contrib's. ) 09:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It appears to be a legally recognized administrative unit. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 16:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Crouch, Swale dozens of barangay articles have been ed to their city/town articles, and a few were d through AfD's. Too many barangays (numbering around 40,000) mean too many stubbish or poorly-referenced articles to maintain, leading to frequent vandalisms or addition of unencyclopedic content like lists of schools, hospitals, facilities, businesses, landmarks, or tourist attractions. The issue was last discussed here (admittedly, there was no firm and final closure). See also Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Frequent discussions/Articles on barangays . JWilz12345 ( Talk | Contrib's. ) 06:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC) ATD -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A Google Book search shows it's been discussed in parliament, is the site of a mango farm which has been studied a bit, and was on a map produced by a United States scout as early as 1902. But it doesn't have a page in Tagalog and further sleuthing was unhelpful. Not sure what to do here. SportingFlyer T · C 16:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any further thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Calamba, Laguna . There is not enough WP:SIGCOV right now for a separate page. Prof. PMarini ( talk ) 05:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"2018 Luzon lambanog deaths: Article has issues per WP:NOTNEWS . While unfortunate, this incident is quite common. See here for some articles from 2019 and 2020 . I think methanol poisoning incidence are newsworthy yes but not as a Wikipedia article as the most reaction you'll get is either a temporary ban or a a warning given to local distillers. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Philippines . Lenticel ( talk ) 00:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC) 34, 28 September 2023 (UTC) ATD . However, I think list of methanol poisoning incidents would be a better target. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 09:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [Edited] {Sorry, i mean} and {i suggest} transfer its content (not necessarily the entire texts) to target aforementioned page . The problem is that the article, regardless of having reliable sources, fails WP:N in the first place. It happened that these incidents occurred in a span of less than two weeks, while each of them might be taken as headline story by some media outlets due to casualty counts; yet these incidents had no reported (or had little) impact to the country's lambanog production industry, as well as no known long-term effects. By the way, please take a look on my searches in Google: (1) and (2) . Based on these, aside from tallies , some of later events include FDA statement ; other results indicate that similar incidents occurred a year later . A 2020 article and this study might not enough. — Raider000 ( talk ) 12:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC) ATD . HueMan1 ( talk ) 07:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Radical pro-Beijing camp: The sources that do exist, almost all of which are media sources rather than academic, mostly provide the WP:SKYBLUE statement that some members of the pro-Beijing camp hold more radical politics than others. The sources do not support that this is a distinct political formation from the pro-Beijing camp. Simonm223 ( talk ) 12:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC) my apologies for the linking issues which I've tried to fix. I think I may have had a slip-up with the capitalization of ""camp"" in one instance somewhere"" Simonm223 ( talk ) 13:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC) 43, 9 April 2024 (UTC) 32, 12 April 2024 (UTC) 20, 8 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism , Politics , China , and Hong Kong . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC) 45, 9 April 2024 (UTC) 22, 9 April 2024 (UTC) 47, 13 April 2024 (UTC) 14, 15 April 2024 (UTC) Some of the sources are low-quality or mention individual names only in passing. This is usually not sufficient to label someone as belonging to a certain camp. Vacosea ( talk ) 17:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC) SYNTH trying to construct a conspiracy out of a few conservative politicians and some civil society groups they are not formally linked to. Simonm223 ( talk ) 15:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC) 30, 21 April 2024 (UTC) 45, 22 April 2024 (UTC) zh:激進建制派 . I believe that English and Chinese may have different meanings. Moreover, while traditional conservatism does not have the same meaning as radical conservatism, it can be used in a similar sense in that it is reactionary . ProKMT ( talk ) 08:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC) SKYBLUE that some politicians in Hong Kong have extreme political stances. Simonm223 ( talk ) 12:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC) 13, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think that the article makes it seem like there is an organised group with known members. From re-reading it it seems that this ""camp"" (a word that doesn't suggest organisation) is the eqivalent of ""left-wing Labour"" in the UK or ""Pro-Trump Republican"" in the US. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 19:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd like to know what editors commenting over the weekend and today think should happen with this article and why. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC) FORK and WP:SALT . I'm confused again why this was even created. It reads like a parody created by Terry Gilliam . Bearian ( talk ) 17:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Arrest of Carles Puigdemont in Italy: He was arrested on 23 September and freed without charge the next day, WP:NOTNEWS . This is not a seriously large case like the charges against Donald Trump. The Catalan Wikipedia article is long, but is mainly a turgid minute-by-minute of the filing of a legal case, which again is one which resulted in one night in jail and no charges. As for wider sources of lasting impact, the Catalan website Vila Web's tab on the case jumps from December 2021 when Vox tried to sue to Puigdemont in jail, to March 2023 when the stale case was officially closed. [1] The wider topic of the warrant against Puigdemont and the hypothetical legal basis for his home of Belgium or Italy to arrest and deport him is a subject for an enyclopedia, not this non-event Unknown Temptation ( talk ) 20:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Police , and Politics . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Carles Puigdemont per nom. Even if we were to have a more detailed about the prosecution against him, we probably wouldn't want or need an article just about this arrest, but rather we might have an article about the entire case. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC) 43, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . No need whatsoever for a separate article. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Clank (Ratchet & Clank): While the argument is being made that ""the article was only recently tagged"", WP:BEFORE doesn't turn up anything either depressingly enough and more commentary on the games themselves. There just isn't anything here. Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 21:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 21:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 21:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Ratchet (Ratchet & Clank) to form combined article Ratchet and Clank (characters) . They are notable specifically as a duo since the games are essentially a buddy story, so it strikes me as weird they'd have separate articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Honestly not a bad idea. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 23:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, that's pretty solid. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 04:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Zx. By merging it at Ratchet (Ratchet & Clank) as a duo. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 10:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Ratchet & Clank § Major characters . If the character duo is potentially independently notable then certainly they would be better covered in the existing character section, yes? The sourcing doesn't yet warrant a summary style split from that parent section. czar 03:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I mean, if the duo is independently notable, that would suggest it's fine to exist as its own article. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 06:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If they are potentially independently notable, then it would be better covered in the existing character section of a parent article? That doesn't make any sense. Either they are notable in their own right as major characters of a work of fiction, or they are not. Haleth ( talk ) 09:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The main coverage of these characters are in context of the series and we have a series article with a Characters section. Absent sources that specifically show the character duo's independent notability from the series, summary style is a basic tenet of building out articles with overlapping content. If there was more sourcing that warranted mention in the series characters section, only then should a split be considered. czar 11:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with Ratchet (Ratchet & Clank) to form Ratchet and Clank (characters) , assuming of course that Zxcvbnm as the original proposer or any other interested editor would implement the work. Haleth ( talk ) 09:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm definitely interested in attempting it. Still, I don't think that it should be overturned if nobody tried to right away. The world would not implode if there was a tag on it for a while. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. SIGCOV is meh, not a single source cited is about the character, but they are about the game, and mention the characters in passing. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Both characters are highly related, and notable together. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 22:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Ratchet (Ratchet & Clank) . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 09:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Soma Cruz: despite being a GA article, the sourcing standards have increased and the article clearly lacking WP:SIGCOV . GA criteria have no bearing on notability. It relies mostly on trivia passing mentions, thus failing WP:N . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 11:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with List of Castlevania characters . Even Google Books or Google Scholar does not come up with much - does not appear to pass WP:GNG , with entirely trivial coverage. Most of the article is just quotes or reviews of the game itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 11:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC) As per above. This whole thing looks a little crufty to me. There seems to have been a migration of Wikia editors to Wikipedia and they're doing their innocent best to turn one into the other. -- ProtoDrake ( talk ) 12:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC) Rachel Amber . The afd discussion was controversial. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 12:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC) the article List of Castlevania characters has a prose size of 98.932kB; Soma Cruz currently has 8.597. The combined article would be around 18,000 words (granted, some information, citations and so on are almost certainly repeated, but the list is already 16,540 words as it stands). WP:SIZESPLIT suggests that an article over 100kB should ""almost certainly be divided"", while one over 60kB (which the list already is) ""probably should be divided"". Would merging the two simply create an oversized article that then needs to be split; if so, would there be a better way to resolve that problem than simply splitting off this character's article again? UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 13:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC) ALLPLOT nature, that is an issue that should be resolved by trimming down the characters to the bare essentials. If it is somehow expanded with actual development and reception and is still too long, it could be further split by game, but that's not really viable with the article in its current state. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC) SIZESPLIT , [these kB size guidelines] also apply less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table. Character lists are not ordinarily designed to be read from start to finish---instead, you usually just read the section on the character you're interested in---so reading comfort/understandability is not a major structural concern. Axem Titanium ( talk ) 19:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Castlevania characters#Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow - The sources really do not show the notability to justify an independent article. Discounting the 15 or so citations that are simply quotes from the game itself or the ones that are simple database sites like IMDB, the rest are generally pretty trivial coverage about Soma himself. Most of them are reviews of the games themselves, which of course mention the character, but do not go into the depth of coverage needed to actually demonstrate that Soma, himself, passes the WP:GNG . Many others are super trivial mentions that certainly do not contribute to notability. The article size concerns really should not be a problem, because Soma already has a decent sized section on the List of Castlevania characters article itself - there honestly is not a whole lot that still needs to be d over. Rorshacma ( talk ) 23:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of the reception is about the game than about Soma as a character himself, and trying to look online for additional sources has turned up nothing. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 02:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Fasting during Maha Shivratri: Rules on a Shivaratra fast should be discussed at Maha Shivratri . I am not seeing a proper WP:SCOPE for this article. Content is mostly WP:NOT ; some dubious health claims and a general non-adherance to WP:NPOV . Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism , Medicine , Nepal , and India . Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC) topic would be better incorporated under the main celebration's page. What's given now is a strange bit of OR. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] into Maha Shivratri under segment Fasting . The page has good significant details from some reliable sources which could be d to segment Fasting in page Maha Shivratri. Health claims source would be more reliable if coming from a doctor or practitioner or someone from the medical field. I would recommend only selective details to be d that draws parallels with reliable sources. RangersRus ( talk ) 20:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Euchre variations: For example: Dealing variations. Uncited tactical comment about Euchre with additional cards - the latter is already covered at Euchre . ""Stealing the deal"" is about cheating and not encyclopaedic. McEvoy. Uncited name for term already covered at Euchre . Farmer's hand. Uncited name for term already covered at Euchre . Picking up the top card. Options that could easily be added to Euchre if cited. Making trump. These are probably genuine options, but all are currently uncited. Going alone. These are probably genuine options, but all are currently uncited. Throw-ins. Miscellany of dubious options. Lay-down hand. Uncited commentary, but the term is covered at Euchre . Scoring variations and rituals. Most of this is covered at Euchre . Bermicourt ( talk ) 19:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 23 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and United States of America . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 19:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with Euchre . Per nom, mostly covered in the North American rules section of the article. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 20:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Ping our resident card expert @ Bermicourt : in case they can save this. Ooops, didn't see they nominated it. Well, this is a lost cause then -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with Euchre variants (or possibly the other way around. We only need of those two pages, but we definitely need one, as Euchre is large enough already, and most people don't care about the many, many variations. And I should add that ""stealing the deal"" is absolutely one of those known variations, something that's legitimately negotiated by players all the time, so that should stay. William Pietri ( talk ) 17:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"List of railway stations in Muzaffargarh: The Anonymous Earthling ( talk ) 08:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation , Lists , Pakistan , and Muzaffargarh . The Anonymous Earthling ( talk ) 08:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 21 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 08:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Prob - I can't really see a good reason to ! , there is already List of railway stations in Pakistan , is the subdivision really justified? I don't feel particularly strongly about this and could be swayed by a good argument otherwise. JMWt ( talk ) 09:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of railway stations in Pakistan#Punjab . Some of the stations are present, others missing in that list. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 05:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [ was ""Speedy Keep"" ]. There is no cause for having AFD discussion here. NLIST requirements are met by ""railway stations"" being a thing, and it being fine for Wikipedia to have a worldwide list of notable ones, and the world-wide list can be split. Merger to List of railway stations in Pakistan or maintaining split is merely an editing matter for discussion at, probably best, Talk:List of railway stations in Pakistan , with a regular wp:MERGE discussion. Also this is a list of existing Wikipedia articles, so it simply is fine for them to be listed. Maybe they should not be separate articles, and I think it would rather be better for this one to include a table with photos and some or all of the info in the currently separate articles. But merging all of these back to ""List of railway stations in Muzaffargarh"" is also merely a simple matter of editing / r proposal. Stop this nonsense and end this AFD before others have to consider the preferred level of s vs. splits of content. --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 05:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 02:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] this should be a section on List of railway stations in Pakistan . (or a new page focused on Punjab, Pakistan ). Walt Yoder ( talk ) 18:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist. Clarification on whether nom's rationale has support would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC) I changed my ! vote above, as Speedy no longer timely. Why was this not closed, long ago? ""Speedy Keep"" with trout or other chastisement to the deletion nominator would have been best. Deletion nominations about sections of worldwide lists (accepted by NLIST or whatever criteria) should be immediately stopped, by admin intervention. Questions of merging or splitting lists are for editors to consider at Talk pages. There is no way in hell that it makes sense for AFD processes to decide to just one geographical area section out of a list-system. If you hate the list-system as a whole, you can take that on, but probably better as an RFC than a multiple page deletion nomination. However, per Clarityfiend 's comment, I gather this list overlaps with List of railway stations in Pakistan#Punjab (i.e. there's partial duplication both ways, the two lists seem not to be informed about each other) so it does make sense to /recombine the lists. But it also is fine for any editor to split out that list into smaller geographic areas, especially if they will have developed the list to provide more information, photos, coordinates, etc. None of this is for AFD to be deciding. --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 19:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Tropical Storm Jerry (2001): If it weren't a good article, I'd propose it for speedy deletion. If anyone can find any sources that show that it did bring actual impacts to the Lesser Antilles, I'd happily revoke the discussion. Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2001 Atlantic hurricane season . The sourcing in this article is abysmal—it's just a regurgitation of reports with no secondary or historical analysis whatsoever—and a few searches didn't turn up significant coverage either. To have a standalone article, this needs significant coverage independent of contemporary reporting and routine listing. Flux55 , for future reference, WP:PROD is the procedure for something that's clearly non-notable, speedy deletion is for specific circumstances. And regarding GA, this could probably be delisted anyway because GA requires compliance with WP:OR , including WP:PRIMARY . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 17:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC) This is a big issue mostly with the older GAs. I plan to launch a project to go over all the weather GAs to ensure they still meet the criteria or even if they deserve an article to begin with. As far as this specific one goes, I would say & due to failing on notability grounds. I would refrain from delisting this until a consensus es here. Then it could simply be stated in the article history that the delist occurred at AfD due to consensus. Noah , AA Talk 15:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC) 19, 25 January 2024 (UTC) 10, 25 January 2024 (UTC) 22, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It will be closed after seven days by an admin as long as there is a clear consensus. Noah , AA Talk 02:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Peter Le Marchant Trust: This is despite having a very notable patron. LibStar ( talk ) 01:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England . LibStar ( talk ) 01:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability and Transportation . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Partial to Princess Caroline of Monaco § Activities which has a mention and could do with a very short note about what the trust does. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG , but is mentioned enough in RS that it's DUE a sentence or two in the encyclopedia. — siro χ o 06:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Yakhini massacre: The name ""Yakhini/Yachini"" is not very present in recent reports, let alone in reference to a ""Yakhini massacre"" in any English sources, as suggested by the current title. Meanwhile, the basic facts of the page seem largely unsupported. The one source citing the deaths at this location appears to fail verification, or at least there are no mentions of casualties in the source that is cited in-line for it (unless the details are embedded in the Hebrew-language video but not reflected on page). Of the other sources, all of them from Ynet , one is basically just a security camera clip, another has a mere trivial mention of Yachini/Yakhini, and then there is an interview with a community leader who was in Thailand at the time of the attack. The other coverage out there on the web then seems to largely mirror this, with a few other stories focused on the CCTV footage, but no comprehensive coverage of the events, and no final word on casualties. Overall, I'm struggling to see much of a case here for the WP:GNG of this event as a standalone page outside of the main 2023 Hamas attack on Israel , and I would propose deletion and the merging of any verifiable content into the parent. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 08:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Israel , and Palestine . Iskandar323 ( talk ) 08:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC) 59, 31 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , and Terrorism . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] limited amount of coverage found when I search, most seem to be in context of the larger battle/attack that took place at the same time. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above argument. Jebiguess ( talk ) 18:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per all the above. GnocchiFan ( talk ) 23:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Iskandar323 . SaintPaulOfTarsus ( talk ) 01:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] note there has been English sourced media on this page, CNN, TOI, The Guardian, Haaretz mention it. More detail availed in Hebrew sources (Naturally). A simple google search will find you these sources. Homerethegreat ( talk ) 19:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC) 17, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] now that article has been rewritten in NPOV wiki voice with new refs for now . I’m reviewing the current Hebrew articles and looking if there are any English RS. As I’ve said elsewhere, notable, verifiable and neutral articles of this nature from both sides of the combat broaden Wikipedia knowledge on the combat. If 7 civilians can be shown to verifiably have died then this article would be as notable as the others reporting Israeli or Palestinian casualties. If I am unable to find additional verification I will change my ! vote as per OP. Update: - I have summarized the current refs, replaced one English version of a Hebrew ynet article with its English counterpart from ynet, found that one ref doesn’t support its text but does relate to Yakhini, found 3 other English refs which relate to Yakhani - I will be putting my final list of refs on the article talk page in the next 10m for others to review (and add to if they can) - I will then rewrite (in my sandbox) citing correctly and in wiki NPOV voice. This will take several hours Ayenaee ( talk ) 16:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Final update - I have completed the rewrite of the article which is now live . I believe it meets WP:N , WP:V and WP:NPOV . I have given more detail on the article’s talk page on what I’ve changed and why I believe the tags can be removed. Ayenaee ( talk ) 23:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC) V (or basically factually accurate). For instance, the page confuses Nir Hajabi, who was on holiday in Baku at the time (and who lives in Kissufim but whose sons lives at the moshav), with Ariel Zahavi, who was in Thailand. These two individuals are being mixed up on page. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 07:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You’re correct about the locations thanks for noting this. I’ve made the change. The individuals weren’t mixed up, I erroneously changed Thaland to Baku, Azerbaijan (for Zahavi), when I just wanted to add the country to Baku (for Hajabi). Are there any other factual inconsistencies you’ve noticed? Ayenaee ( talk ) 08:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC) TOOSOON . There is no way to know if this particular event will meet WP:NEVENT 's WP:EFFECT or WP:PERSISTENCE criteria, and it absolutely cannot pass WP:DIVERSE or WP:GEOSCOPE at this stage. I'd argue it is highly unlikely to ever do so on current evidence, but I'd have no trouble with this article being recreated in a year or two if this particular massacre stands out amongst the plethora of atrocities (on both sides) in this horrific and senseless war. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC) TOOLONG , therefore this doesn't seem like a good option. Marokwitz ( talk ) 10:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC) If is not accepted as consensus, I am comfortable with . This does not meet the minimum requirements found in WP:NEVENT (see original comment above for policy specifics where I think this subject is lacking). Perhaps in a few years, when we see if this is referenced in secondary sources (of which there are none currently) as more than a footnote in this conflict? Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 17:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Article has changed dramatically since the nomination. The word massacre refers to large-scale and deliberate targeting of civilians, and 7 solid citations (excluding one from New York Post) are sufficient for meeting the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NCRIME . RS coverage both in USA and Israel meets the criteria of WP:DIVERSE . WP:DEPTH is established, for example by the Kan 13 reference . Marokwitz ( talk ) 07:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , this is a significant massacre and as Marokwitz points out there are sufficient reliable sources for this massacre. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) ( talk ) 10:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Only 7 deaths does not mean it's notable when over 1,000 other people were killed in other communities. Something like the Re'im music festival massacre is notable as the civilian deaths were over 200. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 (The Garage) 15:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC) After reading some of the other comments, and looking at GNG, I'm taking a neutral stance on this one. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 (The Garage) 15:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC) CFORK , parent article too large to contain much more material. Valid content fork. No opinion on naming. nableezy - 16:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The suggested target was 2023 Hamas attack on Israel , not the war one. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough, changing to . nableezy - 18:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] now that article has been rewritten. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 22:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This doesn't make sense. How many articles should we create about this conflict? Dl.thinker ( talk ) 23:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This nomination was conducted too early as it didn't allow for more sources to e to allow the article to be written using reliable sources. This is technically a current event and I can see through the page history that editors are working on improving the article using reliable sources as they e. ElderZamzam ( talk ) 01:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Sorry but seven people in this context is low. We have like a dozen of articles about the murder of civilians that took place on 7 October. This is just a massive duplication of articles, we can easily cover this in another article. The article isn't even that significantly better after its rewrite, it's still short. The rewrite should be evidence that this article can not achieve much more lenght. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 09:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC) NOTABILITY requires a certain amount of deaths ? At most, this is an argument for renaming the article, not for deletion. Marokwitz ( talk ) 20:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to above target; otherwise . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 15:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia often has articles about events that occur within events, the sources in the article show this meets notability requirements for a stand alone, merging the articles would only make the target larger and this breaks a subtopic is a logical way per SUMMARYSTYLE. The article continues to show improvement (not that AfD should be for cleanup). If a is done, hopefully its more than a awkward copy paste . // Timothy :: talk 05:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Notability is not an issue here. All these massacres are notable. There is no case for WP:NOT either, including in the intro. Together these eliminate as an option. could have been an option but the text is not repetitive versus the parent, or generic, and not short either. It's a regular WP:SPINOFF of a larger attack and an article about an event that is also notable in its own right. Hence is the only conclusion that makes any sense. gidonb ( talk ) 14:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . There are a diverse number of reliable sources and the massacre is notable like all the other massacres in Israel during the October invasion by Hamas, and since the article has been rewritten in a better format, is a better option. RowanJ LP2 ( talk ) 01:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel . Owen× ☎ 00:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Everyone Knows That (Ulterior Motives): Other than that, all others sources are not notable or constitute as original research Pyraminxsolver ( talk ) 04:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs , Internet , and Spain . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC) Brainulator9 listed this video from French TV channel TF1 on the talk page, if that changes anything. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 05:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC) Seconding Pyramin that Rolling Stone is the only reliable source here, and I found no others. Would consider supporting a / to an appropriate target if anyone else has one; I had thought about lost media but that page doesn't have any examples listed or substantial mention of music, so it's probably not a good fit, at least in its current state. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 06:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC) 20, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Was not aware of that article, but it makes perfect sense and already has a section on this song. I support this target as well. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 22:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draft, I think with the French TV Station and time this article can be brought to standards, similar to the most mysterious song on the internet . Microplastic Consumer ( talk ) 17:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak . As mentioned above, there are at least two known reliable sources: the Rolling Stone article and the TF1 broadcast. It's not much, but at least WP:GNG is met. That said, it is on the thin side, and there might be merit to merging it into Lostwave (or another article that serves as a list of songs notorious for being unknown). - B RAINULATOR 9 ( TALK ) 20:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] with Lostwave . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 04:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] with Lostwave . I'd need at least one more good source than the TF1 video and Rolling Stone article to feel good about ing it, and a makes a lot more sense than a draft to me. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 05:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] with Lostwave , It's significant enough to be worthwhile to be as a particle but not significant enough to be an article at it's own. 78.190.59.94 ( talk ) 07:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . There are two sources mentioned above ( Rolling Stone article and TF1 broadcast). I also found a newser article referencing it. I didn't look into the reliability of the newser article, but it's also an original article, and not just an aggregation; and we're talking about notability, not citations. I'd say 3 sources is enough for WP:GNG . Crystalholm ( talk ) 01:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per @ Crystalholm 's point, it has gained two mentions in two generally notable perennial sources, and will continue to grow in its search to be found while gaining more traction on TikTok and Reddit. More so to my other point, if The Most Mysterious Song on the Internet can have a listing in the same set of circumstances (not being fully found but of enough interest), this should be able to also. -- Mechanical Elephant ( talk ) 07:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] with Lostwave . The song does not have enough significant coverage from reliable sources to warrant an individual article, at least at this time. Underclass King ( talk ) 11:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify &/or with Lostwave . While I personally have an interest with the search, I feel the notability as of now is not quite enough to constitute an article. I will say that the subreddit & interest in the subject is growing pretty rapidly, which means it’s likely to gain more coverage. It could just be too soon . Not0nshoree ( talk ) 23:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"S/2005 S 4: Shellwood ( talk ) 16:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into Inuit group along with other similar members of the group as appropriate I guess. - Indefensible ( talk ) 19:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Moons of Saturn or to Inuit group , and do the same for the other articles (obviously merging to a different group for moons not in the Inuit group). The former list already has information about these moons, and it was the target I proposed when this was discussed before (which ended in too many moons being ed and all of them being turned back into articles). SevenSpheres ( talk ) 15:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Moons of Saturn , which is the best target and has information on this moon and the others, but any extra pertinent information to Inuit group . This moon clearly does not meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG . Other moons can simply be WP:BLARed and information d to the appropriate moon group article if it is clear that they are not notable, although it is worth sending more borderline cases to AfD to assess whether they should be kept. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 10:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC) 31, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] all of these newly-announced moons to Moons of Saturn per above. Nrco0e ( talk ) 18:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To which article? Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 12:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Amitabh Bachchan Falls: — H e m a n t D a b r a l ( 📞 • ✒ ) 08:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 4 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 08:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sikkim . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] selectively to Lachung River . The falls themselves are mentioned in Emptying the landscape: outsider place-making, tourism and migration in Sikkim, India , as well as in a bit of news coverage ( [28] ). However, I'm not really seeing sources that are ever going to get an article on the falls beyond a stub. WP:GEONATURAL says that [i]f a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography . In the spirit of both this and WP:NOPAGE , which says that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic , I think we'd be better off merging this article on the falls into the article on the river itself, where the falls can be covered in sufficient depth in the greater context of the river where the falls are. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree. — H e m a n t D a b r a l ( 📞 • ✒ ) 17:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Okoslavia ( talk ) 15:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Chris Krause: Founding a company does not bestow inherent notability, and I am concerned that the citations provided appear to either contain limited mention of the subject in the course of covering said company, or have a PR feel to them. BD2412 T 22:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . BD2412 T 22:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - not a whole lot about him outside of founding Next College Student Athlete. Seems to be a case of WP:1EVENT . If there is indeed any notability, then it lies with Next College Student Athlete . - Knightoftheswords281 ( Talk · Contribs ) 22:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , American football , and Illinois . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC) REDUNDANTFORK . Agree with nom that the sources are aimed mostly at the company, not the founder. A sentence or two about the subject can easily be included in the parent article. Stony Brook babble 14:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Opinion polling for the 1980 Canadian federal election: No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Also wp:not. Only ""Stats only"" sources. North8000 ( talk ) 19:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC) Opinion polling for the 1958 Canadian federal election , Opinion polling for the 1980 Canadian federal election , Opinion polling for the 1949 Canadian federal election and Opinion polling for the 1945 Canadian federal election North8000 ( talk ) 16:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm baffled why this was created as a stand-alone article rather than within 1980 Canadian federal election , which is quite short and can accomodate it without the need for a split. Reywas92 Talk 23:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Reywas92. — Joeyconnick ( talk ) 16:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] a valid SPLIT, but the parent article is short enough to contain the information. SportingFlyer T · C 00:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Champion Pizza : Does not meet WP:NORG Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure if we should and Hakki Akdeniz into this article, or this article into Hakki Akdeniz . There's a good amount of coverage because it's a good story: immigrant comes to NYC, deals with homelessness, hustling at a pizza restaurant, becomes really good at making pizza, opens his own pizzeria, becomes very successful, and donates tons of pizzas to the homeless. Having an article about Akdeniz -- an article I suspect has some paid editing behind it -- seems more promotional than including the story as part of this article? But at the same time, the story is more about the man than the store, I guess. Tough call. There's definitely at least one notable subject, though. I think I lean towards ing and merging here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 11:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Hakki Akdeniz . The sources do not meet WP:ORGCRIT . The Forbes article was written by a contributor so not WP:RS , Newsfile and the Yahoo articles are press releases, Pizza Today is a trade publication ( WP:TRADES ) and Creative Loafing is a routine announcement. The Long Island Press article is ok but is mostly about him and largely based on what he says. I would say but the content is already covered in Hakki Akdeniz and incorrect (it was founding in 2009 not 2019). S0091 ( talk ) 15:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC) The pizza chain's story fails WP:NORG . Yet, it intertwines with its founder's story. Merging would allow for a complete look at Akdeniz's story, showing his notable impact on the business. It would focus on the narrative where it fits best and avoid making promotional content separate from its context. -- AstridMitch ( talk ) 04:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Boomerang (character) : Industrial Insect (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC) ATD-M — siro χ o 05:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC) Siroxo would be a preferable alternative to deletion. BOZ ( talk ) 21:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While I agree the sourcing is a lot better, the fact most of the sources come from one website is not a good look. Industrial Insect (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC) . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 00:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as different sources have been added since. Higher Further Faster ( talk ) 10:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Siroxo's old comment. While there are more sources, they all seem to be trivial listicles, which don't constitute SIGCOV. The reception there is incredibly weak, coming down to about a sentence of actual commentary per article, which, while not bad when there's more significant coverage to add to, is not enough for a standalone article. I think some of it could be good to into the list, as there is some commentary, but I don't think it's enough to justify this. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 21:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC) B in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 20:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Spider-Man enemies per Pokelego999. The added references, discounting the ones that are pure plot summaries of issues/stories, are all the types of articles and sources that are generally not considered reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability (i.e. ""Top Ten"" churnalism style lists from places like ScreenRant or CBR). Additionally, as stated, most of those sources do not even come close to meeting the threshold of being significant coverage, being a few sentences worth of actual commentary of the character. And then there are some such as this one , which is literally just a picture and the word ""Boomerang"", and this one , which is just the word ""Boomerang"" on a list of cards, which is pure WP:REFBOMBing . A is perfectly fine, but there is not the amount of genuine significant coverage in reliable sources to actually pass the WP:GNG as a stand alone article. Rorshacma ( talk ) 15:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: We have two different target articles proposed plus editors arguing to this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC) GNG : no significant coverage in reliable sources. The most prevalent source in the article, Comic Book Resources and other Valnet sites, are not reliable sources. -- Mika1h ( talk ) 16:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of Spider-Man enemies per Pokelego999. I think WP:PRESERVE could be brought up here. I think it is likely this character could eventualy be given a proper article but currently he is too obsucre. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Fails WP:GNG without significant coverage in reliable sources. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Three WP:RS for this character: [29] [30] [31] BOZ ( talk ) 23:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of these sources seem to describe much beyond plot summary of how the villain works, his backstory, and some of his appearances. They don't really help Boomerang's case much. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 21:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed with Pokelego999 - all three sources are almost entirely in-universe description/plot summary. On top of that, none of them are particularly lengthy amounts of coverage, with the entry from the ""500 Comic Book Villains"" in particular not coming close to being able to be considered significant coverage. Rorshacma ( talk ) 06:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Azriel Brown : FULBERT ( talk ) 21:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Judaism , and New Jersey . Shellwood ( talk ) 22:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Yeshiva Gedola of Carteret , of which he is founder. Djflem ( talk ) 15:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] / to Yeshiva Gedola of Carteret as he is not independently notable and whatever relevant content here can be d into the article for the yeshiva. Alansohn ( talk ) 17:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"MC El Bayadh Bus Crash : Article about a bus crash. No wp:notability per the events SNG or GNG. Also per wp:not news. North8000 ( talk ) 13:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT . Nagol0929 ( talk ) 15:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Football , Transportation , and Algeria . Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC) SUSTAINED coverage and violates WP:NOTNEWS . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 09:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (however) I believe this can be covered in the two team club pages, and should be added to the 2023–24 Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 season page along with 2023–24 in Algerian football if it ever gets created. As that kind of information can effect the team big time involve in this competition. I don't see the need for an independent article. Govvy ( talk ) 15:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/ to MC El Bayadh#History . Giant Snowman 14:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Weevil (Torchwood) : Fails WP:GNG . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens . I found no evidence that the subject is independently notable. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 10:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC) ATD . Not independently notable. Archrogue ( talk ) 17:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - In Universe cruft. Carrite ( talk ) 10:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC) 01, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Regions of the Boy Scouts of America : Per deletion policies 13 & 14: ""Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace"". That policy would be WP:NOTAGUIDE ""Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia"" This article is basically internal documentation and not unlike an article like Safeway region, or Best Buy Districts sourcing to their own documents of internal interest only. At best it's a re-direct, but I'm wondering the necessity of having so many of them that maybe on the verge of becoming keyword stuffing. Graywalls ( talk ) 03:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Scouting , and United States of America . Graywalls ( talk ) 03:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Could this be d into Boy Scouts of America ? Eopsid ( talk ) 15:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is 100% primary sourced, so not suitable. Graywalls ( talk ) 15:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. However, the s for the old regions (i.e.",merge
+"March-BMW M1/C : Scant resources on the Internet, too. No expectation of increased coverage in the near future on my end. X750 . Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 09:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to BMW M1 could be an alternative to deletion. — siro χ o 11:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But the thing is, even if we do it, the three best sources in the article are nowhere near RS.. . X750 . Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 20:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC) N right now, I think we have enough reliability for WP:V of this prototype for some sort of . I just don't really know the best destination. Do you know if this is the same car as "" March-BMW M1 "" or is the /C a designation of a different car? — siro χ o 22:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The /C denomination refers to the car being adapted to Group C regulations, March Engineering is a company that specializes in racing cars. I think we should wait and see what other users have to say too. X750 . Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 22:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into BMW M1 seems appropriate in my opinion as well. - Indefensible ( talk ) 20:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"The Path of Duty : BEFORE searches give where to watch and a few passing mentions with brief plot summary when describing the TV series this stems from. Karnataka ( talk ) 20:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom . Karnataka ( talk ) 20:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with List of Upstairs, Downstairs episodes per",merge
+"2012 New South Wales mayoral elections : I have not found significant coverage of this topic. Also fails WP:NOTDB ; including all of the results for all of the mayoral elections would make this page massive. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 05:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Politics , and Australia . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 05:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC) 16, 12 May 2024 (UTC) CSC provides a good metric for when a list gets into WP:NOTDB territory. That guideline states that ""[s]hort, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group"" may be appropriate. However, such lists ""should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K)"". The list is already 12k of wikitext from 2 entries; 50 entries would far exceed that limit. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 06:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose Auspol wiki has been notoriously poor at recording local elections despite a wealth of information about them being available, and recording all results would see the page be as large if not smaller than most other auspol results pages. NSW is also the largest state and its mayors are generally very notable & attract a lot of media attention. Goodebening ( talk ) 05:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to 2012 New South Wales local elections as these were also part of the local elections that year (and also worth noting the size of the article could be much reduced if {{ Election results }} was used instead of the election box templates). Number 5 7 16:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC) 2023 Western Australian mayoral elections#Proposed of 2023 Western Australian local elections with 2023 Western Australian mayoral elections . The mayoral elections are not a separate event from the local elections and should not be treated as such. Steelkamp ( talk ) 02:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC) 14, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Mayoral elections are not separate events form local council elections. Additionally per WP:NPOL , being a mayor does not automatically guarantee notability. Tar nis hed Path talk 08:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose , per consistency with other mayoral elections. I don't really see a point in merging this page but ing all of the other mayoral ones separate. Additionally, this page is clearly large enough to warrant an article in its own right; merging would only make parsing through these articles more tedious. Loytra ( talk ) 11:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Hero of the Donetsk People's Republic : Rsk6400 ( talk ) 12:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Ukraine . Rsk6400 ( talk ) 12:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC) I notified WikiProject Ukraine ( Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ukraine#Articles_for_deletion_discussions:_Hero_of_the_Luhansk_/_Donetsk_People's_Republic ) and Talk:Luhansk People's Republic of this discussion. Rsk6400 ( talk ) 13:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , not a notable award. It can be mentioned in articles on recipients. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , This article and the similar Hero of the Luhansk People's Republic needs to be expanded and not d. Hero of DPR even finds an article with Reuters when Kadyrov was awarded with it. Chechen armed forces assemble to honour Putin and his ally Kadyrov Shaan Sengupta Talk 14:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV . Rsk6400 ( talk ) 15:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Passing mention in the context of a single ceremony where Pushilin and Kadyrov serviced each other, in a 160-word news flash. Not SIGCOV of the subject of the award. — Michael Z . 04:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and Non-notable, but there should be a couple sentences on it somewhere. North8000 ( talk ) 17:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Delete not notable on it's own right. Maybe we can make an article along the lines of ""Russian Separatist Awards"" and include Hero of the Luhansk People's Republic and other even less notable awards. Scu ba ( talk ) 19:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Non-notable × ∞ = infinitely non-notable. — Michael Z . 04:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC) probably to Donetsk People's Republic . Deletion is not preferred per WP:ATD since this is a valid target. Curbon7 ( talk ) 06:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . WP:BEFORE requires a search for Russian-language sources. The corresponding article in Russian ru:Герой Донецкой Народной Республики has lots of references. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 11:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources like ""i1289.photobucket.com/albums/"", ""www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dVWH_k9xIA"", ""Газета ДНР"" (controlled by the self-proclaimed government of the DNR). As far as I see, all the sources in the article are controlled by the Kremlin or the Donetsk People's Republic. The problem with Russian-language sources is that there is no freedom of the press left in Russia. Rsk6400 ( talk ) 11:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A source controlled by the Government of Russia is reliable for a statement that someone was given the award by Russia/Donetsk People's Republic. Though it is not necessarily reliable for stating the someone was not given the award, since people sometimes are airbrushed from Russian history. But such a source is not evidence of notability. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Award serves to prop up Russian propaganda claims to a region of Ukraine and award is emblem of occupation and not notable on it's own right. Could create new page on Russian attempts to assert administrative control. Stoptheprop ( talk ) 18:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with you! Let's together create page ""Russian attempts to assert administrative control on Ukraine""? I think would be cool if we include not only 2014-nowadays, but earlier period such as Russian Empire period? Stoptheprop FYI Antonio Vinzaretti ( talk ) 08:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem with Russian-language sources on Pro-russian topics is that there is no freedom of the press left in Russia. They all act undergo government totalitarism agenda. Antonio Vinzaretti ( talk ) 08:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Just . There’s literally nothing notable here to contribute to other subjects. — Michael Z . 04:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I guess one source can be used in Joseph Kobzon . The other is just “Kadyrov held a parade.” — Michael Z . 04:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC) 07, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Lots of ideas here. Definitely worthy of a relisting. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe this page ought to be kept because it relates to an award that exists - you may not like the politics that led to its creation (I certainly do not!) but that doesn't alter the fact that it has been established. It's on my website - medals.org.uk - which is frequently cited as a source for information. When I have a moment I'll see if I can improve this page. Megan C Robertson ( talk ) 15:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But please remember that we need reliable sources. And since medals.org.uk is self-published, it's no RS. Rsk6400 ( talk ) 15:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a fake symbol of a fake country. If I create ""Honored hero of Stoppropistan"" and say it has an orange and purple flag, and I personally assign it to people who kiss my ass, will you be including that on your website too? Stoptheprop ( talk ) 17:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Worth noting that it is notable because it is the highest award of the separatist movement. We have articles about the high awards of other entities not widely internationally recognized like Hero of Artsakh. The mere existance of an article about an award is not an endorsement of the award. There are many sources about the award, just most are not english. Just because you can't find source in english doesnt mean it isnt covered. Kursant504 ( talk ) 05:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Antonio_Vinzaretti points out, the problem with Russian-language sources on Pro-Russia topics is that there is no freedom of the press left in Russia and they all act under the instruction of the Kremlin Stoptheprop ( talk ) 18:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if Russia having censorship doesn't mean that Russian media coverage cannot demonstrate SIGCOV, nor does the use of the award for propaganda mean it isn't notable. We have articles about Confederate awards like the Confederate Medal of Honor, but having that article doesn't mean that Wikipedia is pro-Confederacy. Kursant504 ( talk ) 12:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources that are clearly non-neutral, non-independent, and unreliable do not contribute to SIGCOV and are generally not allowed, regardless of their language or place of publication. But it’s no coincidence that Russia’s propaganda about its aggression against Ukraine falls into this category. — Michael Z . 14:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as and to DPR main article (probably in the ""Recognition and international relations"" section). Possible search term and some of the content is useful (demonstrates the close relations between DPR and Chechyna officials, for example). Dan the Animator 19:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * . Award serves to prop up Russian propaganda claims to a region of Ukraine and award is emblem of occupation and not notable in it's own right. Could create new page on Russian attempts to assert symbolic/administrative control. Stoptheprop ( talk ) 28 October 2023 (UTC) @ Stoptheprop : I suggest you self-revert because you have only one vote. Rsk6400 ( talk ) 12:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ... or - maybe better - strike one of your two votes using  and . Rsk6400 ( talk ) 12:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC) 06, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Dulhan paratha : I don't see notability here, as this is about a paratha sold by a local restaurant and prepared by mixing some extra items in it. Additionally, the sources used promote this cafe as they list locations, rates, products, time etc. – DreamRimmer ( talk ) 15:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect to Paratha - with the newspaper sources it should be possible to write a reliably-cited one-sentence summary of this material in that article. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 15:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC) I agree with Chiswick Chap 's rationale above. Maliner ( talk ) 15:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are separate articles for Aloo paratha , Gobi paratha , Mughlai paratha etc so this variation of paratha can also have a separate article. Referencing is also fine for a local food item from reliable Urdu news sources in Pakistan like Daily Jang , Daily Express , Daily Pakistan . 2402:E000:653:1693:0:0:0:1 ( talk ) 05:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Huntsman (Snow White) : Minor character from fairy tail, plot summary + information on who played him in some modern adaptations, very poorly referenced, no analysis/reception, and my BEFORE finds nothing. There is a bit of coverage of the Huntsman from the modern The Huntsman film series, but not much outside plot summary/casting, although the existence of that franchise makes searching for this already generic name hard :( Fandom has an unreferenced section on character development, that is arguably better than what we have ( https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Huntsman_(Snow_White_and_the_Seven_Dwarfs)) . Can anyone find anything to rescue this? The best I find is the use of the character name in the title of this minor academic article , but contents seem to ignore him (or at least my search of the pdf fails to turn anything of use). Otherwise, we can discuss targets I guess... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC) COATRACK article of sorts. However, even if there is a basis for it to exist, it would need a rewrite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 11:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC) PRESERVE . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 17:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or with the character section of Snow White . There's a lot out there online to find sourcing for most, if not all, of the above. Not sure I understand what this could be a coatrack for. There's just a lot of variations and remakes of the Snow White story. — Maile ( talk ) 02:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Snow White. Nothing worth ing as the article is entirely in-universe content. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 23:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Snow White - Better than the now d King article, since this character actually does exist in most versions of the story. But there is still no significant coverage in reliable sources within the article itself or presented in this AFD that demonstrate that they are a character that is notable enough to pass the WP:GNG for their own article. The character's role in the original story is covered in the plot summary of the main Snow White article, making it a good target. The rest of this article is simply a list of appearances of the character in various adaptations, and those appearances are generally described in the articles for each of those adaptations. Rorshacma ( talk ) 04:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Yinfeng line : The name is seldom used officially and during train operations. Chinese Wikipedia has no article about it. Using Line 3 (Ningbo Rail Transit) is just fine. 阿南之人 ( talk ) 10:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The rationale makes sense though the content here needs to be d to Yinfeng line rather than d/ed. In the future, I would propose a WP:Merge or boldy it rather than taking it to Afd. Garuda3 ( talk ) 11:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, it has been d by me. 阿南之人 ( talk ) 11:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You haven't edited Line 3 (Ningbo Rail Transit) yet. The information and references at Yinfeng line need to be transferred into the Line 3 page. Garuda3 ( talk ) 13:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC) See Special:Diff/1181017547 . 阿南之人 ( talk ) 11:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The corresponding article in Chinese at zh:宁波轨道交通3号线 has many more references. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 12:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed - though the Chinese article is for Line 3 as a whole so includes both Line 3 (Ningbo Rail Transit) and Yinfeng line . Garuda3 ( talk ) 13:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] while as ion page. The name Yinfeng Line was used only when the initial section (from Jiangshan to Minghui Road) is open. After the rest section is open the whole line was then renamed as Line 3 (Yinfeng section) and now you can find barely nothing about the name Yinfeng Line on the official website. Though it is possible that some section of the line might be separated from Line 3 in the future, there is no official schedule for it and as a Wikipedia article, we do not make predictions. Siyuwj ( talk ) 02:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into Line 3 (Ningbo Rail Transit) . This is what zhwiki does. Knowledgegatherer23 ( Say Hello ) 14:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC) Just say call it a former line and add a bit to what happened to it and what it became part of. there is no no need to this. and add a link to the line it was d into it. Deleting this would be a waste of the person (who originally wrote this)'s time. There is no need for deletion. Huaxiazidi ( talk ) 10:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"2022 Raqqa attack : Ecrusized ( talk ) 08:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into Timeline of the Syrian civil war (2022) , where this event is already mentioned. - Cameron Dewe ( talk ) 07:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: or ? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as suggested seems fine. Not a very notable battle outside of that context. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"List of Cohen crime family members : These people certainly existed, but their membership in a supposed ""crime family"" is at best dubious. Note that the main article Cohen crime family has been nominated for deletion on the same grounds at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cohen crime family Coretheapple ( talk ) 16:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Crime , California , and Nevada . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC) HomG . Same crime family, except the list has no sources at all. — Maile ( talk ) 00:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into Los Angeles crime family under the section about Jack Dragna . This so-called family appears to have arisen as a result of a falling out between Dragna and Mickey Cohen when Bugsy Siegel was killed. Also, both Siegel and Cohen were working for the New York mafia, so their West Coast operations is more like a branch office. - Cameron Dewe ( talk ) 22:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Two different targets suggested, one of which, Cohen crime family , is also at AFD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC) REDUNDANTFORK , the nomination should have waited till the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cohen crime family , since a 3rd / target has been identified there at Mickey Cohen . Greater clarity about what to do here will be obtained once that discussion closes. Stony Brook babble 15:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] True, but my feeling was that this article warranted deletion on its own lack of merits. Coretheapple ( talk ) 12:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Point well taken. However, in the interest of preserving the flow of information here, a would prevent this from being housed in Category:Lists of criminals , Category:Organized crime members by organization and Category:Organized crime-related lists . Stony Brook babble 01:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nor should it be, as this was an arbitrary list concocted by Wikipedia editors without any basis in sourcing. Coretheapple ( talk ) 13:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Caveira (Rainbow Six Siege) : The bikini/lingerie discussion also relates more to the person doing the cosplay than the character itself, and one of the cosplay examples is from an official contest by Ubisoft. Lastly the Controversy section is more development for the game itself, and also offers no discussion on the character itself. Trying to do research with WP:BEFORE also turned up nothing either actually discussing Caveira as a character. Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 01:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 01:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 01:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can see a list of characters being a thing for sure. That said, it's hard to fathom individual operators being standalone notable. This is literally a page ripped straight from FANDOM. People put an intense amount of effort into this, but you can't make notable what isn't actually notable - it is a bit flummoxing that someone would have looked at this minor character and assumed they were standalone article material. I have no prejudice towards the material being preserved in user-space if someone wishes to work on a list article in the future. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - definitely a REFBOMB and prose bloat situation to make it look like there's a lot more here than there really is. Better represented in an article of another aspect of the franchise. Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or as compromise. The reception of the character in the first subsection is a list of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs , and does not meet the standard for WP:SIGCOV . The rest of the reception section is off topic. It should be removed, or at best, adds trivial mentions about other topics that don't really demonstrate notability for this character. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 18:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or per nom. Also, controversy section isn't talking about the character directly. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 23:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , was unable to find adequate coverage to demonstrate GNG. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 02:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Legacy of Wolves : The article was originally a to List of Eberron modules and sourcebooks , which may say something about the book itself's notability. Samoht27 ( talk ) 06:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions . Samoht27 ( talk ) 06:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC) AtD . There is only one review, so this seems to fail WP:NBOOK . Still, what has already been collected should not simply be lost in deletion. If anyone knows of any more secondary sources, please let me know. Daranios ( talk ) 11:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 13:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion . The author's web page for Legacy of Wolves does not list any reliable reviews of the book. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources. A with the history preserved under the will allow editors to selectively any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A with the history preserved under the will allow the to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard ( talk ) 22:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Broken Arrow (Korea) : I think it can be safely d into it without loss of content. — Brigade Piron ( talk ) 10:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . — Brigade Piron ( talk ) 10:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Korea . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No need to . Let's into Battle of Haktang-ni . Footwiks ( talk ) Footwiks ( talk ) 11:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC) CF and that article has relevant information. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 09:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Battle of Haktang-ni. Agree, after review, that should be no problem and a reasonable solution. Kierzek ( talk ) 13:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Siuuu : Also, WP:INDISCRIMINATE . Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for the input and thoughts, would you care to add the section? Isaac Tam Tsz Hang ( talk ) 23:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Cristiano Ronaldo seems fine, I don't find much coverage about this salute, could easily be d into the main Ronaldo article. Fine piece of trivia, but I don't think it's notable alone. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – It's definitely not encyclopedic content. Svartner ( talk ) 05:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Cristiano Ronaldo#Goal celebrations – mentioned there, but let's start the topic in its section. I would also prefer ing the article since it is the subject of multiple reliable sources and given that the player's article is unusually long. Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 15:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/ as above. Giant Snowman 22:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Cristiano Ronaldo#Goal celebrations – Aww this would be a funny article. But for now it's essentially a dictionary entry. TLA tlak 03:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Cristiano Ronaldo#Goal celebrations . Can be expanded a bit. No need to SPINOFF. gidonb ( talk ) 23:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Seems obvious to me. Anwegmann ( talk ) 04:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Cristiano Ronaldo#Goal celebrations . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 06:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - widely known as the most popular and iconic football celebration ever. I dont think merging is a good idea as the article is already tagged for being too long -- FMSky ( talk ) 18:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"JL Toreliza : No standalone notability outside band. Refs constitute the band and clickbait and interviews. scope_creep Talk 07:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Television , and Philippines . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 09:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] relevant info back to BGYO for now per nom. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to BGYO , where he's a member of. Not enough independent coverage about him outside the band. SBKSPP ( talk ) 03:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Pharnacyas : Single dead link used as a source, BEFORE found passing mentions without any SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 15:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . NotAGenious ( talk ) 15:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Menostanes or Sogdianus . 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk ) 10:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] added additional sources and information, fixed dead link. can you please review it again? thanks! Ramses. Rodriguez. Martinez ( talk ) 23:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 16:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Sogdianus , perhaps also add some information to Xerxes II . It's clear some verifiable information from this page should be in the encyclopedia, but WP:NOPAGE might help here, if no more in-depth coverage exists. — siro χ o 04:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC) No objection to a consensus of material that has been properly referenced . Unreferenced material should not be d. No obection to a consensus . // Timothy :: talk 05:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the two pieces of verifiable information that should be d somewhere are the fact that this subject had some amount of influence over Xerxes II , as well as the method of execution. Additionally, the references in some other articles might be improved in the as well. — siro χ o 07:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Nava Applebaum : nableezy - 22:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine . nableezy - 22:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Terrorism . Shellwood ( talk ) 22:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or possibly , if her particular case is deemed worthy of mention in the main article with a sentence. Such a tragic event, yet so little to say in reliable sources that isn't about her father, the bombing or its aftermath. There are literally a couple of sentences on the topic itself: pure WP:NOTNEWS, NOTENCYCLOPEDIC and fundamentally, how does this adhere to WP:ANYBIO or WP:BDP? ——Serial 22:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (selectively) into Café Hillel bombing . Should be mentioned in a sentence at the main article, which is too short. The biography is unjustified. gidonb ( talk ) 06:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC) I agree with the suggestion to into Café Hillel bombing . Rublamb ( talk ) 04:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above arguments. -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 15:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 20:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Khankhel Swati : This page previously ed to Swati tribe ; any reliably sourced and encyclopedic content should once again be d to that page. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 18:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Afghanistan . Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 18:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Community of Democratic Choice Youth Forum : It's unclear whether the organization still exists or what its specific activities are. No independent sources are cited or can be found. Icodense ( talk ) 20:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Latvia . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Community of Democratic Choice . I can't find any independent coverage of this offshoot group. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 22:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"List of Casuariiformes species : Not enough to merit a separate page. AryKun ( talk ) 15:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Lists . AryKun ( talk ) 15:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC) it already contains some taxonomy. I bet overlapping, so hardly will make the article too large. - Altenmann >talk 16:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Casuariiformes#Taxonomy as per Altenmann . -- awkwafaba ( 📥 ) 17:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC) NOPAGE . — siro χ o 18:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC) 31, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Looptopia : On review, it doesn't appear to pass the WP:NEVENT test, with coverage only in local works, and limited only to the one area. I think Chicago Loop is a reasonable / target if there is some desire alternative to deletion. Izno ( talk ) 20:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions . Izno ( talk ) 20:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Events . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As creator of this article I strongly recommend that it be d into and ed towards White Night festivals where it would have better informative use. Victor Grigas ( talk ) 22:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into White Night festivals per Victorgrigas. - Indefensible ( talk ) 00:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"February 2019 Balochistan attacks : All the sources are from February 2019 when this attack occurred. Source 7 actually predates the date of the attack. No WP:LASTING coverage. LibStar ( talk ) 23:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Terrorism , and Pakistan . LibStar ( talk ) 23:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (partially) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2019 . If there is later coverage it likely isn't in English so this is difficult to evaluate. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 23:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2019 . No apparent sourcing beyond the reporting as it happened. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 18:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"2004 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit : None of the cited sources (if counted as WP:RS, which is doubtful) have more than a few sentences of prose about the event and are purely WP:ROUTINE reporting of scores. WP:BEFORE found nothing else. Could be ed to Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix . ( t · c ) buidhe 21:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sports . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How are the sources in this article not good enough when this article provides even less sources for a similar event in a different sport and has not been proposed for deletion? -- ThiagoSimoes ( talk ) 21:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel , Belarus , France , Germany , Netherlands , Russia , and Ukraine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC) ATD . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC) ATD . // Timothy :: talk 14:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"List of French football club owners : List serves little purpose, is completely unsourced, and poorly upkept. Owners are already listed on each club article, which is sufficient. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 02:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and France . Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 02:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or to Football in France ; there's this article by Le Monde which directly matches the subject of the list and this article by Bloomberg News that appears to be more of a partial match (behind a paywall). Left guide ( talk ) 03:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Football in France – Per Left guide . Svartner ( talk ) 12:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 19, 29 December 2023 (UTC) I also noticed that ambiguity at first. The article refers to owners of the clubs that play in France's football leagues; in this list, some of the owners are foreigners, but all of the clubs are French. So List of owners of French football clubs might be an appropriate title if kept. Left guide ( talk ) 21:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Left Guide. Srijanx22 ( talk ) 06:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Left Guide, doesn't need a separate article. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 09:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Totally against merging unsourced content, I am strongly against any , we have categories for a reason. What's this list doing that a category can't? Govvy ( talk ) 15:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Fat Freddy's Cat : No reception/analysis, weak 'in popular culture' section that has only a few minor examples, poorly rererenced and significantly overlapping with reception related to its parent work ( The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers ) where this should probably be ed per WP:ATD-R . My BEFORE shows nothing else that meets SIGCOV and RS requirements. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 14:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 14:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per nom. No evidence of independent notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Partial to The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers . Some of the bibliography is not present in the target article, and a couple of the sources could be used for verifiability (and to avoid appearance of OR) in the target. — siro χ o 19:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or to The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers#Characters - the sources and info would help that article. If not, the article should still be ed to that so that it can be remade in the future if someone finds more in universe info and sources. However, I think that if someone finds more sources I think it would be worth ing due to the character having its own storylines separate to the other characters. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 05:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - gets a two-page article (plus some reprinted strips) in Malcolm Whyte's Great comic cats (2001) which I'd say is one suitable source. Commentary from Nicholas Lezard in a review in The Guardian here . Also gets a few mentions in in Dez Skinn's Comix : The underground revolution (2004), and dozens of other smaller mentions in book and magazine sources on archive.org, some which have a bit of commentary. Gets the most cursory of passing mentions in a Philip K. Dick story. There was a 2018 event at the British Library called ""Cartoon Cats: Gilbert Shelton and Posy Simmonds"" (which I attended) but I can't find much trace of that. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 13:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Drugs controlled by the UK Misuse of Drugs Act : That is not what an encyclopedia is for. The rest of it (which is just the introduction) can be d to Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 . That article already has a link to the legislation, if the readers want to see the whole list; that article should just summarise the list, not reproduce it in its entirety. Richard75 ( talk ) 21:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom . Shellwood ( talk ) 23:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC) as three collapsible boxes, by class. I agree that this list doesn't qualify for a standalone article. But when included in a proper article, this list is useful and has encyclopedic value. And being collapsed by default, it wouldn't clutter the article. Owen× ☎ 23:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC) My concern isn't just about clutter, it's about content. If the list is useful, then link to it – that doesn't mean it all belongs in the article. The article about War and Peace doesn't quote the whole book, it just tells you about it. Richard75 ( talk ) 00:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And the article about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms lists all 34 sections, but I'm not sure what either War and Peace or the Charter has to do with our case. We have many articles that include a comprehensive list, when the list is encyclopedic but not suitable for a separate listicle. This particular list is useful and encyclopedic, but it isn't notable as a standalone list. That makes it a perfect candidate for inclusion in an existing article about its topic, in this case, the 1971 Act. Owen× ☎ 01:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Canadian Charter article lists and summarises all 34 sections, but it doesn't quote them in full. Richard75 ( talk ) 01:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This list has been deeply useful to me in the past. The government legislation pages are now easier to browse but I think it would be a shame to see it moved off wikipedia. If the problem is that it only lists substances specifically named in the legislation, a better solution would be to start making it a ""list of x"" article and including things like 6-APB and others that are classified but not specifically named in legislation. Testem ( talk ) 10:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Satisfies LISTN and GNG easily and by a wide margin. This topic (both the topic of controlled drugs, and even the Schedules which list those drugs) has received significant coverage in books and periodicals. To deal with the nominator's arguments, which are irrelevant to LISTN and therefore irrelevant: The contents of this article differ significantly from the text of the legislation, which definitely does not include much of the content of the tables. Further, the list is not copied from the legislation, because the amended text of the legislation does not actually exist as a published work that is a statute. It is true that various secondary and tertiary sources contain something that purports to be the amended text of the legislation, but these sources are actually compilations and annotations, and they are not the verbatim text of the numerous statutes and statutory instruments they purport to compile into one. Wikipedia should contain a list of controlled drugs, because this is important and useful encyclopedic information that our readers need and want, and (more importantly) because it is included in the treatises and other books on this subject. Our readers cannot just go and look at the amended legislation, because it does not exist as a published work that is a statute. And they cannot necessarily go and look at secondary and tertiary sources that purport to revise the legislation, because those sources are generally controlled by the government or commercial publishers: and such sources can be paywalled, passworded or completely withdrawn. Telling our readers to just go and look at those sources would also have issues with NOTPROMO, as we generally do not exclude information merely because it could be obtained from a non-WMF source, and we will not promote such sources by giving them a free gift of 10,000 page views per month of our article traffic. And those compilation sources are usually out of date. The length of the list is not excessive, having regard to the notability and importance of the subject. James500 ( talk ) 02:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here is a complete list on the legislation website, which is free. Richard75 ( talk ) 11:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They could put a paywall on that website at any time. They could even take it down. Public opinion may not necessarily stop them forever. Public opinion does not always stop austerity, or rent seeking, or price gouging, or the use of regressive indirect taxes, or privatisation, by governments. It only takes the words ""budget deficit"" or ""this costs the taxpayer too much"" (the word ""taxpayer"" being a dog whistle that really means certain rich people who pay direct taxes) to shut down a service like that. They originally wanted to put a paywall on that site. A paywall was actually placed on the British Newspaper Archive. These kind of sites are not necessarily immune. If we give them the opportunity to restrict free access, they may actually take it. We have to think about the future, and the future is a very long time, during which government policies can change drastically. James500 ( talk ) 14:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] with Misuse_of_Drugs_Act_1971 This list is definitely a decent part of the encyclopedia. However I feel as though the contents of the article would be better as part of the main article on this act. People would be able to find these details more useful if they are able to find them among the rest of the information on the legislation. These are important aspects of the legislation and thus deserve some coverage, even if that doesn't mean that it gets its own complete article. Samoht27 ( talk ) 15:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Anthem Kolkata : Doesn't appear to be notable. Pepper Beast (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . Pepper Beast (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and West Bengal . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Non-notable with no significant coverage, this project failed to take of in any way. -- Sohom ( talk ) 05:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC) If it was not notable, then surely you meant """"? -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC) 11, 27 August 2023 (UTC) )-- Omer123hussain ( talk ) 05:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC) ) Sohom ( talk ) 11:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"2023 Pittsburgh standoff and shooting : Joeykai ( talk ) 03:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Pennsylvania . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] & to Moorish Science Temple of America as an AtD as proposed below. My reasoning against a standalone article that follows remains valid, but a /redir to Moorish Science Temple with selective into Eviction in the United States makes sense. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 12:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Original ! vote: as WP:NOTNEWS . Fails WP:NEVENT on literally all criteria. If, at some point in the future, anyone can find secondary sources (all current cites are WP:PRIMARYNEWS ) that use it as a case study or pinpoint lasting WP:EFFECT , the article can be recreated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Last1in ( talk • contribs ) 13:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to the Moorish sovereign citizens section of Moorish Science Temple of America , under legal incidents. While this isn't notable enough for its own article it does seem to have caused legal problems (getting so many cops suspended) and is an interesting example. There actually is coverage of it in the context of ""a wider trend"" so I think it's not undue https://www.post-gazette.com/news/crime-courts/2023/08/27/garfield-shooting-hardison-moorish-sovereign-pittsburgh/stories/202308250100 https://www.theroot.com/after-black-man-was-dies-in-a-violent-standoff-with-pit-1850775937 https://www.pghcitypaper.com/news/after-tragedy-garfield-leaders-say-they-need-housing-resources-24571354 Actually did get significant coverage just last week, four months after this occured, which I think shows some lasting importance even if it would be better served in the context of that article instead of its own ( https://www.dailyitem.com/wire/politics/public-safety-and-criminal-justice----and-the-perceptions-of-both--/article_e642abc9-ce0f-5092-bd16-0d6b7679fd6c.html ). At the very least it is an interesting example of sovereign citizen violence PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 06:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] also to Eviction in the United States , at least. Such a violent reaction to serving an eviction notice needs to be documented somewhere and the content ought not be lost. While WP:NOTNEWS applies to this event, I am not so sure that the event should be dismissed as just not notable. The police are certainly going to pay attention to this and adjust their tactics accordingly. I suspect the lasting effects are still to play out, too. I wonder if this was pitched as a different sort of article, such as a notable police killing of a person, whether it would then be considered notable. Given a whole suburban neighborhood appears to have been endangered, with surrounding homes shot up, too, the reaction of the evictee appears extraordinary and was unexpected. I also cannot help but draw parallels with the Napier siege in New Zealand, where a major part of the city was locked down by an active shooter, after police executed a search warrant. - Cameron Dewe ( talk ) 11:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as two different target articles are being proposed. It also would have been preferable if a more thorough deletion rationale had been provided by the nominator. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Again, two different targets are being suggested. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz I think Cameron was suggesting we it to what I suggested and also add a part to the eviction in the US article. Or maybe not. @ Cameron Dewe Thoughts? PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 03:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC) To both target. My rationale for suggesting Eviction in the United States is that a brief account of this incident would serve to illustrate what can happen when law enforcement officials get it wrong and have an extreme reaction to the eviction process that the evictee refused to participate in. My rationale for Moorish Science Temple of America , under legal incidents, is that the various sovereign citizen movements have beliefs that seem to be at odds with the laws of the land that fail to appreciate and understand common law and their rights and responsibilities. It is like they are fighting for their rights but rejecting their responsibility to abide by the law when it goes against them. There are two different reasons, so two targets exist. Sorry if life is more complicated than Wikipedia wants it to be. Having multiple target suggest the event might actually be notable, too. - Cameron Dewe ( talk ) 04:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cameron Dewe The content could go on more than one page, but technically a can only point one place. Which would you prefer? PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 04:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC) If that is the case, I would agree with your suggestion of the Moorish Science Temple of America , under legal incidents, because it is more specific. - Cameron Dewe ( talk ) 03:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nice, okay. I'm gonna try to clean this up a bit before the happens at least... PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 23:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Black Dragon Society (comics) : Cited only to individual comic books. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Comics and animation . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails to meet WP:GNG . RomanRaju ( talk ) 11:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC) AtD . This is mentioned but not discussed in more detail in a few web articles . If someone turns up more secondary sources, I'd be happy to hear about it. There also seems to be a Marvel version, which is actually briefly discussed here , but that seems to be a Master thesis. Daranios ( talk ) 11:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Another source, which has a bit of commentary, is All New, All Different? - A History of Race and the American Superhero , p. 27. Daranios ( talk ) 16:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And a journal article with a bit of commentary. Daranios ( talk ) 19:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have to admit, the fact that several different groups had their own version of a fictional depiction of the Black Dragon Society makes considering sources a tad confusing. Like, this journal article is about the version used by Fawcett Comics, well before their buyout by DC, and thus is not the same ""Black Dragon Society"" created by Fox and Burnley that the majority of this article is about. But since Fawcett was later bought by DC, its kinda-sorta related? In any case, it definitely would be a useful source for discussing the fictional depictions of the group at the main Black Dragon Society article. Rorshacma ( talk ) 23:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC) Indeed. I think it's worth considering that despite the introductory sentence, the title and content of the current article do cover appearances in comics by different pubishers, not specifically DC only. So I'm changing my preferred target to Black Dragon Society , viewing the reception/reaction in American popular culture as a sub-topic of the real organization. That said I still think that, while the current article presumably fails WP:NOTPLOT and WP:GNG , it still contains elements worth preserving, in a and its history, so that in the end it should remain a . The qualifier ""(comics)"" is not extraordinary on Wikipedia, so I disagree with Shooterwalker that this should be an unlikely search term, and s are WP:CHEAP . Daranios ( talk ) 11:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can get behind ing this to the main article and adding a few sentences of information there discussing its use in pop culture using the sources you've found here. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Very minor group with almost no sources. The three sources provided by Daranios' link are extremely trivial - they basically just name drop the group with no real explanation or coverage aside from the fact that they existed (and one of them appears to not even be about the same group, as it occurs in an issue of Captain Marvel from long before Fawcett was bought out by DC.) I also was not able to find anything better in my own searches, as most of what I can find are not reliable sources, such as DC Wikis. Without any real sources, I don't think merging to the list of teams would be appropriate. At best, this could possibly to List of DC Comics characters: D#Dragon King , the one member of any note. That said, if anyone finds any good sources discussing the fact that multiple companies used the name ""Black Dragon Socieity"" as villains due to the real world group, it might be worth adding a few sentences discussing that trend to the article on the real-life Black Dragon Society . Rorshacma ( talk ) 15:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC) I think one such source could be Japan-Bashing - Anti-Japanism Since the 1980s , p. 112-113, but, *grr*, I can no longer see it. The book I've added above also has a very brief comment to that effect: ""The Black Dragon Society, featured in much of American popular culture"", to then go on to talk about the comics' version. No objection to covering the comics version briefly at Black Dragon Society and there. Daranios ( talk ) 16:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I definitely think that while the DC specific version is not particularly notable itself, the fact that the real life group was used as villains for multiple unrelated pieces of fiction due to wartime propaganda and general anti-Japanese sentiment is something worth discussing in that article. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Black Dragon Society - Per the discussion above, I think adding some information regarding its use as villains in multiple works of fiction would be worth mentioning at the article for the real life Black Dragon Society, in which case this article can be used as a there. Note that I am not advocating copying/pasting any of the information from this current article over there, but instead adding a few new sentences using some of the sources mentioned by Daranios. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Rorshacma. Does not reach WP:SIGCOV , and an unlikely search term. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 19:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Refactoring this to . In good faith, I still don't really agree that a makes sense here. But I believe in more WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ATD . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 17:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC) PRESERVE . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 04:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC) 34, 30 January 2024 (UTC) 41, 6 February 2024 (UTC) 09, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you talking about the to Black Dragon Society or the to List of teams and organizations in DC Comics ? -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 23:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC) 37, 17 February 2024 (UTC) It appears that consensus is developing to point this to Black Dragon Society but there is still consideration for pointing to List of DC Comics characters. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC) I added an ""In popular culture"" section to the Black Dragon Society article, which I believe is justified even if we decide to this with List of teams and organizations in DC Comics . Cortador ( talk ) 06:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC) 21, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I couldn't find any reliable sources discussing the DC version. Cortador ( talk ) 21:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which, I want to point out, is a very important part of merging. Merging does not just simply mean copying and pasting one article wholesale into another, unsourced information and all. Rorshacma ( talk ) 17:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC) . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 18:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We don't. If no reliable sources cover the DC version, it's not notable. Cortador ( talk ) 22:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC) All New, All Different? - A History of Race and the American Superhero , p. 27, mentioned above, does verify and somewhat discuss the appearance in DC's All-Star Comics , and there are other mentions like in Comics Through Time . So while I think the DC version is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, I believe merging appropriate parts to both List of teams and organizations in DC Comics#B and Black Dragon Society#In popular culture , with a view to what's relevant to the target's topic, is warranted. The , however, should point to Black Dragon Society#In popular culture in the end in my view, as ...(comics) is not specific to DC. Daranios ( talk ) 16:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps we can have those information taken care of by your suggestion by leaving brief information at the Black Dragon Society's section in question and the full information at the Black Dragon Society section at List of teams and organizations in DC Comics. Anyone else agree with what Daranios pitched? -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 23:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Embassy of Bangladesh, Vienna : 2 of the 5 sources merely confirm who the ambassador is. Fails WP:ORG . LibStar ( talk ) 22:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Bangladesh , and Austria . LibStar ( talk ) 22:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Austria–Bangladesh relations , which doesn't even mention that Bangladesh has an embassy in Austria, or who the ambassador is. The Bangaldesh Pratidin article contains a few sentences about why Bangladesh opened an embassy in Austria, but I don't believe it amounts to the significant coverage required to demonstrate notability. My own searches turned up nothing significant about the embassy per se in independent reliable sources, although there was one article saying Austria may have taken the unusual step of rejecting Bangladesh's offered ambassador as unfit. [65] -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 17:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] P or No claim or references for indep notability. Llajwa ( talk ) 14:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Austria–Bangladesh relations per Worldbruce. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 00:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Embassy of the United States, Freetown : Fails WP:ORG . LibStar ( talk ) 00:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Africa , and United States of America . LibStar ( talk ) 00:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC) 57, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How does it meet a notability guideline for your ! vote? LibStar ( talk ) 01:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC) NOPAGE — siro χ o 03:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Hotchkiss Scholar : RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 08:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United States of America . RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 08:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Not seeing notability outside the school, graduating at the top of one's class is fine, but the ""award"" doesn't seem to carry notability much past the graduation ceremony. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Lake Forest Graduate School of Management . It seems to be something that they do instead of summa cum laude for the highest graduates. Terminology that's school-specific can be mentioned in the school's article; it doesn't need its own article when it's better covered in a broader article that can provide more context . — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - to the school. No showing of notability. An honor at an individual institution is generally not important beyond that institution and there's nothing I've turned up that shows this to be an exception. 4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 20:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Masque of the Red Death (Ravenloft) : Fails WP:GNG . BEFORE does not suggest separate notability from the book that describes it. Per WP:ATD-R , suggest ing this there. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Games . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Masque of the Red Death and Other Tales - There is no real reason for there to be separate articles that cover such closely related topics with much of the same information in both. The article with the actual gamebook as the subject is in slightly better shape - while most of the content is based on Dragon magazine, which is not a secondary source as it was an official D&D publication, it does at least cite a couple of reviews from other publications. And even the external links being used in this article are actually reviews on the gamebook. As there is no actually sourced information in this article, and as the vast majority of the information here is already present at the target, a simple would suffice. Rorshacma ( talk ) 06:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Masque of the Red Death and Other Tales - The improvements made to the article by Guinness323 should definitely be d over to the other article, so changing my recommendation accordingly. Rorshacma ( talk ) 02:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC) CONTENTFORK . So I think we should not have two articles, and as has been said, Masque of the Red Death and Other Tales is better developed at this point. I do believe a few things should be preserved in a as not present at the target, specifically a note of the related products (the d20 version, Dungeon adventures, The Gothic Earth Gazetteer ). Daranios ( talk ) 11:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC) There is no evidence that this completely unreferenced article's subject is notable. All of the potential sources are either unreliable or insubstantial . ― Susmuffin Talk 12:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would support a per the below discussion. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 22:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Not knowing there was a separate article for Masque of the Red Death and Other Tales , I rewrote this article, adding sources and reviews and deleting unsourced material, and I believe the article is now much improved. However, as other editors have noted, it does not make sense to have two articles about the same publication. Guinness323 ( talk ) 20:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Guinness323 Thank you. seems to make most sense now. Any chance you could do it? I am pretty sure we could close this then as it would be superior to just ing (@ Susmuffin @ QuicoleJR ). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That makes sense. ― Susmuffin Talk 14:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have moved material from this article to the ""and Other Tales"" article. Comments and suggestions would be welcome. Guinness323 ( talk ) 06:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"No. 675 (The Rifles) Squadron AAC : It is a small, company-sized unit. PercyPigUK ( talk ) 13:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Aviation . PercyPigUK ( talk ) 13:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and to 6 Regiment Army Air Corps . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and to 6 Regiment Army Air Corps . Gavbadger ( talk ) 19:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC) and to 6 Regt. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and to 6 Regiment Army Air Corps . Claire 26 ( talk ) 19:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, JavaScript Edition : Two out of three sources (1 and 3) are primary, source 2 does not mention the book (source is from 2011, and the book is from 2022). It maybe notable enough for ~2 sentences in the SICP article. Artem. G ( talk ) 10:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Computing . Artem. G ( talk ) 10:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs This book is an adaption of the original book that is the subject of the article I have linked to. No need for a separate article — Iadmc ♫ talk 11:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC) While there are book reviews (This one in an online journal) [10] , I'm not sure this would pass notability for books. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs . Even if we had more sources about this edition specifically ( this has some usable material, for example), it just wouldn't make sense to give it a separate page. XOR'easter ( talk ) 19:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Knightquest : Kept at 2006 AfD, but standards were considerably lower then. Boleyn ( talk ) 08:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy , Film , Internet , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC) NFILM . There's a paragraph in this The Weekly Standard article: [34] , doesn't count as significant coverage. -- Mika1h ( talk ) 14:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If not kept (and I am no sage of SW lore), to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits as an ATD. Jclemens ( talk ) 15:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits (which I think should split out ), as it has won an award. If more secondary sources can be found, please let me know. Daranios ( talk ) 15:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 09:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits . There is very little on this. It gets a mention in an issue of Premiere magazine, [35] in a piece talking about approaches to franchise copyright infringement. It is also mentioned in this paper, [36] which looks at the phenomenon of fan films. No citations of that paper mind. Nothing here makes it notable in its own right, but the paper shows what is notable: fan films. This is held up as an interesting example of these. As such it really should be briefly covered on the cultural impact page, and it could also be mentioned on any other page about fan films. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 11:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Head of the Luhansk People's Republic : WP:GNG not passed. Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Governor of Zaporozhye Oblast , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Governor of Kherson Oblast (Russia) , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Head of the Donetsk People's Republic Panam2014 ( talk ) 10:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 18 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 10:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Ukraine . Shellwood ( talk ) 12:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I understand the argument in favor of merging, but isn't the governor of an oblast automatically notable? Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To be specific, this article isn’t about the governor of an oblast, but the post of head (glava) of a civil-military occupation authority. I don’t see anything about it in Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines or Category:WikiProject notability advice . I doubt every public post is automatically notable, because in some places that would include postmaster, dogcatcher, and head of snow removal in tiny hamlets. — Michael Z . 17:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The references include articles about specific events or people, but I don’t see significant coverage of the post of head of LNR anywhere. — Michael Z . 17:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Either or to Luhansk People's Republic , with Donetsk People's Republic#Head of the Donetsk People's Republic as an example. — Sundostund mppria ( talk / contribs ) 18:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per countless articles titled ""President of X"" where X stands for a country ( President of France , President of Palestine , etc.) or subnational entity ( Chief Minister of Sindh , Governor of California , etc.). Often we even go further down to posts of city heads ( Mayor of London , Governor of Tokyo , etc.). The post of a head of a quasi-independent, even if largely unrecognised country certainly meets WP:GNG . — kashmīrī TALK 20:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know of any RS calling the DPR ""quasi-independent"", but there are many RS calling it ""Russian-controlled"" or even ""Russian puppet state"". Rsk6400 ( talk ) 07:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Many countries have been called puppet states. I recall the UK being called so during Blair's premiership. And it's fairly routine for smaller countries not to be entirely independent of their bigger neighbours; nor is it unusual for bigger powers to install puppet regimes elsewhere. — kashmīrī TALK 11:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My point was that your term ""quasi-independent"" is not supported by RS that I know of. But that's irrelevant, since the only point that matters here is the absence of ""significant coverage"" in RS (a quote from GNG). Rsk6400 ( talk ) 06:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This was never a quasi-independent country. The post of its puppet head is not an encyclopedic subject, and independent secondary sources don’t write about it. GNG doesn’t say anything resembling the argument above, and the conclusion of “certainly meets” is based on nothing and wrong. — Michael Z . 19:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mzajac Neither London nor Tokyo have ever been independent countries, yet we have articles about those posts, so your attempt to base notability on sovereignty fails. — kashmīrī TALK 18:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You’re missing my points. — Michael Z . 19:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Luhansk People's Republic or . The article doesn't contain any sourced information about the office as such (like a scholarly or even journalistic analysis of its functions), only a list of officeholders. There aren't even sufficient sources that ""Head"" is the official title in English (The Reuters source uses both ""chief"" and ""head"", the latter seeming to be a translation by Reuters from a Russian video, the Kremlin source uses ""acting head"" for the period after the annexation.) Rsk6400 ( talk ) 06:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify - An encyclopaedic article can and should be written about the chief executive office of a state, even a largely unrecognised one (per Kashmiri ). This article, though, is not that. It needs RS and text about the office (per Rsk6400 ) as well as the office holders that currently appear. If Draftify is not on the table, I'd go with the deletionists on this one and hope someone comes along and makes a better article later. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 21:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Russia . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 13:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Luhansk People's Republic . This article could in the future be revisited with more sources as its own page, but at present not enough reliable information is cited to warrant its own page. Once there is more information regarding the office, this should be redrafted. Sheeredit3 ( talk ) 14:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sheeredit3 , you just started editing two days ago, how did you find your way to this AFD discussion, knowing correct terminology and code? L iz Read! Talk! 04:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC) I'm convinced the subject is highly likely to be notable. There are thousands of law articles on the Republics if you check google scholar and I'm highly skeptical of claims this topic is non-notable. However, I do concede the sourcing concerns of the current article so I'd support draftifying until its fixed. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 22:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC) NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:WHYN ) it appears to me that the available sourcing isn't consistent with what I'd want for a standalone article. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c ) 17:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak or draftify Although notability is trivial to demonstrate, the article is just a stub right now. The table of Heads can be moved to the main article if it isn’t there already. With that said, if the article actually contained anything substantially useful, or if it were to be expanded significantly during the discussion, I would vote in that case since the topic itself is absolutely notable. In other words, I agree fully with @ Last1in . Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 07:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or simply to Luhansk People's Republic -- setting aside whether notability could be demonstrated for the subject, given the lack of available, meaningful coverage a to the related topic is appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 15:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"1926 Delaware State Hornets football team : Fails WP:NSEASONS Reywas92 Talk 20:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions . Reywas92 Talk 20:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Delaware State Hornets football unless SIGCOV is found. Alvaldi ( talk ) 16:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wonder how are we supposed to deal with articles like this - not just for DelState but for early college seasons as a whole, many of which were like this. Historically, we have regarded and usually kept every season of a Division I program (I can't recall one ever having been d). Would some type of r be best? I don't particularly like the idea of a plain as then all the details of the season is then lost; I still think we should have these details somewhere . Also worth noting that DelState is a historically black program; the white papers didn't tend to cover black teams and people all that well and the black papers of the time are almost exclusively offline or don't exist anymore. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This doesn't meet the GNG or NSEASONS. I'd be open to a and of the info here into a new article covering this program in the 1920s per cbl62's suggestion in the 1924 deletion discussion, but waiting to see if anyone has any other ideas before I ! vote. Understand what BF11 is saying but if there isn't GNG level coverage, this article can't stay as it is. This probably could've been a bundled nomination, but too late now. Let'srun ( talk ) 20:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The NCAA didn't even have divisions until 1973. The fact that a school plays at this type of competitive level now has no bearing on the 1920s. The fact that you can't recall any of these being d just means these obscure topics have avoided scrutiny until now and it's a pain in the rear to deal with hundreds of such articles. I could support a consolidated list of early seasons. Reywas92 Talk 23:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC) Articles for deletion/1924 Delaware State Hornets football team . Jweiss11 ( talk ) 21:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC) NSEASONS (""In cases in which the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article.""). The Delaware State football program was just getting started in the 1920s and played a total of only 10 games during the decade. Merger is also consistent with our past precedents at 1924 Michigan Mines AfD (merging multiple articles into Michigan Tech Huskies football, 1920–1942 ) and 1879 Swarthmore AfD (merging early seasons into "" Swarthmore football, 1878–1887 ""). Cbl62 ( talk ) 17:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC) NSEASONS . Subject is not notable enough for a standalone article per the GNG. User:Let'srun 16:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Delaware State Hornets football per above. // Timothy :: talk 16:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I feel like I've stated this a hundred times in relisting comments but a is not possible unless there is an existing target article. Luckily, another target article has been suggested so it's likely that this article will either be Redirected or Merged to it. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Pasco County Fire Rescue : References are all either connected to the organization or consist of routine coverage. Nothing else on the page indicates notability under WP:NORG . Apocheir ( talk ) 00:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions . Apocheir ( talk ) 00:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would like to know why it was “nominated for deletion” because it “isn’t notable” when this is one out of many articles that are similar within the fire department wiki. There is other articles that have barely any text on them that are still up. Second with the sources, they’re all sources that have confirmed information. No news site is telling you how many calls and how much money the agency is making so that’s the point why I used actual factual data for that portion. I also have fixed other sources in the past that heavily relied on Pasco county fire rescue webpage that now to news sites. I’ve put a LOT of time into this, and seen that you nominated it for deletion the same day I finally got it posted even though I’ve fixed what I’ve been been told to fix in the past it’s a little aggravating. Ryan Watern ( talk ) 00:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe you can provide some helpful tips on what to fix within the article, instead of deleting the whole thing that I spent two weeks on. Ryan Watern ( talk ) 01:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - This looks pretty good to me. This is a fairly new editor who has done pretty good this early on. I'm not sure what is wrong with ""routine coverage"". It's more or less in line with other such articles linked to the Florida fire departments navbox — Maile ( talk ) 02:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] When I first started working on the article, i looked at probably 20 different fire rescue articles on here and a lot of them was missing information, and a few of them even only had just an intro and a very limited infobox, that was it. So I was shocked to see that this one was nominated for deletion with it being more detailed than a lot of the other articles within the fire department navbox. For the annual calls i used the IAFF website as they are the only website listing how many calls there is per year and that’s going to be accurate because it’s from the source. There isn’t no “news articles” stating how many calls they ran in 2023 either, which I wouldn’t expect there to be for any fire department. For the budget I got it straight from the source as well. And I would think this fire department is pretty notable as it’s a fire department in a county that is the second fastest growing county in Florida, at least, according to USA today. Plus when I was working on a draft I was told to not use the Pasco county fire rescue website so I didn’t. I switched all my sources to something else which had the same information and it still got “nominated for deletion”. Your right about me being a new wiki contributor, and I was hoping to be able to create an article that would be informational and accurate and I felt that I did just that. Ryan Watern ( talk ) 03:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Been there. My first attempt at an article was immediately slapped with a deletion nomination. The article survived, and so did I. Hang in there. — Maile ( talk ) 03:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Medicine . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - I strongly advocate for ing the article. The article is well-written and demonstrates extensive research, supported by credible citations. It provides information that directly benefits a specific niche within our community, enhancing Wikipedia's value as a comprehensive knowledge resource. This article strengthens Wikipedia's mission of sharing reliable information. Furthermore, I believe that overly strict or blind adherence to guidelines can discourage contributions from new editors. Wikipedia thrives on the diversity of perspectives and expertise that new editors bring. A balance between maintaining standards and encouraging participation is essential for Wikipedia's continued growth and excellence. skarz ( talk ) 15:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as this article has potential to be expanded from its history section. A lot of these articles usually get ed to their municipality as an ATD but I see there's sufficient sources and it's not a run-of-the-mill fleet inventory list. I would expect a county's fire rescue unit to have a lot of sources from its own government - it's transparency to the people. It wouldn't be hard to get secondary sources from the local newspapers as well which would confirm the same findings and/or get a quote from government officials. I have always wondered about this guideline when it came to city or county government - is that not a Catch 22 ? It just seems it's at the mercy of secondary sources where you have unchecked synthesis (unless you're familiar with the reliability of the source ) but that might be for another discussion. In short, there such be a rational nexus for the guidelines. – The Grid ( talk ) 18:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC) NOTDIRECTORY for the list of stations, which is frankly overdetail that could put the department at risk since its vehicles are detailed down to where they're parked, and worst of all, the article seems to be a skeleton built around three vehicle photographs with visible watermarks as a favor to the nominator's friend, which is incredibly unacceptable and disallowed. I don't know what the original rationale was behind the article, but this feels more like a vanity article that feels more like the article writer trying to rush glory onto the encyclopedia rather than trying to be truly informative. Nate • ( chatter ) 21:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Would like to give a few words on this, the “down to where they’re parked locations” come from their website so obviously it’s not a safety risk as they are the ones who put it out. If you look at most other fire departments on wiki they all have the same thing. Next if the watermarking is an issue, I could fix that. It isn’t a vanity piece either like your suggesting that it is. It’s just an article on the fire department nothing deeper than that. Ryan Watern ( talk ) 21:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, with the “built around three vehicles” one of the photos don’t even have a vehicle featured in it. One of them a vehicle one of them is firefighters, and the other one is a fire station. Ryan Watern ( talk ) 21:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC) the watermarking/photo issue has been fixed. Photo no longer in any violation. Ryan Watern ( talk ) 21:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Pasco County, Florida . The list of fire stations is pure WP:NOTGUIDE fluff, while the rest of the article is easily able. Sounder Bruce 06:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC) Fire departments of the United States by state — Maile ( talk ) 11:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why would the article be d when there’s a whole wiki category for it. With that logic all articles within Category:Fire departments of the United States by state to their county Ryan Watern ( talk ) 11:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maile66 and Ryan Watern1 , the notion that an article should be kept because there is a category it could fit into is ludicrous. Condider Category: Dentists . We have several hundred articles about notable dentists in that category. But there are over 200,000 dentists now active in the United States, and presumably millions worldwide. It would be ridiculous and unsustainable to have millions of Wikipedia biographies of run-of-the-mill dentists. The same standard applies to dentists as to fire departments. An article is justified only when the topic is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic. That is literally the only thing that matters. The New York City Fire Department clearly meets that standard. Most fire departments don't. Cullen328 ( talk ) 04:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] After taking a look at the New York fire department article, there is various sources in there that link to the department page, the same argument that’s been brought up here is happening there as well. Wouldn’t consider that article completely independent. I’ve yet to find a fire department article that is completely independent that doesn’t have a single link to the department page. Ryan Watern ( talk ) 04:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC) ABOUTSELF . I am not asserting that the NYFD article is perfect. It is B Class, after all, and has not passed a Good article or Featured article review. But no sane person with the slightest understanding about how Wikipedia works would argue that the NYFD is not notable. And notability is the issue here, not the quality of any given article. Cullen328 ( talk ) 04:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And there’s a lot of unsourced information. Ryan Watern ( talk ) 04:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In this article out of the 26 sources 17 of them have no relation to the department, and I could easily add more which I do have plans to do. The Ryan Watern ( talk ) 04:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which is why I linked the category here. As long as the subcategories by state exist, what you are dealing with here is just one user's POV. One editor likes it one way, and the next editor likes it another way. Such is Wikipedia. I say there are enough already established to the Pasco County one. — Maile ( talk ) 12:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC) Category:Fire departments of the United States available to anyone who wants to add images. — Maile ( talk ) 13:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My only issue with the whole ""what Wikipedia is not"" policy is that you will find thousands of articles that are contrary to that policy. Often with useful and verifiable information that betters society. Whenever there is any question of whether something belongs on Wikipedia, a good place to start is WP:IGNORE . skarz ( talk ) 15:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , with the caveat that the big table at the end has to go. It's bulky and goes into excessive detail. It is clear beyond that, however, that we have articles for other fire departments, so why not this one? People, I you are actually worried about article spam, go police corporations or BLP articles. This is more than fine compared to the stuff on there. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 20:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In my opinion I think the table at the bottom within the station in apparatus section is a vital part of the article. Some may disagree but if you take a look at other fire departments on Wikipedia, almost every single one has a table. Ryan Watern ( talk ) 04:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Re the table, you are correct, Ryan Watern. I did a random check from Category:Fire departments of the United States by state , and most I found have such a table. So, there is a standard already established for the table to be in the article. — Maile ( talk ) 00:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you! When building this article i tried to get a common theme of everything within several different articles in the fire department category, looking at things that are commonly added and things that are commonly missing from various articles and put it all together to build this one! Ryan Watern ( talk ) 00:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC) Everyone who has voted so far needs to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions . Apocheir ( talk ) 01:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and you need to read the essay about trying to make a point (example 2). There are going to be viewpoints that differ from you . – The Grid ( talk ) 13:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC) 29, 25 March 2024 (UTC) User:The Trash Compactor is a new editor. Based on their editing history, a possible vandal. Their first five edits were ""Delete"" on this nomination, plus Articles for deletion/Amaron , Articles for deletion/DOVO Solingen , Articles for deletion/Spaghetti Taco and Articles for deletion/Gharanai Khwakhuzhi . — Maile ( talk ) 13:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC) NOTHERE — Maile ( talk ) 18:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It should be known for the closing admin that the nominator is systemically clearing a lot of the fire department articles as s based on lack of notability. They are bold actions but they seem excessive when notability can always be established for tagged articles regardless of time frame because there's no deadline . I bring their GAR of Briarcliff Manor Fire Department , where they object a good-rated article and ponder if it should be sent to AfD as their good article review? I have never heard of such a thing except if it was a hoax. This is insane with the sourcing provided. This is the complete opposite of WP:HEYMANN . I question what you even think is a good fire department article. – The Grid ( talk ) 18:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Grid , I have noticed it. Apocheir has been doing that to a lot of articles. As far as I can tell, there are not necessarily always discussions to go along with the action. And there seem to be a lot of focus on stand-alone articles such as this. Somebody does all the work to get a nice article like this one, and somebody else comes along and on their own s it. We really need a separate open discussion about this issue. Would anyone care to open such a discussion at WP:ANI ? I think it's very important to clear the air on this, and get a general consensus. Otherwise, it's just going to happening. — Maile ( talk ) 19:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Grid / Maile66 - I went ahead and started the ANI discussion right here . Feel free to chime in if my initial report wasn't adequate enough. skarz ( talk ) 04:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. I have commented over there. I think it's important to establish a guideline for this. — Maile ( talk ) 11:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Notability (organizations and companies) . So, those who want to this article ought to explain how this specific fire department meets that particular notability guideline. Cullen328 ( talk ) 16:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm in agreement with @ Cullen328 -- I read through this and have not seen a cogent argument layed-out as to why this subject meets the notability guidelines sufficiently. There is argument about how ""this article should be ok because there are other similar articles that haven't been ds"" -- I don't believe that is how this works. In fact, I see that most of the other articles about Florida fire departments also have warning flags about notability. Wikipedia is not a list of everything in the universe. Likewise, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules does not get around the notability requirement, and a phonebook is useful, but Wikipedia cannot be turned into one. The notability qualifications need to be clearly spelled out here by those who wish to retain the article, or else this just resembles a popularity contest. The argument that ""someone spent a lot of time putting the article together and we don't want that to go to waste"" is likewise not relevant to whether the article meets the minimum qualifications to be present and maintained. WmLawson ( talk ) 00:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC) NCORP . Cullen328 ( talk ) 16:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My question is how does this pertain to government departments? NCORP lists everything except governmental departments. Is it wrong to assume you're going to find a good percentage of information from the municipality as a primary source? – The Grid ( talk ) 19:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Right now, this is No consensus between editors arguing that sources are sufficient and the article should be Kept and editors advocating Merge/Redirect seemingly on the basis of how similar articles have been handled and because of perceived ""fluff"". As for NCORP, it's unclear, government agencies aren't included in the list of subjects that this policy covers but they are also not included in the list of exceptions either. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mental note about primary sources policy Thanks for the great summary of the discussion, @ Liz . Making a mental note here because I'm sure my discussion is more about the policy and not to get away from the main point of this AfD. It's always made me wonder with presenting the case for government departments when it comes to primary sources. WP:PRIMARY states Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. but also policy criteria number 5 notes Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. . That's where I imagine you have secondary sources come in to reverify statements. WP:NCORP states the importance of secondary sources from the established notability ( WP:ORGCRITE ): A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The ultimate question for government departments: is it ok for these entities to have a lot of primary sources? (given WP:SNYTH , also this does not require a response) – The Grid ( talk ) 15:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'd like a response from @ Cullen328 on the above policy issue raised by @ The Grid , very curious what their thoughts are. skarz ( talk ) 04:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC) NCORP says The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. Please note that the guideline applies very broadly, except for three specific carve-outs. None of those three apply in this case. Cullen328 ( talk ) 05:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Article has been updated on 28th of March addressing a lot of concerns. The table is now collapsible for the reader which will free up space in the article for those that don’t want to see a large table within the stations and apparatus section. Those who do want to see all the information on the stations and apparatus will have the option to see it. Various new sources were added, most of them from news stations that reported on the agency. And some new sourced information was added to the article as well. Ryan Watern ( talk ) 05:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The non-independent and primary sources in the article are good for verification but do not help to establish notability. I'm not immediately seeing how any single source meets NCORP WP:SIRS primary criteria because those in the article are either not independent WP:ORGIND and/or do not amount to indepth coverage WP:ORGDEPTH of the organisation as a whole. Nor do the sources meet the alternative guideline in WP:NGO because the organisation's scope is not national or international. That leaves the GNG. What's needed is at least one feature length article independently written and published about the organisation. It could be that such an article will soon be written looking back over the organisation's history given that its 50th anniversary is this year; but at this juncture one hasn't been sourced. The news coverage is mainly about new fire stations, which could perhaps be more usefully employed within the article on the place where the fire station is located. Instead of having one long table covering all the fire stations, add a paragraph under a public services heading e.g. for Fire station no. 12 include some detail in Holiday, Florida — this way the sources found and information presented is not 'wasted' as they might be with a partial of the content to the Pasco County article should that be the outcome here. Rupples ( talk ) 05:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Galactic Federation (ufology) : All three cited references are to different sources reporting on the same interview with an Israeli UFO crackpot. Utterly non-notable and a glaring violation of WP:FRINGE . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 02:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal , Science , and Spaceflight . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 02:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - The article creator was piggybacking on Galactic Confederacy /Scientology notability/fame, but it's the wrong name and the article really has nothing to do with the Scientology GC story. What is left sounds like recent UFO conspiracy theory stuff, but not even enough of that to write about. Speculative content. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC) 58, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect/ to the Ground Crew Project per Danny. The article doesn't make a good case for stand-alone notability for now. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 08:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I would be disappointed if the article were removed. Personally, I think it is a nice and interesting article. Therefore, I would indeed also it with Ground Crew Project , if the article were not allowed to exist on its own. S. Perquin ( talk ) ( discover the power of thankfulness! ) – 09:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems reasonable to to Ground Crew Project . Hyperbolick ( talk ) 11:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC) 53, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of fictional galactic communities and once done include a line in the intro there about it being a claim or speculation in ufology, as yet unproven. It would be an undeserved honor imo to or with Ground Crew Project . The original idea (apart from 1951's The Day the Earth Stood Still ) is much earlier attributed to a different UFO group. From encyclopedia.com : QUOTE: "" Unarius was established in 1954 by Ernest and Ruth Norman ; its central emphasis is on channeled information from extraterrestrial beings, especially about reincarnation, and the spiritual entry of Earth into the Galactic Federation, which occurred on September 14, 1973."" In my opinion it's WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone ""Galactic Federation (ufology)"" article until more references can be produced to move it out of fiction. The two-word term Galactic Federation goes to a disambiguation page. 5Q5 | ✉ I added this sourced line to the List of fictional galactic communities : ""In ufology and some New Age religions there are claims and speculations of the existence of a Galactic Federation, but no evidence has ever been presented to prove its existence beyond an imaginary concept."" If there is ever more notability, a stand-alone article could be republished. 5Q5 | ✉ 12:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Pomchi : Previously d for this same issue, discussion here , two of the four sources listed are unreliable per WikiProject Dogs , the remaining two likely should be added to this list. Annwfwn ( talk ) 00:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions . Annwfwn ( talk ) 00:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] – Although I can find an entry at A-Z animals , it only gives quick facts on the breed with no substantial content whatsoever. But as mentioned by the nom, no reliable sources—only content found was some mentions on websites, and guides. Toadette ( Happy holiday! ) 06:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC) (or possibly with Chihuahua (dog) ) List of dog crossbreeds . While Google claims 700,000 hits for the breed name, neither the American Kennel Club nor the Fédération Cynologique Internationale list the breed among those they recognize. Owen× ☎ 13:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC) Changed target per Annwfwn . Owen× ☎ 13:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am concerned that if we added every designer breed to their parent dog's page, we would be opening up a whole can of worms where each purebred dog breed's page would be cluttered by the myriad of crosses that can be produced from it. Also why Pomeranian and not Chihuahua? Might I suggest instead that it remain added to List of dog crossbreeds , as it does have some notability, just insufficient for it's own article. This would be consistent with other dog crossbreed articles. Annwfwn ( talk ) 13:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good idea! I changed my proposed target. Owen× ☎ 13:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a possible Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would be okay with the if the article had more sources that actually discuss the subject of the article but right now the only source that has a hit for pomchi is the dogtime pomchi page , the rest are just bare URLs. microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 15:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC) Actually, I suppose one source is all that is needed to put it on the list article. A would be acceptable. microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 20:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Big Daddy (BioShock) : But before the result shows only merchandise and costume or being cosplayed. This source is a bit good [1] , but it looks like another typical listicle with a short commentary. Nothing else. I may be wrong at Google Scholar thou. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 23:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 23:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC) ATD . Seems like largely trivial coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Zxcvbnm. The coverage doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV , but summarizing and merging is a valid WP:ATD . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 17:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Zxcvbnm as well – this is very trivial coverage. Nomader ( talk ) 18:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. In agreement regarding reception. HopalongCasualty ( talk ) 21:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Chris Tyson : This person is only notable for their relationship to the YouTuber MrBeast. The only WP:SIGCOV is related to their gender transition (good for them) and the subsequent backlash, which is all recent, and doesn't indicate separate notability. The previous AfD was for a completely different person. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 23:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Internet , and United States of America . Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 23:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Like some others here, I also have concerns that this article is likely to be a magnet for transphobic vandalism, as already appears to be occuring. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 22:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do we have any articles about trans people which are not? :-( DanielRigal ( talk ) 22:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Tita Aida doesn't seem to have had any vandalism, but she's obviously not very high profile. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 22:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak - Tyson appears to fail BLP1E. All the recent coverage of him is about his decision to become gender non-conforming, and that's just about the only independent coverage of him at all. Might be a news story more than anything else. However, Tyson has indeed been subject to much independent coverage surrounding their transition, and it can't all be mentioned at MrBeast and stay in accordance with WP:DUE , and much of it shouldn't be since that article is about Jimmy Donaldson and the channel, not Tyson. So, that will lead to this coverage being largely discarded because it can't be placed anywhere else. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 23:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If it's already in the news, why is it beholden to WP to cover this? If the subject can't stand on it's own it needs be d. Padillah ( talk ) 15:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He has been covered prior to his transition in interviews (the Business Insider one of which is cited in this article). So it think BLP1E is not really a strong argument. But most importantly, he is the second-most prominent host of the biggest YouTube channel. He is not just known for being related a notable person (like Jimmy's brother would). So I think that NOTINHERITED does not apply at all and I wholly disagree with the OP's statement ""This person is only notable for their relationship to the YouTuber MrBeast"". He is not notable as MrBeast's friend (the relationship), but as a main character on the MrBeast channel. - 128.6.36.153 ( talk ) 16:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC) — 128.6.36.153 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Neutral There is some coverage that predates people making a big deal about Tyson's personal life but it is not huge and it is not like anybody thought to make an article about them prior to this. I also worry that this article will just be a millstone round our collective necks as it will doubtlessly be targeted by trolls to abuse both Tyson themself and Mr Beast. That's not a reason to but it might be a reason to make extra certain that the notability criteria are fully met before ing. -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 17:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per 128.6.36.153 . I'm sure with his recent transformation and the coverage about Tyson's life prior to the transformation, this would be a decent article. Jeffhardyfan08 ( talk ) 20:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC) Iamreallygoodatcheckers . Also, the article is underdeveloped and does not contain much detail and information. - Therealscorp1an ( talk ) 00:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong - He is notable for helping create the channel and for being a big part of it. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 01:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed, no one’s pushing to GeorgeNotFound. We do not feed the trolls. WPenguin ( talk ) 04:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC) — WPenguin ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and please assume good faith . ― Blaze Wolf Talk Blaze Wolf#6545 19:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC) DanielRigal said above. Deleting might not be the answer but checking the notability is a must. Justwatchmee ( talk ) 00:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per 128.6.36.153 , Therealscorp1an . and DaniloDaysOfOurLives . To refute WP:BLP1E : reliable sources have covered the subject in the context of more than one event. The subject is not a low-profile individual. The subject is the co-founder of the largest YouTube channel owned by an individual (4th largest overall), and has consistently been in the public eye. The recent media coverage only reinforces the notability and solidifies the case for a standalone article. Rowing007 ( talk ) 18:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong I agree with the previous s, also don’t use the fact that the article is underdeveloped as an argument—with all the coverage he’s been getting recently it can easily be expanded. Chris is one of the founding members of an over-144 Million subscribers channel, has received coverage even before he became gnc, and the coverage on recent events would not disqualify WP:BLP1E because I would say he was well-know even before recently. I agree that he isn’t notable for being MrBeast’s friend, but for being one of the founding members of the channel “Mr Beast.” I believe the subject fulfills WP:NOTBLP1E for these reasons, as well as WP:GNG and WP:NRV . CanO27sprite ( talk ) 23:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Significant coverage (national) exists for him, both for his professional and personal life. Rublamb ( talk ) 23:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with MrBeast. While there is significant coverage it is all within the auspices of MrBeast. I was able to Google the name and got several sources for the subject, all of those sources were concerned with the relationship to (or loss of relationship with) MrBeast. If the relationship disolves and the subject can maintain their own level of notability we can split the article then. Padillah ( talk ) 15:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or otherwise support with MrBeast. This article is not notable enough. Compusolus ( talk ) 05:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC) PAGEDECIDE asks us on whether to have a standalone page Does other information provide needed context? . In this case, since the subject is only notable for their relationship to Mr. Beast, and that's the context for their notability, I don't think a standalone page makes sense with this sourcing. Even if they don't meet the strict criteria for BLP1E, WP:1E (from the notability guideline) still tells us to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people. With the only significant coverage coming from the transition, this still appears like it would be a pseudo-biography. Also, if the only significant coverage is of something personal like them transitioning, it seems like this presents WP:BLP issues. If the primary basis for an article is something personal like that, it seems like it could be invasive. per WP:DEL-REASON , a breach of WP:BLP is also grounds for deleting an article. Given the recency of significant coverage, there's also WP:SUSTAINED to consider. -- Tristario ( talk ) 07:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC) Tristario and others saying ""the subject is only notable for their relationship to Mr. Beast"" He is a main presenter on the MrBeast channel. I think that alone grants him notability and that this is a confusion between MrBeast and MrBeast's channel. Also, I believe WP:SUSTAINED applies as the article as there are sources currently cited dating back more than four years ago. After a quick Google search on my hand, I strongly believe that the article, be easily improved with even more prior sourcing, given the notability of the subject. As another user mentioned here on this thread, the context around the very extensive coverage about his transition and backlash was lost on the original MrBeast page, especially its relevance to anti-LGBT rhetoric in United States media. On the original MrBeast article, the context amounted to just ""it has been shown that MrBeast now supports transgender people"". So this is why I think this page fits positively the WP:PAGEDECIDE criteria. 128.6.36.183 ( talk ) 14:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC) — 128.6.36.183 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] in mind, Wikipedia is not a soapbox . The fact that this has relevance to the LGBTQ+ rhetoric adds no support for notability. Padillah ( talk ) 14:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looking at the IP addresses, both 128.6.36.183 and 128.6.36.153 (who voted above) geolocate close to Piscataway, New Jersey [64] [65] and have nearly identical technical information, and therefore are presumably the same person or are engaging in coordinated ediitng. Therefore they should only be counted as a single voice in the discussion (if counted at all) and not as separate votes. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 00:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Piscataway is in the New York metro area, an area with more than 20 million people. I'm not too sure if those ips are socked accounts, and if you think they are you can go to Sockpuppet investagations. Jeffhardyfan08 ( talk ) 10:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually now that i am looking at it, these IPs are clearly SPAs. Jeffhardyfan08 ( talk ) 10:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The only significant coverage of the subject I can find in reliable sources is about the transition. WP:BI , the source from more than four years ago, has no consensus for its reliability. So I don't think WP:SUSTAINED is passed. In the future an article may be justified here, but I'd want more of a diversity of significant coverage than just focusing on a single personal thing like transitioning. Tristario ( talk ) 01:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into MrBeast, or perhaps better, into a page about other MrBeast “characters” in the same way we might treat the cast of TV shows. There is no demonstrated need for a standalone page, but there is real potential for these variety of individuals to be discussed at greater length, separate to the bio-slash-channel page of MrBeast. This sort of collective page would satisfy the fans, without burdening us with a potentially increasing variety of borderline-notable personality pages for each of the cast. — HTGS ( talk ) 23:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Tristario. Besides being in MrBeast videos, there's nothing notable about him to warrant a standalone page. Some1 ( talk ) 14:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC) 1E + WP:NOTINHERITED (per nom). Most of the coverage is about the HRT/transgender news which would fall under one event. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 15:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC) INHERITED from MrBeast. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Milczany, West Pomeranian Voivodeship : As it says on the PL Wiki article , this is an ""unofficial settlement"" ( nieoficjalna osada ). This is not listed on the TERYT database (despite the TERYT database being listed as the source...) nor is a Milczany in Bobolice listed on the Polish regulation of place-names . From the over-head satellite pictures you can see that this is just an empty field in the village of Ubiedrze . Fails WP:GEOLAND since there is no legal recognition, nor evidence of an actual population. FOARP ( talk ) 17:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland . FOARP ( talk ) 17:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pl wiki article says it is in old TERYT database, but not new. Franly, I would see this as an error corrected. Also, pl wiki lists this as ""unofficial village extension"" for Ubiedrze . I say and there. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC) 40, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"List of tallest buildings in Kozhikode : Fails NLIST, BEFORE found nothing discussing this as a group and no sources show this area is notable for tall buildings. None of the tallest buildings have articles, only one has a source. Upcoming projects again no links to articles, so this serves no purpose under CLN. // Timothy :: talk 06:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Lists , and Kerala . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment this appears to be a subset of List of tallest buildings in Kerala , which seems to have many of the same issues. I don't see the need for two list articles when the Kerala one is manageable. Jclemens ( talk ) 08:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The need for separate pages for Kochi, Trivandrum, and Thrissur arises due to the fact that Calicut is emerging as a prominent city with the upcoming tallest buildings in Kerala and South India. Currently, Calicut is leading the race in terms of the tallest buildings in Kerala, making it essential to have a dedicated page for the city to highlight its significant developments in this regard. Bidhunkrishna ( talk ) 09:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List of tallest buildings in Kerala . Orientls ( talk ) 05:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] S to List of tallest buildings in Kerala . BD2412 T 16:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC) No objection to a , but I'm not sure what would be d. The only soruced (see below) entry in the completed list is Burj AlHind and that is already listed at List of tallest buildings in Kerala . The others are under construction and the list criteria is the building needs to be finished (this could be changed). But I have no objection to an AtD. I don't think the real estate sales refs such as Prestige Ocean Pearl | Buy 3 & 4 BHK Luxury Flats in Calicut | Apartments for Sale in Kozhikode or [36] should not be d in any event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue ( talk • contribs ) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Embassy of the United Kingdom, Pristina : Sources are primary sources, deprecated sources and Twitter. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG . AusLondonder ( talk ) 07:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Organizations , Kosovo , and United Kingdom . AusLondonder ( talk ) 07:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to Kosovo-United Kingdom relations , which I'm surprised doesn't contain this useful information. Thryduulf ( talk ) 13:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Blog scraping : Blog scraping, compared to other forms of scraping, doesn't seem to merit its own article. SPA 5 CE! talk about it 13:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Websites . SPA 5 CE! talk about it 13:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or with web scraping . Agreed that this is not a sufficiently distinct subject from that one to justify its own article. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 13:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or with web scraping . As there are no reference sources, I am inclined to say . However, we could make some effort to get these sources through some research of our own. Nicola247 ( talk ) 13:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC) 52, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JMWt you don't need to understand it, that's a sock account created to vote here (after several socks were blocked), and this is a decoy post made first to not make it so obvious, that's not an unique opinion, it should be striked or d. Tehonk ( talk ) 18:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Prob - it is definitely a thing, but it isn't entirely clear what else there is to say outside of the topic of web scraping so it just reads like aan unnecessary fork at present. JMWt ( talk ) 14:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] with web scraping . Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 07:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Major investigation team (Metropolitan Police) : Single provided reference is also dead. Overall, I do not think this topic is notable enough to warrant an article. Elshad ( talk ) 14:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into Homicide and Serious Crime Command . -- Canley ( talk ) 03:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on possible Merge? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 16:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or to Metropolitan Police for now; they appear to still be in operation based on news results so I do not think Homicide and Serious Crime Command is the correct target. Possibly there is enough material out there to put together a standalone article in the future again. - Indefensible ( talk ) 19:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or to Homicide and Serious Crime Command . There is no value in deleting information. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist, two different targets argued for. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Fashion of Shakira : Everm4e ( talk ) 22:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Cultural impact of Shakira . Sources used don't seem to support the stand-alone notability here, but there's no need to hard , will be ok, and some stuff may be salvageable. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Colombia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] there exists no definitive source that explicitly and categorically attributes any particular fashion trends to Shakira. Nonetheless, the singer has adorned herself with various clothing that has garnered attention and commentary. Nevertheless, there exists no evidence to suggest that Shakira was the progenitor of any particular fashion trend. Thus, the current article would only serve as a mere inventory of clothing donned by the artist, which lacks in significance. Best – jona ✉ 14:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] only properly sourced material to Cultural impact of Shakira per above. // Timothy :: talk 09:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fashion and cultural impact are two different things, and I am concerned with the proposed r that it will cause most of the fashion content to get cut. As far as I am aware, nobody needs to be the progenitor of a particular fashion trend for it to be notable they wore those clothes. This article is clearly based off of Fashion of Madonna which is separate from Cultural Impact of Madonna and I don't think there's a solid argument for why Shakira should be any different, especially because the Cultural Impact of Shakira article is already very long without the extra content. In my personal opinion, what this article really needs is someone who is knowledgeable in fashion and fluent in Spanish to analyze whether or not this is notable. And it needs to be copyedited. Computer-ergonomics (he/him; talk ; please ping me in replies ) 05:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC) FANCRUFT . -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 12:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC) Colombian singer Shakira has had an immeasurable impact on music and fashion globally. Women's Wear Daily : While Shakira is known for her musical versatility, she’s been making a statement with her fashion for decades. Vogue France : Shakira's decades old formula to her signature style Remezcla : Casio’s watch sales have increased since the release of Shakira’s song British Vogue : Shakira breaks down 19 looks from 2000 to now NBC : ‘Shakira, Shakira' Exhibit to Open at GRAMMY Museum in March 2023. ""When it comes to Shakira’s on-stage style, she is timelessly consistent. Through the decades, she has energetically performed in outfits that hug her silhouette and expose her midriff. The ""She-Wolf"" has always remained loyal to her low-waist skirts and bottoms."" These are just sources in English. I'm not seeing any solid arguments for why this is WP:FANCRUFT, and as the article on FANCRUFT itself says, calling something FANCRUFT ""is not a substitute for a well-reasoned argument based on existing Wikipedia policies."" Like, is the Grammy museum fancruft? Is Vogue fan cruft? Computer-ergonomics (he/him; talk ; please ping me in replies ) 17:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Cultural impact of Shakira . This is about style, style is an aspect of culture. Lamona ( talk ) 02:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Bill Knight Trophy : Joeykai ( talk ) 00:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards , Massachusetts , and New Hampshire . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Colonial Clash . Left guide ( talk ) 02:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A rather obvious to Colonial Clash . Jahaza ( talk ) 02:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Colonial_Clash . killer bee 05:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Human-oriented sexualism : In reality any sexuality peference that is directed at non-humans would almost certainly be regarded as a paraphilia in mainstream psychology, but these articles are built almost 100% without any actual clinical research, just opinion/""analysis"" articles from dubious publications which seem intent on hijacking LGBT rethoric. The fictosexuality article may be fixed eventually with some work to reduce the obvious POV issues but I don't see how this article is anything but an undue weight spin-off. Both this an the main article have been created by the same editor, who very clearly seem to be a single purpose account which does nothing but link to these two articles and insert mentions of the subject in random pages. ★Trekker ( talk ) 17:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions . ★Trekker ( talk ) 17:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . this is fringe nonsense. ltb d l ( talk ) 02:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't It's important to note that this article is a translation from Japanese, and there has been multiple research on this concept in Japanese, as indicated in the references. Academic research extends beyond clinical investigation to include philosophical or theoretical studies, which are not merely opinions. Furthermore, the sources for this article include peer-reviewed sociological qualitative research. Since this is an article about discrimination, it is not neutral to assume it is “hijacking LGBT rhetoric,” despite multiple academic studies available. Underestimating the research accumulation from non-English speaking countries is Western-centric. While the article of fictosexuality may display bias toward East Asian activist discourse, I believe this article is valuable as an informative piece on Japan. Zuzz22 ( talk ) 09:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 59, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, this idea does not have wide mainstream research in Japan either. It's a frine concept that has gotten some mentions as a curiosity. Using Japanese Wikipedia to push obscure sexual ideas had sadly become a trend recently. I've seen several attempts at translating bad Japanese Wikipedia articles into English for paraphilias because the obvious reality is that most English speaking editors do not read Japanese, so as long as the source look good and the langauge seems academic most editors leave it. It's an attempt at trickery. ★Trekker ( talk ) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (or maybe very limited ?). This is claimed to be a term originating in the Japanese academic field of "" fictosexuality studies "". Oh dear. That seems to be a red link... Do we have any reason to believe that such a field even exists? So what about the term itself? I don't speak Japanese but Google Translate renders the Japanese article in a way that is shorter and more coherent than this one. Based on that translation, the subject of the article here is ""anthropocentricism"" (not Anthropocentrism ) which it distinguishes from ""interpersonalism"". Google translates various phrases as ""(thing) research"" when it clearly means ""research about (thing)"", not actually intending to imply that it is a whole academic field or discipline. So, in addition to overstating its case, it is not even clear that the article is correctly named. I don't see a topic here in its own right. This seems like it is just fictosexuality being defined by its inverse. In my view this is already covered adequately in the fictosexuality article but I would not object to a very few sentences from this possibly getting d there provided that they are well referenced. I wouldn't rule out very brief mentions in Heteronormativity and Amatonormativity provided that there are solid references to support inclusion in those specific places. Whatever we do, we must not be led astray by WP:OR , WP:SYNTH or dodgy translations. Most of all, we need to focus on what the Japanese academics actually say and avoid falling into western misinterpretations. -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 14:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or at very least . The topic has been studied in multiple scholarly sources, so it's hard for me to think that deletion would be appropriate. If the article is fringe and ""advocacy"" (which hasn't been proven), then it should be possible to find opposing sources and edit the content with opposing views to balance the coverage on the article. Until then, it can be marked as {{ fringe }} without needing to it. Because this topic is closely associated with fictosexuality , I can also see a as a valid option. However, it's interesting that one of the allegations is a ""would almost certainly be regarded as a paraphilia in mainstream psychology""; ""would""? ""almost certainly""? That doesn't seem to be an objective, concrete allegation — is it or not? Skyshifter talk 14:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The reason there is little critical coverage is that this very idea is so new (and frankly absurd) that no serious researchers have bothered to actually study the concept. It's pretty much 100% POV pushing ""scholarly"" sources from obscure blogs and low quality ""journals"". Way too many of Wikipedias articles on sexuality are just filled with borderline oppinion pieces from activists masquerading as soft science, and this and the fictosexuality articles are the worst offenders I think I've ever seen. This website has frankly become way too forgiving to advocacy pushing, even on LGBT topics (and I say this as a bisexual woman). ★Trekker ( talk ) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, why did you add back on Wikidata that fictosexuality is a sexual orientation when the wide consensus is that sexual orientations refer only to sexual preferences for gender / sex of persons? It does not seem to me that that speaks to you being unbiased and objective on this subject. ★Trekker ( talk ) 15:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] if the wide consensus is that sexual orientation quote unqoute ""refer only to sexual preferences for gender / sex of persons"" then that would wholly exclude asexuals. (I say this as an Asexual/Aceflux, nonbinary women) Remember to WP:AGF . I don't think this page is ""pushing advocacy"", ""an attempt at trickery"", or ""hijacking LGBT rethoric"". I do agree it's not completely unbiased and objective. I'd say to this with the fictosexual page based on the WP:GNG while also rewriting both as you are correct about both pages being WP:NPOV . It should definitely include more about how it's generally considered a mirco-term/label and how it is a fringe topic. Funtimesale123 ( talk ) 01:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions . DanielRigal ( talk ) 14:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . What leads you to perceive this article as ""100% POV"" relying on ""low-quality ""journals""? For instance, The Japan Sociological Society ( 日本社会学会 ) is Japan's largest academic society for the social sciences, and the Japanese Sociological Review is the top journal of sociology in Japan. The Institute for Gender Studies at Ochanomizu University is run by Japan's most prestigious women's university, and its peer-reviewed journal, Gender Studies , enjoys wide readership among gender researchers in Japan. The Japanese Association of Social Problems (日本社会病理学会) and the Japan Sociological Association for Social Analysis (日本社会分析学会) are members of the Japan Consortium for Sociological Society , comprising major sociological societies in Japan. These journals are evidently reliable sources. As far as I know, Kazuki Fujitaka (藤高和輝) is a well-known queer researcher in Japan who has published several academic books. Masahiro Yamada is a renowned sociologist who has researched Japan's declining birthrate. Given the assessments of these researchers, it would be unfair to dismiss this article as ""just filled with borderline opinion pieces from activists masquerading as soft science"" simply because the concept is unfamiliar to non-researchers. Certainly, there is room for further improvement in this article, but that should be addressed by making additions and corrections to the article. Considering Wikipedia's guidelines, I don't believe this article should be d. Gruebleener ( talk ) 19:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 33, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 20, 28 April 2024 (UTC) 18, 28 April 2024 (UTC) 36, 28 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Discrimination . -- MikutoH talk! 22:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC) UNDUE weight to the fringe view that considering attraction between real humans to be the norm is somehow undesirable or discriminatory. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC) To discuss the sourcing in more depth... while trying to a straight face at all of this. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC) 28, 4 May 2024 (UTC) UNDUE is about how fringe ideas are represented within existing articles. In this case, the discussion is about whether there's sufficient sources to list have this standalone article which, as WP:UNDUE also notes, ""Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). "" If the sourcing is adequate enough to reject deletion as Sjakkalle then it seems to me the article needs to be rewritten to appropriately describe a fringe viewpoint rather than deletion. DCsansei ( talk ) 09:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC) UNDUE section of the NPOV policy is that ""If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. "" I believe that my """" vote above is firmly in line with this content policy. The viewpoint presented in this article, that considering attraction between real and non-fictional humans to be the norm is somehow discriminatory, is held by an extremely small minority. I would say it does not belong in Wikipedia, except that the sourcing makes me just about willing to accept accommodating the material in the ancillary article on Fictosexuality. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC) 22, 5 May 2024 (UTC) 02, 5 May 2024 (UTC) As an AFD closer, after reading the discussion, I'm leaning towards a but there are also arguments against that outcome and no rough consensus yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC) 31, 12 May 2024 (UTC) 02, 12 May 2024 (UTC) 44, 15 May 2024 (UTC) UNDUE , we should consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. I believe Japanese sources should be evaluated impartially. At least it is supposed that this article meet the criteria of WP:GNG Gruebleener ( talk ) 18:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC) 20, 13 May 2024 (UTC) wouldn't it work better merging with sexual norm ? -- MikutoH talk! 00:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC) 54, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with Toughpigs' position and reasoning. The content here is used when discussing the fringe subject of fictosexuality, and exclusively so. Per WP:UNDUE , it should therefore be covered in the article on that fringe subject, and not a more mainstream article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Didn't expect it but the topic does seem to have sourcing needed to avoid deletion. {{ fringe }} seems appropriate and it should be made clear that this is a fringe idea including in Japan so I think a r to fictosexuality or sexual norm is the best option. DCsansei ( talk ) 10:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Agorism : Almost all of the cited sources in the article are directly associated with the subject, largely citing the person that coined the term. And except for the Routledge Companion , none of the sources strike me as particularly good-quality either. Having tried to research this in the sources I have available to me, I haven't been able to find any evidence that this meets the general notability guidelines . In both the Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought and the Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy , it only gets a single passing mention as a term coined by Konkin. This is a far cry from significant coverage . As such, I don't think this topic is notable in and of itself. This article could probably be d with/ed to Samuel Edward Konkin III without much issue. Grnrchst ( talk ) 15:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Economics . Grnrchst ( talk ) 15:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Libertarianism . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Samuel Edward Konkin III as suggested, merging in some of the content as applicable. That bio article could really stand to be improved, and it seems to me that the topic is better dealt with there than separately even if it is an independently notable topic. -- asilvering ( talk ) 02:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Samuel Edward Konkin III . After removing the unreliable blog posts and Konkin's own sources, there plainly isn't enough material to support a dedicated article . Konkin's neologism can easily be covered in the appropriate section of his biography article as part of understanding his philosophy and split out summary style as needed. czar 12:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per rationale by Czar. Kazamzam ( talk ) 17:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Woke Mind Virus : Half the usage section is just dedicated to Elon Musk (at the time of AFD nomination). Look I understand Go woke, go broke exists, but that feels like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS . Is every popular iteration of a phrase invoking the ideas of wokeness going to have its own article? According to the article, ""Vanity Fair has titled whole sections of stories under the ""Woke Mind Virus"" label."" This isn't actually a label that is selectable/catagorized/tagged like ""politics"", but a custom label for one article. I do not doubt the phrase's usage in popular media and by influential people, but it is essentially the same thing as woke . I could go on, but I think this can be d and ed to woke . Alternatively, this content can be d into woke as its own section with the criticism. -- Classicwiki ( talk ) If you reply here, please ping me . 01:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Journalism , News media , Philosophy , Conservatism , Discrimination , History , and Politics . Classicwiki ( talk ) If you reply here, please ping me . 01:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) NEO is cited, let us see what it says, Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly d , but in this case this phrase is very widely cited across an enormous variety of reliable sources. The phrase probably should also be mentioned at the woke article and other mentions should be added and included, but a page for Woke Mind Virus itself makes sense given the sources as broad and significant as they are. Iljhgtn ( talk ) 02:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Iljhgtn , yes it is popular term, this is already addressed. WP:NEO also says, Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. This is not in question. I do not doubt it will be utilized in large portions of media and scholarly works. Until it is shown to be its own distinct concept, it is essentially a branch term used to criticize wokeness . There is a criticism section in woke that this neologism can direct to in my opinion. Currently, Anti-woke s to woke. Anti-woke is an older term than woke mind virus and used it much more media/scholarly works. WMV is just a substitute term for being against wokeness (or anti-woke). Alternatively, I think a separate article that incorporates reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term titled something along the lines of ""Criticisms of woke/wokeness"" or even ""anti-woke"" could also be appropriate, where WMV s to. I do not see the point of a standalone article about Woke Mind Virus. -- Classicwiki ( talk ) If you reply here, please ping me . 02:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] or / no evidence that this neologism deserves a stand-alone wikipedia article. ( t · c ) buidhe 07:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . As a neologism, there are numerous treatments in secondary sources (see Isaacson , Ali , Krugman , McKeown and Wright , etc.). Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Passes WP:NEO and has coverage by reliable sources. BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions ) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Selectively and to woke . There's no separate subject here -- it's the same ""woke"" pejorative discussed in that article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak , maybe i'm just biased because this is an inherently silly sounding phrase, but I don't see how it differentiates from the term "" Woke "" so a there would be optimal. Samoht27 ( talk ) 16:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/ to Woke , it's just a slight variation of the exact same thing. Di (they-them) ( talk ) 16:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC) A couple people have suggested a or , but I would like to point out that this term ""woke mind virus"" actually has quite substantial coverage of its own differentiating it quite a bit from ""woke"" and therefore a mere mention of this term on that page seems to be inadequate. This source mentions the term as distinct but was early in coverage so does not yet mention what WMV means. This source mentions the WMV phrase in depth by itself completely independent of ""woke"". This source mentions the history of the term, especially as used specifically by Elon Musk since around 2021 and in reference to San Francisco and includes some of the defining language that separates and distinguishes this phrase at is popularly understood by sources, Despite his repeated use of the phrase, the precise meaning of “woke mind virus” has been difficult to pin down. Musk told Bill Maher during an interview on HBO: “I think we need to be very cautious about anything that is anti-meritocratic, and anything that … results in the suppression of free speech. Those are two aspects of the woke mind virus that I think are very dangerous.” This source speaks uniquely of the WMV by saying much about Musk's use of it from a critical perspective. This source again uses both ""woke"" as well as WMV and refers to them as distinct terms with their own meanings. This source predominantly focuses on just the ""woke"" phrase but has an important passing mention of WMV, though obviously passing mentions in general are not to carry weight towards an AfD consideration. This source covers the phrase and the Netflix mention with some detail. I believe the above, and much more can be found with fairly little work and effort actually to support an independent page for both the WMV phrase as well as woke and other phrases mentioned by other editors. Iljhgtn ( talk ) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A lot of these sources are not reliable, though. ( t · c ) buidhe 15:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC) SIGCOV manner. This article from Rolling Stone discusses the term/phrase with both Musk as well as Bill Maher's involvement and contributions. This article from fact-checking website Snopes cites the Webster dictionary definition of "" woke "" independent of the subsequent mention of ""woke mind virus"" which the article then explores in depth further on going back to its seeming origins (related to Musk at least) from 2021, The first mention of the words ""woke mind virus"" that we could find in Musk's feed showed up in December 2021. There is much, much, more out there on the internet as well that can be easily found. The ""no evidence"" claim seems to have not sufficiently considered WP:BEFORE . Iljhgtn ( talk ) 19:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC) NOPAGE we also need to consider if this topic benefits from being a stand alone article rather than being covered in the woke article. Evidence for this theory is what I think is lacking. ( t · c ) buidhe 06:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as the phrase is not really notable and similar phrases already exist. It's just a variation of the term woke . There exists multiple variations of this same term and they do not have their own unique articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar ( talk • contribs ) 11:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand the concerns of the UNDUE weight given to the Elon Musk section, but that's not the purpose of AfD. Further, given the deletion rational of NEO, I think it's easy to examine the references provided in the article and in an independent search that the term woke mind virus meets notability independently from woke and is an appropriate topic split. microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 14:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC) NEO does seem to apply here - avoid making pages for terms in order to increase usage of the term. SportingFlyer T · C 04:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC) NEO doesn't seem to apply. Because of the wide range of reliable sourcing, the term does deserve its own page beyond just something like ""woke."" Doctorstrange617 ( talk ) 18:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Easily passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes. The fact that it is an epithet popularized by a crackpot billionaire is neither here nor there. Carrite ( talk ) 07:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] back. This is as forky as they come . Bearian ( talk ) 01:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC) CFORK and not WP:FORK as FORK is defined in the first line of the link you made as Mirrors and forks of Wikipedia are publications that mirror (copy exactly) or fork (copy, but change parts of the material of) Wikipedia , no? microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 02:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Association of Confessional Lutheran Churches : Fails WP:NORG - no WP:SIGCOV found anywhere. schetm ( talk ) 17:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Christianity . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC) A search suggests a similarly named group that was founded around the same time by members of a different American Lutheran. Fairly certain another editor suggested this be taken to AfD a year-ish ago. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 20:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into Evangelical Lutheran Synod , the previous organization. Can add as a section, or realistically, a sentence or two in the History section, which also mentions breakaway congregations. Longhornsg ( talk ) 19:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and to Evangelical Lutheran Synod . Not enough content and coverage for a standalone article, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] into Evangelical Lutheran Synod . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 09:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Dreary Isthmus : Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I couldn't find anything but databases and other, unrelated dreary isthmi. casualdejekyll 23:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Isthmi? Isthmuses? Isthmodes? XD - UtherSRG (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] GNIS most certainly does not confer notability (based on loads of precedent), and for that matter claims about the nature of the location need to be validated against other sources. Mangoe ( talk ) 23:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merged into Brown Peninsula . ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] >>> Brown Peninsula . Djflem ( talk ) 10:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect into Brown Peninsula#Dreary Isthmus . Dr. Blofeld has already done the , so change the article to a . This is the approach recommended in WP:GEONATURAL for named natural features where little more than the name and location are available. The can be turned back into a full article if the isthmus becomes more notable for some reason. Aymatth2 ( talk ) 14:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unfortunately there have have been a few editors trying to the Antarctica stubs rather than having the common sense to the articles themselves. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes. Wikipedia is meant to be a gazetteer, among other functions. To make the gazetteer complete, minor features that do not warrant a stand-alone article should be listed in a parent article, giving the available information. It is incorrect to purge the information from Wikipedia. Aymatth2 ( talk ) 17:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, WP is not intended to be a gazetteer. Frankly I think the statement that it has ""some elements of a gazetteer"" ought to be struck as contradicting WP:GNG requirements. Mangoe ( talk ) 19:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Five pillars says ""Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias , almanacs , and gazetteers ."" Both WP:GNG and WP:NGEO say that topics which do not meet the criteria for a stand-alone article may be covered in another article. In this case, Dreary Isthmus is not notable, but can be covered in Brown Peninsula#Dreary Isthmus . Aymatth2 ( talk ) 16:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Kapil Dev as Indian national cricket coach : He coached India for 33 games ever, which is not a lot by general coaching standards, and nothing in this article explains why that era was so exceptional that it needs a separate article, rather than just being a couple of paragraphs in the main article Kapil Dev#National coach . Note: the fact that it's a GA is not a reason to , since the GA status is from 2007 and being challenged at a GAR , and also good article from 2007 does not imply notable in 2023. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Cricket , and India . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC) CFORK, agreed) should be kept for the Kapil Dev main article but that's up to the editor who wants to . I think there are maybe three or four good paragraphs to flesh out the Kapil Dev article. If anything, a new article could be created from the match-fixing and betting racket. Kazamzam ( talk ) 12:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC) Seems overly detailed for such a small bit of playing time/coaching time. Could be a brief section under a bribery allegations in the main bio article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Very selective seems appropriate here. If, indeed, there's anything that needs merging. We certainly don't need a standalone article here and I wouldn't be particularly opposed to a outcome Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 18:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC) Inappropriate fork. Anything salvageable should be d. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 02:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Selective with Kapil Dev Unnecessary content fork, however there is some information here that could be d to the parent article. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Selective . This seems to be the most appropriate outcome here. StickyWicket aka AA ( talk ) 23:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] selectively with Kapil Dev ; noting here that I just delisted it as GA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 22:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Ndadaye Day : All I can find on this topic are brief mentions such as this , which note that this is a Burundian national holiday to commemorate the death of Melchior Ndadaye , something which is already encapsulated by a single sentence on the Ndadaye article. I do not see how this subject is independently notable or that this article a necessary fork owing to the amount of content available. - Indy beetle ( talk ) 07:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 13 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 08:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As said above this doesn't need to be an standalone article. killer bee 08:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] relevant content into the Melchior Ndadaye entry. I found two book citations and included them in the entry, but they are passing mentions and insufficient to have this holiday clear notability guidelines. KangarooGymnast ( talk ) 11:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Africa . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC) Put a section about the day on the target and this one there. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 22:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Sleeve coupling : Unsourced dictdef, so perhaps a candidate for Wiktionary. Fails WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions . UtherSRG (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the picture into coupling and , the rest of the material is already duplicated there. - Indefensible ( talk ) 18:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Coupling#Sleeve,_box,_or_muff where it is described. This topic might be notable; I have not checked. But as it it is, it is a near duplicate of the target section and it is best to the helpful diagram and . -- {{u| Mark viking }} { Talk } 17:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Fairy-Max : QuietCicada - Talk 14:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Software . QuietCicada - Talk 14:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to XBoard . Seems to be verified here , and is mentioned at target. Jclemens ( talk ) 19:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Commenting . I suggest merging or ing. -- Old-AgedKid ( talk ) 14:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
+"Chester Cheetah: Owen× ☎ 06:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC) The article's sources demonstrate notability, and the nominator has not provided any rationale for deletion. Toughpigs ( talk ) 07:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy No valid deletion rationale. Oblivy ( talk ) 08:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Comics and animation , and Advertising . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Despite of the nominator not showing any rationale for deletion, I do see some rationales why it is because first; seems to not have a reception section, second; most of the sources are just information and unreliable sources which have nothing to do with the WP:SIGCOV however, there is some reliable and reasonable sources like 7, 11, and 16. NatwonTSG2 ( talk ) 13:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Sawani (company): Macbeejack ☎ 05:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Saudi Arabia . Macbeejack ☎ 05:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Tatsuya Tanaka (figure skater): Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of ing this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per the discussion below, this AFD can be closed as Speedy as I withdraw the nomination. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Skating , and Hong Kong . Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC) I found some Chinese sources which mentioned he won champion in the senior level of 2007 Hong Kong Figure Skating And Short Track Speed Skating Championships (where the national-level Hong Kong Figure Skating Championships is a part of; see Oriental Daily News [18] ), so as a national figure skating champion, the subject person already fulfills the second criterion of WP:NSKATE . I also found additional sources which mentioned him representing Hong Kong in the Asian Open Figure Skating Trophy and Asian Winter Games (See The Sun [19] and China Central Television [20] ), although I consider them as passing mentions and may not be able to pass GNG. Nonetheless, I think passing WP:NSKATE is already sufficient for me to vote for a , at least not a . And I suggest the nominator can do some WP:BEFORE searches for sources in the subject person's native languages before filing for deletions. This seems like the third time for me to vote for a figure skater article nominated by the same editor. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 12:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I see no evidence that he won a gold medal at the Hong Kong Figure Skating Championships . His ISU profile shows no placement at the 2007 championships. He did win the silver medal on three separate occasionas, but a silver medal at a national-level championship does not meet the standards of WP:NSKATE . Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC) Hi Bgsu. Please check the Oriental Daily News source I attached. The title reads ""The heavily favoured Tatsuya Tanaka wins Champion"", and the body goes ""The Hong Kong Figure Skating And Short Track Speed Skating Championships have concluded successfully. The Japanese-Chinese mixed Tatsuya Tanaka, who will represent Hong Kong at the Asian Winter Games, was the hot favorite and won champion in the men's division..."" (香 港 花 樣 滑 冰 及 短 道 速 滑 錦 標 賽 圓 滿 結 束 ， 即 將 代 表 香 港 出 戰 亞 洲 冬 季 運 動 會 的 日 中 混 血 兒 田 中 達 也 ， 大 熱 贏 得 男 子 組 冠 軍...) Oriental Daily News is an established and mainstream newspaper in Hong Kong, and is generally regarded as a reliable source for non-political and non-advertorial content in zhwiki through consensus. (See the zhwiki's List of Perennial sources ) I am not sure why it was not recorded on his ISU profile, and why this discrepancy aroused. (Please enlighten me if you find out the reasons behind) But since no discussion in the enwiki had deemed Oriental untrustworthy, so I don't see why this source is questionable in this case and I tend to trust the independent and secondary RS. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 01:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's interesting. I did see the article you cited and ran it through a translator. No idea why a first-place win would have been left off this skater's ISU profile. Nor is he cited on the Hong Kong Figure Skating Championships chart for men's singles. I checked another reliable figure skating site, but they have no records for any of the Hong Kong championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Prince of Erebor Okay, I have added both skaters named in the article to the charts on the Hong Kong Figure Skating Championships article. I cannot find sourcing elsewhere, but I'm guessing 2008 was just when someone at Wikipedia started to track and no one bothered to go backwards. This AFD can be closed as Speedy . Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC) Yea, I was thinking the same thing. After searching, I found some articles, as well as the ISU database you cited, recorded the Skating Championships dating back to at least 2003. However, the Hong Kong Skating Union website and Wikipedia only listed results up to 2008. It seems there was no systematic online archive of the championship results prior to 2008. Thanks for updating the article as well! I have made some minor corrections though, since Hong Kong uses Cantonese rather than Mandarin, the source should be labeled as written in Chinese, and the skater's name should be romanized using Jyutping instead of Mandarin pinyin . — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 17:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I never studied any languages east of Europe, so I'll trust your judgment! Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Kuchinotsu No. 37: The only reliable sources I can find about this cultivar are mentions in articles about other cultivars. It was tagged for notability in September this year. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 00:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I think you can just speedy it under WP:G7 . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 00:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Biology , and Japan . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 00:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC) I am unsure if it is notable or not. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 01:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC) if you're not sure about notability, let's just the page to the more notable of its parents, where it is already mentioned. This can always be undone by any editor, if notability becomes clearer. Owen× ☎ 13:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think there's notability here. I did a Google Scholar search and turned up quite a few mentions. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] among others. Unfortunately, I don't have access to these articles. My Japanese isn't quite good enough for academic uses, but searching for ""津之望 つののぞみ"" brings up numerous articles. DCsansei ( talk ) 14:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] DCsansei , Are you sure that 'Tsunonozomi' is the same as Kuchinotsu No.37? I may withdraw this AfD nomination. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 05:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I believe sufficient sources have been found to prove this cultivar's notability. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 22:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Marco Vannini: Fails the general and professor-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , and Italy . UtherSRG (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC) PROF notability criteria. Jahaza ( talk ) 17:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC) PROF#C1 . Well cited for a zoologist. Nothing has changed since the previous quite-recent AfD, and this new one does not provide any reason to overturn the previous decision. Re ""Tagged for notability since 2010"": the problem here is not with the article, it is with the editors who failed to remove the notability tag during the previous AfD, as there is no need for a notability tag once an AfD has been started to settle the notability of its article. I have gone ahead and removed the tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein ( talk • contribs ) Indeed. I withdraw the nomination. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Leonard J. Waks: There is only one source in the entire article, and it is rife with WP:NOR . There have been a large amount of additions by WP:SPAs and possible WP:COI IPs/editors. GuardianH ( talk ) 19:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Philosophy , and New York . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Distinguished professorship; Lifetime achievement award from John Dewey Society ; H-index of 28; reviews of his books [38] , [39] , [40] , [41] . Meets WP:NPROF and WP:GNG . Netherzone ( talk ) 20:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Clear pass of WP:Prof as above. Nominator needs to study WP:Before . Xxanthippe ( talk ) 21:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] . I'm not sure about the distinguished professorship, but citation numbers look like they might be a pass of WP:NPROF C1 in a low citation field; I also take the John Dewey Society activity somewhat seriously. A cursorary search found several reviews [42] [43] [44] [45] of his books, which could yield a solid WP:NAUTHOR . I trimmed the indiscriminate list of journal articles, and more trimming is likely needed, but as usual, WP:DINC . Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 22:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The GS citations look healthy for a low-citation area (264,153,136,103,74), all single authored, with a fairly slow drop off thereafter. Reviews of the subject's several books with major publishers have also been presented. Meets WP:PROF and AUTHOR. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 02:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per editors above who know what they are talking about. Johnbod ( talk ) 21:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC) MAJORITY is not an argument, I'm afraid. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 14:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Phooey! But since, for once, the editors who don't know what they are talking about haven't turned out, further discussion is unnecessary. Johnbod ( talk ) 15:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Blood Debts: Significant coverage from reliable sources about the film is scarce, if existent at all. Davest3r08 (^ _ ^) ( t a l k ) 23:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A lot of SIGCOV on the film actually exists, my bad. . Davest3r08 (^ _ ^) ( t a l k ) 11:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Philippines . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SICGOV from reliable sources is existent and I added some to the page. See for yourself. . - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC) Has at least two reviews, easily meets WP:NFILM . Kailash29792 (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Sebastian Gertz: Almost all the sources cited are either primary/non-independent. The only exception is a single review of Gertz's book which is not sufficient by itself to establish notability. WJ94 ( talk ) 12:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Edit: I've just noticed that there's a second review cited in the article for a second book. Nevertheless, I still don't think that having authored two books each with a single review (on a website which seems to review a lot of classics books) is sufficient for GNG/NSCHOLAR/NAUTHOR. WJ94 ( talk ) 14:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. WJ94 ( talk ) 09:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Authors , and Philosophy . WJ94 ( talk ) 12:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and United Kingdom . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . There are many more reviews than just the ones appearing in the as-nominated article; did the nominator perform any WP:BEFORE searches? I found 11 reviews of four books. I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for finding those sources. I did perform a WP:BEFORE search for sources, but clearly not thoroughly enough. I am happy to withdraw this nomination. WJ94 ( talk ) 09:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Protégé (restaurant): The only new thing I've found about this restaurant is that it was founded by French Laundry alumni. Other than that, and possessing Michelin stars, I do not see how this restaurant can be notable. MILL and WP:ORGDEPTH . If sources can be found to attest to the notability of this restaurant, this would be good, otherwise, the article may have to be d. WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 19:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Business . WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 19:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC) This is another obvious per GNG by a nominator who has jumped to AfD unnecessarily multiple times now. Nominator says they ""[could not] find any sources attesting to this restaurant's notability"" when completing WP:BEFORE, yet (from a simple Google search) I was able to very quickly and easily find plenty of in-depth coverage specifically focused on the restaurant and published by independent and reliable sources. The article has 10+ sources and should be expanded, not d. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ Another Believer . I think you should have expanded the article from the get-go. It seems as if people have to nominate your articles for deletion to get the article to have proper content. Creating one-sentence articles is not enough; please aim to expand on the more prior to moving them into the article space. People have previously advised you on this before and I ask that you take this into account. Also, please refrain from personal attacks and observe proper AfD etiquette. WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 17:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC) AFD : ""If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD."" --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC) 00, 1 April 2024 (UTC) 50, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree. I think once an admin passes by they can do it. WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 16:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"The Phoenix (novel): WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 23:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator in light of the sources identified by other editors below. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 21:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Germany . WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 23:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - It looks like Publishers Weekly reviewed it, here , and the New York Times did, here . The NYT review is very short, though, so I am not ready to say that the book passes point 1 of WP:NBOOK without a bit more being found. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] According to this article in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , the novel was an ""international success"" that been published in thirteen countries and became a bestseller in Italy and the United States. Universal Studios had even once secured the film rights to the novel for a film adaptation. Οἶδα ( talk ) 23:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I also found a review in Die Welt [1] , as well as an interview with the author's father in Der Spiegel [2] , which touches on the book. Οἶδα ( talk ) 04:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Slávka Frniaková: I am also nominating fellow Slovakia women's basketball teammates at said tournament for the same reason, except Zuzana Žirková, as most of them seem to fall under BLP1E : Martina Godályová ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Renáta Hiráková ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Dagmar Huťková ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Marcela Kalistová ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Anna Kotočová ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Alena Kováčová ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Lívia Libičová ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Jana Lichnerová ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Martina Luptáková ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Katarína Poláková ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Basketball , Olympics , and Slovakia . ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC) I have fixed this nomination, where {{ subst:afd2 }} was being stopped by an unclosed {{ la }} . No opinion at this time. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Basketball is a popular and very well-covered sport. I would be shocked if all of these were lacking coverage. For that reason, nominating Olympic basketball players en masse is not a good idea. Suggest procedural with the possibility of individual renominations. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] None of these are BLP1E as well. All of them had significant accomplishments in order to get to the Olympics . E.g. Martina Godalyova (randomly selected) was a 12-time national champion in multiple countries and led MBK Ružomberok to consecutive EuroLeague Women championships. I suspect many, maybe even a majority, would be notable, the issue is finding digitized 1990s Slovakian newspapers... BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Another one, Anna Kotočová , competed at two further Olympics and was inducted into the French Basketball Hall of Fame ! BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 18:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC) Kotočová (1988, 1992 and 2000 Olympian); Luptáková and Hiráková (1992 and 2000 Olympian); Lichnerová (played in the WNBA); Kováčová (won the Euroleague in 2005-06). This is on the presumption of coverage, yes, but I'll let that fly as the nomination is too large to handle them all anyway. Plus, Beaniefan started digging up some things. I have no opinion on the rest of the players yet, though I have a general opinion: Bundled nominations almost always fail nowadays and should be removed as a feature in AFD, actually. They are nothing but a waste of time. Geschichte ( talk ) 21:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagree with this generalization, but as things go the bigger the bulk, the less likely it will pass muster. Let'srun ( talk ) 04:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Happy to Kotočová, Luptáková, Hiráková, and Lichner then. Not sure about the other players. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC) After a spot review, several of these players appear to at the very least not fall into WP:BLP1E and may potentially be notable under WP:BIO . No prejudice against speedy renominating individual players. Let'srun ( talk ) 04:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Clariniie , it doesn't appear like the articles in this bundled nomination have been tagged for this AFD or that this AFD discussion has been formatted correctly which makes it invalid. Have you informed all of the article creators of this discussion? Bundled nominations are tricky so please follow all of the instructions at WP:AFD for a bundled nomination, especially regarding formatting. L iz Read! Talk! 04:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC) I usually informed article creators about the nomination. However, since this might be my first time making bundled nominations, I didn't notice the other pages listed weren't nominated. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC) At the time of my WP:BEFORE check, I did not notice that several women from this nomination have received independent coverage. Generally, there is a consensus that the players listed here should end up as . I was told that pretty much of my AfD nominations look seriously ill thought out, so I am going to withdraw this AfD. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Roshni Kapoor: There is only some passing mention in some film reviews. The language used to write the article gives the impression that this is a likely attempt to promote the subject. Thesixserra ( talk ) 03:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , and India . Thesixserra ( talk ) 03:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"The Tragedy of Agbezuge: Can anyone else find anything? Mccapra ( talk ) 09:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Africa , and Ghana . Mccapra ( talk ) 09:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . This work is notable as the first novel in the Ewe language and has received scholarly study as such. Here are sources: Awoonor, Kofi (1975). The breast of the Earth : a survey of the history, culture and literature of Africa south of the Sahara . Internet Archive. New York : Nok Publishers International. p. 138–140. ISBN 978-0-88357-019-7 . One of the most prolific of the relatively younger writers is Sam Obianim, whose novel Amegbeto ( Man ) is very well known throughout the Ewe country... Amegbeto is a sentimental story of man's suffering in a wicked world and his undying faith in God. It is also the story of a journey from rags to riches and back to degradation and sorrow. Agbezuge is the heroic, humble, persevering, trusting Christian man, who in spite of brief moments of doubt accepts the faith of the Church and the irrevocable and implacable nature of his destiny. Ricard, Alain (2005). ""La publication de la littérature africaine en traduction"" (PDF) . IFAS Working Paper Series / Les Cahiers de l’ IFAS (in French) (6): 58–62. Machine translation: I then campaigned, the term is strong, but chosen on purpose, for the publication by Karthala of a novel translated from the Ewe, Agbezuge, the first and greatest, for its admirers, of the Ewe novels (Obianim, 1949). Written in 1948, well known in Ghana and among the Ewe who read their language, this text circulated in Togo, but was not translated. I formed a team with Simon Amegbleame, Martin Ahiavee and Senouvo Agbota Zinsou who undertook the translation of this text. Simon Amegbleame was the project manager of this company. The three translators with the support of UNESCO – under the program of representative works – have produced a text which arouses the support of its readers French as I was able to verify. However, they find it difficult to believe that this translation into French was made directly from Ewe and that there are no such translations from Ewe into no European language. In short, the image of literature printed in an African language clashes our representations of Africa. The text published almost twenty years ago was, in its own way, a success: his praise of the misfortunes of virtue appeared welcome, in short moral and realistic. There is in these first novels a new force: the world is reconfigured thanks to an appropriation of Christianity, but there is never any question of proselytism. Amegbleame, Simon Agbeko (2007). "" Amegbetoa alo Agbezuge le nutinya de sam obianim (éwé, 1949) : une quête exaltée de l'humain"". L'effet roman: Arrivée du roman dans les langues d'Afrique (in French). Editions L'Harmattan. p. 167–179. ISBN 9782296165021 . This is a scholarly monograph on the work. Subsections: Le text et son histoire , Le statut de l'œvre , L'univers d'Amegbetoa , Une rhétorique de l'écriture . Jfire ( talk ) 18:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC) ""Amegbetoa; ou, Les aventures d'Agbezuge"": ON THE POWERS AND LIMITS OF LITERATURE see pp27-28 , ""le plus connu des romans ewe, Amegbetoa ou les aventures d’Agbezuge, de Sam Obianim (Karthala, 1990)"" , Histoire des Togolais. Des origines aux années 1960 p.191 . Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 04:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC) des langues aux livres p. 115 - French is the only European language to which the text has been translated. It would appear that the current English title is misnamed; if consensus is to , probably should be moved. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 05:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination as there plainly are sources I didn’t find. Mccapra ( talk ) 06:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Sucker Punch (2008 film): I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes . I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST . The Film Creator ( talk ) 19:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . The Film Creator ( talk ) 19:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There is a review in PopMatters. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 23:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The only piece of significant coverage that I could find is the popmatters review mentioned above. More is needed. -- Mike 🗩 15:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC) Based on the below sources.-- Mike 🗩 14:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . ... Keep. Hardy's presence has received some retrospective coverage (ex: here , here or here ). The film is mentioned in The British Boxing Film . If judged insufficient, to Tom Hardy#Filmography or to List of boxing films . - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Maine, David (2011-12-08). "" 'Sucker Punch': A Series of Fights, Confrontations, Fights, Arguments, Fights, and Fights"" . PopMatters . Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 . Retrieved 2023-10-22 . The review notes: ""Hoo boy, this is a bad movie. There’s a fine tradition of powerful boxing movies out there— Raging Bull , Rocky , even Million Dollar Baby come to mind, not to mention documentaries like When We Were Kings . But Sucker Punch is a different critter altogether. It’s a poorly written, poorly executed, cliché-ridden, low-budget snoozer that’s a chore to watch. It’s not even so bad it’s good. It’s just… very tired."" Glynn, Stephen (2021). The British Boxing Film . Cham: Springer Nature . ISBN 978-3-030-74209-6 . Retrieved 2023-10-22 – via Google Books . The book notes: "" Shiner ' s Stoney-Mahoney fight footage echoes the environment (and, alas, filming technique) of another hardnosed boxing adaptation, 3 Finger Productions' Sucker Punch (Malcolm Martin, April 2008), which eschewed Shakespeare for a micro-budget British remake/update/travesty of Hard Times aka The Streetfighter (Walter Hill, 1975). In the US original, 1930s illegal prizefighter Chaney was played by Charles Bronson-real name Charles Buchinsky: in homage the similarly taciturn fighter here bears the same name. Sucker Punch relates how Buchinsky (Gordon Alexander), newly returned to London's boxing underworld, is taken up by flash, fast-talking but strictly small-time illegal fight promoter Ray ‘Harley' Davidson (Danny John Jules)—the equivalent of James Coburn's garrulous conman Speed from Hard Times . Accompanied by a soundtrack from the Stranglers' Jean-Jacques Burnel and Baz Warne, Buchinsky progresses to a climactic fight-off against rival manager Victor Maitland (UFC veteran and 2004 Cage Rage world heavyweight champion Ian 'The Machine' Freeman) and the chance to avenge a previous heavy beating: after a ten-minute laboured slog with repeated fake blood-spitting, he does so. Comic cameos from Antonio Fargas, Tamer Hassan and (a pre-fame but subsequent release-prompting) Tom Hardy seek to leaven the fight scenes' dubious brutality, but only accentuate the tonal uncertainty—a match for the film's alarmingly erratic camera focus and lighting. ..."" Jenkins, Dan (2005-01-03). ""Hardman sets sights on a Hollywood career"" . Durham County Publications . Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 . Retrieved 2023-10-22 . The article notes: ""North-East hardman Ian ""The Machine"" Freeman is taking a principal role in an independent film about the murky world of bare-knuckle fighting. ... Entitled Sucker Punch, it also stars martial arts expert Gordon Alexander, ... He was offered the role after the producers saw him in Sky One show Britain's Hardest, which he co-presented with actor Steve McFadden, former on-screen hardman Phil Mitchell in EastEnders."" ""Champ lines up fighting film role"" . Evening Chronicle . 2005-01-08. ProQuest 349781753 . Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 . Retrieved 2023-10-22 . The article notes: ""The hard-hitting film is set in London and centres around the world of bare-knuckle fighting. ... Sucker Punch tells the story of a wronged man, Bushinski, who, 10 years after being viscously attacked by Maitland, is seeking revenge. The British, Intercontinental and World Champion ultimate fighter and dad-of-three has taken time away from the world's most violent sport to begin filming, which will end this summer. Writer and director Malcolm Martin, who worked with Brad Pitt on Fight Club, hopes the film will be shown in cinemas in 2006."" Sabbaga, Julia (2020-04-24). ""Além de Capone: 6 papéis em que Tom Hardy está irreconhecível"" [In addition to Capone: 6 roles in which Tom Hardy is unrecognizable]. Omelete . Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 . Retrieved 2023-10-22 . The article notes: ""Lá por 2008, Tom Hardy já tinha feito alguns papeis em filmes maiores como Maria Antonieta e Nem Tudo é o Que Parece, mas seu personagem em Sucker Punch (não o do Zack Snyder, outro filme com o mesmo nome) trouxe de volta seu hábito de metamorfose. No longa, Hardy aparece em menos de 2 minutos como um mecânico, mas mesmo com pouco tempo de tela ele não economizou na transformação."" From Google Translate: ""By 2008, Tom Hardy had already made some roles in bigger movies like Maria Antonieta and not everything is what it seems, but his character in Sucker Punch (not Zack Snyder, another movie with the same name) brought back his habit of metamorphosis. In the feature, Hardy appears in less than 2 minutes as a mechanic, but even with a short screen time he did not save on the transformation."" Less significant coverage: ""A magazine editor with a lot of clout"" . Durham County Publications . 2005-03-01. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 . Retrieved 2023-10-22 . The article notes: ""The 37-year-old, from Leadgate, near Consett, County Durham, recently landed a role in the independent film Sucker Punch, directed by Malcolm Martin"" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sucker Punch to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 05:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I withdraw the nomination per consensus. The Film Creator ( talk ) 18:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Out-of-Sync: I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing on Newspapers.com . I did a WP:BEFORE and found only one review from TV Guide . Needs two or more reviews to be eligible per NFO, NFSOURCES and WP:NEXIST . The Film Creator ( talk ) 11:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . The Film Creator ( talk ) 11:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions . North America 1000 11:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC) 13, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I withdraw per Donaldd23’s contribution. My humble apologies. The Film Creator ( talk ) 14:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ The Film Creator , no apology necessary! AfD's all about finding the right outcome, not ing score. I'm glad people like yourself and @ Donaldd23are looking at these under-referenced articles to fix or them. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Histioea excreta: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Not sure why the nom says it doesn't meet WP:NSPECIES . It appears to be a validly named species, so it would actually meet that expectation. Unless there's been some name changes, disputes, etc. I missed, I don't see the article going anywhere. KoA ( talk ) 12:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perfectly fine taxon, valid name; LepIndex is reliable, and other DBs agree [23] . Why would this not meet WP:NSPECIES ? What's up with all these weird taxon nominations these last few days? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 07:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - notable. Meets WP:NSPECIES -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Edwin Smith (rower): I have been unable to find enough reliable references. TheSwamphen ( talk ) 05:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Bibliographies , and New Zealand . TheSwamphen ( talk ) 05:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have reconsidered this nomination and now believe the subject is probably notable. TheSwamphen ( talk ) 04:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree. A silver medal at the Empire Games should make him notable. Bduke ( talk ) 08:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree that he’s notable. TheSwamphen , as long as nobody has ! voted """". you can withdraw an AfD. Schwede 66 19:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC) 13, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Amit Bhatia: Sources are mentions only. Failing WP:GNG , WP:INVALIDBIO as well as WP:THREE per WP:RS . Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 15:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , India , and United Kingdom . Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 15:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi , England , and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Treasure Island (1999 film): I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes . I did a WP:BEFORE and found one review from the Edmonton Journal via Newspapers.com . It needs one more reliable and suitable review per NFO, NFSOURCES and WP:NEXIST . The Film Creator ( talk ) 04:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . The Film Creator ( talk ) 04:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC) Variety [20] Donald D23 talk to me 11:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I speedy withdraw this nomination. Excellent work, Donaldd23 . The Film Creator ( talk ) 12:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"K.B.N. Singh: It is not eligible to exist as standalone article. Admantine123 ( talk ) 04:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Admantine123 ( talk ) 04:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC) POLITICIAN as the Governor of Bihar and the Chief Justice of Patna High Court . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 10:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 11:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Passes WP:NPOL as they were, at one point, the governor of the Indian state of Bihar . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Both the Judgeship and Governorship meet WP:NPOL . It's highly likely more WP:RS exist about this person, especially in non-English sources. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 19:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Passes WP:NPOL as a governor, even an acting one. Plenty of coverage on GBooks in English, including [28] . Also, move the article to ""K. B. N. Singh"", incorporating the spacing. Curbon7 ( talk ) 20:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC) SNOW . Per others above, this is a clear WP:NPOL pass. Sal2100 ( talk ) 20:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Snow Per others above. Meets WP:NPOL . Perhaps someone could look for reliable sources in non-english formats and help the article out? D u s t i *Let's talk! * 23:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals: There's also no information found suitable for the article's preservation on Wikipedia. TheLionHasSeen ( talk ) 22:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Sexuality and gender , Christianity , Florida , and Indiana . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The article is a mess, but the (mostly defunct) organization will continue to factor in the history of Pentecostal churches that affirm LGBT persons. I added some, but not all, of the references from scholarly sources that mention GAAAP in their studies of the topic. -- Jaireeodell ( talk ) 23:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, as you have referenced some feasible sources, I'd say . TheLionHasSeen ( talk ) 13:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Article definitely needs more sources and a bit of work on tone but I think that due to the sources already referenced, it's kind of a big deal and could get rescued. ❤History Theorist❤ 23:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Team Klaksvík: Sources in article are what appears to be a team site and a database. WP:BEFORE finds coverage only for the similarly-named Klaksvíkar Ítróttarfelag , an unrelated football team, and https://partillecup.com/en/post/handball-is-getting-bigger-in-the-faroe-islands , which I don't think is independent. Perhaps Faroese-language sources exist, but I couldn't find them. A412 ( Talk • C ) 17:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 18:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] a lot of Faroese-language sources exist. On the Faroe Islands handball is the second biggest sport and Klaksvík plays in the highest league. They also play in the continental cup. Clearly notable. Search results of nordlysid and article & [9] . Also a lot of results if you google ""Team Klaksvík site:sosialurin.fo"" like [10] . Or if you google ""Team Klaksvík site:kvf.fo"" there are a lot of articles from the local tv station. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 ( talk ) 15:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Palm Bus: In addition, some false information has crept in. Pacatransports ( talk ) 21:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC) I have fixed the template loop situation that this nomination was created with. I offer no opinion at this time. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and France . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC) CSK#1 None of the issues provided by nominator require deletion, they can just edit the article and update it. Jumpytoo Talk 06:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC) per WP:CSK#1 . No deletion rationale is being proposed here. AfD is not cleanup. User:Let'srun 18:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC) CSK#1 or WP:CSK#3 . Strongly advise the nominator to read WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP . S5A-0043 Talk 05:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"This Is th' Life: Nothing found in a BEFORE Donald D23 talk to me 17:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America . Donald D23 talk to me 17:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , The Moving Picture World (Jul-Sep ,'14, p. 1144) has a very detailed plot summary (that the Imdb page for the film reproduces extensively, fwiw). This film about electric inventions including cars is not to be confused with the 1915 Adele Farrington film that goes by the almost same title. (Both seem notable but only this one has a page here). — MY, OH, MY ! 22:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . ""Electricity Vital to Development. Interesting ""Flying A"" Subject"" . Motography . Vol. 12, no. 8. 1914-08-22. pp. 263 – 264 . Retrieved 2023-04-16 – via Internet Archive . The article was published in 1914, so is in the Wikipedia:Public domain . The article notes: Containing a truth of life, splendidly portrayed through a series of closely connected developing incidents, the two-reel release of the American Film Manufacturing company for August 24, entitled ""This Is Life,"" is a production which is of more than mere entertainment value. The relation of modernized methods, especially those in which electricity figures, to those of the old days when every little duty about the farm was performed by hand, forms the theme of this pleasing comedy drama and the convincing manner in which the plot has been rounded out, leaves no doubt as to the purpose of the picture. Charlotte Burton, in the leading feminine role, that of a country girl, is delightfully natural in her acting, while Ed Coxen take the male lead in equally charming manner. George Fields completely loses his personality in the role of a hard-headed old farmer, who considers all modern improvements a waste of time, and the character portrayal further proves this actor's versatility. A number of the ""Flying A"" favorites appear in the supporting roles, all doing good work in their respective parts. The interior settings and the exterior locations on the farm are pleasing and abound in atmosphere. A number of new electrical inventions worked into the latter part of the second reel is a novelty in itself, while several larger engines seen earlier in the picture are also well worth notice, irrespective of their bearing upon the plot. The photography is of the best and the sub-titling and vision work well handled. The story opens with a friendly call of the Browns upon the Millers, the families living on neighboring farms. Brown and Miller engage in a checker game, while John and Rita, their son and daughter, respectively, slip away to the garden. Mary Brown and Mrs. Miller are great friends and visit with each other on the porch. All goes very well and the young lovers in the garden have forgotten there are any other persons in the world until Brown finds himself cornered on the checker board and a quarrel between him and Miller results which leads to the sudden departure of the Brown family and the separation of the lovers. Brown is set in his ideas and will not consider forgetting the matter. John is industrious and studies electricity when alone in his room. His father learns of this and angrily throws the books away, telling his son that the modern ideas are all a foolish waste of time, and that the only real way to do things is by the old methods. John is determined to succeed in the work he has chosen, however, and that night leaves home to go to the city. He stops at the Miller home and says good-bye to Rita, telling her that he will return when he has made good. Brown disowns John. In the city he finds work oiling some huge electrical engines and, given this opportunity to study their construction, quickly learns the principles of the work. He continues his study during the evenings and it is not long before he is promoted. On the Miller farm electricity replaces all the former slow and tedious methods, but Brown, although he has again established friendly relations with his neighbor, refuses to even consider any improvements in the methods he employs, and his daughter, Mary, is forced to do all her work by hand. Rita is sent to a boarding school in the city, and there John and her again see much of each other, and her company inspires him to even greater efforts. The spark of genius has been lying dormant in the young man and under the pressure of his daily work it appears, and it not long until he turns to invention. Time passes and one after another of John's inventions become successful, but still his father refuses to forgive him for leaving home. Rita has returned home, but receives letters from John almost daily. The inventor is unable to leave his work, however, even for a moment, as he is now working on an X-ray machine which promises to become the greatest of its kind in the world. Mary works far into every night in order to complete her household duties and in time the strain wears on her and she begs her father to get the many little modern inventions which would make her tasks lighter, but he stubbornly refuses. The frail girl does the best she can, but it is only a short time before the inevitable happens. One day as she is ironing a sharp pain shoots up her back and she falls to the floor in a faint. Rita has just come to the Brown home to visit Mary and finds her in agony. It is now that Brown begins to realize the worth of the modern inventions, and when Rita secures a doctor by telephone he is very thankful. The doctor, however, can do nothing for the girl and says that she will be paralyzed for life. Again Brown sees the wonderful uses of electricity when Rita reaches John in the city over the long distance telephone and asks him to come to his sister's aid with his latest invention, the X-ray, and a specialist. While the little party consisting of the Miller family and Brown anxiously wait in the little farm house, the son who had been disowned speeds homeward in an automobile, and as soon as he arrives the doctor and he start to work on the stricken girl with the new invention. Brown waits outside the door of the room, anxiously praying for the best, and when half an hour later the pair come from within and announce that through the medium of John's wonderful X-ray the girl will be restored to health, Brown repents and forgets all the malice he has felt towards his son. A short time later Mary is again well, and when she is able to work again she finds all the modern conveniences at her command and is surprised on the day of John's and Rita's wedding when her father calls for her in an electric automobile. He is highly pleased with the new mode of living he has adopted and enthusiastically exclaims ""This is th' Life."" The cast for the production is as follows: Farmer Brown—Geo. Field His Son—Ed Coxen Farmer Miller—John Steppling His Daughter—Charlotte Burton Farmer Brown's Daughter—Edith Borella Farmer Miller's Wife—Josephine Ditt ""This Is Th' Life"" . The Moving Picture World . 1914-08-22. p. 1144 . Retrieved 2023-04-16 – via Internet Archive . The article was published in 1914, so is in the Wikipedia:Public domain . The article notes: This Is Th' Life (Two Parts—August 24). —Farmer Brown, a man who clings to old ideas, is so set against the wheels of progress and modern science, that his son John is compelled to steal away from home in order to complete his education in electricity. In contrast, Erown's neighbor, Farmer Miller, installs modern ideas and machinery. His farm products and stock thrive and bring great results, while his daughter Rita, can attend boarding school. Rita and John are sweethearts and Rita applauds and encourages John in his struggle toward progression. John becomes a genius and invents many electrical meters and a powerful X-Ray, but time nor success will soften his father's heart or reconcile them. Miller even lightens his wife's household burdens by installing electrical washing and ironing devices, while Brown's frail daughter, Mary, is a slave to the heat and drudgery of the old methods of houseing. One day Mary, while lifting a heavy wash boiler strains her back and falls to the floor. Brown finds her and for the first time fully realizes the necessity of a telephone. Rita just home on her vacation comes to his aid and rushing over home summons a doctor, then by long distance summons John to bring a surgeon and his new X-Ray. The country doctor announces that Mary has suffered a paralytic stroke and will never recover. Brown's heart is crushed, but the next day John and the surgeon arrive. After an examination the surgeon declares to Brown that through the aid of the wonderful X-Ray and modern science his daughter will be permanently restored to health. The wedding day of Rita and John arrives and Brown's gift to the couple is in the nature of a new home completely equipped electrically even to the stove and cooking utensils. He becomes a convert to progress and modern science, and declaring ""this is th' life"" takes his neighbor Miller for a drive in his own electric car. "" ""This Is Th' Life"" "" . Reel Life . Vol. 4, no. 2. Mutual Film . 1914-08-15. p. 16 . Retrieved 2023-04-16 – via Internet Archive . The article was published in 1914, so is in the Wikipedia:Public domain . The article notes: Jasper Brown had no use for new fangled notions. His father and his grandfather before him had wrested a good living out of Pine Crest Farm by the old methods, using plenty of brawn and leaving the rest to Providence. The trouble was, they had exhausted most of their stamina in the process, and the last generation was physically weakened, Mentally, however, Brown's children had forged ahead the more eagerly, as though to invent by their wits some means of escape from ancestral servitude. Only, Farmer Brown couldn't see this. His son John early had developed a mechanical genius which irritated his father not a little. When he had become absorbed in electricity and refused to get down to stone picking in the old ""granite lot,"" Brown made his young life a burden. The result was, John ran away to the city to complete his electrical education. At about the same time, Joseph Miller's daughter, Rita, went away to boarding school. Brown wondered how his neighbor could commit such an extravagance. He had taken his own daughter, Mary, out of the Academy to do her share of drudgery at home. Besides, Miller spent large sums on his place. The truth was, Miller was as progressive as Brown was backward. He had installed labor-saving machinery both indoors and out. He took the Cornell Agricultural Bulletin , and made frequent trips to experiment stations to observe improved methods of cultivating the soil. He knew to his own satisfaction, and to the profit of his family, that scientific farming paid. Mrs. Miller, though a farmer's wife, enjoyed life. She was as enthusiastic about the electrical washing and ironing devices which Joseph had given her on their last wedding anniversary as her husband was about the new orchard spraying outfit. When she ran in for a friendly call on the Browns, it made her heart ache to see frail Mary Brown bending over the tubs in the hot, steamy kitchen. ""She'll give out sudden, one of these days,"" she told her husband. ""Men like Jasper Brown ought to be jailed for living back in the Dark Ages!"" It was not long after this that Mary, lifting a heavy wash-boiler one day, strained her back and fainted dead away. For the first time in his life her father recognized the need of a telephone. But Rita Miller, who was back on a vacation, running in just in time, went rushing home to phone the village doctor. Then, by long distance, she called up John Brown at the Technical Institute, telling him to come at once, with a surgeon and his new X-ray device. Jasper Brown had thought less of his son than ever since he had heard of his success as an inventor. Electrical meters and X-rays! What earthly use were such things on a farm? The breach between them had widened with John's progress. When the country doctor arrived, he announced that Mary had had a stroke. ""Most likely, she won't recover,"" he said, gloomily. The next twenty-four hours remained always the bitterest memory of Jasper Brown's fife. His obstinate spirit was completely crushed. He began to see his sins as though he were facing his own end in the fate of his frail and lovely daughter. ""I worked her to death,"" he muttered to himself. ""Worked her like a horse—till I broke her back."" He shuddered, recoiling from himself. At noon next day, John and the city surgeon reached the farm. John was pale and silent. Brown felt miserably that his son was judging him—worse, that he had a right to do so. The physician was making a thorough examination of Mary. It seemed endless. ""With the aid of your son's X-ray instrument, and by using the most recent scientific appliances,"" the specialist said at last, ""I have reason to hope all will be well."" The words sounded to Brown like an incantation in a dream, ""X-rays! Modern science!"" Had he not exorcised these demons? But these things, the great man was saying would save her. "" About a year later, John and Rita were married and Jasper Brown's gift to them was a monument to his conversion—a new house, completely equipped electrically, even to stove and cooking utensils. A few days after the wedding, Brown took Joseph Miller for a drive in his own electric car. John had helped his father select the motor and had taught the old man how to run it. As they rolled comfortably through the beautiful Ohio countryside, comparing the prosperity of their gardens and orchards with much friendly rivalry, they came into view of the commodious cottage of the young couple. Brown heaved a happy sigh. And as though no word nor deed in this latter day could now shock him by its modernity, he muttered. ""This is th' life!"" "" ""This Is Th' Life"" "" . Electrical Merchandise and Selling Electricity . Vol. 13, no. 11. November 1914 . Retrieved 2023-04-16 – via Internet Archive . The article was published in 1914, so is in the Wikipedia:Public domain . The article notes: The life electric has found its way into the movies with a vengeance. Under the title ""This Is Th’ Life,"" the American Film Manufacturing Company of Chicago, offers a two-reel drama showing the advantages of electric service, or, to quote its Barnum-like poster, ""An absorbing drama exploiting the advance of civilization—a transition from old to new, from ancient to modern, from perilous custom to immutable methods of scientific economy. "" The feature is offered in the regular way to photo-play houses and there is nothing to indicate that the film has any advertising purpose. There is a real story in the pictures, in which electric pumping for irrigation, electric utensils for reducing drudgery, electric therapeutics for alleviating suffering and electric table-ware are successfully shown. A real plot is developed in which a full cast of characters, including villain and comedian, play their alloted, parts. the climax being a wedding-breakfast for two. at which the heroine offers the hero four electrically soft-boiled eggs. Verily, this is th' life. We do not know the system by which moving picture films are supplied to photo-play theatres but any central station man who influences a local house to put this feature on its program will be doing a neat piece of advertising of a very good sort. Less significant coverage: "" ""Flying A"" Sidelights"" . Billboard . Vol. 26, no. 33. 1914-08-15 . Retrieved 2023-04-16 – via Internet Archive . The article was published in 1914, so is in the Wikipedia:Public domain . The article notes: ""The title of Converting Dad has been changed to This Is th' Life, and the subject proves to be the most apropos for the present age and state of development of industrial and sociological affairs. It is a two-reel subject and will be released August 24."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow This Is th' Life to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 10:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WITHDRAWN per new sources found by Cunard. Donald D23 talk to me 15:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Serhat Gülpınar: A search mostly returns biographical entries on some news sites, which often include a lot of people who are not notable according to Wikipedia standards. Some of these bio entries I found appear to be straight copy-paste of the article on the Turkish Wikipedia, which also doesn't have good sources to demonstrate his notability. This ""article"" also appears to have included a total of one sentence for more than a decade. I don't usually nominate sportspeople for deletion, so feel free to correct me if there's something that satisfies one of the criteria. Aintabli ( talk ) 20:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator per below. Aintabli ( talk ) 10:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Turkey . Aintabli ( talk ) 20:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Gülpınar made close to 250 appearances in the Süper Lig , the Turkish top level which makes it highly for them to be non-notable notable. Anyone familiar with Turkish newspaper archives should have no trouble finding WP:SIGCOV . Robby.is.on ( talk ) 20:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I presume you mean highly likely for them to be notable? Giant Snowman 18:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, thanks. Robby.is.on ( talk ) 09:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC) , Per Robby.is.on. Please rescind the deletion nomination . I found [6] (""Serhat Gülpınar, who took charge of the team for 10 matches at the beginning of the season in Altaş Denizlispor, surpassed Fatih Tekke, who had an average of 0.8 points after 6 matches, with an average of 1.1 points""), [7] (""A player who can use both feet, hits the ball well and runs a lot. These features make him a wild card that can be used in every part of the field. The fact that there are even matches where he plays as a striker is the clearest proof of this feature"") [8] , (""Serhat, who has been wearing the Denizlispor jersey for six years and has entered the team's counters with his performance in the midfield""), [9] (""WHO IS SERHAT GÜLPINAR... Serhat Gülpınar has managed 41 official matches so far, with 18 wins, 4 draws and 19 losses""), among many many more Turkish sources. Clealyr significant figure in Turkish football with ongoing manager career, having made around 250 appearances in the Süper Lig and managed many pro Turkish teams/games. Definitely has offline sources, since barely any of the newspapers, especially the Denizli ones, a city where he made over 150 appearances for Denizlispor , have lots of football coverage dating back to the 2000s. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 16:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm going to look for sources before reaching a conclusion, but Denizli Haber (the newspaper with the widest circulation in Denizli) certainly has articles from his playing days online like this from 2007. I don't think appealing to the existence of offline sources is really necessary here. Jogurney ( talk ) 17:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I never said they had zero articles from his playing days online, I'm saying that there are less of them available online, especially from 2003-2005 etc.. . Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 17:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, that's true. However, I'm concerned that a search of Gülpınar futbolcu on the newspaper's website yields only 7 hits (none of which are directly about him), so even his managerial career isn't getting much attention in Denizli (unless the newspaper s most of its sports articles offline even today). Jogurney ( talk ) 18:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources above which show notability. Really, really bad nomination. Giant Snowman 18:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I might have been misguided. Years of lack of content (with 1 sentence) plus a quick search that did not return much prompted me to nominate it for deletion. It's not like I'm nominating an absolutely notable and fleshed out article. And I think with all the comments above, this AfD has been beneficial for the article even though the original point of an AfD is deleting articles. Aintabli ( talk ) 20:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC) , Would you be able to withdraw the deletion nomination? Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 17:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC) , Since you withdrew the nomination, can you please close the discussion? (see Wikipedia:Closing discussions if you need help). Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 16:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Martin D. Smith: I have done a quick BEFORE without finding information outside of general sports databases (e.g., Soccerway). Sources exist for other footballers named Martin Smith (see Martin Smith (footballer) ). Sources may also exist in Danish. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 20:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Denmark . Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 20:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Granted, this was not exactly a very comprehensive article, but now I found [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] . The coverage looks unusually in-depth and sustained, e.g. looking back on his career 20 years later. PS. These all pertain to the correct Martin Smith, and quite naturally they are all in Danish. Furthermore, I will take it upon myself to actually improve the article with these sources. Geschichte ( talk ) 21:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, @ Geschichte ! Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 03:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 20:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per Geschichte. Played for one of most prominent teams in fully pro Danish leagues and already has online sources and definitly has more offline sources. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 18:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Elizabeth Purbeck: The entire article is about the two subjects' works, none of which have articles, and the article clearly states that little is known about the authors at all. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 16:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England . Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 16:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Of course I may be biased as I drafted the article and first posted it not five minutes ago. The Purbeck sisters are included in several well-established reference works on women's writing, as noted in the references, which indicates sufficient notability to my mind: They have entries in the following: Blain, Virginia, et al., eds. The Feminist Companion to Literature in English . New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1990. ( Internet Archive ) Orlando: Women’s Writing in the British Isles from the Beginnings to the Present The Women's Print History Project ""Elizabeth Purbeck"": Corvey Women Writers on the Web Author's Page ""Jane Purbeck"": Corvey Women Writers on the Web Author's Page They are also referred to in at least one piece of scholarship on another author: Butler, Cheryl. "" Jane Austen, Netley Abbey, and Gothic Tourism ."" Persuasions Online . Jane Austen Society of North America (JASNA) 40.1 (Winter 2019). Accessed 2023-08-07. — scribbling woman 16:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"DWAC-TV: ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 08:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines . ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 08:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC) This is one of the major UHF TV stations in Metro Manila before ABS-CBN's franchise expired in 2020. Why nominate this for deletion in the first place? - WayKurat ( talk ) 14:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC) BEFORE . We have articles about the networks it originated, where plenty of sources for this station also reside. Nate • ( chatter ) 21:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Pickle Wars: A few quick WP:BEFORE searches on WP:VG/SE and some skimming of the reference library showed nothing, meaning this game possibly fails WP:N . Negative MP1 23:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Negative MP1 23:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reaches into the ancient archives and blows dust off a book - The game seems to have gotten a decent number of reviews such as This , this , this and this , which is already enough to demonstrate GNG is passed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 00:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Christ that was quick. Withdrawing and adding a sources exist tag to the article. Negative MP1 01:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 00:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Battle of Haidru (1828): The third and fourth refs, ""Journal of the United Service Institution of India"" and ""Selections from the records of the government of Punjab"" are WP:RAJ era sources and thus not allowed. The last source seems to be merely a Google snapshot. Here is what Hari Ram Gupta says of the battle: ""Having failed at Peshawar, Sayyid Ahmad planned to seize Attock fort from the Sikhs. Its possession by him would automatically clear Hazara and Peshawar from the Sikhs, and it would open the gateway for the invasion of the Panjab. Khadi Khan of Hund secretly alerted the Sikh commander of the fort, and the plan fell through. Sayyid Ahmad, in anger attacked the village Haidru, and put to the sword all the inhabitants, both Hindus and Muslims. On hearing this news Hari Singh Nalwa suddenly appeared on the scene and massacred nearly three-fourths of Khalifa's Ghazis. Sayyid Ahmad managed to escape to the west of the Indus."" Rishi Singh says: ""It appears that even when he seemed successful, Syed Ahmad began losing his control over the tribal leadership. Many tribal chiefs began betraying him. For instance, at the time of taking over the fort of Attock, Khadi Khan of Hund alerted the Sikh commander, Hari Singh Nalwa, who with his 20,000 men attacked Syed Ahmad’s forces and killed three-fourths of the Khalifa’s Ghazis"". I think this content would be better suited in the exploits and military campaigns of both Hari Singh Nalwa and Syed Ahmed Barelvi, I don't think the amount of coverage in both sources, which are small paragraphs, justifies an entire article, though I could be wrong. Southasianhistorian8 ( talk ) 15:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps this could be ed to the page Military campaigns of Hari Singh Nalwa ? The battle is already listed there- [11] , and I think that on its own is sufficient. An entire article is superflous. Southasianhistorian8 ( talk ) 16:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Pakistan , and India . Shellwood ( talk ) 18:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Best suited for a RFD to Military campaigns of Hari Singh Nalwa instead. Southasianhistorian8 ( talk ) 02:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Ladies and gentlemen (salutation): Thanks, DIVC. Drowssap SMM 13:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions . Drowssap SMM 23:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC) NOTDICT ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 04:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC) since the article is now cited, and the article is now going into the significance of the salutation historically. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 03:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 10:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft -- Weak -- The recent changes by Darcyisverycute just barely (imho) move this to the 'good' side of DICTDEF. There is just enough backgound and foundational info to make it 'more than'. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 13:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC) // Original: The article as it stands is a DICTDEF, but a future article could be created by someone knowledgeable in the field. The phrase has a storied history and has evolved over the last century. Without subject-matter expertise, however, there is virtually no method to research this. I know some of the that history and I can't even come up with WP:THREE . There just is no way to separate the wheat from the chaff in searching books, journals or other sources with two of the most common salutatory terms in the English language. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 17:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC) 00, 20 December 2023 (UTC) 22:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Unsourced dicdef. Ping if sources found. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 02:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, with thanks to DIVC. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 13:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have found some sources and rewrote the article, I kindly ask participants in the AfD to examine and reconsider deletion. I cannot find citations supporting specific usage or the irreversible binomial nature in Vaudeville material, so I have removed these statements that would be otherwise unsourced, with no prejudice to adding the statements back at a later date if sources can be found (likely WP:OFFLINE ). @ Queen of Hearts Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 13:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Obadiah H. Platt: Not to mention the article is orphaned, so there's no reason for this to exist. TheBritinator ( talk ) 16:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions . TheBritinator ( talk ) 16:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Christianity . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC) Was a WP:BEFORE search conducted? Judging by the nomination statement, it does not seem like it. Please see WP:NEXIST for why a before search is important. Also, being an orphan or very short are not valid reasons for deletion, as WP:Deletion is not cleanup . Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC) he is mentioned in the History of Tampa, Florida article. St Anselm ( talk ) 21:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I have added several sources to the article. St Anselm ( talk ) 21:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Helen Boyd: This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk ) 19:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC) I find barely any mention of this person, nor any book reviews. Should be d for a lack of extensive sourcing in RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC) //www.publishersweekly.com/9781560255154 https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/helen-boyd/my-husband-betty/ https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/making-trans-parents-visible-intersectionality-of-trans-and-paren https://www.jstor.org/stable/26501117 65.27.103.217 ( talk ) 21:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC) //www.cornell.edu/video/transforming-literature-ryka-aoki-helen-boyd-ely-shipley 65.27.103.217 ( talk ) 21:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC) //www.lawrence.edu/articles/award-shines-light-advocacy-work-helen-boyd-kramer https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/helen-boyd/shes-not-the-man-i-married/9780786750542/? lens=seal-press https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2004/03/31/boyd-elucidates-trans-gender-issues/ https://events.cornell.edu/event/transforming_literature_a_conversation_with_ryka_aoki_helen_boyd_ely_shipley https://www.thestranger.com/podcasts/2011/01/04/6152496/savage-love-episode-220 https://www.lawrentian.com/archives/1024621 https://ontheissuesmagazine.com/love/how-a-feminist-found-her-sexismby-helen-boyd/ 65.27.103.217 ( talk ) 21:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Women , Sexuality and gender , New York , and Wisconsin . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC) https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=u9Np7R0ZJTI https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=9YeLeMiMXuY 65.27.103.217 ( talk ) 21:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC) NAUTHOR . @ Boleyn and Oaktree b : please see the added reviews for both books. This is in addition to the sources the IP listed above. Best, Bridget (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First two reviews are fine, the Jstor one helps, the rest are podcasts or personal appearances, which don't help notability but are useful to color the discussion. I'll adjust my ! vote shortly. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't understand how you are arriving at this count. There are six reviews listed in the article, three for each book, all in notable magazines or newspapers. None of these are ""podcasts or personal appearances"". — David Eppstein ( talk ) 23:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oaktree b , please see take a look at the article for the reviews I added in these two edits . I'm not only talking about what links the IP posted above, which seems to be what you are looking at. There are reviews in the Booklist , Kirkus Reviews , and Publishers Weekly (book review publications), and one in The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide , which seems to be a reputed LGBT academic journal. Best, Bridget (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I voted to it, it's a moot point. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC) AUTHOR and WP:HEY . The newly turned-up reviews are enough to convince me. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak the Jstor book review is the best, then Publishers Weekly and Kirkus. Rest given above are not helpful for notability but can help add to the discussion. Just barely passes notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The threat of deletion has encouraged interested editors to toughen up the references in the last couple of days. I've just added two more myself (re Lambda Literary and On the Issues). I think the article should meet wiki standards now. Subvert47 ( talk ) 08:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Recent edits and source searches have clearly established notability. -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 08:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination I'm happy to be proved wrong. Thanks for your input, Boleyn ( talk ) 12:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Eric T. Olson (philosopher): He does have a few books, though data on them is (to my cursory look) limited. Happy to be corrected by someone with more expertise in the field, but seemingly apt for deletion. A MINOTAUR ( talk ) 15:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Philosophy , England , and United States of America . Skynxnex ( talk ) 19:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Author . -- Jahaza ( talk ) 19:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Passes WP:Prof#C1 on exceptionally high GS citations for philosophy. Nominator is advised to carry out WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 23:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] . Exceptionally high is right - google scholar lists 1330 for The Human Animal . fyi for the nom: ""full professors"" like this one in book-writing fields tend to get kept at AfD, on WP:NPROF grounds or WP:NAUTHOR ones. Their careers may be ""standard"" in the normative sense, but that's not the same as ""standard"" as in typical . We don't tend to have articles on the latter group, but remember that that group includes teaching profs (rather than research ones), lecturers, adjuncts, etc etc. -- asilvering ( talk ) 00:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , passes NPROF-C1 / NAUTHOR. -- Mvqr ( talk ) 12:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the above. I've added a few of the reviews as references in the article (there's more out there for anyone who wants to look). WJ94 ( talk ) 13:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the above. Clearly passes WP:NPROF and WP:AUTHOR . Sal2100 ( talk ) 20:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC) PROF#C1 and WP:AUTHOR . I added more reviews and another book (too new to have been reviewed). — David Eppstein ( talk ) 13:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC) 25, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"AC Express (Indian Railways): Actually the services are part of superfast express and that content has also been removed by editors from express trains of india page, instead these info has to be updated there and this page is made just a waste. Jagganath01 ( talk ) 05:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC) ( WP:SOCKSTRIKE — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c ) 09:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC) ) This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . Jagganath01 ( talk ) 05:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Nomination is by a blocked sockpuppet. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , article is notable, or else we would also need to the train tracks. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk ) 06:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Garmin BaseCamp: Google search for Garmin BaseCamp finds just 11 references, the most in-depth any of them goes that isn't a download page or a WP:SPS is about four sentences on the topic . Google Books search finds several German guidebooks for Garmin GPSes that have a couple paragraphs of the software . Nothing in a Google News search. Newspapers.com had a handful of passing mentions (mostly the same coverage of a GPS being run in multiple Canadian papers.) The only articlespace page linking here is Base camp (disambiguation) . Nat Gertler ( talk ) 23:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC) BEFORE . I'm not sure what I was doing that got 11 ghits, but I am now getting many more. This doesn't automatically mean that I think it is sufficiently notable -- the first screen of results were not things that contribute to notability -- but I haven't the energy at the moment to pick out the wheat from the chaff. -- Nat Gertler ( talk ) 19:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Where exactly is the harm in leaving this article be? It is neither nonsense, libellous, untrue nor written like an advertisement, and Wikipedia, being digital, is not bound by limits on physical size or weight; your book shelves are not going to collapse by leaving the article here, nor are the Wikipedia servers going to struggle with the sheer size of the article. ""What is this BaseCamp thing?"" is a valid thing for a user to wonder. Wikipedia can answer that question in a neutral and ad-free way, that is of course if you don't deleting things like this. Instead of coming up with ever more stringent a-priori requirements on ""notability"", ask yourself ""could this information one day be of use to someone?"". On the question of ""notability"", the reason this policy was originally conceived is of course to contributors from creating pages on themselves, their dog and their impromptu band formed with two flatmates, or to Wikipedia from becoming free advertising space for commercial entities (and we have other policies to deal with that), but nowadays it seems to be used as an excuse for people who are looking to spend their free time looking for articles to from Wikipedia. I would urge you to look at other article quality measures as well, rather than using ""notability"" as the magic wand here. I find myself wondering why I spend time on creating articles and other contributions to Wikipedia, if that means a lifetime of defending your content against the ""deletionists"". I think this eagerness to may ultimately harm the Wikipedia ecosystem more than it benefits it. Back when I was a student, do you know how discussions on contributing to Wikipedia went? A bit like this: ""Have you ever contributed something to Wikipedia that wasn't removed immediately? No? Why bother then?"". So really, this kind of behaviour can Wikipedia from attracting new contributors, and we should it from becoming some sort of dwindling in-crowd of self-proclaimed guardians of what can and cannot be included in Wikipedia, which apparently means that things can only be included if they're discussed in 20.000 other places as well. So what if it's a bit older or not used very much? It exists, the information is true and verifiable. If there are only a few paragraphs of factual information to give, why should that mean it's not a story worth telling? So, before you decide to , ask yourself a few questions. Are you acting in the best interest of Wikipedia or are you only trying to win an argument? Are you acting in the best interest of Wikipedia or are you only trying to enforce a bureaucratic policy (see Vogons )? Create, don't destroy, it's a more useful way to spend your time. -- IByte ( talk ) 14:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Transportation . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Jay Wesley Neill: I am not sure what the criteria is for murderers, but I don't think this is generally notable. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years. Boleyn ( talk ) 11:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Crime , and Oklahoma . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC) 1E is not a stand-alone reason for deleting an article. The primary purpose of 1E is to ensure that articles about events are centred on the event rather than a single individual involved in the event. Failing 1E is primarily addressed by renaming and editing the article to be about the event so long as it passes WP:NEVENT , and only deleting where an article about the event already exists and there is nothing to /. In this case, there is no corresponding article about the massacre. The massacre clearly passes WP:NEVENT due to decades-long in state media and beyond including coverage of the event in 1984 , coverage of the trial in 1985 , coverage of the 2002 execution (see the source in the article) and retrospective coverage in a 2008 academic article and a newspaper story from 2021 . I'm open to renaming and editing the article to be about the event, or a / if a suitable one can be identified. The article about the town has a section about the massacre, but the detail here would be undue if d into it so I do not support that. Basically, the nom seems to have misunderstood what the purpose of 1E is - it isn't, by itself, a reason to . FOARP ( talk ) 15:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Someone who murdered four people would seem to be notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination per above comments. Boleyn ( talk ) 16:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even beyond 1E there were two people involved in this (even though only one was executed). Should be retitled ""Geronimo Bank murders"" or something of the like. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 20:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Destrii: Some exist, but not enough to meet SIGCOV. Doesn't seem to meet GNG or SIGCOV as of right now. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Comics and animation . Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Standoff at Eagle Pass: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashersel ( talk • contribs ) 00:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC) — Ashersel ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , United States of America , and Texas . Shellwood ( talk ) 00:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC) 32, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree; this is one of the most notable events of Operation Lone Star , which has its own Wikipedia article. I'd say that this merits an article of its own. WorldMappings ( talk ) 00:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hard disagree, this is a notable enough event as it's a state that defying the Supreme Court orders. Vextium ( talk ) 00:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Interesting perspective. I think it is not geographically limited, given that almost all the current Republican Governors have pledged their support to the State of Texas in this dispute, and further some are sending aid or National Guardsmen. Further, the U.S. Supreme court has touched on this case. Would appreciate your thoughts in response. Thank you Firepengu ( talk ) 00:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 26 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 00:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC) It represents a bigger issue currently going on in the United States and it's something that could quickly become much uglier. Far less significant events have Wikipedia articles as well. Ye9CYNMD ( talk ) 00:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC) 37, 26 January 2024 (UTC) RAPID : "" As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to e ... "". I'd support merging at this exact moment, but it's hard to tell how that will change over the next seven days of the standard AfD runtime. Ed [talk] [OMT] 00:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As the creator of the page, Hard disagree . As the article notes, an armed standoff between federal and state forces in regard to the immigration crisis is unprecedented in modern American history, and could lead to serious consequences. WP:NOTNEWS isn't a ban on covering recent events, it's a ban on trivial matters and writing articles like a newspaper would. Dunutubble ( talk ) ( Contributions ) 00:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hard disagree . Texas' malcompliance with the Supreme Court on its own should make this event fairly notable. The fact that 25 other Republican governors signed onto a joint statement eliminates WP:GEOSCOPE . Sources are cited enough to the point where this doesn't fulfill the niche of WP:NOTNEWS . Operation Lone Star and the razor wire saga have been covered for weeks at this point, and while they may not be front-page news, they are still news items nonetheless, eliminating WP:NSUSTAINED . WP:SENSATIONAL may be a genuine problem, but it can most definitely be resolved through continuous page revision. There is no need to the article at this time, in my opinion. VoidDiamondz ( talk ) 00:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC) an armed standoff between state and federal governments is a notable event. Journob ( talk ) 00:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hold - I disagree that the claim of geographically limited, but I agree on it being too early to have an article about. No matter what high court rules or state governors support, at the end of the day this is disgruntled old men fighting over access to a small piece of land. Article should be either d or d if nothing happens, but it's too early to be calling for a deletion now. 5.42.77.223 ( talk ) 00:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC) — 5.42.77.223 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Disagree , this is quite an unprecedented and noteworthy incident in contemporary US politics. Much less significant incidents in our day have received their own articles on Wikipedia. If sensationalism is a concern, perhaps the article name could be changed. Standoff does sound a little “hot” considering the situation isn’t severely escalated yet, and the word is more often used to describe higher-intensity conflicts than this. WWWHHHHYYYYYY ( talk ) 00:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC) NOTNEWS , I’d say that the potential for this to become a constitutional crisis means that there is likely to be sustained and significant coverage in the coming days. If nothing comes of the Standoff (as is most likely) then I’d say it’d be worth re-considering deletion. Slamforeman ( talk ) 00:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC) An armed standoff between the federal government and a state government is very noteworthy. Pauliexcluded ( talk ) 00:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft Given that this started 15 days ago on January 11th, and there are sources from that date until today, I'd say that for the immediate term NSUSTAINED is met. NOTNEWS is possible, though with Abbott defying a Supreme Court order and numerous other state governors seeming to support this ( ABC News ), this seems unprecedented in modern US history. GEOSCOPE doesn't apply here as this has had both national ( NBC News , CNN ) and limited international ( The Independent UK ) coverage. Finally as for SENSATIONAL, this has been covered by reputable non-tabloid non-sensationalistic reliable sources. This may eventually be an article that we , but it also has the potential to be kept. If deletion is seriously considered, I strongly advocate for draftifying per WP:ATD-I . That would give an incubation space for the article while the immediate events unfurl and for sourcing to stabilise. Sideswipe9th ( talk ) 01:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC) noteworthy, plus for several GOP Governors to support and some to send the national guard in defiance of a SCOTUS ruling, must Alhanuty ( talk ) 01:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] for now. This is a significant current event that will almost certainly have lasting implications even if it is resolved without escalating further. bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖ 01:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong - the thing is widely talked about, involves important political figures, including elected officials, revolves around security of a sovereign country, will most likely have long lasting implications and results no matter the outcome. I don't know about the name but the content of the article definitely should be kept - people who want to it are just agenda-driven and love censorship. Ptok-Bentoniczny ( talk ) 01:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree - While we won't know how impactful this event will have in the future, ing track of unprecedented events like these (especially ones that attempt to defy judicial and executive powers) is important. Right now it's best to consider this a developing incident and certainly not immediate deletion. A proper title can be decided with more happening and/or more information made available, but flat out deletion is just ludicrous. BWellsOdyssey ( talk ) 01:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC) 6080:65F0:89E0:9C95:19C1:BA5A:E886 ( talk ) 01:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] for now / Disagree , it already appears significant to me beyond a single news burst, particularly given how Texas refused compliance with federal law and is seeing conflict between US and Texas forces. If it ultimately shows to be insignificant after a couple months, then maybe the question can be reconsidered. LaborHorizontal ( talk ) 01:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong - This is a major event that has received national and international attention. Deleting it now would be a huge mistake. Imagine if we d it right before this escalated to the Second US Civil War. Even if nothing further happens, this is still something that will be marked in the historical record as an important event in US politics in 2024. LesbianTiamat ( talk ) 01:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagree, this is a very notable event. The number of governors supporting Texas and the risk of escalation makes it a very unique. Historyenjoyer452 ( talk ) 01:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC) A601:AE78:6F00:7973:FBB:1EBA:BEE8 ( talk ) 01:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC) NOTNEWS and WP:GEOSCOPE do not apply to a situation where you have large amounts of reliable sources from across the country. It has certainly had sustained coverage over the last few weeks. Generalissima ( talk ) 01:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Geographic limitations as an argument seems to have gone out the window once elected officials representing 50% of the landmass of the united states publicly expressed support for explicit defiance of the supremacy clause and opposition to federal forces. Even if the current locus of the conflict is only one part of one location within Texas, that balloons the conflict out far wider. It is also immediately notable as an event largely without precedent. -- Sappow ( talk ) 01:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC) 03, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Very noteworthy event that has been going on for two weeks now, I would not call it very early; Can be removed or absorbed into a more encompassing article if it is shown in the future to be insignificant WiIIem ( talk ) 01:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC) In today's episode of ""what the fuck is going on with United States politics""... Aside from the joke, this is very notable in the crazy world of U.S. politics. q w 3 r t y 01:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC) An extremely important event of the year. Could have far-reaching consequences in American and international geopolitics. It is important to people informed with this page. Bauthier24 ( talk ) 01:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . WP:TOOSOON applies, but I feel in this case it is self-evident that this is going to receive sustained coverage. BilledMammal ( talk ) 02:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . We can always it later if nothing comes of it, but I very much doubt that this will have no consequences. Meshakhad ( talk ) 02:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC) This will be more than likely a significant moment in American politics. At best, it is a modern nullification crisis, at worst, we're about to see a boogaloo. As politicized as the 1832 crisis but now with half of the nation. Lohengrin03 ( talk ) 02:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep. It is of importance that we maintain this. It is not only sustained and fits the content of policy. But it also likely to escalate into something more dramatic, even though It already qualifies for an article with or without an escalation notice. Radiourgía Promithéas ( talk ) 02:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pretty significant event, and already has significant coverage. If you believe it is sensationalist, maybe you should consider rephrasing it to better fit Wikipedia instead of nominating it for deletion. Frigyes06 ( talk ) 02:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] this is clearly a significant event. Philipnelson99 ( talk ) 03:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . This story has been way over-sensationalized and is not nearly as big a deal as people are acting. It's just Abbot grandstanding. There's a reason the national media is giving this very little attention. Doesn't need a whole page of its own, just write a few sentences about it on Abbott's page or something. Kevingates4462 ( talk ) 03:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong ...This is quite a big deal and very noteworthy. What's happening may actually veer off into ""constitutional crisis"" territory. There's no way we're going to this, right? -- District9123 ( talk ) 03:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] , the subject is notable for a confrontation between state and federal governments over jurisdiction. Geographical limitation is not a reason for an event not being notable. HetmanTheResearcher ( talk ) 03:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hold / A lot of the arguments to seem to relate to a supposed defiance of a SCOTUS ruling on Shelby Park. SCOTUS has not ruled on Shelby Park. It has ruled on an ency appeal and vacated a temporary injunction related to a pre-existing dispute , dating back to October 2023, months before Shelby Park in Eagle Pass was seized. The SCOTUS ruling only concerns the USBP and whether it can cut border wire or not (it ruled it can, pending the outcome of the actual trial). TX can't ""defy"" the order if it wanted to (unless defying is arguing the case before the Fifth Circuit as per normal procedure), because it does not concern them , and TX AG response to the ruling says as much . SCOTUS made no ruling on whether USBP should be let back into Shelby Park or whether Texas can dropping razor wire. There are a lot of political figures who should know better making grandiose claims about boldly defying the federal government, but this is par for the course grandstanding. KiharaNoukan ( talk ) 03:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] THANK YOU. People do not seem to understand the actual facts here. Abbott is trying to make a big show out of a little thing and people are falling for it. Kevingates4462 ( talk ) 03:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong for now, I don't see any benefit to the community to deleting this page currently. This could fizzle out tomorrow in which case I would say into the more general article on the matter, but it could also escalate in which case the article would need to be researched and rewritten again. Either way the content here is relevant and represents a notable constitutional crisis brewing -- Goldman60 Talk — Preceding undated comment added 03:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Abbott is trying to make a big show of a growing thing (constitutional crisis) he wants big but wants to be seen as small until it gets undeniably big. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 03:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I feel that the current coverage of this issue is limited, predominantly one-sided, and insufficient for a full article. This would fit well as a portion of the larger Operation Lone Star page. Boyscoutringo ( talk ) 04:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe this article should stay simply for historical reasons should it be needed in the future. JamesnLollify ( talk ) 04:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Billed Mammal put it perfectly with "" WP:TOOSOON applies, but I feel in this case it is self-evident that this is going to receive sustained coverage"" . I will add that it's inadvisable to rush to articles about breaking news . Editors do not have a crystal ball, and that includes lacking the ability to see that notability will not endure. As others have mentioned above, should notability fail to endure, merging or ing is a sensible alternative preferable to deletion, but at this time, ing makes the most sense. Vanilla Wizard 💙 04:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] but perhaps consider a less sensational title like ""2024 Eagle Pass Immigration Dispute"". Standoff implies threat of deadly force, and that has not happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C1:8202:5590:50DE:4AA1:5B02:40F7 ( talk ) 05:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] HOLD/KEEP I think it's too soon to tell if it should be d with operation lone star , and for now it'd be best to let it unfold and see how significant this becomes. Also, I do not think WP:TOOSOON applies, because there is already verifiable coverage of the event in independent secondary reliable sources JewelsVerne ( talk ) 05:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"The Lazarus Child: I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes . I did a WP:BEFORE and found a link from the Calgary Herald via Newspapers.com . Needs more coverage in order to be eligible. The Film Creator ( talk ) 01:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . The Film Creator ( talk ) 01:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I did find a link from Screen International . I’d be willing to withdraw if anyone can please find a review on this film from a reliable source. The Film Creator ( talk ) 01:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 04, 17 July 2023 (UTC) Donaldd23 . I knew you’d rescue this article. I speedy withdraw this nomination. The Film Creator ( talk ) 02:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Vasil Terziev: Fails GNG and NBIO. Two sources in article are promo. BEFORE showed no WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth . BLPs require strong sourcing. No objection to a to Telerik , sources found in BEFORE with mentions arece about this subject. // Timothy :: talk 22:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC) As mentioned, WP:ATDs could be s to Telerik or 2023 Sofia mayoral election . The results of the run-off election will be known in less than a week (i.e. sooner than the end of the AfD runtime) so I'm not sure there's a whole lot to assess until then. n.b. Sources likely to be in Bulgarian, which is in Cyrillic-script so searching just in Latin-script may not reveal the full results. Curbon7 ( talk ) 23:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC) There is a Bulgarian Wikipedia page for the article subject that may have additional relevant sources. It would be good if someone can conduct a BEFORE search in Bulgarian to see if notability can be established. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 00:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Happy to withdraw if someone can find BLP quality sources, but this definitely needs proper sourcing. Right now all the content in an article for an active candidate is unsourced except for two general refs and fails V and BLP. I don't see any better sourcing (but there is some) on bg.wikipedia I searched again for Васил Терзиев and Васил Александров Терзиев and again found interviews, but nothing otherwise. Google Bard has found things for me in the past, it only found interviews. // Timothy :: talk 01:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I would recommend googling for ""Vassil Terziev"" (double S), more sources show up this way. The person is nationally prominent in Bulgaria as one of the leaders of the country's tech sector. The outcome of the runoff on Sunday could also have a great effect on his notability, so I would not take any action until then. — Toдor Boжinov — 07:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC) The spelling ""Vassil Terziev"" found SIGCOV from IS RS, I have withdrawn the nom, but will leave closing to a uninvolved. // Timothy :: talk 21:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Propose to move to this spelling leaving a . // Timothy :: talk 21:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Rogue Planet (novel): Fails WP:BK . SL93 ( talk ) 21:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC) As for the sources shown in the first AFD - Starwars.com is not independent of the subject which is three of the links, Denver Science Fiction and Fantasy Book Club is unreliable (and about a different book), and SFsite is unreliable. SL93 ( talk ) 21:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature . SL93 ( talk ) 21:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Cunard in newspapers. I'm not at all versed in the Star Wars universe so it is possible this could be d with one or more appropriate lists. I found one sort of substantial review: O'Connor, Michael G. ""STAR WARS NOVEL LACKS FORCE TO DELIVER GOODS."" Winston-Salem Journal [Winston-Salem, NC], 30 July 2000, p. A20. Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A63765955/ITOF. It pans the book, but it is still about it. Publisher's Weekly lists it as a best seller over a number of issues. This is from Entertainment Weekly but it looks like various publications pick up the PW list: “'Rogue’ Warrior.” 2000. Entertainment Weekly, no. 542 (May): 69.(Yes, this says ""Warrior"" instead of ""Planet"" but it is about the Rogue Planet book.) I didn't find reviews in Kirkus or Library Journal. This is thin for a free-standing article about a book. Lamona ( talk ) 02:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Sources Powell, Joseph (2000-06-06). "" 'Rogue Planet' adds little to 'Star Wars saga. Color in scenery, not characters"" . The Cincinnati Enquirer . Archived from the original on 2024-05-25 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""Set three years after the events of Episode 1, Rogue Planet follows Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi and his young Padawan (Jedi apprentice) Anakin Skywalker as they search for a missing Jedi Knight and a mystery planet, rumored to be the home of the fastest ships in the galaxy. ... But die-hard fans might be disappointed. Rogue Planet is full of sizzling light sabers, dizzying locales and action that is vintage Star Wars, but it doesn't expand the horizons of this space opera."" Beem, Scott (2000-10-04). ""Star Wars: Rogue Planet"" . The Mt. Zion Region-News . Archived from the original on 2024-05-25 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com . The review notes: ""The writer introduces some coolness: living ships and sentient planets, but is unable to explore them in any detail. seems choppy and hurried. The writing at times; less than fluid. Again I can only assume that the Star Wars series editors had a certain format they insisted upon. Too bad, really. One wonders what Greg Bear might have done, but then Star Wars isn't really his style. He's probably laughing all the way to the bank, as Lucas has so many times."" O'Connor, Michael G. (2000-07-30). ""Star Wars novel lacks force to deliver goods"" . Winston-Salem Journal . Archived from the original on 2024-05-25 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com . The review notes: ""And the story lacks a Star Wars staple: action. Only at the end do things get really interesting, and even then Anakin and Obi-Wan seem to be mostly out of the action. And the big battle fizzles with a lame and implausible conclusion. Bear does triumph on once score: He successfully ties Rogue Planet into the tight Star Wars chronology, linking events in this story to later ones. His subtlety s the reader guessing through most of the novel, and his descriptions give a clearer vision of what the next Star Wars movie will be about."" Modi, Parth (2000-10-01). "" 'Rogue Planet' is Episode 1.5"" . Florida Today . Archived from the original on 2024-05-25 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com . The review notes: ""One of the newest books to enter the saga is Rogue Planet by Greg Bear. This story takes place between the recently made ""Episode 1"" and the eagerly anticipated ""Episode 2."" It has, in fact, been touted as ""Episode 1.5."" ... I found that while the writing is excellent, the most appealing part of this book is that it fits in with the rest of the Star Wars saga so well. This book is a wonderful read for all science fiction readers as well."" Hunt, Stephen (2000-08-22). ""Bear caught in star warp trap"" . North Yorkshire County Publications . Archived from the original on 2024-05-25 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 . The review notes: ""The problem is Bear is constrained from writing a novel of serious impact by his central characters. ... Where Bear's genius glimmers through is in the setting and the supporting characters, where he can give his imagination free rein - and that's when the novel really becomes a page-turner. Certainly one of the better Star Wars novels and, better yet, no Jar-Jar Binks."" Douglas (2000-07-15). ""After Phantom, a galactic Rogue"" . The Straits Times . Archived from the original on 2024-05-25 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 . The review notes: ""But while Rogue Planet is published under the copyright of George Lucas' Lucasfilm, it is still a book, written by the award-winning science fiction writer Bear. ... I have to confess that it has been many years since I have read a science fiction novel, and Rogue Planet is certainly not one that is written in the Booker Prize winning style that I aspire to read now. But Bear has a straightforward way with words that is almost imagist in its effect."" Buker, Derek M. (2002). Science Fiction and Fantasy Readers' Advisory . Chicago: American Library Association . p. 98. ISBN 0-8389-0831-4 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: ""Rogue Planet by Greg Bear Young Anakin Skywalker has been apprenticed to be a Jedi Knight under the training of Obi Wan Kenobi for the last few years since the events chronicled in Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Although he is a gifted student, lately Anakin has grown restless with his studies at the Jedi Temple and has taken to sneaking off to take part in dangerous races. Hoping to harness the boy’s energy, the Jedi Council assigns Obi Wan and Anakin to look into the disappearance of another Jedi on the mysterious planet Zonama Sekot. What they find is a world of mystery and danger whose inhabitants “grow” wonderful spacecraft. What the pair doesn’t know is that three different factions are closing in on Zonama Sekot with the purpose of stealing the technology to grow organic spacecraft. And they’ll eliminate anyone in the way to get it."" Less significant coverage: Maryles, Daisy (2000-05-15). ""behind the bestsellers"". Publishers Weekly . Vol. 247, no. 20. p. 24. EBSCO host 3218614 . The article notes: ""A brand-name newcomer--Star Wars: Rogue Planet by Greg Bear from Del Rey/Lucas-Books--continues to please and after one week on sale, went back to press for a second printing, bringing the total in print to 193,000. The author is finishing an eight-city tour. "" Barron, Neil; Barton, Tom; Burt, Daniel S. ; Hudak, Melissa; Meredith, D. R. ; Ramsdell, Kristin; Schantz, Tom; Schantz, Enid (2001). What Do I Read Next? , 2001. Volume 1 : A Reader's Guide to Current Genre Fiction . Detroit: Gale . p. 762. ISBN 0-7876-3391-7 . ISSN 1052-2212 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: ""Summary: Obi-Wan and Anakin are sent to the distant and largely unknown planet of Zonama Selot, whose people build the fastest starships in the galaxy. They cross paths with Wilhuff Tarkin, an ambitious military officer, who wants to make use of the planet's advanced technology to create an irresistible military force."" Pringle, David, ed. (June 2001). ""Rogue Planet"" . Interzone . No. 168. p. 63 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Internet Archive . The article notes: ""Bear, Greg. Rogue Planet. “Star Wars.” Arrow/Lucas Books, ISBN 0-09-941030-3, 341 pp, A-format paperback, £5.99. (Sf movie spinoff novel, first published in the USA, 2000; it seems Mr Bear will turn his hand to anything, in this case a novel about the boyhood exploits of George Lucas’s space-opera character Annakin Skywalker; it’s dedicated to, among others, “Jack, and Ed, and Doc Smith,” which shows the right spirit.) 70th May 2001."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Rogue Planet to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 08:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC) The newspaper reviews that Cunard found demonstrate notability for the book. Toughpigs ( talk ) 17:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Lamona What do you think of the new sources? I can withdraw the deletion discussion of you think this should be kept. SL93 ( talk ) 21:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"University Heights (film): I entered various combinations of the film's name and year of release and found nothing on Google, Google Books, Google News, or Google News archives. The majority of results point to the cities of the same name. Given that there do not appear to be any reliable sources available that cover the film, this article clearly does not meet WP:NFO . Sock ( tock talk) 15:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Sexuality and gender . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Cook, Linda (2004-06-24). ""With 'University.' Bluebox reaches new heights"" . Quad-City Times . Archived from the original on 2023-11-24 . Retrieved 2023-11-24 – via Newspapers.com . The review notes: ""This contemporary tale is a look at a college campus and the people involved in it, including a philosophy teacher who struggles over the death of his wife and simultaneously grapples with a debt he owes to drug dealers; a student who thinks he may have found the girl of his dreams but isn't mature ' enough to leave behind getting wasted with his friends; a student determined to carry out a hateful act; and a teacher who struggles with his sexual preference. Some of the actors are fine in their roles, some are, well, less than fine. But standing out from among the performers is Jim Siokos as Tom Adams, an instructor who is in debt to drug suppliers. He's one of those rare actors who is so natural it's uncanny he's beyond good. Bluebox would bode well to use his talent again."" Clark, Eric (2004-08-05). ""Cutting edge: Busy UI freshman's film judged one of best at Hardacre festival"" . The Gazette . Archived from the original on 2023-11-24 . Retrieved 2023-11-24 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""Beck's latest release, ""University Heights,"" will be screened this weekend at the 8th Annual Hardacre Film Festival. More than 70 films were submitted for consideration. ... A panel of five judges named ""University Heights"" one of the top films in the festival. The 96-minute film is about the emotional struggles of four characters on a college campus: a love-struck teenager with drug problems, an English teacher with sex issues, a philosophy teacher who owes thousands of dollars to a drug cartel and a racist student who realizes he hates himself more than anyone else. ... ""University Heights"" was shot digitally for $300 and features 55 actors and extras. Beck made the film with assistance from his filmmaking partner, Bryan Woods. Woods is a student at Scott Community College in Bettendorf and is also 19. The duo run their own production company called Bluebox Ltd."" Burke, David (2005-12-07). ""Bettendorf native wins film award from MTV. Bluebox Unlimited trailer captures judges' interest"" (pages 1 and 2 ). Quad-City Times . Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2 ) on 27 August 2014. Retrieved 2014-08-27 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""Beck entered the Bluebox film ""University Heights"" and Woods entered ""Her Summer. "" ... In ""University Heights,"" which was released in 2004, four characters' lives intertwine on a college campus. ... MTVu spokesman Jason Rzepka said. ""The characters were intriguing and the trailer really made you wonder how the different strands of the story would develop. Of the trailers in the finalist round, 'University Heights' was the movie they most wanted to watch themselves. """" Wiese, Darla M. (2005-12-07). ""Dreams come true: Student filmmaking duo conquers MTVu contest"" . The Dispatch / The Rock Island Argus . Archived from the original on 2023-11-24 . Retrieved 2023-11-24 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""Mr. Beck's ""University Heights,"" follows the last days of four lives on a college campus and was created on a heftier $300 budget. Both trailers have won numerous awards in the past, so Mr. Woods and Mr. Beck were hopeful. ... ""University Heights"" was chosen for the grand prize by Hollywood directors John Singleton (""Boyz n the Hood""), Catherine Hardwicke (""Thirteen"") Nicole Kas-sell (""The Woodsman"") and online voters. "" Truman-Cook, Deanna (2004-01-12). ""UI freshman follows cinematic dreams. Student working on 13th film"" . Iowa City Press-Citizen . Archived from the original on 2023-11-24 . Retrieved 2023-11-24 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""Having already directed and produced a dozen short films, Scott Beck is now on his 13th, titled ""University Heights."" The Quad City native is shooting it primarily in Iowa City with friend Bryan Woods, 19. If all goes well, Beck will premiere the film in May. He plans to begin the heavy part of the shooting late this month. He finished the script in November and has since recruited a cast of more than 60 who will work for free. "" Kapler, Anne (2004-06-24). ""Iowans' film opens Saturday"" . The Gazette . Archived from the original on 2023-11-24 . Retrieved 2023-11-24 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""Iowa film company Blue-box Limited will premiere its latest film, ""University Heights,"" on Saturday at the Adler Theatre in Davenport. ""University Heights"" tells the story of four people on a college campus: a philosophy teacher who owes money to a drug cartel, a student consumed by racism and disgust, a teenager who hopes to fall in love but is troubled by drugs and an English teacher fighting his sexuality. "" Truman-Cook, Deanna (2004-08-05). ""Tipton's Hardacre Film Festival highlights independent films"" . Iowa City Press-Citizen . Archived from the original on 2023-11-24 . Retrieved 2023-11-24 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""The movie was shot at several locations in Iowa City, including the UI campus, particularly the English/Philosophy Building and Mayflower and Currier residence halls, The Mill Restaurant and Tim Brown Bottle, among others. The film caught the attention of organizers of the 2004 Microcinema Fest in Rapid City, S.D., and was shown there in July. "" McLaughlin, Mark (2004-06-25). ""Q-C filmmakers' $300 effort to debut"" . The Dispatch / The Rock Island Argus . Archived from the original on 2023-11-24 . Retrieved 2023-11-24 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""'""University Heights' is an examination of life and the choices we make,"" said Mr. Beck, who wrote and directed the film. Mr. Woods served as assistant director and producer. "" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow University Heights to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 08:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC) I stand corrected! I don't personally have access to Newspapers.com, and honestly I'm not sure I would've thought to check it even if I did. Thank you for informing me of an extremely helpful resource I'll need to look into in the future and for finding those sources. Given the clear demonstration of notability, I've withdrawn this nomination. Sock ( tock talk) 15:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Rob McAlpine: JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and Scotland . JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] An archived version of The Scotsman ref in the article looks pretty good actually. A couple of bits here as well. I'll be happy to withdraw. JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's this as well, with the other two sources provided enough for a GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Peter Bogner: MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC) , [ reply ] Nomination withdrawn. I apologise for not realising that several of the sources are prior to Mr Bogner's involvement with GISAID. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC) INHERITED situation. While it is true that the coverage about him is also about GISAID , there are multiple reliable sources that provide in depth biographical information: WSJ , Science 2006 and Science 2023 . The last one is an incredible piece of investigative journalism and provides extensive biographical information and which would not belong in the GISAID article. On the basis of those three sources, WP:BIO is met. SmartSE ( talk ) 09:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Television , Germany , and United States of America . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC) BASIC which is ""multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject ."" with the following sources sufficient: WSJ , Science 2006 and Science 2023 Disclosure : I created the article and removed a notability tag placed during initial page review after making my case for doing so on the talk page: Talk:Peter Bogner#Case for Notability . I am one of ten thousands of user's of the database which the subject created and is operating. AncientWalrus ( talk ) 14:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC) BASIC Lightburst ( talk ) 14:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Elbe, Stefan; Buckland-Merrett, Gemma (January 10, 2017). ""Data, disease and diplomacy: GISAID's innovative contribution to global health"" . Global Challenges . 1 (1): 33–46. doi : 10.1002/gch2.1018 . Retrieved May 18, 2023 . And I think that all very clearly meets the general notability requirements. Silver seren C 16:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FWIW I would consider the Elbe et al source you mention to not be independent. It is far from neutral, praising Bogner and GISAID uncritically. Furthermore, GISAID explicitly promotes citations to the article: When making the first reference to your use of data obtained through GISAID, cite GISAID as the source of these data used in your analysis by adding footnote to appear in your References section to one of the three sources for citation below — https://gisaid.org/publish/ Many of the authors claims appear to be refuted or at least thrown into doubt by Science 2023 . AncientWalrus ( talk ) 17:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, I'm sure it's biased. I thought the same after reading it myself. But it's still reliable source coverage, that doesn't change just because of bias. And the useful thing is that its claims can be used and then refuted with the Science one, giving much better context as a whole on the sort of lies that were pushed by Bogner at the time. Silver seren C 17:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC) This is not true. Peter Bogner became notable through his involvement with GISAID. But that doesn't mean he isn't notable in and of himself. So while I appreciate you withdrawing the nomination, the reason you give for the withdrawal is not correct. AncientWalrus ( talk ) 22:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ MrsSnoozyTurtle would you like to close the discussion yourself with speedy ? This is possible according to WP:CLOSEAFD , specifically the procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal) AncientWalrus ( talk ) 22:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I would be happy to do that. I will look at those instructions now. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Ikkjutt Jammu: Both organisation have officially different different social accounts and websites.pls it. Nishalover — Preceding undated comment added 10:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 24 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 03:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics , and Jammu and Kashmir . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC) see SPI for details. Wikishovel ( talk ) 07:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] it Mr. Wikishovel, You+don't know anything about this organization. You are a stubborn person who doesn't know anything about this organization. You are prejudiced I am from Jammu Kashmir and know more about this organization than you. There is much more incorrect information in this article. It has been given. Nishalover ( talk ) 09:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Wikishovel ( talk ) 18:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] -- The sources already in the article suffice to meet the GNG. If nom's claims about the article's inaccuracies are correct then fixing them is a matter of ordinary editing. Take it to the talk page, not to AfD. Central and Adams ( talk ) 15:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Problem is, this article is with wrong ion like Ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal , Ankur Sharma (politician) . Nishalover ( talk ) 16:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Wikishovel ( talk ) 18:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC) FIXIT . Central and Adams ( talk ) 16:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are many organizations in the local language of Jammu that have the same name. The problem with this article is that this article is about political Party whose name is IkkJutt Jammu . Apart from this is an Ekjut Jammu Party whose name has been changed to Ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal . These two are different . But this article has ed Ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal to which is wrong. The article has a website Added (Ekam4Sanatan) Accordingly this also the name of Ekjut Jammu Party has changed. Not of IkkJutt Jammu . the article if not So the wrong Redirection should be removed from the article so that the confusion will end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HinduJat ( talk • contribs ) 06:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Wikishovel ( talk ) 18:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Cardinal Newman High School (Columbia, South Carolina): I do not see evidence the school meets current guidelines as sourcing is neither in depth nor fully independent. No objection with a , but didn't think it to be BLAR appropriate. Star Mississippi 01:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , Religion , and South Carolina . Star Mississippi 01:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC) as participants in prior AfD who remain active editors. Star Mississippi 01:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Previous deletion arguments were entirely ""it's a secondary school"" so clearly don't hold. However initial searches show up this book [66] which contains a photo of the school in 1940 and confirms something buried in the infobox: the school was formerly known as Ursuline High School. ""Roots back to 1856"" does not quite verify that it was founded then, but it could have been. The book is published by Arcadia Publishing, publishers of local histories. Not clear if there is any editorial oversight. In any case, that entry is not SIGCOV. What it does suggest is that any searches should include searches for ""Ursuline High Scool"" by that name. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, in fact, it was the Ursuline Academy, and during the Burning of Columbia during the Civil War, Gen. Sherman protected the teacher(s) and girl students. I urge the nominator to withdraw this nomination. In fact, I hope that the nominator is not on some sort of crusade to articles on high schools. It should be obvious that a Catholic high school dating back to 1858 in the American South, where Catholics were rare and were sometimes lynched, isn't going to be like a run-of-the-mill high school founded in 1958 in a suburb of Boston. Abductive ( reasoning ) 09:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am sure the nom. is in good faith. There is not much in the article itself that supports notability, and missing that historical name would affect any WP:BEFORE . Do you have a source for the civil war mention. If we have notable mention in a history, I expect this will be an easy , but we still need the sources, and we could get that into the page. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 09:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Passing mentions in this one [67] but on page 439 we have this passage: ... Cardinal Newman, successor to famed Ursuline Academy, began classes in spring of 1961.. . That is a passing mention in itself but it indicates there will be more. The writer believed that Ursuline Academy was famous, and thus, presumably, notable. I also found a self published document which has a description of the history alluded to above, although sources are not given. This is a WP:SPS so not reliable as it stands. Indeed, when I tried to link it, the edit was refused as it is on a blacklisted site. So definitely not a WP:RS in that form. The blacklisted document is a Word doc, filename zc+The+Ursulines+during+the+Civil+War+Article+34+(1) - no author given. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 10:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC) URSULINE CONVENT. All records, from the date of foundation by Rev. J. J. O'Conndl in Columbia in 1858 to the burning of Columbia by Sherman in 1865, when the Convent was burned, were destroyed. Shortly after the war steps were taken to rebuild and refurnish the school, and now the Convent stands on the corner of Assembly Street and Hampton Avenue, a monument to their devotion to education by the Catholics of the State. It is a commodious and handsome building, furnished with all modem equipments and the best sanitary arrangements, thoroughly heated and well ventilated. The grounds are ample for outdoor exercise, which is required by the rules of the Academy to take, and which the delightful climate renders pleasant I throughout the year. In point of health and beauty, Columbia does not yield to any Southern city; hence the Academy is URSULINE ACADEMY. ideally situated and attracts students from other sections. In admission of students no distinction is made on account of creed, nor is any undue influence used over their religious principles. The institution is chartered by the Legislature of South Carolina, and is empowered to confer degrees and diplomas. The Convent is under control of the Right Rev. Bishop Northrop and the Mother Superior, Mother Angela Broomfield, and a high class of education is furnished. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 10:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Curran, Robert Emmett (2019). For Church and Confederacy: the Lynches of South Carolina . Columbia, South Carolina: The University of South Carolina Press. ISBN 9781611179170 . This book covers the convent and this school quite extensively whilst describing aspects of the civil war. It is a WP:RS , significant coverage, independent and secondary. Although not multiple, this clearly validates sources above that speak of the school as famous, and there is no doubt in reading the source that it was a significant part of the events. So yes, this is notable. The article itself has none of this, and this source does not verify the statement above about Sherman shielding the charges. In fact, in the chapter ""1865 February–April"", it describes the events of the burning of the building without suggestion of them being taken to safety. So I would request this AfD not be withdrawn just yet. Deletion is not for cleanup, but now we are here, it would be very helpful if we could find if there are more sources about these events that could be placed into the article. The school is notable for its history, but currently nothing that makes it notable is in the article. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 11:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Sirfurboy. Meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nom comment I won't drag this out 7 days if enough sourcing is found. AfD isn't for cleanup, but the Ursuline tie is a nice result. I don't think per WP:ARCADIA it can be used on its own but if the material behind that and the SPS are determined, there's probably enough to verify the history. Not sure what a school in a Massachusetts suburb has to do with anything unless that's from a prior discussion I don't recall? Writing pre coffee. Re: I hope that the nominator is not on some sort of crusade to articles on high schools. I think this picks up all of my AfD noms of late. I think you'll see I'm not on a crusade to anything although I'm sure I've nominated schools along with every topic in my time here. I simply found it when looking at some other SC schools and wasn't convinced on notability. Nothing more, nothing less. While Necrothesp and Sirfurboy and I sometimes see content from a different POV, I think they'd both tell you anything I put forward is in good faith. Star Mississippi 12:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for this. I do think Curran (2019) is the clincher here. But Not sure what a school in a Massachusetts suburb has to do with anything - what does that refer to? I found a different Ursuline Academy in Texas, but I think all the sources I mentioned were for South Carolina. Have I mixed any up? As to good faith - definitely no concerns on that score. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 13:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That was @ Abductive 's POV here It should be obvious that a Catholic high school dating back to 1858 in the American South, where Catholics were rare and were sometimes lynched, isn't going to be like a run-of-the-mill high school founded in 1958 in a suburb of Boston. Maybe something lost in translation on my end. Anyway, thanks for your research and note @ Sirfurboy . Withdrawing on the grounds that sufficient sourcing exists to indicate there is more not as easily accessible but 99.99% confirmed to exist. Star Mississippi 02:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sirfurboy's analysis and the sources he provided make a strong case for the subject's notability. I completely concur. Dejaqo ( talk ) 17:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Sirfurboy. I have also not yet checked Newspapers.com. Scorpions1325 ( talk ) 23:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Matthias Finger: Boleyn ( talk ) 17:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , France , and Switzerland . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Question to nominator . There appear to be fairly large citations to books and papers. Does the nom think these do not contribute to notability? Xxanthippe ( talk ) 21:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC) . it includes some irrelevant publications and none of the significant ones. I removed it. Instead, to find the high-citation works, one should search author:matthias-finger — David Eppstein ( talk ) 00:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC) when this new search is done [23] does the nominator think that it has any bearing on notability? Xxanthippe ( talk ) 00:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC) . PROF , as I read it. Llajwa ( talk ) 21:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . In case it is not obvious I support on the basis of a pass of WP:Prof#C1 at least. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 23:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] Withdraw nomination per excellent points above. Thanks everyone. Boleyn ( talk ) 09:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Boleyn , you need to close this as explained here. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Procedure_for_non-administrator_close_(nominator_withdrawal) . LibStar ( talk ) 03:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Cut Bolyn some slack! They are working their butt off processing these articles. Llajwa ( talk ) 17:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Marit Sandvik: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC) The nomination should be procedurally closed unless you elaborate on why. Among others, the subject has won two awards. We can't have deletion nominations that are this sparse. Geschichte ( talk ) 09:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK edited. @ Ultra 348 : Hi, do you want to withdraw your AfD nomination as you removed the AfD notice on the article with the edit summary 'Ok ' and added a sentence to the article saying that she is notable for winning those awards? Atlantic306 ( talk ) 00:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC) 50, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Lina Ghotmeh: Kudos to @ Hygroscopique : for their stellar efforts. Geoff | Who, me? 18:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Thanks so much ;) Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO . Relies on primary and self-published sources rather than independent, third party publications . Reads like a resume and/or listing of projects and prizes. Primarily promotional in tone . Geoff | Who, me? 22:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Architecture , and France . Shellwood ( talk ) 22:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Thanks so much ;) 00, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Azov War (1501-1502): The article was also created by a user who has been blocked for being a sockpuppet of the user Ea-Nasir, in case that information helps. Withdrawn by nominator as sources have been found Gaismagorm ( talk ) 23:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Expand, don't . The Russian Wikipedia article [1] for Meñli I Giray , who was the Crimean Khan, has the following paragraph (via Google translate): In the winter of 1501-1502 , Sheikh-Ahmed, the khan of the Great Horde, began to prepare for a new campaign against the Crimean Khanate . Mengli Giray, warned of the impending invasion, ordered the mobilization of the entire male population over 15 years old [24] . Khan of the Great Horde, Sheikh-Ahmed, at the confluence of the Pine River into the Don, joined with the army of his elder brother Seyid-Ahmed [24] . The brothers built a fortification here, preparing to repel the attack of the Crimean Khan. However, the khans soon quarreled, and Seid-Ahmed with his detachments retreated to Astrakhan [24] . Ottoman Sultan Bayezid IIinvited the Khan of the Great Horde to migrate to the Southern Bug, but the Turkish ambassador was captured and killed by the subjects of the Khan [25] . The references are to a book in Russian, which I cannot obtain or read even if I could get my hands on it. But the content of the paragraph largely matches the content of this article that was submitted for deletion. I would tend to assume good faith and trust that the citations aren't made up, but unless someone wants to verify it once and for all, I land on the side of ing the article. RecycledPixels ( talk ) 00:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] i tried to search up the references and didnt get any books. the first one did give me a russian wikipedia article. is it possible for you to provide a link for the book (using google books or something) Gaismagorm ( talk ) 00:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] unless of course you are talking about the russian wikipedia article, however i do still feel that the english wikipedia article needs some much better references. Gaismagorm ( talk ) 00:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's references #24 and #25 in the Russian Wikipedia article I linked. Повелители двух материков RecycledPixels ( talk ) 04:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As it turns out, if you search that title on some of the ebook piracy sites, there are PDFs available for download, and the text can be selected and pasted into Google translate without much effort. Pages 74-77 of Volume 1. RecycledPixels ( talk ) 05:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . ah, thanks for the information. well in that case, we should the article Gaismagorm ( talk ) 17:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 42, 12 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC) WDAFD . Aintabli ( talk ) 14:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 26, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 27, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] withdrawn by nominator as sources have been found. Gaismagorm ( talk ) Gaismagorm ( talk ) 17:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"The Pawnshop No. 8: Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs ) 00:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the article is not in a good state, but I hesitate to an article about foreign-language show that never made it to an English-speaking country, with a notable cast, that is currently being remade. Reliable sources almost certainly exist in other languages. There exist some maybe-not-so-reliable sources in English [53] [54] [55] . — siro χ o 09:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If [r]eliable sources...exist in other languages , then great! Fantastic! Please show me them! I would actually love for an article about a show I enjoyed twenty years ago to be kept and improved to cover all the major info (reception, plot, etc.)! I, alas, and yes, to my own surprise, did not find sources to show WP:GNG for this show and not the cast, not a potential remake in English or in Chinese . I am more than happy to be proven wrong. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs ) 16:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Mak, Mun San (2004-03-28). ""Television"" . The Straits Times . Archived from the original on 2023-07-29 . Retrieved 2023-07-29 . The article notes: ""Hong Kong actor-singer Alex To may have been in the news last year for all the wrong reasons, but his latest outing in the supernatural drama The Pawnshop No. 8 should get everyone talking again - for the right ones. Adapted from a novel by popular Hong Kong writer Zita Law aka Deep Snow (pop idol Andy Lau is said to be a huge fan of her works), the Taiwanese serial stars To as the proprietor of a pawnshop during the late Qing dynasty. ... Try not to cringe when you see To, with his handsome face all contorted, declaring: 'I love her! I want to be with her during this lifetime, and the next, and the next...'If you can get past that, you should begin to appreciate the decent acting by him, Tien and the rest of the cast, which includes TV host A-ya and Matilda Tao's beau Li Li-jen."" Wu, Qizong 吳啟綜 (2003-04-16). ""杜德偉來台 開 當舖 天心 鄭家榆繞身旁 帥哥強調跟女友感情沒問題"" [Alex To came to Taiwan to open a pawn shop. Tien Hsin, Carol Cheng are around,. The handsome guy emphasizes that he and his girlfriend have no relationship problems.]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-07-29 . Retrieved 2023-07-29 . The article notes: ""「第８號當舖」由「映畫」郭建宏製作、蔡揚名執導，劇情改編小說描述一間當舖，不僅可以典當金銀珠寶，還可以典當人的際遇、靈魂、愛情，甚至身體的任何部位。杜德偉飾演被賦予魔力長生不老的當舖老闆，而鄭家榆則飾杜的賢淑老婆，一路從20歲演到70多歲，很有挑戰性。天心則飾演非常時摩的當舖夥計。"" From Google Translate: """"Pawnshop No. 8"" is produced by ""Yinghua"" Guo Jianhong and directed by Cai Yangming. The plot is adapted from a novel describing a pawnshop that not only pawns gold, silver and jewelry, but also pawns people's fortune, soul, love, and even any part of the body. Du Dewei plays the pawnshop owner who is endowed with magical powers of immortality, while Zheng Jiayu plays Du's virtuous wife. It is very challenging to act from the age of 20 to her 70s. Tian Xin plays the pawnshop boy who is very fashionable."" Yang, Qifeng 楊起鳳 (2003-05-14). ""第8號當鋪 照燒！ 驚煞中開鏡 仁波切祈福"" [The Pawnshop No. 8. Teriyaki! Shocked and opened the mirror, Rinpoche prayed]. Star News [ zh ] (in Chinese). The article notes: ""衛視中文台「第8號當鋪」昨天開鏡，男主角杜德偉因屬港澳同胞無法來台，不過現場特別邀來格巴多傑仁波切大師及五位喇嘛，為全台灣人民進行祈福儀式，盼大家能平安渡過這次SARS席捲全球的風暴。在香港接受訪問的杜德偉說，為讓劇組能順利工作，他願意配合政府來台隔離十��的禁令。"" From Google Translate: ""Satellite TV's Chinese channel ""Pawn Shop No. 8"" started filming yesterday. The actor Du Dewei was unable to come to Taiwan because he is a compatriot from Hong Kong and Macau. However, Master Gepa Dorje Rinpoche and five lamas were specially invited to perform a blessing ceremony for the people of Taiwan. Hope everyone We can safely ride out the storm of SARS sweeping the world. Du Dewei, who was interviewed in Hong Kong, said that in order to allow the crew to work smoothly, he is willing to cooperate with the government's 10-day quarantine ban in Taiwan."" Zhao, Dazhi 趙大智 (2003-08-24). ""劉雪華 醜到把于莉嚇哭 暴牙、歪嘴進第8號當舖 大美女細數嚇人史 超得意"" [Leanne Liu is so ugly that Yu Li was scared to tears. Toothy, crooked mouth into The Pawnshop No. 8. Scary history of beauties. Super interesting.]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). The article notes: ""劉雪華最近加入衛視中文台「第8號當舖」，昨天在華視地下4樓攝影棚拍一段精采劇情，先拍她25歲時因長相醜陋，到杜德偉和天心開設的當舖，打算出賣自己最珍貴之物，換取美貌；接著，她果真如願變成像天心一般的美女，身著華服但慾望反而愈來愈多，還想繼續典當下去，到最後，甚至連生育能力和視力都賣給魔鬼了。"" From Google Translate: ""Liu Xuehua recently joined Satellite TV's Chinese channel ""No. 8 Pawnshop"". Yesterday, she filmed a wonderful scene in the studio on the 4th floor of China TV. First, she went to the pawnshop opened by Du Dewei and Tianxin when she was 25 years old because of her ugly appearance. Then, as she wished, she turned into a beautiful woman like Tianxin, dressed in gorgeous clothes, but her desires grew more and more, and she wanted to continue pawning. In the end, even her fertility and eyesight were sold to the devil."" ""今晚新菜色 第8號當鋪"" [New dishes tonight. The Pawnshop No. 8]. United Evening News [ zh ] (in Chinese). 2003-10-07. The article notes: ""改編自香港知名小說家深雪同名小說的電視連續劇「第8號當舖」，由杜德偉和天心主演，是衛視中文台首齣花鉅資自製的八點檔連續劇。"" From Google Translate: ""Adapted from the novel of the same name by the famous Hong Kong novelist Shen Xue, the TV series ""Pawn Shop No. 8"", starring Du Dewei and Tian Xin, is the first self-produced 8 o'clock series on the Chinese Channel of Satellite TV with a huge investment."" Fang, Chan 方嬋 (2003-10-12). ""當鋪造勢 星情狂FUN 中南部辦簽名 天心小露性感 杜德偉好興奮"" [Pawn shop to build momentum. Star lovers FUN. Autographing at Central South Office. Tien Hsin is sexy. Alex To is so excited.]. Star News [ zh ] (in Chinese). The article notes: ""為了幫主演的「第8號當舖」造勢，天心以黑色薄紗加上若隱若現的Bra，色誘觀眾；而愛血拚的林韋君看到簽名會現場百貨公司正在打折，差一點衝進去大肆血拚。 衛視中文台大戲「第8號當舖」下中南部辦簽名會，男女主角杜德偉、李志希、天心、林韋君的魅力，將現場擠得水瀉不通。"" From Google Translate: ""In order to help the starring ""Pawnshop No. 8"" build momentum, Tianxin used black tulle and a looming Bra to seduce the audience; and Lin Weijun, who loves shopping, saw that the department store was on sale at the autograph session, and almost rushed in to do some shopping. Satellite TV's Chinese channel drama ""No. 8 Pawnshop"" held an autograph session in Xiazhongnan. The charm of the leading actors and actresses Du Dewei, Li Zhixi, Tianxin, and Lin Weijun crowded the scene."" Li, Yiyun 李怡芸 (2003-12-07). ""電視派不屑原著 小說派力挺深雪 吵成e團 當舖狂賣"" [The TV school disdains the original work, while the novel school supports Miyuki Arguing into an e group, pawnshop selling wildly]. Star News [ zh ] (in Chinese). The article notes: ""電視劇「第8號當舖」才因換了主角拍續集被網友痛批，這廂對於原著小說與電視劇的優劣之爭，亦在網上辯得沸沸揚揚，然而不論是褒是貶，結果是…原著小說因此再度熱賣。網友對於「第8號當舖」電視版和小說版的好惡，可說是涇渭分明，支持電視劇的人，認為小說沒有真正「說故事」，電腦天才林賢堂為婚姻的犧牲只是過場，孫卓也沒有談到友情及為成功的掙扎，更沒有劉至芳的人性轉變，因此認為賦予原著生命的，是編劇和演員，"" From Google Translate: ""The TV series ""Pawn Shop No. 8"" was criticized by netizens for changing the main character to make a sequel. The debate over the merits of the original novel and the TV series has been heatedly debated on the Internet. However, no matter whether it is praise or criticism, the result is... the original work The novel is therefore a hit again. Netizens' likes and dislikes between the TV version and the novel version of ""No. 8 Pawnshop"" can be said to be very different. Those who support the TV series think that the novel does not really ""tell the story"". Friendship and struggle for success, not to mention the transformation of Liu Zhifang's human nature. Therefore, it is believed that the scriptwriter and actors gave life to the original work. "" Cai, Yiling 蔡宜玲 (2004-01-31). ""天心：叫我紅八點 一人三部戲 八點檔不看她也難"" [Tien Hsin: Call me Red Eight. Three dramas for one person, it's hard not to watch her at eight o'clock]. United Evening News [ zh ] (in Chinese). The article notes: ""2003年對天心是幸運的一年，「第8號當舖」在台灣收視長紅，創造有線台國語劇奇蹟 ... 由於天心人氣急速上升，正在播出的「第8號當舖」因有上檔壓力，天心每天都得趕拍"" From Google Translate: ""2003 was a lucky year for Tianxin. ""The No. 8 Pawn Shop"" became popular in Taiwan, creating a miracle in cable television Mandarin dramas; ... Due to the rapid increase in Tianxin's popularity, Tianxin has to rush to shoot every day due to the pressure of ""Pawn Shop No. 8"" which is currently being broadcast. "" Li, Meihua 李美嬅 (2004-03-10). ""8號當舖開張 有價萬物全收 店名趕搭電視劇熱潮 工作人員穿制服凸顯「專業」 首日就有人拿名牌皮包、新款手機和名表典當"" [The Pawnshop No. 8 opened, accepting everything of value. The name of the store catches up with the TV drama craze. The staff wear uniforms to highlight their ""professionalism."" On the first day, some people pawned designer bags, new mobile phones and famous watches]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. B2. The article notes: ""電視劇第8號當舖最近當紅，這家8號當舖名稱一樣，在夜晚時廣告霓虹燈閃爍，引人注意。 三月八日才取得縣政府核發的營利事業登記證，昨天開張已有人上門把名牌皮包、新款行動電話和名表拿來典當。 ... 老闆徐嘉宏不否認取這店名是趕搭電視劇熱潮，但為與傳統當舖區隔，8號當舖門面很明亮，工作人員一律穿上深灰色制服，希望給顧客專業的感覺，"" From Google Translate: ""The No. 8 pawn shop of the TV series has become popular recently. This No. 8 pawn shop has the same name. At night, the neon lights of the advertisement flash, attracting attention. The profit-seeking business registration certificate issued by the county government was only obtained on March 8, and when it opened yesterday, people have pawned famous-brand leather bags, new mobile phones and famous watches. ... The owner Xu Jiahong does not deny taking this The name of the store is to catch up with the TV drama craze, but in order to distinguish it from traditional pawnshops, No. 8 pawnshop has a bright facade, and the staff all wear dark gray uniforms, hoping to give customers a professional feeling. "" Yu, Qingxuan 於慶璇 (2016-04-16). ""《第8號當舖》13年過去了 如今這些主演..."" [""The Pawnshop No. 8"" aired 13 years, and now these leading actors...]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-07-29 . Retrieved 2023-07-29 . The article notes: ""《第8號當舖》是一齣相當別出心裁的電視劇，故事設定為清末民初之時，講述一間特別的當舖，在這間當舖裡接受任何物品，典當的不僅僅只是金銀珠寶、大屋樓契，還有一個人的四肢、內臟、運氣、機遇、快樂，以及靈魂。 劇情看似記憶猶新，但不知不覺，這部電視劇已經過去有13年之久，究竟這些主演現在都過得如何呢？ 還記得他們嗎？ "" From Google Translate: """"Pawnshop No. 8"" is a very ingenious TV series. The story is set at the end of the Qing Dynasty and the beginning of the Republic of China. It tells about a special pawnshop. Anything is accepted in this pawnshop. The pawns are not only gold, silver, jewelry, and property deeds of big houses. , and a person's limbs, guts, luck, chance, pleasure, and soul. The plot seems to be fresh in memory, but unknowingly, 13 years have passed since this TV series. How are these leading actors doing now? remember them?"" Less significant coverage: Young, Debbie (2004-06-11). ""Real drama queen"" . The Straits Times . Archived from the original on 2023-07-29 . Retrieved 2023-07-29 . The article provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: ""My most recent purchase is a 40-episode Taiwanese drama called Pawnshop No. 8, about the battle between the two worlds of good and evil. It cost me $100 for the set but I think it is money well-spent. "" Yang, Qifeng 楊起鳳 (2003-04-16). ""杜德偉登台 忘掉麻煩 吸毒風波律師處理 舒服拍戲快樂玩"" [Alex To on stage, forgetting the trouble. Lawyer dealing with drug scandal, comfortable filming and fun]. Star News [ zh ] (in Chinese). The article notes: ""衛視與製作人郭建宏、導演蔡揚名合作拍攝八點檔自製劇「第 8號當舖」請來不老的情人杜德偉演男主角，首度在台拍電視劇"" From Google Translate: ""Satellite TV cooperated with producer Guo Jianhong and director Cai Yangming to shoot the 8 o'clock self-produced drama ""No. 8 Pawnshop"" and invited the ageless lover Du Dewei to play the leading role. It was the first time to shoot a TV series in Taiwan. "" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Pawnshop No. 8 ( traditional Chinese : 第8號當舖 ; simplified Chinese : 第8号当铺 ), also known as Pawnshop #8 , to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 09:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC) GNG — siro χ o 11:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Feminista Jones: To begin with, the article's tone is highly promotional and not in line with Wikipedia's objective and neutral tone. This issue is further exacerbated by the inappropriate usage and selection of references throughout the article. Among the references, the first one [1] includes two articles that offer only a single quote from Jones in each, which is insufficient to establish notability. Moreover, the second source [2] is written by a lifelong friend of the subject, further highlighting the potential for bias. Numerous other references come from local news outlets that merely interview her or mention her tweets and works [3][4][5][6][14][20][22]. As a result, these references fail to qualify as secondary sources , which are necessary for establishing notability according to WP:BIO . Additionally, some of the cited references are self-published articles [11][16], search queries [8][12][13], or portfolios written by Jones herself [15]. Two of these references are dead links [7][9]. Based on my current knowledge of Wikipedia's policies on source usage, particularly for living persons, the majority of these references do not support the subject's notability as per WP:NOTABILITY . Furthermore, the article's reliance on primary sources indicates a potential conflict of interest, undermining the unbiased nature expected of a biographical article on Wikipedia. Therefore, I argue that, in its current state, this article is not suited for inclusion on the platform. Xelapilled ( talk ) 09:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Women , and New York . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Jones has been covered by several major English-language press outlets. While I'm generally opposed to using these on Wikipedia at all my understanding is that Wikipedia policy still entails that major English-language press outlets are reliable sources. As such there is a preponderance of reliable sources (such as the Guardian, NYT, Washington Post, etc.) that indicate she is a notable figure in her field. Simonm223 ( talk ) 15:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree the nom has correctly identified a number of problems with the article, but in terms of notability, she's been quoted often in a number of scholarly papers as a well-known activist. I haven't done a source search to see if she's been significantly covered elsewhere because I'm convinced WP:GNG is met on that alone. Problems with the article can be rectified through clean-up, not through deletion. SportingFlyer T · C 16:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was too quick to call for an AfD because you are right, there are actual sources to support her on Wikipedia, they just aren't in her article. I guess I just didn't really do much besides look at the article in its current state, review the references, and wonder why the article exists (assume it's promotional, because there's a lot of that around right now). In the future I will try to be more careful and add warning templates to highlight that the article may need attention. Is there a way to close my own AfD discussion? Xelapilled ( talk ) 20:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Xelapilled . There is a way. See WP:CLOSEAFD , ""Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal)"". Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs ) 20:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Türkiye Radyo Amatörleri Cemiyeti: The page created under the name "" Telsiz ve Radyo Amatörleri Cemiyeti "" should be named ""Türkiye Radyo Amatörleri Cemiyeti."" Therefore, I would like to move it, but since there is a page with this name, I am unable to do so. Hence, it is necessary to this page first. Arceonix ( talk ) 15:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Probably RfD (s for discussion) is more suitable for this rather than AfD. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC) this is the wrong venue for this particular request (s are discussed at RfD , while requests to change article titles are handled at requested moves ), and Telsiz ve Radyo Amatörleri Cemiyeti is itself still up for deletion (if it is d, that would render the entire matter moot — but so far the only !vote is a ""disagree"" by the nominator here). WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Organizations , and Turkey . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural Close per WCQuidditch . Wait until the other AFD closes before moving this to RFD if it passes. CoconutOctopus talk 11:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Karin Ireland: KH-1 ( talk ) 03:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I stand corrected - those book reviews did not show up in my original Google search. I withdraw this nomination . - KH-1 ( talk ) 01:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Women , and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I found a few reviews of her book Don't Take Your Snake for a Stroll here , including by Kirkus Reviews and School Library Journal . Mooonswimmer 14:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC) AUTHOR #3 and multiple reviews for multiple works; I have added reviews and additional works to the article, and according to her biography at Encyclopedia.com , additional works and reviews WP:NEXIST , so this article can be further developed. Beccaynr ( talk ) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Per Beccynr & Moonswimmer's research, seems to meet WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 14:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Undercover Angel (film): Rotten Tomatoes states there are two reviews but neither of them are shown. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a review from The Dove Foundation . Needs one more review in order to pass NFO, NFSOURCES and NEXIST. I found only newspaper listings on Newspapers.com . The review from Common Sense Media doesn’t count because it’s a review for the 2017 film of the same title. The Film Creator ( talk ) 18:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . The Film Creator ( talk ) 18:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Added the review the nominator mentioned+2 mini reviews (but one is in El País ). . Worst case scenario: to director's filmo but I don't think it's necessary. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC) There are also reviews in The Ottawa Citizen and the Los Angeles Times . Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 06:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and comment . Since the fall of 2023, The Film Creator has nominated 28 articles for deletion with only 3 closing as . That's pretty remarkable. Of the articles that were kept, half were kept speedily. This verges on a situation where The Film Creator should seriously consider if they should refrain from starting more AFDs. From the many film nominations, it can be widely observed that: (a) Rotten Tomatoes is useless in many cases. (b) The Film Creator is unable to find reviews that other users have little problems finding. Why is that? (c) The Film Creator should learn from these users, and maybe even contact them directly instead of wasting everyone's time with ill-conceived nominations. (d) Sure, the articles are improved through this process, but AFD is not cleanup. Geschichte ( talk ) 12:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per added sources. Toughpigs ( talk ) 17:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I withdraw this nomination. Apparently, I need to practice WP:BEFORE more carefully. I vow not to nominate any film articles for the rest of 2024. The Film Creator ( talk ) 02:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Semmalar Annam: It is clear that she has no large roles post 2021. Most of her sources are about her role in Ammani which from the way it is credited looks like a supporting/minor role. Not sure how much screen time, she had but it can be considered a level below supporting and above minor. Her actual supporting/lead roles are in Maadathy and Mmmmm while she had a lead role in Sennai (no article). The roles that she likes to take up are village/dalit roles and the confirmation of her roles can show her notability. She also played a supporting role in Vadham . While her speaking out against the casting couch against dark skinned actresses is laudable, it is also the reason why she could fail WP:NACTOR . She stars in several other commercial films however in very minor roles. Her role in Kalvan lasted a few seconds (no dialogue) and hence original research as many of her roles may be. Other roles that seem minor include ""Housewife in Prabhavathy's documentary"", ""Mother of kidnapped child"", ""Kid's mother"", ""Einar clan member"" (likely no dialogues), ""Cancer-affected girl's mother"" and ""District Forest Officer"". She is credited second in Thunikaram but the reviewer mentions how [27] Though Semmalar Annam doesn't have much scope to perform, she does a decent job in the given time Her name is not mentioned in the review of Kattumaram and there are no sources for The Tremor . Since the other roles don't add any notability and the fact that she directs short films not feature films, consider the films/series Ammani , Vadham , Sennai , Mmmmm (role name?), and Thunikaram and if her roles are notable or not (main guideline for WP:NACTOR ). Her role in Maadathy is definitely notable: she played the lead character's mother. Semmarlar Annam in a yet another remarkable performance. How long will the mainstream filmmakers ignore her? [28] Sadly, Mmmm has no reviews and Sennai is reviewed by Film Companion (blacklisted) [29] but barely mentions much of her role. A creation of the article Sennai can help her notability [30] . Does Mmmm being sent to Oscars add notability? [31] His role seems more notable (because it's the lead). Vijayan plays a beeer while she plays his wife [32] . Her role could be supporting. Her ommision from mainstream Tamil cinema affects notability greatly as 90% of her films are from there. Her roles were notably removed by editors in Valimai and Bachelor (2021 film) [33] [34] , showing how short her roles can be. Notable roles: (based on screen time) Year Film Role 2019 Maadathy third to Ajmina Kassim 2021 Sennai Lead (no article) Mmmmm second to I. M. Vijayan Supporting roles: Year Film Role Notes 2016 Ammani credited seventh subject of multiple sources after the release of the film and none in reviews of the film 2021 Vadham credited third 2022 Thunikaram credited second Despite being credited second, her screen time is less. None of her other roles are being considered for notability. DareshMohan ( talk ) 19:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 24 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 08:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC) DareshMohan (I think you forgot to sign), when we talked earlier , I had completely missed the roles in Maadathy , Vadham , Mmmmm and Thunikaram among other things!!! Stupid me. I focused on Sennai . Sorry. She does seem to meet WP:NACTOR with significant roles in notable productions. Added to minor awards and some coverage (although containing mostly interviews), I was wrong to consider she didn't meet the requirements for actors, I think. Apologies if I made you do all this awesome work. I sincerely apologise for having missed those roles. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , India , and Tamil Nadu . - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy and close discussion. I am the nominator. An error occurred at User talk:Mushy Yank#Semmalar Annam where I was hereby motivated to do a via deletion discussion. I had mentioned Maadathy and Mmmmm but at the same time that Mushy Yank edited resulting in an edit conflict. @ Mushy Yank : As a compromise, can we make the article neutral, add sources to filmography and expand career section. DareshMohan ( talk ) 18:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure! Will do my best! (consider signing the 1st part of this Afd, btw, so that we can see you are indeed the nominator:D). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC) WP:HEY and WP:SNOW . Kailash29792 (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Notable work and achievement and enough coverage on the actress who has made prolific contributions to a field of entertainment. Passes WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR . RangersRus ( talk ) 13:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Daniel Zeng: This one-sentence stub links to 2 deadlink references and claims that the subject is an IEEE fellow, but I have not been able to confirm even that. Qflib ( talk ) 16:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . Qflib ( talk ) 16:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . IEEE Fellow is explicitly called out by WP:PROF as a pass of criterion #C3 and is trivially verified by accessing the online IEEE Fellows Directory [17] . This is one of many badly-written stubs on notable people left by long-blocked sockpuppeteer Topcipher/SwisterTwister; they need cleanup, but WP:DINC . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Honestly I was unable to find that link; thank you. Qflib ( talk ) 18:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC) PROF#C5 as a (former) named professor at the University of Arizona, #C3 again for AAAS Fellowship, and #C1 for heavily cited publications on Google Scholar (none of which were to be found by the stub in its nominated state, which didn't even make it obvious which Daniel Zeng it might have been referring to). — David Eppstein ( talk ) 19:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, David. I appreciate your help. I don’t think I can withdraw the nomination but I definitely would do so. Qflib ( talk ) 22:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course you can withdraw your nomination. I did the same thing the day before and have done so in the past. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 11:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I’d be glad to if I can just figure out how. Qflib ( talk ) 17:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In penance, I have added more information to the page from the links that David kindly discovered. Qflib ( talk ) 19:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC) just leave a comment here saying that you want to, and some other editor will do the rest. You can also close the nomination yourself but that's not necessary. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science , Engineering , Computing , China , and Arizona . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A classic example where doing the AfD forced a rewrite of a very weak stub (that had been left weak for seven years) so now it clearly demonstrates notability. Withdraw nomination I would appreciate it if an editor would close this nomination, which I clearly made in error. Apologies and thanks to all. Qflib ( talk ) 15:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Fallen Angel (2003 film): pinktoebeans (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC) 23, 16 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . pinktoebeans (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC) 05, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And please note that that speedy deletion was immediately declined. The page was also ProDded in the past (and again, that was contested). More seriously, would you, in the light of the sources presented, consider withdrawing this nomination? Thank you very much. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC) @ Pinktoebeans : This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . This review from Toledo Blade should probably qualify. Here is a review from Dove.org . Here we have Movieguide . These two are more questionable. Geschichte ( talk ) 21:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Meets requirement for notability of films, as could be expected with such a cast. Added sources (some happen to be mentioned by Geschichte above). See for yourself. Thank you. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy . I dug further and found two syndicated pieces; reviews in three countries [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] ; capsule reviews [18] , [19] , [20] as well as an Associated Press recap that puts the viewership (when the film premiered) at 17.4 million . No real WP:BEFORE can have been done before nominating this. I therefore whole-heartedly recommend access to Newspapers.com through something called the Wikipedia Library. Geschichte ( talk ) 22:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources identified and added to the article by Geschichte and Mushy Yank. Toughpigs ( talk ) 23:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Joseph Blakesley: Nothing much to suggest notability. Also apparently incorporates text from another encyclopedia, which doesn't seem good. JMWt ( talk ) 05:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Christianity , and England . JMWt ( talk ) 05:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC) TERTIARY and a discussion of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition's reliability in particular at Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition#Public domain . Tertiary sources can be used to establish notability and they can be used with care as sources but they are definitely not preferred. The Encyclopædia Britannica series has been around for two centuries and generally viewed as one of the best (if not the best) encyclopaedias The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition is unreliable for the many things that have changed: aereoplanes, relativity, plastics, etc. For historical topics, the concern is that interpretations of history may have changed: Reconstruction after the American Civil War, the Boer War, etc. Also, archeology or the discovery of old texts: Dead Sea Scrolls, Norse colony in Newfoundland, etc. I think in this case, we're pretty safe. Looking at the Wikisource copy: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Blakesley , there's little interpretation done - basically a short factual article with no ideological bias. Blakesley died just 24 years earlier, so there weren't archaeological discoveries to be made. There's no science or technology. I think it's a solid ref for this particular article. I don't find this article especially interesting or compelling but it is encyclopaedic. Blakely was notable in 1911 and by our rules, that means he still is today. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 06:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC) 33, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [42] That page of search results doesn't establish notability but it does indicate that Blakesley was a 19th century ""influencer"". -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 06:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC) 37, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He wrote letters to newspapers. If that is the criteria for notability, there are hundreds perhaps thousands of others who could be included on the same rationale. JMWt ( talk ) 06:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I think we can presume that any article in the 1911 can have an article here. It's no strecth to imagine that there is a second reliable source about him somewhere. In addition, deans are generally (but not necessarily) notable - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Wall (priest) , for example, and the Dean of Lincoln article: we have an article on every Dean since 1722. But he would possibly be notable just for his works on Aristotle and Herodotus. St Anselm ( talk ) 16:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lots of priests below the level of Bishop have been d at AfD recently. Fwiw. JMWt ( talk ) 16:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC) I think this is the same person [43] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't open your link but there is also a substantial section on someone who sounds like the same person in this book . I appreciate it appears that I'm now arguing against my own nom, but sometimes it is worth continuing to look for sources. JMWt ( talk ) 16:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, looks like a SNOW. How do I withdraw a nom? JMWt ( talk ) 16:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just say that you withdraw, and someone else will close it. St Anselm ( talk ) 17:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC) 27, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+Meg Griffin : Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.,speedy keep
+"Ekram Hossain : The present sources show that the subject has not met WP:GNG . Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 03:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and Canada . Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 03:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Engineering , and Computing . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Seems to be an easy pass of WP:Prof#C1 . Would the nominator care to comment? Xxanthippe ( talk ) 04:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] . I agree about #C1 and he also passes #C3 (IEEE Fellow) and #C8 (former editor-in-chief but once notable always notable). — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn I stand corrected. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 11:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Atlantic Pilotage Authority : Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 01:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I added some references. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 13:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG . And state agencies are usually notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - as per above. A very quick Proquest search for ""Atlantic Pilotage Authority"" finds over 300 hits. I've not looked through these in detail, but at the top is an article in the Halifax Chronicle Herald called "" What is the Atlantic Pilotage Authority? "" - ProQuest 1844960365 ; it's on the same page of the newspaper as a story "" AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT; Ferguson raps pilotage authority "" - ProQuest 1884515637 . The Wikipedia article should be significantly expanded and improved. Nfitz ( talk ) 15:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Croydon City Arrows SC : Couldn't find any online either. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 01:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia . ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 01:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - This is a semi-professional football club that has been around for well over 50 years and has played at various levels including the top tier of football in Victoria . The club has also produced several former Socceroo's. There must be loads of sources especially in print media. Simione001 ( talk ) 02:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Simione001, was Victorian state champion, willing to AGF that there are offline sources. Giant Snowman 19:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would helpful if some sources were produced to counter the nomination statement. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify I agree that there are a few ofline sources given that I found a few on Archive.com here . If you consider these then you could probably find something. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per above. I also found [1] , [2] and [3] among many more sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 17:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC) 23, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Gessius Florus : Doesn't pass WP:GNG to me. Asked it on the Teahouse as these Roman folks get away with it on the basis of being 2000 years old, but modern people never do no matter how notable they are as long as they don't pass GNG like this article here. Hence it is important to maintain consistency. Serrwinner ( talk ) 12:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 18 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 13:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 13:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Nomination is wrongheaded. It is a very clear GNG pass (we'll get to that) and if we know about a Roman after 2,000 years, then there is a prima facie argument that this is someone more notable then somebody that published some videos on YouTube. There is a very strong bias towards modern day subjects on Wikipedia, so we even have pages on presidents getting photographed now, and yet no comparable article about Julius Caesar getting his head on a Roman coin for the first time. WP:RECENTISM is a real phenomenon, so this argument should be reversed, if it is to be considered at all. So what about Florus? Well, this was someone who married Cleopatra. I suspect we can agree she is notable. He has multiple academic papers written about him, e.g. [23] , and he appears in many others that are about the affairs he was involved in, e.g. [24] . He is in other encyclopaedias, e.g. [25] and [26] and is also treated in multiple books, e.g., [27] , [28] . The fact Josephus treated him as a subject itself suggests a high level of notability, and given everything else, this ought to be a snow . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 13:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no doubt the fella might be notable but it has to be demonstrated. Being related to a notable person is not grounds to warrant a Wikipedia article. The article as it is still doesn't pass WP:GNG unless better sources are added. And on this note I could argue people posting videos to YouTube with a following of millions or tens of millions is still notable, just isn't demonstrated here and hence usually get d. Serrwinner ( talk ) 14:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have presented the sources that more than demonstrate notability in the above. Sources don't have to be in an article for it to be notable, they just have to exist. Have a read of WP:BEFORE , and perhaps I could direct you particularly to heading D. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 14:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism , Israel , Palestine , and Italy . Skynxnex ( talk ) 13:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC) GNG does indeed apply to any topic, no matter of recent or ancient. But in that guideline it is specifically stated that notability is tied to a topic , not the status of an article, i.e. the existence of discussion in secondary sources, not the presence of such sources in the article. Checking if such sources exist should be done before a deletion nomination, as described in Wikipedia's deletion process . The topic here seems clearly to be notable, as demonstrated by the sources listed and those abundant in the suggested Google searches. Daranios ( talk ) 16:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . This WP:Pointy nomination should be withdrawn. Notability is clearly demonstrated by the articles in the Jewish Encyclopedia [29] and Encyclopaedia Judaica [30] -- Jahaza ( talk ) 17:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC) 33, 18 March 2024 (UTC) 31, 18 March 2024 (UTC) 11, 19 March 2024 (UTC) 09, 19 March 2024 (UTC) 12, 19 March 2024 (UTC) Serrwinner #Roman AfDs , this is a pointy nomination of a clearly notable subject. FortunateSons ( talk ) 14:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Dorcadion pseudinfernale : Honestly these articles are a complete waste of time. Aydoh8 ( talk ) 02:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions . Aydoh8 ( talk ) 02:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC) NSPECIES and lack of a policy-based deletion rationale by the proposer. @ Aydoh8 : please stop nominating species articles for deletion. The consensus for these being notable and valid articles is well established and nomination rationales like ""no information on subject"" and ""a complete waste of time"" have no basis in policy. Jfire ( talk ) 04:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy per the reasoning given for the nominator's last four attempts of the same sort. @ Aydoh8 : please consider this a warning. You appear to either have no intention of educating yourself about the background of what you are doing; are never ever checking back on your own nominations; or have decided to be WP:POINTy . None of these is acceptable in the long term. If you don't stop these time-wasting nominations of articles that by current consensus are obviously going to be kept, I will take it to ANI before long. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 05:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I don't have any special knowledge on this but as far as I can tell it is legitimately described in the scientific literature and is therefore notable. JMWt ( talk ) 06:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Red heifer : Fails notability criteria. Valid elements should merely be placed in appropriate section of red heifer main page. Mistamystery ( talk ) 21:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Love Again : I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 19 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 20:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Bana'im : The main source currently supporting it, the Jewish Virtual Library, is unreliable, and itself covers it in a listicle. The only other mentions of the subject anywhere are extremely trivial, typically just mentioned in a list alongside other minor sects, such as in the second source on the page. This does not provide any scope for the meaningful expansion of the topic, which ultimately fails to establish its notability due to the sheer triviality of its coverage. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 10:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Suitable and verifiable supporting tertiary sourcing was found. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 06:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Judaism . Iskandar323 ( talk ) 10:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This is page has a subject that has no potential to grow beyond a stub. How can you possibly know that? Sects of major religions are certainly notable. Sourcing is sparse, but sufficient. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC) GNG , and offer the possibility of this being anything more than a forever stub? Iskandar323 ( talk ) 10:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC) 50, 14 August 2023 (UTC) 55, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sourcing for this page is weaker still than the other one. There is not even the suggestion in the JVL material, wherever it comes from, that there is any contemporary scholarship on this. And no, I haven't read the 19th-century German books mentioned as references. I only found one other independent source, and that is this , which quotes the same primary text passage as the first paragraph as the JVL, which I suspect is the sole basis for information on the subject, i.e. one mention in one Jewish text. The JVL material suggests that there was a brief scholarly tussle over the etymology of the word at some point, and that's it. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 15:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . See my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maghāriya . Srnec ( talk ) 20:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC) It turns out that there is a Jewish Encyclopedia entry for this , which is a tertiary public domain source that can serve as an adequate anchor for the page to replace the unreliable JVL. Given that this source exists, it's surprising that it was not used in the first place. I will now be withdrawing the nomination. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 06:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - This article is solid (if short). It does not meet any criteria in WP:DEL-REASON . Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Central Building (Seattle) : CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment two offline print sources are listed. If these are non-trivial independent RS, the GNG is met regardless of what you do or do not see on-line, correct? Were you able to see and evaluate these? Jclemens ( talk ) 23:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think one of the two you are referring to is the one by Walt Crowley and Paul Dorpat ; I added it after the nomination was made. It's on Google Books; I didn't include a link because the page-specific link didn't seem to work. ☆ Bri ( talk ) 23:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Historic/landmark building, helpful info here . I am currently traveling internationally, so I'm limited in my ability to further expand the entry at this moment beyond what has already been added since nomination. Surely a search in the Seattle Times archives would allow inclusion of more details, including management, sales, tenants, etc., and the linked source has a lot more info re: description/design. Entry should be expanded, not d. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 09:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Looks to have been designated, so would fall under ""Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable."" Espresso Addict ( talk ) 00:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Espresso Addict. Notable per heritage. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 00:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per city landmark designation. There's plenty of sources available for a century-old building that has survived in a major American downtown. Sounder Bruce 03:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination per excellent ponits above. Thanks for proving me wrong. Boleyn ( talk ) 07:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you Boleyn , not many editors withdraw their nom when it becomes obvious that improvements and points for have been made. Most ""fight on"" until people are bickering and tiring of the discussion. Appreciate your principled editing. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 13:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] +1. While I don't think the nom was necessary, I appreciate your comment and willingness to withdraw here. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Chen Xiuke : Appears to fail WP:NOLYMPICS . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and China . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC) GNG . More sources are available online with a search for ""陈秀科"". — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 01:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] New articles added by Mx._Granger support independent notability despite not medalling. Two articles from Hainan Capital News (hinews.cn) in particular are indepth coverage of Xiu. Oblivy ( talk ) 02:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Well done on those news articles. Quick peruse with Google translate turned on shows that at least two of them mention the subject in-depth. There is now a tenable case for GNG being met. MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 23:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Thebiguglyalien would you consider withdrawing the nomination now these sources have been found? MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 02:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Peter Fleming (historian) : The bibliography of the article when moved out of the draftspace was extensive, given here if it aids in anyone's reference search in an attempt to meet WP:NAUTHOR , but most of those only appear to be chapters in various books. Withdrawn . microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 00:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , History , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . I found and added to the article two authored books with multiple reviews each, an edited volume with again multiple reviews, and another authored book for which I could not find reviews. It's difficult to be sure because of the common name, but they're all on medieval English history and I think all his. That's enough for WP:AUTHOR , I think. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - per improvements by above. And overall notability per WP:GNG. Also sources looks ok. BabbaQ ( talk ) 14:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Lionel Cristiano ? 14:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn nomination, Speedy in no small part due to David Eppstein above. Thanks everyone. microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 17:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Xaviersobased : ⇒ SWAT Jester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator -- appears they do in fact meet the notability minimums. Barely. ⇒ SWAT Jester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . ⇒ SWAT Jester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . The sources in the article present SIGCOV. — Alalch E. 01:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC) 48, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . : https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/xaviersobased--it-going-xav/ https://www.stereogum.com/2247412/evilgiane-40-feat-nettspend-xaviersobased/music/ https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/xaviersobased-nettspend-yhapojj-interview-1234982383/ https://www.thefader.com/2023/09/18/song-you-need-xaviersobased-is-his-own-texture https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/753698-xaviersobased--it-goin-xav-soundcloud-tape-hip-hop-news https://www.thefader.com/2023/04/24/song-you-need-xaviersobased-and-ayooliis-pop-trunk-is-a-fever-dream https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/xaviersobased-and-kuru-paterson-new-jersey-new-song-listen/ https://ourgenerationmusic.com/exclusive/xaviersobased-interview-ogm/ https://au.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/50-innovators-shaping-rap-next-50-years-49231/xaviersobased-3-49267/ sorry for the wall of links, but for me, this sure meets ""Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself."" for me Authenyo ( talk ) 01:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It seems I'm incorrect about the notability of this artist. I'll withdraw this nomination. ⇒ SWAT Jester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"San Sombrèro : I found only a single reasonable ref - Altenmann >talk 09:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawing . Can we SPEEDY it now? - Altenmann >talk 21:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Sources Fraser, Benjamin (June–December 2007). ""San Sombrero: A Land of Carnivals, Cocktails and Coups: Henri Bergson's theory of laughter and the problems of travel guide humour"" . Journeys . doi : 10.3167/jys.2007.081207 . Archived from the original on 2024-06-26 . Retrieved 2024-06-26 – via Gale . The review notes: ""Travel writers Santo Cilauro, Tom Gleisner and Rob Stich are at it again. In their new guide to the fictional land of San Sombrero (San Francisco: Chronicle Books LLC, 2006) they serve up a tantalising platter of tropicalizations, exoticized culinary fixations, superficial politico-economic analyses and a hefty dose of feel-good in-group reinforcement, all for 'the undiscerning traveller' (cover). But before you rush out to buy San Sombrero: A Land of Carnivals, Cocktails and Coups, you might take a moment to consider why this type of work is considered humorous. Although you may be tickled by its approach and impressed by its slick appearance, the guide is no less problematic for taking on a fictionalized topic."" ""Travel books: Journeying cover to cover"" . The New Zealand Herald . Archived from the original on 2024-06-26 . Retrieved 2024-06-26 . The review notes: ""This guide to a land whose main attraction is its lack of extradition treaties is the latest offering in the Jet Lag series which brought us the hilarious Molvania and Phaic Tan. I don't think it's quite as funny as its predecessors - though that may be because having chuckled my way through both I knew what to expect - but it's still a delight to read. ... Bad taste? Sure. That's the point."" Larsen, Alexis (2007-04-27). "" 'Jetlag Travel Guide' "" . Dayton Daily News . Archived from the original on 2024-06-26 . Retrieved 2024-06-26 . The review notes: ""If you're not taking a vacation this summer, then you're dreaming of taking one. Either way, you'll get a lot of laughs out of the Jetlag Travel Guide series. ... Of course, it is all these things — and more — making this sun drenched republic one of the most exciting travel destinations in all of Central America."" Go to www.jetlagtravel.com and get a taste of these books for yourself. Just be prepared to laugh. A lot. "" ""Cocktails and coups"" . Geelong Advertiser . 2006-09-30. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26 . Retrieved 2024-06-26 . The review notes: ""First there was Molvania, followed by Phaic Tan. Now, welcome to San Sombrero, a land of carnivals, cocktails and coups. The third Jetlag Travel Guide comes once again from the fertile minds of the Working Dog Productions team. Santo Cilauro, Tom Gleisner and Rob Sitch have come up with the definitive guide to what you can expect if you go to South America. Well, sort of. San Sombrero, like Molvania and Phaic Tan, doesn't exist, but, in line with the first two, it can give you a definitive taste of a people and their culture. San Sombrero could be a smattering of Brazil mixed in with a pinch of Cuba and a dash of Mexico. "" ""Fun-filled break at Sombrero"". Birmingham Mail . 2007-01-26. p. 63. ProQuest 321699023 . The review notes: ""San Sombrero, which is a follow-up to previous guides on Molvania and Phaic Tan, is promoted as a ""land of carnivals, cocktails and coups"". The guide, which comes with a convincing array of photographs, describes San Sombrerans as essentially laid-back people, so much so that the inaugural marathon race had to be abandoned as most of the field were still chatting several hours after the official start. "" Owen, Katie (2006-12-10). ""Paperbacks"". The Sunday Telegraph . p. 57. ProQuest 309516600 . The review notes: ""This is a hilarious spoof travel guide to a fictional Central American country. Extremely lightheartedly, it satirises eco- and adventure-travellers and the way many guides gloss over negative aspects of a place. As well as ludicrous detailed descriptions of San Sombrero's culture, history and politics ('it boasts the only Nobel Peace Prize winner to be accused of war crimes'), there are useful symbols denoting everything from 'military installation' to 'illegal wildlife for sale'. "" Chipperfield, Words Mark (2006-10-26). ""Final Call"". The Sydney Morning Herald . p. 114. ProQuest 364294552 . The review notes: ""From the authors of Molvania and Phaic Tan comes San Sombrro: A Land Of Carnivals, Cocktails and Coups (Jetlag, $29.95). Santo Cilauro, Tom Gleisner and Rob Sitch explore Central America's most politically incorrect nation. Its attractions include ""tropical charms, an exotic lifestyle and lack of extradition treaties"". San Sombrro is a place where the church permits animal sacrifice, school canteens sell rum and its most famous war criminal won a Nobel Prize. There are useful chapters on cigarette brands, bull fighting, feminism and the telephone system. Totally hilarious - even the contributor profiles are funny. Available at all silly bookshops. "" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow San Sombrèro to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 10:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please add there refs to the article. I honestly tried to find these refs in google, but found only one, which is now in the article. Something wrong with google search? (And I also found the book text in google archive). I did apply due diligence. - Altenmann >talk 16:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC) per Cunard's sourcing. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 12:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Mike de Geer : Page fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG . BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions ) 12:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - clearly no attempt at a BEFORE, giving a very quick Google for this guy brings up 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 . Clearly a notable figure. Giant Snowman 12:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Netherlands . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC) BASIC for me on sources added by GS. Govvy ( talk ) 13:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Unclear why this article was nominated. Neither fails SPORTCRIT or the GNG. The nomination does fail NEXIST and BEFORE. gidonb ( talk ) 14:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – Per @ GiantSnowman . Svartner ( talk ) 16:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC) This nomination was meaningless. The page does pass WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT and research proves his notability. Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib. ) 17:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Siviwe Mpondo : JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC) SNGs , with little to no chance of ever receiving WP:SIGCOV : Johan Fritz ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Francois Greyvensteyn ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Deon Kraemer ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Andre Loader ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Andre Olwagen ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) Procedural Discussion needs to be held individually on whether or not these individuals pass WP:GNG . Combining them together could well lead to WP:TRAINWRECK . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Amature player with minimal coverage. Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mn1548 , which article subject are you talking about? L iz Read! Talk! 01:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Originally made the comment about Johan Fritz before releasing it was a group AfD, but left comment here as it applies to all. The South African league isn't professional and non of these articles have more that two references. Not enough coverage of these players cited nor do I think any at notable if more coverage could be found. Mn1548 ( talk ) 13:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural per Rugbyfan's comments. Articles should be re-nominated separately. J Mo 101 ( talk ) 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural . Renominate separately. Desertarun ( talk ) 19:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"My Teacher Ate My Homework : No reviews from Reliable Sources found. Tagged for notability. PROD removed with the addition of 2 'reviews', but one is definitely a blog (wordpress site), and the other is of questionable reliability as it appears to be a blog style review as well. Donald D23 talk to me 10:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America . Donald D23 talk to me 10:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Notable cast ( Shelley Duvall , particularly). At least one review. The film is the second and so far last attempt at adapting books from a notable book series. Seems reasonably notable in the field of children's horror cinema. — MY, OH, MY ! 12:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Having a notable cast is irrelevant as notabilty is not inherited. WP:NOTINHERITED . Films need more than 1 review from RELIABLE SOURCES to pass WP:NFILM guidelines. Blogs are not reliable sources. Donald D23 talk to me 13:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Having a notable cast is not irrelevant. Quite the opposite, it is part of the film notability to have a notable cast, specially when members of the said cast are famous for their work in one given genre. It may not be enough, that's all, that is what the essay you are referring to explains. And, again, Morbidly Beautiful is not a blog. — MY, OH, MY ! 14:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC) NRV , which is a guideline. ""No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition"". None of which has been demonstrated yet. I do concur that ""Morbidly Beautiful"" appears to pass WP:RS however. But that alone is not enough. One more RS review and I will change my view. Donald D23 talk to me 17:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, that is indeed an important guideline, and although I am not exactly certain as to why you would direct me to this page now, thank you all the same for this general reminder. Back to the point, if I may: there is a contemporary review in The Sun_Journal_(Lewiston,_Maine) , 5 Oct. 1997, p. 56 defining the film as a ""morality tale with an evil-doll-coming-to-life premise""; the film is also the object of a recommendation-rating notice by the Québec Board of education (saying (in French) the film will be enjoyed by all children who will be scared just what is needed but with a warning not to show it too small children who might be too scared by the character of the Reaper); the film is also mentioned in various books about teachers in fiction, among others; finally, and I will leave it at that, the main actor, Gregory Smith received the 1997 Young Artist Award for Best Leading role Actor for his performance in the film (I could not verify if the UNICEF Award he received the same year was for the same role). — MY, OH, MY ! 22:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC) NFILM . Thank you for taking the time to find these sources that I was unable to. I withdraw my nomination...knowing that it still cannot be closed as another user has suggested a REDIRECT. Donald D23 talk to me 22:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. — MY, OH, MY ! 22:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * to Shadow Zone (novels) , the book series that the movie was based on, in which the original book and this movie adaptation are both already mentioned (though, honestly, that article is also in terrible, unsourced shape, and probably needs to have its notability looked at, as well). Of the two added sources, one is a wordpress blog and is definitely not a reliable source. Even if the other one is a RS, which I am unsure of, a single source is not enough to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM . Searches for any additional sources are not turning up any significant coverage on either this film or the book it is based on that shares its name. Rorshacma ( talk ) 14:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Striking my above recommendation, as the nominator indicated they would like to Withdraw. Rorshacma ( talk ) 22:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Los Angeles Clippers accomplishments and records : Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 21:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , unfortunately I only saw this page at NPP and didn't realize the can I've opened here... This appears to be a pretty prevalent practice. My personal opinion, based one my above reasoning, is still that this article should be d. I also understand that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ; those should be examined as well, although I am choosing not to group them here lest we start down the path to a WP:TRAINWRECK . microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 21:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Same thinking as Specific Sports Team records. The records are based on the primary source (the players and team completing the accomplishments), but the written-down records are established by the League then notably distributed by reliable, secondary, independent sources. For example, Kawhi Leonard made the NBA All Defensive Team in 2021. [18] Also, these types of lists are backed up by independent almanacs such as Los Angeles Almanac . Conyo14 ( talk ) 23:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC) SPINOFF . More specifically, I think this information does deserve to be on Wikipedia, but not in the Los Angeles Clippers primary article. I would like to see these related ""awards and accomplishments"" articles beefed up with more references, but I think the topic in general satisfies notability because these are much-reported-upon stats and awards. SportsGuy789 ( talk ) 00:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy (nom). Despite my opinions on whether or not I believe these articles should exist on the project, given the letter of guidelines, I understand there is a lot of precedent to leave these up. Conyo14 ( talk · contribs ) and SportsGuy789 ( talk · contribs ) have raised valid points, so I've withdrawn to save valuable volunteer time. microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 03:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Gingerah, Western Australia : Satellite images show no roads and no signs of human activity in the area. Does not fulfill WP:NGEO . Broc ( talk ) 07:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia . Broc ( talk ) 07:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Previous census data and gazetteers should be checked. The population was probably greater than zero once. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 14:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The population was 5 in the 2016 Australian census. Also, it doesn't have to be populated/residential to be notable—for example, the area seems to be a proposed renewable energy hub [43] . -- Canley ( talk ) 00:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Don't know where you looked but I see roads and evidence of human activity. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 01:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, I see, coordinates on the page are way off. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 01:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] comment It's not a town, at least not according to the census, and the energy project seems to affirm this. Mangoe ( talk ) 03:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC) POPULATED , which states Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low . In this case, it is an officially recognised locality as shown on official map services like https://nationalmap.gov.au/ and https://maps.slip.wa.gov.au/landgate/locate/ . Calistemon ( talk ) 15:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per long-standing precedent of ing articles like this. As an editor who often works on Western Australian places, if I'd noticed this article in the state it was in when it was nominated for deletion , I would have ed it to the relevant local government area (in this case the Shire of Broome ), but the article has enough content now that this doesn't seem to be a good idea anymore. Graham87 ( talk ) 13:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC) 56, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm withdrawing the nomination, thanks to the editors that added additional material to the page. Broc ( talk ) 14:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"The Town of Nazareth : Nothing found in a BEFORE Donald D23 talk to me 00:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America . Donald D23 talk to me 00:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The Moving Picture World has a long plot summary and a review (Apr 4, 1914) (both quoted on the IMdb page, fwiw), regretting the fact that the film was in two reels. The two reels are advertised here . Seems notable with enough material for a page. — MY, OH, MY ! 22:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . ""The Town of Nazareth"" . The Moving Picture World . 20 (1): 59. 1914-04-04 . Retrieved 2023-04-16 – via Internet Archive . The journal article was published in 1914, so is in the Wikipedia:Public domain . The journal article notes: ""The Town of Nazareth (American), March 30.—A two-part offering that would have been better in one reel. The theme is a double love story, of a poet who lost in love, and of the son of the girl he loved who, refusing the poet, married a dyer of the Vermont village, Nazreth. The poet becomes famous; the dyer, without good reason, accounts himself a failure and runs away and dies. How the son is sent to Harvard and after attempting to make good in the city comes home and makes business come to him is the chief interest in the second reel. There are crude things in it a-plenty and good, things, too. The atmosphere of the country town makes the story interesting. The acting is fair and the photography acceptable. A fair offering; a bit above the commercial plane."" ""The Town of Nazareth"" . The Chicago Daily Tribune . Vol. 73, no. 81. 1914-04-06. p. 9. ProQuest 173750956 . Retrieved 2023-04-16 – via Internet Archive . The review was published in 1914, so is in the Wikipedia:Public domain . The review notes: """"The Town of Nazareth."" —American. This is Emerson's mouse trap theory done into pictures. The young man who goes to seek his fortune in the city is called back by his mother's grief at his absence. So he returns to his native village and conducts the paternal business of cleaning and dyeing, discovering a formula for a color process that is unique and greatly prized; so much so, in fact, that it draws a great cloth manufacturer to the lad's small shop with an offer of a splendid position in his works. The cloth manufacturer has a daughter, too, whom the young man has met before and already fallen in love with, so the affair is arranged very happily and profiably for every one. "" ""The Town of Nazareth"" . The Moving Picture World . Vol. 19, no. 13. 1914-03-28. pp. 1738 , 1740 . Retrieved 2023-04-16 – via Internet Archive . The article was published in 1914, so is in the Wikipedia:Public domain . The article notes: The Town of Nazareth (2 parts—Mar. 30)—Rosney, as a young man, is jilted by the girl he loves, in favor of another. As years roll by he s an ever watchful eye over the welfare of the girl, Mary, at the same time achieving a success that brings him to the attention of the outside world. When Mary's husband, failing to win success in the town, and losing the money saved for his son, Frank's college education, complains that no success can be won in Nazareth, and plans to go to the city. Rosney remembers the old saying, ""Can anything good come out of Nazareth,"" and attempts to dissuade him. He fails. Walter, the husband, sneaks away and is not heard from. Rosney, unbeknown to Mary, succeeds in replacing the missing college money, and her grief is tempered by the knowledge that Frank will get his college education. Frank returns from college and takes up some experiments which results in the discovery of a dyeing process much desired by Wilson, a large manufacturer of cloth. Frank, of course, does not know the value of his discovery, nor is Wilson aware of it, but Wilson visits Rosney with his daughter, Miriam, and an attachment springs up between Miriam and Frank. At this time definite news of the disgraceful death of her husband is brought to Mary, and the shock results in a serious illness. Just as she is getting better Miriam foolishly dares Frank to come to the city and make good. He takes the dare and leaves against his mother's pleas—an additional shock that brings a relapse. Frank, in the city with Miriam, receives word of his mother's condition and has his eyes opened to his selfishness, and, renouncing Miriam, he hurries home. Rosney, sensing Frank's trouble, explains to him through the immortal ""mousetrap,"" saying he can win success in Nazareth as well as elsewhere, and, sure enough, a coat of Miriam's, left to be dyed, reveals to Wilson the existence of some better process. The threads are quickly gathered together, even Rosney receiving his reward when after years Mary looks up in his eyes with a new and greater love than she had ever known before."" Less significant coverage: ""Film Flashes"" . Variety . Vol. 34, no. 3. 1914-03-20. p. 23 . Retrieved 2023-04-16 – via Internet Archive . The article was published in 1914, so is in the Wikipedia:Public domain . The article notes: ""Now that the American Film Co. has turned out ""The Cricket on the Hearth"" under its Flying A trademark, it's going to make another of Charles Dickens' masterpieces into movies, having placed ""The Old Curiosity Shop"" in camera rehearsal. The Flying A will release Marc Edmund Jones dramatic photoplay, ""The Town of Nazareth,"" March 30 with Edward Coxen, Winifred Greenwood, George Field and Charlotte Burton in the principal roles."" Braff, Richard E. (2002). The Braff Silent Short Film Working Papers: Over 25,000 Films, 1903–1929, Alphabetized and Indexed . Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company . p. 516. ISBN 0-7864-1031-0 . Retrieved 2023-04-16 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: ""The Town of Nazareth. 1914-03-22. L: 2R. P: American. A: Marc Edmund Jones. C: Winnifred Greenwood, Ed Coxen, George Field, Jean Durrell, William Bertram, Charlotte Burton, Albert Cavens."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Town of Nazareth to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 08:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC) 57, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Trilby (1912 film) : I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 24 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 05:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -- Do you plan to offer a rationale for deletion? There seem to be plenty of sources. Central and Adams ( talk ) 05:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Austria . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy . No reason presented for deletion, not even a word. And a brief look at the page even in its current state would give plenty of reasons to anyway - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy , plenty of sources...no reason for deletion given. Donald D23 talk to me 12:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy To me even the four books that are now referenced on the page are enough to show notability. Shaws username . talk . 13:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC) The existing sources are enough to demonstrate notability. Toughpigs ( talk ) 15:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Bad faith nomination with no explanation. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment nominator put their explanation on the AfD talk page Shaws username . talk . 15:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ StreetcarEnjoyer @ Donaldd23 @ Mushy Yank @ Central and Adams Shaws username . talk . 15:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC) ""Very small article .No importence"". Size of an article is not a reason for deletion. If an article is a notable subject it could be just one line as long as the citations support notability. The ""no importance"" part sounds like personal opinion...which also is irrelevant. As stated by myself and others, there is sufficient citations to support notability (importance). Donald D23 talk to me 16:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] -- No policy based deletion rationale given. Sources already in article more than sufficient to meet GNG. Central and Adams ( talk ) 15:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy ,some editor developed the article.any one can close discussion. Nomination withdrawn. Any one can close discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronals ( talk • contribs ) 16:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Ali Hajizade : I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 17 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 06:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Azerbaijan . Shellwood ( talk ) 11:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Journalism , and Politics . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 14:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC) What does ""feels like PROD"" mean? Also, this article has already survived one deletion nomination – it's a good idea to summarize the previous consensus and give at least a brief argument against it. jlwoodwa ( talk ) 22:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jlwoodwa It seems that most of the users in the previous discussion are from Azerbaijan. A link to a website is like an advertisement. Correspondentman ( talk ) 06:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy close , because AFD is made by sock of the banned user. User:Correspondentman is banned in Azerbaijani Wikipedia as a sock of User:Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) . Here is the discussion . He ( User:Elshadiman ) is banned on English Wikipedia too for sockpuppetry. On top of that he continues to use the same sock accounts in English Wikipedia that he used in azwiki: User:Redaksiya , User:90AA123 and User:Correspondentman , which has only 36 edits, all in AFD. Sock accounts cannot create AFDs, and this article was nominated and kept. — Toghrul R ( t ) 06:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC) 16, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Hannah Kihalani Springer : ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 13:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Environment , and Hawaii . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC) IPNA CT55555 ( talk ) 15:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC) *:And Wikipedia:WikiProject Polynesia Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania CT55555 ( talk ) 17:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Successful community-based environmental activist and go-to source for local knowledge. (Co)authored works. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 . Interviewed or quoted for inspiration in books and other publications. 5 , 6 , 7 . Source for environmental impact documents 8 . Noted as ""key"" to establishing the Kaʻūpūlehu Marine Reserve 9 . -- Jaireeodell ( talk ) 18:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions . Netherzone ( talk ) 18:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Netherzone ( talk ) 18:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC) this discussion at WT:WikiProject Hawaii . Cielquiparle ( talk ) 20:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nomination is a misfire. This woman has served as advisor and etc. on many projects and boards of Hawaii. Also a former trustee of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, The Nature Conservancy Hawai‘i and present trustee of Hawaii Preparatory Academy. 1 and she sits on the Board of Directors on the Akaka Foundation for Tropical Forests, alongside other formidable public figures in Hawaii. 2 They don't put ""Does not reach GNG"" people on these boards. They place formidable accomplished people who can work within the power structures to get things done. — Maile ( talk ) 23:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC) NPOL notability, in addition to what appears to be WP:BASIC notability as an advocate, speaker, and writer. Beccaynr ( talk ) 02:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Agree with the reasoning of Beccaynr . CT55555 ( talk ) 04:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Edolo language : Mimi Ho Kora ( talk ) 21:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose No reason given. — kwami ( talk ) 21:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Default oppose . What's the rationale? – Austronesier ( talk ) 21:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as no deletion rationale has been offered. If the nominator wishes to propose the r of two articles the instructions are here and this can be speedily closed. Mccapra ( talk ) 22:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC) 52, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There’s a bit more to it than that, including adding tags to the top of both article pages, but basically yes, thus is a matter to be discussed at the article talk page, not at AfD. Mccapra ( talk ) 04:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC) 37, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - languages are inherently notable, and this one seems well-referenced given its length. -- IdiotSavant ( talk ) 23:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Not much to add, languages are inherently notable as stated above. Pladica ( talk ) 00:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Even minority languages, even tiny minority languages, are worth covering here. ""Inherently notable"" is one way to put it. Note that the proposal on the article talk page was closed as ""Oppose"". – . Raven . talk 05:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . We a language article into the corresponding ethnicity only if there's no prospect for it to ever grow beyond a stub (that most typically happens for extinct undocumented languages). That's not the case here, there's enough literature out there for a fully developed article [11] (which is also enough to pass WP:GNG ). – Uanfala ( talk ) 09:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - First of all, there's no reason given. Second, it's notable and has multiple sources, and it passes GNG. // 💪 Benzo Aid 💪 🖊️ 16:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Mike Woessner : None of the sources in the article provide significant coverage. The coaching positions themselves do not confer notability; there needs to be at least one reliable source providing significant coverage (see SPORTBASIC). Actualcpscm ( talk ) 10:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football . Actualcpscm ( talk ) 10:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC) 09, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know enough about those newspapers to say this with certainty, but this looked like relatively routine coverage to me. Maybe someone who knows these newspapers well can evaluate if I was wrong about that? Actualcpscm ( talk ) 11:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The only thing that matters here is whether those sources cover him ""directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content"" (SIGCOV's definition) - ROUTINE is the notability guideline for events. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [17] . Cbl62 ( talk ) 15:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Searching... BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's plenty of coverage from the Athol Daily News ( 1 , 2 , 3 ), plus The Recorder piece Alvaldi found ( 1 ). All I've found so far. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Found another through ProQuest : ""Woessner realizes dream; Falcons' defensive coach appointed to head position"" from the Telegram & Gazette - at 400 words, its another piece of SIGCOV. Woessner looks like a GNG pass at this point. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Given that SIGCOV had now been discovered in three different newspapers, would you consider withdrawing this so that everyone can move on to other matters? Cbl62 ( talk ) 16:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, that seems reasonable. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 16:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Anne Huff : Not yet looked at this nomination in particular, but the nominator made a few edits last December and then started up on 13th with an apparent sole focus on various types of deletion/draftification. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 11:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Women , Management , Technology , Germany , Ireland , England , California , Colorado , Illinois , and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment That's a rather paltry deletion rationale. What does ""suspicious"" mean? And lacking sources isn't itself a reason for deletion; the more important question is whether sources can be found . Anyway, a quick check of Google Scholar finds 3 publications with over 1,000 citations each, and 22 with over 100; the h-index is somewhere in the upper 20's. That makes passing WP:PROF#C1 at least plausible. JSTOR gives a review of Writing for Scholarly Publication [28] , one of the co-authored When Firms Change Direction [29] , and three of the co-edited Mapping Strategic Knowledge [30] [31] [32] , so while WP:AUTHOR isn't immediately satisfied there's at least a chance that, if other reviews turn up, it could be met that way. And the high citation counts for the two single-author books [33] [34] don't exactly hurt. Being president of the Academy of Management [35] may also qualify for WP:PROF#C6 . XOR'easter ( talk ) 15:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I think there are enough reviews of enough books to make a case for WP:AUTHOR , even if one discounts the reviews for edited volumes. Head of the Academy of Management is plausibly a pass of WP:PROF#C6 . I think her works are highly-enough cited for #C1. And no valid deletion rationale has been provided. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 02:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , several of her papers and books are highly cited and she probably passes NPROF-C1. The reviews show a pass of NAUTHOR. -- Mvqr ( talk ) 11:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC) PROF#C6 and WP:AUTHOR passes are at least plausible, and the case for passing WP:PROF#C1 is good. XOR'easter ( talk ) 18:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC) HEY and that the nomination has been discredited. Geschichte ( talk ) 09:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Shanghai police database leak : Article would need an entire rewrite to improve. Dawnbails ( talk ) 22:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nomination withdrawn; mistake on my end when remembering a deletion policy. Dawnbails ( talk ) 14:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . Dawnbails ( talk ) 22:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. There is sufficient notability here and implied significance; appears to be an unfolding issue. If anyone fluent in Mandarin can moderate the sources and restructure the article; I think someone just needs to be bold and edit it for quality rather than deletion. Cliffordben1994 ( talk ) 23:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article is definitely notable. It already passes WP:GNG through the Bloomberg and WSJ sources, and there are more online from AP , Al Jazeera and The Guardian . Sure, it needs some writing work, but not worthy of deletion and definitely notable. Nom, please conduct WP:BEFORE searches before nominating an article for deletion. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 01:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For some reason the Al Jazeera link doesn't want to work. I'll put it here in full. https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/7/6/hackers-offer-data-on-1-billion-chinese-after-alleged-leak JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 01:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And the AP one, for some reason. https://apnews.com/article/technology-china-hong-kong-shanghai-ce27c6ef6f6d31ce917ee27f80c9589d JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 01:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Multiple high-profile in-depth coverage from mainstream outlets as noted by JML1148 Please don't make AfD nominations like this. If an article needs a re-write, tag it. Jack4576 ( talk ) 06:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yep, in this case, it was sheer laziness that stopped them from doing a 30-second Google search, if that, and find multiple reliable sources. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 06:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My main point of the nomination was more so that the article was incoherent; however, I did remember a deletion policy wrong and that's my bad. Feel free to close. Dawnbails ( talk ) 14:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Wellington Carvalho : @ Simione001 asked that this be moved to AfD so here we are. I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if the article is improved to include at least two sources. Normally this kind of behavior at AfD isn't appropriate. We never hold articles hostage to improve them. But when it comes to living people we have a higher standard which includes citing sources for out claims. That's a really easy standard to pass and it matters. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Bibliographies , and Brazil . Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC) //pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellington_Carvalho The nominator should have looked at the Portuguese-language article before making the nomination. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 10:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per above. Simione001 ( talk ) 23:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Per above. 200+ appearances in pro leagues with many sources... Article needs improvement, not deletion . @ Dr vulpes : , I added three sources to the article, please withdraw nomination. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 16:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC) GNG . The Portuguese Wikipedia article also shows notability. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per above. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 22:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Has sources and now passes. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
+"Ify Obinabo: Does not meet NPOL. Best, Reading Beans ( talk ) 07:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria . Reading Beans ( talk ) 07:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Promotional, lacks notability - ""Obinabo said that God is her mentor as well as Raymond Obieri, the former chairman of Intercontinental Bank."" is the stuff of legends - the dance of the celestial and temporal. Fails WP:GNG; WP:NPOL. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 16:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC) She may not meet WP:NPOL , but she may still be notable. She's the first woman to hold a local office, and appears to have been Commissioner for Women and Social Welfare for the state at one point, and spearheaded the creation of domestic violence courts . She may be notable given all of these together, plus there is a lot of Google News sourcing I didn't have time to check. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 20:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’ll withdraw and move to draft as being a commissioner satisfies NPOL. Best, Reading Beans ( talk ) 08:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's at State, not national level... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 08:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ...state/province -wide office. Best, Reading Beans ( talk ) 14:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Innovation Unit: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 04:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , Social science , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Jaynez: As I said, there is ""No appearance of notability beyond maybe the Native American Music Awards , though those are themselves questionable (see their page)"". QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 12:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New Mexico . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 12:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - A simple, quick search online reveals that he won a Grammy Award in 2005 and meets GNG. I've added a few citations and some content; more improvements can be made. It seems that the nominator might not have performed a WP:BEFORE . Netherzone ( talk ) 15:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I said in my removal of it just now, that's not a Grammy Award which exists and the source was confusing it with the Native American Music Award (aka the Nammy) which is already mentioned. Notice the same source getting it right in the other article of theirs you added: ""Jaynez, who last year won the Native American Music Award for best new artist"" from an article dated in 2005. You accuse me of not performing a BEFORE (which I did, don't be ridiculous) and yet you didn't bother to check Grammy Award for Best New Artist#2000s to confirm who won in 2005 (It was Maroon 5 and Jaynez wasn't even nominated). I appreciate your effort finding and adding those sources. Personally, I don't think just two websites (one of which doesn't feel all that reliable if they don't know the difference between the Grammys and the Nammys) is enough to meet the burden of GNG, and I haven't changed my mind about deleting this yet. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 15:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please do not remove citations that have useable content just because you disagree with a sentence. Netherzone ( talk ) 15:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's no disagreeing, just you adding a false statement and me removing it and the source which was solely supporting that statement at the time. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 16:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - the notability is low-key, maybe even borderline, as most of the publications are small. But I think it passes the basic threshold. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Alright, now I'm willing to withdraw . No clue how none of these results came up in my search but clearly there's enough here now that I'm just gonna step aside and let Netherzone handle the rest. Thanks! QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 06:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Dessert Games: Nothing found in BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2022. Was PRODded last year and d, but granted a REFUND, but 1 year later there has been no additional citations to support notability. Donald D23 talk to me 03:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Television , and United States of America . Donald D23 talk to me 03:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Warren, Andrew (2017-07-09). ""Taste TV: Dessert Games. Baking aisle expansion. Guy Fieri's supermarket gets a sweet makeover"" . Honolulu Star-Advertiser . Archived from the original on 2023-04-21 . Retrieved 2023-04-21 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""The result is ""Dessert Games,"" a decidedly sweeter take on the ""Guy's Grocery Games"" formula. The new series premieres Monday, July 10, on Food Network. At its core, the foundation is the same as it is in ""Triple-G. "" Each episode brings four pasty chefs into the grocery store (actually a TV set, but just as stocked as a real supermarket) with their eyes on the sweet, sweet $10,000 prize. Goldman then issues them a series of dessert challenges, with the contestants needing to run up and down the grocery store aisles to shop for their ingredients."" ""Dessert Games"" . tvplus . 2022-07-28 . Retrieved 2023-04-21 – via PressReader . This article from News24 discusses the South African magazine tvplus . The tvplus article notes: ""Gather round if you’ve been dying for a sweet-treat on TV – chefs Guy Fieri from reality show Diners, Drive-ins & Dives and Duff Goldman from baking show Aces Of Cakes have teamed up for the sugariest show ever – Dessert Games! ... For this new show, four talented amateur dessert chefs are challenged to create delicious treats in each of the four episodes, with the winner of each episode earning a $10 000 (R170 000) shopping spree, with a grand prize waiting for them at the end of the season. While Guy assists with the tasting and judging, Duff picks the ultimate dessert diva. ... In episode 1, the chefs make an extravagant deepfried dessert on a budget, followed by a late-night guilty pleasure dessert that must be ready in just 20 minutes."" Inscoe, Corey (2019-10-13). ""Watch a Charlotte pastry chef try to win $10,000 on Food Network tonight"" . The Charlotte Observer . Archived from the original on 2023-04-21 . Retrieved 2023-04-21 . The article notes: ""How do you turn the ingredients for ravioli into a dessert? We’ll see what Charlotte pastry chef Brittani Brooker comes up with when she appears on Food Network show “Dessert Games” tonight. The show, which airs at 8 p.m. Monday, is a spin-off of Guy Fieri’s “Grocery Games” hosted by “dessert master” Duff Goldman. Four chefs compete by shopping, preparing and plating three desserts, with the winner taking home $10,000."" ""Critic's choice. Tonight's review of TV. Dessert Games"" . Courier News . 2017-07-17. Archived from the original on 2023-04-21 . Retrieved 2023-04-21 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""Dessert Games Four new pastry chefs are taking on Duff Goldman's in Guy Fieri's market, and first the chefs must turn Guy's favorite diner classic into a sweet diner dessert imposter. Next, the chefs must repurpose a premade cake into an impressive dessert. Finally, the two remaining chefs play a game in which cake candles determine the special ingredient and the special event tied to their decadent chocolate dessert. Each week, four talented dessert chefs will attempt to shop, prepare and plate three amazing confection- ary creations in the middle of a market, employing shopping shortcuts and food-hack secrets. The last chef standing will get to test their knowledge of dessert ingredients in a sweet shopping spree worth up to $10,000!"" Hirt, Suzanne (2011-07-09). ""Daytona chef plays 'Dessert Games' on Food Network"" . The Daytona Beach News-Journal . Archived from the original on 2023-04-21 . Retrieved 2023-04-21 . The article notes: ""But Monday night, Daytona State head baker Andra Chisholm will appear on Food Network’s debut series “Dessert Games,” a reality cooking competition. The season premiere begins at 8 p.m. ... The format is similar to that of Food Network’s 12-seasons-and-counting reality show “Guy’s Grocery Games,” hosted by Guy Fieri. As in that series, four chefs race to prepare food with ingredients found in a supermarket. They'll compete in three rounds, with one contestant eliminated after each round, for a $10,000 prize. Each round will focus on a different category, and unusual restrictions will be imposed that heighten the challenge."" Anderson, John (2017-07-13). "" 'Dessert Games,' 'Texas Cake House' and 'The Great British Baking Show' Reviews: Unsavory Series and a Sweet Import"" . The Wall Street Journal . Archived from the original on 2023-04-21 . Retrieved 2023-04-21 . The article provides a few sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: ""Mr. Fieri is, in fact, the power behind ""Dessert Games,"" the latest victual-reality show from Food Network and a spinoff of his own ""Guy's Grocery Games. "" The participants on Monday's debut were assigned to use the inventory of the show's ""supermarket"" to make ""tricked out"" ice-cream sandwiches. The mandatory ingredient: pork rinds. Yes, there are virtues to marrying the salty to the sweet. But not this."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dessert Games to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 09:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC) Pinging Nfitz ( talk · contribs ), who requested a WP:REFUND of the article. Cunard ( talk ) 09:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn due to citations found by Cunard. Donald D23 talk to me 16:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"InFORM Decisions: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 03:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Computing , Software , and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Sunwin: Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 14:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China . Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 14:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Draftify/Move into my userspace. Google search using the Chinese name for the company brings up 19 million results, which should be more than enough to dig through for some sources. That being said I don't think this article should be rushed to bring onto the mainspace until more work is done. I may work on it more after it is drafitified. SBS6577P ( talk ) 23:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Now that Gorden 2211 has successfully expanded the article on the history of the company, and also since more sources have been added, changing my vote to . The article still has tons to expand on, but for now it should be enough to demonstrate notability. SBS6577P ( talk ) 14:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This company has a long history under different names, and is still a major manufacturer in China. There are still parts of the history to fill out, but the current history already makes the company notable with in-depth coverage by different news sources. There should also be articles in various languages spoken in South America, as the company has been popular there, but I don't know that language. Gorden 2211 ( talk ) 06:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC) HEY . — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 14:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Indo Global Social Service Society: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 03:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Organizations , Education , Economics , Environment , Social science , and Delhi . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Thomas Coram Foundation for Children: See WP:NOTADVERT (Speedy Deletion Denied for G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 23:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 23:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Medicine . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - article warrants a rewrite but not a deletion. Is a major UK charity. -- Mervyn ( talk ) 08:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did a quick look and easily found significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I've done a quick edit and added some independent sources; although the article needs more work, the subject is notable and sources are available. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 14:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Chiara Loos: Three of the sources on the article are primary, one is paywalled, and another is a comprehensive article about her; however, this is not enough for me to pass GNG. Looked at sources online and found nothing much. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 01:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Germany . Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 01:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 01:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [57] is definitely SIGCOV, [58] maybe. Searching for her current name ""Chiara Bouziane"" ( Worldfootball.net profile ) also finds [59] and [60] . Bouziane easily passes WP:GNG for me. Robby.is.on ( talk ) 08:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"The Sunday Telegraph (Sydney): Tagged for no references since February 2017. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 22:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , News media , and Australia . Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 22:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The nominator doesn't seem to have bothered to look for references before nominating the article for deletion. The Mumbrella website (which covers the Australian media) returns 25 pages of results for a search on this publication: [19] , for instance, many of which seem usable. Nick-D ( talk ) 22:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Nick-D , I did not seem to find any notable references for that version of the Telegraph. Pining @ Cunard , to see if he can find additional refs. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 08:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As the nominatior of this deletion discussion, I will move the Sunday Telegraph specific controversies already on The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) article, to the article mentioned in this discussion, so I at least have controversies with refs. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 08:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per Nick-D. Jenks24 ( talk ) 07:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . I don't understand this AfD. As much as many refer to the paper as a chip wrapper, it is clearly notable. Lister needs a WP:TROUT . TarnishedPath talk 11:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC) Mediaweek (2019-02-08). ""Weekend Newspaper Readership down, Sunday Telegraph is most read"" . Mediaweek . Retrieved 2023-11-25 . ""Open revolt flares up in Czechoslovakia"" . The Sunday Telegraph . 19 November 1939 . Retrieved 2023-11-25 – via National Library of Australia. Christensen, Nic (2013-07-10). ""News Corp Australia increases the cover prices of Sunday tabloids"" . Mumbrella . Retrieved 2023-11-25 . Hicks, Robin (26 October 2012). ""Mick Carroll replaces Neil Breen as editor of The Sunday Telegraph"" . Mumbrella . Retrieved 2023-11-25 . Aston, Joe (2020-07-28). ""Campion, Joyce forgive The Daily Telegraph"" . The Australian Financial Review . Nine Entertainment . Retrieved 2023-11-25 . ""The Daily Telegraph most read newspaper in NSW"" . news.com.au . 1 October 2019 . Retrieved 25 November 2023 . ""The Sunday Telegraph wins Newspaper of the Year award"" . The Daily Telegraph . News Limited . 6 November 2011 . Retrieved 25 November 2023 . As the nominator, I support a withdrawal of this discussion, per the above references I added. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 22:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Interfaculty Committee Agraria: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 05:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , Science , Biology , Europe , and Czech Republic . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"M. J. Rosenberg: Also doesn't seem to pass WP:JOURNALIST : he's not considered a ""notable figure"" in the Middle East discussion, nor have his works ""won significant critical attention"" Longhornsg ( talk ) 04:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC) GNG . He's quoted as a spokesperson or expert on many articles, in addition to being a writer for publications like The Nation and Al Jazeera , and authoring a book . I found articles specifically about him in The Jerusalem Post 1 and 2 , The Washington Post , The Forward 1 and 2 , Jewish Telegraphic Agency , Politico , The Huffington Post (op-ed), The New Yorker , National Review , etc. APK whisper in my ear 05:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] for the reasons stated above, although I would also like to comment that some of that information really should just be added to the article. -- Dynamo128 ( talk ) 08:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] -- missing information is a reason to add that information, not an article. DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs ) 11:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 11:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn. Clear WP:GNG . Longhornsg ( talk ) 13:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Rocník 21: This is of the ""topic is a film that exists, the end"" variety, and cites absolutely no reliable source coverage about the film to establish its notability, and it has existed in this state since 2011 without ever seeing a whit of improvement in over a decade -- and while there is an interlang to the Russian Wikipedia (though, strangely for a purportedly German film, none to the German Wikipedia), that article is longer but strictly single-sourced, so that source still wouldn't get this over WP:GNG all by itself. As I can't read German or Czech, I'm more than willing to withdraw this if somebody with access to German or Czech language resources can actually find the sourcing needed to expand and salvage this, but just existing isn't ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt it from having to have any sourcing. Bearcat ( talk ) 19:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Czech Republic , Germany , and Slovakia . Bearcat ( talk ) 19:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sourced the page with some of the numerous existing sources in various languages, including English, about this classic. ( Very strong ). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC) @ Bearcat : would you mind withdrawing your nomination then? We would save some time and I could move the page to Ročník 21 . Thank you very much. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"The Cloggies: The strip is mentioned in a lot of sources but unless in-depth coverage can be found to make this article passable it should be covered at the author’s page. No idea about the real clog dudes. Dronebogus ( talk ) 08:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions . Dronebogus ( talk ) 08:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or per the editing policy . We shouldn't use deletion as an improvement tool, it's not designed for that and is counter productive. Clean it up or let it be, there's no deadline and we're here to collaborate, and there's no real harm here. Embrace some quirkiness. 🙂 H i ding T 09:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . North America 1000 09:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] “Embrace some quirkiness”? If that means “let poorly sourced articles that sound like fan blog posts stay” then that’s definitely WP:NOT why Wikipedia exists. Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC) NOT , if you go back far enough you'll see the bits I wrote. Embrace some quirkiness means exactly what it means. Happy days, peace hugs and kisses. H i ding T 21:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as per @ Hiding . In theory could be d properly into either Private Eye or some sort of ""list of Private Eye comic strips"" pages, but again no-one's actually going to do the work for that and ing as-is is preferable that either or which is also basically a . BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 21:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] “Nobody’s actually going to do the work”? Seriously? That’s your argument? Dronebogus ( talk ) 12:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, it's my ""why this right now instead of looking at any way of salvaging the content?"" argument. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 08:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC) I was able to find a copy of the Guardian for the date in question . However the issue here is that it doesn't really back up the claim about a stage performance. There's mention about a group of cloggies coming on stage, however it comes across like they were a part of the stage performance of Comus rather than a performance by a specific group called the Cloggies. Something to note is that the term was presumably popularized by this time, so it could have just been a random group of dancers. Since we don't have any discoverable proof that this group ever existed, I'm removing this section - especially as it (and much of the article) is written in a non-neutral, almost joking tone. If it's to be kept it needs good sourcing and serious work. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . This was and still is a difficult topic to find sourcing for. Here's the general gist of why it's difficult: It looks like the bulk of Cloggie specific sourcing was most likely published from the 1960s through the 1980s. The popularity of Cloggie, along with The Forsyte Saga, made him an appealing person to have on TV and radio. It's at this point where he branched out more and put out other work - although he's still touted as ""Billy Tidy of Cloggies and The Forsyte Saga fame"". It's just that at this point both series have ended, so the focus is more on his current work. What I have been able to find talks about The Cloggies like the reader should be more than familiar with the work in question. These types of sources, along with the more substantial coverage I've found for the strip (as well as general human interest pieces like this ) and its doomed stage production, heavily imply that there is more sourcing out there. It's just not available online or at least in places I can access. It's why I'm willing to argue for a here as opposed to a . It just doesn't help that this was written in a joking, fan-like fashion, which to be honest did not make me optimistic that I would find anything. I was surprised to find what I did. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On a side note, it looks like at one point Tidy was looking into taking legal action against the series Brass , as he felt it was too similar to Cloggies. Not sure what to do with the source , since I'm a bit hesitant to add it without more. There's mention of a magazine article that also covered the similarities, so there's definitely more out there. This is kind of an example of what I wrote above - there's more out there but it's uncovering and accessing it that is the issue here. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your godlike patience cleaning up this article. You are absolutely right it’s a mess, which previous voters seemed to be in denial about. Dronebogus ( talk ) 23:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Holyman House: Boleyn ( talk ) 12:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Here’s a source that I found that seems to establish WP:N : [ [39] ]. AriTheHorse 14:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Aviation , Transportation , and Australia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC) //trove.nla.gov.au/search? keyword=holyman%20house%20launceston , it seems the nature of the find sources might not have the capacity to raise the trove items. JarrahTree 00:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC) N for WP:BUILDING as much well-referenced detail has been added since the nomination was made. -- Oronsay ( talk ) 03:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove nomination per comments above. Thanks for proving me wrong, Boleyn ( talk ) 16:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.",withdrawn
+"Chaine FM: Entire article is WP:OR and cites no sources. WP:BEFORE reveals no significant coverage. Flip Format ( talk ) 14:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Ireland , United Kingdom , and Northern Ireland . Flip Format ( talk ) 14:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC) HEY due to the work done by User:Guliolopez . I'm not sure why these sources didn't appear in my WP:BEFORE research. Flip Format ( talk ) 13:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Mohamed Helmi: Might qualify as speedy per WP:G6 . Ben5218 ( talk ) 23:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Olympics , and Egypt . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – To Mohamed Helmy . Svartner ( talk ) 02:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Rintaro Okabe: Zero WP:SIGCOV per WP:BEFORE . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 00:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , Video games , and Anime and manga . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] After a quick glance, I managed to find four scholars that discuss Okabe's characterization and what is his purpose in the visual novel, focusing on various themes such as time travels and what exactly he can prevent by doing it. Tintor2 ( talk ) 22:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Even at a glance, I can that there was sigcov before it was nominated with the Crunchyroll article. It concerns me that this AfD may have been nominated without checking for sigcov or doing a BEFORE search, yet suggesting it was done. @ Greenish Pickle! : What did you do to verify the lack of notability before nomination? - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 23:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ughhh, sometimes it doesn't really aopear that much at mobile. I'll take any criticism, but at least I managed to pull it off at Lucario's afd. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 23:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Govind Dholakia: Nominated to the Rajya Sabha but not elected, and has not yet taken on the role. Remaining content is promotional in nature ( WP:NEWSORGINDIA ), including his autobiography. Charlie ( talk ) 15:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . Charlie ( talk ) 15:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Politicians , and Gujarat . Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Members-elect to an WP:NPOL -passing office pass NPOL. This source confirms he was elected. Curbon7 ( talk ) 20:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree, we can make MP-elect articles per NPOL clause. Read this, Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️ ( 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔 ) 00:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC) NPOL #1. The article needs improvement and cleaning up, not deletion. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 03:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC) NPOL criterion 1 for the member-elect. Also, the reference from The Hindu , shared by Curbon7 and added by me, satisfies the requirements of WP:THREE ; which also dispelled my uncertainty regarding his appointment through election, as I had previously assumed it was merely a nomination. Charlie ( talk ) 03:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Yan Ai-Lin: English language sources about this person are almost nonexistent, the few ones that I found don't have enough SIGCOV. Taiwanese sources also don't seem to talk much about this person, though reading them is difficult for me since I don't speak the language. This article was created at User:JJJoyyy/sandbox as part of this university education program . It was recently moved to mainspace by User:Ytlin77 (who, judging by their name, may be Ai-Lin herself), who said in the talk page of this article that this page was written by her classmates. SparklyNights ( t ) 19:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , Arts , Poetry , and Taiwan . SparklyNights ( t ) 19:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC) There's no evidence for a conflict of interest. Per your link, the university course is instructed by Yen-Ting Megan Lin, who looks like a better fit for a username including Ytlin. The ""Lin"" in Yan's name is 琳 and the instructor's name is likely 林, not the same word. CohenTheBohemian ( talk ) 00:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, these seem to be two different people. In that case there doesn't seem to be any coi here. SparklyNights ( t ) 01:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for the comments. I moved the article back to Draft status due to the quality concern and work on the revision later. Ytlin77 ( talk ) 04:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the article itself. Point 1 of WP:ANYBIO says ""The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor""; the Awards section lists several prizes, some are national and at least one international, which seem to fit the bill. The statement that one of her books was ""the first collection of erotic poems written by a female poet in Taiwan"" implies that the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:POET 2 applies, and there's cites to criticism of her work, so it looks like point 3 also applies. I don't see why the nomination describes this page as a ""promo piece"", nor the ""no good indication of notability"". This, added to the nominator's incorrect claims about conflict of interest editing here and on the article's talk page, makes me wonder if the page is a candidate for speedy under WP:CSK point 3 ""No accurate deletion rationale has been provided."" CohenTheBohemian ( talk ) 15:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw. This page wasn't what I thought, it looks like it passes ANYBIO. SparklyNights ( t ) 17:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Trinity Health: It seems that the Michigan-based Trinity Health is clearly the primary topic , as they are a massive system spanning half the country with 120,000 employees, whereas the North Dakota-based Trinity Health is a small local system primarily located in one town. I propose that Trinity Health (Livonia, Michigan) be moved to Trinity Health and that a hatnote be added linking to Trinity Health (Minot, North Dakota) . With that hatnote, this disambiguation page would become unnecessary and thus can be d. Iago Qnsi ( talk ) 17:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Medicine , Disambiguations , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Let the RM run its course, if there is consensus the Michigan one is primary the DAB can be d under G14 but if there is no such consensus the DAB will need to stay at the base name. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 19:33 10 March 2024 (UTC) @ IagoQnsi : Please withdraw this nomination and your instruction on the Move discussion to talk here. The correct place for the discussion is at the Move discussion on Talk:Trinity Health (Livonia, Michigan)#Requested move 10 March 2024 : if there is agreement for the article to be moved, it will become the primary topic and the dab page will be unnecessary. (There's the added complication of the proposed move at Talk:Mercy Health (Michigan)#Requested move 10 March 2024 , where the proposed new title of Trinity Health Michigan would probably merit inclusion in a dab page, or at least a hatnote ...). Pam D 08:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"IGlue: Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 04:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Companies , Technology , Websites , and Hungary . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Institute of IT Training: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 05:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , Technology , Computing , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"J.A. Woollam Company: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 05:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Science , Engineering , and Nebraska . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Slender Rising: Slender Rising 2 ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) The only reliable sources that have covered these two games are TouchArcade and Pocket Gamer. There has not been enough written about these games from 2013 and 2014 to warrant their two articles ( WP:GNG ). — V ORTEX 3427 ( Talk! ) 11:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I was unable to find any additional coverage for the sequel, but Slide to Play reviewed Slender Rising, and I think it meets GNG. If nothing else can be found regarding the sequel, something about it could be d into the article for the first game. Waxworker ( talk ) 12:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC) 03, May 28, 2023 (UTC) Slender Rising ; Pocket Gamer, Touch Arcade and Slide to Play reviews. Slender Rising 2 into it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw I have scoured the internet for sources and expanded and rewrote Slender Rising , now with twelve sources. I apologize for not conducting a thorough WP:BEFORE search before nominating it for deletion. However, I could not find anything for Slender Rising 2 . It fits quite nicely in its own section on the Slender Rising article, so when this AfD finishes, I'll probably it. Thanks, — V ORTEX 3427 ( Talk! ) 11:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Jo Daviess Conservation Foundation: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 06:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Illinois . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Institute for International Research: Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 03:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"International Labmate Ltd : No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 05:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Companies , Science , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Charlie Fetoai : Primefac ( talk ) 12:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Sports , Rugby union , Australia , and New Zealand . Primefac ( talk ) 12:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . The crusade against sports continues while others skate by with a free pass. Are we going to see the same standards applied to academics and artists or are they worthy pursuits unlike the undignified practice of grown men chasing around after a ball. I've expanded the article to include coverage. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 04:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] sigh This is not a ""crusade against sports"". I came across the article, found no significant coverage, and nominated it for deletion. I would do the same if I came across an academic or an artist whose article was in a similar shape. Primefac ( talk ) 07:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Think enough has been found here to suggest a GNG pass for him. I imagine there will be more coverage out there if a further detailed search through Australian archives is done. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC) GNG , with references already in the article and the additional info here [14] and here [15] , an editor interested in this subject could expand this one out to be a better stub. Storm machine ( talk ) 00:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Leslie Hood : While an impressive effort, this article is better suited to a genealogy book than Wikipedia; the subject, while having a few dozen passing mentions over the years, lacks the significant and independent coverage required to construct a Wikipedia article. As a consequence of this, we see the article go into excessive background detail to fill it out - detail that we would normally expect to omit. Of the 80 references, 36 don't mention Leslie Hood in any way, and several more refer to him only indirectly as ""son"" or ""brother"". Of the remainder, the majority are not only just passing mentions, but such trivial passing mentions that his name is only included in a list. This can be seen in the following source analysis table: Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://books.google.com.au/books? id=RRShAQAAQBAJ&pg=PAPG130&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Significant coverage of Landau, No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://books.google.com.au/books? id=VRMtAQAAMAAJ&pg=PAPA771&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Primary source no significant coverage - mention on a list ✘ No https://books.google.com.au/books? id=xF0rAwAAQBAJ&pg=PAPP147&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Significant coverage of his brother, William Wells Hood, No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://archive.org/details/1900olympicgames00mall/page/162/mode/2up No significant coverage of Hood, only mentioned in a list of players as ""L Hood"" ✘ No https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt? id=mdp.39015020212380&seq=874&q1=Hood No significant coverage of Hood, only mentioned in a list of Taylor Bro's and Co employees ✘ No https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt? id=coo.31924104258136&seq=205 His maternal grandfather is mentioned in a list; no mention of him ✘ No https://archive.org/details/b28053382/page/58/mode/2up Consists of a letter from him, and a table of his physical measurements ~ Letter might be significant coverage, although it doesn't focus on Leslie, but it lacks independence ✘ No https://www.alpinejournal.org.uk/Contents/Contents_1908_files/AJ%201908%20Vol%2024%20287-292%20AC%20Proceedings.pdf#page=3 Club publication writing about its members Passing mention, only says that he and two others were balloted and elected members of the club ✘ No https://www.alpinejournal.org.uk/Contents/Contents_1948_files/AJ56%201948%20386-402%20In%20Memoriam.pdf#page=20 Club publication writing about its members Significant (though not independent) coverage of his brother; only a passing mention of him, saying ""His younger brother, Leslie Hood, was also a member of the Club (elected 1908) and died in 1932 (A.J. 44· 329)."" ✘ No https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1243/JILE_PROC_1920_010_060_02? journalCode=jila No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://archive.org/details/sim_the-lancet_1870-03-05_2427/page/362/mode/2up Non-significant mention of the marriage of his parents, No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://archive.org/details/thelancet18982/page/n1337/mode/2up Non-significant mention of the marriage of his sister, No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000687/19540114/065/0004 Paid advertisement No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k423824s/f644.item Game recap; considered WP:ROUTINE that doesn't contribute to notability per WP:NSPORTS . Only mention of Hood being ""No, because Gautier sets off on a lightning sprint and reaches L. Hood 2 metres from the goal."" ✘ No https://issuu.com/stpetersyorkalumni/docs/10-85_apr_1890/10 School magazine ? Passing mention in a list of team members ✘ No https://issuu.com/stpetersyorkalumni/docs/12-113_dec_1894/4 School magazine ? Game recap; considered WP:ROUTINE that doesn't contribute to notability per WP:NSPORTS . Not significant coverage, with only a passing mention in the recap (""Hood also got a try, which C. Whincup converted"") and a mention in a list of players ✘ No https://issuu.com/stpetersyorkalumni/docs/12-114_jan_1895/6 School magazine ? Game recap; considered WP:ROUTINE that doesn't contribute to notability per WP:NSPORTS . Not significant coverage, with only a few passing mentions in the recap. ✘ No https://issuu.com/stpetersyorkalumni/docs/24-253_jul_1926/58 School magazine, writing an obituary on one of its former students ? No significant coverage as it is an obituary of his father and only mentions him in passing (""His four sons were all Peterites, and were all in the School at the same time while in recent years his two grandsons, R. H. and C. Metcalfe were also with us"") ✘ No https://issuu.com/stpetersyorkalumni/docs/26-272_dec_1932/8 School magazine, writing an obituary on one of its former students ? ✘ No https://issuu.com/stpetersyorkalumni/docs/40-319_oct_1948/14 School magazine, writing an obituary on one of its former students ? Doesn't mention Leslie Hood ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002627/19130208/381/0067 Passing mention; ""The winners were Miss chio and Mr L. Hood"". ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002627/19160304/469/0080 Passing mention; ""France: Mr Hood, blue satin Pierrot"" and ""second place to Mr Hood and Miss Muckelt."" ✘ No https://www.yrc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/YRCJ-2-6-1904-5.pdf#page=46 Published by a club he was a member of ? Mentioned only in a list of newly elected members ✘ No https://www.familyhistory.bdm.qld.gov.au/details/b15dd3592cb448d4d960e7481e73fc9cc5d8327236ef85f77b0d1949c0671f8c No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://www.cresta-run.com/about-the-smtc/history-of-the-club/ No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Darlington_Forge_Co ? No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://manchestervictorianarchitects.org.uk/index.php/buildings/ice-palace-derby-street-cheetham-manchester ? No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://www.museotorino.it/view/s/1e9d3aef61e24c96bb7f78f41d432066 ? No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://livesonline.rcseng.ac.uk/client/en_GB/lives/search/detailnonmodal/ent:$002f$002fSD_ASSET$002f0$002fSD_ASSET:378126/one? qu=%22RCS%3A+E005943%22&rt=false%7C%7C%7CIDENTIFIER%7C%7C%7CResource+Identifier A college of surgeons writing about one of their members is not an independent source. No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://www.warwickandwarwick.com/resources/articles-library/unique-boer-war-world-war-i-dso-group-to-rnas-armoured-car-squadron Auction listing of the belongings of his brother Auction listing No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No World Rugby 2020 - https://www.world.rugby/news/575375/five-forgotten-facts-about-first-ever-olympic-crunch No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://www.calmview.eu/SheffieldArchives/CalmView/Record.aspx? src=CalmView. Catalog&id=ESC%2F31 No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No Master of the Supreme Court 1933 Estate documents ? Not available online ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000033/19000120/029/0009 No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Perspective:%201900%20Olympic%20file%20-%20Mystery%20of%20the%20Olympic%20team%20from...-a065476854 Passing mention only in a list of players ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000764/19540116/003/0003 No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0003369/19001103/088/0006 Passing mention only in a list of players ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000337/19001011/027/0003 No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000385/18961113/158/0008 No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/BL/0004909/19040903/003/0003 Not significant coverage; ""Leslie Hood of Lond, who did not appear, on the evidenoe of PO Noakes fined 10s for indecent bathing in the river Wey on afternoon August 21st"" ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000183/19110629/189/0011 Passing mention only; ""Mr. Leslie Hood was best man to his brother."" ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002446/19020111/314/0049 Passing mention only in a list of players ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002446/19110225/244/0053 Passing mention only; ""The Bott Handicap took place on the 15th and attracted fourteen starters; it was won by Mr Kempton Cannon, who beat his own record in his last course, and thus just managed to defeat Mr L. Hood by 2 sec. on three courses."" ✘ No https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k2853078/f3.item No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0004660/18971002/126/0006 No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0003066/19001103/103/0006 Passing mention only in a list of players ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000206/19121202/113/0009 Game recap; considered WP:ROUTINE that doesn't contribute to notability per WP:NSPORTS . , No signficant coverage; limited to two short sentence, the second of which he shared with two other players: ""For a short period Mancehster were without Leslie Hood, who recieved a nasty cut on the bridge of his nose. The feature of the game, apart from the display of Dr. Bythell, was the splendid form shown by Hood, both before and after his accident, he often pentrating the London defences, and the excellent work of Haig on the Prince's side."" ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/BL/0000206/19130310/089/0010 Passing mention only, ""The other placings were: Miss Muckelt and Mr. Hood, 2; Miss and Mr. Wood, 3; Miss and Mr. Marshall, 4; Miss Irwin and Mr. Cormack, 5."" ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/BL/0000272/19270926/004/0004 Primary source; court reporting on his conviction for dangerous driving with analysis or other components that would make it secondary. Longer than most other sources, but being primary prevents it from contirbuting to notability. ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000272/19301029/007/0007 Passing mention only in a team list ✘ No https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/150797163 No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k4127941s/f2.item No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k4130447n/f6.item No significant coverage; ""Dr. N. L. Hood, of London, and his two brothers, who have been at the Bear for about a fortnight, have climbed about every peak in the immediate region: among others, the Matterhorn, Jungfrau, Moncli, Eiger and Finsteraarhom."" - Leslie Hood isn't even mentioned by name, and it's possible it was the other two brothers ✘ No https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19120110.2.29.1 No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19240603.2.22 No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19240604.2.81 No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0004049/19480410/108/0009 No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://www.retronews.fr/journal/le-soleil/18-decembre-1898/661/1817807/2 No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/BL/0000653/19001110/008/0002 No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000893/18981003/063/0003 Passing mention only in a list of players ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000893/18991130/003/0001 Passing mention in a list of people from Middlesex awarded a prize, saying ""Leslie Hood (extra prize)"" - he appears to have come ninth ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000893/19000120/140/0006 Passing mention only in a list of players ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000893/19000122/138/0008 No mention of Hood ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/BL/0000893/19010208/069/0004 Game recap; considered WP:ROUTINE that doesn't contribute to notability per WP:NSPORTS . Not significant coverage; two sentences in a game recap. ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001055/19120201/095/0006 Passing mention only; ""L. Hood (a very powerful wing three-quarter)"" ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000437/18961009/061/0002 Game recap; considered WP:ROUTINE that doesn't contribute to notability per WP:NSPORTS . Not significant coverage; two sentences in a game recap. ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000437/18971008/036/0002 Game recap; considered WP:ROUTINE that doesn't contribute to notability per WP:NSPORTS . Not significant coverage; single passing mention in a game recap. ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/BL/0000437/18980401/049/0002 Game recap; considered WP:ROUTINE that doesn't contribute to notability per WP:NSPORTS . Not significant coverage; single passing mention in a game recap. ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000437/19080320/109/0007 Written by his club No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/BL/0000632/18941005/058/0003 Passing mention only in a list of players ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000499/18720622/047/0008 Paid advertisement No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/BL/0000499/18760916/143/0005 Paid advertisement; not independent. No significant coverage; only mentioned as ""a son"". ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000500/18910514/059/0007 Passing mention only. Was a child at the time of the report; WP:YOUNGATH also applies ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000500/18940202/004/0002 Passing mention in a list of graduating children only ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000632/18930429/049/0003 No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000266/18941222/033/0008 Passing mention in a list of children given school awards ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000687/19311114/379/0012 Passing mention in a list of resigning directors ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000687/19321212/046/0002 Paid advertisement Passing mention ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000687/19321212/046/0002 ? Not significant coverage; announcement that his estate was worth £9,507 ✘ No https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000687/19341113/315/0007 No mention of Leslie Hood ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . BilledMammal ( talk ) 09:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople , Ice hockey , Rugby league , and United Kingdom . BilledMammal ( talk ) 09:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Hunter Motorcycles : No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 04:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Transportation , and Australia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Gyula Iványi : At the time of its creation it was sourced only to unselective databases. Because it met all the criteria for WP:LUGSTUBS , it was speedily draftified at the end of the second close review. After this, User:BeanieFan11 moved it back to mainspace on the basis of this source , but I have grave doubts about its reliability. BeanieFan11 was under the impression that the source was a ""museum of fencing"". I think it's a small Hungarian fencing school, and the .pdf is hardly an academic paper. Please will the community approve this content's deletion. — S Marshall T / C 22:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . — S Marshall T / C 22:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Ivanyi seems extremely likely notable. The Olympedia piece contains various details and I would argue to be SIGCOV, and the other source seems like something that would be reliable in my opinion. It seems to be a school dedicated to teaching fencing and preserving its history in Hungary, and it says it has a partnership with the Hungarian Military History Institute and Museum (I knew it had something to do with a museum!). The source itself is very in-depth and if reliable would be the second piece of SIGCOV. I'd also like to note that the source at several times mentions how newspapers/books discussed him (""the ... newspapers of the time highlighted that he was the best fencer in the eighth final"" ... ""Competitive fencing literature rightly considers Ivány the first great Hungarian swordsman,"") and that seems to almost guarantee that there's further offline coverage, especially if many sources regard him as ""the first great Hungarian swordsman"". It also seems he won their first national championship in fencing, too. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't find anything for this person. I think the reference used above is ok-ish. A few more like that, we'd be at notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] GNG only requires two pieces of SIGCOV. We've got the Olympedia piece and then the one above. Not to mention that there's assuredly offline sources as this guy seems to have been one of the best fencers of his era and one of the greatest from his country all-time. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Olympedia is completionist. It aims to be a comprehensive list of every Olympic accomplishment by every Olympian. Which is a worthwhile endeavour, and I'm glad it exists, but the fact that it is unselective makes it inherently indiscriminate . So Olympedia can't ever be SIGCOV. — S Marshall T / C 22:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're link doesn't say anything about ""completionist sources"" at all. Nor have I ever seen mention of that anywhere else... BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you really not see the link between ""completionist"" and ""indiscriminate""? — S Marshall T / C 23:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry but I'm still not seeing how it would not count as SIGCOV, all I know is that ""Significant coverage"" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV, yes. The first bullet point says ""Presumed"" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Can you see where that is now? Directly above the sentence you quoted? — S Marshall T / C 23:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see how the information in the article is ""done at random or without careful judgment"" (indiscriminate definition), nor do I see how it is ""not put in context"" and ""not referenced to independent sources"" (what it says in your NOT link). BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A topic gets more notable when a selective source has noted it. When an indiscriminate source has noted it, that source doesn't count towards WP:N. — S Marshall T / C 23:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Says what? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry, I find that query hard to understand. Could you ask your question another way? — S Marshall T / C 23:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What says A topic gets more notable when a selective source has noted it. When an indiscriminate source has noted it, that source doesn't count towards WP:N ? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did. But I'm not the Infallible Guru of All Wikipedia Policy, so I've asked the experts to confirm or deny my view at Wikipedia talk:Notability#WP:N and WP:IINFO . — S Marshall T / C 23:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If we start to exclude sources because they include details on every item in a set then we're on very shaky ground - lots of very reliable entirely authoritative sources do that (say, Oscar winning Best Films, for example). I would also draw a distinction between an Olympedia article with no prose at all about a person, one with brief prose about their sporting achievements only and one with a more detailed biography. Not every profile at all has any prose and I don't think anyone's arguing that an Olympedia profile without any prose is justification for ing an article. But the subset of profiles which have decent prose seem decent sources. In particular once a profile gets to two decent sized paragraphs I'm fairly convinced we'll be able to find other sources pretty reliably. Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 07:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Hungary Wikipedia page on him seems to have a bunch of offline sources. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC) //adt.arcanum.com/en/search/results/? list=eyJxdWVyeSI6ICJHeXVsYSBJdlx1MDBlMW55aSB2XHUwMGVkdlx1MDBlMXMifQ&per_page=20 KatoKungLee ( talk ) 01:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . No evidence that the source is reliable; being published by a small fencing school without any editorial policy or similar makes it self published, and as we cannot identify the author we cannot consider whether the SME exception applies. BilledMammal ( talk ) 23:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I said, it seems to be partnered with the Hungarian Military History Institute and Museum (if I translated that correctly) - that would likely be a reliable source, no? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It might be, but unless the institute is involved in the publication of these documents - and I see no reason to believe it is, being partnered doesn't mean that everything the less reliable entity does is subject to oversight - then whether it is a reliable source or not is not relevant. BilledMammal ( talk ) 23:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From the looks of it, it would seem that the museum would have to have had something to do with it (how else would the fencing school established in 2012 have access to 1900 newspapers, something they cited in the article on Ivanyi)? Also, not sure if this helps, but they seem to have kept a list of newspaper articles discussing them here (you have to click on the images). BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have access to 1900 newspapers, does that mean a museum has something to do with my work? Clicking that link, I only see one newspaper , and it doesn't appear to be relevant. Can you directly link the images you think are relevant? BilledMammal ( talk ) 23:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you have access to Hungarian newspapers from 1900? The other newspapers/websites are the ones like [1] and [2] that mention them; the latter seems to be citing them (or at least their founder) for a statement about a historical fencer. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , based on the source found below; it appears to be reliable and significant coverage. I will note that it would have been better if editors had looked for such sources prior to moving this article back from draft space; the initial source provided was not suitable and discussion on it consumed editor time that would have been better spent looking for suitable sources. BilledMammal ( talk ) 01:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found a paywalled Hungarian newspaper archive website, and it turns up over 2,000 results for his name , including one preview that seems to say something like ""We indicated in our last issue and read in the sports section of the dailies that Gyula Iványi is the true meaning of the Hungarian swordsman."" He looks highly, highly likely notable. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 00:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From this preview, it looks like there was even a newspaper two years ago talking about how great a fencer he was! BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Found it . BilledMammal ( talk ) 01:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that the """" folks made some valid arguments. But IMO there is enough there to . Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 02:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At the very worst this is a to some kind of suitable article ( Fencing at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's sabre for example. The Olympia article by itself suggests that there is the strong probability that other sources will exist to allow the article to be fully developed at a later date. Given the state of the article right now though I'd be entirely relaxed about ing it - especially given the era he was active in and the sport he competed in. Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 07:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Its clear this has to stay. Themanwithnowifi ( talk ) 08:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Hungary . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Kaffee Burger : No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 06:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies , and Germany . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Y.W.C.A. Hioe Tjo Yoeng College : No evidence of notability * Pppery * it has begun... 16:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Hong Kong . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools , which says: All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations , the general notability guideline , or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES ) Sources ""Foundation Stone for New School"". South China Morning Post . 1963-10-16. p. 6. ProQuest 1506912252 . The article notes: ""The foundation stone of the Hongkong Chinese Women's Club's Hioe Tjo Yoeng School at Saiwanho was laid by Lady Black yesterday. The $500,000 school is named after Mr and Mrs Hioe, who donated $100,000 to its cost. Lady Black congratulated the members of the Club on their continued enthusiasm and enterprise in the educational field."" ""Canning opens school"". South China Morning Post . 1972-01-27. p. 7. ProQuest 1525995217 . The article notes: ""The Director of Education, Mr. J. Canning, officially opened the $2.5 million YWCA Hioe Tjo Yoeng Hioe Tjo Yo College in Homantin yesterday. In his opening address, Mr Canning said the new school marked a step forward in the expansion of secondary education and was an achievement through the co-operation of the YWCA, Government and Mr and Mrs Hioe Tjo-yoeng. Government subsidised 80 per cent of the building cost and Mr and Mrs Hioe contributed $500,000 and another $20,000 for equipment. The school has a capacity for 700 pupils. At present, however, it operates only six classes of Form and II with a total enrolment of 249 pupils. Legislative Councillor, Mrs Ellen Li Shui-pui, is the Supervisor of the school."" ""Featuring YWCA Hioe Tjo-yoeng College"". South China Morning Post . 1985-10-06. p. 51. ProQuest 1538307772 . The article notes: ""YWCA Hioe Tjo-yoeng College is a subsidised co-educational school, established in 1971 with only 280 students in form one and two. In 1974, the student level was raised to form five and it took two more years for the school to be fully developed, running matriculation classes for the Advanced Level Examination. Now the school operates 19 classes ranging from form one to seven with a total of 700 students and 33 teachers. ... There are 16 interest groups and clubs classified into four categories: Christian fellowship and intellectual, cultural and service sections. Apart from 17 classrooms, the school includes three laboratories, art, music and new design and technology rooms, a hall and an outdoor basketball court."" 女青年會 丘佐榮中學 定期開課 [Y.W.C.A Qiu Zuorong Middle School opens for regular classes]. The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1971-08-04. p. 11 . Retrieved 2024-01-18 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries . The article notes: ""教女青年會開辦的第一間政府津貼學校丘佐榮男女英文中學,將在九 月一日開課。 校由印尼橋慎丘佐榮休斑捐港幣五十萬 元建校,百分之八十經費是由政府補助。"" From Google Translate: ""The coeducational secondary school Y.W.C.A. Hioe Tjo Yoeng College, the first government-subsidized school run by the YWCA, will start classes on 1 September. The school was founded by the Indonesian Professor Emeritus Qiao Shenqiu Zuo, who donated HK$500,000 to build the school, and 80% of the funds were subsidized by the government."" 女青年會丘佐榮中學 教育司簡寧主持開幕 定今日下午三時舉行 [Y.W.C.A. Hioe Tjo Yoeng College: The opening ceremony will be hosted by the Secretary for Education Jian Ning and will be held at 3pm today.]. Wah Kiu Yat Po . 1972-01-26. p. 15 . Retrieved 2024-01-18 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries . The article notes: ""女青年會麾下之丘佐榮 中學,位於九龍何文田 常和街六號,全部建築 ·工程經於去年初秋完 , 並於九月中旬啓用。"" From Google Translate: ""The Y.W.C.A. Hioe Tjo Yoeng College under the YWCA is located at No. 6 Sheung Wo Street, Homantin, Kowloon. All construction and engineering work was completed in early fall last year and it was opened in mid-September."" Chan, Elsie (2021-11-16). 丘佐榮中學50周年 全方位培育IT專才 [The 50th anniversary of Y.W.C.A. Hioe Tjo Yoeng College, cultivating IT professionals in an all-round way]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-01-18 . Retrieved 2024-01-18 . The article notes: ""該校的資訊科技範疇表現出色，早年獲政府挑選加入「中學資訊科技增潤計畫」，為學生提供深入的資訊科技培訓。今個學年不少學校均有新校長上任，不少更是非常年輕，為學校帶來新氣象，其中位於何文田的基督教女青年會丘佐榮中學，今個學年除有新校長上任外，更適逢五十周年校慶，所以學校有一系列活動和大計。"" From Google Translate: ""The school has outstanding performance in the field of information technology. In the early years, it was selected by the government to participate in the ""Secondary School Information Technology Enrichment Program"" to provide students with in-depth information technology training. This school year many schools have new principals, many of them very young, bringing a new atmosphere to the school. Among them, the Y.W.C.A. Hioe Tjo Yoeng College in Ho Man Tin has a new principal this school year, which is more suitable for the school. It is the 50th anniversary of the school, so the school has a series of activities and plans."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Y.W.C.A. Hioe Tjo Yoeng College ( simplified Chinese : 基督教女青年会丘佐荣中学 ; traditional Chinese : 基督教女青年會丘佐榮中學 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 09:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"Karan Verma : Fails WP:NACTOR . I am also nominating the following related pages because fails WP:NACTOR. Surya Sreenivas ( edit | talk | history | protect | | links | watch | logs | views ) created by same user. Fails WP:NACTOR - no notable lead roles - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surya Sreenivas and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karam Dosa . DareshMohan ( talk ) 20:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Maybe only one lead role but it looks like Ajmer 92 will be a very notable and controversial film. L iz Read! Talk! 01:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Even if Karan Verma is notable, Surya Sreenivas (bundled above) isn't right? DareshMohan ( talk ) 00:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Seems notable as even though having at least he only had one lead role in a clearly notable film (Criterion for notability of Creative professionals). (And: Surya Sreenivas might be okayish.) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC) (Edited, see below, my bad!) @ Liz : Both of these people are actors not creative professionals. The criterion is ""The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions;"" or ""The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."" There is nothing unique for both of them; they did not direct or write any films, so first criterion. Karan Verma: With just one film, it is a WP:Too early . Surya Sreenivas: Film Role Notes Notable Karam Dosa Second lead Shivakumar Ramachandravarapu has a bigger character. No 2 reliable reviews. Yes Nenosta Lead No article. No 2 reliable reviews. No Mahanati Supporting/cameo portrayed actor NTR Yes Kudi Yedamaithe Supporting Yes DareshMohan ( talk ) 03:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are right but Karan Verma has attracted quite a lot of attention for his only role so far. Even with what's currently on the page, can we not say that he meets the general criterion (""People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"")? (I'll leave it at that) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 04:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So one notable film = multiple films? DareshMohan ( talk ) 04:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No. Who said that? He meets the general criterion for people not the specific criteria for actors. Again, I'll leave it that, thank you. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 04:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC) What makes Surya Sreenivas okayish notable? 4 of his lead films have no article/2 reviews. DareshMohan ( talk ) 04:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Significant is not necessarily a lead role. One lead role in a film at least. And significant characters in 3/4 web series. I'm really leaving it at that, now. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 04:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I, the nominator, withdraw my nomination. DareshMohan ( talk ) 03:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"The Haunting of Harrington House : Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 05:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Television , and United States of America . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 07:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Sources in the article are either primary or unreliable sources. I did some searches about the film but found no related RS. Fails GNG. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 09:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC) A very detailed search of books and archived articles about the film from User:Cunard . I think it is safe to consider the film has enough sources to pass GNG. Although the article requires a rewrite as none of the sources currently cited in the article are RS. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 09:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Prince of Erebor ( talk · contribs ), would you review the sources I posted below. Thank you. Cunard ( talk ) 09:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . McNally, Owen (1981-09-08). ""CBS Mystery Thriller Excellent for Children"" . Hartford Courant . Archived from the original on 2024-05-25 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com . The review notes: ""Now joining this elite kind of serious, worthwhile entertainment programming for youngsters is ""The CBS Children's Mystery Theater,"" which makes its second presentation of the season this afternoon on WFSB-TV Channel 3 in a drama entitled, ""The Haunting of Harrington House. "" The one-hour dramatization is a light, entertaining mystery story complete with a moderately scary atmosphere—accented by dark, gloomy rooms, secret passageways, sinister peepholes in odd places—and a cast of sometimes ominous, mostly eccentric characters played with special zest by Roscoe Lee Browne, Vito Scotti and Edie Adams. ... Browne turns in by far the best acting role here in his well-polished cameo role. Most of the other performances seem painfully wooden by contrast."" Fossum, Ella B. (February 1990). ""The Haunting of Harrington House"". School Library Journal . Vol. 36, no. 2. p. 54. EBSCO host 9003120392 . The audiovisual review is of ""The Haunting of Harrington House. vid- eocassette. color. 29:50 min. Prod. by Learning Corp. of America. Dist. by Coronet/MTI. 1989. #6054L."" The review notes: ""A seance during a thunderstorm is the opening scene for The Haunting of Harrington House . Polly Ames is visiting her father, the proprietor of Harrington House Hotel. Polly's hobby is photography, and when she learns that ghostly happenings at the hotel are forcing the guests to leave, she decides to try to solve the mystery. She is aided by Diogenes Chase, a retired math teacher who helps her sort out the clues. He reminds her that the correct sum of the clues equals the solution to the mystery. An aging movie star, a gambling uncle, and a houseer are among the suspects. Polly's photographs and Chase's logical thinking move the plot along toward its solution. The eerie music is an effective accompaniment. Polly Ames is played by Dominique Dunne, who played the older sister in the first Poltergeist movie (she died in 1983). A familiar character actor from television, Roscoe Lee Brown, plays the role of Diogenes Chase. The ongoing discussions between Polly and Chase on the use of reasoning skills in resolving the mystery make this video a suitable choice for any middle school reading group."" Bowker's Directory of Videocassettes for Children 1999 . New Providence, New Jersey: R. R. Bowker . 1999. ISBN 978-0-8352-4201-1 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 . The book notes: ""The Haunting of Harrington House. (1989). Film—How-to. 46 min. Juvenile. Grades: 7-12. When 14-year-old Polly arrives home from boarding school, she discovers that the tenants of her father's hotel are hurriedly departing, frightened away by a ghost. Polly resolves to unravel the mystery. Aided by a math teacher with a flair for deductive reasoning, Polly learns to recognize & analyze clues & to find their sum by adding them together. Her home is saved when she succeeds in unmasking the all-too-human ghost! As a model of cinematic mystery, this involving tale lends itself artfully to the analysis of plot, character, & setting as contributing to, & supporting the central theme."" ""Girl Makes Spirited Search"" . The Morning News . 1982-02-27. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""A schoolgirl returns home for a holiday and finds her father's hotel being ravaged by strange unexplainable events, in ""The Haunting of Harrington House,"" to be re-broadcast on the CBS Chil- dren's Mystery Theater, Tuesday, Mar. 2 (4:30-5:30 p.m.). In the eerie tale, Polly Ames' (Dominique Dunne) excitement at returning home is dampened when she discovers that the hotel run by her father (James Callahan) and uncle (Phil Leeds) has earned a reputation as being haunted, and, as a consequence, is on the brink of bankruptcy."" ""Eerie tales for children"" . The Anniston Star . 1981-09-05. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: """"The Haunting of Harrington House,"" an eerie tale about a schoolgirl who returns home for a holiday and finds her father's hotel being ravaged by strange and unexplainable events, will be broadcast on Tuesday, Sept. 8 (3:30-4:30 p.m.). The program is the second presentation of the ""CBS Children's Mystery Theater."" ... As haunted houses go, the huge Los Angeles mansion which was used for the title structure was not much. It was really more friendly than frightening. "" ""Actress strives to be unuusal"" . The Clarion-Ledger . 1982-02-28. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "" The article notes: ""It is just this brand of healthy good looks which has catapulted her in two years from a secretary's job to a starring role in The Haunting of Harrington House , a presentation of the CBS Children's Mystery Theater to be rebroadcast Tuesday, March 2 at 3:30 p.m. on CBS. She has in her supporting cast such veterans as Roscoe Lee Browne, Phil Leeds, Vito Scotti, James Callahan and Edie Adams. In the hour-long mystery drama, Dominique portrays Polly, a teenage student who returns home for a holiday at the hotel run by her father and her uncle, only to find that it has become a frightening place. She then determines to discover why it has earned the reputation of a ""haunted house"" in order to save it and her father from bankruptcy."" Witosky, Diane (1982-03-02). ""Tuesday's Best"" . The Des Moines Register . Archived from the original on 2024-05-25 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""Young viewers have the best deal with ""Children's Mystery Theater"" at 3:30 on CBS. ""The Haunting of Harrington House"" is the eerie story of a young girl who comes home to her father's hotel to find strange forces at work. Dominique Dunne plays Polly Ames, the schoolgirl who is thrilled to be visiting her dad while on holiday. James Callahan plays her father and Phil Leeds is her uncle. The two men are trying to save the hotel from bankruptcy when stories begin to circulate that the building is haunted. Roscoe Lee Browne plays a hotel guest who helps young Polly solve the mystery. CBS says the goal of its ""Mystery Theater"" series is to help improve reasoning skills through the use of mystery tales. That might turn children away, so let's also say it is a well-done production that is a lot of fun to watch."" Less significant coverage: Terrace, Vincent (2013). Television Specials: 5,336 Entertainment Programs, 1936–2012 (2 ed.). Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company . p. 86. ISBN 978-0-7864-7444-8 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Google Books . The book notes: ""22. The Haunting of Harrington House. Sept. 8, 1981. Polly Ames (Dominique Dunne), an adventurous 14-year-old girl teams with Diogenes Chase (Roscoe Lee Browne), a retired detective to solve the mystery of strange happenings at Harrington House, a spooky residential hotel. With Edie Adams, James Callahan, Vito Scotti."" Ellis, Chris (2005). The Mammoth Book of Celebrity Murders . London: Little, Brown Book Group . ISBN 978-1-78033-409-7 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 . The book notes: ""During 1981, Dominique pushed herself hard and took on two film roles, the first being the lead role in The Haunting of Harrington House. This was a stretch as the now 21-year-old actress was to play the part of Polly Ames, a 14-year-old schoolgirl."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Haunting of Harrington House to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 09:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC) some coverage exists, so not opposed to but opposed to Deletion. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC) (assisted vote made without checking the discussion itself and evidently moot, see below) [ reply ] . Obviously. Thank you, Cunard, as always. @ Prince of Erebor : , if they wish to have a look at what was presented. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Yea, Cunard has pinged me and I have seen the overwhelming RS presented. Changed my vote to Keep. Thanks! — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 09:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, yes sorry, I had missed that too! Apologies, Cunard. Thank you both. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC) per the sources/explanation above. How do you do this magic of finding extensive coverage for such obscure things??? Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
+"1st Decamillennium: It seems unlikely to get any; there isn't even a page for the concept of a ""decamillennium"". I draftified it but the creator brought it right back to article space. AntiDionysius ( talk ) 06:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nothing to , and while I suppose there might be an argument to to Detailed logarithmic timeline or timeline of the far future or something related, I just have a hard time believing that anyone is going to search using this, which leaves deletion as the only suitable option. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:A108:2D79:9941:4429 ( talk ) 07:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If Indian English takes over primary status for the next 8 thousand years it would surely be a decilahkennium anyway. ☺ "" decamillennium "" is not a neologism, but as mentioned no-one yet really demarcates history by this specific decamillennium, whose start point is proleptic and ahistoric and whose end point is speculative. We have Category:Millennia with articles for the ways in which people do demarcate history. When people write of decamillennia, a quick search indicates, they are writing of things happening 10 ka ago or of things that happen once in such a length of time, not about this specific time period. The turn of the year 10,000 gets some attention, but that's not because it's a time period, and we already have the much-misnamed millennium bug for dealing with that. Uncle G ( talk ) 08:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 09:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Sri Selva Vinayagar Temple: Note: this article was created through a cut-and-paste move from Draft:Selva Vinaaayagar Temple , which had been previously declined at AfC for notability and WP:NPOV issues. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 04:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion , Hinduism , and United Kingdom . — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 04:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 08:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 08:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] without prejudice, assuming a neutral, reliably sourced article can be written on the topic. SportingFlyer T · C 09:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nom. — Alalch E. 16:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Requesting a speedy close as nominator; the creator of this article was blocked for sockpuppeting and I have tagged it under CSD G5. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 17:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Milad (entrepreneur): Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 23:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Technology , and Bangladesh . Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 23:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy G5, see SPI and history of Al Hasan Milad . Wikishovel ( talk ) 16:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy per G4, G5, and G11. Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 19:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Daily Jalalabad: The article shows zero evidence of notability. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 05:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Websites , and Bangladesh . Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 05:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Daily Jalalabad is a notable regional Newspaper in Sylhet, i have imported this article from Bengali Wikipedia . Mainul Saiman ( talk ) 05:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy per nom. Also it was created by a sock (user:Rnwiki-global). আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk ) 08:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have created it now... i was not create before by anyone. Mainul Saiman ( talk ) 12:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The page creator is not a blocked, confirmed sockpuppet. Please do not make these accusations based on suspicions alone. L iz Read! Talk! 22:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please see wikidata . আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk ) 12:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC) I still recommend going through the WP:SPI process first, because he is currently not blocked for this reason on enwiki. ALSTROEMERIA 🌸 Čijukas Kuvajamas 03:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC) Sockpuppet investigations/Parvej096388 . Although there is a 90% possibility that the user is related to this case, the implementation of CSD G5 still has to wait for the final announcement of the conclusion. ALSTROEMERIA 🌸 Čijukas Kuvajamas 03:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] CU note I have blocked",speedy delete
+"Ada Khan: Shellwood ( talk ) 15:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC) ROUTINE coverage for an actor. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Chef Dammy Pas: Last AfD is here [49] Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 14, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - There are references, but the entire page needs to be nuked and possibly rewritten in a non-promotional tone. APK whisper in my ear 05:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (Speedy) , speediable per A7/G4/G11, but happy to let the AfD run if needed. No evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 06:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions . Kpg jhp jm 07:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I CSD'd the article as a G5. Seems the afd closer script I installed isn't playing nice with Vector22, and I'm short on time so I'd appreciate if someone would be so kind as to wrap this up. Thanks a ton. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk ) 10:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Jesús Calderón: Sources do not even come close to WP:GNG . InDimensional ( talk ) 11:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . InDimensional ( talk ) 11:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Zero coverage found for this individual, is a resume, perhaps PROMO. What's used for sourcing are primary or non-RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Article seems to just be a list of accomplishments without footnotes. a fairly large amount of the sources the article gives are self-published. Shadow311 ( talk ) 14:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Television , and Spain . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Article was obviously created for self-promotion, not for actual encyclopaedic purposes. I've already tagged the page. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 10:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Olybet: Nothing found in RS that we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Estonia . Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Shehr Main Dihat: The ""detailsbiography"" source clearly does not meet RS criteria. Prod was disputed by page creator. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment , Internet , and Pakistan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Neutralyze: All references are purely advertisement 'articles'. Q T C 19:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . Q T C 19:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy . It is quite immediately apparent this subject fails the criteria for organisations and companies. Also searched under ""Kantian Skincare"" since the title appears by most accounts to be the name of the product, not the company. Results hardly differed. In fact , might go with an A7 for this one. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 04:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Ammarsjah: Ckfasdf ( talk ) 23:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Indonesia . Owen× ☎ 23:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Per WP:NSUBPOL : Members of local/municipal bodies or members of bodies without law-making powers have generally been denied presumed notability (see WP:POLOUTCOMES ); that is, members of bodies only capable of enacting subordinate (secondary) legislation are not presumed notable under the criteria established in WP:POLITICIAN. YordleSquire ( talk ) 01:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Denim (given name): WP:NNAME : If at least two articles matching the surname or given name of the subject of a name article do not exist, then the surname or given name list article would not be notable and should not be created. I verified this is the case with ""Denim"". बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 20:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions . बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 20:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It also says ""a properly sourced article about a name may still be notable without a list"" which this article has sources. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 22:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources are only database entries and do not provide significant coverage of the name. See WP:SIGCOV . बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 22:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Non-notable name. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NNAME . Jfire ( talk ) 00:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Go ahead and it. I am the article creator. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 16:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Ortner Airport: In cases such as this I generally look for a plausible or target, but I do not think that 1967 Lake Erie skydiving disaster , the reason for it's cla9imed 'fame', would be of any use. TheLongTone ( talk ) 15:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is indeed somewhat well-known for that incident, and is a fairly popular airstrip. I was working on the page last night and fell asleep before I could expand it and add more citations. Windowcleaner4 ( talk ) 17:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The topic is notable enough just because of the Ortner Air Service- which may deserve an article of its own. Windowcleaner4 ( talk ) 17:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC) CSD#G5 . -- Ponyo bons mots 21:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"ATRenew: 虹易 ( talk ) 15:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Environment , Technology , and China . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] publicly traded company on NYSE, has plenty citations in the article and more in Google. I have found these additional citations Seeking Alpha and Business Insider . Hkkingg ( talk ) 08:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hkkingg , Benzinga (the actual source of the BI article) is not an RS, and it says right there at the bottom that This article is from an unpaid external contributor. It does not represent Benzinga's reporting and has not been edited for content or accuracy. You've been here over a year, please do some basic due diligence on your ! votes, this is almost a better argument for than . Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 10:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article has been moved to draft space per G5 . @ 虹易 : The nominator may consider withdrawing and speedy ing this discussion per WP:CSK #1, as the subject article no longer exists. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 18:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Bahrain Second Division: A quick BEFORE has not turned up any sources outside of general databases (e.g., soccerway), which do not establish notability. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 07:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Bahrain . Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 07:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Football in Bahrain as possible search term. Giant Snowman 11:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Yogendra Kumar: --- Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi ( talk ) 14:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , India , and Uttar Pradesh . Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi ( talk ) 14:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC) doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG . Darron4 ( talk ) 16:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC) I agree with nom. Very little in terms of sources or any relevant coverage to support notability. GuardianH ( talk ) 16:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC) 08, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Dennis Mangano: I think the subject might potentially have some notability, but the article is not written to show it, nor referenced to show it. Flagged as failing WP:GNG after arriving in mainspace by the editor who moved it to mainspace. Being charitable, this feels as if the move were in some manner accidental. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics , Medicine , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify per nom. Not ready for mainspace. Other than one lawsuit in 2007 (which isn't mentioned in the article prose), the references seem to just be his published research papers. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 01:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify . New enough for this to be a reasonable choice, sources inadequate for current content, but with some possible case for notability (possibly through WP:PROF#C1 ). That criterion does not require depth of sourcing for notability itself, but it does not eliminate the need for all claims in our article to be properly sourced. In particular all claims of having invented or discovering something important should be backed up by reliable independent sources that verify those claims; his own publications are not adequate for that kind of claim. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 04:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify (the AFC reviewer who originally declined the submission). I do think the subject could meet the GNG, as there is some coverage (I have 1E concerns as it relates to the fact that a lot of the coverage will be primary in regards to the various lawsuits) but that is not demonstrated here and I have doubts that its demonstrated presently and the I have non-encyclopedic concerns about the article in mainspace presently. microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 18:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC) Sock of blocked user Harrysigma 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"South Kash Coaching Centre (SKCC): I don't see any reliable sources mentioning this organization. APK whisper in my ear 03:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment The article's creator has now nominated it for speedy deletion and I can't say I disagree. Kleuske ( talk ) 08:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"CH (artist): BEFORE does not bring up reliable sources. The artist appears to have invented a style ""Postmodern-Narrationism"" and an association (World Association of Artists) and named themselves ""chairman"". The article is not written in NPOV and it was created by a SPA. I think this article is purely WP:PROMO with ref bombing to non-relevant sources. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions . WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - I am not finding anything to substantiate the notability of this artist. Eight of the ""sources"" are either EN Wikipedia or Chinese Wikipedia. Other sources include 5 citations to prove they are in ""Who's Who"". The article is written promotionally , and seems written in a way that seems like an autobiography. I wasn't able to verify the collection, maybe another editor has better luck. Other citations are primary sources, or don't mention him at all. This newspaper has either a review or a press release that mentions him and his invented genre Narrationism (I don't read nor speak Chinese) [49] it may be the only good source. Other citations seem like sponsored content or native advertising [50] or are user submitted content. [51] . Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST . Netherzone ( talk ) 01:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your detailed research. Regarding this source Internet Archive from China Yishubao (中国艺术报). The source's title is ""Me and the Postmodern Narrative School"" (translated from ""我与后现代叙事派"") and the author is listed as Chen Hao (陈豪), the subject of the article. Cunard ( talk ) 08:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts , China , and California . Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC) //narrationism.com/ , and I agree with the tagging as the article is a word-for-word copying of the website. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject in my searches for sources. Chen Hao ( simplified Chinese : 陈豪 ; traditional Chinese : 陳豪 ) does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline . Cunard ( talk ) 08:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Henry Mascot: None of this amounts to SIGCOV or WP:GNG. Wikishovel ( talk ) 07:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria . Wikishovel ( talk ) 07:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC) I must admit, I would have probably just moved this back to drafts and declined at AfC, but the OP is right that if a BEFORE finds nothing amounting to notability, then draftifying would only buy time in the hope that more and better sources show up. I'm okay with either deleting or draftifying, but one or the other it must be, as this cannot stay in the main space as it is. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 07:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftifying would only create more work for volunteers; the creator would probably move it back to mainspace and we would still have a second nom. My thoughts. Best, Reading Beans ( talk ) 08:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC) The article content is more about his Curacel Systems start-up than about the person, but retitling / reframing as an article about the company wouldn't work as it is non-notable . Considered as a biographical article, his education and prior roles in sales, and present start-up role are not indicative of attained encyclopaedic notability . AllyD ( talk ) 07:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Per nominator's rationale. Subject is yet to garner in-depth coverage. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON . Best, Reading Beans ( talk ) 08:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Technology . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd to a new article about the company Curacel, which seems to have limited coverage; any mention of this person is always in relation to the company. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC) NORG . Best, Reading Beans ( talk ) 07:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment article creator has belatedly declared COI [31] , following an attempted move of the article to draft. Wikishovel ( talk ) 17:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's true, they did acknolwedge a COI but COI, on its own, is not a reason for an article deletion. L iz Read! Talk! 02:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree completely. Wikishovel ( talk ) per AllyD's reasoning. Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 15:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC) AllyD summed it up best. Gjs238 ( talk ) 16:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC) Most of the sources cited are just mere links and not reliable. Some point to Curacel rather than the subject. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 17:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Yubin Shin: Please check GNG. Claggy ( talk ) 15:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . Claggy ( talk ) 15:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you need more source, I will give it to you. Please this article and let me approve it. Contact to my user talk page Sokola Kmav ( talk ) 08:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Feel free to improve it, yes. It DOES need more sources, yes, please, see my ! vote below. Her role in Kinds of Kindness , for example... do you have a source? Is she really in it? The rest of the filmo could do with more references. Thanks a lot! - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no mention of her in any of the sources ?? Hmmm, yes, there is mention of her in the sources! I'm not saying it's great but it's about her. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC) All the links are (currently) invalid, and I could not locate any of them at the Internet Archive either. Curious. ☆ Bri ( talk ) 17:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please review the source again, and thank you for letting me know about my mistake. Sokola Kmav ( talk ) 08:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think there will be more reviewing by me. Both the nominator and I find the references invalid. And maybe they always were invalid. It's a strange sort of mistake. ☆ Bri ( talk ) 13:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, fwiw, the links of the 3 refs are not invalid.... and coverage in Khmer exists. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC) PS- I am inviting you to kindly strike the following comment And maybe they always were invalid. It's a strange sort of mistake. Thank you . This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Cambodia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify, please. : Just trimmed the article a bit. Various things I couldn't verify.... - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Charles Ndukauba: Jamiebuba ( talk ) 08:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , and Nigeria . Jamiebuba ( talk ) 08:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nothing has changed since this was d in May. A Guinness record is not notable, the rest appears to be a resume or work history. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Publications were from primary sources and the reason for Nomination has been removed as it was a mistake owing to the fact that there is no realese of music. Writer bio sustained. Mufasataiwo ( talk ) 23:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC) — Mufasataiwo ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 02:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No indication of notability. Fails to meet criteria of WP:GNG . Not enough sources to confirm intrinsic value of an article. ContributorMix ( talk ) 21:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . Natg 19 ( talk ) 02:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television . Natg 19 ( talk ) 02:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC) There have been two prior AfD deletions of articles about this person during 2023, in April (variant name) and in May . Is it confirmed that this August version is sufficiently distinct for CSD G4 to be non-applicable? AllyD ( talk ) 11:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ AllyD I wouldn't know, is there an admin that can help check? Jamiebuba ( talk ) 06:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Salqin Shura council: Sources in the article do not support article notability. BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth // Timothy :: talk 18:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Syria . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC) 38, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Godjo J ) and each time your article is rejected at AfC and you then proceed to ignore AfC and copy it to mainspace. As the previously mentioned ANI shows you have created a mess that requires cleanup, drafting would only increase this mess by adding another article, since you have shown no sign of listening to the instructions multiple editors have provided you regarding sourcing and restore your unsourced material to mainspace. // Timothy :: talk 22:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Article author blocked as sock [16] . // Timothy :: talk 12:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"State of Darsah: Completely non-notable micronation, not a single source on this exists. Curbon7 ( talk ) 00:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Yemen . Curbon7 ( talk ) 00:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC) MADEUP and WP:HOAX , and CSD A11/G3 tagged as such. No, I don't care if you're not supposed to speedy tag something already at AFD, I'll also call for blocking the creator who also made the Draft:Kingdom of Boclej junk, clearly WP:NOTHERE . Reywas92 Talk 03:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy A11 per Reywas. Mccapra ( talk ) 04:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Central University of Gujarat people: Page also entirely empty. Was originally created by this guy -- TheAlabamian27 ( talk ) 15:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC) This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 12 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 16:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Mr Broken Heart Music: No significant coverage presented and none found in a search; only unacceptable self-published stuff like SoundCloud and Issuewire, which count for nothing. Doesn't seem to pass WP:NMUSIC either. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , India , Maharashtra , and Tamil Nadu . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC) GNG and WP:NMUSIC ... - Adolphus79 ( talk ) 19:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 20:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC) 00, 25 May 2023 (UTC) — CaptainK404 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —",speedy delete
+"Muhammad Ahsan Ullah Chaudhary: Although this item does make a substantive claim of notability, all of the references are either dead links or pages that do not mention the subject. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sazmancrpo . Bovlb ( talk ) 17:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , and Pakistan . Bovlb ( talk ) 17:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC) no claim to notability. Llajwa ( talk ) 20:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC) The article claims that he was elected to the Punjab provincial assembly in 2008; this would qualify him for WP:NPOL as a Pakistani state legislator. However, the cited source ( [14] ) does not indicate that he was elected in that race for the listed district. I think that sentence may be a case of broken English (using ""elected"" instead of ""ran for election"" and ""He defeated"" instead of ""He was defeated by""). As such, does not appear to be an WP:NPOL pass. Also note that the dead links are available via archive.org. Curbon7 ( talk ) 23:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I cannot confirm that he was a member of the Punjab Provincial Assembly via the members' directory . Concur with",speedy delete
+"Jeff Kramp: Most likely an autobiography (creating user ""Jkramp""). Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 15:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada . Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 15:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"List of TUI Fly Netherlands destinations: WP:NOTDATABASE , WP:PROMO . Kleuske ( talk ) 13:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Netherlands . Kleuske ( talk ) 13:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The page is created with the purpose to give a general overview of the current destinations of List of TUI Fly Netherlands destinations without the aim to promote or create a database for any business or organization, in particular this airline. In this case referring to any other airline which has a separate list of destinations, which is also part of the Wiki domain (for example List of Delta Air Lines destinations and List of Korean Air destinations . With the reasons mentioned, the page meet the notability guideline . Sources could be improved with external reliable sources who indicate the destinations list of this business. Elmo997 ( talk ) 13:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please note that sources have been added to the page to establish the list of destinations of this business. In addition as mentioned above, several airline businesses do have a list of destinations on Wiki, which has no direct link with building up a database, neither to promote or brand the business. Elmo997 ( talk ) 14:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Lists . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (slightly selectively) into TUI fly Netherlands . The target is a rather short article and this information would belong there. This article is a not well developed spinout. The sentence that details what is not in the list should be d in the process. gidonb ( talk ) 14:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC) NLIST . 159.196.171.101 ( talk ) 22:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC) CORP and per reasons given previously in the multiple Airline destination AFDs which are listed/archived at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/AfD_record . Coastie43 ( talk ) 00:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changed to Speedy as per CSD#G4 . This article is a direct recreation of the d article at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Syrian Air destinations AFD discussion. Coastie43 ( talk ) 09:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC) NCORP and is contrary to Wikipedia Terms of Use. WP:PROMO . It is not Wikipedias purpose to store content copied directly from a company website. scope_creep Talk 09:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC) 40, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Rachana Shah: She’s failing definitely WP:GNG , WP:NBIO there’s no significant coverage which discusses her independently as Individual. There are sources which has only one incident she sang for Indian PM, non notable awards. HarshalDhotre06 ( talk ) 12:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Artists , Bands and musicians , and India . HarshalDhotre06 ( talk ) 12:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Bahujan Samaj Party +: No sourcing that demonstrates the name of the electoral alliance is called + (""plus""); original research . Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 20:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics , and India . Goldsztajn ( talk ) 20:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC) See no one is interested in discussion. Very soon it will be named as Third Front or Federal Front George Simon Ohm ( talk ) 01:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can't find any source terming it as Bahujan Samaj Party +. It is a small alliance of only three parties that too one is not even a state party. 12 out of 14 sources given in the article are for ideology that too is copied from pages of member political party. Rest two sources given in the lead section, the one of Hindustan Times has nothing to do with this article. The other source of New Indian Express too just has a passing mention of BSP and SAD alliance. No mention of the subject. Shaan Sengupta Talk 07:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no connection with BSP+. In my state there is no party name BSP. George Simon Ohm ( talk ) 13:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ George Simon Ohm I never took your name. Can't understand what made you write this. Shaan Sengupta Talk 16:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It has been created by me and here it's written I want to promote my party, ""The article is taken from the source and you can visually perceive the news that the coalition is called BSP+, during the elections these member parties were represented by BSP+. Secondly, maybe some users want to expunge it because they peregrinated here to promote their parties,.."". My age is 19 or 20. How I can found a national party like BSP. Is there any logic. George Simon Ohm ( talk ) 16:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I HAVE NEVER EVEN VOTED IN A LEGISLATIVE OR GNERAL ELECTION IN MY LIFE. HOW I CAN BECOME A POLITICAL PARTY. George Simon Ohm ( talk ) 16:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] George Simon Ohm , so far, no one has made any accusations about you, they been critiquing the sources in the article and whether they can establish this subject's notability. This is the way all AFD discussions tend to go, please do not take this personally. I don't know where you get the quote that you cite (above) but it's not from this discussion. This AFD will run at least one week so if you want to spend the time, you can look for additional sources that can provide SIGCOV of this subject. L iz Read! Talk! 19:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is taken from the source and you can visually perceive the news that the coalition is called BSP+, during the elections these member parties were represented by BSP+. Secondly, maybe some users want to expunge it because they peregrinated here to promote their parties, Wikipedia is not for these things, I have optically discerned many users who peregrinated here to promote some political parties, they expunge or disrupt pages of other political parties, the page should not be effaced, whoever engendered it would have researched about it and then engendered it. The coalition is simply called BSP+ because BSP is the most sizably voluminous among them and the party has more vote share than others in the coalition, hence it is counted as BSP+. Third, there are only 2-3 parties in this coalition, there is no reason to abstract it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Simon Ohm ( talk • contribs ) Blocked sockpuppet. -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 04:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] George Simon Ohm as I said above too, that no sources cited in the article mention anything like BSP + also just one article has a passing mention of the alliance that too as BSP amd SAD alliance. It is pretty clear that the article and the subject in its current form donot pass Wikipedia:Notability and is just another example of Original Research because of missing Inline Citations and lack of Reliable sources cited . And what you have done in your comments is accused fellow editors of running propaganda and doing promotion. Can you please give examples of it or are you going to continue making baseless allegations on others. Shaan Sengupta Talk 16:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC) There is minimal reference of the party’s name in the article, plus there are very few members representing it. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 12:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Crypto Aid Israel: WP:NOTNEWS applies 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency , Organizations , Terrorism , Business , Israel , and Palestine . 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC) aside from the nom reasons, WP:PROMO very much applies. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 10:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC) ARTSPAM Does not meet inclusion criteria . Preys, purposefully or not, on the anguish we feel over the latest war. WP:G11 was declined. I cannot be objective, (about the G11ness) but I think it was G11able. came here from Liz's talk. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk ) 10:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC) PROMO. This reads like an ad for the effort. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Cryptowashing of a horrible event should never be entertained here, nor should any kind of aid ever be stuck in a math problem only a computer can solve. WP:PROMO trash. Nate • ( chatter ) 18:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article definitely looks like some sort of advertisement or promoting a business. Nonetheless, this article doesn't stand to a neutral point of view. Geko72290 ( talk ) 19:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand why the speedy was declined, but the sourcing for this initiative isn't there. Star Mississippi 00:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Source analysis shows that it does not satisfy general notability because the sources are not independent. All of the sources are publications of the cryptocurrency community, and therefore have a conflict of interest . The source analysis is: Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary 1 cointelegraph.com Not independent because it reports on the cryptocurrency community No Not really significant about the event because mostly about the cryptocurrency community ? No 2 news.bitcoin.com Not independent, but significant coverage No Yes ? No 3 decrypt.co Another publication of the cryptocurrency community No Not really in enough detail ? No 4 www.cryptoglobe.com Another publication of the cryptocurrency community No No, mostly asks for donations ? No Robert McClenon ( talk ) 00:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Promotional. No evidence of level of in-depth coverage in WP:RS necessary to meet notability requirements. Sourced to unreliable crypocurrency websites. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 01:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is discussion on my talk page regarding the article. I've requested CSD to the article. Toadette ( let's chat together ) 06:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Lawrence Laurent (activist) : Media sources unavailable and article creator blocked. Bexaendos ( talk ) 17:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators . Bexaendos ( talk ) 17:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.",speedy delete
+"Yemi Emiko : A relative to the Olu of Warri and senatorial candidate that didn't win in 2015. Best, Reading Beans ( talk ) 12:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Politicians , and Nigeria . Reading Beans ( talk ) 12:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Biography of a businessman who is a relative of a traditional Nigerian king, the Olu of Warri . The subject does not inherit notability . The article reads like a resume. The article has been reference-bombed , but the references either are about the king, or are passing mentions. (After reading some of the references, I had to reread the article to verify that the subject of the BLP is only a member of the royal family and is not the elected king. The king does appear to be notable, but the king is not the subject of the biography.) The references are mostly either interviews or about the king, or press releases by the royal family. Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary 1 guardian.ng An interview with the subject as one of the royal electors about the selection of the king No Not about the subject Yes No 2 https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/tori-58293447 A news story about the king Yes Not about the subject Yes Yes 3 www.thisdaylive.com/ Description of his involvement in a political campaign No, an interview Not about the subject Yes No 4 bellnewsonline.com Reads like a press release by the subject about his career No Yes Yes No 5 www.vanguardngr.com/ About his involvement in a political campaign Yes Yes Yes No 6 thenationonlineng.net An account of a birthday party for the king's wife Yes Not about the subject Yes No 7 guardian.ng/ Another interview No Yes Yes No 8 punchng.com Nigerian account of the murder of his son in the United States Yes Not about the subject Yes Yes 9 thecitypulsenews.com Another account of the murder of his son Yes Not about the subject Yes Yes 10 www.firstweeklymagazine.com Story about disappearance of a royal crown No, a press release Not about the subject Yes Yes 11 thenationonlineng.net Same story about disappearance of crown, therefore a press release No, a press release Not about the subject Yes Yes 12 tribuneonlineng.com Interview with the subject about the missing crown No, an interview Yes Yes No 13 tribuneonlineng.com An interview with the subject about royal politics No, an interview Yes Yes No 14 freshangleng.com Another interview about a royal issue No, an interview Yes Yes No 15 sunnewsonline.com Another interview about controversy about the election of the king No, an interview Yes Yes No 16 thenationonlineng.net An interview with his wife No No Yes No Robert McClenon ( talk ) 05:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 05:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC) Title does not inherit notability. Most of the sources cited are press releases or interviews, and/or they are not secondary. Also, thanks for the detailed analysis! HarukaAmaranth 春 香 17:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - not notable. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Zumrud Mirzaeva : Googling her name in both English and Russian yields nothing in the news section. Current sources are in Russian, but Google Translate revealed they are just profiles, unreliable, and have only a couple of passing mentions. GSS 💬 13:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Russia . GSS 💬 13:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Internet . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] – fails notability guidelines; no actual reliable sources found. Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 20:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Papa2004 ( confirmed ). Same page in simple . I added CSD mark. Кронас ( talk ) 12:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Viraj Mithani : There are insufficient independent, third party publications to support notability: lacks WP:SIGCOV . The sources found in a WP:BEFORE search seem to be recursive in that they all seem to circle back to each other, echoing phrases used. The two sources cited in the article read like promotional pieces. Geoff | Who, me? 17:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Maharashtra . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Honestly think this should be speedy , but since we're here not. Haven't been able to find anything on my end. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 16:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy G11. Clearly a promo article, probably paid, but at least COI. The only sources look like press releases, the sort that are paid for. The author has been banned for spam/advert. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here ) ( or here) ( or here ) 21:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy , Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Lacks significant coverage in reputable sources. Consistently refers to the subject by their first name, which seems to suggest the editor who created this has a connection with the subject. Overblown claims of a ""prestigious"" undergraduate degree from a school that accepts almost 1,000 students per year and has an acceptance rate of about 80% [31] , unsupported claims of ""known for his distinctive layering technique,"" and claims of ""prominent venues"" which includes two spaces at their undergraduate school. All of this makes this look like obvious promotion. Elspea756 ( talk ) 22:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] but not speedily. I strongly disagree with the characterization of this article as promotional or advertising in tone; in its current form it reads like a basically normal article about an artist, easily rendered encyclopedic by deleting a few adjectives. However, this artist hasn’t been shown to meet WP:NARTIST or GNG. The exhibitions are not major, no works in permanent collections, no reviews of their works. ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 23:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC) ARTIST . WP:TOOSOON . I didn't read the nomination as stating the article was promotional, but that the refs are promotional and I agree. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Imagination philosophy : Please ""Delete"" my ""edits"" to this existing Article titled ""Imagination philosophy"". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnbiology ( talk • contribs ) 20:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems to be an essay and is basically incomprehensible. Asparagusus (interaction) 16:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems to be an outline for an article that was never written. ""Philosophy of imagination"" might be an appropriate topic, but it's not at all clear whether that was the author's intention, so better to than to try a or and improve. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 17:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Appears to be an incomplete draft with no indication that, if finished, it would be a qualifying page. Appears to be a personal ""theory""(?) by the page creator. Nothing of value. A MINOTAUR ( talk ) 17:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do Not an Existing ""PmWiki"" Wikipedia Article Titled Imagination philosophy , please check out the original PmWiki Article...The title ""Imagination philosophy"" in Wikipedia can not be linked or cited...this was only an attempt to hyperlink the title.... This is/was an attempt to make an existing 'reference' page into a Article page...for citing and linking purposes only.... This also was a response to 'Wiki discussion' about the Article ""Imagination"" combining related topics... If you can hyper link the title of the original, please do it. I'm sending this 'talk' to my sandbox for help, to make ""Imagination philosophy"" an Article some day. Thanks Arnbiology ( talk ) 17:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you please provide more information about the the original PmWiki Article , or perhaps a link? I did a search and forgive me but I couldn't find what you are talking about. I just want to be sure that this article is not a copy of the text from another site. That will be against the rules of Wikipedia. -- TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 16:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)...The link to PmWiki... [1] Arnbiology ( talk ) 20:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC) *:I am raising this point because this article you created has a lot of text in the form of ... 51 KB (6,431 words) - 04:58, 8 August 2023 . If you are directly copying from a different site. In most cases, this is not allowed. Please read Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. -- TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 16:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC) 56, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or draftify. It's an outline for an article that hasn't been written yet, and doesn't belong in mainspace. (I've no idea what ""PmWiki"" is.) Maproom ( talk ) 16:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC) 56, 16 August 2023 (UTC) 18, 16 August 2023 (UTC) :Liz, Please ""Delete"" my ""editing"" of the 'original' PmWiki ""Imagination philosophy"" Article...Please do not ""Delete"" the original page; It is a existing PmWiki Thumbnail Article that I was trying to hyperlink the title of-for easier access to the Article. In the discussion here, there seems some confusion about whether this is a Article or an edit...it's my editing that should be ""Deleted""...I am moving to a sandbox to learn about Hyperlinking 'PmWiki Thumbnail Article Titles'. Arnbiology ( talk ) 19:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Regarding the page, I think it fits speedy per G1. At this point, I believe that the state of the article is quite confusing and hard to make sense out of it, which fits the criteria of WP:G1 . However, I think this is the very first article of a new user, so I am willing to ! vote Draftify ! voting speedy G1 per creator request. -- TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 15:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy please...This was an existing wiki promotion Article in Wikipedia? Apparently now in conflict with Wikipedia. I did know this while I was trying to edit and link its title for easy access in Wikipedia. Arnbiology ( talk ) 16:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Understood. TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 16:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Added speedy deletion template per your request. TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 16:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not an encyclopedia article. It looks like a new editor was just trying to organize their notes. Elspea756 ( talk ) 16:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Asuna Gilfoyle : The sources used are primary (and negligible) and I was unable to find any references that would establish his notability. JSFarman ( talk ) 15:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Cal Cooper (singer) : BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk ) 09:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Gurvin Singh Dyal : Largely PROMO Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 02:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This his been moved to draft, you can close this deletion discussion. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC) This article is speedy d as G11 by Justlettersandnumbers as a result of my nomination it for quick deletion. So it is a case of Quick close. Here goes deletion log. Okoslavia ( talk ) 13:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Danial Lawton : All sources in the article fail to help it pass WP:GNG or WP:NBIO as they are not independent of Lawton. I will note that notability is not inherited, so the fact that he is the son of Geoff Lawton is irrelevant. Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 23:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Environment , and Australia . Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 23:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . A quick BEFORE shows there is nothing on google or through TWL suggesting notability. I never like deleting articles so soon after they are created, but this is a near cookie-cutter WP:NOTPROMO article. — siro χ o 00:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"São José Incident of 1674 : WP:BEFORE check brings up no sources, and the only source in the article does not mention this incident at all. It instead briefly talks about an unnamed ship being seized in the north of Africa and their passengers being sold as slaves, which bears no resemblance to this article's subject. – Hilst [talk] 12:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , History , Military , Africa , and Portugal . – Hilst [talk] 12:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy G3 as a hoax and sanction the creator. Mccapra ( talk ) 12:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC) Note that the user has created a number of similarly-sourced articles which should be investigated as well. See here for the list. Greenman ( talk ) 14:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy under criterion G3 . Blatant hoax. The page creator has created numerous pages with a similar style using the same source and page without adding any other sources. [1] Every article feels written using an LLM. Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 14:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Salgado, Augusto Alves (2022). Viagens e Operações Navais (1668-1823) (PDF) (in Portuguese). Lisbon: Academia de Marinha . p. 13. The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"KnowTheZodiac : Could not find a single source, let alone WP:RS , via NewsBank or WikiLibrary databases searches. Cabrils ( talk ) 22:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astrology and Software . Owen× ☎ 22:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . Advert from an apparent paid editor, who has also created a promotional biography on the App's author at Dosse-Via Trenou . Sources are mostly listicles. Also noting that the article creator attempted to remove the AFD tag from the article. - MrOllie ( talk ) 23:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC) Promo page for an app. No reliable sources found and sources listed are just listicles that do not provide significant coverage or primary. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC) basically advertising Hi! ( talk ) 07:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC) I don't see any indication of Notability, and a Web search does not find any significant coverage - just advertising and listicles. -- Gronk Oz ( talk ) 10:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Daniil Alexandrovich Rzhevsky : Searches turned up absolutely nothing and provided sources are Spotify and apple music with one other source that does not lend much to notability as well. Seems to be almost borderline A7. Seawolf35 ( talk - email ) 00:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music , and Russia . Seawolf35 ( talk - email ) 00:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Tagging it for Speedy under criteria A7 and G4. This is the third iteration of the page (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seydanil (Belarusian singer) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniil Rzhevsky ). Would probably recommend blocking the single-purpose account as they clearly aren't here to build an encyclopedia. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 00:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Page has already been d via CSD, and voting would give us free points I guess, admin should tend to this quickly. dxneo ( talk ) 03:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Anvarul Hasan Annu : I'm not too familiar with the Indian press, but the only other sources I can find online for this person seem to be at the same kind of level. The article creator has declared that they were hired by Celewish to do some paid Wikipedia editing about the company, but they say that this biography was not part of that agreement . This article lists Celewish as the subject's official website, and apparently he is the Chief Operating Officer and co-founder of the company, along with Mohsin Khan. Belbury ( talk ) 15:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Rajasthan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC) All I can find are paid press releases and no notable coverage. The subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT at all. I've went through the discussion on author's talk page raised by @ Belbury . It seems like author has COI with the subject through this agency called ""Celewish"" anyway. He only claims that he did not get paid by the agency. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 15:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC) Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR . No significant coverage of him as actor, other than paid sources. Also, the person who created the article is considered to be WP:COI . — Young Forever (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC) Fails WP:NACTOR . Also, the paid editor changing their stance of being paid or not being paid. This page should be d for now. Charlie ( talk ) 04:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Action Plan Kamarijani Soenjoto 5 : Ckfasdf ( talk ) 10:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Education , and Indonesia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC) A film about an orientation at a school? Sounds like a video for internal use, not for the public. Unless the description is incorrect, the film isn't meeting requirements for FILM. Oaktree b ( talk ) 11:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . A university student orientation video is in no sense an ""inherently"" notable film, and an award presented by that self-same university is hardly a notability-clinching award — we're looking for awards from major internationally-prominent film festivals that get media coverage, like Cannes, Berlin, Venice, TIFF or Sundance, not just any small-fry local award that exists on earth and has to be sourced to a YouTube video of the ceremony due to lack of media coverage. We would need to see evidence of external significance in the wider world, which nothing stated here shows. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Mini Films : Written in a way to appear WP:INHERENTly notable based on films; however, it is considered a company so references must meet WP:ORGCRIT . Unfortunately, references are all about the films, brief mentions, churnalism, WP:NEWSORGINDIA , or otherwise unreliable. CNMall41 ( talk ) 18:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Companies , and India . CNMall41 ( talk ) 18:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I am also just seeing this so could be a G5 candidate once a CU is available. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 18:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"Mubarack Nissa : CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Artists , Women , United Arab Emirates , and India . CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
+"John S. Latsis Public Benefit Foundation : Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 06:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Greece . AllyD ( talk ) 08:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts , Education , Science , and Environment . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy as a G12 which I've just tagged. It's copyvio and has been since the first edit Star Mississippi 12:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete